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.

Translation: http://www.lyricsdownload.com/the-singing-nun-dominique-lyrics.html

Hey thank.  I had found the French lyrics but not the translation.

Anyway, here's the Byrds:

To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven

A time to be born, a time to die
A time to plant, a time to reap
A time to kill, a time to heal
A time to laugh, a time to weep

To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven

A time to build up, a time to break down
A time to dance, a time to mourn
A time to cast away stones
A time to gather stones together

To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven

A time of war, a time of peace
A time of love, a time of hate
A time you may embrace
A time to refrain from embracing

To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven

A time to gain, a time to lose
A time to rend, a time to sew
A time to love, a time to hate
A time of peace, I swear it's not too late!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: mbd on April 18, 2006, 12:34:48 AM
Fuck tha police
Comin straight from the underground
Young nigga got it bad cuz I'm brown
And not the other color so police think
They have the authority to kill a minority

Fuck that shit, cuz I ain't tha one
For a punk muthafucka with a badge and a gun
To be beatin on, and throwin in jail
We could go toe to toe in the middle of a cell

Fuckin with me cuz I'm a teenager
With a little bit of gold and a pager
Searchin my car, lookin for the product
Thinkin every nigga is sellin narcotics

You'd rather see me in the pen
Then me and Lorenzo rollin in the Benzo
Beat tha police outta shape
And when I'm finished, bring the yellow tape
To tape off the scene of the slaughter
Still can't swallow bread and water

I don't know if they fags or what
Search a nigga down and grabbin his nuts
And on the other hand, without a gun they can't get none
But don't let it be a black and a white one
Cuz they slam ya down to the street top
Black police showin out for the white cop

Ice Cube will swarm
On any muthafucka in a blue uniform
Just cuz I'm from the CPT, punk police are afraid of me
A young nigga on a warpath
And when I'm finished, it's gonna be a bloodbath
Of cops, dyin in LA
Yo Dre, I got somethin to say

Fuck the police (4X)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 18, 2006, 12:40:07 AM
http://www.infowars.com/video/clips/humor/arab_league/

Death Star by The Arab League (It's rap)

1st Verse:

It happened in a galaxy not so far away
With a dark force mounting, itÂ’s a land in disarray
He who has the will and wants to get their way
Cuts deep to reap, carpe diem (seize the day)
Hack out an empire by hook and by crook
Machiavelli would have gagged at the steps that they took
Improve all instruction, act according to the book
But it came on the sheeple with the ground that they shook
Hands set in motion by the notion of control
Of the souls of those who do exactly what they are told
Stand in line for the ration as the facism unfolds
They twist an iron fist as they tighten their hold
As they come from an acorn of a mighty oak grove
So the tentacles of empire expand and flow
Roots of this dynasty founded long ago
By the thief of the skull and bones of Geronimo!

Chorus:

Wake up, infidel, theyÂ’ve taken it too far,
Wake up, infidel, blow up the death star!
Wake up, infidel, you are paying for this war,
Wake up, infidel, destroy the death star!

2nd verse:

They sleep in the tomb, but brother he was down
Married old Yankee money, Prescott donÂ’t f*** around
Invested in the Nazis with a bunch of other clowns
Henry Ford, Tyson, Bush, Harriman and Brown
1952, he flew down to get up in it
Blood money bought a seat in the U.S. Senate
Sure, grandpa had the vision, Herbert Walker sold the dope
Profits from the holocaust, George Bush drenched in coke
George Herbert Walker set off to have some fun
Now number one son going to run some guns
Cuba, 1960, smokescreen: Zapata
They couldnÂ’t take the Bay of Pigs, accountable for nada
Making papa proud, he do all for da-da
His first taste of blood, his own intifada
Congress and ambassador, move up the ladder
Stabbed Nixon in the back, war chest getting fatter!

Repeat Chorus:

Wake up, infidel, theyÂ’ve taken it too far,
Wake up, infidel, blow up the death star!
Wake up, infidel, you are paying for this war,
Wake up, infidel, destroy the death star!

3rd verse:

Director CIA, 1976
Ollie North run the coke, the carrot and the stick
Angola, Noriega, profits getting thick
Put Saddam in power, that also do the trick
Hostage release delayed for a week
Snap Carter in two, Reagan takes a seat
After Reagan descends, then the real fun begins
Unleash the war machine, stretch the dollar thin
One thousand points of light, a new world order
Orchestrate the conflict, break down the border
Introducing drugs, creating disorder
Then they feast on the madness as the time gets shorter!

Repeat Chorus:

Wake up, infidel, theyÂ’ve taken it too far,
Wake up, infidel, blow up the death star!
Wake up, infidel, you are paying for this war,
Wake up, infidel, destroy the death star!

Final verse:

The son and dark knight, high as a kite
Light saber fight with a fist full of white
Tries to escape fate but his destinyÂ’s in sight
Tries to take credit, but heÂ’s just not that bright
Dummy is a mouthpiece for government lies
Burned up desert planet wins votes for these guys
Attracted to power and mass genocide
George Herbert Walker fell to the dark side
Reichstag America, 9-1-1
ItÂ’s all too easy, youÂ’re giving up your guns
Battle the beast in the hot desert sun
Abdullah sizzles hot dogs, and George Bush is one!

Repeat Chorus:

Wake up, infidel, theyÂ’ve taken it too far,
Wake up, infidel, blow up the death star!
Wake up, infidel, you are paying for this war,
Wake up, infidel, destroy the death star

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: mbd on April 18, 2006, 12:46:14 AM
"Easy E - Gimme That Nut"  (a personal favorite..)  :lol:

Don't forget that family classic "Nutz on Ya Chin"
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Frog on April 18, 2006, 01:18:44 AM
Artist: Guns N' Roses 
Song: Garden Of Eden
 (Slash / Rose)


It's a critical solution
And the east coast got the blues
It's a mass of confusion
Like the lies they sell to you


You got a glass jawed toothache
Of a mental disease
An they be runnin' round back
See 'em line up on their knees
'Cause the kiss ass sycophants
Throwin' penance at your feet


When they got nowhere to go
Watch 'em come in off the streets
While they're bangin' out front
Inside their slammin' to the cruch
Go on an throw me to the lions
And the whole damn screamin' bunch
'Cause the pissed-off rip-offs
'R' everywhere you turn
Tell me how a generation's
Ever s'posed to learn
This fire is burnin'
and it's out of control
It's not a problem you can stop
It's rock n' roll


I read it on a wall
It went straight to my head
It said "Dance to the tension
of a world on edge"
We got racial violence
And who'll cast the first stone
And sex is used anyway it can be
Sometimes when I look out
It's hard to see the day
It's a feelin' you can have it
It's not mine to take away


Lost in the garden of Eden
Said we're lost in the garden of Eden
And there's no one's gonna believe this
But we're lost in the garden of Eden
This fire is burnin' and it's out of control
It's not a problem you can stop
It's rock n' roll
Suck on that


Looking through this point of view
There's no way I'm gonna fit in
Don't ya tell me what my eyes see
Don't ya tell me who to believe in
I ain't superstitious
But I know when somethin's wrong
I've been draggin' my heels
With a bitch called hope
Let the undercurrent drag me along


Lost in the garden of Eden
Said we're lost in the garden of Eden
And there's no one's gonna believe this
But we're lost in the garden of Eden



Most organized religions make
A mockery of humanity
Our governments are dangerous
And out of control
The garden of Eden is just another graveyard
Said if they had someone to buy it
Said I'm sure they'd sell my soul


This fire is burnin' and it's out of control
It's not a problem you can stop
It's rock n' roll
Lost in the garden of Eden
(An we ain't talkin' about no
poison apple or some missin' rib ya hear)
Said we're lost in the garden of Eden
Said there's no one's gonna believe this
Said we're lost in the garden of Eden
This fire is burnin' and it's out of control
It's not a problem you can stop
It's rock n' roll 
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 18, 2006, 07:48:17 AM
Of course the version by Elvis is better...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 18, 2006, 07:54:11 AM
In The Ghetto

As the snow flies

On a cold and gray Chicago mornin'
A poor little baby child is born
In the ghetto

And his mama cries

'cause if there's one thing that she don't need
it's another hungry mouth to feed
In the ghetto

People, don't you understand
the child needs a helping hand
or he'll grow to be an angry young man some day

Take a look at you and me,
are we too blind to see,
do we simply turn our heads
and look the other way

Well the world turns

and a hungry little boy with a runny nose
plays in the street as the cold wind blows
In the ghetto

And his hunger burns

so he starts to roam the streets at night
and he learns how to steal
and he learns how to fight

In the ghetto

Then one night in desperation
a young man breaks away
He buys a gun, steals a car,
tries to run, but he don't get far

And his mama cries

As a crowd gathers 'round an angry young man
face down on the street with a gun in his hand
In the ghetto

As her young man dies,

on a cold and gray Chicago mornin',
another little baby child is born
In the ghetto

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 18, 2006, 09:58:22 AM
Amazing grace, how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I once was lost but now am found
Was blind but now I see

'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear
And grace my fears relieved
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed

Through many dangers, toils and snares
I have already come
'Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far
And grace will lead me home

How sweet the name of Jesus sounds
In a believer's ear
It soothes his sorrows, heals his wounds
And drives away his fear

Must Jesus bear the cross alone
And all the world go free?
No, there's a cross for ev'ryone
And there's a cross for me
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: rabidfurby on April 18, 2006, 03:32:17 PM
Just to lighten you guys up:

Little Betty ate a pound of aspirin
She got them from the shelf upon the wall
Betty's mommy wasn't there to save her
She didn't hear her little baby call

Dead babies
Can't take care of themselves
Dead babies
Can't take things off the shelf
Well we didn't want you anyway
Lalala-la, lalala-la, la la la

Daddy is an agrophile in Texas
Mommy's on the bar most every night
Little Betty's sleeping in the graveyard
Living there in burgundy and white

Dead babies
Can't take care of themselves
Dead babies
Can't take things off the shelf
Well we didn't want you anyway
Lalala-la, lalala-la, la la la

Goodbye, Little Betty
Goodbye, Little Betty
So long, Little Betty
So long, Little Betty
Betty, so long

Dead babies
Can't take care of themselves
Dead babies
Can't take things off the shelf
Well we didn't need you anyway
Lalala-la, lalala-la, la la la

Goodbye, Little Betty
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 18, 2006, 11:28:10 PM
Der Fuehrer's Face
Spike Jones and the City Slickers

When Der Fuehrer says, "We ist der master race"
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuehrer's face
Not to love Der Fuehrer is a great disgrace
So we HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuehrer's face
When Herr Gobbels says, "We own der world und space"
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Herr Goring's face
When Herr Goring says they'll never bomb this place
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Herr Goring's face

Are we not the supermen
Aryan pure supermen
Ja we ist der supermen
Super-duper supermen
Ist this Nutzi land not good?
Would you leave it if you could?
Ja this Nutzi land is good!
Vee would leave it if we could

We bring the world to order
Heil Hitler's world New Order
Everyone of foreign race will love Der Fuehrer's face
When we bring to der world disorder

When Der Fuehrer says, "We ist der master race"
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuehrer's face
When Der Fuehrer says, "We ist der master race"
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuhrer's face

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 19, 2006, 09:03:03 AM
I've been too busy of late.  I post some here and call the show once a week or so, but I've been swamped.  (O.K. enough wining, the real reason is I'm lazy...)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 19, 2006, 11:48:55 PM
One claim you'll never hear me make is that I'm perfect...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 20, 2006, 12:35:47 AM
Well, I found this quote that I want to share.  It's somewhat anarchistic or at least puts into perspective what laws are supposed to be: a statement of what is inherent in the state of man.

“An immoral law makes it a man's duty to break it, at every hazard. For Virtue, according to the old lawgivers, is the very self of every man. It is, therefore, a principle of law, that an immoral contract is void, and that an immoral statute is void. For, as laws do not make right, but are simply declaratory of a right which already existed, it is not to be presumed that they can so stultify themselves, as to command injustice." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on April 20, 2006, 07:20:55 AM
Well, I found this quote that I want to share.  It's somewhat anarchistic or at least puts into perspective what laws are supposed to be: a statement of what is inherent in the state of man.

“An immoral law makes it a man's duty to break it, at every hazard. For Virtue, according to the old lawgivers, is the very self of every man. It is, therefore, a principle of law, that an immoral contract is void, and that an immoral statute is void. For, as laws do not make right, but are simply declaratory of a right which already existed, it is not to be presumed that they can so stultify themselves, as to command injustice." - Ralph Waldo Emerson


Stultify is one word I've never heard so here's the def from dictionary.com:

stul·ti·fy   Audio pronunciation of "stultify" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (stlt-f)
tr.v. stul·ti·fied, stul·ti·fy·ing, stul·ti·fies

   1. To render useless or ineffectual; cripple.
   2. To cause to appear stupid, inconsistent, or ridiculous.
   3. Law. To allege or prove insane and so not legally responsible.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: mbd on April 20, 2006, 09:55:54 AM
Sounds like a song by Disturbed.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 20, 2006, 11:16:27 PM
Would you like me to sing a few bars?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Bill Brasky on April 21, 2006, 01:22:14 AM
The ghetto is fiction. 
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 21, 2006, 06:34:57 AM
People sing about fiction all the time.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 23, 2006, 03:19:06 PM
"In the Gospel of John, chapter 12, verse 32, Jesus says 'When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself'. What exactly did he mean by that?"

Find out here: http://www.raviholy.com/sermon.htm

P.S.  To all newcomers to this thread, please review the first several posts to understand what is being stated.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: mbd on April 23, 2006, 10:55:58 PM
This thread is really just for Christians, right?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 24, 2006, 12:45:24 AM
This thread is really just for Christians, right?

No, it's for anyone who wants to participate...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 24, 2006, 12:46:59 AM
Find out here: http://www.raviholy.com/sermon.htm

Ok, that's the most insane thing I ever read... This is the same mindless drivel I've been hearing for the last 37 years of my life.
You know what I think?

People need to get their shit together! They need to take responsibility of their own life and stop reading fairy tales that were written thousands of years ago. Until then, we are going to see the same kind of garbage that is going on today all over the world.

Did god help the tsunami victims?
Did god help people that were trapped in the WTC building during Bush's attack?
Did god help those deformed children that were born after the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant incident?
Did god help those miners that were trapped and suffocated in that mine shaft?

NO.. HE DIDN'T!

and you know why?
There are two answers:
a. He doesn't give a shit...
b. There isn't or there never was a god in the first place.

I pick option b.

You're certainly able to make whatever conclusions you wish.  Please realize, however, that your conclusions are no more valid than anyone else's.  Did you ever see "The Matrix"??
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: mbd on April 24, 2006, 01:39:02 AM
See, Gene, if you let in all the riff raff like jizz and myself, this is what you wind up with :-)
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Bill Brasky on April 24, 2006, 02:09:23 AM
Ya know, I've asked the same questions Mr. Jizz did, more or less...  The answers I usually get are:

- Sometimes bad things happen to good people. (murder, holocost, disease)

- Some people are put on this earth to educate others through their suffering. (These would be the mentally retarded, the terminally ill children who suffer through what would normally be the best and most innocent, joyous part of human life)

I don't accept it.  I think its a flimsy answer for probably the most important question of theology.  Two thousand years should be long enough to formulate a quality answer to a very basic question.  Such as it is, the non-answer speaks volumes, and the truth rings loudly in complete silence.  That's not to say the Church is completely without merit; its individual acts of charity in the face of human suffering are selfeless and generous, to be sure.  One has to look no further than Mother Theresa to agree.  As a modern man, I can honestly say I feel priviliged to have seen her on television.  She had a good soul.  But, as a whole, I think religion is hollow.

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: mbd on April 24, 2006, 02:37:28 AM
For personal reasons, I do believe in God. I think Jesus was a man with some good things to say. I do not think he was a god. I do not worship God in any way because I see no purpose in it. If I was omnipotent, I do not think I would make a perfect world. That is the whole Matrix thing of course. I suppose there would be a point to living.. unlimited sex, drugs and rock and roll. But I do not think rock and roll would exist in that world. There are people, religious and not, who think everything happens for a purpose. I think that is bullshit and if I knew it to be true, I am not sure I could stand to live in that world anymore.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 24, 2006, 08:18:37 AM
I use "The Matrix" just because it gets people to think "outside of the box".  I have no doubt that God exists.  I see His hand in the creation around me.  I have many doubts about the details.  In the bible it says "We see through a glass darkly, but then we shall see clearly".  So the Christians don't have all the answers (indeed, not even a large percentage of answers).  Clearly, since Christians differ on the answers, it's safe to say that MOST Christians are wrong about many answers.  Why??  Because Christians are PEOPLE and imperfect.  GOD has ALL answers but since he lives in a different plane, we don't have the kind of communitation that allows us access to His knowledge.

I believe the reason bad things happen to everyone is simply that He set the machine in motion but He doesn't MAKE everything happen.  In the bible it also says "Time and chance happens to all".  If I roll the dice and it comes up 7, it is just chance.  Now God could MAKE the dice come up 7 if He chooses to, but I believe He is usually "hands off" the creation unless there are special circumstances. 
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: charlieo on April 25, 2006, 01:52:07 AM
A reason for suffering that I've heard, which is also some philosophical little belief of some ancient culture, is that without the bad, the good isn't as good. If the world was perfect, we wouldn't know it, because there would be nothing bad to show us how perfect the world is. When bad things happen to you or to people around you, it makes you appreciate all the good stuff that much more.

Not that I believe that was rigged up by some god or anything, but I like CA, and I like playing what most here would consider to be devil's advocate. Get it... devil's advocate in a thread about religion!
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Caveman on April 25, 2006, 01:58:01 AM
I use "The Matrix" just because it gets people to think "outside of the box".  I have no doubt that God exists.  I see His hand in the creation around me.  I have many doubts about the details.  In the bible it says "We see through a glass darkly, but then we shall see clearly".  So the Christians don't have all the answers (indeed, not even a large percentage of answers).  Clearly, since Christians differ on the answers, it's safe to say that MOST Christians are wrong about many answers.  Why??  Because Christians are PEOPLE and imperfect.  GOD has ALL answers but since he lives in a different plane, we don't have the kind of communitation that allows us access to His knowledge.

I believe the reason bad things happen to everyone is simply that He set the machine in motion but He doesn't MAKE everything happen.  In the bible it also says "Time and chance happens to all".  If I roll the dice and it comes up 7, it is just chance.  Now God could MAKE the dice come up 7 if He chooses to, but I believe He is usually "hands off" the creation unless there are special circumstances. 

I also saw God as someone who is "hands off" but ultimatelly i realized that these special circumstances that he helps people are crazy. God must either help everyone or no one in my opinion because what other special circumstances are there than the millions hwo die every day of hunger. It doesn't make any sense for a benevolent God to not intervene.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Bill Brasky on April 25, 2006, 02:38:43 AM
Special circumstances?  Is all life not special? 

I'm pretty sure I've seen large groups of people holding signs and shouting through bullhorns, claiming it is. 
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 25, 2006, 03:26:32 AM
I use "The Matrix" just because it gets people to think "outside of the box".  I have no doubt that God exists.  I see His hand in the creation around me.  I have many doubts about the details.  In the bible it says "We see through a glass darkly, but then we shall see clearly".  So the Christians don't have all the answers (indeed, not even a large percentage of answers).  Clearly, since Christians differ on the answers, it's safe to say that MOST Christians are wrong about many answers.  Why??  Because Christians are PEOPLE and imperfect.  GOD has ALL answers but since he lives in a different plane, we don't have the kind of communitation that allows us access to His knowledge.

I believe the reason bad things happen to everyone is simply that He set the machine in motion but He doesn't MAKE everything happen.  In the bible it also says "Time and chance happens to all".  If I roll the dice and it comes up 7, it is just chance.  Now God could MAKE the dice come up 7 if He chooses to, but I believe He is usually "hands off" the creation unless there are special circumstances. 

I also saw God as someone who is "hands off" but ultimatelly i realized that these special circumstances that he helps people are crazy. God must either help everyone or no one in my opinion because what other special circumstances are there than the millions hwo die every day of hunger. It doesn't make any sense for a benevolent God to not intervene.

I also believe in "God's Secret Agents" the Angels.  Some miracles happen by intervention by these guys.  I believe that when my wife recently got hit turing left at a busy intersection that an angel protected our 12 y.o. son from serious injury in the back right seat.  The other car (an SUV) hit my wife's MB 350 SD right on the door that our son was sitting next to.  He basically took up the energy of that SUV hitting the car at an estimated 35 mph.  Granted a MB is a sturdy car but the impact spun that heavy car completly around 180 degrees and crushed the door and rear wheel.  I figure only divine intervention could have prevented his head from smashing through the glass and also any internal injuries such as concussion or organ damage.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Bill Brasky on April 25, 2006, 04:48:53 AM
Maybe.

I was flung out of a car at approximately eighty mph, after shearing a telephone pole in half, nine ft. off the ground, and ripping the supports out of a barn. 

My wristwatch flew off my arm further than a normal human could throw it.  The car looked like a crumpled soda can.  I sat on a stone wall and waited for the fuzz.   

Cops, ambulance, EMT's, and firemen showed up.  They all thought I was lying, to protect the driver, saying it wasnt possible I was the driver of the car. 

But, I was the driver.  I did fly like a rag doll.  The cops took all their fancy re-enactment shit and measured things, and once the skidmarks left the road, there was nothing left to measure, except for the broken telephone pole and a large empty space where the car flew floppity flop and buried itself a hundred yards away, missing the majority of its pieces, and its driver.  Weird shit happens. 
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 25, 2006, 08:09:07 AM
Maybe you have a guardian angel who was on duty that day.  You just never know...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: mbd on April 25, 2006, 02:09:12 PM
I also believe in "God's Secret Agents" the Angels.  Some miracles happen by intervention by these guys.  I believe that when my wife recently got hit turing left at a busy intersection that an angel protected our 12 y.o. son from serious injury in the back right seat.  The other car (an SUV) hit my wife's MB 350 SD right on the door that our son was sitting next to.  He basically took up the energy of that SUV hitting the car at an estimated 35 mph.  Granted a MB is a sturdy car but the impact spun that heavy car completly around 180 degrees and crushed the door and rear wheel.  I figure only divine intervention could have prevented his head from smashing through the glass and also any internal injuries such as concussion or organ damage.

I'm aware of this phenomena. M. Scott Peck called it synchronicity, or grace, in his book The Road Less Traveled (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=ur2&tag=everythingmic-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&path=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fgp%2Fproduct%2F0743243153%2Fsr%3D1-1%2Fqid%3D1145988356%2Fref%3Dpd_bbs_1%3F%255Fencoding%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks"). I believe this stuff exists. Perhaps it's part of God's design, to make earth more user-friendly for us clumsy humans. But I don't think he or any angels are intervening in these cases.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 25, 2006, 02:12:45 PM
I do.  How do we either prove or disprove it?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: mbd on April 25, 2006, 02:38:52 PM
I do.  How do we either prove or disprove it?

Obviously we can't. I know you know this and you know I know it. What's important is why you believe it. I guess because it's written in that book you keep referring to?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 25, 2006, 03:18:04 PM
I think what's important is why you believe in the matrix you think you live in...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: mbd on April 25, 2006, 03:26:27 PM
I think what's important is why you believe in the matrix you think you live in...

Probably because I see no evidence of intervening control. Ian's been through this argument a bunch of times. Sure there's no evidence that there isn't control either. But why invent something that can't be disproved?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 25, 2006, 10:32:56 PM
Of course I don't "invent" anything.  There's nothing I believe that others before me haven't believed (There's no new thing under the sun).  All of us take what others have told us and go from there.  Some take what "scientists" tell them and use that for their "beliefs".  What exactly can we "prove"?  Not very much.  I am assuming that you believe in what might be called "science" (correct me if I'm wrong).  If that is the case I have to say "Why?"  Have you done the "science" yourself or do you take something that was written in some "book" and believe that?  Not many of us have the facilities or resources to do our own "science" so we are left to rely on others and what they have written (in some book that you might refer to)?  Even if we have the ability to do our own "science", we then are left to "interpret" the data that we collect.  Even a 2% variation might lead one to opposite conclusions. 

I'm not saying that there is no use for "science".  I find it very helpful myself.  What I am saying is that we are really just taking others words for what they claim has occured (kinda like a religion, huh?)

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: mbd on April 25, 2006, 11:24:41 PM
Hehe. I suppose I could argue that what you assume about me is wrong. Or maybe I should start posting as if I do believe what you assume I believe. Or maybe I'm not really here. "Look at this well-designed automobile. Could it have evolved from the mud?"
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Caveman on April 26, 2006, 03:25:32 AM
It jsut seems foolish to attribute something like surviving a car crash to divine intervention when random chance is just as good of an explanation. Furthermore if God did help your son survive and brasky as well Why did he? And why did he not help the thousands of others who die on our roads every year?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Rillion on April 26, 2006, 03:30:40 AM
Quote
It jsut seems foolish to attribute something like surviving a car crash to divine intervention when random chance is just as good of an explanation.

Occam's Razor would say so.  A God is a really, really, really, really complex explanation.  An accident is a very simple explanation. 

Quote
Furthermore if God did help your son survive and brasky as well Why did he? And why did he not help the thousands of others who die on our roads every year?

An unlikely and fortuitous event is much more likely to take on cosmic proportions if it happens to you personally or someone you know.   :wink:
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 27, 2006, 08:30:49 AM
Of course Occam's Razor does not explain everything.  There are a large percentage of times that it does not apply.  Also, perspective is important in determining your answer.  From my perspective, God is a likely explanation as I believe He exists and therefore it is a likely event that He could intervene..
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Rillion on April 27, 2006, 08:45:03 AM
Quote
Of course Occam's Razor does not explain everything.  There are a large percentage of times that it does not apply.

It's not supposed to.  It's a guideline, not an explanation itself.  Don't reach for complicated explanation when a simple explanation will suffice.  That's not the same as saying that there will never be complicated explanations. 

Quote
Also, perspective is important in determining your answer.  From my perspective, God is a likely explanation as I believe He exists and therefore it is a likely event that He could intervene..

Even if we grant that God exists, you still have to find a basis for explaining why he chose to interrupt the laws of nature which he himself created in order to save a particular human from something bad happening to them. 

"There is a God" + "This really great and unlikely thing happened to me" is not enough to = miracle.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ladyattis on April 27, 2006, 09:22:56 AM
Also your guardian angel theory would not be testable, which is an important proviso of science, via Karl Popper's Falsification. No means for it to be false, means it's no scientific theory. Which means, why the fuck should we listen to your sorry ass anyhow, Gene?

Here's a few facts about Nature.

1) It has no intrinsic order, whatever order that exists is due to the chance interaction between the current forces at play. This is also known as CHAOS THEORY, or the theory of initial states ordering future ones. It's not too head, just drop any object into a body of water, a pond or kiddy pool will do, and watch how them thar waves interfere to make different patterns IN THE FUTURE state of the other waves.

2) Nature requires no external source to exist since it is the collection of ALL THINGS. That's right, kiddies, Nature being not a true entity can neither cause nor be caused by other things, it's eternal and shapeless, since not one thing alone is Nature itself, by its definition.

3) Because Nature requires no external source for its existence, pleading to extra causes outside of Nature is not logical, consistent, or scientific. Yes, that means if Gene or some other person wants to believe in the TeaPot in Space can do so, but they can never ever declare it logical, consistent, or scientific. They just can believe, but never verify/falsify.

With these three points made, why the fuck does anyone need guardian angels, phallic Jesusgods, or sexual repression [God hates queers more than you puny mortals....]?

-- Bridget
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: mbd on April 27, 2006, 09:58:56 AM
Yeah, I can't even get a cab up in this mofo.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 27, 2006, 05:12:29 PM
You might try the bus...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: mbd on April 27, 2006, 05:45:52 PM
You might try the bus...

Yeah, rancemuhamitz could probably help me with that too...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: mbd on May 30, 2006, 01:43:47 AM
God I hate bein' right all the time.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 05, 2006, 02:26:24 AM
Just thought I'd let everyone know that I'm still around but I've been away on a trip to nowhere'sville (Alaska).  If I get a chance to put together an on-topic post I'll try to get back here with it...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Evil Muppet on July 05, 2006, 03:24:48 AM
You lie, you just wanted to keep this thread going. 
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 25, 2006, 03:18:08 AM
O.K. here's something I want to share with everyone on this subject.  Many people comment on the accuracy of the Bible and the New Testament in particular so the following is by a researcher named Josh McDowell.  He makes one simple claim about the "manuscript authority" regarding the letters that we now call the "New Testament".  Now those here who know me may have heard me say in the past that I don't believe the Bible is 100% accurate and it true, I don't.  But I do beleive is is "substantially" accurate (perhaps around 99%).  I do think there have been things lost in the translation and in copy errors, but they are minor.  I had not considered the manuscript authority of these letters as compared to any other historical document that we take for granted.  When you compare them, the Bible has much more "accuracy" than The Iliad with 643 copies and 400 years removed from the original.  This is an area that I had not read about before and it is useful information.  If you want to say that the Bible manuscripts are not accurate with the evidence below, then you really can't cite any ancient text as accurate for the same reasons.

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/mcdowell_davinci.html

McDowell: To discover the accuracy of copying for the New Testament material and see whether or not it has been “changed,” you have to look at two factors: One, the number of manuscripts existing today; and two, the time period between the original document and the earliest manuscripts still in existence today. The more manuscripts we have and the closer the manuscripts are to the original, the more we are able to determine where copyist errors happened and which copies reflect the original.

For example, the book Natural History, written by Pliny Secundus, has 7 manuscript copies with a 750-year gap between the earliest copy and the original text. The number two book in all of history in manuscript authority is The Iliad, written by Homer, which has 643 copies with a 400-year gap.

Now this is a little startling: the New Testament has currently 24,970 manuscript copies, completely towering over all other works of antiquity. In addition, we have one fragment of the New Testament (NT) with only a 50-year gap from the original, whole books with only a 100-year gap, and the whole NT with only a 225-250-year gap. I donÂ’t think there is any question from all of these early copies that we know exactly what the original documents said.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on August 01, 2006, 02:26:52 AM
Thanks for that CA.  I like your way of reasoning.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 12, 2006, 03:36:29 AM
I think it's time to go into what a "government" is.  I find most people don't understand the fact that "government" is a "legal fiction" and does not really exist.  A "legal fiction" is a fictious "person" in law.  All corporations, trusts, pacts, clubs, etc. fall into this category.  Governments are "incorporated" and are therefore fictions. 

To illustrate, I'd ask anyone to point out to me the "United States".  I do so because it can't be done.  You can point to a building built by men who may have written "United States" on it, but that is not what it is.  It is just a building.  You can't point to a map as that's just a picture.  If you fly in an airplane to Canada and look out your window, you won't see a "line" marking the ground which says "United States" on one side. 

The "fiction" has no legitimate authority over man as it cannot by definition have any.  "It" was "created" by men.  "It" cannot have authority over "its" creator.  "It" cannot claim to be greater than "its" creator.

You might point to the "police" with their guns and say "there's the authority" but you would be mistaking "force" for "authority".  What you are pointing to is men with guns, nothing more.  These men have convinced themselves that a fiction has somehow granted them "authority" over their fellow man, but they are decived. 

You might even try to explain something called a "social compact" that grants authority but there is no such thing.  Even if there was such a compact, it would require my signature on it to make me subject to it.

If I have confused anyone on this, let me know what needs to be further explained.  I really want to get others to understand the difference between real and fiction.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on August 25, 2006, 03:58:15 AM
I can see how people get power and authority mixed up.  Most feel that because "they" have physical power, they must have authority.  I guess we need to start questioning that premise.

The "fiction" point is well-taken.  I guess it's true though.  After all, where is the "Roman Empire" now?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 27, 2006, 04:10:41 AM
Question Authority...

Here's why there is no legitimate AUTHORITY anywhere in the world.  Everyone has the same rights.  Since we did away with the idea that we could have a king (a stupid idea in the first place and one that was condemned in the Bible) we have accepted the fact that all men are created equal.  If that is true (I believe it is) then no one can have the right to, for instance, take your stuff.  They can take your stuff by FORCE but that doesn't give them the right or the authority to do so.  The same applies to all "rights" such as life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (or property). 

If we agree so far, then we have to look at the possiblilty that I can "grant" to someone "authority" that I myself don't have.  Lets say we all band together and "vote" that Ian should stop being the host of his show and put Manwich in his place (God forbid!).  1000 of us "vote" for the above.  Do we now have the "authority" to enforce our will on Ian?  We are greater in number and we can argue that it's "for the children" or to "save the whales" or fill in the blank. 

The same principle applies to your county government (fiction - see prevous post).  Can we vote in councelmen who can then "impose" restrictions on what someone can do on their land?  Why?  From whence comes the "authority" to do so if we don't individually have that "authority".  Is it simply "might makes right".  If that is the principal, then we cannot condem Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, or Sadam.  They had the might, so they would have had to be "right" according to that way of thinking.

What we have is a system of brainwashing in which people are "convinced" that those they "vote" for somehow have been magically given "authority" that the individual does not have.  The brainwashing is so powerful that these mere mortals who believe they have this fictious "authority" then hire underlings (paid for by stealing from everyone else) who put on uniforms and convince themselves that those over them have somehow granted them some of their non-existant "authority" to arrest and kill people.

The entire system is evil to the core...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Tommy on October 29, 2006, 07:01:57 PM
Thanks for the info on China.  I liked seeing those pictures.  Can you put up more?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: bgrass1234 on October 30, 2006, 01:12:06 AM
ChristianAnarchist, can you help me undestand this?

Romans 13
Submission to the Authorities
 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Evil Muppet on October 30, 2006, 02:57:21 AM
Luke 4:4-8: Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world [governments]  in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, "All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours." And Jesus answered and said to him, "Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.'

If all authority, ie. government is established by God, then explain this passage?  What would that suggest about the nature of government.

Also, in Romans 13 Paul never actually tells anyone to obey government or to pay their taxes.  He says that God establishes authority, but doesn't say that he establishes ALL authority.

He then says that we have to pay what we owe therefore IF we owe taxes, IF we owe customs, IF we owe honor then we have to pay.  But if you look at Romans 13:8-10  Paul says that the ONLY thing we owe other people is love.  He doesn't say anything about taxes, loyalty, obedience. 

Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 31, 2006, 12:08:40 AM
It seems to be a "contradiction" which I can only try to reason a meaning.  The Luke 4 passage makes it clear that the "authorities" on this plane are "evil" and therefore they cannot be "God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer" as in Romans.  In Romans, this "authority" spoken of seems to be someone who is just and right (hardly the definition of Hitler or Stalin).  I can see a hint of what Jesus told the Pharsees in regard to taxes in that Romans says to pay to whom due, tribute, honor, loyalty, obedience. 

Logically, I cannot attribute the Romans reference to G.W. & Co. or any other earthly "authority".  I then have to reject at least the interpretation of this passage as meaning that I should do so.  I can then only say that I really don't understand what the passage means.  I have to use the old wise saying "I don't know"...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 31, 2006, 12:19:03 AM
hey CA how do you feel about this http://youtube.com/watch?v=wctyPM3Q27M ?

Like, Wow man... I knew Jesus had that long hair for a reason, man...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Evil Muppet on October 31, 2006, 12:34:18 AM
Well the religious views of George W Bush is not exactly the same as the religious views of the rest of the Christian world.  

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1584.htm
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: Evil Muppet on October 31, 2006, 12:49:14 AM
that would make him a bad christian, wouldn't it? 

he has his own brand of christianity that is rather popular in the US but not really anywhere else.  Ever notice how the US is such strong supporters of Israel while no one else is?  Ever wonder why?
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 31, 2006, 11:35:34 AM
what are you implying ?
are you talking about the rapture?

Yeah, I had one of those, but the doctors fixed me right up...
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: AlexLibman on November 05, 2006, 09:07:53 PM
I'm definitely not a Christian and not fully an Anarchist either, but I have a lot of respect for most people who are Christian Anarchists, if they're pacifists and treat nonbelievers with respect.  Most of them make good neighbors.

I am often reminded of a vague-yet-inspiring quote by Leo Tolstoy, who had his own brand of pacifist Christian anarchism that I feel transcends religion.  It translates to something like:

"I want only to say that it is always the simplest ideas which lead to the greatest consequences. My idea, in its entirety, is that if vile people unite and constitute a force, then decent people are obliged to do likewise; just that."[/list][/list]

It meant different things to me in different stages of my life.  Now, whenever I think about that quote, I think of Libertarianism and the Free State Project.  Vile people, in their unity, tend to monopolize power, and decent people are not attracted to power, thus we'll always end up with a tyrannical government unless the decent people band together to resist it.
Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 06, 2006, 12:08:53 PM
I'm definitely not a Christian and not fully an Anarchist either, but I have a lot of respect for most people who are Christian Anarchists, if they're pacifists and treat nonbelievers with respect.  Most of them make good neighbors.

I am often reminded of a vague-yet-inspiring quote by Leo Tolstoy, who had his own brand of pacifist Christian anarchism that I feel transcends religion.  It translates to something like:

    "I want only to say that it is always the simplest ideas which lead to the greatest consequences. My idea, in its entirety, is that if vile people unite and constitute a force, then decent people are obliged to do likewise; just that."[/list][/list]

    It meant different things to me in different stages of my life.  Now, whenever I think about that quote, I think of Libertarianism and the Free State Project.  Vile people, in their unity, tend to monopolize power, and decent people are not attracted to power, thus we'll always end up with a tyrannical government unless the decent people band together to resist it.


    And the "resisting" part is why I'm not fully pacifist.  I believe we need the option of resisting tyranny as it will always attempt to reign over the "little people"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Tommy on November 07, 2006, 10:54:26 AM
    So CA are you planning to vote, and if so, who do you support?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Gay_Libertarian on November 07, 2006, 11:02:40 AM
    Quote
    Ever notice how the US is such strong supporters of Israel while no one else is?  Ever wonder why?

    Well, the Christians of Europe have held mass executions of Jews several times now -- in the 1200s, in the 1400s, and about 65 years ago -- so the Christian disdain for the Jews is nothing new.  And the only reason the American Fundies like Israel is because their religion requires all of the Jews to move to Israel so they can be roasted in a new-kyu-luhr war by the Antichrist right as all the Righteous Christians (tm) ascend from their trailer parks straight into heaven, which is a collection of prefab houses with two stories, free Silverados for everyone, and WalMarts with endless stocks of goods and no payments required!
    Title: Why do Christians have to co-opt everything?
    Post by: diet_coke_addict on November 07, 2006, 04:41:37 PM
    It's like the bullshit of Christian Punk Rock if you ask me.  Petty rich boys playing dress-up.  Yes, is this KJESUS?  Cool! Can you play some of that new Christian Death-Metal for me? 


    "Christianity is most admirably adapted to the training of slaves, to the perpetuation of a slave society; in short, to the very conditions confronting us to-day.... The rulers of the earth have realized long ago what potent poison inheres in the Christian religion. That is the reason they foster it; that is why they leave nothing undone to instill it into the blood of the people. They know only too well that the subtleness of the Christian teachings is a more powerful protection against rebellion and discontent than the club or the gun."

    -- Emma Goldman, "The Failure of Christianity," in Goldman's Mother Earth journal, April, 1913
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 07, 2006, 11:01:35 PM
    O.K.  The "shotgun" approach...

    I did not vote as I'm an "anarchist".  I do, however, believe in the "soapbox" and the "cartridge box".  I leave out the "ballot box"...

    "Christians" (as an entity) have never killed anyone.  Certain MEN who claimed to BE Christians have killed many people.  I'm not even sure what one can say is the definition of "Christian" anyway.  My definition may be quite a bit different than yours.  But the term "Christians" as applied to any supposed group is just a fictious as the term "United States of America" and for the same reasons, neither fiction can ever "kill" anyone (or "do" anything).  Men who believe in either can, however.

    Third, "governments" as they exist in the minds of MEN, are anti-Christ in that the very IDEA that men are created by a "Creator" makes the rule of fictious "governments" quite impossible.  Those who believe they have a Creator to answer to, cannot logically also claim to have to answer to some fiction.  Jesus said a man cannot serve two masters or he will love the one and hate the other.  Which one do most people love??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on November 07, 2006, 11:16:27 PM
    That's called the True Scotsman fallacy. If you believe in Jesus and he died for your sins, being that he is the Son of God, then you are a Christian. QED

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on November 08, 2006, 06:18:07 AM
    That's called the True Scotsman fallacy. If you believe in Jesus and he died for your sins, being that he is the Son of God, then you are a Christian. QED

    I would even go so far as to say that if you have at least a passing familiarity with what Christianity is and you identify as a Christian, then you're a Christian so far as I'm concerned.  There are plenty of what I would call "metaphorical Christians" out there who have really esoteric ideas about how Jesus didn't need to literally die, or literally be the son of God, etc. (see Bishop John Shelby Spong, for example)...but they claim the label, so I think it's polite to grant it to them. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 08, 2006, 11:01:07 AM
    And since being a "Christian" is a belief system and not a control system, many who claim to be "Christian" may not be very "good" persons...  You will find all kinds of people who claim to be Christian - and they may very well be Christian, even if they don't act like Christ (one definition of "Christian" is to be "Christ-like").
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Tommy on November 16, 2006, 09:42:20 PM
    I think that those who don't "act" like a Christian, probably aren't. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ce on November 17, 2006, 02:48:58 AM
    What you are completely missing or just ignoring is the argument Hobbes makes in Leviathan. To me it is undeniable that humans in the state of nature (anarchy) act in accordance to what they want for a future apparant good. He proposes having an all-powerful ruler, I dissagree but he makes a strong case against anarchy, including justice which is completely impossible under anarchy.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on November 17, 2006, 10:20:00 AM

    What about the people who aren't 'Christian' yet more closely follow the path of Jesus than most, if not all people who would consider themselves 'Christian'.

    Simple. They get to burn in hellfire for all time.

    Or so I've been informed by loving Christians.  :o
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on November 17, 2006, 11:08:31 AM
    Of course, that includes gays, atheists, capitalists, the Beegees(sp?), Albert Einstein, other scientists, James Randi, Penn Jillette, all the members of CSICOP, ad infinitum, go and burn in hell too. :lol:

    Yet all the fundies, asskissers, dipshits, inbreds, racist honkeys/coons(have to include NOI ppl some where...), closetted gay people, non-girly men (read as gay in closet too...), and the like go to Heaven.... :lol:

    This is just fucking insane, God must be like Hitler meets Liza Menillie[sp?]. o_O

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 18, 2006, 08:23:06 AM
    All of the above are "pre-conceived" notions of what men think God is like.  Of course we all know how reliable pre-conceived notions are, don't we?  I'm surprised that you all waste so much time bitching into the wind.  Just because you can point at errors of certain men, you try to blame the Creator.  This kind of logic is why we are having so much trouble in the world.

    I dissagree that justice is not possible under anarchy.  If someone murders a member of my family, and I find him and punish him, this is justice.  If someone harms someone and get hit by a bus, there is justice.  The real question should be is there any justice under "government"??  (Hint - ask Irwin Schiff).

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 18, 2006, 10:42:10 PM
    It's pretty clear that you two haven't heard anything I've said as you keep attributing things to me that I don't say nor believe.  I've stated many times that what God is and His nature is quite a mystery to us.  We can only "see through a glass darkly" but when we cross over to the other side we shall see clearly.  Man interprets the nature of God individually.  Each man has a different connection and perception.  God does not change nor is he any of the different interpretations that Man presents as being God.  God is God and we won't really know Him until we are in His realm.  I can tell you what I think God is, but my interpretation is just that - my interpretation.  Another man may have a closer understanding but I would have no way of knowing which man that is.  I ultimately have to go by my own as I cannot tell if your's is more accurate. 

    All men live by thier own "laws" and "beliefs".  No one lives by another man's perceptions...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: alphaniner on November 19, 2006, 10:48:14 PM
    Quote
    It's pretty clear that you two haven't heard anything I've said as you keep attributing things to me that I don't say nor believe...

    I think you should expect a little cynicism when you say that "Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer" but then completely disavow any objectivie definition of Christianity, or any kind of objective Christian truth.  It's like calling yourself a Nazi Anarchist and being surprised when people start asking you questions about racial purity.

    Quote
    Man interprets the nature of God individually.

    Quote
    Each man has a different connection and perception.

    Quote
    All men live by thier own "laws" and "beliefs".

    If that's what you believe, great.  In fact I'm inclined to agree with you.  But in light of those quotes, it seems like "Metaphysically-Individualist Anarchy" or "Metaphysically-subjective Anarchy" would be better descriptors of your philosophy.  Otherwise, it seems to me that saying "Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer" is akin to me saying that "Alphaninerian Anarchy is the only sensible answer" and expecting anything other than :shock: in response.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 21, 2006, 07:51:22 AM
    All men utlimately DO live by their own laws.  Here's the question.  "Whose morals do you live by?"  If one answers that question with any answer other than "my own".  Then the next question is "and who decided for you to follow (fill in the blank)'s morals?"  An  the answer to the second question has to be "I did".  So even if you claim to follow another's morals, you have to decide to follow them, so ultimately, you are really following your own morals.  You chose the "morals" you like best out of the ones presented to you or you make up your own...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on November 21, 2006, 10:06:54 AM
    All of the above are "pre-conceived" notions of what men think God is like.  Of course we all know how reliable pre-conceived notions are, don't we?  I'm surprised that you all waste so much time bitching into the wind.  Just because you can point at errors of certain men, you try to blame the Creator.  This kind of logic is why we are having so much trouble in the world.

    I dissagree that justice is not possible under anarchy.  If someone murders a member of my family, and I find him and punish him, this is justice.  If someone harms someone and get hit by a bus, there is justice. 

    So, what is it if a man harms no one and STILL gets hit by a bus? Since God is the universal driver of all buses, He must take the blame. After all, if He had the power to hit the evil man, then He also had the power to save the innocent one.

    Much of the trouble in the world comes from people who believe that they have all the answers--as well as the right to force those answers onto everyone else.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 21, 2006, 11:11:12 PM

    So assuming that each person would choose their own version of Christianity to follow, what makes 'Christian Anarchy' the only sensible answer.


    Every man following his own interpretation of "Christianity" is the "anarchy" part...

    In case you haven't been following, I reject all forms of man's "authority", including those who claim to be "priests" or "pastors".
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Tommy on December 05, 2006, 11:03:46 AM
    I still don't understand why people are drawn to the bible...

    Perhaps because it is the most historically accurate piece ever written.  Perhaps it's because people are seeking a connection with their Creator and see this most accurate of all historical documents as having the key to understanding Him.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 05, 2006, 12:15:07 PM
    I still don't understand why people are drawn to the bible...

    Perhaps because it is the most historically accurate piece ever written. 

    It is absolutely accurate that there was a day when the sun stood still in the sky, God sicced a bear on a bunch of kids who made fun of a bald guy, Elijah got God to set fire to a wet bull, a virgin got artificially inseminated by the Holy Spirit, Jesus cast a bunch of demons into pigs and made them commit suicide, Noah got two of every species of animal onto a single boat before God slaughtered everyone else on the planet, God turned a woman into a pillar of salt for looking back at her home town, Lot invited a lust-crazed mob to rape his two daughters and then later slept with them himself, Moses told his men (with God's authority) to kill all the males, non-virginal women, elderly and children of the Midianite tribe but keep the virgins for themselves (wonder what they did with them?), and God tested Abraham by ordering him to kill his son, and allowed Satan to make Job's life a living hell and then God taunted him about it.

    Yep, definitely the most historically accurate piece ever written....and what's more, I'm so glad it is!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 05, 2006, 02:02:30 PM
    So, If you will send me 3 easy payments of $19.95 I will tell you exactly what to believe, and then you can rest peacefully, knowing that as long as the donations keep coming in, you will get into the kingdom of heaven.

    3 easy payments? (http://soozinator.vox.com/library/audio/6a00c22525f24f8fdb00cd96fb9beb4cd5.html)  Can I at least water my hard-to-reach plants with your product?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 05, 2006, 03:27:45 PM
    With any historical document (or collection of them as the Bible is) there is something called "manuscript authority" that historians use to determine the accuracy of the text.  As far as historical documents go, the "manuscript authority" score of the Bible is hundreds of times higher than ANY other historical document.  You would do better to question the Roman historical records or what any (pick your favorite ancient historian) ancient historian has written about the past (ultimately you must rely on someone's account, unless you are thousands of years old...)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Smitty507 on December 05, 2006, 03:32:38 PM
    ChristianAnarchist:

    Do you take offense to being ascribed the title "Godlike Free Talker"
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 05, 2006, 03:42:08 PM
    With any historical document (or collection of them as the Bible is) there is something called "manuscript authority" that historians use to determine the accuracy of the text.  As far as historical documents go, the "manuscript authority" score of the Bible is hundreds of times higher than ANY other historical document.

    You've got to be kidding.

    1.  So far as I can gather, "manuscript authority" basically amounts to "I believe this manuscript, therefore I believe it has authority."

    2.  Citations, please.  I would love to see the authority by which "historians" claim the accuracy of the things I mentioned above.  Specifically, I would love to know how historians have the authority to rule on things such as the existence of God, not even to mention miracles, resurrection, and other metaphysical issues.  Historians, even the best of them (which is not  to assume that the best of them will make any claims whatsoever regarding the truth of the Bible), are not omniscient last I checked. 

    Basically, what you have here is the most crap-ass appeal to authority (and an authority not even mentioned by name) ever known to humankind.  Albert Einstein could say that he believed in Noah and the ark and that wouldn't make it true.  All it would mean is that we needed to get the man to a mental hospital post haste. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Smitty507 on December 05, 2006, 03:47:38 PM
    All of your points are moot.  Religion by its very deffinition is not a secular, evidence based conclusion.  Religion is based on faith; "Blessed are those who beleive without seeing."  You cant prove to a true beleiver that religion has no physical evidence because faith transcends scientific proof.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 05, 2006, 03:59:06 PM
    All of your points are moot.  Religion by its very deffinition is not a secular, evidence based conclusion.  Religion is based on faith; "Blessed are those who beleive without seeing."  You cant prove to a true beleiver that religion has no physical evidence because faith transcends scientific proof.

    Stephen Jay Gould made an argument of this sort, and he was also wrong.  For the simple fact is that religion, and people who subscribe to it, often make empirical claims. Empirical claims are the domain of science, and they are demonstrated by evidence if true, and refuted by evidence if false.  If you claim that two of every species was loaded on an ark at a certain point in history (for example), it is your obligation to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the truth of such a proposition.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Smitty507 on December 05, 2006, 04:09:03 PM
    All of your points are moot.  Religion by its very deffinition is not a secular, evidence based conclusion.  Religion is based on faith; "Blessed are those who beleive without seeing."  You cant prove to a true beleiver that religion has no physical evidence because faith transcends scientific proof.

    Stephen Jay Gould made an argument of this sort, and he was also wrong.  For the simple fact is that religion, and people who subscribe to it, often make empirical claims. Empirical claims are the domain of science, and they are demonstrated by evidence if true, and refuted by evidence if false.  If you claim that two of every species was loaded on an ark at a certain point in history (for example), it is your obligation to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the truth of such a proposition.

    Irrelevent.  It is a matter of FAITH.  The very definition of faith is beleiving without seeing.  He will beleive no matter what the evidence.  It is beyond scientific evidence.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 05, 2006, 06:23:50 PM
    ChristianAnarchist:

    Do you take offense to being ascribed the title "Godlike Free Talker"

    At first I thought it was kinda goofy, but then I thought about how we are created in His image, so hey, it's pretty accurate in that regard...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 05, 2006, 06:29:02 PM
    With any historical document (or collection of them as the Bible is) there is something called "manuscript authority" that historians use to determine the accuracy of the text.  As far as historical documents go, the "manuscript authority" score of the Bible is hundreds of times higher than ANY other historical document.

    You've got to be kidding.

    1.  So far as I can gather, "manuscript authority" basically amounts to "I believe this manuscript, therefore I believe it has authority."

    2.  Citations, please.  I would love to see the authority by which "historians" claim the accuracy of the things I mentioned above.  Specifically, I would love to know how historians have the authority to rule on things such as the existence of God, not even to mention miracles, resurrection, and other metaphysical issues.  Historians, even the best of them (which is not  to assume that the best of them will make any claims whatsoever regarding the truth of the Bible), are not omniscient last I checked. 

    Basically, what you have here is the most crap-ass appeal to authority (and an authority not even mentioned by name) ever known to humankind.  Albert Einstein could say that he believed in Noah and the ark and that wouldn't make it true.  All it would mean is that we needed to get the man to a mental hospital post haste. 

    I did not invent the term "manuscript authority".  It is a term of art used by historians.  I'm not a historian.  Here's how it works to my understanding.  The closer to the actual event the document is and the greater the number of copies, the more reasonable to assume it is accurate.  It's hardly foolproof, but it is the way people who study ancient texts determine the reliability of what is written.  It hardly "proves" the existance of God, merely it proves that there were men back then who saw a man named Jesus crucified and raised from the dead.  You have to be the one to determine in your own heart if you believe the report of those who were there.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 05, 2006, 06:32:17 PM
    Do you believe he/she has a physical body then? Or sexual designation?

    I believe God does not have a physical body as we do.  He can be determined to be "male" only by His actions and how they relate to what we call "man" or "woman".  Certianly He has many "female" traits as well (after all, woman was also created in His image).

    So the term "sex" does not apply.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Earthwormzim on December 05, 2006, 06:54:52 PM
    Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.  Anarcho-Capitalism may be the answer...but Christianity is definitely not.  Religion creates an artificial divide between people...and nothing good comes from that.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cerpntaxt on December 05, 2006, 07:15:38 PM
    Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.  Anarcho-Capitalism may be the answer...but Christianity is definitely not.  Religion creates an artificial divide between people...and nothing good comes from that.
    :o
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on December 05, 2006, 07:45:19 PM
    Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.  Anarcho-Capitalism may be the answer...but Christianity is definitely not.  Religion creates an artificial divide between people...and nothing good comes from that.

    What he said. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 05, 2006, 09:13:13 PM
    Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.  Anarcho-Capitalism may be the answer...but Christianity is definitely not.  Religion creates an artificial divide between people...and nothing good comes from that.

    No, I don't use "religion" to create a "divide" between people.  Only "people" create divisions between "people" and they do it over "religion", "politics", "science", "skin color", "tradition", etc, etc, etc...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Smitty507 on December 05, 2006, 09:25:33 PM
    Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.  Anarcho-Capitalism may be the answer...but Christianity is definitely not.  Religion creates an artificial divide between people...and nothing good comes from that.

    No, I don't use "religion" to create a "divide" between people.  Only "people" create divisions between "people" and they do it over "religion", "politics", "science", "skin color", "tradition", etc, etc, etc...

    What he said
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on December 05, 2006, 11:06:18 PM
    Bobbit. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Earthwormzim on December 05, 2006, 11:07:30 PM
    Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.  Anarcho-Capitalism may be the answer...but Christianity is definitely not.  Religion creates an artificial divide between people...and nothing good comes from that.

    No, I don't use "religion" to create a "divide" between people.  Only "people" create divisions between "people" and they do it over "religion", "politics", "science", "skin color", "tradition", etc, etc, etc...

    Of course not.  I don't believe very many people "use religion to create a divide" at all.  I believe most people "use religion" to help them to cope with such things as death, because, let's face it, death is scary (at least to most people). So, in an effort to do so, people latch on to a religion/belief that promises safe-guard against death.

    What happens next is that the person winds up putting a lot of stock (faith/time) into this religion, and the more stock one puts in it, the more unwilling the person becomes to admit that their efforts may be in vain (for the belief may be wrong).  This is why those who fall from faith commonly experience a period of "cognitive dissonance".

    The more unwilling to admit that one may have been wrong, the more insistent they become that they are absolutely right.  And here is where the problem lies.

    By insisting that your belief/religion is right, you imply that everyone else's is wrong...and the more absolutely you make such a claim, the more absolutely you claim that others are wrong.  To someone else who has a differing belief, you will come off sounding quite arrogant, and offensive, for no one likes to be wrong.

    But, as life happens to have it...instead of simply ignoring the offensing party, the offended party usually responds by insisting that they are the ones that are really right...not the other way around.  So tension builds, and often times, people get in heated debates over subject matter that either has no scientific backing, or simply does not even really matter. 

    And unfortunately...these shouting matches sometimes escalate to violence.

    It's the tendency for people to latch on to a belief absolutely that causes divides.  Yes, these divides weren't the intended consequence...but there are always unintended consequences.

    Anywho...I hope that made sense. 

    Later.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on December 05, 2006, 11:08:41 PM
    The problem seems to be that they're using religion. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on December 05, 2006, 11:17:05 PM
    See, I don't have a problem with religion.  I think it's bullshit, sure.  But I think that everyone should believe in what ever they want to.  I get a problem when people use their religion to justify certain irrational behaviors. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on December 06, 2006, 12:04:29 AM
    See, I don't have a problem with religion.  I think it's bullshit, sure.  But I think that everyone should believe in what ever they want to.  I get a problem when people use their religion to justify certain irrational behaviors. 

    I think casting out demons and killing infidels falls under that. If you haven't seen the movie The Exorcism of Emily Rose (I'm not sure if it's a true story or not, but I think it said it was) then you'd know that those exorcisms can sometimes lead to neglect and death on the priest's part. Killing infidels...well...that's self-explanatory.

    Exorcism of Emily Rose, my ass.  Go watch The Exorcist. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on December 06, 2006, 12:06:29 AM
    See, I don't have a problem with religion.  I think it's bullshit, sure.  But I think that everyone should believe in what ever they want to.  I get a problem when people use their religion to justify certain irrational behaviors. 

    I think casting out demons and killing infidels falls under that. If you haven't seen the movie The Exorcism of Emily Rose (I'm not sure if it's a true story or not, but I think it said it was) then you'd know that those exorcisms can sometimes lead to neglect and death on the priest's part. Killing infidels...well...that's self-explanatory.

    Exorcism of Emily Rose, my ass.  Go watch The Exorcist. 

    But they got the demon out...I mean, the guy died, but the girl lived...

    It's not a shitty movie.  That was my point. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 06, 2006, 12:14:53 AM
    See, I don't have a problem with religion.  I think it's bullshit, sure.  But I think that everyone should believe in what ever they want to.  I get a problem when people use their religion to justify certain irrational behaviors. 

    People use any of a number of excuses to justify certain irrational behaviours.  They can use religion, politics, science, skin color, tradition, (why does this sound so familiar??)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on December 06, 2006, 12:16:33 AM
    See, I don't have a problem with religion.  I think it's bullshit, sure.  But I think that everyone should believe in what ever they want to.  I get a problem when people use their religion to justify certain irrational behaviors. 

    People use any of a number of excuses to justify certain irrational behaviours.  They can use religion, politics, science, skin color, tradition, (why does this sound so familiar??)

    That's stupid too.  Nice try, though. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 06, 2006, 08:34:53 AM
    All of your points are moot.  Religion by its very deffinition is not a secular, evidence based conclusion.  Religion is based on faith; "Blessed are those who beleive without seeing."  You cant prove to a true beleiver that religion has no physical evidence because faith transcends scientific proof.

    Stephen Jay Gould made an argument of this sort, and he was also wrong.  For the simple fact is that religion, and people who subscribe to it, often make empirical claims. Empirical claims are the domain of science, and they are demonstrated by evidence if true, and refuted by evidence if false.  If you claim that two of every species was loaded on an ark at a certain point in history (for example), it is your obligation to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the truth of such a proposition.

    Irrelevent.  It is a matter of FAITH.  The very definition of faith is beleiving without seeing.  He will beleive no matter what the evidence.  It is beyond scientific evidence.

    You can't claim that something is historically accurate, and when asked for evidence say that you're "beyond" that.  No.  Sorry.  History is not faith-based.  A thing did not happen in the past just because you believe it did, no matter how important it is to you. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 06, 2006, 08:43:46 AM
    I did not invent the term "manuscript authority".  It is a term of art used by historians.

    Again-- citations, please.  If historians use this term with regard to anything in the Bible, please produce some.  Credible ones...though again, I am not sure exactly what would qualify a historian to make metaphysical claims about events in the past, no matter how good they are. 

    Quote
    I'm not a historian.  Here's how it works to my understanding.  The closer to the actual event the document is and the greater the number of copies, the more reasonable to assume it is accurate.

    The Bible was written and (heavily) revised over a period of roughly 1,500 years.  The first Gospel (Mark) is estimated to have been written at least 30 years after Jesus supposedly died.  In addition, as I said, we're talking about claims of supernatural events.

    Quote
    It's hardly foolproof, but it is the way people who study ancient texts determine the reliability of what is written.  It hardly "proves" the existance of God, merely it proves that there were men back then who saw a man named Jesus crucified and raised from the dead.

    Actually, it proves that there were some men a couple of decades later who might have been there, or more likely might have known somebody who was there who thinks  they saw a guy named Jesus crucified and raised from the dead.  Alien abduction stories hold more water than that. 

    Quote
    You have to be the one to determine in your own heart if you believe the report of those who were there.

    My heart has nothing to do with the fact that there is absolutely no rational reason for believing such a thing. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 06, 2006, 08:45:09 AM
    All of your points are moot.  Religion by its very deffinition is not a secular, evidence based conclusion.  Religion is based on faith; "Blessed are those who beleive without seeing."  You cant prove to a true beleiver that religion has no physical evidence because faith transcends scientific proof.

    Stephen Jay Gould made an argument of this sort, and he was also wrong.  For the simple fact is that religion, and people who subscribe to it, often make empirical claims. Empirical claims are the domain of science, and they are demonstrated by evidence if true, and refuted by evidence if false.  If you claim that two of every species was loaded on an ark at a certain point in history (for example), it is your obligation to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the truth of such a proposition.


    Irrelevent.  It is a matter of FAITH.  The very definition of faith is beleiving without seeing.  He will beleive no matter what the evidence.  It is beyond scientific evidence.

    You can't claim that something is historically accurate, and when asked for evidence say that you're "beyond" that.  No.  Sorry.  History is not faith-based.  A thing did not happen in the past just because you believe it did, no matter how important it is to you. 

    Well, I can say it's historically accurate that Shem Miggilicutty had 6 wives, now prove it...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 06, 2006, 08:57:16 AM
    You can't claim that something is historically accurate, and when asked for evidence say that you're "beyond" that.  No.  Sorry.  History is not faith-based.  A thing did not happen in the past just because you believe it did, no matter how important it is to you. 

    Well, I can say it's historically accurate that Shem Miggilicutty had 6 wives, now prove it...

    If you're claiming it, you  prove it.  And your chances are a lot better considering that there are no physicial or biological barriers preventing someone from having six wives. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 06, 2006, 11:31:39 AM
    You can't claim that something is historically accurate, and when asked for evidence say that you're "beyond" that.  No.  Sorry.  History is not faith-based.  A thing did not happen in the past just because you believe it did, no matter how important it is to you. 

    Well, I can say it's historically accurate that Shem Miggilicutty had 6 wives, now prove it...

    If you're claiming it, you  prove it.  And your chances are a lot better considering that there are no physicial or biological barriers preventing someone from having six wives. 

    You are missing the point here.  It may be true that Shem Miggilicutty in 1423 had 6 wives.  I can state that he did and I would be 100% accurate but it would also be 100% UN-provable.  You are claiming that one can only state things that one has 100% proof of (or perhaps some less percent proof).  I'm saying that you can state anything you want and it may or may not be true, but it also is unprovable.  Origins is like that (yeah, it is...)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 06, 2006, 12:07:42 PM
    You are missing the point here.  It may be true that Shem Miggilicutty in 1423 had 6 wives.  I can state that he did and I would be 100% accurate but it would also be 100% UN-provable.

    It would be "unprovable" in the sense that everything  is ultimately unprovable, but not in the sense that it would be impossible to mount a compelling case for it.  How would you do this?  Well, you could track down documentation of any weddings that took place.  Track down the children's children's children's children, etc. resulting from those marriages and do genetic testing.  How do you think they discovered that Thomas Jefferson had illegitimate children with his slaves?  Granted you might not find much, but on the other hand sometimes people are able to dig up quite a lot, quite far back in their family trees.  Never saw much point in it myself, but apparently it's a really addictive hobby for some. 

    Quote
    You are claiming that one can only state things that one has 100% proof of (or perhaps some less percent proof).

    I'm claiming nothing of the sort.  You're the one who introduced the term "proof" here, not me.  What I am saying is simply that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  When those claims entail the existence of an infinite omnipresent and all-powerful being, that evidence had better be extraordinary indeed!  The Iron Age scribblings of nomads and goat herds edited, translated, and re-edited over 1,500 years just doesn't cut it...to make the understatement of the year. 

    The only time I talk about "proof" is when the subject is deductive logic.  For example:

    1.  If A, then B.
    2.  A
    3.  Therefore B

    ...is a simple modus ponens.  If #1 is true, then #3 has  to be true.

    Quote
    I'm saying that you can state anything you want and it may or may not be true, but it also is unprovable.

    A true, but also vacuous statement.  It doesn't justify believing in anything just because it sounds good and your "heart" tells you to.  I responded initially to a post in this thread which claimed that the Bible is the most historically accurate book ever written (by a guy who hasn't bothered to post in reply since then, I would note), and you're castigating me for saying that's absurd when you probably agree with me. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Earthwormzim on December 06, 2006, 01:17:51 PM
    The Iron Age scribblings of nomads and goat herds edited, translated, and re-edited over 1,500 years just doesn't cut it...to make the understatement of the year.


    LOL!  Tru-dat, homey!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 06, 2006, 02:20:37 PM
    Rillion, you might as well give up. You can't talk sense into a Christian. Honestly, if someone handed you a book that talked about a God visiting this earth and that he had magical powers to heal, what would you think? . . . . You can ignore these "sacred" words all you want, or claim they were based on the culture of that time. But, if God is unchanging and perfect then the bible would always be true and perfect no matter the time or place.

    Well, a couple of points. 

    First, I think that's an unfortunate generalization you're making.  Christians run the gamut from idiotic to genius, considerate to malicious, closed-minded to curious.  One of my best mentors in college taught (and still teaches) a course on Christianity and literature that opened my eyes to all kinds of things.  Some of my favorite authors, such as Graham Greene, grapple with Christian issues.  One of my best friends is a Catholic doctor living in South Africa trying to help people with AIDS (and not, incidentally, lying to them about or denying them condoms).  My family are all Christians.  To assume that someone is somehow ignorant, stubborn, or stupid simply by virtue of being a member of the largest religious group on the planet is simply bigotry, so far as I can tell.  I'm sorry if you don't know any good or knowledgeable Christians, but trust me....they're out there. 

    Second, I used to be a Christian.  At 13 years old I was an ardent creationist, and thought evolution was a vicious lie spread by people who didn't know God's love.  Somewhere along the way I stopped believing that, then stopped being a Christian, then stopped believing in God altogether.  I am not sure when each of those things happened, but I know I spent a lot of time in those years talking to people who challenged my beliefs honestly and politely.  I'm not trying to turn anybody into an atheist, but I would be happy at least if they could get to the point of acknowledging that religion and science clash when religion makes claims about empirical reality, that faith does not prove false what science reveals, and that none of us is equipped to recognize infinity if it bit us in the collective ass. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 06, 2006, 02:33:55 PM
    Unfortunate my ass. Good people do bad things, bad people do good things, lazy people can be productive, productive people can be lazy. Christianity is a religion based on hate and intolerance. Come on you wouldn't even give the cops this much slack.

    I don't know of any roving bands of Christians performing no-knock raids to try and spread the word of Jesus and forcibly convert me at 3am.   :wink:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Smitty507 on December 06, 2006, 02:36:21 PM
    Unfortunate my ass. Good people do bad things, bad people do good things, lazy people can be productive, productive people can be lazy. Christianity is a religion based on hate and intolerance. Come on you wouldn't even give the cops this much slack.

    I don't know of any roving bands of Christians performing no-knock raids to try and spread the word of Jesus and forcibly convert me at 3am.   :wink:

    Good mother fucking point.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Smitty507 on December 06, 2006, 02:40:54 PM
    christian cops


    But they're not doing it in the name of religion.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 06, 2006, 02:53:07 PM
    Hmm it may have been a while but I think I remember something called the crusades...

    You bet, and if the Crusades were going on now.....well, I'd probably get as far away as possible, actually, since I don't feel like being in the middle of a war between Christians and Muslims.  But you could count on me to shout my disapproval in the strongest possible terms from...maybe Australia.  Denmark is more secular, but it would also be too close to the action.

    Quote
    How about the loving Christian mentality that muslims are terrorists.

    http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_index.htm

    I don't know any Christians who think that Muslim = terrorist.  If I talk to them, I'll be sure and tell them they are either very ignorant or very paranoid to think that there are 1.3 billion terrorists on the planet. 

    Quote
    Sorry but any religion that promotes restricting rights based on sex or race is an evil and violent religion. Hmmm I seem to remember a story about Elisha (?) calling out two she bears to kill a group of children for mocking him.

    A Christian who actually knows (not even to say believes) all of the stories in the Bible is a rare, rare person indeed.  I've talked to a number of people who have said that they decided to quit their religion once they actually sat down and read the Bible, as opposed to having only the nice, inspiring bits read to them in church.  Julia Sweeney has some interesting comments on that: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/08/15/findrelig.DTL
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 06, 2006, 03:12:56 PM
    Quote
    I don't know any Christians who think that Muslim = terrorist. 
    you dont live in america..........right?

    Not right now.  But perhaps I should have added "...who will admit it to my face."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 06, 2006, 03:24:08 PM
    Okay let us look at this another way. If a christian church lobbies for laws that oppress others aren't they doing the same thing? The only difference is that they are using police force.

    Sure!  I think you misunderstand.  I am not saying that there are no Christians who are advocating for all sorts of horrible things such as banning abortions, making kids say prayers in schools, only electing Christian politicians, tagging Muslims, etc.  But my point is that they're not all  like that, or perhaps even mostly.  Whenever a controversial church/state issue comes up such as whether evolution ought to be taught in schools but not creationism, the people pushing for government endorsement of religion always like to portray it as though the only people who oppose them are those evil heathen atheists.  But that's simply not true-- there are a ton of Christians who recognize that the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect the church from the government just as much as the other way around, and want the two separated just as much we evil godless ones.  There simply aren't nearly enough atheists in the country to have any political clout whatsoever, so this has  to be the case!

    But the liberal (as in non-dogmatic) Christians are not the loud ones.  They're not the ones shouting through bullhorns outside abortion clinics, performing faith healings on TV, and demanding an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage.  So they don't get the attention.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 07, 2006, 01:12:54 AM
    You are missing the point here.  It may be true that Shem Miggilicutty in 1423 had 6 wives.  I can state that he did and I would be 100% accurate but it would also be 100% UN-provable.

    It would be "unprovable" in the sense that everything  is ultimately unprovable, but not in the sense that it would be impossible to mount a compelling case for it.  How would you do this?  Well, you could track down documentation of any weddings that took place.  Track down the children's children's children's children, etc. resulting from those marriages and do genetic testing.  How do you think they discovered that Thomas Jefferson had illegitimate children with his slaves?  Granted you might not find much, but on the other hand sometimes people are able to dig up quite a lot, quite far back in their family trees.  Never saw much point in it myself, but apparently it's a really addictive hobby for some. 

    Quote
    You are claiming that one can only state things that one has 100% proof of (or perhaps some less percent proof).

    I'm claiming nothing of the sort.  You're the one who introduced the term "proof" here, not me.  What I am saying is simply that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  When those claims entail the existence of an infinite omnipresent and all-powerful being, that evidence had better be extraordinary indeed!  The Iron Age scribblings of nomads and goat herds edited, translated, and re-edited over 1,500 years just doesn't cut it...to make the understatement of the year. 

    The only time I talk about "proof" is when the subject is deductive logic.  For example:

    1.  If A, then B.
    2.  A
    3.  Therefore B

    ...is a simple modus ponens.  If #1 is true, then #3 has  to be true.

    Quote
    I'm saying that you can state anything you want and it may or may not be true, but it also is unprovable.

    A true, but also vacuous statement.  It doesn't justify believing in anything just because it sounds good and your "heart" tells you to.  I responded initially to a post in this thread which claimed that the Bible is the most historically accurate book ever written (by a guy who hasn't bothered to post in reply since then, I would note), and you're castigating me for saying that's absurd when you probably agree with me. 

    I don't recall ever talking about "proof" in regard to Christianity.  I have talked about "manuscript authority" which is not really "proof" of anything.  It is merely a measurement by historians of how accurate a historical document is percieved to be.  In that method of scoring, the New Testament is far and away the highest scoring document that exists.  If you dispute that point, please do so with some reasonable argument (or even unreasonable argument - so far you haven't even addressed it).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on December 07, 2006, 01:42:27 AM
    I will preface this coming statement by saying that I have not read 98% of this thread.  I do not care to.  You could pay me enough money to read all 67 pages of this debacle.  All I wanted to say is that the title reflects poorly upon the poster's character.  Gene has more of an open mind than most Christians, but the thread title shows the potential narrow-mindedness. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 07, 2006, 02:39:11 AM
    I don't recall ever talking about "proof" in regard to Christianity.  I have talked about "manuscript authority" which is not really "proof" of anything.  It is merely a measurement by historians of how accurate a historical document is percieved to be.

    I'd be interested in hearing exactly how you differentiate between "proof" and "accuracy."

    Quote
    In that method of scoring, the New Testament is far and away the highest scoring document that exists.  If you dispute that point, please do so with some reasonable argument (or even unreasonable argument - so far you haven't even addressed it).

    First, you're moving the goal posts.  This conversation began talking about the entire Bible, not the New Testament specifically.

    Secondly, the onus is not on me to present evidence of the historical accuracy of the NT!  Beg pardon, but that's your  job since you're the one who made the claim.  I'm not going to do your work for you.  I've asked you twice for credible sources which back you up, but you haven't bothered to provide any. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on December 07, 2006, 02:56:50 AM

    First, you're moving the goal posts.  This conversation began talking about the entire Bible, not the New Testament specifically.

    Secondly, the onus is not on me to present evidence of the historical accuracy of the NT!  Beg pardon, but that's your  job since you're the one who made the claim.  I'm not going to do your work for you.  I've asked you twice for credible sources which back you up, but you haven't bothered to provide any. 

    Okay, the goalposts have been moved, and the onus is squarely in place. 

    Bring out the Strawman!

                 
    STRAWMAN

    Cue the marching band...

    MARCHING BAND
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cerpntaxt on December 07, 2006, 03:28:36 AM
    Bring out the Strawman!

                 
    STRAWMAN
    How about a little FIRE, Scarecrow!! :D
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on December 07, 2006, 03:35:37 AM

    How about a little FIRE, Scarecrow!! :D

    (http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/4407/firefoxit5.png)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on December 07, 2006, 10:02:31 AM
    I don't recall ever talking about "proof" in regard to Christianity.  I have talked about "manuscript authority" which is not really "proof" of anything.  It is merely a measurement by historians of how accurate a historical document is percieved to be.  In that method of scoring, the New Testament is far and away the highest scoring document that exists.  If you dispute that point, please do so with some reasonable argument (or even unreasonable argument - so far you haven't even addressed it).

    Nope, the NT is actually highly inaccurate as to where certain apostles went and what for. Take John for example, in the 'great partitioning' it was told that he went to The East, along with Thomas, who died in a jail in India according to other documents, but only Thomas could be accounted for. So where's John? Probably somewhere else, but worse than that, this is all hearsay, just as the vast majority of history is up until you dig up some bones, broken pottery, and the foundations of old homes. And even then you don't got much to work with. Ever wonder why we find all sorts of cities that are underwater today and no one speaks up to explain them? Because we can't, not because it's not obvious that they were built by people prior to their sinking due to geologic activity and what not, but because we cannot explain who the people were and what not. Essentially, we can't tell you the 'why' of events, we just assumes the events occured without real reason to believe beyond tangible artifacts. And that is why history is not a science. :)

    So, go on quoting your historians. Until they got some Delorian timecars, we'll always be guessing.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 07, 2006, 10:16:04 AM
    So, go on quoting your historians.

    If  he'd do that, that would be something!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on December 07, 2006, 10:18:55 AM
    So, go on quoting your historians.

    If  he'd do that, that would be something!

    True... true...

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 07, 2006, 11:30:08 AM
    So, go on quoting your historians.

    If  he'd do that, that would be something!

    First, I don't read what Mr. Attis has to say as he has proven himself to be nothing more than a troll in these types of subjects.  His ability to use vulgarity is unrivialved and so I have put him on "ignore" (the only one I've had to do that to). 

    Second, I'm not trying to ultimately "prove" anything.  I'm just trying to get people to think about certain subjects and make up their own mind.  The main subjects are "Creator", "Freedom", "Authority"...

    It's notible that this thread is the only one to ever go beyond 1000 posts...  Must be something here.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on December 07, 2006, 11:35:31 AM
    First, I don't read what Mr. Attis has to say as he has proven himself to be nothing more than a troll in these types of subjects.  His ability to use vulgarity is unrivialved and so I have put him on "ignore" (the only one I've had to do that to).
    Only because you're a transphobic piece of shit that won't get over yourself. It's only you and Brokor that I am a bitch to. Everyone else gets a better side of me just because they ain't you.


    Quote
    Second, I'm not trying to ultimately "prove" anything.  I'm just trying to get people to think about certain subjects and make up their own mind.  The main subjects are "Creator", "Freedom", "Authority"...

    There is no creator. Freedom is what you do. Authority is derived from consent and/or ability.


    Quote
    It's notible that this thread is the only one to ever go beyond 1000 posts...  Must be something here.

    Not really.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 07, 2006, 11:42:21 AM
    Amazing, I posted my response only minutes ago and when I came back Mr. Attis had responded with some responce that I can't see and don't want to see.  I can't imagine how someone can have nothing else to do with himself but troll around these boards.  I can only find time to check what's here maybe once or twice a day.  Sometimes I'll go a week or more without the time to check here...

    Mr. Attis, you might try harder to make your next appointment...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on December 07, 2006, 01:54:31 PM
    Aren't you Christians supposed to forgive people?  I agree with aquabanianskakid, there is no reason to be especially rude and awful to someone, and use their lifestyle choices against them.  Most of us do not agree with your views on things, yet we are only contributing to logical debate.  Only a few are getting nasty in the process.  It takes a lot to make somebody a bad person. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 07, 2006, 02:03:39 PM
    Aren't you Christians supposed to forgive people?  I agree with aquabanianskakid, there is no reason to be especially rude and awful to someone, and use their lifestyle choices against them.  Most of us do not agree with your views on things, yet we are only contributing to logical debate.  Only a few are getting nasty in the process.  It takes a lot to make somebody a bad person. 

    Oh, no.  If you check the early pages of this thread (you might even remember) about a year ago many people started getting nasty.  I put up with it for quite some time but after awhile, I fired back.  Sorry, but I believe in giving back whats dished out to me (it's blessed to give, or something like that...).  And you know by now Lindsey, that I never get nasty first.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on December 07, 2006, 02:21:12 PM
    I agree.  Personally, if someone is nasty to be and it is unwarranted, they are going to want to leave town or steer clear of me, because I am as good as from Hell when I feel that I have been wronged. 

    Gene, people are going to get nasty, but you're only bringing yourself down to their level if you continue to make snide comments and blatant rude statements in their general direction - and I know you're not that kind of person.  Besides, I think we all give you credit for being here and not being an evil Christian troll in a forum full of non-believers.  At least I do. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on December 07, 2006, 02:55:10 PM
    I can't say that I don't get overly nasty with people sometimes, but I would never do it without what I felt was good reason.  And I don't particularly use someone's sexual orientation, or gender preference against them.  That's not fair.  We all need to do what makes us happy, and so be it if others do not approve. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on December 07, 2006, 04:19:04 PM
    Yeah, like choking on cock. Right Lindsey?

    I wouldn't know.  Keith and Stuff said it, not me. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 07, 2006, 06:51:35 PM
    Ohhh well as long as you are retaliating it is okay. You only have to turn the other cheek on occasion. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Contradictions? Maybe, of course this is why I believe Christianity is mostly filled with half truths and corruption.

    Sorry, I've made it plain that I don't accept all that "others" claim that "Christianity" should be.  I don't accept all that the Pope says, or any other religious "authority".  I do consider their words as I do yours, but I don't ascribe any special "authority" to them.  (Question authority...)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 07, 2006, 06:53:21 PM
    "We all need to do what makes us happy, and so be it if others do not approve. "

    It has plenty to do with Christianity, didn't you know Jesus was gay?

    I'm certian he was and is quite happy...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 07, 2006, 11:56:47 PM
    You can be as vulgar as you want and make as big a fool of yourself as you like, I won't go away.  Jesus was of couse not a homosexual and you are a fool to even attempt to make such a statement.  Better watch your money... a fool and his money are soon parted...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on December 08, 2006, 12:08:55 AM
    My gut response was "What's wrong with being homosexual?"  But then I remembered that I'm in a thread about Christianity.   :(
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 08, 2006, 12:16:11 AM
    My gut response was "What's wrong with being homosexual?"  But then I remembered that I'm in a thread about Christianity.   :(

    I never said there was something wrong with being homosexual, I said that Jesus was of couse not a homosexual.  However, if you want to go down that road, I can...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on December 08, 2006, 12:17:58 AM
    I didn't know that you'd met Jesus and exchanged purposeful conversation about his sexual orientation.  You never know, he might not have been the typical Christian idea of Jesus. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on December 08, 2006, 01:32:53 AM
    You can be as vulgar as you want and make as big a fool of yourself as you like, I won't go away.  Jesus was of couse not a homosexual and you are a fool to even attempt to make such a statement.  Better watch your money... a fool and his money are soon parted...

    Of course, if you take the NT with regard to Madgeline literally, she was Joshua's wife. To be a rabbi, you have to be married.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 08, 2006, 10:24:21 AM
    I didn't know that you'd met Jesus and exchanged purposeful conversation about his sexual orientation.  You never know, he might not have been the typical Christian idea of Jesus. 

    He was, of course, not a homosexual because there is no evidence that he was and the chance of any individual being a homosexual is very small (perhaps 3%) and in his culture even less.  In light of this, one can freely claim that he was, of course, not a homosexual.  Other than this, if one believes He is the Son of God, then he is, of course, not immoral...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on December 08, 2006, 01:42:15 PM
    I didn't know that you'd met Jesus and exchanged purposeful conversation about his sexual orientation.  You never know, he might not have been the typical Christian idea of Jesus. 

    He was, of course, not a homosexual because there is no evidence that he was and the chance of any individual being a homosexual is very small (perhaps 3%) and in his culture even less.  In light of this, one can freely claim that he was, of course, not a homosexual.  Other than this, if one believes He is the Son of God, then he is, of course, not immoral...


    Quite honestly Gene, I see your point.  You cannot, however, even begin to prove or disprove an idividual's sexual orientation if you cannot begin to prove that he or she existed in the manner that you believe.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 09, 2006, 09:59:00 AM
    I'm terribly sorry but I really don't have the time to check out links and do any "research" other than the research that I initiate on my own initiative (although that initiative is definately influenced by what others say).  In short, if you post a link to something that I feel falls into that category, I do take time to check it.  If I feel that it is outside the areas of my interest, I rather spend my time looking into things that are. 

    So really I'm like pretty much everyone else, I spend my time my way (damn anarchist...)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mbd on December 09, 2006, 07:26:33 PM
    "Hit 'em with a 12-guage bucket, chicken nugget"
    ---Insane Clown Posse
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 09, 2006, 08:55:43 PM
    Or just ignore other peoples opinions, because they could possibly sway your beliefs? As they say "ignorance is bliss".

    I could shoot the same back at ya...

    So many people claim to be "open minded" but when it comes to discussions of the existance of God, man look out!  They have a rabid hatred for any such claim (even though it is quite impossible to prove or disprove).  And yet they will discuss all day the "big bang" theory or some aomeba to man idea even though they are equally unprovable.  (And omygosh!! Don't ever tell them those things are unprovable!!)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 10, 2006, 10:19:34 AM
    So many people claim to be "open minded" but when it comes to discussions of the existance of God, man look out!  They have a rabid hatred for any such claim (even though it is quite impossible to prove or disprove).  And yet they will discuss all day the "big bang" theory or some aomeba to man idea even though they are equally unprovable.  (And omygosh!! Don't ever tell them those things are unprovable!!)

    For pity's sake, Gene, it has been explained to you already in painstaking detail how "unprovable" is not the slightest threat to any scientific theory, because no  theory is provable.  It does you no credit to misrepresent those who disagree with you.

    That being said, if you think that evolution and God's existence and evolution are "equally unprovable" (by which I assume you mean that there is equal basis for believing/disbelieving them), you either have your head on backwards or are simply willfully ignorant.  I'm guessing the latter.  But ignorance is no excuse for denying what is patently obvious if you'd just expend the energy to read a few books.  "I don't know anything about it, therefore it's not true" is not an argument.  People like you denied heliocentricity once upon a time because it A) wasn't staring them in the face and B) contradicted their religious beliefs, and evolution is just the same story over again.  I don't mean to sound gloating or smug, but when religion buts up against science, science always  wins. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on December 10, 2006, 10:57:59 AM
    Gene maintains that only "provable" ideas can be accepted, and yet at the same time he adheres to Christianity, which is not only unprovable but highly dubious in its validity.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 10, 2006, 11:43:52 AM
    Funny I never said that I believe any of that. My point is that you simply can't prove anything that the bible says, or that jesus ever lived.

    Funny, I also never said that I believe any of that.  You stated Or just ignore other peoples opinions, because they could possibly sway your beliefs" and I have never done that.  Indeed, I've looked into pretty much evey "belief" that I know of (including evolution) and have made my mind up based on what I observe in the world around me.  I take no one's word for anything (including you) and believe what seems reasonable to me based on my previously stated observations.  Everyone else does the same...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 10, 2006, 11:52:06 AM

    That being said, if you think that evolution and God's existence and evolution are "equally unprovable" (by which I assume you mean that there is equal basis for believing/disbelieving them), you either have your head on backwards or are simply willfully ignorant.  I'm guessing the latter.  But ignorance is no excuse for denying what is patently obvious if you'd just expend the energy to read a few books.  "I don't know anything about it, therefore it's not true" is not an argument.  People like you denied heliocentricity once upon a time because it A) wasn't staring them in the face and B) contradicted their religious beliefs, and evolution is just the same story over again.  I don't mean to sound gloating or smug, but when religion buts up against science, science always  wins. 

    Of course everything you are saying here is quite the BS spin.  I've never represented myself as you put above and of course, each "theory" of origins is equally unprovable.  There are fossils, there are layers of sediment, there are certian radiometric data regarding samples, etc.  None of these things proves anything as there is more than one explanation for each of them.  Even if they were indisputable, it could still not be "proven" as "proof" requires "repeatability".  So go ahead, "repeat" the creation and evolution events for me...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 10, 2006, 11:53:30 AM
    Gene maintains that only "provable" ideas can be accepted, and yet at the same time he adheres to Christianity, which is not only unprovable but highly dubious in its validity.

    mikehz maintains that only the all-powerful government through huministic ideals has any "rights" and men have none.

    See, I can make bogus claims too...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 10, 2006, 12:05:50 PM
    Of course everything you are saying here is quite the BS spin.

    So you didn't say that evolution and God's existence are equally unprovable?

    Quote
    I've never represented myself as you put above and of course, each "theory" of origins is equally unprovable.

    Each theory, period, is unprovable.  In that sense, they are equal.  That does not entail that they are equally valid.  I might not be able to prove that there are invisible bunnies orbiting the planet right now and I also might not be able to prove that dropping my glass from a great height will cause it to smash on the floor, but only a fool would conclude from this that there is sufficient reason for believing both. 

    I would also remind you that the theory of evolution does not comment on the origin of life (evolution must be distinguished from abiogenesis).

    Quote
    "proven" as "proof" requires "repeatability".

    According to whom?  The requirements that you've just made up?  Because I assure you, that's not how science works.  Repeatability simply makes a theory more credible; it does not prove it.

    Quote
    So go ahead, "repeat" the creation and evolution events for me...

    I made no claims regarding "creation events."  As for evolution.....it happens over tens of thousands of years, however as noted in the other thread, speciation has been induced artificially by humans.  Repeatedly. I don't see why it is so unfathomable to think that, given enough time, nature can achieve the same thing through natural selection.  Especially given the alternative, which is that everything alive right now has always existed as it currently does.

    I'm not going to teach you the particulars of evolution, because it would take a lot of time and you most likely won't listen anyway.  But if at some point you change your mind and decide to look into it, my recommendation would be Daniel Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on December 10, 2006, 12:18:39 PM
    Gene has stated elsewhere that he DOES accept evolution within species. He just doubts that it transcends from one species to another.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on December 10, 2006, 12:59:25 PM
    So he believes in small scale evolution? I don't really see how it is important to accept evolution. Seriously, what are the consequences if you don't. On the other hand most religions have punishments and the threat of hell to back up their argument.

    For some odd reason, some religious people have gotten it into their head that if evolution exists, then it is some sort of proof that God does not. Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive, and evolution could simply be God's way of getting His will done. In fact, many evolutionist scientists are religious.

    There are other reasons for rejecting religion, but the reality of evolution is not one of them.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on December 10, 2006, 01:07:04 PM
    A "day" could mean one revolution of the universe.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on December 10, 2006, 01:19:18 PM
    Aristotle proved evolution in his time, it was called change in the Categories.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on December 10, 2006, 01:53:54 PM
    Both Plato and Aristotle made a good living from it. Each had his own school, and one of Aristotle's students was Alexander the Great--not exactly a poor man at the time!

    I believe Socrates was a mason.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 10, 2006, 02:27:21 PM
    For some odd reason, some religious people have gotten it into their head that if evolution exists, then it is some sort of proof that God does not. Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive, and evolution could simply be God's way of getting His will done. In fact, many evolutionist scientists are religious.

    There are other reasons for rejecting religion, but the reality of evolution is not one of them.

    Evolution is scary to some people because it means that it doesn't take a big complex thing to make big complex things.  People want to have been created in their curent form directly by the Infinite Immortal Being ("in his own image"), and so they find it demeaning to think that humans could have evolved from apes, not even to mention other organisms (apparently being created from dirt isn't a problem...guess it's because it's dirt via God).  But yes, you're certainly right that there are people, even scientists, who manage to believe in both evolution and God.  Ken Miller and Francis Collins are two notable ones.  Miller wrote Finding Darwin's God and Collins wrote The Language of God. 

    There are people on both sides of the evolution controversy-- pro and con-- who believe that evolution and religion are incompatible.  But whether that is true depends entirely on how you think about what they are supposed to mean.  If your religious beliefs require that the world and its inhabitants were created in six literal days, then they absolutely do  conflict for you.  But if you're more of a pantheist or deist who believes that God either IS the universe or started it and then stood back to watch or went away, then there isn't necessarily any conflict there.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on December 10, 2006, 02:27:57 PM
    A job is a good thing to have.  If only I could find a second one. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on December 10, 2006, 02:54:10 PM
    Rillion, the fact that women are allowed to vote scare some religious folks. So I don't think it takes much to get them all shrieking and running for their hidie holes. :lol:

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 10, 2006, 08:41:25 PM
    Wow!  I leave you kids alone for a day and look at all the posts!!  I can hardly respond to all of them so I'll try to address what I believe to be the jist of them.  It seems that the main idea is how can any rational being "which I pretend to be" (Gulliver's Travels - my favorite) possibly doubt "scientists".  Now I make a distinction here between "science" and "scientists".  The difference is real but subtle.  "Science", as such can never be "wrong" as it is merely a demonstration of our universe around us.  "Scientists", however are other men like us and are not only capable of being wrong, they usually are.  Scientists are only accurate x% of the time (sorry, I don't know the figure).  Whatever "x" is is not important but it is important to acknowledge that it is not 100%.  So now you have to decide what number is good for you to trust "scientists".  Many of you on this board are quite satisfied (I perceive) at maybe 30%.  Some may require as much as 50% (a guess). 

    Me, I'm a realist.  I've seen "scientists" in action for 54 years now.  I can clearly remember when they were saying that it was immenent that we were going into an "ice age".  I clearly remember that we were supposed to run out of oil by 1990 (hey, it's now 2006 and we are swimming in the stuff).  I was told that we would have flying cars by 2005, a Mars base by 1997, and mag-lev trains (well, I did ride one in Shanghai).

    So here's my point and maybe you will listen.  It's not that "scientists" don't have SOME evidence to support their "theories" (fill in the blank).  It's just that my life experience shows me how UN-reliable these guys are and I have several close friends who are well-known scientists.  I worked closely with them (although I do not claim to be as "brainy" as they are).  I freely admit that I don't understand all their theories and formulas.  I also do not believe that I need to as I can just sit back for 10 years and they will come up with a new one that contridicts the old one.  I've seen the teaching of "evolution" go from insisting that change happened slowly over eons to the "punctuated" take a quick jump idea to who knows what else.  I've seen it demonstrated that some evolutionary scientists falsified evidence to support thier claims.  One even took a pigs tooth and modified it to claim it was the tooth of a missing link.  Most of the models of "prior life forms" are based on "fossils" that are less than 10% complete and have other explanations for thier existance (indeed, I believe that ALL of them have other explanations that are just as valid as the one that is "accepted").

    I've heard claim that there's no "evidence" of Jesus or the claims of his resurection.  Well there's more historical "evidence" of Him than any other character in history.  You might as well doubt the claims that there was a Henry VIII or Ghingas Kahn.  I've posted in the past about "manuscript authority" and what it is.  It's how they (historians) determine the validity of ancient documents.  Basically, the more ancient copies you have and the shorter the time span from the actual even they are refering to until the document was written, the more reliable it is.  Now most historical accounts can only come up with something under 10 copies of the record and most of these copies were written more than 500 years after the event.  The New Testament, however, has THOUSANDS of copies that date back 1900 years or so to within about 150 years from the time of Christ.  The "manuscript authority" score of the New Testament is far and away above that of any other historical event.  Now I don't dispute that there are some "errors" and for this reason I do not believe 100% of the record.  I put my personal belief in the current versions of the New Testament at around 95%.  Now that's a pretty high number and I think it is a much more reliable value than what anyone can put in what any scientist or group of them can justify.  In light of the preceeding, I think that one has to be a pretty closed minded individual to make any claim that Jesus did not exist.

    Now as to his claim that he was the "Son of God" I look to the "witnesses".  Just like any past event, we can only go by testimony and "hard evidence".  As with all historical characters, there's little of the latter but the witnesses were clear in what they had claimed about Jesus.  If they were lying about Jesus being the Son of God then they would have so stated to the Roman authorities and saved their own skin.  Think of the value to the Romans a "Matthew" the tax collector who openly stated to the Roman authorities that the whole thing was a hoax.  He would be a Roman hero for helping to eliminate the "Christian" claim that Cesar was not the true ruler of the world.  This is not what we see.  Instead, 11 of the 12 original witnesses died at the hands of the Romans.  Beheadings, scouraging, slain with swords, cruisified upside-down.  Only John died as an old man.  It's quite a stretch of the imagination that these 12 were involved in some sort of "conspiracy" to promote Jesus as the Messiah if he was not (talk about your crazy conspiracy theories).  No, these men testified until their gruesome deaths of the "truth" as they believed it.  So now you have to claim that they were somehow "tricked" by Jesus into believing.  Well, if you really believe that, I'll discuss it in another post.

    So it ultimately boils down to who do you want to believe.  I choose to believe what Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul wrote (along with the old testament writers).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on December 10, 2006, 08:55:43 PM
    Unreliable according to whom? You? Have you even done real statistical analysis of any research data? Do you even have atleast one year of field work in any scientific discipline? Do you have any experience in any mathematical analysis beyond two variable calculus? If you answer no to these questions, then you have no clue to what you are criticizing in that you have no basis for your claims.

    You talk about unreliable scientists, what I see is humans doing the scientific method properly in that it does not guarantee any perfect set of results. It only guarantees you will, in time, hit on the right answer to a given problem. But it's time that is the key variable. Time could be a few days, or a few years, or a few decades, or a few centuries. It doesn't matter the quantity of time, rather it's the quality of the work. Every invention, every bit of technology you use, CA, depends on the scientific method to make them possible in that it's the method's ability to abstract from the particulars to give us the principles to reproduce the same solution over and over. No religion has done this so far. No religion probably will. Can you heal by words alone or do I need to seek a doctor for any wound I accrue? Can you make me a house by prayer or do I need to call up a building contractor to do it? Can you feed the millions that starve today with a book or do I need to call a bio-engineer and several Co-Ops to fill their bellies?

    The more you hate progress and reason, CA, the more you show yourself a thief. You steal from the producers that worked for years to make the knowledge you have today accessible. Not only have you stolen their knowledge, you have stolen their 'soul.' You wear it like a cheap pair of sneakers. You are the lowest kind of man, CA, a moocher/looter.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on December 10, 2006, 10:59:51 PM
    Evidence for Jesus? There is none, save for a single mention by the Roman historian Josephus--and even that is doubted by many modern historians, who think the citation was forged in the Middle Ages. The Romans were very picky about record keeping, and you'd think they would have at least mentioned something about this Jesus fellow, stirring things up.

    As for the Bible, well, it is full of inaccuracies and wild fantasies. The Gospels were not even written until long after the events they supposedly describe.

    There very well might have been a real character named Jesus. Possibly, a follower of John, and maybe even his heir. After all, wannabe messiahs were a dime a dozen back then. This hardly qualifies him as a deity, however.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 11, 2006, 09:47:40 AM
    So because scientists are sometimes wrong, and it's far too taxing to actually do some research to find out whether these particular scientists are wrong, it's definitely a much better option to put your trust in a book full of errors and contradictions written by unknown sources over a thousand and a half years alleging supernatural events.  Because, you know, that's far less likely to be wrong than the scientists. 

    Stunning, Gene.  Truly stunning. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 11, 2006, 11:54:28 PM
    Evidence for Jesus? There is none, save for a single mention by the Roman historian Josephus--and even that is doubted by many modern historians, who think the citation was forged in the Middle Ages. The Romans were very picky about record keeping, and you'd think they would have at least mentioned something about this Jesus fellow, stirring things up.

    As for the Bible, well, it is full of inaccuracies and wild fantasies. The Gospels were not even written until long after the events they supposedly describe.

    There very well might have been a real character named Jesus. Possibly, a follower of John, and maybe even his heir. After all, wannabe messiahs were a dime a dozen back then. This hardly qualifies him as a deity, however.

    I'm sorry, but you are overlooking the obvious.  Sure there was (I would suppose) a Roman historian named Josephus who mentioned Jesus.  But you are overlooking the "other" historians named Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul (as well as several others).  You cannot discount these men simply because you personally don't like what they have to say.  Talk about unreasonable.  I have previously mentioned the rational behind these men telling the truth (they died for their "belief").  The early Christian church was full of "martyers" who died viciously at the hands of the Romans.  Tell me, would YOU die a violent death for something you KNEW was a bunch of hooey??

    I think not.

    Now the things written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul are recounted in hundreds of ancient manuscripts.  Most of these manuscripts differ only slightly (well within what one would expect by hand copies).  One DOES NOT find that some manuscripts dating from one period are significantly different from later ones (as would be the case in a "conspiracy" to try to change the original meanings).  One has to assume (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that these writings are significantly unchanged.  If that is the case and they are essentially as the original authors wrote them, then the only other issue has to point back to a "conspiracy" to convince others that Jesus was something that He did not claim to be.  Again, you have only wild imaginings to support such a "theory".  Indeed, such a belief would stretch logic.  Many of the same people on this board who claim that there could not be any "conspiracy" in "government" are now claiming that there was the "greatest" conspiracy of the history of the world by some crazy men 2000 years ago who wanted nothing more than to die violently at the hands of the Romans so they could trick billions of future followers into believing that their "buddy" Jeshua was some kinda superhero...

    Give me a break...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Charles on December 12, 2006, 04:46:32 AM
    Quote
    But you are overlooking the "other" historians named Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul (as well as several others).

    If you're going to use quotation marks to try and make someone look foolish than allow me to retort.

    I am overlooking those "historians" because none of those accounts were written until 50 years after the supposed "death of jesus."  Life span being what it was back than, you're looking at zero first-hand information.  You might make a case for Mark which was in the high 40s but you'd be "seriously" pushing "it."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 12, 2006, 06:27:38 AM
    What about the terrorists blowing themselves up every day for their 'hooey'? Most of us here don't believe a word of the Koran or have any faith in Islam...but just because we don't doesn't mean that they don't either. People have died for false beliefs since the dawn of man.

    That's exactly the point.  They BELIEVE.  If the apostles KNEW that Jesus was a phoney, there's no way they would have died for a false belief...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 12, 2006, 07:07:13 AM
    Quote
    But you are overlooking the "other" historians named Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul (as well as several others).

    If you're going to use quotation marks to try and make someone look foolish than allow me to retort.

    I am overlooking those "historians" because none of those accounts were written until 50 years after the supposed "death of Jesus."  Life span being what it was back than, you're looking at zero first-hand information.  You might make a case for Mark which was in the high 40s but you'd be "seriously" pushing "it."

    Welcome to the discussion Charles.

    I make liberal use of quotations around any term that I determine has a questionable definition (such as "government" which I have pointed out many times is a fiction) or is a subject that is underdispute (the "death of Jesus"). 

    Now the idea that the gospel writers wrote the document in the second century is one that many "historians" (the quotes are to put into question the work of these claiming to be historians) have suggested.  Some others, however put the writings in the first century as early as one generation (perhaps 25-30 years).  I could quote a bunch of stuff here that would bring out the naysayers to quote just as many people saying my quotes are not as good as their quotes (nah-nah), but I will use a little "logic" instead (again calling into question my own logic).  The Jewish people are known for "scribes" and it is their tradition to put into writing all that happens.  Something as important as a "Messiah" who is "God" would certianly rate as the most important event to anyone.  Jewish tradition would be to record everything as soon as possible (not on DVD, however).  It was customary for a student of a "rabbi" to memorize his teaching.  And, OK one little quote "A good pupil was like a 'plastered cistern that loses not a drop' (Mishna, Aboth, ii, 8).  If we rely on Anglican Bible scholar C.F. Burney's theory in The Poetry of Our Lord, we can assume that much of the Lords teaching is in Aramaic poetical form, making it easy to memorize."  So again it boils down to who you want to believe.  To me, my logical thinking tells me that it is "illogical" to think that those people who were so literate and taught by tradition to record all important events would just "forget" about writting all this stuff down until some 100 years latter.  Now my 12 year old often "forgets" that he has homework to do, but I doubt that those who walked with Jesus just "forgot" to write it down...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on December 12, 2006, 08:29:45 AM
    But Taors, you're forgetting that Christians think everyone else is wrong.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on December 12, 2006, 09:57:21 AM
    If citings in ancient books is to pass as historical "evidence," then we also have to accept as real that Mohammad was a true messenger of God. At least in his case, there is more evidence that he actually existed, AND he is mentioned in an old book. Since an old book mentions him, it HAS to be true.

    In fact, since none of the Gospels agree with one another, then they cannot all be considered accurate, and can actually ALL be wrong. Further, just because there may have been an actual Jesus this does not mean that all of the wild stories about him need to be true.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 12, 2006, 10:18:51 AM
    I am 29 as of today.  Should I thank God for allowing me to make it this far, or curse him for bringing me ever closer to 30?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 12, 2006, 08:25:35 PM
    What about the terrorists blowing themselves up every day for their 'hooey'? Most of us here don't believe a word of the Koran or have any faith in Islam...but just because we don't doesn't mean that they don't either. People have died for false beliefs since the dawn of man.

    That's exactly the point.  They BELIEVE.  If the apostles KNEW that Jesus was a phoney, there's no way they would have died for a false belief...

    By that same logic you're also saying that Islam is truth...because these terrorists also BELIEVE. They KNOW they'll be going to heaven and be greeted with 72 virgins and get to spend the rest of eternity with Allah. Otherwise, they wouldn't be dying for a false belief. People can be easily misguided.

    You're still missing the point above.  The apostles died for the "Legend of Jesus", if that is really what it was.  If they KNEW that it was just a "legend", do you think they would have died for it?  Don't you think that when they were facing execution they might of just possibly "spilled their guts" and told their oppressors that they really didn't mean it.  That it was all a hoax and if Cesar would just let them live, they would go around the empire and tell the truth to all who would hear...

    Those terrorists truly believe in their agenda.  If they had doubts, they would surely skip out on that sucide appointment.  What is being proposed here is that the apostles made it all up.  If they had, their situation is not anything like these "terrorists" dieing for their cause.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 12, 2006, 08:35:20 PM
    If citings in ancient books is to pass as historical "evidence," then we also have to accept as real that Mohammad was a true messenger of God. At least in his case, there is more evidence that he actually existed, AND he is mentioned in an old book. Since an old book mentions him, it HAS to be true.

    In fact, since none of the Gospels agree with one another, then they cannot all be considered accurate, and can actually ALL be wrong. Further, just because there may have been an actual Jesus this does not mean that all of the wild stories about him need to be true.

    First, the four gosples agree about 95% in their account of what happened.  Many of the "discrepancies" have explanations that might explain the differences for any who want to research this topic (I suspect none here do). 

    As to the "ancient book", there is none.  There are many manuscripts in which most are simply letters to churches or individuals.  The only thing that one could describe as a "book" would have to be the old testament (which we can discuss if you wish).  As to Mohammed, there is little doubt in my mind that he existed.  I doubt that he had any revelations from God, but he might have.  His writings may have been distorted by others.  I have not researched the subject of the "manuscript authority" of the Koran.  It may have a very high score even, but the NT has the higest score of any historical document.  It's a simple fact.  If you dissagree with this fact, tell me why.  Do you doubt the existance of the manuscripts (thousands of them)?  Do you doubt the dating methods that put them in the first century?  These would be legitimate arguments for your position...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 12, 2006, 08:39:59 PM
    Curse him. CA your logic dictates that everyone who believes themselves to be right are in fact... well... right. Christians make good comedians though, whether or nto they realise it.

    I'm happy to amuse you.  I always like a good laugh (laughter is good for the soul).  Anyway, I hardly try to present the argument that eveyone who believes themselves to be right indeed are.  I feel that I'm right but I acknowledge that I may be wrong.  I'm not so stupid to think that I am somehow above everyone else in the world.  I simply use my noggin' to try to understand my existance.  I would advise everyone else to do the same.

    As to who is ultimately "right", it is our Creator.  He alone has all the answers and until He tells me personaly I have to wait...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on December 12, 2006, 08:50:49 PM
    Ugh, okay.

    I just give up, and you should too.  Christians will never be open to anything else.  My deal is that if I'm wrong, and there is a God, I'm wrong and that's it. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 12, 2006, 09:03:27 PM
    It may have a very high score even, but the NT has the higest score of any historical document.  It's a simple fact.  If you dissagree with this fact, tell me why.  Do you doubt the existance of the manuscripts (thousands of them)?  Do you doubt the dating methods that put them in the first century?  These would be legitimate arguments for your position...

    I don't doubt that some group of Christian historians deemed "The Bible" to be the most accurate document in history.
    I do however doubt the very premise that just because there are a bunch of copies, printed relatively close to the 'events' means that it is any more or less accurate than any other document.

    You say that there were thousands of copies, dating between 30-150 years after the event? I am willing to bet that there are millions of copies of Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" and he wrote it this year, so wouldn't that make his Manuscript Authority about 1000000% accurate?

    I certianly would be 100% accurate as to the issue of representing what the author believes.  That is all that is being said about the NT.  The authors believed it to be true.  The manuscripts are close enough to the date of the events to not have been significantly altered from what the original authors wrote.  That's all that one can ask of an ancient manuscript...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on December 12, 2006, 10:39:20 PM
    Not many actual historians accept any of the Gospels as accurate. Or, they take them with the same credence as they take the Iliad, although not as well written. Three of the Gospels are assumed to be merely copies of the same, earlier, work. While the books may get some geographical place names correct, it is doubted that any of them was authored by people for whom they are named.

    The four Gospels were all written 30 to 70 years after Paul's letters. For at least a generation after Jesus' death, knowledge of his life and teachings was spread by word of mouth. Nothing was written down, since his followers assumed that their hero would return shortly, and usher in a new kingdom. It is obvious that no contemporary writers regarded Jesus or his sect as important, since they left no report. Inevitably, misunderstandings, exaggerations, wishful thinking, and legends became incorporated into the oral tradition.

    The earliest Gospel is Mark, which Biblical scholars postulate was penned around 75 A.D. Almost everything in Mark is repeated in Matthew and Luke, written probably some 20 years later, and almost certainly a copy of that book--although all three may be a copy of another work, now lost. Scholars estimate that John was composed much later, at around 120 A.D., and is much different from the earlier works. While in Mark we see a much more human depiction of Jesus, in Matthew and Luke he is made to be more than human, and by John, he is deified. The further from the actual events, the more god-like the hero becomes.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 12, 2006, 11:39:54 PM
    Not many actual historians accept any of the Gospels as accurate. Or, they take them with the same credence as they take the Iliad, although not as well written. Three of the Gospels are assumed to be merely copies of the same, earlier, work. While the books may get some geographical place names correct, it is doubted that any of them was authored by people for whom they are named.

    The four Gospels were all written 30 to 70 years after Paul's letters. For at least a generation after Jesus' death, knowledge of his life and teachings was spread by word of mouth. Nothing was written down, since his followers assumed that their hero would return shortly, and usher in a new kingdom. It is obvious that no contemporary writers regarded Jesus or his sect as important, since they left no report. Inevitably, misunderstandings, exaggerations, wishful thinking, and legends became incorporated into the oral tradition.

    The earliest Gospel is Mark, which Biblical scholars postulate was penned around 75 A.D. Almost everything in Mark is repeated in Matthew and Luke, written probably some 20 years later, and almost certainly a copy of that book--although all three may be a copy of another work, now lost. Scholars estimate that John was composed much later, at around 120 A.D., and is much different from the earlier works. While in Mark we see a much more human depiction of Jesus, in Matthew and Luke he is made to be more than human, and by John, he is deified. The further from the actual events, the more god-like the hero becomes.

    Sources???  You make many claims that you expect me to accept.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 13, 2006, 09:02:55 AM
    What is being proposed here is that the apostles made it all up. 

    Proposed by whom?  I haven't claimed anything of the sort, and neither has anyone else from what I've noticed.   As you so obviously realize, claiming a person is wrong is not the same as claiming that they are lying. 

    Quote
    Sources???  You make many claims that you expect me to accept.

    You're one to talk!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on December 13, 2006, 09:23:54 AM

    Sources???  You make many claims that you expect me to accept.

    Oh, just about any work by a Biblical historian will do. This particular citing is from lecture notes by Dr. William Houff, from a talk on the history of the Gospels given in 1986.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 13, 2006, 03:34:48 PM

    Sources???  You make many claims that you expect me to accept.

    This particular citing is from lecture notes by Dr. William Houff, from a talk on the history of the Gospels given in 1986.

    Thank you.  Do you have a link?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 13, 2006, 03:37:59 PM
    What is being proposed here is that the apostles made it all up. 

    Proposed by whom?  I haven't claimed anything of the sort, and neither has anyone else from what I've noticed.   As you so obviously realize, claiming a person is wrong is not the same as claiming that they are lying. 

    I may have misunderstood.  I understand that there are two oposing views, that either the gospel writers wrote accurately what they saw, or that the whole thing is a hoax.  If there's another view, please inform me.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 13, 2006, 03:46:04 PM
    What is being proposed here is that the apostles made it all up. 

    Proposed by whom?  I haven't claimed anything of the sort, and neither has anyone else from what I've noticed.   As you so obviously realize, claiming a person is wrong is not the same as claiming that they are lying. 

    I may have misunderstood.  I understand that there are two opposing views, that either the gospel writers wrote accurately what they saw, or that the whole thing is a hoax.  If there's another view, please inform me.

    They were mistaken.   Since this is the very view you ascribe to the Muslim terrorists, I find it odd that you hadn't considered it regarding the gospel writers.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 13, 2006, 03:49:34 PM
    I have not researched the subject of the "manuscript authority" of the Koran.  It may have a very high score even, but the NT has the higest score of any historical document.  It's a simple fact. 

    You repeat this over and over, but you haven't bothered to supply a single source even though you demand such of others.   Nothing is a "simple fact" just because you say so. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on December 13, 2006, 07:40:02 PM
    What is being proposed here is that the apostles made it all up. 

    Proposed by whom?  I haven't claimed anything of the sort, and neither has anyone else from what I've noticed.   As you so obviously realize, claiming a person is wrong is not the same as claiming that they are lying. 

    Quote
    Sources???  You make many claims that you expect me to accept.

    You're one to talk!

    pwn3d.  That is all. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 13, 2006, 08:02:04 PM
    What is being proposed here is that the apostles made it all up. 

    Proposed by whom?  I haven't claimed anything of the sort, and neither has anyone else from what I've noticed.   As you so obviously realize, claiming a person is wrong is not the same as claiming that they are lying. 

    I may have misunderstood.  I understand that there are two opposing views, that either the gospel writers wrote accurately what they saw, or that the whole thing is a hoax.  If there's another view, please inform me.

    They were mistaken.   Since this is the very view you ascribe to the Muslim terrorists, I find it odd that you hadn't considered it regarding the gospel writers.

    Who are the "they" and what is the view that I ascribe to Muslim terrorists?? 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 13, 2006, 08:12:39 PM
    I have not researched the subject of the "manuscript authority" of the Koran.  It may have a very high score even, but the NT has the higest score of any historical document.  It's a simple fact. 

    You repeat this over and over, but you haven't bothered to supply a single source even though you demand such of others.   Nothing is a "simple fact" just because you say so. 

    Good for you.  You are the first one to ask for my "sources" so here they are...

    More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell.  Now Josh himself is no one of any real significance.  Just another "Joe" (or Josh in this case).  He has, however put together a very compresensive collection of references in this book.  I might list a few here.  Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones: The Significance of Archeology for Biblical Studies; William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands; Sir William Ramsay, The bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament; John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament; David Hackett Fisher, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought...

    O.K. Now come back and tell me how all these guys are just a bunch of goons who don't know what they are talking about (but of course I have to assume that the references you cite are impecable.)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 13, 2006, 08:16:45 PM
    What is being proposed here is that the apostles made it all up. 

    Proposed by whom?  I haven't claimed anything of the sort, and neither has anyone else from what I've noticed.   As you so obviously realize, claiming a person is wrong is not the same as claiming that they are lying. 

    Quote
    Sources???  You make many claims that you expect me to accept.

    You're one to talk!

    pwn3d.  That is all. 

    Not really.  I've made it quite clear here that all I present is my view of the world as I see it with my life's experiences.  I've stated what others have said only as a reference to how I heard of the information that I eventually adopted.  For instance, I've posted a while back that I don't accept the whole idea that an event so important to the apostles could possible go even 1 year without being written down, much less 150 years!!!  These are not uneducated men.  They were Jews and litterate.  They would have written these things down if nothing more than in letters to each other.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on December 13, 2006, 10:18:26 PM
    The world is full of charlatans, and always has been. I don't know whether Jesus even existed, but I DO know charlatans existed. I find it much more convincing that the yarns in the Bible were made up than to believe the fantastic fantasies depicted in those pages.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Richard_III on December 13, 2006, 10:35:34 PM
    What is being proposed here is that the apostles made it all up. 

    Proposed by whom?  I haven't claimed anything of the sort, and neither has anyone else from what I've noticed.   As you so obviously realize, claiming a person is wrong is not the same as claiming that they are lying. 

    I may have misunderstood.  I understand that there are two oposing views, that either the gospel writers wrote accurately what they saw, or that the whole thing is a hoax.  If there's another view, please inform me.

    Hey Christian Anarchist,

    You might want to look into the rather unpopular view that "Jesus Was A Mushroom". On the surface, the notion that Jesus was a mushroom seems rather like a brain-dead product of a bunch of dirty hippies looking to justify their drug use...but it is actually the best explanation I have come across concerning this Jesus business.

    I've been studying this mushroom connection for a number of years now. It turns out that for thousands of years, magic mushroom enthusiasts have been employing an art form based on the tecniques of "Anthropomorphism", "Polymorphism", "Theomorphism" and a bunch of other morph-based systems.

    "Jesus" is just a standard Anthropomorph/Theomorph, based on a magic mushroom called "Amanita muscaria" aka "Fly Agaric". Ever wonder why Christ is making odd references to canibalism during "The Last Supper"??? A lot of confusion and error arises among followers and non-believers, because the stories/images imply that the fictional "Jesus", at the very least, had a human body. Artists who like to anthropomorphize magic mushrooms, were and still are, constantly competing to design the most convincing mushroom-based anthropomorph..."Harry Potter" is perhaps the newest most bestest mushroom-morph on the block.

    Although this practice of mushroom morphing will almost always go over the head of the general public, scholars and historians (as it's designed to do), occult groups all over the world are quite aware as to the true nature of this Jesus figure and the many other strange stories that have come about over time.

    If you are interested in learning more about this viewpoint, I recommend "Magic Mushrooms in Religion and Alchemy" by Clark Hienrich:

    http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Mushrooms-Religion-Alchemy-Heinrich/dp/0892819979

    I'll admit that I've not read this whole thread front to back, but Christian Anarchist, I noticed you mentioning "Gulliver's Travels" as one of your favorite books. Turns out that Jonathan Swift was in on the mushroom morphing too. A more obvious example in his book is dealing with his "Floating Island of Laputa". If you understand all the little tricks, you will realize that Swift is actually describing the attributes of an Amanita muscaria mushroom.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 13, 2006, 11:01:05 PM
    Once again I will state that it's ILLOGICAL to believe that Jesus's followers did not believe that He was the Messiah.  They would not have died for something they did not believe in.  Now if you rule out a "conspiracy" to make it seem like these things occured when indeed they did not (well, maybe you do believe in this conspiracy, I don't know) then the only other explanation I can see is that Jesus was a very good magician to fool all these guys.  Lets look at that possibility...

    If Jesus hatched this plot to make the Jewish nation believe that He was the long-awaited "Messiah", he would have to make his birthplace be Bethlehem, manipulated his travels to fullfill 100's of old testament scriptures, trick the Roman's into crusifying Him, and then resurect himself on the 3rd day.  I guess we can see that this is impossible.

    So then maybe he was a lunatic.  Many people have "god" complexes and one can argue that that may have been what Jesus had.  Well, again, he would have had to be very "lucky" to have his life fullfill so many old testament scriptures.  As a member of the Jewish faith, He would know that claiming to be God would not make many friends.  As a lunatic, this may not have bothered Him, but then He has to live His life under the close scrutany of His desciples.  He managed to impress them with a totally new way of looking at the world.  Loving all mankind, turning the other cheek, caring for the poor and weak, taking the position of a servant, not a master.  This would make Him an excellent actor as well. 

    I reject both of these explanations as simply being the most unlikely of the possibilities.  The one that makes the most "sence" is that He was just who He claimed to be, "God with us".

    As to "science".  I've made it clear in prior posts that I believe that science cannot be "wrong" since it is the demonstration of the creation around us.  I've also made it clear that "scientists" are frequently wrong and that's why I don't take their word for a lot of things.  One of them is the "evolution" story.  It is not "good science" in my opinion (you don't have to take my opinion, however).  I've looked into what has been written that was on a level that I could understand (I'm not a genius, but I'm hardly stupid) and see way too many "assumptions" on the part of those interpreting the data.  The data is seldom in question, but rather the interpretation of that data.  There is frequently (perhaps always) more than one explanation for why data is the way it is.

    So everyone here who thinks evolution is "good science" I recommend you go on believing in evolution.  For everyone here who determines that there is something fishy in the evolution camp, I propose that it's false and the God is our Creator.  Even Steven Hawking wrote in his book "A Brief History of Time" that the ultimate question of creation falls back to whether God created the universe...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on December 13, 2006, 11:24:45 PM
    Oh, I have little doubt some of his followers may have thought him the messiah. As I already said, there were plenty of would-be Messiahs around at the time. It was practically a job description. Even now, we have no shortage of people claiming a link with the Almighty.

    Just because his followers might have thought Jesus a messiah does not automatically promote him to God.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 14, 2006, 08:15:18 AM
    Oh, I have little doubt some of his followers may have thought him the messiah. As I already said, there were plenty of would-be Messiahs around at the time. It was practically a job description. Even now, we have no shortage of people claiming a link with the Almighty.

    Just because his followers might have thought Jesus a messiah does not automatically promote him to God.

    Yes, but they are pretty poor "messiahs" and only manage to convince a few gullible individuals.  Jesus, if he was a phony, would have to at least rank as the "best" because He mananged to gain the largest following.  Now one might claim that Islam is equivilant or larger and that is true, but Mohammed never claimed to be "God with us" so it's a different category.  Mohammed only claimed to be a "prophet" of the one true God and as such, Islam is much different.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 14, 2006, 10:18:50 AM
    Who are the "they" and what is the view that I ascribe to Muslim terrorists?? 

    The gospel writers, and that they are mistaken!  Do you suffer from some attention span affliction?  I don't mean to be rude, but the answer to both of those questions was in the very quote to which you were responding.

    Quote
    Good for you.  You are the first one to ask for my "sources" so here they are...

    Never mind that I've had to ask about 3 times now. 

    Quote
    More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell.  Now Josh himself is no one of any real significance.  Just another "Joe" (or Josh in this case).  He has, however put together a very compresensive collection of references in this book.  I might list a few here.  Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones: The Significance of Archeology for Biblical Studies; William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands; Sir William Ramsay, The bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament; John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament; David Hackett Fisher, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought...

    O.K. Now come back and tell me how all these guys are just a bunch of goons who don't know what they are talking about

    I am not going to tell you that they are a bunch of goons.  I am  going to tell you, however, that telling someone to read a list of books is not evidence of anything.  If you can't quote, your resources are effectively useless.  Now, no doubt I could go off to the library or Amazon and read as many of those as I could find, but I don't have the time or the inclination and if you can't provide a source which simply explains why  the NT is considered so historically accurate them I'm going to have to say you haven't demonstrated anything. 

    Quote
    (but of course I have to assume that the references you cite are impeccable.)

    I haven't cited any references here, because I'm not claiming anything.  I am simply in extreme doubt of the claim you're making, which it is your obligation to support.  When I am trying to make a case for something, I use quotes from scientific studies which the reader is free to investigate further on his/her own time.   If I told you to believe in evolution, and then rattled off a list of Dawkins, Dennett, Williams, and Haldane for you to read, would you do so?  I strongly suspect not.

    Quote
    I've made it quite clear here that all I present is my view of the world as I see it with my life's experiences.

    Sorry, but your life experiences do not substantiate the Bible in any way. 

    Quote
    For instance, I've posted a while back that I don't accept the whole idea that an event so important to the apostles could possible go even 1 year without being written down, much less 150 years!!!

    First, why do you assume that it was the apostles who wrote the NT, when every Bible historian I've read makes no such assumption?

    Second, how do you explain the common understanding that the book of Mark, the first gospel written, was recorded no less than 30 years after Jesus' death?

    You know what?  I don't expect you to answer any of this.  It's not a matter of you having different beliefs from me-- there's nothing wrong with that-- but the simple fact that you are being duplicitous, attempting to shift the burden of proof, and appear to have no concept whatsoever of what constitutes evidence....which should have been clear back when you made that ridiculous post about the NT writers vs. "scientists," but I decided to keep things going for a while.  But really, this is pointless.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on December 14, 2006, 10:23:14 AM
    Oh--so Mohammad's mistake was in not claiming to be God himself, but only a messenger. Otherwise, had he maintained himself to be God, then he really would have been God? Sorry, I'm not buying.

    I also reject as fallacious the notion that a belief becomes true if it is held by a large number of people. Majorities have a very poor track record when it comes to truths.

    One of the things that made Christianity win out over competitors was that the Church, once getting into power, killed off the competition
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 14, 2006, 10:36:35 AM
    I also reject as fallacious the notion that a belief becomes true if it is held by a large number of people. Majorities have a very poor track record when it comes to truths.

    "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." --Anatole France

    The majority of the world's population have been convinced of numerous foolish things over the years....and the biggest whoppers (such as a flat earth, geocentrism, and creationism) have been with the full support of the church until science overturned them. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 15, 2006, 02:59:29 PM
    Who are the "they" and what is the view that I ascribe to Muslim terrorists?? 

    The gospel writers, and that they are mistaken!  Do you suffer from some attention span affliction?  I don't mean to be rude, but the answer to both of those questions was in the very quote to which you were responding.


    I quess my attention span is also why I still don't see an answer to the second question??

    Quote


    Quote
    Good for you.  You are the first one to ask for my "sources" so here they are...

    Never mind that I've had to ask about 3 times now. 


    Somehow I've missed your repeated "requests".  Funny, but the bbs search engine also seems to have missed them.  I searched for "rillion" and "sources" and only came up with unresponsive hits.

    Quote

    Quote
    More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell.  Now Josh himself is no one of any real significance.  Just another "Joe" (or Josh in this case).  He has, however put together a very compresensive collection of references in this book.  I might list a few here.  Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones: The Significance of Archeology for Biblical Studies; William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands; Sir William Ramsay, The bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament; John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament; David Hackett Fisher, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought...

    O.K. Now come back and tell me how all these guys are just a bunch of goons who don't know what they are talking about

    I am not going to tell you that they are a bunch of goons.  I am  going to tell you, however, that telling someone to read a list of books is not evidence of anything.  If you can't quote, your resources are effectively useless.  Now, no doubt I could go off to the library or Amazon and read as many of those as I could find, but I don't have the time or the inclination and if you can't provide a source which simply explains why  the NT is considered so historically accurate them I'm going to have to say you haven't demonstrated anything. 



    Again, I put little stock in what others have written.  I supplied some "references" only because you (finally) asked...

    Quote


    Quote
    (but of course I have to assume that the references you cite are impeccable.)

    I haven't cited any references here, because I'm not claiming anything.  I am simply in extreme doubt of the claim you're making, which it is your obligation to support.  When I am trying to make a case for something, I use quotes from scientific studies which the reader is free to investigate further on his/her own time.   If I told you to believe in evolution, and then rattled off a list of Dawkins, Dennett, Williams, and Haldane for you to read, would you do so?  I strongly suspect not.

    Quote
    I've made it quite clear here that all I present is my view of the world as I see it with my life's experiences.

    Sorry, but your life experiences do not substantiate the Bible in any way. 



    No, but they do substantiate my life choices...

    Quote


    Quote
    For instance, I've posted a while back that I don't accept the whole idea that an event so important to the apostles could possible go even 1 year without being written down, much less 150 years!!!

    First, why do you assume that it was the apostles who wrote the NT, when every Bible historian I've read makes no such assumption?

    Second, how do you explain the common understanding that the book of Mark, the first gospel written, was recorded no less than 30 years after Jesus' death?



    I explain it by making the statement that "common understandings" can be and frequently are WRONG !!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 16, 2006, 08:28:13 AM
    Oh--so Mohammad's mistake was in not claiming to be God himself, but only a messenger. Otherwise, had he maintained himself to be God, then he really would have been God? Sorry, I'm not buying.

    I also reject as fallacious the notion that a belief becomes true if it is held by a large number of people. Majorities have a very poor track record when it comes to truths.

    One of the things that made Christianity win out over competitors was that the Church, once getting into power, killed off the competition

    I know of few times in history where "the Church" (another fiction) killed off people.  Sure you can point to the crusades, but where else??  Other than a few small cults having wars with other cults, where is any historical period of Christian "wars" on other religions?  I know there have been repeated "wars" on "the Church" from certian governments (there's that pesky fiction again).  The Roman attack on the early Church was most notable, but there have been others. 

    If you have heard anything I have said, you would know that I don't subscribe to "majority" views on anything.  There's not too many people who subscribe to the views that I have so I would be in a very bad situation if I figured majoritiy views have any weight.  The point I made (quite elegantly) was that if Jesus was a phony, He was the best that ever lived as He fooled billions of people.  Perhaps that alone rates praise and worship - the best of all "kidders"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: zebraflood on December 16, 2006, 12:31:11 PM
    http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on December 16, 2006, 01:45:20 PM
    http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

    That's hilarious...a very Onion-esque satire.   :)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on December 16, 2006, 06:40:18 PM
    Fantastic! However, I fear Christians won't get the irony, but will think this makes a good case in their favor.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on December 16, 2006, 06:48:58 PM
    Jesus, is this thread still going on?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cerpntaxt on December 16, 2006, 07:06:59 PM
    no
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 17, 2006, 12:31:30 AM
    Jesus, is this thread still going on?

    Yes Joe, Jesus is forever...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Charles on December 17, 2006, 12:34:07 AM
    Jesus, is this thread still going on?

    Yes Joe, Jesus is forever...

    So are twinkies...and corn candy...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on December 17, 2006, 12:39:10 AM
    Jesus, is this thread still going on?

    Yes Joe, Jesus is forever...

    So are twinkies...and corn candy...

    And astroglide...

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 17, 2006, 09:10:00 AM
    Well you guys are the one's who keep it going...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 17, 2006, 04:04:03 PM
    Hey now, I know lots of little kids in China, and none of them want to kill themselves...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on December 17, 2006, 06:13:21 PM
    It won't die, because every time it gets near the bottom of the page CA kicks it back to the top.

    OOPS--now I've done it!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 17, 2006, 06:14:12 PM
    Thanks mike, you're a sport...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 23, 2006, 09:03:54 AM
    I have an update to what I believe regarding the most dangerous cult of all.  It is on my blog linked below.  Click on the sidebar heading "Government Cult".
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on December 23, 2006, 11:50:53 PM
    Sux.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on December 23, 2006, 11:53:01 PM
    Sux.

    Does CA do it with or without his dentures?

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on December 23, 2006, 11:54:14 PM
    If he's an Anarchist, he would do it with braces and hydrochloric acid.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on December 24, 2006, 12:00:31 AM
    If he's an Anarchist, he would do it with braces and hydrochloric acid.
    True...True...

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on December 24, 2006, 12:02:20 AM
    And I knock him over the head with my pimp cane so he would swallow. And he couldn't call the cops.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on December 24, 2006, 12:04:34 AM
    Hey now, I know lots of little kids in China, and none of them want to kill themselves...

    Thats 'cause theyre not christians. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 24, 2006, 10:25:51 AM
    Hey now, I know lots of little kids in China, and none of them want to kill themselves...

    Thats 'cause theyre not christians. 

    There are many Christians in China.  We even visited the same Church in Bejing that Bush visited the day after he was there.  I wanted to check to see if he really was there of if it was propaganda...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Tommy on January 01, 2007, 12:13:23 PM
    I have an update to what I believe regarding the most dangerous cult of all.  It is on my blog linked below.  Click on the sidebar heading "Government Cult".

    Very Interesting.  I also find this marching behind the government to be much too strange.  Good points.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 03, 2007, 12:02:17 PM
    I have an update to what I believe regarding the most dangerous cult of all.  It is on my blog linked below.  Click on the sidebar heading "Government Cult".

    Very Interesting.  I also find this marching behind the government to be much too strange.  Good points.

    I also found the following on government cults, so I guess I'm not alone in this observation.  It's amazing how powerful this cult is and how many are willing to "drink the kool-aid" offered by the cult leaders...

    http://www.apfn.org/apfn/cultof.htm
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 03, 2007, 03:34:54 PM
    ASSPLAY!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 03, 2007, 04:50:05 PM
    I'm grateful to have Mr. Attis on ignore, but I can't let him have the last word...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 03, 2007, 05:37:55 PM
    I'm grateful to have Mr. Attis on ignore, but I can't let him have the last word...
    PIKACHU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 03, 2007, 07:00:51 PM
    Oh good, you guys keep it up.  I love to see my posting numbers climbing...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 03, 2007, 11:58:42 PM
    Jesus was the only person to ever live a life without sin.  If He were a sinner like the rest of us, He would not be a worthy payment for our sins.  His sacrifice is what makes salvation available to us all.  Thank you very much for bringing this subject to everyone's attention.

    Jesus is the unblemished (not defiled by sin) Lamb of God...

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 04, 2007, 01:29:43 AM
    Jesus was the only person to ever live a life without sin.  If He were a sinner like the rest of us, He would not be a worthy payment for our sins.  His sacrifice is what makes salvation available to us all. 

    What exactly is the mechanism of this sin trade-off? Why does sin need to be paid for? How can sin be exchanged? (I know how the ancients believed this all worked, but am curious how modern Christians work it all out.)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: OFK on January 04, 2007, 07:54:49 AM
    What is so bad about sin?

    Precisely
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 04, 2007, 09:29:39 AM
    Sin is, simply defined, "missing the mark".  It is used in this manor in archery and it is quite appropriate.  Man is always missing the mark of perfection.  God created us with a free will to follow him or not and we most often choose "not".  In this way we miss the mark and this is our "sin".  Since we are not even able to make the "mark" which is perfection, He (Jesus) had to make the mark for us and then die in our stead for our sins (or more correctly "sin"-singular- which is imperfection).  By His sacrifice, we are now seen as "perfect", having made the "mark".  Just like an arrow which hits the center of the target, we are now seen as perfect.  God must put the mystery of redemption in these terms for us mere mortals to understand.  We do not have the capability to understand all the mechanism behind redemption.

    Again, thanks for asking...  It justifies my soapbox stand...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 04, 2007, 10:34:14 AM
    Since we are not even able to make the "mark" which is perfection, He (Jesus) had to make the mark for us and then die in our stead for our sins (or more correctly "sin"-singular- which is imperfection).  By His sacrifice, we are now seen as "perfect", having made the "mark".  Just like an arrow which hits the center of the target, we are now seen as perfect. 

    But, that doesn't really work, does it. Sin isn't like a trading card--you can't simply transfer it from one party to another, innocent party. If you do something wrong, that wrong isn't made right by MY taking the blame or guilt for it.

    The whole theory stinks to high heaven.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 04, 2007, 02:21:41 PM
    We will be "perfect" when we get to "heaven". whoever you wish to define those words (it depends of the meaning of "is").

    But I do trade my sin for perfection.  That's the great mystery of Christianity...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 04, 2007, 02:38:58 PM

    Plain and simple fact, he went to a temple, destroy goods being sold, and assaulted the merchants. Perfect? I think not. If you wanted to argue that Jesus was a prophet I honestly don't think I could argue with you.


    So by you stating "plain and simple fact" I have to assume that you accept the new testament account of Jesus' life to be accurate?

    (Yes) or (No)??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 04, 2007, 04:07:10 PM
    We will be "perfect" when we get to "heaven". whoever you wish to define those words (it depends of the meaning of "is").

    But I do trade my sin for perfection.  That's the great mystery of Christianity...

    But isn't God the ideal of perfection? If God is perfection and we become perfect when we get to heaven then we must be God or Gods.

    If you're a Gnostic or a Mormon. :)

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 04, 2007, 04:38:21 PM
    Mormons are weird.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 04, 2007, 10:44:33 PM
    No Jackass Gene Mcgee I don't accept your little book of fairy tales as fact. But apparently you do, considering you worship one of the books characters. I think I'll go worship Frodo now

    Strange you should take such offence, after all YOU were the one who stated it was a FACT that Jesus destroyed property because the bible said so...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 04, 2007, 10:57:12 PM
    I do believe that the only FACT he stated was that the fictional Jesus, depicted in the myth as perfect, is portrayed as behaving in some very imperfect ways.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 05, 2007, 06:24:37 AM
    I do believe that the only FACT he stated was that the fictional Jesus, depicted in the myth as perfect, is portrayed as behaving in some very imperfect ways.

    If you believe that, then you would be wrong.

    Check the post below and you will see where he stated "Plain and simple fact, he went to a temple, destroy goods being sold, and assaulted the merchants."

    Nowhere does he state or even imply that he is referring to a "myth" or "fiction".  Why don't you let him speak for himself?  Is he not of age?

    http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=2356.msg176850#msg176850
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 05, 2007, 10:04:25 AM
    bump
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 05, 2007, 10:37:03 AM
    No Jackass Gene Mcgee I don't accept your little book of fairy tales as fact. But apparently you do, considering you worship one of the books characters. I think I'll go worship Frodo now

    CA, you need to take all of his posts in context.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 05, 2007, 12:17:00 PM
    It's called sarcasm. Apparently you don't look at several posts together only each post individually.

    You post a comment, I respond.  Isn't that the way this is supposed to work?  I can only respond to what you post.  If I respond off topic or in error, then correct me.  If I respond to your comment, you have no call to claim that you really didn't mean it...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 05, 2007, 12:47:26 PM
    bump
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 05, 2007, 03:01:12 PM
    So the big question is, how do you justify the violent and angry acts of Jesus if you believe he did live and was perfect.

    Quite simply, anger and violence are not, in themselves, sinful...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 05, 2007, 04:04:29 PM
    Ummmm  :shock: I guess that is a way to look at it, I'm sure most Christians would dissagree. Then again you aren't a typical "Christian". Would you care to define that point though?

    There's a great deal of reference to God's "anger" and there's plenty of "violence" in the bible that is, in my opinion, justified.  Just as I justify "violence" against anyone who would try to hurt my family...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 05, 2007, 04:07:32 PM
    So the big question is, how do you justify the violent and angry acts of Jesus if you believe he did live and was perfect.

    Quite simply, anger and violence are not, in themselves, sinful...


    So heaven will have anger and violence to some degree?


    Heaven currently has "anger" in that God is angry about how His creation is abused and His favorite subjects are living in sin.

    If you've ever read "Revelation" there's plenty of reference there to angels getting pretty "violent"...  so I would say the answer to both of your questions is "yes" for the current time, but I would say "no" in the future (how far in the future no one knows).

    WOW !  Replies are 1188 and views are 8888 on this thread.  I wonder if anyone is into numerology and can tell me if this is a good sign... (oops, too late, I just made it 8889 !)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 05, 2007, 04:33:17 PM
    bump
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 05, 2007, 05:29:53 PM
    I like it when people call me names.  It shows I'm making an effect.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 05, 2007, 05:55:05 PM
    bump
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cerpntaxt on January 05, 2007, 06:55:25 PM
    I love when Gene calls in.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 05, 2007, 07:25:50 PM
    bumpp
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 05, 2007, 11:16:37 PM
    I actually like Gene's calls, and he makes much more sense on the air than on the board. I have a feeling he'd be interesting in FtF.

    I DO think the pictures are unnecessary, tasteless, and a bit much.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 05, 2007, 11:46:52 PM
    bump
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 05, 2007, 11:47:29 PM
    bump

    grind
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 05, 2007, 11:48:19 PM
    bump

    grind

    happy ending
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mbd on January 06, 2007, 02:40:10 AM
    Smoke a bowl for Jesus!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: rabidfurby on January 06, 2007, 03:52:00 AM
    Smoke a bowl for Jesus!

    That's not very Christian. It clearly says in the Bible that God gave us all the plants of the world for our use, except for the ones that our Wise and Loving Government sees fit to forbid in an effort to protect us from us.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 06, 2007, 07:40:52 AM
    I donno, It looks like they have a nice surrounding to perform their gay sexcapades.  I always wanted a tile pool. 

    Maybe it shouldnt have dudes suckin each others tools on it.  But, hey, its not my pool. 

    Hot tub, whatever.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 06, 2007, 07:42:35 AM
    What do I have to do to get a 1:10, karma:post ratio?
    Uh, fifty more hits?
     and stop posting. 

    I suck at math.
     heres one,

    Im fuckin wasted
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 06, 2007, 09:23:20 AM
    'cause I been up since 9am yesterday?

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 06, 2007, 11:02:01 AM
    bump
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: rabidfurby on January 06, 2007, 01:30:11 PM
    Guys, I heard that Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer.

    But of course. It all makes sense now.

    What do I have to do to get a 1:10, karma:post ratio?

    Mine's 1:7 baby! You bitches love me.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2007, 02:22:58 PM
    Guys, I heard that Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer.

    Thank you for finally agreeing with me.

    My, I leave this thread alone for a day and you guys go crazy.  Can't leave you kids alone for a minute...

    Anyway, ask mr. Joe here it won't work to shut me up.  I just post all the more and watch the thread grow when guys "declare war" on my thead.  Ol Joe was posting all kinds of porn back around page 45 or so and all it did was result in a revised policy on the bbs (you are in violation of it by the way...)

    Cheers.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2007, 09:51:59 PM
    Guys, I heard that Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer.

    Thank you for finally agreeing with me.


    When did I ever agree with you?

    It was "tounge-in-cheek", you know, "sarcasim".  You guys are telling me how when you say something that I take one way but you meant it another (so claimed) way.  I guess I can use the same excuse...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2007, 09:54:45 PM
    Wah wah wah Gene don't you have any other topics you are interested in?

    Didn't you see my thread about the new Dodge Challenger??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2007, 10:44:55 PM
    Guys, I heard that Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer.

    Thank you for finally agreeing with me.


    When did I ever agree with you?

    It was "tounge-in-cheek", you know, "sarcasim".  You guys are telling me how when you say something that I take one way but you meant it another (so claimed) way.  I guess I can use the same excuse...

    If you can't comprehend various forms of speech then that's your problem. Aqua never claimed that what he said was fact.

    Amazing how one can use an argument in thier favor and then claim others are unreasonable for using the same argument...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 06, 2007, 10:48:09 PM
    You suck, mister. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2007, 10:51:12 PM
    Wow!! You got me on that one...  You're GOOD!  Have you ever thought of going pro??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 06, 2007, 11:25:04 PM
    bump

    (http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/5236/920237810cbd25d4d3wk4.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on January 06, 2007, 11:54:15 PM
    No bumping.  Bad BJ, bad. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 07, 2007, 12:11:04 AM
    Wow!! You got me on that one...  You're GOOD!  Have you ever thought of going pro??

    Actually, it is a minimalist work I developed which resonates in the minds eye and evokes a mental image of a kid with dirty sneakers.  No, professional humor is not my calling.  Inasmuch as evangelical work is not yours. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: CivilianJones on January 07, 2007, 03:26:37 AM
    (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/IWillFearNoEvil/1161076222114.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on January 07, 2007, 04:08:14 AM
    Ok ok how bout I tell you about the first time I had anal sex or the time I had a threesome with a set of brothers?

    Don't try to one-up me! were they identical twins? I think not.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2007, 07:37:21 AM
    Wow!! You got me on that one...  You're GOOD!  Have you ever thought of going pro??

    Actually, it is a minimalist work I developed which resonates in the minds eye and evokes a mental image of a kid with dirty sneakers.  No, professional humor is not my calling.  Inasmuch as evangelical work is not yours. 

    Hummm, minimalist = Bill Brasky....  O.k. I got it now...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2007, 10:51:06 AM
    Guys, I heard that Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer.

    Thank you for finally agreeing with me.


    When did I ever agree with you?

    It was "tounge-in-cheek", you know, "sarcasim".  You guys are telling me how when you say something that I take one way but you meant it another (so claimed) way.  I guess I can use the same excuse...

    If you can't comprehend various forms of speech then that's your problem. Aqua never claimed that what he said was fact.

    Amazing how one can use an argument in thier favor and then claim others are unreasonable for using the same argument...

    What are you suffering from? Alzheimer's? Dementia? The world wants to know.

    From several thorns in the side...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on January 07, 2007, 04:41:17 PM
    ?WHAT?! No one older one younger. One was hot and the other was meh.

    Well I had identical twins. They were both hot. and gymnasts. I win.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2007, 07:13:09 PM
    Jesus is the way, the truth and the life...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 07, 2007, 07:20:18 PM
    So, how bout them Pentacostals ?  
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2007, 07:28:34 PM
    How about "Jesus Loves you"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 07, 2007, 07:30:00 PM
    Not my favorite bumper sticker. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2007, 07:32:16 PM
    "Jesus Loves the little children..."  It's not really scriptual, but it works...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 07, 2007, 07:33:11 PM
    SATAN.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2007, 07:33:46 PM
    JESUS
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 07, 2007, 07:35:49 PM
    Moloch is all seeing. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on January 07, 2007, 07:38:56 PM
    ?WHAT?! No one older one younger. One was hot and the other was meh.

    Well I had identical twins. They were both hot. and gymnasts. I win.

    Did I mention they were Mormon?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 07, 2007, 07:39:40 PM
    Um, Gene?  By the way, what about them Pentacostals?

    Yes, no, maybe?  Barking moonbats?  Too much lead in their water?  Spiritually pure?  Socially retarded?  
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 07, 2007, 07:46:21 PM
    Well it is good to know that fairytale characters "love" me. You know considering that don't exist and have never met me. I understand if you have a thing for crazy men in robes with beards, I think I can hook you up with a couple.

    I like the crazy men with beards in ZZ Top.  But not in that way. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 07, 2007, 07:51:42 PM
    "Jesus Loves the little children..."  It's not really scriptual, but it works...

    Actually, didn't Jesus say something or other about making the little children suffer?

    I know I suffered a lot of hours sitting in church!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 07, 2007, 07:52:25 PM
    SATAN.

    bump
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on January 07, 2007, 08:02:39 PM
    Mormons are HOT. Case in point:

    (http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o193/reverendryan/7b1623-1-8a8308-0-main.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 07, 2007, 08:03:27 PM
    Oh damn.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on January 07, 2007, 08:42:51 PM
    Just  a friend...lol
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 07, 2007, 08:59:00 PM
    The title pretty much says it all.  The rest is just endless waves pounding against a rocky shore. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2007, 10:05:37 PM
    For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes shall be saved.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 07, 2007, 10:10:04 PM
    It looks like this exorcism could take a while...

    BAAARRRFFF

    Ona domaini, Christicus lovesus..

    MOTHERFUCKER
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 07, 2007, 10:10:16 PM
    For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes shall be saved.

    As I pointed out above, the actual mechanism involved in this has me stymied. After all, if He's God, then He can supposedly do anything. He could have simply saved the world without going through all the gory theatrics.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 07, 2007, 10:21:24 PM
    For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes shall be saved.

    As I pointed out above, the actual mechanism involved in this has me stymied. After all, if He's God, then He can supposedly do anything. He could have simply saved the world without going through all the gory theatrics.

     ..... uh, isnt that like the sixteen year old volunteer fireman/pyromaniac who lights fires so he can go heroicaly extinguish them ? 

    Hmmm... Create the demand.  He is wise, indeed. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 07, 2007, 10:35:41 PM
    Gene, what do you think about Muslim Anarchy being the only sensible answer?

    Hahah. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 07, 2007, 10:36:08 PM
    Gene, what do you think about Muslim Anarchy being the only sensible answer?

    Let's see...the logic of Christianity is that the Bible is the unerring word of God. This is held as true, because the Bible says it's true, and the Bible can't lie, since it's the word of God.

    But, damn--the Koran also says that it is the word of God, so IT TOO must be true!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2007, 10:58:40 PM
    God's wisdom is foolishness to men.  The Bible is not without error.  After all, it has been handed down by men for thousands of years and translated from it's original languages.  Still, it is more accurate than any other historical document and I consider it highly accurate.  I have explained this in the past...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 07, 2007, 11:03:55 PM
    God's wisdom is foolishness to men.  The Bible is not without error.  After all, it has been handed down by men for thousands of years and translated from it's original languages.  Still, it is more accurate than any other historical document and I consider it highly accurate.  I have explained this in the past...

    But, if part of it can be wrong, then who is to say ALL of it might not be mistaken? Certainly, there is no valid, logical reason for assuming the Bible to be the word of God rather than simply the hopeful writings of men. I'd venture to guess that there is SOME truth even in the Koran, as bloody and foul as that book is. Does that make IT the word of God?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 08, 2007, 02:43:40 AM
    Still, it is more accurate than any other historical document and I consider it highly accurate.  I have explained this in the past...

    No, its not.  There are older carvings in stone twice the bibles age that havent changed one iota.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 08, 2007, 02:48:09 AM
    Mormons are HOT. Case in point:


    I hope you checked his ID.  Chickenfucker. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 08, 2007, 05:51:41 AM
    Awww. 

    Lookit wittle smoochy woochy, wants a pat on the head...

    GROWLFSNARL GNASH GAAHH ROWF

    Hey, man.

    Maybe that thing needs to be kept on a shorter leash.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 08, 2007, 07:21:34 AM
    As I've stated previously, I cannot determine which parts of the bible may be inaccurate as it would be impossible to do so.  I have also stated that I believe the accuracy of it to very high.  In the range of 95 to 99%.  I have to simply go by my gut feeling (hopfully with some help from God) as to how to determine exactly what He means and how I should live my life.  It is exactly for these reasons that I have determined that "Christian anarchy is the only sensible answer" and if you check page 1 of this thread, you will see what I wrote there ...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 08, 2007, 08:21:29 AM
    As I've stated previously, I cannot determine which parts of the bible may be inaccurate as it would be impossible to do so.  I have also stated that I believe the accuracy of it to very high.  In the range of 95 to 99%.  I have to simply go by my gut feeling (hopfully with some help from God) as to how to determine exactly what He means and how I should live my life.  It is exactly for these reasons that I have determined that "Christian anarchy is the only sensible answer" and if you check page 1 of this thread, you will see what I wrote there ...

    Well, Gene, I believe the Bible's accuracy to be not very high at all. Oh, I suppose it's pretty good on the geographical stuff, such as the location of certain cities, etc. But, when it comes to pronouncing the word of God, I think it's all made up.

    And, while YOUR gut feelings may tell you what is true or not, they don't do much good when it comes to MY determining reality. My own gut feelings are that the Bible was written by a bunch of men who imagined they were hearing the voice of God when they were actually listening to their own wishful thinking.

    In fact, when it comes to accepting the word of God based on gut feelings, we are in real trouble. Millions of Muslims the world over have gut feelings that tell them the Koran is the word of God. I am sure they are every bit as committed to their beliefs as are you.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 08, 2007, 10:25:12 AM
    As I've stated previously, I cannot determine which parts of the bible may be inaccurate as it would be impossible to do so.  I have also stated that I believe the accuracy of it to very high.  In the range of 95 to 99%.  I have to simply go by my gut feeling (hopfully with some help from God) as to how to determine exactly what He means and how I should live my life.  It is exactly for these reasons that I have determined that "Christian anarchy is the only sensible answer" and if you check page 1 of this thread, you will see what I wrote there ...

    Well, Gene, I believe the Bible's accuracy to be not very high at all. Oh, I suppose it's pretty good on the geographical stuff, such as the location of certain cities, etc. But, when it comes to pronouncing the word of God, I think it's all made up.

    And, while YOUR gut feelings may tell you what is true or not, they don't do much good when it comes to MY determining reality. My own gut feelings are that the Bible was written by a bunch of men who imagined they were hearing the voice of God when they were actually listening to their own wishful thinking.

    In fact, when it comes to accepting the word of God based on gut feelings, we are in real trouble. Millions of Muslims the world over have gut feelings that tell them the Koran is the word of God. I am sure they are every bit as committed to their beliefs as are you.

    An I'm sure that most Muslims (and every other religion) are acting on real feelings regarding thier attempt to reach a true relationship with their Creator God.  All men have the desire to know how it all began and that includes a desire to know Him who "began" it.  It's part of our being and deny it if you will, we all seek that missing "something" in life...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 08, 2007, 10:27:15 AM
    God's wisdom is foolishness to men.  The Bible is not without error.  After all, it has been handed down by men for thousands of years and translated from it's original languages.  Still, it is more accurate than any other historical document and I consider it highly accurate.  I have explained this in the past...

    Yeah, becuase if even ONE of these (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html) is true... The god you believe in is a total fucking JACKASS.


    I'd have to be a dystheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystheism) if I actually believed any of the nonsense in the bible though...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 08, 2007, 11:05:12 AM
    The point is that all men have a built in yearning for their Creator.  I believe that God honors this yearning and will help anyone become "enlightened" who wishes it.  Of course there are many who wish to remain in the dark...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 08, 2007, 11:12:40 AM
    The point is that all men have a built in yearning for their Creator.  I believe that God honors this yearning and will help anyone become "enlightened" who wishes it.  Of course there are many who wish to remain in the dark...

    Yeah, especially if "God" is that asshole that did all the shit I just listed... what a fucking jerk. I can understand why our country is the way it is when you look at the bible.. and see what people 'worship'. Good example "God" is not. It's no wonder we live in a society of "do as I say, and not as I do" personalities.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 08, 2007, 11:50:52 AM
    The point is that all men have a built in yearning for their Creator.  I believe that God honors this yearning and will help anyone become "enlightened" who wishes it.  Of course there are many who wish to remain in the dark...

    Yeah, especially if "God" is that asshole that did all the shit I just listed... what a fucking jerk. I can understand why our country is the way it is when you look at the bible.. and see what people 'worship'. Good example "God" is not. It's no wonder we live in a society of "do as I say, and not as I do" personalities.

    Your childish vulgarities will get no rise out of me.  I see them for what they are.  If you have a real desire to find out if there is a God, He will honor it and will reach you somehow...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 08, 2007, 11:53:05 AM
    (http://johnq.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/hot_jesus_sex_1_1.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 08, 2007, 12:06:24 PM
      All men have the desire to know how it all began and that includes a desire to know Him who "began" it.  It's part of our being and deny it if you will, we all seek that missing "something" in life...

    Apparently, many Christians don't have a desire to know the truth behind reality, since they reject science in favor of their myths. When presented with the facts, they simply ignore them in favor of what they WANT to believe.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 08, 2007, 12:37:52 PM
    There is nothing incompatible between liberty and Christianity. You might try some of the materials from the Advocates for Self-Government, an organization founded by a fundamentalist Christian. http://www.theadvocates.org/library/christian.html
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 08, 2007, 02:13:45 PM
    The point is that all men have a built in yearning for their Creator.  I believe that God honors this yearning and will help anyone become "enlightened" who wishes it.  Of course there are many who wish to remain in the dark...

    Yeah, especially if "God" is that asshole that did all the shit I just listed... what a fucking jerk. I can understand why our country is the way it is when you look at the bible.. and see what people 'worship'. Good example "God" is not. It's no wonder we live in a society of "do as I say, and not as I do" personalities.

    Your childish vulgarities will get no rise out of me.  I see them for what they are.  If you have a real desire to find out if there is a God, He will honor it and will reach you somehow...

    Actually, anyone can see through the fact that you simply don't want to answer me becuase I'm easily going to take you to task in pointing out logically that what you beleive in is the whims of a fictionally created character that is a murderous hypocrite. Rather than getting a rise out of you, you have a need to avoid what I say, becuase reading anything I put in front of you actually causes you emotional pain, becuase it actually touches the core of your beleif system. Denying what I have to say gives you a little "rush" doesn't it?


    Tell the people of Auschwitz, Pompeii, New Orleans, Thailand, Darfur... that god will reach them somehow. Better yet, tell that to the survivors who's families were murdered by (if the concept you accept to be true is such) God. If your God is real then is is the fault of your God, that the evil exists that allows genocide to happen in places such as africa and germany.  If your god is real, then your god is responsible for the disasters that wiped out thailand, pompeii, new orleans... etc. It is your concept of a deity, not mine, that slaughters innocents wholesale.. and ruins the lives of billions of families all over the world.

    If you start personally modifying your definition of what the bible says is true of who god is to DEAL with what I have just pointed out above... then you are willing to "supposedly" edit the words passed down from God himself (supposedly). If you are going to toss that out.. then stop being a coward, and throw out christianity all together... becuase the whole damn thing doesn't make any sense... Think for yourself.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cerpntaxt on January 08, 2007, 02:32:03 PM
    oh no... "Christian Fascism is  the only sensible answer..."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 08, 2007, 02:48:14 PM
      All men have the desire to know how it all began and that includes a desire to know Him who "began" it.  It's part of our being and deny it if you will, we all seek that missing "something" in life...

    Apparently, many Christians don't have a desire to know the truth behind reality, since they reject science in favor of their myths. When presented with the facts, they simply ignore them in favor of what they WANT to believe.

    I have a great deal of respect for the sciences and for scientists who present research that is verifiable and complete.  I do question the evolutionary "tale" as it relies on too much speculation and assumption. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 08, 2007, 02:49:48 PM
    What kind of church do you go to CA? or do you attend a church?
    I'm interested in what the reaction of other chistains have been to your anarchist beliefs.

    Since most of the my family and people I know are christain, I was wondering what might be a good way to approach them when talking about government and the like.

    I go to a small country Presbyterian Church that is not so "Presbyterian".  It's just a bunch of believers who love each other...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 08, 2007, 02:51:17 PM
    There is nothing incompatible between liberty and Christianity. You might try some of the materials from the Advocates for Self-Government, an organization founded by a fundamentalist Christian. http://www.theadvocates.org/library/christian.html

    Indeed, our fictional USA government was created by liberty minded Christians (yes they were - yes so was Jefferson - yes so was Washington...)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 08, 2007, 02:56:34 PM
    I don't get it.

    If there is truly an anarchy, then there's no central agent of force to expel other religions.  And if you go on jihad, you'll be sure to be met with war from a bunch of people who don't want to be forced into one religion, and also from their allies, who don't want people who would force other people to do things to stay in this world.

    Is he trying to say that this would naturally arise?  If so, where's the proof?  If not, then he isn't an anarchist.  When people force their beliefs onto unwilling others, most would call that fascism.

    It seems that this has turned into a religious debate, speculating on the presence or absence of a deity.  That realm is not really for science...we can't disprove it by definition, so I'm not going to even wade into those waters.  I would like to know a) why is Christian anarchy inevitable, b) how you can use force to make this come to pass, when the Christian religion is founded in the virtue of agency?

    I have never said that Christian anarchy is inevitable but I have said it is "sensible".  I point out my reasons in the first post of this thread and for most of the first 15 replies.  If you have additional questions after reviewing those, I'll be glad to answer them. 

    I certainly don't promote the use of force to believe in God.  Such a position is indefensible.  You cannot claim that such participants are "willing" now can you?  I do justify the use of force in defending yourself or your family and even friends and strangers...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 08, 2007, 03:28:32 PM
    I have a great deal of respect for the sciences and for scientists who present research that is verifiable and complete.  I do question the evolutionary "tale" as it relies on too much speculation and assumption. 

    This statement makes no sense whatsoever.
    If you have respect for verifiable and complete research, then you should have no problem with evolution. It is an incontrovertible FACT (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)!


    WOW, have you been sucked in.  Even the scientists I've spoken to (at least most of them) ADMIT that evolution can never be proven.  But I guess you know more...

    Besides, we've beat this dead horse enough for the last two years.  Check the archives...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 08, 2007, 03:42:00 PM
    Even the scientists I've spoken to (at least most of them) ADMIT that evolution can never be proven. But I guess you know more...

    Christian Scientists don't count.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 08, 2007, 03:58:03 PM
      Even the scientists I've spoken to (at least most of them) ADMIT that evolution can never be proven.  But I guess you know more...

    Besides, we've beat this dead horse enough for the last two years.  Check the archives...

    I suggest that you've been speaking to the wrong scientists. Evolution is fairly easy to prove (and, I seem to recall that elsewhere on this board you even agreed that evolution worked within species). For example, IF genetics exists, THEN evolution is inevitable. Now, we know for a fact that genetics DOES exist. Therefore...

    Also, as I pointed out in another thread, Dr. Sean B. Carroll maintains that new evidence using DNA establishes evolution as a certain fact. Sean B. Carroll's book is called The Making of the Fittest. http://www2.wwnorton.com/catalog/fall06/006163.htm
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 08, 2007, 06:26:20 PM
    There is nothing incompatible between liberty and Christianity. You might try some of the materials from the Advocates for Self-Government, an organization founded by a fundamentalist Christian. http://www.theadvocates.org/library/christian.html

    Indeed, our fictional USA government was created by liberty minded Christians (yes they were - yes so was Jefferson - yes so was Washington...)

    For most people, the fact that our nation derives its power from "We the People" rather than a higher authority is not enough justification. I believe it is both immoral and illegal to assert that we live in a Christian country for many ethical reasons.


    There are as many quotes on the other side...

    We could start a "quote" war, but it's pointless and has been done before on this board...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: CivilianJones on January 08, 2007, 06:28:39 PM
    (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/IWillFearNoEvil/545579550Kayin4.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 08, 2007, 06:56:41 PM
    Jezuz. Can I get that in paperback, gandhi?
    :wink:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 08, 2007, 07:00:14 PM
    Gene's whole language is garbled, Gandhi, don't even try. He'll just set up his mental roadblock against any original ideas with which you try to tempt him to think otherwise.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 08, 2007, 07:07:26 PM
    You are correct sir ha- ha- ha.

    Was that Ed McMahon....  The Phil Hartman Version? 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 08, 2007, 09:07:41 PM
    Indeed, our fictional USA government was created by liberty minded Christians (yes they were - yes so was Jefferson - yes so was Washington...)

    Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

    -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

    Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

    You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.

    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819

    Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

    -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

    I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.

    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")

    They believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.

    -Thomas Jefferson,  * On members of the clergy who sought to establish some form of "official" Christianity in the U.S. government. Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush (September 23, 1800)


    Do you want some quotes from Washington too? Jefferson was a DEIST. At least be historically accurate if you have the arrogance to question evolution and the ignorance to NOT question creationism.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 08, 2007, 09:11:20 PM
    And Jefferson rewrote the Bible more to his liking. His Jefferson Bible is still available today.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 08, 2007, 09:20:27 PM
    There are as many quotes on the other side...

    We could start a "quote" war, but it's pointless and has been done before on this board...

    Tha major difference being that... ESPECIALLY in their time.. They would have NOTHING to gain by proclaiming themselves to be athiests, deists, freethinkers, or agnostics... in a country HEAVILY dominated by Christians, Puritans, Catholics and various other religions that, at the time were FAR more militant than today. In fact, they would only have some to gain (votes) by LYING and saying that they were Christians... In fact, the quotes that are religious in nature come from only public speeches, whilst the ANTI-Religious material comes from all their PRIVATE lives, and PRIVATE letters that were only uncovered upon their deaths.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 08, 2007, 09:32:22 PM
    I don't know about that. That was the time of the Enlightenment, when educated people were using rationalism to break the bonds of superstition. Today, we seem to be going backward.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 08, 2007, 09:34:28 PM
    You've gotta be kidding me... You are saying that about the 1700's???????????????????

    Are you batshit?

    I mean.. saying we're going backwards is one thing... being batshit is quite another...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 08, 2007, 09:36:51 PM
    I'm talking about the educated class, not the rabble, who are always eager to accept bullshit from the pulpit.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 08, 2007, 09:41:30 PM
    No, I'm gonna go with... "It was the 1700's"

    and acting like we are somehow going backwards... BEYOND the 1700's... is batshit...

    MAYBE, we're progressing towards... 1970... not 1790...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 08, 2007, 09:44:12 PM
    Well, I could be wrong. Hey--it's happened!  8)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 08, 2007, 10:58:37 PM
    Quote
    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. 
    First off, you need to understand what that word(and its correct spelling is unalienable) means.  The key part is that it stems from the word "lien," a type of tax or rent levied on something you own.  Your rights are your own, they can't be sold or transferred(and this is not just a SHOULDN'T be...they CAN'T be), and nobody can draw a lien on your rights because of it.  They are properties of sentience that simply cannot be transferred, any more than the element Au can transfer its chemical properties to the element Ag.

    WOW !!  Expect me to write a book too??  Anyway, I agree with much of what you say, but you are still wrong about Jefferson.  You say he was a diest but others claim he was a Christian (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28006).  I would say he was a "Christian Anarchist" as am I.  Sure he wrote many things during his life and I'm sure his beliefs changed during that time (mine sure have). 

    I believe you are close to the truth Grasshopper.  If you read more of this thread, you may gain "enlightenment".  Certainly I'm glad that you have discovered Spooner.  I was introduced to his writings in 1978 the last year that I filed a 1040 (how about you?  Do you file??).  I have fought the fight for freedom for over 30 years.  I've lost a great deal to those men who claim they have power to take my money.  I've fought county government when they told me I couldn't build my shop (they stopped bothering me).  Whenever anyone tells me that I can't, I ask them "why"?  QUESTION AUTHORITY (rooted in the 60's - yeah, I was there).

    Your weakest part of your argument about rights is that you have no "authority" for the granting of them other than "sentience".  I say that is NO authority.  I am sentient.  What if I decide that your right to live does NOT exist and I act to make it so?  You certainly have the "right" to stop me, but if you're not successful, then "I win" and you are dead.  No - the "AUTHORITY" for granting rights comes from your Creator.  It is irrelevant whether you believe in Him, our "belief" has no bearing on His existance.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 08, 2007, 11:21:19 PM
    And now, for some bestiality:





























































































































































































































































    Maybe not.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 08, 2007, 11:34:45 PM
    I say it's sentience, becuase sentient beings are the only beings capable of picking up a weapon and defending themselves, or picking up a weapon and defending others... Sentient beings are the only ones capable of understanding truly what freedom even means.

    If power flows from the barrel of a gun, then so does freedom. The only way you are going to be free is to defend it yourself, or to have the sentience to inspire others to defend it for you. Whether that be through business, or some other kind of relationship, or through simple appeals to the empathetic nature of others. Authority comes from power.

    Quote
    Your weakest part of your argument about rights is that you have no "authority" for the granting of them other than "sentience".  I say that is NO authority.  I am sentient.  What if I decide that your right to live does NOT exist and I act to make it so?  You certainly have the "right" to stop me, but if you're not successful, then "I win" and you are dead.  No - the "AUTHORITY" for granting rights comes from your Creator.  It is irrelevant whether you believe in Him, our "belief" has no bearing on His existance.
    If you win and I am dead, I no longer have rights... you do. Freedom, Authority, Power... they all flow from the same source.

    As far as claiming people are Christian... religious folks would claim *I* am Christian if given the chance... It's in the nature of the psychology of this particular cult. "Jesus loves you - you must love Jesus"


    Heh, nice source you quoted..... I'm sure it was well researched... NOT!

    "The real Thomas Jefferson, it turns out, is the ACLU's worst nightmare." mmmmmm hmmmmm.... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

    I mean JESUS dude... look at how they even had to phrase "quotes"... hahahaha so edited it's pathetic...

    Quote
    Jefferson's outlook on religion and government is more fully revealed in another 1802 letter in which he wrote that he did not want his administration to be a "government without religion," but one that would "strengthen Â… religious freedom."

    I bolded the parts that demonstrate just how fucking far out of context they had to take these quotes to peice them together.... I also note that the sheisters who wrote this article... didn't even BOTHER to cite the letter this supposed quote was taken from... SORRY GENE to burst your OBVIOUS bubble of ignorance, but you are following the words of people who even know THEMSELVES that they are lying with edits that big.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: CivilianJones on January 08, 2007, 11:44:08 PM
    And now, for some bestiality:
    (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/IWillFearNoEvil/pope.gif)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 08, 2007, 11:48:11 PM
    And now, for some bestiality:
    (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/IWillFearNoEvil/pope.gif)

    It's pedophilia that is pope approved actually, after all, catholic preists are the representatives of God, and if you read the bible... It's not a stretch to assume that God would condone raping little boys. Read the bible sometime.. you'll see what I mean...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 09, 2007, 12:21:59 AM
    Okay, our panel of experts agrees, Gene the Christian Anarchist is incorrect in stating "Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer." 

    Will Gandhi resume the systematic annihilation of Genes unconventional beliefs? 

    Will Johnson defend his rights of man with the use of reciprocal force? 

    Will Gene resurrect himself from the pile of rubble that was once his palace of funhouse mirrors? 

    Tune in tomorrow and find out on FRAUDBUSTERS!

    (broadcast in HD)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 09, 2007, 12:26:26 AM
    Will Johnson defend his rights of man with the use of reciprocal force? 

    I would defend MYSELF with the use of reciprocal force... I'm honestly too much of a pussy to defend the rights of men with reciprocal force, becuase I don't want to die... However, that said... if there was a large enough army to form... say... in NH... then I might change my mind... but.. I'm not going to be the first... or a revolutionary... or Ted Kaczinski
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 09, 2007, 12:32:02 AM
    No, just yours.  Dont gotta be all fanatical about it.  Thats a good way to get ostracized, runnin around and fixing shit like Batman. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 09, 2007, 02:13:10 AM
    Why do you waste so much time typing so much shit that nobody is going to read? I sure don't.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 07:31:52 AM
    I say it's sentience, becuase sentient beings are the only beings capable of picking up a weapon and defending themselves, or picking up a weapon and defending others... Sentient beings are the only ones capable of understanding truly what freedom even means.

    If power flows from the barrel of a gun, then so does freedom. The only way you are going to be free is to defend it yourself, or to have the sentience to inspire others to defend it for you. Whether that be through business, or some other kind of relationship, or through simple appeals to the empathetic nature of others. Authority comes from power.

    Quote
    Your weakest part of your argument about rights is that you have no "authority" for the granting of them other than "sentience".  I say that is NO authority.  I am sentient.  What if I decide that your right to live does NOT exist and I act to make it so?  You certainly have the "right" to stop me, but if you're not successful, then "I win" and you are dead.  No - the "AUTHORITY" for granting rights comes from your Creator.  It is irrelevant whether you believe in Him, our "belief" has no bearing on His existance.
    If you win and I am dead, I no longer have rights... you do. Freedom, Authority, Power... they all flow from the same source.


    I don't buy your argument.  All you are saying is "might makes right" or reworded "might makes rights".  That means that Hitler had the right to kill the Jews, Christians and homosexuals.  That means that Pol Pot had the right to murder 1 million of his fellow men.  No, "rights" and "right and wrong" have a true beginning from the one who created us.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 07:57:22 AM
    Besides, "others claim" that Christian anarchy is a dumb answer.  Others claim that the sky is green.  Others claim that the universe is infinite in size, and that the universe was created 7,000 years or so ago.  Can you perhaps see why I don't care what "others claim?"

    You say you don't care what "other's claim" yet every time you make reference to what someone else has written, you are caring what they claim, at least enough to quote them or provide them as a reference.  Everything on this board is a reference to something someone heard or read or experienced themselves.  If they experienced something themselves, they tell or write about it and now it becomes something "claimed".  I can "claim" that two plus two is four, but you have to check it out for yourself and this is where the limit to our understanding lies.  We only have so much time in our short time on this ball to check out so many things.  How many of us have the time to research the unified theory?  DNA mapping?  Orbital dynamics?  these are things that would take a lifetime to work on and perhaps still not complete (where is that darn unified theory anyway?)

    As far a Jefferson, he (apparently) wrote many things in the historical period that was his life and many contradict.  You will find that many things I have written (and thought) during my life also contradict.  People change.  Ideas change.  Viewpoints change.  I have no doubt that my views will continue to change hopefully even closer to the truth (yeah, I still have a lot to learn)...  Perhaps you can even teach me something.  I keep an open ear.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 08:16:45 AM
    I don't buy your argument.  All you are saying is "might makes right" or reworded "might makes rights".  That means that Hitler had the right to kill the Jews, Christians and homosexuals.  That means that Pol Pot had the right to murder 1 million of his fellow men.  No, "rights" and "right and wrong" have a true beginning from the one who created us.

    Your God is the ultimate example of Might makes Right.
    "Do as I say my Lambs, because if you do not, you will burn in a fiery torment for all eternity."
    If you God can go around and kill millions of people, inspire men to kill even more people, and threaten humanity with eternal torture if they do not obey his wishes, then perhaps Hitler was simply following your God's example.
    Your God, if he exists has murdered more people than anyone else in history. Hitler was a nice guy by comparison.

    Why is it that you never answer the people who point this out to you? How can you possibly justify the actions of your bloody, brutal, savage creator god?

    If I were given the choice between living under Hitlers rules, or your Gods, I would choose Hitler. The worst he could do to me is torture and kill me. The worst your God can do is torture me for all of eternity, and thats a mighty long time.

    You are sure fixated on hell.  Are you afriad of going there?  I'm sorry but "hell" is an idea that I don't accept.  If you do, you have to work that one out yourself.  I cannot defend a point that I don't agree with (well, I could but I would be acting)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 09, 2007, 09:45:23 AM
    I don't buy your argument.  All you are saying is "might makes right" or reworded "might makes rights".  That means that Hitler had the right to kill the Jews, Christians and homosexuals.  That means that Pol Pot had the right to murder 1 million of his fellow men.  No, "rights" and "right and wrong" have a true beginning from the one who created us.

    Your God is the ultimate example of Might makes Right.
    "Do as I say my Lambs, because if you do not, you will burn in a fiery torment for all eternity."
    If you God can go around and kill millions of people, inspire men to kill even more people, and threaten humanity with eternal torture if they do not obey his wishes, then perhaps Hitler was simply following your God's example.
    Your God, if he exists has murdered more people than anyone else in history. Hitler was a nice guy by comparison.

    Why is it that you never answer the people who point this out to you? How can you possibly justify the actions of your bloody, brutal, savage creator god?

    If I were given the choice between living under Hitlers rules, or your Gods, I would choose Hitler. The worst he could do to me is torture and kill me. The worst your God can do is torture me for all of eternity, and thats a mighty long time.

    You are sure fixated on hell.  Are you afriad of going there?  I'm sorry but "hell" is an idea that I don't accept.  If you do, you have to work that one out yourself.  I cannot defend a point that I don't agree with (well, I could but I would be acting)...


    Why not throw out the rest of the bible as well then? If you are getting rid of parts of it, why not simply create your own religion and be a fuckin' individual...? As opposed to a mewling lamb.

    I won't argue the existence of a god or gods... I don't know that... no one can. It's a pointless and endless debate.

    What is debatable, is the existence of "Jesus", the idea of creationism (which is utterly stupid), and the idea that morality comes from a higher power.... those falsehoods can be discussed with great vigor.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 10:07:42 AM
    Who is "others?"  Why are "others" important?  Did "others" go to college?  Have a Ph.D.?  Are "others" qualified to speak, on any topic?

    Whenever I've made a direct reference, it's very clear who the source is.  Any indirect reference is well-accepted fact.  When you just go on a hunt to find some person that agrees with what you believe, and then say "others" agree with you, that adds absolutely no credibility to your argument, especially when those "others" are completely crazy, non-professional "historians," incredibly POLITICALLY weighted layman bloggers.

    What, no attempt to deny the original draft of the Declaration's Preamble?

    You were the one who said you didn't care what "others" said so I guess who "others" are is a question for you.  I don't know what your thinking process was.  As far as denying the original draft, why would I attempt to do that?  I've not disputed it nor is it even an issue I find important or interesting.  I would bet there were many "drafts" of the preamble.  So what?

    You still don't get it.  EVERYTHING you post (you is inclusive here to mean everyone including myself) that you haven't experienced yourself is something that you have heard from someone else who claims to have some knowledge.  You have to take their word for it since few of us have the time to check out everything ourselves.  If that person has a PhD, so what?  My wife has three degrees in science (including a Doctorate) and she believes in God.  She grew up in China where she was taught from her youth that there was no God.  She actually thought it was funny when I first told her I believed in God.  I cannot claim credit for her change in belief as it has come about mostly by osmosis in mingling with others who have a belief in God.  And quite frankly, she is the most brilliant educated woman I have ever met or perhaps will ever meet.  I certainly am humbled by her knowledge.  I also know some PhD's who can't put two words together coherently so what difference does a few letters after your name mean anyway?  Since my wife has B.S, M.S., PhD after her name are you now going to believe in God???

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 09, 2007, 10:23:22 AM
    If you believe what you just said, then why the fuck do you keep quoting people to us that don't even HAVE any credentials...

    At least someone with a Ph.D, MS, and BS isn't some fucking drunk homeless jackass off the street.

    At least a we know that a person with a PhD , MS, and BS didn't start their life by trying to make their money by BEING a sheister who robs people by telling them fables, or by coaxing them into believing something.

    When a skeptic quotes sources, it's to let you know why the person is being quoted, and to let you know that the person being quoted is not simply someone who's whole goal in life it to try and prove the point at hand.

    Religious people always tend to quote... well... OTHER religious folks.

    Skeptics quote... historians, scientists, experts, philsophers.... etc etc... Some MIGHT even be religious themselves.

    Essentially, we know you are like a car salesmen for god... You are GOING to lie. So, like a car salesman... We need to know what your sources are.. becuase they are likely lies... A car salesman quoting statistics... Is likely to quote the statistics written by his dealership, or by car salesman magazine... becuase those statistics make his pitch sound better... They are not the reliable and more likely honest statistics written in say... consumer reports... or a news magazine, or an UNBIASED source.

    You, like a Psychic quoting from "Psychic's Monthly Guide to Fleecing Rubes" always tend to quote sources that are salesmen JUST LIKE YOU... so... why the hell should we even bother to keep talking to you if you aren't going to cut that shit out?

    Make sense now.............. chump? (sorry if I wasn't speaking for you at all ghandi)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 10:25:03 AM
    If you believe what you just said, then why the fuck do you keep quoting people to us that don't even HAVE any credentials...

    At least someone with a Ph.D, MS, and BS isn't some fucking drunk homeless jackass off the street.


    And what kind of degree did Gandhi have (the real one, not the imposter on this board)...

    From Wikipedia:

    Gandhi believed that at the core of every religion was Truth and Love (compassion, nonviolence and the Golden Rule). He also questioned hypocrisy, malpractices and dogma in all religions and was a tireless social reformer. Some of his comments on various religions are:

        "Thus if I could not accept Christianity either as a perfect, or the greatest religion, neither was I then convinced of Hinduism being such. Hindu defects were pressingly visible to me. If untouchability could be a part of Hinduism, it could but be a rotten part or an excrescence. I could not understand the raison d'etre of a multitude of sects and castes. What was the meaning of saying that the Vedas were the inspired Word of God? If they were inspired, why not also the Bible and the Koran? As Christian friends were endeavouring to convert me, so were Muslim friends. Abdullah Sheth had kept on inducing me to study Islam, and of course he had always something to say regarding its beauty." (source: his autobiography)

        "As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side."

        "The sayings of Muhammad are a treasure of wisdom, not only for Muslims but for all of mankind."

    Later in his life when he was asked whether he was a Hindu, he replied:

        "Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 09, 2007, 10:34:32 AM
    always tend to quote sources that are salesmen JUST LIKE YOU...

    Why don't you answer my earlier assertion about you throwing out parts of the bible...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 09, 2007, 10:42:29 AM
    How's the conversion to Atheism going? Muahhahahhahahahhaa. Ain't gonna happen.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 09, 2007, 10:48:28 AM
    i'm not one... so i suspect i'd do a bad job trying to convert someone to it....
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 09, 2007, 10:49:37 AM
    i'm not one... so i suspect i'd do a bad job trying to convert someone to it....

    Saying you're not trying to get him to refute Xtianity is like saying I'm not fat.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 11:43:48 AM
    always tend to quote sources that are salesmen JUST LIKE YOU...

    Why don't you answer my earlier assertion about you throwing out parts of the bible...

    Well, if you have read what I've said in the past or heard me on the show, you would know that I not only do not deny throwing out parts of the Bible, I have stated that I do.  So what am I supposed to be answering???
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 11:45:13 AM
    i'm not one... so i suspect i'd do a bad job trying to convert someone to it....

    Saying you're not trying to get him to refute Xtianity is like saying I'm not fat.


    You're not fat, just weight challenged...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 11:50:44 AM

    You are sure fixated on hell.  Are you afriad of going there?  I'm sorry but "hell" is an idea that I don't accept.  If you do, you have to work that one out yourself.  I cannot defend a point that I don't agree with (well, I could but I would be acting)...

    Am I afraid of going to hell? No. Why would I be?

    -------------Lots of bible quotes about hell removed as we have heard them before-----------


    You sure haven't ever heard me harping on hell, so you really should take this subject up with someone who does.

    I have stated in the past that I believe all these things are alegorical.  I think that "hell" is the pain one feels in their soul when they discover how they have denied the existance of their very Creator.  I feel that after some time of regret and remorse, these people eventually make their peace with God and are accepted into the kingdom.  Don't forget the verse that says God is not willing that any should perish...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: CivilianJones on January 09, 2007, 01:09:25 PM
    I'd just like to point out two things.

    First: If my going to heaven or hell DID depend on my believing in God or not, and not whether I lived a good life as a good person, then I wouldn't want to believe in that kind of God anyway.  On principle that judging people about whether they believe in you or not is not a good way to judge someone.

    Second: Jesus was the first fucking zombie!
    (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/IWillFearNoEvil/ZOMBIE_JESUS.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 01:52:59 PM

    You sure haven't ever heard me harping on hell, so you really should take this subject up with someone who does.

    I have stated in the past that I believe all these things are alegorical.  I think that "hell" is the pain one feels in their soul when they discover how they have denied the existance of their very Creator.  I feel that after some time of regret and remorse, these people eventually make their peace with God and are accepted into the kingdom.  Don't forget the verse that says God is not willing that any should perish...

    Are you going to continue to not answer my question about how you justify your love of a brutal, murdering God? Why? Can you justify it? Do you love Murder? Or do you only think murder is wrong if it isn't 'God' who does it? What about "Thou shall not kill" Oh, wait, I forgot, he is the sky-daddy, and the typical Dad answer is 'do as I say, not as I do.' I guess your God never heard of leading by example.


    Look, I don't BELIEVE in a murdering God, so I cannot justify love of one.  I don't KNOW a murdering God so I can't comment.  If you know of one, then comment all you want but don't expect me to jump through any hoops for you.  This board is not moderated...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 03:39:03 PM
    Don't you believe in the God from the Bible?

    I believe in "The God"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 03:40:49 PM
    So all of those things that I listed from the most accurate book in history, the Word of your God, they were what? Lies? Misconceptions? Misunderstandings? Allegory? I am really confused now.
    Are you a Christian or not? Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God or not? Do you believe he did the things that the Bible says he did or not?

    I believe that Christ is the Son of God and provides for salvation for all.  I say that makes me a Christian (hence the root "Christ").  If you claim I'm not one, we'll just have to let God be the tiebreaker...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 03:41:39 PM
    Don't even try.  It's called cognitive dissonance.

    He just starts with a vague definition, then when this doesn't hold, he readjusts his definition, then once that is refuted, he flat out denies and CHANGES his definition.

    Sounds alot like someone impersonating "Ghandi" to me...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 03:43:50 PM
    Don't even try.  It's called cognitive dissonance.

    He just starts with a vague definition, then when this doesn't hold, he readjusts his definition, then once that is refuted, he flat out denies and CHANGES his definition.

    Quote from:  answers.com
    cognitive dissonance (http://www.answers.com/topic/cognitive-dissonance)
    n. Psychology.

    A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing the slaughter of animals and eating meat.


    Kinda like Gandhi (the real one, not our impersonator) when he experimented with meat eating.  He did not accept all the teachings of Hindu either, but most today say he was one...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: l_ron_hubbard on January 09, 2007, 04:48:05 PM
    So all of those things that I listed from the most accurate book in history, the Word of your God, they were what? Lies? Misconceptions? Misunderstandings? Allegory? I am really confused now.
    Are you a Christian or not? Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God or not? Do you believe he did the things that the Bible says he did or not?

    I believe that Christ is the Son of God and provides for salvation for all.  I say that makes me a Christian (hence the root "Christ").  If you claim I'm not one, we'll just have to let God be the tiebreaker...

    Okay Gene, You are a Christian.
    You are a Christian who believes that 'The Bible' is the most accurate book in history, and that most of it is bullshit.
    You are a Christian who has respect for Science, yet you discount any science that disagrees with your ideas.
    You claim that Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer, and then proceed to speak nonsense.

    I, like you, picked certain things about the bible that I chose to believe and discarded the rest.
    After separating the wheat from the Chaff I have come up with my own version of the Bible (much like Jefferson).
    Here it is in its entirety.

    The book of Wolf
    1. Love your neighbor (and people who live far away)
    2. You shouldn't steal
    3. You shouldn't lie.
    4. You shouldn't hurt people who are not hurting you.
    Amen.

    I know that #4 isn't really in your book, but I thought that I would add my own personal touch.

    You don't have to believe a single word of the bible and still believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the son of god.  There are many historical accounts for his existence... the conclusion of him being related to a deity is just a faith-based issue which doesn't need the bible.

    I see no evidence for super natural beings since most accounts of such people come from times when people were stupid, ignorant, and scared; therefore, i choose atheism mixed in with various forms of spirituality. 

    That said, anarchy doesn't need Christianity to survive.  It needs courageous and moral people, nothing more, nothing less.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 09, 2007, 06:22:56 PM
    So, bottom line, CA maintains that Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer. Except that he gives no valid reasons why, or why Christianity ought to be selected over any of the other religions out there. His only claim is that a)he knows Christianity is true, since he can feel it in his gut, and b) some parts of the Bible seem to be true.

    Case closed. Can we hang up this thread now?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 09, 2007, 06:26:55 PM
    He's also not even a real 'Christian' becuase he throws out some of the bible... and the biblical literalists wouldn't even accept him as one of their own... I suppose in a loose sense of the word, he is some sort of protestant sect of his own design.

    Genecopalians.... Gene of Latter Day Saints... Generans, Genevangelicals, Geneodists, Genelican, Genepostalic, Geneonite... I'm not sure what he'd call it....

    always tend to quote sources that are salesmen JUST LIKE YOU...

    Why don't you answer my earlier assertion about you throwing out parts of the bible...

    Well, if you have read what I've said in the past or heard me on the show, you would know that I not only do not deny throwing out parts of the Bible, I have stated that I do.  So what am I supposed to be answering???

    I'll repeat

    Quote
    Why not throw out the rest of the bible as well then? If you are getting rid of parts of it, why not simply create your own religion and be a fuckin' individual...? As opposed to a mewling lamb.

    I won't argue the existence of a god or gods... I don't know that... no one can. It's a pointless and endless debate.

    What is debatable, is the existence of "Jesus", the idea of creationism (which is utterly stupid), and the idea that morality comes from a higher power.... those falsehoods can be discussed with great vigor.

    Why call yourself a Christian? Do you REALLY feel the need to identify with the flock of sheep?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 06:42:33 PM
    Okay Gene, You are a Christian.
    You are a Christian who believes that 'The Bible' is the most accurate book in history, and that most of it is bullshit.
    You are a Christian who has respect for Science, yet you discount any science that disagrees with your ideas.
    You claim that Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer, and then proceed to speak nonsense.

    I, like you, picked certain things about the bible that I chose to believe and discarded the rest.
    After separating the wheat from the Chaff I have come up with my own version of the Bible (much like Jefferson).
    Here it is in its entirety.


    OK Brian, you are an athiest.
    You are an athiest who believes that "The Bible" is the most inaccurate book in history, and that you agree with most of it.
    You are an athiest who has no respect for Science, you agree with any science that agrees with your ideas.
    You claim that Christian Anarchy is not the answer and then proceed to speak nonsense.

    See, I can put words in your mouth that you haven't said too...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 06:45:31 PM

    Lots of self serving back slapping deleted...

    Quote
    I win, you lose.  Didn't I say I was smarter than you?  And what are you going to do about it?

    Hey, the real Gandhi would be so proud of you.  I bet he would have liked to be more like you...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 06:47:41 PM
    That said, anarchy doesn't need Christianity to survive.  It needs courageous and moral people, nothing more, nothing less.


    Very good, L Ron, but from whence comes "morals" and who defines them?  Some people have thought it "moral" to eat the neighboring tribes for breakfast...  I guess it's OK then...  Whatever floats your boat!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 06:48:48 PM
    So, bottom line, CA maintains that Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer. Except that he gives no valid reasons why, or why Christianity ought to be selected over any of the other religions out there. His only claim is that a)he knows Christianity is true, since he can feel it in his gut, and b) some parts of the Bible seem to be true.

    Case closed. Can we hang up this thread now?

    Oh come on now, you guys know you won't let it alone...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 06:50:46 PM
    He's also not even a real 'Christian' becuase he throws out some of the bible... and the biblical literalists wouldn't even accept him as one of their own...


    And who gets to define "Christian"?  You?  Do you cite "biblical literalists" as your source of authority?  It's so nice of you to put your faith in them.  I'm sure they appreciate it.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 08:57:28 PM

    It's very simple.  Morality is those things which further the progression of society.  Immorality is those things which digress it.  If you apply adaptation theory to communities and societies, morals are those truths which end up serving that society, and the more universal truths end up serving the largest communities, in a more connected world.  You don't have to be religious to have morals...this is probably the biggest misconception about atheists.  You also don't need a sentient hand for these things to be true.  My idea is very simple: Just leave me alone, and I'll do the same for you.  In 200 years, when your society is dead and mine is prosperous, then we can decide who's answer was more "sensible."


    So "morality" is free to slither and move around to whatever "furthers" the progression of society, huh?  Did you ever see "Logan's Run"??  The furtherance of that society demanded that everyone be vaporized at the age of 30.  It was very "logical".  There was only so much resource to go around so everyone was allotted a 30 year span after which you must step aside so another can take your place.  It's extremely "moral" using your definition...  Besides, wasn't that L.Ron's place to respond to a question posed to him or do you answer for everyone...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 09:37:41 PM

    Morality is absolute.  Opinion is subjective...

    Yes, and the "absolute" value of morality is "defined" by the "Creator"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 09:46:17 PM

    Quote
    Yes, and the "absolute" value of morality is "defined" by the "Creator"...
    Says who?


    Says me !  Didn't you read above where I said it??  Please pay attention...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 10:09:36 PM
    Quote
    Says me !  Didn't you read above where I said it??  Please pay attention...
    And why should we care what you think, especially as you are unable to provide a logical reasoning for why what you "says" has any merit?

    Tacos are the best food in the world!!!!  Says me!  Refute THAT!

    Well, this is the logic you are using all along so at least you are consistant...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 09, 2007, 10:12:33 PM
    He's also not even a real 'Christian' becuase he throws out some of the bible... and the biblical literalists wouldn't even accept him as one of their own...



    And who gets to define "Christian"?  You?  Do you cite "biblical literalists" as your source of authority?  It's so nice of you to put your faith in them.  I'm sure they appreciate it.

    Hrm, I kinda thought that was what the BIBLE was for. But I guess I can  start calling myself a Christian, becuase I DON'T believe in christ. You say that doesn't make sense? Welll... I mean, since according to you the Bible isn't relevant to defining what the word Christian means... I suppose I can say "Jesus Christ is a shitfucker" and still call myself a GOOD CHRISTIAN, and be absolutely as correct as you... according to your definition.

    I will repeat it a 3rd time... ignoring it one more time shows what a fucking COMPLETE coward and bullshitter you are... and it will be something I will remember to address with you at every chance I get.

    Quote
    Why not throw out the rest of the bible as well then? If you are getting rid of parts of it, why not simply create your own religion and be a fuckin' individual...? As opposed to a mewling lamb.

    I won't argue the existence of a god or gods... I don't know that... no one can. It's a pointless and endless debate.

    What is debatable, is the existence of "Jesus", the idea of creationism (which is utterly stupid), and the idea that morality comes from a higher power.... those falsehoods can be discussed with great vigor.

    Why call yourself a Christian? Do you REALLY feel the need to identify with the flock of sheep?

    Just to clarify there are four distinct questions there...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Slacker on January 09, 2007, 10:34:30 PM
    I just wanted to make the 1400th post on this thread. I'm so shallow.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 09, 2007, 10:53:39 PM
    I just wanted to make the 1400th post on this thread. I'm so shallow.

    heheh STOLEN!  :shock:  :lol:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 11:02:55 PM
    I will repeat it a 3rd time...



    Please, repeat it a 4th and 5th time... I'm not your slave to do your bidding.  I will put out what I believe and why I do so.  If others want to ponder on what I say, let them ponder.  If you don't want to, then don't.  I don't control you and you sure don't control me.  While you're at it, repeat a 6th time.  It's not like all I have to do is answer your questions.  If you seemed to really be interested in an answer, I might spend more time at it but otherwise, I'll just have fun with it...

    Oh yeah, and for the record, THIS is the 1400th post... (at least for the time being)

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2007, 11:08:22 PM
    The only world that matters for this tangible lifetime is the observable one, the supportable by others observations...or MAYBE I'm just part of your consciousness, created by you because for some reason you need some opposition...>.>  Think about THAT for a while.


    Hey, where's your source for the above??  Sounds like an unsubstantiated opinion to me.  Isn't that what you are accusing me of??  Kettle calling the pot black (bet you never heard that one before).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 09, 2007, 11:25:38 PM
    Hum be dum, hum be dum oh oh, hum be dum, hum be dum oh oh...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 09, 2007, 11:48:00 PM
    Now you're getting it!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 09, 2007, 11:48:52 PM
    It's like trying to covert people into libertarians. Either you are or you ain't.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 09, 2007, 11:50:41 PM
    I will repeat it a 3rd time...



    Please, repeat it a 4th and 5th time... I'm not your slave to do your bidding.  I will put out what I believe and why I do so.  If others want to ponder on what I say, let them ponder.  If you don't want to, then don't.  I don't control you and you sure don't control me.  While you're at it, repeat a 6th time.  It's not like all I have to do is answer your questions.  If you seemed to really be interested in an answer, I might spend more time at it but otherwise, I'll just have fun with it...

    Oh yeah, and for the record, THIS is the 1400th post... (at least for the time being)



    Of course you aren't my slave... Like I said... Your unwillingness in answering a simple and obvious question about your belief system, clearly demonstrates how full of shit you are. It reveals your cowardess, and what your true intent here is... To waste time. You aren't trying to actively have any sort of discussion of philosophy or discuss your beliefs or anyone else's. You are here to A. Prosteletyze and barring success B. Waste the time of anyone that might disagree with you.

    It's lunacy to think that anyone here would ever be suckered by your faux-socratic-method BS. The best you can even hope for is wasting a bunch of people's time... and since you change the subject by only answering partial segments of posts every single time your logic is answered by an athiest or agnostic, using YOUR OWN terms and words... It is quite obvious that is your intent. Not to have a discussion, but instead to waste time. To simply see how long you can drag this on for...

    It's pretty obvious WHY you are doing it too... (and maybe I can see this becuase, as a non-atheist I don't think inside the same box) You are doing it becuase you have an understanding of how some Atheists THINK... (It's like an episode of Star Trek the next Generation actually)

    You have taken the role of DATA (the Android) in this...

    Quote
    In "Peak Performance," an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, an obnoxious alien who is a master of a game called Strategema defeats the android Data. In a rematch Data plays an obstinately defensive strategy, declining even the most promising attacks, until the master of the game resigns in a fury, unable to win. Pity the poor alien, for Data did more than defeat him; he demonstrated that the game to which he had devoted himself was indecisive, and hence futile.

    I see what you are doing... I understand it, and since it's obvious you are refusing to actually have any sort of discussion, I will be the first to part ways.

    So long, Gene the "I'm not actually a Christian according to the Bible, I just call myself one so I can identify with the sheep that make up the majority of society" Anarchist.  There's no reason for me to try to have a discussion with someone who doesn't want to participate.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2007, 07:57:03 AM
    Of course you aren't my slave... Like I said... Your unwillingness in answering a simple and obvious question about your belief system, clearly demonstrates how full of shit you are. It reveals your cowardess, and what your true intent here is... To waste time. You aren't trying to actively have any sort of discussion of philosophy or discuss your beliefs or anyone else's.

    You are here trying to waste my time answering your facetious questions.  You have no interest in the question or the answer.  I understood that early on.  I provided some answers and you come back with anger and ridicule.  Now I'm a big boy and I can take your crap, but I sure don't have to waste my time answering endless questions that you really have no interest in what I have to say.  Sometimes, however, I do answer them just in case it may benefit someone else reading here.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2007, 09:51:29 AM
    You have stated that you believe that 'The Bible' is the most accurate book in history, numerous times.

    Yes... I did...

    Quote
    You have also stated that you do not believe that God murdered anybody.

    No... I didn't...

    Quote

    You have claimed that you have respect for Science, yet in the face of incontrovertible scientific evidence of evolution,

    Incontrovertible by your definition...

    Quote

    *You claim that Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer, and then proceed to speak nonsense.

    Bibity bobbity, hooh hah, ramma ramma bing bong...

    Quote
    The title of this thread is "Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer" yet very little of what you say makes logical sense.

    If I am misinterpreting what you say, please enlighten me.

    Zap!  You're enlightened...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2007, 09:54:00 AM

    Morals come from individuals. People must decide for themselves what they believe to be moral.


    Yeah, and some say it is "moral" to cut people up and eat their liver with fava beans and a nice Chianti (sorry, just couldn't help myself)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 10, 2007, 10:21:27 AM
    I think I've made it pretty clear and have said that I would be interested in hearing some real answers from you. As I've also said before though, it's quite obvious you aren't going to provide answers to any meaningful questions, becuase you are playing a game. You've just demonstrated it again.

    In one sense, you are correct, the way I ask questions of you is more to mock you and present a case for your dishonesty to the others participating. You are correct in that I don't care what your answer will be, becuase I have known from the beginning that it would be more of this meaningless bullshit. You've been doing this on the BBS for over a year now I think. I never expect any real answers to questions about your beliefs,  and if they magically appeared... I'd be shocked. I doubt that will ever happen though, and I encourage others to take note of the questions I have asked Gene, and ponder why he won't answer them. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 10, 2007, 10:55:05 AM
    Brian, stop.. save yourself the time and effort... You have also just proven he's a liar... So, bail out and be done with it... Why keep dealing with this unethical sonofabitch?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 10, 2007, 11:17:38 AM
    It may be useful in that it might appeal to others reading this board, who may come to realize just how specious CA's position is.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2007, 11:59:54 AM
    You have also stated that you do not believe that God murdered anybody.

    Quote
    No... I didn't...

    You sure as hell did. On this very thread. On January 09, 2007, at 01:52:59 pm

    Look, I don't BELIEVE in a murdering God, so I cannot justify love of one.  I don't KNOW a murdering God so I can't comment.  If you know of one, then comment all you want but don't expect me to jump through any hoops for you.  This board is not moderated...
    [/size][/color]

    I meant that I didn't say that God murders (and I don't)...  YOUR premise that the Bible is full of instances of God murdering is wrong.  A belief in the afterlife means that God only transfers your address from one place to another when you die, hence, it's not "murder".  If you look at the definition of the word, it refers to when one MAN intentionally takes the life of another MAN.  If a lion takes your life, it's not "murder"...

    Quote
    To Hannibal Lecter cutting people up an eating them is moral. To me an you its not. Regardless of what Sky Daddy thinks, it does not change that fact.

    I'm glad you made this clear.  Hitler, I'm sure is cheering you on from his grave (if that's possible).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2007, 12:02:09 PM

    In one sense, you are correct, the way I ask questions of you is more to mock you and present a case for your dishonesty to the others participating. You are correct in that I don't care what your answer will be,


    Thanks for agreeing with me.  I am ALWAYS correct (well, at least 51% of the time - same thing)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2007, 12:32:27 PM
    To you, worshing a god who brutally KILLS (I did not say murder this time) millions of people, afflicts them with horrible illnesses, condones slavery and the subjugation women is perfectly fine. To you it is moral.
    Personally I find the very idea repusive. To me it is immoral.
    Who are you to tell me I am wrong? If you have proof to the contrary lets hear it.

    YOU are the one attributing all of the above to God (whom you claim to not believe in) with NO EVIDENCE to support YOUR claims.  Why should I respond to such nonsence??  YOU do not have the ability to see God's actions or motives - or do you??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2007, 02:06:09 PM
    Quote
    To Hannibal Lecter cutting people up an eating them is moral. To me an you its not. Regardless of what Sky Daddy thinks, it does not change that fact.
    Quote
    I'm glad you made this clear.  Hitler, I'm sure is cheering you on from his grave (if that's possible).

    Quote
    What specifically do you mean by that? What is your point? Are you just trying to be a dick or do you actually have something to say? What does it prove that Hitler thought what he was doing was Moral? I don't think it was. That does not change the fact that HE thinks it was.
    If you have some proof that people do not determine their own morality then lets hear it.
    To you, worshiping a god who brutally KILLS (I did not say murder this time) millions of people, afflicts them with horrible illnesses, condones slavery and the subjugation women is perfectly fine. To you it is moral.
    Personally I find the very idea repulsive. To me it is immoral.
    Who are you to tell me I am wrong? If you have proof to the contrary lets hear it.

    Oh, and by the way thank you for once again ignoring my direct question.
    I guess you were just trying to be a dick. Congratulations, you succeeded.
    How very Christian of you.


    A little child can stomp their feet and cry for attention and most times they get it.  I, however, do not respond to such...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2007, 02:08:09 PM

    YOU are the one attributing all of the above to God (whom you claim to not believe in) with NO EVIDENCE to support YOUR claims.  Why should I respond to such nonsence??  YOU do not have the ability to see God's actions or motives - or do you??

    I don't believe in Sky Daddy. YOU claim to. YOU keep using "The Bible" as some sort of evidence to support your claims. Yet, when I bring up things that are clearly stated in "The Bible" then it is not evidence. Which is it Gene? Is "The Bible" true or not?


    Already asked and answered.  Need another "hit"??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 10, 2007, 02:12:36 PM
    CA has failed repeatedly to offer up any logical evidence why anyone ought to accept Christianity as true. (Evidence does not include a self-referencing book that states itself to be true. In any case, he as often stated that he accepts as valid only those portions of the Bible that he feels are true.)

    Therefore, this entire discussion is moot.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2007, 02:19:50 PM
    CA has failed repeatedly to offer up any logical evidence why anyone ought to accept Christianity as true. (Evidence does not include a self-referencing book that states itself to be true. In any case, he as often stated that he accepts as valid only those portions of the Bible that he feels are true.)

    Therefore, this entire discussion is moot.

    Oh, but I did offer up many "logical" reasons why Christianity is true many many pages back.  Of course we've all forgotten it now.  I will repost things after a period of time as I know that it's alot of trouble to go through the older posts...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 10, 2007, 03:18:05 PM
    I'd like to add that Hitler was a devout Christian who said that he was doing what he was doing because God told him to, in fact, he'd likely be cheering on those that claim to be Christians.

    Quote
    "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

    “Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success.  This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain.” 
    –Adolf Hitler

    Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
    -Galatians 2:16

     
    To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
    -Romans 3:26-28
    I guess Hitler is cheering Gene on "from heaven".
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on January 10, 2007, 03:27:06 PM
    I'd like to add that Hitler was a devout Christian who said that he was doing what he was doing because God told him to, in fact, he'd likely be cheering on those that claim to be Christians.

    Quote
    "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

    “Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success.  This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain.” 
    –Adolf Hitler

    Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
    -Galatians 2:16

     
    To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
    -Romans 3:26-28
    I guess Hitler is cheering Gene on "from heaven".


    I think the Christians just got owned.   :lol: :lol: :lol:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2007, 04:01:37 PM
    I'd like to add that Hitler was a devout Christian who said that he was doing what he was doing because God told him to, in fact, he'd likely be cheering on those that claim to be Christians.

    Quote
    "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

    “Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success.  This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain.” 
    –Adolf Hitler

    Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
    -Galatians 2:16

     
    To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
    -Romans 3:26-28
    I guess Hitler is cheering Gene on "from heaven".


    Maybe he is...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on January 10, 2007, 04:33:25 PM
    I'd like to add that Hitler was a devout Christian who said that he was doing what he was doing because God told him to, in fact, he'd likely be cheering on those that claim to be Christians.

    Quote
    "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

    “Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success.  This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain.” 
    –Adolf Hitler

    Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
    -Galatians 2:16

     
    To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
    -Romans 3:26-28
    I guess Hitler is cheering Gene on "from heaven".


    Maybe he is...

    Let us know when you have finished executing the final solution. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2007, 06:06:56 PM
    :| this is the thread that never ends
    yes its goes on and on my friend
    some people started posting in it, not knowing what it was
    and they'll keep posting in it forever just because...............reapeat

    Because Jesus is ETERNAL !!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cerpntaxt on January 10, 2007, 06:08:32 PM
    :| this is the thread that never ends
    yes its goes on and on my friend
    some people started posting in it, not knowing what it was
    and they'll keep posting in it forever just because...............reapeat

    Because Jesus is ETERNAL !!
    Alright, I'm convinced.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2007, 06:32:00 PM
    So Jesus is eternal... like lambchops?

    Why bring up a fuzzy puppet??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Tommy on January 10, 2007, 09:18:18 PM
    O.K. I'll have to bite.  What's the reference to a fuzzy puppet?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Tommy on January 10, 2007, 09:25:17 PM
    "This is the song that never ends..."

    Did you guys ever watch the show?

    Sorry, I don't follow.  Where does the fuzzy puppet come into the equasion?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Brian Wolf on January 10, 2007, 09:52:14 PM
    Quote
    To Hannibal Lecter cutting people up an eating them is moral. To me an you its not. Regardless of what Sky Daddy thinks, it does not change that fact.
    Quote
    I'm glad you made this clear.  Hitler, I'm sure is cheering you on from his grave (if that's possible).

    Quote
    What specifically do you mean by that? What is your point? Are you just trying to be a dick or do you actually have something to say? What does it prove that Hitler thought what he was doing was Moral? I don't think it was. That does not change the fact that HE thinks it was.
    If you have some proof that people do not determine their own morality then lets hear it.
    To you, worshiping a god who brutally KILLS (I did not say murder this time) millions of people, afflicts them with horrible illnesses, condones slavery and the subjugation women is perfectly fine. To you it is moral.
    Personally I find the very idea repulsive. To me it is immoral.
    Who are you to tell me I am wrong? If you have proof to the contrary lets hear it.

    Oh, and by the way thank you for once again ignoring my direct question.
    I guess you were just trying to be a dick. Congratulations, you succeeded.
    How very Christian of you.


    A little child can stomp their feet and cry for attention and most times they get it.  I, however, do not respond to such...

    Wow, I ask  you to act like a man and hold up your end of the conversation, you continue to act like an immature jerk, and somehow that makes me childish?
    Know what I think? I think that you don't answer because you cant. This whole idea of yours is not some great philosophical idea that you have developed. It pure ignorance. And since you are an ignorant person, it makes perfect sense to you.

    Have a good time wasting your life worshiping your invisible zombie god, and acting like a total jerk.

    I guess I should not expect any less from a Christian. They have been acting like jerks since they started their stupid cult.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Tommy on January 10, 2007, 10:39:11 PM
    Sorry wolf but I have to say that you sound pretty childish to me.  You resort to name calling and ad honimum attacks.  Sounds like you're just a guilty as CA to me.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: l_ron_hubbard on January 10, 2007, 11:04:33 PM
    That said, anarchy doesn't need Christianity to survive.  It needs courageous and moral people, nothing more, nothing less.


    Very good, L Ron, but from whence comes "morals" and who defines them?  Some people have thought it "moral" to eat the neighboring tribes for breakfast...  I guess it's OK then...  Whatever floats your boat!

    correct me if i'm wrong, but the major backbone of "christian morals" are from the 10 commandments... which are in fact jewish.  So i don't see how your above argument really holds water in a "christian morals wins" sort of way.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2007, 11:09:25 PM
    That said, anarchy doesn't need Christianity to survive.  It needs courageous and moral people, nothing more, nothing less.


    Very good, L Ron, but from whence comes "morals" and who defines them?  Some people have thought it "moral" to eat the neighboring tribes for breakfast...  I guess it's OK then...  Whatever floats your boat!

    correct me if i'm wrong, but the major backbone of "christian morals" are from the 10 commandments... which are in fact jewish.  So i don't see how your above argument really holds water in a "christian morals wins" sort of way.

    Indeed, Christianity is a subset of the Jewish religion.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 11, 2007, 12:47:38 AM
    For those who don't know...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_Chop_%28puppet%29
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5172019052366815013&q=lambchop

    oldschool = http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7973675110602176084&q=lambchop


    For those who DO know...
    Some Lambchop humor (http://imghost.eatshirt.com/tocard/Opie&Anthony-lambchop.mp3)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Tommy on January 11, 2007, 07:50:59 AM
    That said, anarchy doesn't need Christianity to survive.  It needs courageous and moral people, nothing more, nothing less.


    Very good, L Ron, but from whence comes "morals" and who defines them?  Some people have thought it "moral" to eat the neighboring tribes for breakfast...  I guess it's OK then...  Whatever floats your boat!

    Morals come from individuals. People must decide for themselves what they believe to be moral. We don't need Sky Daddy to tell us right from wrong. If Sky Daddy said that people should be stoned to death for doing any sort of labor whatsoever on a Sunday would that be moral. Fuck no it isn't moral, yet Sky Daddy hath proclaimed it. How many people have you stoned to death for working on Sunday Gene? Why not, your Daddy demands it of you. If you do not stone to death everyone you see working on a Sunday then you are a sinner.

    Well, as only one example, in the above, the discussion is where morals come from, yet you jump in with a logical fallicy to try to make it look like CA is somehow to blame for God proclaiming "stoning" as a punishment.  You start out in the first two sentences OK but then you slide into "insult" mode and just plain ridiculous argument that losses sight of the subject (where do morals come from).  You end up by making an unsubstantiated claim that CA is a sinner because he hasn't stonned someone on Sunday.  You are just dividing the thread into unrelated and emotional issues.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 11, 2007, 02:18:30 PM
    Gene started with the logical fallacy that since some people think that cannibalism is moral, and some do not, then people cannot decide for themselves what is moral.


    Of course that was not the point I was making.  It's plain from the context that what I WAS saying that since YOUR positon is that everybody gets to determine thier OWN MORALS, then someone who believes canibilism is OK (or even some sort of nutritional benefit), then it's OK for them to eat people.  Is that a correct interpretation of your "belief" or not??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 11, 2007, 03:26:13 PM
    Gene you just went in the complete opposite direction of both Anarchy and Libertarianism. Cannibalism... what a compelling argument. Can you be any more ignorant? Next you will be saying that if gays get married people will want to marry goats.

    It seems that you have a little attention deficit.  I am not the one promoting cannibalism ....  HELLO !!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 11, 2007, 05:18:28 PM
    No what you are doing is twisting words you crazy old fool.

    Crazy is a crazy does...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 11, 2007, 05:52:13 PM
    Quote
    Of course that was not the point I was making.  It's plain from the context that what I WAS saying that since YOUR positon is that everybody gets to determine thier OWN MORALS, then someone who believes canibilism is OK (or even some sort of nutritional benefit), then it's OK for them to eat people.  Is that a correct interpretation of your "belief" or not??
    That's not what was claimed.  What I claimed is that if God exists, only God can decide what morals are, so another man determining that something is moral or not is to assume that they can know God's mind or are God.  It's not my place to go on a rampage stopping cannibalism if it's not personally impacting me, and if I have to use force to go and stop it.  What I can logically surmise is that if that action is immoral, then time will reveal it to be so, and the culture based on cannibalism will destroy itself.  How many cannibalist societies in the modern world??
    Through this method, and without using force, the world is made a better place.  The only difference between me and you is that you are OK assuming that you know God's mind and can act as his sword, whereas I will humbly declare that I do not and would allow God to deal with them in his own fashion.  We may end up with exactly the same results, except you compromised morality by using force to speed the process along.
    This is really my only objection with your theory.  So long as you corner off your society and don't intrude to what you consider "immorality," then I will leave you alone.  I may choose to refrain from trade or talk with you, and if many others also do the same because they don't agree with you, then you will be proven to have an non-sensible, immoral "answer" to whatever the question was.

    Savor this tidbit of wisdom...it's all you will get for a while longer.

    Now you are either being dishonest or you are sorely mistaken.  I have ALWAYS stated that all men determine thier own "rules" or "morals" (check post 33 & 139 of this thread).  I have NEVER stated that I propose using force to make someone live by "my" rules.  I DO state that I BELIEVE there is a Creator who made us and He has the AUTHORITY to write rules for us.  I have also ALWAYS stated that I'm not privy to exactly what those rules are, but I think I have a pretty good idea and I try to live by what I PERCEIVE to be His rules.

    Now either show me where I ever posted ANYTHING to the contrary or apologize for misrepresenting what I've said...

    WOW !  10,000 views of this thread...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 11, 2007, 06:42:08 PM
    Quote
    Now either show me where I ever posted ANYTHING to the contrary or apologize for misrepresenting what I've said...
    Don't even start.  I don't even want to hear the strawman cry from your lips.  I will apologize on one condition...so long as you preface EVERY single unconfirmed assertion you have that is your opinion with the phrase: "It is my opinion that"

    Examples:
    "It is my opinion that Christian anarchy is the only sensible answer."
    "It is my opinion that God exists and creates our rights and gives them to us."
    "It is my opinion that Thomas Jefferson was in fact a Christian."
    "It is my opinion that God must set morals."
    "It is my opinion that the Bible is accurate, except for those areas which are inaccurate, in my opinion."
    "It is my opinion that you are promoting cannibalism."
    "It is my opinion that I am competent to discuss theology, with a very limited world-view and very limited understanding of the subject."

    Some other examples:
    "It is my opinion that Christianity is a subset of the Jewish religion."
    "It is my opinion that I have offered up many 'logical' reasons why Christianity is true many many pages back."
    "It is my opinion that the only requirement for logical truth is my personal opinion."
    "It is my opinion that the sky is polka-dotted."
    "It is my opinion that you are a Hitler lover."


    It is so stipulated.  All of the above IS MY OPINION as I've always stated.  These are MY VIEWS and I've always represented them as MY VIEWS and MY BELIEFS (well, except for the polka-dotted sky and the other silly references that I believe you put in just to be funny.  However, if I'm wrong and you really meant that I've presented my opinion about the sky, please show me where I have and I'll admit that too.

    Now, about that apology... (or back to [1] above - where you can show me anywhere that I've posted anything to the contrary as stated above).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 11, 2007, 06:47:33 PM
    Gandhi, resistance is futile, come and join the Christian Borg Collective...
    (http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/6371/image001wu5.jpg)

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 11, 2007, 09:14:15 PM
    Quote
    Now, about that apology... (or back to [1] above - where you can show me anywhere that I've posted anything to the contrary as stated above).
    A blanket statement is completely insufficient...why should a user have to read through almost 100 pages of posts to come to this conclusion finally??  First, you must return and EDIT OR DELETE ALL OF YOUR POSTS so that they reflect your simple statements of opinion, many of which have little to no facts by which to uphold them.

    As for my apology, I believe I have sufficiently revised the original post to reflect it's hypothetical nature.
    Quote
    Through this method, and without using force, the world is made a better place.  If you would use force, I completely reject your logic.  The only difference between me and you would be that you would assume that you know God's mind and could act as his sword, whereas I will humbly declare that I do not and would allow God to deal with them in his own fashion.  We may end up with exactly the same results, except you would have compromised morality by using force to speed the process along.

    Yeah, back out of your deal now, huh?  Shows your yella stripe...  I did not have to make the concession that eveything I say is "my opinion" but I did it because it is true.  You, however, still owe me an apology for misrepresenting what I said.  If you deny misrepresenting me, I'll have to repost it all in it's entirety and embarrass you all over again.  Just make the apology and get it over with.  It won't hurt...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 11, 2007, 10:10:12 PM

    I know what you are doing.  As I said, I am in fact smarter than you are, and I am MUCH better at manipulation than you. 

    Hope you don't break your arm patting yourself on the back...

    Quote
    Go.  F**k.  Yourself.

    Wow!!  Guess I hit a nerve, huh??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 11, 2007, 10:15:02 PM
    Since we have long ago established that Gene's position is fallacious, it might be time to address the issue as to why seemingly logical people fall for religion in the first place. Is it the hope of rewards? Of the hope for life after death? Or, were they just brought up that way, and subjected to a lifetime of fear of divine punishment for daring to question the belief?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 11, 2007, 10:55:14 PM
    Over and over the crow cries uncover the cornfield.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: l_ron_hubbard on January 12, 2007, 01:57:22 AM
    Quote
    Now either show me where I ever posted ANYTHING to the contrary or apologize for misrepresenting what I've said...
    Don't even start.  I don't even want to hear the strawman cry from your lips.  I will apologize on one condition...so long as you preface EVERY single unconfirmed assertion you have that is your opinion with the phrase: "It is my opinion that"

    Examples:
    "It is my opinion that Christian anarchy is the only sensible answer."
    "It is my opinion that God exists and creates our rights and gives them to us."
    "It is my opinion that Thomas Jefferson was in fact a Christian."
    "It is my opinion that God must set morals."
    "It is my opinion that the Bible is accurate, except for those areas which are inaccurate, in my opinion."
    "It is my opinion that you are promoting cannibalism."
    "It is my opinion that I am competent to discuss theology, with a very limited world-view and very limited understanding of the subject."

    Some other examples:
    "It is my opinion that Christianity is a subset of the Jewish religion."
    "It is my opinion that I have offered up many 'logical' reasons why Christianity is true many many pages back."
    "It is my opinion that the only requirement for logical truth is my personal opinion."
    "It is my opinion that the sky is polka-dotted."
    "It is my opinion that you are a Hitler lover."


    It is so stipulated.  All of the above IS MY OPINION as I've always stated.  These are MY VIEWS and I've always represented them as MY VIEWS and MY BELIEFS (well, except for the polka-dotted sky and the other silly references that I believe you put in just to be funny.  However, if I'm wrong and you really meant that I've presented my opinion about the sky, please show me where I have and I'll admit that too.

    Now, about that apology... (or back to [1] above - where you can show me anywhere that I've posted anything to the contrary as stated above).

    A rather disappointing gandhi post....You already addressed all the above issues in the post before it.

    he's owning you in most arguments though.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on January 12, 2007, 03:45:00 AM
    Since we have long ago established that Gene's position is fallacious, it might be time to address the issue as to why seemingly logical people fall for religion in the first place. Is it the hope of rewards? Of the hope for life after death? Or, were they just brought up that way, and subjected to a lifetime of fear of divine punishment for daring to question the belief?

    A suggestion:

    (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0759106673.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V1108482680_.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2007, 07:48:11 AM
    Well, Mr. gandhi you sure seem to have ignored the following post in which I confronted you to prove that I have ever postulated the positions you attributed to me or retract your statement.  You still have not and you cannot so I have to assume that you were not mistaken but are simply dishonest...


    Quote
    Of course that was not the point I was making.  It's plain from the context that what I WAS saying that since YOUR positon is that everybody gets to determine thier OWN MORALS, then someone who believes canibilism is OK (or even some sort of nutritional benefit), then it's OK for them to eat people.  Is that a correct interpretation of your "belief" or not??
    That's not what was claimed.  What I claimed is that if God exists, only God can decide what morals are, so another man determining that something is moral or not is to assume that they can know God's mind or are God.  It's not my place to go on a rampage stopping cannibalism if it's not personally impacting me, and if I have to use force to go and stop it.  What I can logically surmise is that if that action is immoral, then time will reveal it to be so, and the culture based on cannibalism will destroy itself.  How many cannibalist societies in the modern world??
    Through this method, and without using force, the world is made a better place.  The only difference between me and you is that you are OK assuming that you know God's mind and can act as his sword, whereas I will humbly declare that I do not and would allow God to deal with them in his own fashion.  We may end up with exactly the same results, except you compromised morality by using force to speed the process along.
    This is really my only objection with your theory.  So long as you corner off your society and don't intrude to what you consider "immorality," then I will leave you alone.  I may choose to refrain from trade or talk with you, and if many others also do the same because they don't agree with you, then you will be proven to have an non-sensible, immoral "answer" to whatever the question was.

    Savor this tidbit of wisdom...it's all you will get for a while longer.

    Now you are either being dishonest or you are sorely mistaken.  I have ALWAYS stated that all men determine thier own "rules" or "morals" (check post 33 & 139 of this thread).  I have NEVER stated that I propose using force to make someone live by "my" rules.  I DO state that I BELIEVE there is a Creator who made us and He has the AUTHORITY to write rules for us.  I have also ALWAYS stated that I'm not privy to exactly what those rules are, but I think I have a pretty good idea and I try to live by what I PERCEIVE to be His rules.

    Now either show me where I ever posted ANYTHING to the contrary or apologize for misrepresenting what I've said...

    WOW !  10,000 views of this thread...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: aquabanianskakid on January 12, 2007, 09:59:36 AM
    Wait... what if we all removed our posts? I really think it sounds good, kinda like a mass protest. :P
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Puke on January 12, 2007, 11:14:26 AM
    Wow! Almost to 100 pages.
    What a waste of life this thread is.  :(
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Osborne on January 12, 2007, 11:49:26 AM
    There might be some people, such as myself, who would be interested in discovering the arguments put forth in this thread, but are not willing togo through 100 pages to explore all the various tangents contained therein.

    Perhaps our Christian Anarchist or another interested party might be willing to consolidate the salient points in an organized fashion and post them elsewhere.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2007, 12:31:39 PM
    Quote
    Well, Mr. gandhi you sure seem to have ignored the following post in which I confronted you to prove that I have ever postulated the positions you attributed to me or retract your statement.  You still have not and you cannot so I have to assume that you were not mistaken but are simply dishonest...
    I didn't ignore it.  Actually, I confronted it directly, and I told you what I thought about it.  You cannot force me to apologize, and to whine about how I misrepresented your beliefs makes you sound like a child.  I did in fact edit my statement so that it better reflected its hypothetical nature...are you prepared to do the same for 100 pages?  I drew a conclusion based on past posts.  When you have done it in the past, to Brian Wolf, Johnson, etc, and they've objected strongly, you didn't seem to care all that much.  I think you've accused people so far of being supported by Hitler, supporting cannibalism, pretending to be Muhatme Gandhi, believing in adjustable morality.  You've also stated that you are always right, Thomas Jefferson was a Christian, and that your personal definition of Christianity is a valid one.

    Here is where I've directly addressed every single point you had, and offered a few counterpoints, from that post.


    No, you did not address any of it.  I guess it's a bit more than you can fathom but I'll try to put it in terms you MIGHT be able to understand (that's asking alot I can tell by they way this has gone in the past)...

    YOU SAID:
    Quote
    The only difference between me and you is that you are OK assuming that you know God's mind and can act as his sword,

    And I challenged you to show anywhere where I said any such thing.  Of course you will not...

    YOU SAID:
    Quote
    We may end up with exactly the same results, except you compromised morality by using force to speed the process along.

    And again, you failed to even attempt where I've said any such thing.

    So comon, put up or shut up.  Where have I ever said such things...  Either ADMIT you were mistaken or ADMIT you were deceitful because you've been exposed...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2007, 12:41:48 PM
    There might be some people, such as myself, who would be interested in discovering the arguments put forth in this thread, but are not willing togo through 100 pages to explore all the various tangents contained therein.

    Perhaps our Christian Anarchist or another interested party might be willing to consolidate the salient points in an organized fashion and post them elsewhere.

    Actually, I captured the entire thread a couple of hours ago (prior to the deleting frenzy) and I may make a searchable version of it available on my blog site below.  Either way, my blog site covers my beliefs in general and I will continue to add to it in the future.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2007, 01:19:27 PM
    Quote
    Quote
    The only difference between me and you is that you are OK assuming that you know God's mind and can act as his sword,

    And I challenged you to show anywhere where I said any such thing.  Of course you will not...
    Look, in looking at past posts, you use "magic" quote on every single "word"

    I don't know that you mean by "magic" to change my meanings.  I've been very clear what I've said and only someone who is trying to be deceitful or idiotic could try to claim that I've advocated using force to get others to "comply" with my definition of morality.  Now you can attempt to show where I've done so and also where I've claimed to know God's mind or you are exposed for the phony you are.  Come on phony - show me where I said either of those things or ADMIT you were WRONG.  If you fail to admit you were wrong, THATS an admission of DECEIT...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2007, 01:33:44 PM
    Quote
    I don't know that you mean by "magic" to change my meanings.  I've been very clear what I've said and only someone who is trying to be deceitful or idiotic could try to claim that I've advocated using force to get others to "comply" with my definition of morality.  Now you can attempt to show where I've done so and also where I've claimed to know God's mind or you are exposed for the phony you are.  Come on phony - show me where I said either of those things or ADMIT you were WRONG.  If you fail to admit you were wrong, THATS an admission of DECEIT...

    Dancing around the real issue...


    Look, you SAID that I advocate the use of force and also that I claim to know the mind of God.  Now show where I've said either and quit trying to redirect the issue.  YOU CAN'T and that's why YOU WON'T.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Tommy on January 12, 2007, 01:35:21 PM
    There might be some people, such as myself, who would be interested in discovering the arguments put forth in this thread, but are not willing togo through 100 pages to explore all the various tangents contained therein.

    Perhaps our Christian Anarchist or another interested party might be willing to consolidate the salient points in an organized fashion and post them elsewhere.

    Actually, I captured the entire thread a couple of hours ago (prior to the deleting frenzy) and I may make a searchable version of it available on my blog site below.  Either way, my blog site covers my beliefs in general and I will continue to add to it in the future.

    Hey CA is there any way I can get a copy of that archive? 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2007, 02:40:40 PM
    Hehee....you are a FUCKING HYPOCRITE!!!!  YOU DIRECTLY PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH!  Mwahahaha!!!!

    I NEVER said the words "Dancing around the real issue" and you claim that I did by using the quote feature to make me say it.  See what I mean?  You keep on abusing the direct quote to make a statement either more ambiguous or directly falsify a person's words.

    As I've said, I have provided ample logic to illustrate how I came to my conclusion.  Is my logic flawed?  And are you going to answer the questionairre?

    Quote
    YOU CAN'T and that's why YOU WON'T.
    I CAN in fact illustrate my logic, and that's why I DID, on several occasions.  Now, can you tell me where I said the exact words: "Dancing around the real issue"?  If not, then are you prepared to remove your use of directly quoting my words?

    "Dancing around the issue" is exactly what you are doing.  You try to redirect the issue to one of whether your logic is flawed (of course it is, but that's NOT the issue).  The issue is CAN YOU SHOW WHERE I EVER SAID THE THINGS YOU CLAIMED I DID !!

    Of course you can't so you just keep "dancing"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2007, 02:42:25 PM
    Not usually a conformist, but I really want to ROB CA of his goal of 100 pages.  Therefore, I'm deleting all posts but this one.  When he answers the question without being wishy-washy and ambiguous, I will reconsider restarting the debate.

    Quote
    1. Do you believe in God?
    2. Do you believe God is benevolent?
    3. Do you believe the Bible is the word of God?
    4. Do you believe in Jesus Christ as a personal Savior and son of God?
    5. Do you believe the life story of Christ as told by the New Testament of the King James version of the Bible?
    6. Do you believe that any mortal man can act as God?
    7. Do you believe that man can reach enlightenment to any degree without God's help?  For example, Buddhists are not theists, but some of their philosophy is very similar to Christianity's.  Are their beliefs false, even though they are exactly the same, simply because they do not involve Jesus or God?
    8. Do you believe in any recognized organized religion?
    9. Do you believe God can choose one or more agents here on Earth?
    10. Do you believe you are that agent?  If not, how do you assume you have any authority to say which is sensible or nonsensical?

    This is not due to any fear of incriminating posts...I am confident that taken in proper context, everything I have said is supportable.  But in order to keep this bloated thread down to a manageable size, so that new users can read it, I think that this is the best action.  If everybody follows suit, we can put some of the ad hominem attacks aside and see through to the real issues, or lack thereof.

    I also advise CA to do the same.  By removing the tangentals and ad hominems, he can better illustrate whatever it is he wants to.

    I'll answer you after you address your mistaken or lying post about what you CLAIMED I promote...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2007, 05:04:44 PM
    There might be some people, such as myself, who would be interested in discovering the arguments put forth in this thread, but are not willing togo through 100 pages to explore all the various tangents contained therein.

    Perhaps our Christian Anarchist or another interested party might be willing to consolidate the salient points in an organized fashion and post them elsewhere.

    Actually, I captured the entire thread a couple of hours ago (prior to the deleting frenzy) and I may make a searchable version of it available on my blog site below.  Either way, my blog site covers my beliefs in general and I will continue to add to it in the future.

    Hey CA is there any way I can get a copy of that archive? 
     
    I can e-mail it to you.  It's 3.6mb zipped.  Let me know...  If I have the time, I'll go back through it an re-post all the deleted posts.  Wouldn't that be funny??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Tommy on January 12, 2007, 08:46:18 PM
    Thanks for the archive, it's great.  How did you do that? 

    Anyway, it's obvious that you've scared all those guys off.  I see that gandhi2 refused to show where you said those things.  I have never seen where you said that kind of thing.

    Hey, I'm going to go back and post some of the deleted stuff.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2007, 08:48:55 PM
    Me too.  It looks like page 60 is the oldest deleted stuff.  It's kinda self-defeating to post all that nonsence, but at least we can delete some of the vulgarities... We can censor them!! Yeah!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Tommy on January 12, 2007, 09:02:46 PM
    This was the first one I found posted by:

    mbd

       
       Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    « Reply #886 on: May 30, 2006, 01:43:47 am »
       
    God I hate bein' right all the time.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2007, 09:05:49 PM
    Yeah, and here's one:  It's too bad we can't do the "reply" button as the web copier didn't register it...


    Quote
    mrapplecastle

       Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    « Reply #896 on: October 30, 2006, 01:20:18 am »
       
    hey CA how do you feel about this http://youtube.com/watch?v=wctyPM3Q27M ?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Tommy on January 12, 2007, 09:13:52 PM
    Here's another.  Man this might take awhile, huh?



    mrapplecastle
     
      Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    « Reply #900 on: October 31, 2006, 12:26:16 am » 

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Quote
    Quote from: ChristianAnarchist on October 31, 2006, 12:19:03 am
    Quote
    Quote from: mrapplecastle on October 30, 2006, 01:20:18 am
    hey CA how do you feel about this http://youtube.com/watch?v=wctyPM3Q27M ?

    Like, Wow man... I knew Jesus had that long hair for a reason, man...

    what they say about the calamus is true as far as i've found
    here is a link to a longer clip 47min long in realplayer and torrent form http://pot.tv/archive/shows/pottvshowse-3840.html

    chris bennett has alot of shows dealing with religon here http://pot.tv/archive/series/pottvseries-14-0.html
     
     
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2007, 09:17:17 PM
    By taking another person's words without giving them sufficient credit or putting them in proper context, you are guilty of a form of plagiarism.  Do not do it, unless you want the full force and fury of those you are doing it against.  If you censor or edit the content, you are guilty of direct falsity.  This is far worse than building a straw man or jumping to a false logical conclusion.  It is a form of libel.  Libel is prosecutable by the law of the USA, and although this forum is private property, I would strongly advise others to join me in petitioning that you cease and deist with it.  If you do not, then I think that there is sufficient grounds under the user agreement you signed for the forum moderators to remove both you and CA for violations of the contract you signed when you created your avatars.

    The forum is set up to allow a person to delete his own posts.  You are abusing your privileges of posting by putting them back on, and editing or omitting content as you please, even if it is to just put a quote out of context.  I strongly advise that you exercise a marginal degree of tact and grace in your future postings.

    Getting scared there are you gandhi??  I won't "change" any of your posts, but once you post them on the internet, they are public property.  Google archives them, people download them, they are forever out there floating around in the electron stream...

    Sorry.

    Besides, I thought you were through looking at this thread, or are you like a bad penny?

    So how about it mr. moderator?  Is it or is it not fair play to "quote" from prior posts??  Seems like there's alot of that here.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 12, 2007, 09:32:29 PM
    Who's winning the "Largest Penis Contest"?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Tommy on January 12, 2007, 09:37:38 PM
    Now THAT'S what I call "reasonable debate"!  Thanks Joe!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2007, 09:39:25 PM
    I am not afraid of anything you could possibly do to me, but you are obviously misusing your PRIVILEGE of posting here.  I don't care if you post them up on Times Square, but this is private property, and if Ian and Mark value reasonable debate here on this forum, it would be to their benefit to either remove the postbacks or remove you.

    How much do you value your anonymity?  Are you prepared to close all ties here on this board?

    Don't recall ever owning a 'droid before (oops, I meant I don't recall a requirement for "reasonable debate" on this bbs- which is a good thing for you).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Tommy on January 12, 2007, 09:46:28 PM
    Here's one more posted by:

    mrapplecastle

      Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    « Reply #902 on: October 31, 2006, 12:40:22 am » 

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    george bush is no christain by any stretch of the imagination
    considering he attends the festivities at the bohemian grove
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2007, 09:49:17 PM
    I don't see why mr. apple wanted to delete that one.  I certainly agree with him on that one...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 12, 2007, 09:50:56 PM
    Jesus tosses my salad.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2007, 09:55:47 PM
    Here's the farthest back mr. aqua deleted his posts:  (I like the gun cleaning comment)

    Quote
    aquabanianskakid
    I'm cleaning my guns.

         Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    « Reply #923 on: November 18, 2006, 09:08:42 am »

    Ugh another bible verse rant and curse Christian. How bout you come back and tell us after you die. Then you can talk things over with god and find the best way to explain it to us simpletons. Honestly if god is so understanding she won't care how we live our lives as long as we do our best. Oh and technically according to some scripture satan is the brother of jesus, as well as us.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 12, 2007, 09:58:22 PM
    Mary eats monkey pussy.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Tommy on January 12, 2007, 09:59:07 PM
    Then he deleted this one.  Hey, I just graduated to "loudmouth"!



    aquabanianskakid
    I'm cleaning my guns.
     
      Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    « Reply #925 on: November 18, 2006, 11:54:29 am » 

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I've always wondered what make the bible so special. There are so many religous text that I find far more interesting and less contradictory. There is the Popol Vuh, The Koran (Quran), The book of Mormon, The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Rigveda, and The Pearl of Great Price, just to name a few. The Bible was mostly written by people who claimed to know a guy that may or may not have existed, and by people that just heard second hand stories about him. How could you possible pick the "correct" bible from the thousands of versions? How about all of the sections that have been ommitted/added by special interest religious groups?

    Hopefully you don't believe this classy verse.

    "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
     
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2007, 10:02:28 PM
    I like the way Joe keeps up his end of the "reasonable debate" issue that we all must be so careful to comply with or the big bad moderator will make us go to bed without our supper...

    Hey Mr. gandhi, have you reported me to the moderator yet??  I see you still haven't decided to be a man and own up to admitting YOU WERE WRONG !!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 12, 2007, 10:06:24 PM
    God touches my private parts.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Tommy on January 12, 2007, 10:08:36 PM
    He deleted this one.  What exactly does "aquabanianskakid" mean?



    aquabanianskakid
    I'm cleaning my guns.

     
      Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    « Reply #930 on: November 21, 2006, 10:39:06 am » 

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Agreed Alphaniner. Christians are crazy.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2007, 10:10:05 PM
    I think Mr. gandhi got mad and went home with his ball.  He won't play with us anymore...  I FEEL SO LONELY - WAAAAAHHHH!!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 12, 2007, 10:13:36 PM
    The pope fucked my grandma.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cerpntaxt on January 12, 2007, 10:15:31 PM
    I think crapflooding this thread may be more effective than deleting our posts.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on January 12, 2007, 10:15:44 PM
    Honestly, if I'm going to keep getting e-mails about this thread, I'm going to lock it.  Stop acting like children - all of you.  Please. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 12, 2007, 10:17:50 PM
    Lindsey gives me wet dreams.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2007, 10:21:45 PM
    Honestly, if I'm going to keep getting e-mails about this thread, I'm going to lock it.  Stop acting like children - all of you.  Please. 

    Wow!!  You mean because some little babies go crying to you you're going to take away their toys and send them to bed??  How about I complain about them complaining - or is that just another complaint that will add to the previous complaints and cause you to lock the thread??

    Let the big babies fend for themselves.  If they can't take it like big boys, maybe they should get off the internet...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on January 12, 2007, 10:23:06 PM
    Honestly, if I'm going to keep getting e-mails about this thread, I'm going to lock it.  Stop acting like children - all of you.  Please. 

    Wow!!  You mean because some little babies go crying to you you're going to take away their toys and send them to bed??  How about I complain about them complaining - or is that just another complaint that will add to the previous complaints and cause you to lock the thread??

    Let the big babies fend for themselves.  If they can't take it like big boys, maybe they should get off the internet...

    Actually, the majority of the complaints about this thread have come from you. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 12, 2007, 10:26:02 PM
    Haha. What a twat.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2007, 10:26:24 PM
    Honestly, if I'm going to keep getting e-mails about this thread, I'm going to lock it.  Stop acting like children - all of you.  Please. 

    Wow!!  You mean because some little babies go crying to you you're going to take away their toys and send them to bed??  How about I complain about them complaining - or is that just another complaint that will add to the previous complaints and cause you to lock the thread??

    Let the big babies fend for themselves.  If they can't take it like big boys, maybe they should get off the internet...

    Actually, the majority of the complaints about this thread have come from you. 

    Well if that's the case then you've only had 3 complaints since I made 2 about porn as it is inappropriate in a thread where porn is not the subject as per prior statements by the moderators...  Indeed, it was, I believe, why mr Joe got canned and had to start over...  (and I was not the one to complain back then - Ian took the reigns).  And Oh, Yeah, this is supposed to be FREETALKLIVE isn't it???
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on January 12, 2007, 10:35:03 PM
    Honestly, if I'm going to keep getting e-mails about this thread, I'm going to lock it.  Stop acting like children - all of you.  Please. 

    Wow!!  You mean because some little babies go crying to you you're going to take away their toys and send them to bed??  How about I complain about them complaining - or is that just another complaint that will add to the previous complaints and cause you to lock the thread??

    Let the big babies fend for themselves.  If they can't take it like big boys, maybe they should get off the internet...

    Actually, the majority of the complaints about this thread have come from you. 

    Well if that's the case then you've only had 3 complaints since I made 2 about porn as it is inappropriate in a thread where porn is not the subject as per prior statements by the moderators...  Indeed, it was, I believe, why mr Joe got canned and had to start over...  (and I was not the one to complain back then - Ian took the reigns).

    It's very quaint that you so anal retentively keep track of these things.  I did, however receive complaints from you and about you.  There's nothing wrong going on here.  With the exception being that none of you can have an actual discussion.  I'm not going penalize anyone for saying what they want to say, where they want to say it, and in the manner they choose.  I already told you that I will remove images, or take action if there is something happening that should not be happening.  ChristianAnarchist, there is no porn policy, and nobody here is a troll, because you're all acting like trolls.  As I mentioned before, if this continues, I will lock this thread.  You can start a new thread, you can post on threads you find relevant - as everyone else here does, you can read and not post at all, or you can come up with a compromise.  None of us are here to cater to the whim of any one member. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2007, 10:48:39 PM
    Sounds to me like you are catering to the whim of someone or you wouldn't be threatening to lock it.  Lord knows there's plenty of worthless threads going on around here that are just fine, it seems.  You can talk about anything no matter how vulgar it is on FREETALKLIVE with no worries about moderators stepping in, but don't ever bring up God or LOOK OUT !! Here come's da judge...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 12, 2007, 10:50:36 PM
    http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/1613/jesusdildoiu5.jpg
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on January 12, 2007, 10:51:59 PM
    Sounds to me like you are catering to the whim of someone or you wouldn't be threatening to lock it.  Lord knows there's plenty of worthless threads going on around here that are just fine, it seems.  You can talk about anything no matter how vulgar it is on FREETALKLIVE with no worries about moderators stepping in, but don't ever bring up God or LOOK OUT !! Here come's da judge...

    I wouldn't cater to the whim of one of you people if you paid me in solid gold bricks.  Nobody is discriminating against you for believing in God - get off your soap box.  They're jacking with your thread because you refuse to respond in any other most of the time, and because they can.  Your thread is on-topic for the most part.  All you have to do is press the ignore button. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2007, 10:53:01 PM
    I like you Joe, no matter what you do.  I like the fact that you don't take crap from anyone...  (I didn't like your past porn though)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 12, 2007, 10:54:03 PM
    That's not porn.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on January 12, 2007, 10:55:24 PM
    That's not porn.

    Sorry, it didn't need to be seen involuntarily.  I didn't have a problem with it, but guess who would? 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 12, 2007, 10:55:53 PM
    Your meen.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2007, 10:57:01 PM
    That's not porn.

    I didn't say it was.  I was referring to your posts you made in your last life.  You remember what I'm talking about.  Porn itself doesn't bother me, I've seen it too much.  You can't shock me.  I was merely making reference to things you had posted months ago...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mrapplecastle on January 12, 2007, 11:00:54 PM
    I deleted mine because I thought it was funny when I seen this thread drop like 10 pages
    I havent really been paying much attention to the content of this thread, but I had noticed it growing substantially in the last couple weeks. I dont have any problems with cristians, except the ones that have a problem with me....which I'm pretty sure isnt Gene.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 12, 2007, 11:45:57 PM
    ATTENTION: ASSPLAY!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 12, 2007, 11:47:16 PM
    OMGROFFLE.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 12, 2007, 11:52:57 PM
    OMGROFFLE.

    They're to coolest words in the English lexicon, so to combine them makes ULTRA COOLNESS! ;)

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on January 13, 2007, 01:01:14 AM
    ready for this?  All that I or anybody else asks for is a level of intellectualism so that we can have valid debate.

    And you're not going to get it.  My suggestion is to spend your time more productively-- such as bashing your head against a concrete wall, teaching a camel to waltz, or building a tank out of Jello. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 13, 2007, 02:44:25 AM
    I built a tank out of Jello once... Good times...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 02:46:37 AM
    I built a tank out of Jello once... Good times...

    Did you also have some hawt chicks simulate fellatio with the barrel of the tank? :lol: Sorry, I'm in a dirty minded mood tonight.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on January 13, 2007, 02:47:30 AM
    I built a tank out of Jello once... Good times...

    Well turn me upside down and paint me blue.  Oh wait...don't. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 13, 2007, 03:34:19 AM
    :lol: Sorry, I'm in a dirty minded mood tonight.

    -- Bridget

    Those without dirty minds need not register for this BBS.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freedom geek on January 13, 2007, 03:34:58 AM
    :lol: Sorry, I'm in a dirty minded mood tonight.

    -- Bridget

    Those without dirty minds need not register for this BBS.
    Are you telling me to leave?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 13, 2007, 03:35:44 AM
    You don't have to go, I'm just saying you're going to be bored.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freedom geek on January 13, 2007, 03:38:29 AM
    You don't have to go, I'm just saying you're going to be bored.
    I'm just trying to convert you all to the way off the geek so we can have more geeky libertarians.  :D
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 13, 2007, 03:39:44 AM
    Define "geek".
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freedom geek on January 13, 2007, 03:51:53 AM
    Define "geek".
    It would take hours for me to write up a post detailing what a geek is and isn't. We tend to be inteligent and creative. When you think your a geek and think the term geek is one to be proud of then you more that likely are a geek.
    The only true way to know what the word geek truely means is to become one yourself. I don't know what it means to be a jock because I'm not one of them.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 13, 2007, 03:52:49 AM
    You've watched way too many Revenge of the Nerds movies.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freedom geek on January 13, 2007, 03:56:06 AM
    You've watched way too many Revenge of the Nerds movies.
    Meh. Those movies suck. They don't portray what it truely means to be a geek.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 03:58:03 AM
    You've watched way too many Revenge of the Nerds movies.
    Meh. Those movies suck. They don't portray what it truely means to be a geek.

    Nerds are better than geeks. :lol:

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freedom geek on January 13, 2007, 04:01:03 AM
    You've watched way too many Revenge of the Nerds movies.
    Meh. Those movies suck. They don't portray what it truely means to be a geek.

    Nerds are better than geeks. :lol:

    -- Bridget
    Nerds are just geeks who want to be "cool." Nerds are just geeks who don't embrace their geekiness.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 04:02:27 AM
    Nerds built the atomic bomb.  8)

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freedom geek on January 13, 2007, 04:05:07 AM
    Nerds built the atomic bomb.  8)

    -- Bridget
    Spending countless tax dollars building something that would be used to end many peoples lives in japan. Do you see geeks killing thousands?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 04:06:24 AM
    Yeah, if it gets the chicks wet. Plus, atomic bombs led to the the stalemate of the cold war. Without M.A.D. we wouldn't be here today. I accept that fact as a good thing. Plus the Japs wouldn't accept total surrender, so they had what was coming to them.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freedom geek on January 13, 2007, 04:10:46 AM
    Yeah, if it gets the chicks wet. Plus, atomic bombs led to the the stalemate of the cold war. Without M.A.D. we wouldn't be here today. I accept that fact as a good thing. Plus the Japs wouldn't accept total surrender, so they had what was coming to them.

    -- Bridget
    Without having some nukes the neo-cons wouldn't of been confident enough to stir up russia to that point.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 04:12:49 AM
    There were no neo-cons in the 1960s. Neo-Conservativism is a post-Nixon movement.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freedom geek on January 13, 2007, 04:16:24 AM
    There were no neo-cons in the 1960s. Neo-Conservativism is a post-Nixon movement.

    -- Bridget
    The "nerds" making the atom bomb weren't thinking "lets make a weapon so powerful it will lead to a stalemate" they were thinking "lets make something that can kill a whole lot of people"
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 04:17:47 AM
    Actually they were thinking it would lead to a stalemate. Why do you think Oppenheimer gave the Soviets the vital data to make their own atomic bombs?

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freedom geek on January 13, 2007, 04:19:38 AM
    Actually they were thinking it would lead to a stalemate. Why do you think Oppenheimer gave the Soviets the vital data to make their own atomic bombs?

    -- Bridget
    Maybe he was but most of them weren't.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 04:21:10 AM
    Actually they were thinking it would lead to a stalemate. Why do you think Oppenheimer gave the Soviets the vital data to make their own atomic bombs?

    -- Bridget
    Maybe he was but most of them weren't.

    Most were. Read what they wrote after the test of the atomic bomb. They recognized that this weapon, when given to the most number of nations, would force such nations to accept that old ideas of conquest and tyranny are over. Nanotechnology in the present tense is emerging to remind such nations of that reality yet again...

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freedom geek on January 13, 2007, 04:22:50 AM
    Actually they were thinking it would lead to a stalemate. Why do you think Oppenheimer gave the Soviets the vital data to make their own atomic bombs?

    -- Bridget
    Maybe he was but most of them weren't.

    Most were. Read what they wrote after the test of the atomic bomb. They recognized that this weapon, when given to the most number of nations, would force such nations to accept that old ideas of conquest and tyranny are over. Nanotechnology in the present tense is emerging to remind such nations of that reality yet again...

    -- Bridget
    Maybe thats what they were saying after the fact to make themselves look good.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 04:25:13 AM
    Yeah, if it gets the chicks wet. Plus, atomic bombs led to the the stalemate of the cold war. Without M.A.D. we wouldn't be here today. I accept that fact as a good thing. Plus the Japs wouldn't accept total surrender, so they had what was coming to them.

    -- Bridget

    Wow. Just...Wow.

    Because the Government of Japan would not accept total surrender, then all of the innocent women and children who lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had what was coming to them?

    Please tell me you are fucking joking.

    No I'm not. And if you think the Japanese would not have slaughtered every american or chinese/korean/vietnamese then you're really deluding yourself. These folks were hard core fascists in their own right. And in war there is no proportion to force. You either do it or surrender, since war is total destruction of your enemy.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 04:26:02 AM
    Maybe thats what they were saying after the fact to make themselves look good.

    That's rationalization, dude. If you can't know their mental states you must assume their statements to be true. There are no alternatives.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freedom geek on January 13, 2007, 04:28:05 AM
    Yeah, if it gets the chicks wet. Plus, atomic bombs led to the the stalemate of the cold war. Without M.A.D. we wouldn't be here today. I accept that fact as a good thing. Plus the Japs wouldn't accept total surrender, so they had what was coming to them.

    -- Bridget

    Wow. Just...Wow.

    Because the Government of Japan would not accept total surrender, then all of the innocent women and children who lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had what was coming to them?

    Please tell me you are fucking joking.

    No I'm not. And if you think the Japanese would not have slaughtered every american or chinese/korean/vietnamese then you're really deluding yourself. These folks were hard core fascists in their own right. And in war there is no proportion to force. You either do it or surrender, since war is total destruction of your enemy.

    -- Bridget
    We practicaly had them beaten. If we had just done a bit more work we could have had them surrender without killing all those people.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freedom geek on January 13, 2007, 04:29:36 AM
    Maybe thats what they were saying after the fact to make themselves look good.

    That's rationalization, dude. If you can't know their mental states you must assume their statements to be true. There are no alternatives.

    -- Bridget
    You can assume anything. You have your beliefs, I'll have mine.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 04:38:40 AM
    Then you are a sick, fuck.

    Sick because I accept the nature of war or sick because I don't tolerate compromises?

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 04:40:18 AM
    We practicaly had them beaten. If we had just done a bit more work we could have had them surrender without killing all those people.

    Again, war is total destruction of your enemy. You have to accept this, man. I'm not a war hawk to be honest, but if I had to go to war tomorrow I would do it completely with no compromises as to ensure success at it. I may not start a war, but I damn sure will finish it.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 04:43:04 AM
    Sick because you advocate the brutal murder of innocents to achieve your political goals.

    That wasn't on the table of logical choices. You're assuming that which is not there. :)

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freedom geek on January 13, 2007, 04:43:52 AM
    We practicaly had them beaten. If we had just done a bit more work we could have had them surrender without killing all those people.

    Again, war is total destruction of your enemy. You have to accept this, man. I'm not a war hawk to be honest, but if I had to go to war tomorrow I would do it completely with no compromises as to ensure success at it. I may not start a war, but I damn sure will finish them.

    -- Bridget
    The people we killed were not "our enemy." They only become "our enemy" when they try to kill us.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 04:44:21 AM
    Also, 'Castle Defense' does not apply to war because war is not symmetric in its outcome.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 04:45:08 AM
    The people we killed were not "our enemy." They only become "our enemy" when they try to kill us.

    No, they attacked us first at Pearl Harbor. Remember? Or are you one of those historical revisionists?

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 04:46:11 AM
    So here's your logic so far.

    1) War is evil no matter what, even if you try to defend yourself.

    2) Therefore no war is justifiable, and no weapon is justifiable.

    Consequence: Any defense in war is evil.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freedom geek on January 13, 2007, 04:47:22 AM
    The people we killed were not "our enemy." They only become "our enemy" when they try to kill us.

    No, they attacked us first at Pearl Harbor. Remember? Or are you one of those historical revisionists?

    -- Bridget
    The people the atomic bomb killed were not it those planes, nor did they order the people it those planes to do what they did.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 04:48:10 AM
    The people the atomic bomb killed were not it those planes, nor did they order the people it those planes to do what they did.

    They sanctioned the war by their compliance to taxation and conscription by the Japanese imperial government.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freedom geek on January 13, 2007, 04:49:40 AM
    So here's your logic so far.

    1) War is evil no matter what, even if you try to defend yourself.

    2) Therefore no war is justifiable, and no weapon is justifiable.

    Consequence: Any defense in war is evil.

    -- Bridget
    You can kill anyone trying to kill you but not random people realated to them.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 04:51:46 AM
    You can kill anyone trying to kill you but not random people realated to them.

    War doesn't work that way. If you sanction by compliance, then you are an open target. It's that simple. Maybe that's why I don't have much of a problem with the Palestinians blowing shit up when the Israelis roll tanks over their own in kind either. I accept the totality of war. If you don't that's your problem. I never said one ought to start wars, but I did say one ought to finish them when forced.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freedom geek on January 13, 2007, 04:54:04 AM
    The people the atomic bomb killed were not it those planes, nor did they order the people it those planes to do what they did.

    They sanctioned the war by their compliance to taxation and conscription by the Japanese imperial government.

    -- Bridget
    They didn't really have a choice. Just because some forces you to sign a contract saying you support baby murder at gunpoint doesn't mean you should go to jain for baby murder.
    And even if disagree with this what about the children killed, they didn't get a choice.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freedom geek on January 13, 2007, 04:55:52 AM
    You can kill anyone trying to kill you but not random people realated to them.

    War doesn't work that way. If you sanction by compliance, then you are an open target. It's that simple. Maybe that's why I don't have much of a problem with the Palestinians blowing shit up when the Israelis roll tanks over their own in kind either. I accept the totality of war. If you don't that's your problem. I never said one ought to start wars, but I did say one ought to finish them when forced.

    -- Bridget
    Now thats just not fair. If they obey they get killed by our gov, if they disobey they get killed by their gov.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 04:59:51 AM
    Now thats just not fair. If they obey they get killed by our gov, if they disobey they get killed by their gov.

    So war is suppose to be fair? What planet are you from? What species do you descend from? This is the same world where people kill each other over a pair of sneakers. Now, I'm not sanctioning blind violence, but you are not getting the point.

    Lets take a very unlikely situation, say space aliens come down to invade Earth. They want to conquer our species and take our resources. Now, every army on Earth, every terrorist group, every mercenary decides to work together to fight these space aliens. Now, they know that the best way to make these space aliens stop is to kill their civilians, their children, and women. Basically, they have to take their war to their people in kind. That is logical and necessary for survival and to repel the invasion. There are no options. There are no peace talks. There are no white flags. Just total destruction for total destruction. You cannot compromise what so ever.

    Can you accept that nature of war? I'm not telling you to sanction it as a moral choice, but I am tell you to accept that which is. You're essentially confusing an IS for an OUGHT. Please stop doing that!

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freedom geek on January 13, 2007, 05:03:31 AM
    Now thats just not fair. If they obey they get killed by our gov, if they disobey they get killed by their gov.

    So war is suppose to be fair? What planet are you from? What species do you descend from? This is the same world where people kill each other over a pair of sneakers. Now, I'm not sanctioning blind violence, but you are not getting the point.

    Lets take a very unlikely situation, say space aliens come down to invade Earth. They want to conquer our species and take our resources. Now, every army on Earth, every terrorist group, every mercenary decides to work together to fight these space aliens. Now, they know that the best way to make these space aliens stop is to kill their civilians, their children, and women. Basically, they have to take their war to their people in kind. That is logical and necessary for survival and to repel the invasion. There are no options. There are no peace talks. There are no white flags. Just total destruction for total destruction. You cannot compromise what so ever.

    Can you accept that nature of war? I'm not telling you to sanction it as a moral choice, but I am tell you to accept that which is. You're essentially confusing an IS for an OUGHT. Please stop doing that!

    -- Bridget
    Maybe if your survival is at stake you can do those things but at that point they didn't have the power to kill us all.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 13, 2007, 07:03:31 AM
    You are not under attack for discussing God.  You are under attack for being a plain and simple dill-hole, dickhead, and a baby.

    All that has been requested is that you follow some accepted standards of debate, and you failed.  Instead, you've wasted lots of time on ad hominems.  When we decided that that wasn't valuable, we went ahead and deleted our contributions to that end.  By posting them back on, you just illustrate how little you really want to discuss the real issues.  I'll keep my post on asking you to clarify those primary questions, and consider both yours and my personal attacks as being a waste of time.  As far as I'm concerned, we are even.  You have now got as good as you gave, and I'm ready to just wipe it all away so that we can talk.  Are you man enough to be the Christian, turn the other cheek, forgive and forget, and then drop it?  Open up a new thread, with a resolve to avoid personal attacks, and I'll post my questions as the first response to your proposal.

    Are you ready for this?  All that I or anybody else asks for is a level of intellectualism so that we can have valid debate.

    Yeah I'm ready for this.  I'm also ready for you to ADMIT that I never said those things you claim I did.  Now as soon as you address that point, we can go on from there.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 13, 2007, 07:04:16 AM
    I deleted mine because I thought it was funny when I seen this thread drop like 10 pages
    I havent really been paying much attention to the content of this thread, but I had noticed it growing substantially in the last couple weeks. I dont have any problems with cristians, except the ones that have a problem with me....which I'm pretty sure isnt Gene.

    You are correct...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 13, 2007, 07:13:12 AM
    Yeah, if it gets the chicks wet. Plus, atomic bombs led to the the stalemate of the cold war. Without M.A.D. we wouldn't be here today. I accept that fact as a good thing. Plus the Japs wouldn't accept total surrender, so they had what was coming to them.

    -- Bridget

    Wow. Just...Wow.

    Because the Government of Japan would not accept total surrender, then all of the innocent women and children who lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had what was coming to them?

    Please tell me you are fucking joking.

    I agree with Brian.  It is not a "logical" position to claim that in order to save "x" lives, we need to fry "y" women, children, men, cattle, frogs (not the French), ants, buildings, etc, etc, etc.   But then they were the "Japs".  That wonderful tool of the propagandist.  Inventing terms that convince the sheeple that certain people are really less than human and so we feel better about "liquidating" that particular meanace from the face of the planet.  Like the "towelheads".  Let's just glass them over and do away with the problem !!!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 13, 2007, 07:20:47 AM
    So here's your logic so far.

    1) War is evil no matter what, even if you try to defend yourself.

    2) Therefore no war is justifiable, and no weapon is justifiable.

    Consequence: Any defense in war is evil.

    -- Bridget
    You can kill anyone trying to kill you but not random people realated to them.

    I learned over a year ago that Mr. Attis is just a troll who likes to stir it up and has no interest in any kind of exchange that he doesn't dominate over and he belittles anyone who disagrees with him.  His positions are illogical (in that way he definately is very "woman"ish) but he will argue them beyond the point of simply saying "we will have to agree to dissagree" and then resort to name calling.  I put him on ignore for that reason and do not respond to his posts (since I only see them when others quote him).  It's funny he uses "reason is the only absolute" under his avatar as you will get little reason out of him.  Good luck...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Werzmiester on January 13, 2007, 09:57:16 AM
    God is dead.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 10:43:59 AM
    Quote
    No I'm not. And if you think the Japanese would not have slaughtered every american or chinese/korean/vietnamese then you're really deluding yourself. These folks were hard core fascists in their own right. And in war there is no proportion to force. You either do it or surrender, since war is total destruction of your enemy.
    Um, you have your facts somewhat wrong...not to mention that Americans committed equal if not worse atrocities than the Japanese....we conveniently like to wave away internment, as well as concentrated carpet fire-bombing of massive civilian cities.  Watch yourself Grave of the Fireflies...I recall hearing a negative review from a particulary antisocial Japanese friend that despite the efforts to make that movie appear horrible, Takahata-san did a piss-poor job of reflecting the true nature of war for Japanese civilians.
    I don't need popular films to study the fascist beliefs of early 20th century Japan.

    Quote
    I will tell you one thing and if you deny it, you are very naive.  Winners write the morals, make the rules, paint the enemy in whichever light they want.  The Japanese did nothing more than America would have, especially if the Japanese were cutting off oil in Cambodia, making the Americans completely defenseless and unable to build a military force.  Military historians like to make Pearl Harbor this evil act...it was a one-shot, using the best tech they had, which to be honest, was pretty primitive.
    Doesn't matter, morality is not what war is about.

    Quote
    The technology gap in WWII was worse for Japan/America than any other two major parties in that conflict.  The only thing that the Japanese had was the advantage of increased crypto in the second Purple machine, after the guys in Bletchley had totally wasted the first one for the majority of the war.  The Allies had more than sufficient means to win a military battle without loss of civilian life...it is clear to me that the atomic bombings were merely live trials, as the increase in military "doctors" after the drops suddenly jumped, yet no treatment was being provided for victims of radioactive poisoning.
    Doesn't matter either.

    Quote
    It is unfortunate that most Americans have this opinion.  I only hope that we never lose a war, when the terrorista forces of the world finally combine to repay the debt owed.  On that day, ALL Americans will be punished for the sins of a few.  That, as you state so well, is the cost of war.

    There is no mercy in war.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 10:45:34 AM
    All right, I should have phrased it "You are a sick fuck because you justify the brutal murder of innocents to achieve your goals." To me, its the same damn thing.
    My goals? Right. Again, you assume that which is not there.

    Quote
    How do you know? Maybe there were people there who did not agree with what was going on. By your logic everyone in America is responsible for the military adventurism of our military and if any other country who has been attacked by the US were to nuke one of our cities we would have it 'coming to us' as well.

    "War is not who's right, but who's left." -- Bertrand Russell

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 13, 2007, 10:56:22 AM
    There are two opposing theories of modern warfare. The first is the political theory. It is to fight a “nice” war, careful to kill as few as possible, and not get too many people upset. The second is the “total war” theory, which is to hold your nose and get it over with, by whatever means possible.

    Nixon and Bush are of the first theory, while William Tecumseh Sherman exemplifies the second. Sherman said, “War is hell,” and by that he meant that in order to win, it was necessary to completely destroy the enemy so as to break their will to fight. Otherwise, it just drags on and on and on, and victory becomes an elusive thing.

    This is why the U.S. policy in both world wars was to fight for total surrender. The Johnson-Nixon policy of fighting a limited war in Vietnam lead to a world in which every would-be enemy figures they can eventually fight to a stalemate, with the U.S. eventually picking up their marbles and going home. I suspect they are right.

    Never go to war, except when attacked and there is absolutely no other resolution. Then, if you must, get it over with as quickly as possible, and by whatever means necessary. Do this, and it will never even occur to anyone else to ever attack.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 11:04:29 AM
    Thanks mike. I just don't understand how people can setup conditions to what is the state of savage, raw survival. I never said I liked it or condoned it. Rational beings always have and always will find better ways to resolve differences, but if you're facing an irrational and savage opponent, give him no quarter, and destroy him outright if he intends to do the same.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 13, 2007, 11:47:59 AM
    God is dead.

    At least your statement is (I presume) an honest opinion and from the heart.  There is no problem interpreting your position...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Brian Wolf on January 13, 2007, 12:55:41 PM
    Edit: 
    Bridget and Mike
    I responded on the poll Bridget made (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=11094.0) so we can finally get the fuck off of this thread!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 03:03:33 PM
    Now thats just not fair. If they obey they get killed by our gov, if they disobey they get killed by their gov.

    So war is suppose to be fair? What planet are you from? What species do you descend from? This is the same world where people kill each other over a pair of sneakers. Now, I'm not sanctioning blind violence, but you are not getting the point.

    Lets take a very unlikely situation, say space aliens come down to invade Earth. They want to conquer our species and take our resources. Now, every army on Earth, every terrorist group, every mercenary decides to work together to fight these space aliens. Now, they know that the best way to make these space aliens stop is to kill their civilians, their children, and women. Basically, they have to take their war to their people in kind. That is logical and necessary for survival and to repel the invasion. There are no options. There are no peace talks. There are no white flags. Just total destruction for total destruction. You cannot compromise what so ever.

    Can you accept that nature of war? I'm not telling you to sanction it as a moral choice, but I am tell you to accept that which is. You're essentially confusing an IS for an OUGHT. Please stop doing that!

    -- Bridget
    Maybe if your survival is at stake you can do those things but at that point they didn't have the power to kill us all.

    Doesn't matter. Total war only ends with total surrender. That means the handing over of their generals, politicians, and emperor for trial. And the total dissolution of their armies and return to their historically held territories. And nothing more. At that time, the generals and leaders of Japan wanted to 'save face' and keep what holdings they believed they 'earned' from their war making. From territories in Korea, China, and the Pacific Ocean. They wanted to make war and have bounty by it. They had no moral right to do so. In fact, no one has the right to any spoils in any war.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 03:04:42 PM
    Now thats just not fair. If they obey they get killed by our gov, if they disobey they get killed by their gov.

    So war is suppose to be fair? What planet are you from? What species do you descend from? This is the same world where people kill each other over a pair of sneakers. Now, I'm not sanctioning blind violence, but you are not getting the point.

    Lets take a very unlikely situation, say space aliens come down to invade Earth. They want to conquer our species and take our resources. Now, every army on Earth, every terrorist group, every mercenary decides to work together to fight these space aliens. Now, they know that the best way to make these space aliens stop is to kill their civilians, their children, and women. Basically, they have to take their war to their people in kind. That is logical and necessary for survival and to repel the invasion. There are no options. There are no peace talks. There are no white flags. Just total destruction for total destruction. You cannot compromise what so ever.

    Can you accept that nature of war? I'm not telling you to sanction it as a moral choice, but I am tell you to accept that which is. You're essentially confusing an IS for an OUGHT. Please stop doing that!

    -- Bridget

    Two words: Ender's Game.

    Two words: fictional work.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 13, 2007, 03:35:56 PM
    Plus Card is not consistent in his values. For example, the main character wrote his book against war and xenocide, yet Card in real life has condoned the War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq. That's not what you call consistent, Taors.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 13, 2007, 04:58:07 PM
    Edit:
    I responded on the poll you made so we can finally get the fuck off of this thread!

    Huh?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Tommy on January 13, 2007, 10:39:42 PM
    Hey CA, look at the message I got from gandhi2 in regards to this thread.  He doesn't like it when you challenge him to show where you said those things that you didn't say and now he's threatening with the "bitchslap" secret weapon if I don't comply to his demands.  Man he acts like a little kid.  I think he's still in high school.  Check that, jr. high school.

    He's refering to my post about how you chased him away and he won't answer your challenge.

    Quote from: gandhi2
    CA has done nothing of the sort.  He has merely been a troll, he has taken too much attention in his thread, and I don't feel like speaking with somebody with nothing worth talking about.  I have expressed sufficient logical conclusions to uphold my assertions.  Now, if you are prepared to have some valid and rational debate, I am happy to continue with such as a private conversation or to open a new thread that will be restricted to valuable additions to a worthwhile topic.  If not, you will be treated just as CA, and put on ignore, with the /bitchslap feature used liberally to discourage you from being a troll or supporting a troll.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 14, 2007, 03:04:44 AM
    Do you two cuddle when you sleep together?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 14, 2007, 03:09:13 AM
    You've watched way too many Revenge of the Nerds movies.
    Meh. Those movies suck. They don't portray what it truely means to be a geek.

    Nerds are better than geeks. :lol:

    -- Bridget
    Nerds are just geeks who want to be "cool." Nerds are just geeks who don't embrace their geekiness.

    This is bass ackwards... 
    Geeks are Nerds that want to be cool... (and specialized) Nerds are aware of their uncoolness...

    http://ask.yahoo.com/20060818.html

    Anyway... check out the new shows added on saturdays to the FTL stream...

    http://listen.freetalklive.com they geek and nerd it up quite a bit.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 14, 2007, 07:54:00 AM
    Hey CA, look at the message I got from gandhi2 in regards to this thread.  He doesn't like it when you challenge him to show where you said those things that you didn't say and now he's threatening with the "bitchslap" secret weapon if I don't comply to his demands.  Man he acts like a little kid.  I think he's still in high school.  Check that, jr. high school.

    He's refering to my post about how you chased him away and he won't answer your challenge.

    Quote from: gandhi2
    CA has done nothing of the sort.  He has merely been a troll, he has taken too much attention in his thread, and I don't feel like speaking with somebody with nothing worth talking about.  I have expressed sufficient logical conclusions to uphold my assertions.  Now, if you are prepared to have some valid and rational debate, I am happy to continue with such as a private conversation or to open a new thread that will be restricted to valuable additions to a worthwhile topic.  If not, you will be treated just as CA, and put on ignore, with the /bitchslap feature used liberally to discourage you from being a troll or supporting a troll.



    I know he won't ever answer the challenge I put to him.  He stated that I advocate the use of force and that I claimed to know the mind of God.  I've repeatedly challenged him to either show where I made those claims or admit that he was either mistaken (unlikely) or lieing (more likely).  He then jumps back in and claims that I'm not reasonable because I won't answer "x" questions.  This has nothing to do with his backing up his prior claims.  Either I said those things or I didn't.  It's a simple matter for him to search the archives and re-post them here or provide a link. 

    Since he can't back up what he said, he just calls names and implies that I'm not fair.  WAAHHH !!


    Quote
    I don't know that you mean by "magic" to change my meanings.  I've been very clear what I've said and only someone who is trying to be deceitful or idiotic could try to claim that I've advocated using force to get others to "comply" with my definition of morality.  Now you can attempt to show where I've done so and also where I've claimed to know God's mind or you are exposed for the phony you are.  Come on phony - show me where I said either of those things or ADMIT you were WRONG.  If you fail to admit you were wrong, THATS an admission of DECEIT...

    Dancing around the real issue...


    Look, you SAID that I advocate the use of force and also that I claim to know the mind of God.  Now show where I've said either and quit trying to redirect the issue.  YOU CAN'T and that's why YOU WON'T.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Tommy on January 14, 2007, 12:37:29 PM
    Well it looks like the great gandhi is once again deleting his posts.  Good riddance I say.  He acts SOOOO much like a little kid.  He can't defend his position, so away he goes to sulk.  It's much better with his railing deleted anyway.

    Perhaps now we can discuss Christianity and anarchy as the thread suggests.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 14, 2007, 01:05:13 PM
    Well good riddence I say...  He can go troll elsewhere.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freedom geek on January 14, 2007, 02:28:59 PM
    You've watched way too many Revenge of the Nerds movies.
    Meh. Those movies suck. They don't portray what it truely means to be a geek.

    Nerds are better than geeks. :lol:

    -- Bridget
    Nerds are just geeks who want to be "cool." Nerds are just geeks who don't embrace their geekiness.

    This is bass ackwards... 
    Geeks are Nerds that want to be cool... (and specialized) Nerds are aware of their uncoolness...

    http://ask.yahoo.com/20060818.html

    Anyway... check out the new shows added on saturdays to the FTL stream...

    http://listen.freetalklive.com they geek and nerd it up quite a bit.
    No dorks are unaware of their uncoolness
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 14, 2007, 04:00:16 PM
    That sentence needed work...

    Was that meant to be "No Dorks" or "No, Dorks" ?

    Were you trying to disagree with me b/c you misread what I wrote, or were you making a strange statement about dorks not being as oblivious as this article states....
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 14, 2007, 06:49:26 PM
    Perhaps he meant "Nordics"...


    Nor·dic   (nôr'dĭk)  Pronunciation Key     
    adj. 

       1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of Scandinavia or its peoples, languages, or cultures.
       2. Of or relating to a human physical type exemplified by the tall, narrow-headed, light-skinned, blond-haired peoples of Scandinavia. Not in scientific use.
       3. Sports Of or relating to ski competition featuring ski jumping and cross-country racing.


    n.   A person of the Nordic physical type.


    Ya, Ya, I come from Min-E-Sota, Ya (Sweed - close enough)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 14, 2007, 11:04:34 PM
    This gandhi has gotten out of hand.  Here's the message he sent me today.  It's sick (as he is) and threatening (like I'm scared...)

    He claims I'm the one doing the name calling.  Now that's really the kettle calling the pot black...

    Quote
    An Offer of Peace
    « Sent to: ChristianAnarchist on: Today at 04:17:38 PM »
       Reply with quote Reply Remove this message
    Gotcha!! Not only does CA advocate force, but also dildoes and baby-raping!  And his children are all gay!  One is even an occultist!

    This has been a message from the Foundation for a Better Life and the Ad Council.

    P.S. I'm not going to reply in your pet thread.  If you want to get it to 100 pages, you have to keep talking back and forth with Tommy...who I'm relatively sure is just another one of your accounts.  You're name-calling does very little to phase me.  It has driven attention to your idiocy, and given me newfound reason to harass you.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freedom geek on January 14, 2007, 11:35:51 PM
    That sentence needed work...

    Was that meant to be "No Dorks" or "No, Dorks" ?

    Were you trying to disagree with me b/c you misread what I wrote, or were you making a strange statement about dorks not being as oblivious as this article states....
    I did that post at 4 in the morning my time.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 15, 2007, 01:09:01 AM
    Heh, funny that Ghandi is right. CA and Tommy share the exact same IP address... I guess that probably makes my guess right too... They DO cuddle when they sleep together.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on January 15, 2007, 01:09:54 AM
    Heh, funny that Ghandi is right. CA and Tommy share the exact same IP address... I guess that probably makes my guess right too... They DO cuddle when they sleep together.

    Does this mean woar? 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: CivilianJones on January 15, 2007, 04:23:41 AM
    (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/IWillFearNoEvil/image001.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: aquabanianskakid on January 15, 2007, 07:59:36 AM
    Isn't that considered bumping?

    2>Don't double, triple, quadruple, etc. post.

    4>No "bump" posts, please.

    Apparently CA has to create accounts that agree with him so he can give karma to himself.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 15, 2007, 08:35:42 AM
    Heh, funny that Ghandi is right. CA and Tommy share the exact same IP address... I guess that probably makes my guess right too... They DO cuddle when they sleep together.

    Well, hey, it's comon here and don't try to say it isn't.  Note the following post...

    Why can't the mods just look at the IP addresses and ban one of them.

    It's easy enough to have more than one IP address.  I have at least three most of the time.  Anyway, it isn't against the rules since there are very few rules here.  I don't even think it should be against any rules.  It doesn't hurt anyone, it's just someone trying to be deceptive and that's not a big deal.  I just wanted to let everyone know that they are talking to the same person...

    It's easy enough to have more than one IP address, that's correct...and EyeRyedUggen DOES have a different IP address than Bridget.  However, EyeRyedUggen's IP address exactly matches that of another user on this BBS.  I will tell you that you're correct in thinking that the EyeRyedUggen account belongs to a regular BBS user...but you're blaming the wrong one.

    No, I'm not telling who it is.  :-P


    -Torgo

    Now I'll note that Torgo was "discreet" and would not reveal Mr. Eye's alter ego.  I see Johnson is not so discreet but then he dosn't like my position anyway as evident by his posts so he's more than happy to take a cut against the Christian Anarchist.

    And for the record, this thread went way beyond 100 pages in real posts and over 10770 views for an undisputed record in Freetalklive BBS history.  If the prior posts were not deleted, there would be around 101 to 102 pages...

    For all future viewer of this thread, I suggest reading the first pages as therein lie the real argument for "Christian Anarchy" and many of the pages that follow are off-subject to say the least...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 15, 2007, 10:44:39 AM
    It was directly addressed that you were lying about it, and I have no problems confirming that guess. Heh, ya know... you could have pretended you had a friend... who posted from your computer. You didn't have to go and reveal that it was a fictional character you had to make up.... That's pretty sad man.

    Anywho... I also had requests to reveal your IP... That I will not fulfill.

    In the case of RedEyedUggen, it's also not as though someone was already making a direct guess about identity of alteregos at that point either.


    While I am at it... Did you guys know that Ian and Soundwave's IP's match?  :D (well, not actually, since Ian has two internet connections, but.... if Ian didn't have the strange nessecity to have cable AND dsl, they would match)

    I guess now that it's been revealed that since Gene and Tommy the same person... Gene won't be able to chat it up with himself for 7 pages... He'll just have to lock the thread now.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 15, 2007, 03:50:09 PM
    Well, Gene, I heard you got miffed because I supposedly locked your thread... Of course, you know you locked it first... and helped us find a bug in this BBS system...

    http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=30561.0;prev_next=prev

    Apparently when an admin edits their post in a thread locked by a someone with lesser priviledges... it turns the lock into an admin lock, meaning the thread author no longer has the abilty to unlock the thread....

    Shrug... I have removed MY accidental lock (if this bug is even true... I would have to do too much work looking at the database to find out) ... However, this means I have now REMOVED your lock as well... If you want to keep this thread locked... You will have to relock it again.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on January 15, 2007, 04:04:00 PM
    Out of curiosity, why should someone have the ability to lock a thread just because they started it?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 15, 2007, 04:07:40 PM
    *Shrug* "lock own thread" is just one of the priviledges built into most forum systems.

    As far as allowing people to do it here... Again... I shrug... Ian has donned this priviledge onto certain levels of BBS user...

    Gene has this ability granted to him either by his status as "Silver Amplifier" or "Godlike FreeTalker"

    I'm not sure which... (again, I could look this up, but I'm lazy)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 15, 2007, 04:10:11 PM
    Gene is a turd.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 15, 2007, 04:15:54 PM
    Yeah, when I say "he got miffed" I mean... He threatened to cancel his AMP ...

    Considering he is doing so based on a stupid assumption... I'm tempted to give him something to whine about and switch his board usergroup from "Silver Amplifier" to "ShitHead"

    Unfortunately, Gene  (in his typical unmanly modus operandi) has chosen to deal with Ian instead of coming to me, the supposed source of his problem...  Therefore... I'm leaving it to Ian to decide how to handle this.  (Or - If it even needs to be handled)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: aquabanianskakid on January 15, 2007, 04:18:29 PM
    I'm sure a few of us could up our AMP to cover...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 15, 2007, 04:29:18 PM
    Heh, funny that Ghandi is right. CA and Tommy share the exact same IP address... I guess that probably makes my guess right too... They DO cuddle when they sleep together.

    Well, hey, it's comon here and don't try to say it isn't.  Note the following post...

    Why can't the mods just look at the IP addresses and ban one of them.

    It's easy enough to have more than one IP address.  I have at least three most of the time.  Anyway, it isn't against the rules since there are very few rules here.  I don't even think it should be against any rules.  It doesn't hurt anyone, it's just someone trying to be deceptive and that's not a big deal.  I just wanted to let everyone know that they are talking to the same person...

    It's easy enough to have more than one IP address, that's correct...and EyeRyedUggen DOES have a different IP address than Bridget.  However, EyeRyedUggen's IP address exactly matches that of another user on this BBS.  I will tell you that you're correct in thinking that the EyeRyedUggen account belongs to a regular BBS user...but you're blaming the wrong one.

    No, I'm not telling who it is.  :-P


    -Torgo

    Now I'll note that Torgo was "discreet" and would not reveal Mr. Eye's alter ego.  I see Johnson is not so discreet but then he dosn't like my position anyway as evident by his posts so he's more than happy to take a cut against the Christian Anarchist.

    And for the record, this thread went way beyond 100 pages in real posts and over 10770 views for an undisputed record in Freetalklive BBS history.  If the prior posts were not deleted, there would be around 101 to 102 pages...

    For all future viewer of this thread, I suggest reading the first pages as therein lie the real argument for "Christian Anarchy" and many of the pages that follow are off-subject to say the least...

    Well, dumb ass, Torgo pointed out I was not EyeRuggedAnn or whatever the name was. But you're too fucking stupid to acknowledge. You're another paranoid, delusional retard that needs a serious real world ass kicking.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 15, 2007, 04:31:47 PM
    In the case of RedEyedUggen, it's also not as though someone was already making a direct guess about identity of alteregos at that point either.

    I couldn't figure out who the person was, but I find it funny Gene thought it was me. That guy sees angels in the architecture and prophecies in the alphabet soup! :lol:

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on January 15, 2007, 04:56:42 PM
    I guess now that it's been revealed that since Gene and Tommy the same person... Gene won't be able to chat it up with himself for 7 pages... He'll just have to lock the thread now.

    I would find that hilarious if it didn't sound strongly like signs of some kind of mental disorder.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 15, 2007, 10:17:14 PM
    You guys can say whatever you want, I have heard it all and what any of you think has absolutely no bearing on my life.  I have defended myself against attack before back around page 40 (as well as in other threads).  B-joe did his darndest back then posting lots of porn images trying to make me run away in disgust but I simply started posted "Christian images" in response.  You see I only go on the offensive after others have taken the offensive against me.  I consider that to be net-self-defense and I'm a strong self-defense advocate.  Anyway, this is what Ian said back on page 41 (look it up if you don't believe me.

    I have to applaud the CA for putting up with you guys.  His patience rivals that of Jesus himself.

    Anyway, I'm locking this thread as it seems no one wants to continue the discussion on how "Christianity" and "anarchy" are compatable (and in my opinion LINKED).  If there are future readers to this message who are interested in what's presented here I direct them to the earliest pages as presenting most of what I have to say.  I will try to keep my blog growing with new information as I have time.

    It's been fun guys but I really have many important duties that I've neglected and this takes up WAY too much time...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 16, 2007, 12:38:20 AM
    heh, there are plenty of people that wanted to talk to you about it, you simply don't enjoy answering any questions that might bring into question some of your beliefs...

    EDIT: Crap I didn't mean to unlock the topic, I just meant to add a reply... You can lock it again. Looks like the only option for an admin replying to a locked topic is to superlock it, or to unlock it....
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 16, 2007, 01:03:45 AM
    Someone needs to replace his ROM's with RAM.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on January 16, 2007, 01:06:37 AM
    (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/IWillFearNoEvil/image001.jpg)
    That is an awesome pic
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 16, 2007, 01:23:42 AM
    God DAMMIT.  Don't you people knock?

    (http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/1448/popeqd6.jpg)

    I've been waiting a year for a little privacy...

    > zip <

    Very well, * sigh *.......   Continue. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 16, 2007, 06:54:09 AM
    heh, there are plenty of people that wanted to talk to you about it, you simply don't enjoy answering any questions that might bring into question some of your beliefs...

    EDIT: Crap I didn't mean to unlock the topic, I just meant to add a reply... You can lock it again. Looks like the only option for an admin replying to a locked topic is to superlock it, or to unlock it....

    You are quite a work of art there mr. Johnson.  All the "questions" have been asked and answered numerous times...  You use your admin position to make sure your little "point" gets across.  You don't just stand by and correct wrongs, you jump in there and use your "power" to usurp over others.  Yes, it's my thread (I'm the author).  You have a point you want to make and you will make sure that your will is overpowering.  There's an old saying (perhaps you've heard it).  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  You have a miniscule amount of power as power is measured, but you just can't help yourself to use it to your advantage.  It's really the main reason I've become an anarchist.  NOBODY can be trusted with power over another.  It's human nature to abuse it.  Prove me wrong.  DON'T respond to this post and DON'T unlock it.  I'll bet you can't do it...

    You guys can say whatever you want, I have heard it all and what any of you think has absolutely no bearing on my life.  I have defended myself against attack before back around page 40 (as well as in other threads).  B-joe did his darndest back then posting lots of porn images trying to make me run away in disgust but I simply started posted "Christian images" in response.  You see I only go on the offensive after others have taken the offensive against me.  I consider that to be net-self-defense and I'm a strong self-defense advocate.  Anyway, this is what Ian said back on page 41 (look it up if you don't believe me.

    I have to applaud the CA for putting up with you guys.  His patience rivals that of Jesus himself.

    Anyway, I'm locking this thread as it seems no one wants to continue the discussion on how "Christianity" and "anarchy" are compatable (and in my opinion LINKED).  If there are future readers to this message who are interested in what's presented here I direct them to the earliest pages as presenting most of what I have to say.  I will try to keep my blog growing with new information as I have time.

    It's been fun guys but I really have many important duties that I've neglected and this takes up WAY too much time...

    P.S.  Jesus Loves You...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 16, 2007, 10:46:16 AM
    Quote
    You are quite a work of art there mr. Johnson.
    Why thank you.

    Quote
    All the "questions" have been asked and answered numerous times... 
    More lies.

    Quote
    You use your admin position to make sure your little "point" gets across.

    Funny, coming from someone who was trying to lock the thread... power.. point? What?

    Quote
    You don't just stand by and correct wrongs, you jump in there and use your "power" to usurp over others.  Yes, it's my thread (I'm the author). 
    So you are saying you own the posts of everyone else in here? I thought this was Free Talk Live's property... not yours.

    Quote
    You have a point you want to make and you will make sure that your will is overpowering.  There's an old saying (perhaps you've heard it).  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  You have a miniscule amount of power as power is measured, but you just can't help yourself to use it to your advantage.
    It's a BBS. Who is trying to lock the thread to take advantage of all the other people who have posted in it?

    Quote
    It's really the main reason I've become an anarchist.  NOBODY can be trusted with power over another.  It's human nature to abuse it.  Prove me wrong.  DON'T respond to this post and DON'T unlock it.  I'll bet you can't do it...

    I somewhat agree with this point, therefore, I'll let you keep this thread... ANYONE that does not want their posts locked into this thread... Let me know over in THIS THREAD (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=11166)... and I'll move your posts out of here. No one KNEW when this thread started that YOU were going to have the power to lock it Gene, therefore it would be unfair to let them not have control of their OWN posts. You don't own them. They came here to post on Free Talk Live's BBS. Not yours.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 16, 2007, 01:00:39 PM
    Like I said, it's my thread (I'm the author).  It's freetalklive's bbs and they can do whatever they want with what each of us "author" (maybe a dictionary would help you...)

    Anyway, I'm not going to lock the thread.  Let it run.  Everyone else was sure complaining about it awhile back and wanted it to go away.  Locking it would allow it to fade into the back pages but hey, let 'er rip.

    I see you couldn't avoid answering (I knew you wouldn't).  Even a little bit of power is tempting to use, huh???

    If you dont' like the "lock" function, have the owners remove it.  I see you like using it (I suspect you will make your little last comment and then lock it yourself - real "freetalk" spirit there).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 16, 2007, 01:14:55 PM
    Nope, it's an open thread.. just like I said... and just like any other on the BBS

    I've never locked a thread...

    Not once.

    Also, I wasn't going to reply.. I was going to just clean out the thread of all posts but yours, greys, and tommy's but the split option doesn't work the way I thought... and to do it right, I would have had to have made 20+ new threads, and then to have merged them... and It just would have been too much of a pain in the ass.  (3-4hours of work)

    Also, just for edification... ANY posts posted in this thread beyond this point are fair game to be locked down if Gene decides to lock this thread in the future... So, caveat emptor from this point on. Your posts might get locked down.

    I'll even do you a solid gene... If anyone DOES see fit to post to this thread... All your PAST posts made in this thread are ALSO fair game to be locked down. I will not move them to the other thread.

    SO, you are either DONE posting to THIS thread, and I'll move your posts it you request it in the other thread... OR you commit the posts you've already made to this pit of dispair by adding further to it.  Of course, the other fun option is to do what a few others have done... and just simply go back through this thread and delete all your own posts to it... that's fun too.

    Let 'er rip.  :D

     
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 16, 2007, 01:22:54 PM
    As good 'ol boy "W" (The President) once said (In g. bush semi-impersonated voice) "Bring It On".
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 16, 2007, 01:32:18 PM
    I'll do you one better

    Bring 'em On (http://imghost.eatshirt.com/tocard/GeorgeWBush-bring'emon.mp3)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 16, 2007, 01:59:32 PM
    I'll do you one better

    Bring 'em On

    Somehow I knew you would...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 16, 2007, 03:01:28 PM
    Well, if you believe in psychic powers... Maybe you're psychic.

    You believe in all sorts of other things that have mountains of evidence against them... Why not psychic abilities too...
    or zeus... or allah, or vishnu, or judaism... ?

    What physical evidence points to the correctness of Christianity any moreso that any other religion... thusly making Christian anarchy the answer...

    and yes, I am commiting all my own posts to the pit of dispair.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 16, 2007, 03:11:59 PM
    I know who else has the cause for ultimate suffering... those that wanted this thread to die...

    I sort of know how you feel... probably a bit like this...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo53Krs7N2k
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 16, 2007, 05:15:04 PM
    Well, if you believe in psychic powers... Maybe you're psychic.

    You believe in all sorts of other things that have mountains of evidence against them... Why not psychic abilities too...
    or zeus... or allah, or vishnu, or judaism... ?

    What physical evidence points to the correctness of Christianity any moreso that any other religion... thusly making Christian anarchy the answer...

    and yes, I am commiting all my own posts to the pit of dispair.

    The only "evidence" is in testimony and historical writings.  If you look at old testiment prophesy regarding the messiah to come and compare them to the "testimony" in writing which we call the "New Testament", you have certian events that are unlikely to have occured by "chance".  Of course one has to look at whether the documents in question are reliable.  I have addressed in the past why I feel they pass the test of reliability.  It has to do with the "manuscript authority" index (and no, it's not the "question authority" type - it's a test of reliability of historical documents).  If you want me to explain further, I'll be happy to.  It's noteworthy here to point out that what we are refering to here is "evidence" and not "proof".  There is a difference and there is no "proof", only evidence.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 17, 2007, 12:03:04 AM
    Events such as?

    I mean, how do you account for the fact that the story of the divine Jesus is obviously based on older, mythic "savior figures" such as Dionysus and Mithras or that Christian leaders are reluctant to teach early church history because it supports, rather than debunks the theory that Jesus was a mythic figure rather than a historic personage?

    How do you account for the fact that the letters of Saul/Paul of Tarsus, which were written prior to the Gospels, did not recount much of what is known as "the Jesus story", and only mentions the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension as happening in a mythic realm, rather than in an Earthly one?
     
    Also - who is to say that the documents of the Koran, or the Torah do NOT pass muster? I'm sure there is ample testimony and historical writings there...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on January 17, 2007, 12:52:42 AM
    Why the hell you still slamming your head against the wall?

    (http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/9186/stfutellersn2.gif)




    EDIT: Wouldn't that make the greatest YTMND ever? :-P

    EDIT^2: I was beat to it. http://stfupenn.ytmnsfw.com/
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 17, 2007, 01:21:36 AM
    Sometimes you slam your head into the wall and win... You simply have to properly direct your chi...

    http://www.kungfurock.com/2006/08/19/qiqong-is-the-true-power-of-shaolin-kungfu/



    (j/k) I don't believe asian bullshit either. (well, not the CHI part anyway)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 17, 2007, 01:26:33 AM
    If that wasn't hardcore enough for you... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8fKib0aLEA&eurl=

    I also think the closing line of this video applies well to this thread...  :D  (WWJD?) (or pull)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 17, 2007, 07:46:30 AM
    Events such as?

    I mean, how do you account for the fact that the story of the divine Jesus is obviously based on older, mythic "savior figures" such as Dionysus and Mithras or that Christian leaders are reluctant to teach early church history because it supports, rather than debunks the theory that Jesus was a mythic figure rather than a historic personage?

    How do you account for the fact that the letters of Saul/Paul of Tarsus, which were written prior to the Gospels, did not recount much of what is known as "the Jesus story", and only mentions the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension as happening in a mythic realm, rather than in an Earthly one?
     
    Also - who is to say that the documents of the Koran, or the Torah do NOT pass muster? I'm sure there is ample testimony and historical writings there...

    O.K... excuse me for not responding in depth to every point you make as you have to understand that I respond when I have a minute or two to spare and don't have the time to research each point and get references to each answer but I'll try.

    In the past I have explained how as far as historical documents go, the new testiment writings have a very high score in "manuscript authority".  This is determined by looking at the number of manauscripts that exist and how closely they are dated from the actual historical event they record.  If there are 5 manuscripts and they range from 200-300 years after the event, that's considered a pretty accurate record.  Most of our history is based on such.  In the case of the new testament letters, there are thousands of copies that date back to 100-200 years after the event which puts thier "score" higher than any other historical document that ever existed.  This does not establish the "truth" of what is recorded, just whether they are accurate "copies" of any "original" document or source.  There are, as I've addresed in the past, minor errors in transcribing and of course we have to translate from the original languages so errors are likley but considered minimal (by me at least). 

    As far as the "manuscript authority" of the koran and other documents, they might likewise be quite high, I have not checked it but I have in the past stated as much.

    I think that the "saviour figures" are common throughout history and may result from common historical "memory" or "cross talk" among cultures.  The Jews have waited for the "messiah" in the old testiment and are still waiting.  This is also something I have not taken the time to fully research and I only have so much time in a day, but if you have a reference that is not a tomb for me to read, I'll read it and let you know what I think.   I'll give you a hint though, I don't trust much of what I read, not even from "Christian" sources (which is why I often butt heads with other Christians)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 17, 2007, 05:04:49 PM
    O.K... excuse me for not responding in depth to every point you make as you have to understand that I respond when I have a minute or two to spare and don't have the time to research each point and get references to each answer but I'll try.

    Take your time, you missed the one about Paul.
    In the past I have explained how as far as historical documents go, the new testiment writings have a very high score in "manuscript authority".  This is determined by looking at the number of manauscripts that exist and how closely they are dated from the actual historical event they record.  If there are 5 manuscripts and they range from 200-300 years after the event, that's considered a pretty accurate record.  Most of our history is based on such.  In the case of the new testament letters, there are thousands of copies that date back to 100-200 years after the event which puts thier "score" higher than any other historical document that ever existed.  This does not establish the "truth" of what is recorded, just whether they are accurate "copies" of any "original" document or source.  There are, as I've addresed in the past, minor errors in transcribing and of course we have to translate from the original languages so errors are likley but considered minimal (by me at least). 

    As far as the "manuscript authority" of the koran and other documents, they might likewise be quite high, I have not checked it but I have in the past stated as much.

    Actually, from what I see, "manuscript authority" is actually not a comparison to actual events, but merely to other manuscripts written and carbon dated to the same era. (Interesting that Carbon dating is trusted in this case, and yet not when dating fossils or other evidence against creationism) Also, I cannot even find reference to the term "manuscript authority" other than it refers to the bible and the illiad. It seems to be another made up terminology by Christian "Scientists"

    Even if this WERE right... It would only prove that portions of the bible match other documents written in that era... or assuming your definition of manuscript authority is correct, it would prove that some portions of the bible are historically accurate. It does not even approach the point of offering evidence for the complete truth of the bible, and hardly shoudl something like this be an excuse for believing in a magical higher power or a man with special powers who walked the earth performing miracles. There are many books out today based on real events that include fictional heros with inhuman abilities. In 3000 years, will these books also have "manuscript authority"?

    I think that the "saviour figures" are common throughout history and may result from common historical "memory" or "cross talk" among cultures.  The Jews have waited for the "messiah" in the old testiment and are still waiting.  This is also something I have not taken the time to fully research and I only have so much time in a day, but if you have a reference that is not a tomb for me to read, I'll read it and let you know what I think.   I'll give you a hint though, I don't trust much of what I read, not even from "Christian" sources (which is why I often butt heads with other Christians)...

    Do you think that is perhaps becuase these cultures are sharing stories from sources that predate the myth of Jesus? I agree that there is cross talk. I believe this is likely becuase many (if not most) of the stories of the bible are culled from myths that predate even the idea of Jesus. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 17, 2007, 08:55:57 PM
    I guess I don't understand your point with Paul since by my readings, he seems to be pretty sure that Jesus is the Christ...

    You are right, the "manuscript authority" index is only to show that the copies in existance are accurate representations of whatever the original was.  One then has to analize WHAT the documents say to determine what was the mindset of the original authors.  In some cases, we don't know for sure who the original authors were, but we have a good idea (by "we" I am refering really not to myself, but those who have analyzed these things in the past - I certainly do not have the time to go over ancient manuscripts with a magnifying glass). 

    That said, I believe that the writers of the documents believed that the things they wrote were true.  If the occurances were even partially correct, then I have concluded that there was a "Jesus of Nazareth".  So now the question becomes "was he a liar, a lunatic, or God"?  Here is where the explanations start to get very involved so it will help me if you narrow down which you think he was or if you simply don't believe there was a historical character who claimed to be "Jesus of Nazareth".
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 17, 2007, 08:59:44 PM
    Johnson, you seriosly need to find a new hobby.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 18, 2007, 10:09:37 AM
    I've looked for another "Christ" like figure in other mythology and I can not find one that fits the bill of being "God" and becoming "man" as a sacrifice to save others.  In fact, I cannot find any other culture figure who claims to be God.  All the ones I find claimed to be teachers or phophets.  If you know of one that fits the bill, inform me.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cerpntaxt on January 18, 2007, 03:25:22 PM
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 18, 2007, 06:27:46 PM
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities

    I guess I should have qualified my statement by meaning any major religion.  I know there are many people (many in assylums) who make claims that they are God or a god or Jesus Christ.  A small following of 100-1000 people do not to me indicate any real trend towards acceptance.  Acceptance is not always a good qualification, but in order to narrow down the field, we have to have some way to rule out those which would be deemed by most as just "colorful" characters...

    Now I know we now have a problem in defining what is a "major" religion or what amount of followers deserves examination in detail.  In this regard I really don't know where to start - 1000? 10000?? More??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on January 18, 2007, 10:10:16 PM
    OK then.... How about:

    Haile Selassie (700,000)
    Sun Myung Moon (2 million)
    Sathya Sai Baba (10 million)
    Guan Yu (850 million)
    Krishna (1 billion)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 19, 2007, 08:07:00 AM
    OK then.... How about:

    Haile Selassie (700,000)


    Other than wiki, could not find a good link to what rastafarians believe.  Please provide.

    Quote

    Sun Myung Moon (2 million)


    He can't be all bad iin my opinion having been convicted of tax fraud and "conspiracy" (I thought there were no conspiracies...)

    The following quote from the unification church web site seems to indicate that he is not Jesus or God but rather God's "champion"...

    "I believe that Rev. Moon is the one anointed by God as His champion to eliminate evil and to establish the reign of God on Earth. Jesus visited Rev. Moon as a 15 year old boy..."


    Quote

    Sathya Sai Baba (10 million)


    The following from their web site likewise does not seem to promote him as God incarnate...

    "Sathya Sai Baba is a highly revered spiritual leader and world teacher, whose life and message are inspiring millions of people throughout the world to turn God-ward and to lead more purposeful and moral lives. His timeless and universal teachings, along with the manner in which he leads his own life, are attracting seekers of Truth from all the religions of the world. Yet, he is not seeking to start a new religion. Nor does he wish to direct followers to any particular religion. Rather, he urges us to continue to follow the religion of our choice and/or upbringing."




    Quote

    Guan Yu (850 million)


    I was able to find many references to his historial significance as a general but nothing about his role as "god".  If you can help me out here with a link that would be nice.  Being married to a Chinese I will say that the Chinese have many historical characters who are looked at more along the lines of "Superman" or other super heros with super powers (kung fu) but not as "God" himself...

    Quote

    Krishna (1 billion)


    Does appear to be believed one of many "gods" of a family of "gods" in that particular religion.  Perhaps the most "Christ like" of any religion.  I will look into this more...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on January 19, 2007, 12:31:32 PM
    Not trying to argue with ya, just saying there are other people that can fit your parameters. I would definitely say hinduism is the most christ-like of the most mainstream religions. In fact, early christian missionaries had a hard time in India because hindus were more than willing to accept that Jesus was the son of god or god in human form, they just thought it was silly that it was a one-time occurrence. Hinduism is a monotheistic religion: all forms of god are manifestations of the one god, just like the christian trinity. There are just sects that disagree on which form is "the" one god. I encourage you to look into it more, you'll find more similarities than you'd expect.

    Moon, on the other hand, believes he is basically the second form of Jesus, on earth to finish what jesus didn't. His followers believe this but downplay the godman concept for more mainstream acceptance. after all, they say he is "the one anointed by God" and "christ" means "annointed." And as far as "conspiracy" that makes him pretty christlike, doesn't it? After all, that was pretty much Jesus' trumped-up charges wasn't it? :-P
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 19, 2007, 01:06:14 PM
    I actually find many interesting similarities to the "One God" and early Confucianism.   Confucius in his early writings spoke of the "one God" and the "Creator" very much as the Jewish God and Father of Jesus.  This is one of the reasons that I accept SOME of what each culture has to offer as I believe the reality of the Creator has become manifest in pretty much every culture that ever existed...

    Current stats for this thread = 1431 posts (add about an additional 300 deleted) and 11292 views...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 31, 2007, 03:29:11 AM
    I like Amish people.  Not that I know a whole bunch of 'em, but they seem to have their heads on straight.  They've got their whole little Amish thing goin' on. 

    Most of 'em live about a hundred miles from here (me), hard workers.  They could build a house like a motherfucker. 

    They dont like voodoo modern stuff, no biggie.  They do okay.

    I'd rather fire up my truck and honk down the highway for groceries and a pack 'o smokes. 

    We're both right, 'cause nobodys wrong in this equation. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 31, 2007, 09:24:40 AM
    In a free society individuals should be allowed to choose how to live their lives. I believe the Amish have adapted a way of life that exemplifies personal responsibility and the freedom found in Capitalism.

    Ever see "Devil's Playground"? It's interesting if you haven't.

    "Devil's Playground
    Guide Rating -

    Rumspringa refers to the Amish rite of passage which begins when an Amish child reaches 16 years of age, and continues until they decide whether or not they want to join or leave the Amish church. It is the subject of Lucy Walker's debut effort as a documentary film maker in "Devil's Playground."
    At sixteen, the Amish are permitted to leave the community and explore what they refer to as the "English World" and the adults in the community call the "Devil's Playground." An Amish person is not baptized as a child, but as a young adult, when they are called uponto make one of the most important decisions of their lives.
    "Devil's Playground" follows several teens through their experiences during rumspringa, but the main focus is on Faron, the son of an Amish preacher. When he is exposed to the world "outside," he becomes addicted to crank, or crystal meth. He ends up dealing to support his habit, and hooks up with an "English" girlfriend. He acknowledges that he will probably have to say good by to her when he rejoins his community, which from the beginning of his Rumspringa never seems to be in doubt. Faron frequently says that he believes in the Amish church, it's a good religion, and makes two attempts to get off the drugs, knowing he must if he is going to return "home." "
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 31, 2007, 09:30:11 AM
    I like Amish people.  Not that I know a whole bunch of 'em, but they seem to have their heads on straight.  They've got their whole little Amish thing goin' on. 

    Most of 'em live about a hundred miles from here (me), hard workers.  They could build a house like a motherfucker. 

    They dont like voodoo modern stuff, no biggie.  They do okay.

    I'd rather fire up my truck and honk down the highway for groceries and a pack 'o smokes. 

    We're both right, 'cause nobodys wrong in this equation. 


    I have to admit that I like my modern toys, but I feel that our ultimate destruction will be from technology (or rather the misuse of it).  When I worked on the "Z-pinch" at UNR we had a discussion on the history of the machine and the first time this thing was fired, there was speculation that the dense magnetic field created by it might start a tiny singularity (black hole) that would instantly drop through the bottom of the chamber and head for the center of the planet and beyond.  It would eventually reach the other side of the planet and reverse direction.  It would continue to do so for perhaps several years constantly eating up matter and growing until the planet starts to self-destruct (along with us).  Of course the reasonable thing to do in a situation where "pressing a button" just might destroy the planet is of course to press it and see it the planet is destroyed (not), but that's exactly what they decided to do.  Fortunately, that machine is not capable of creating a singularity and so far, none of our machines can.  Some day however...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 31, 2007, 09:31:36 AM
    There are no naked singularities. In fact, singularities are not even a natural phenomena, they are mathematical artifacts of faulty assumptions.

    --  Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on January 31, 2007, 09:35:18 AM
    Tiny singularity...isn't saying "tiny" sort of redundant?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Timothy on January 31, 2007, 09:35:34 AM
    Why would I say that Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

    Well, if you're Christian to begin with, yes, that would make sense.


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

    So, we would replace the fictional authoritarian government with a fictional authoritarian God?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on January 31, 2007, 09:36:11 AM
    Tiny singularity...isn't that an oxymoron?

    Yes, because singularity means an infinitely small point in which all known rules of spacetime do not apply. Normally it has a temperature exceeding any known heat source as well.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 31, 2007, 11:11:24 AM
    5.  Since they have no legitimate power, we are already living in anarchy, you just don't know it.

    So, we would replace the fictional authoritarian government with a fictional authoritarian God?

    No, I propose that we replace a fictional authority with a legitimate (and personal) authority - our Creator).  Now whether He exists is really not for us to make real or fiction.  He either does exist or He does not.  What we personally believe does not change that fact.  Now if He is indeed a real entity (as I believe in my personal reasoning) then of course He HAS ultimate authority over us no mater what our opinion is.  Proving His existance is not currently within our realm (maybe will never be) but neither can one rule out the possibility of his existance.  I like "A Brief History Of Time" by Hawking in that he really lays out that point in his book better than I ever could.  I suggest reading it.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on February 13, 2007, 07:56:29 AM
    Since Danielle asked me to explain how I can ignore what the "gov" says when it appears in the Bible that we have been instructed to "obey", I decided the proper place for that explanation is in this thread.  Now if you don't want to read it, it's your choice to click on something else. 

    "Obeying Authority"

    The following passage in Romans makes it appear that we really must do what bushy boy and Kim-Jung-Il tell us to...

    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.

    Now we have us a delema.  Jesus has told us to obey God.  Now Paul tells us to obey Kim.  Why the conflict??

    The early Church had Rome to contend with.  I believe that statements like the above were written in such a way to appear to tell the followers to obey the authorities while really not (a kind of "coded" message to the believers).  If you examine the subject of the passage, it's"higher powers" and "rulers". 

    Acts 5:29  Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

    Here it becomes necessary to use some resoning to determine why there appears to be a conflict. In Acts 12:4 Peter gets help from God to excape from prison.  Why would God get himself in trouble with the "authorities" by helping someone defy the "powers" if He wants us to obey them?  There was another time Paul makes haste to get away from "them" as well.

    I believe that the "powers" and "rulers" are not of this world, but the next.  I don't see how one can obey two masters (Matthew 6:24) so I have determined in my mind that there is nowhere that any letters from the early Church teachers (New Testiment) tell us to obey any institution of men.  There are many examples where the early Church DEFIED the institutions of men.

    These "powers" and "rulers" have certian qualities.  They are the the "minister of God" and they are "not a terror to good works, but to the evil".  So we have an indication by their actions that the "gov" cannot possibly be who Paul is talking about.  Now if you can show me that bushy boy or Kim are "ministers of God" and that they are "not a terror to good works, but to the evil" then you got me.  I'll have to move to North Korea because Kim makes a better dictator...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on February 13, 2007, 12:40:45 PM
    A bump is a bump, no matter the length of the post. Give it up.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on February 13, 2007, 12:42:36 PM
    THIS THREAD MUST DIE!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mbd on February 15, 2007, 12:04:24 AM
    "X is the only sensible answer" is not a sensible answer.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on February 15, 2007, 12:05:25 AM
    "X is the only sensible answer" is not a sensible answer.

    A(x) = "X is the only sensible answer."

    For all x ( !A(x) ). <-- hehehe Predicate Logic FTW!

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on February 15, 2007, 07:05:58 AM
    "X is the only sensible answer" is not a sensible answer.

    1 Corinthians 3:19  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on February 15, 2007, 07:25:13 AM
    "X is the only sensible answer" is not a sensible answer.

    1 Corinthians 3:19  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

    Tammy Faye Bakker: "You can educate yourself right out of a relationship with God."

    Apparently God favors the ignorant, which is convenient as the ignorant are more likely to believe in God in the first place. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on February 15, 2007, 07:52:05 AM
    Wow.  Rillion using Tammy Faye Bakker as a authority.  I love it...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on February 15, 2007, 08:01:22 AM
    Wow.  Rillion using Tammy Faye Bakker as a authority.  I love it...

    Yes, I agree with everything that woman says.  You're a genius, Gene. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on February 15, 2007, 11:57:52 AM
    Who wouldn't trust a woman who applies makup with a trowel??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mbd on February 16, 2007, 01:44:59 AM
    Actually it is tatooed on.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on February 16, 2007, 05:51:45 PM
    This explains the ability to swim and still look plastic...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 08, 2007, 11:35:36 PM
    *** bump ***

    Just 'cuz I felt like it...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on March 08, 2007, 11:37:58 PM
    LET
    THIS
    MOTHERFUCKER
    DIE
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 08, 2007, 11:40:20 PM
    -no-

    The mad scientist throws the oversized lever causing a huge arc of plasma to burst through the air between the contacts hanging in the air.  The steel rod stretching into the sky is repeatedly struck by lightning...  He cackles above all the roar "It's Alive !! It's ALIVE !!!!"
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freeAgent on March 09, 2007, 12:04:06 AM
    I kind of enjoy anarchists disagreeing and debating about what form of anarchy they should have :lol:  Carry on...

    (Just kidding, I do actually want the thread to die.  Please.)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cerpntaxt on March 09, 2007, 12:05:30 AM
    I can't believe I'm posting this...

    Romans 13:1-2 (NIV) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:1-2;&version=31;)
    Quote
    1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

    1 Peter 2:13-14 (NIV) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%202:13-14;&version=31;)
    Quote
    13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.

    Hebrews 13:17 (NIV) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=13&verse=17&version=31;)
    Quote
    17Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on March 09, 2007, 12:09:27 AM
    Oh, those are just metaphor and/or some ancient Jewish law, Cerp. Remember?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on March 09, 2007, 12:10:23 AM
    So, are we talking about attending church services and paying a 10% income tax type Christianity here? Or just a general "Jesus is the Son of God, and that's O.k. kind?
    I mean, I can barely get past the existence of God, let alone all of the free will issues with a diety that knows the future, but claims we have a will of our own.

    Religion is broken.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on March 09, 2007, 12:21:17 AM
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Jesus is a child molester
    Die thread die

    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    God gets off from killing puppies
    Die thread die

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on March 09, 2007, 12:30:42 AM
    ***Ack! Thud!***

    Rev! For shame on you!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freeAgent on March 09, 2007, 12:56:05 AM
    Okay, so who the fuck keeps bitchslapping me?  Over the past week I've been bitchslapped at least 7 times...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on March 09, 2007, 12:59:56 AM
    Okay, so who the fuck keeps bitchslapping me?  Over the past week I've been bitchslapped at least 7 times...

    It's been happening to several people, me included.

    Oh! And here's a present for you, just 'cause. *Ping!*
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 09, 2007, 08:11:42 AM
    I can't believe I'm posting this...

    Romans 13:1-2 (NIV) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:1-2;&version=31;)
    Quote
    1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

    1 Peter 2:13-14 (NIV) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%202:13-14;&version=31;)
    Quote
    13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.

    Hebrews 13:17 (NIV) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=13&verse=17&version=31;)
    Quote
    17Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

    Ah, but Romans 13:3-4 say
    "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."

    So if you can show me where our "rulers" (excuse me sir, aren't they supposed to be our "servants"?) are only a terror to evil and show me please how they qualify as "ministers" of God??  Maybe that verse is not about G.W...

    The "subject" of 2 Peter is "suffering" at the hand of others.  Of course one suffer's most at the hands of the "gov" cult members who feel they have a right to impose thier will on you.  Ecclesiastes 3:1  ¶"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
    2  A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
    3  A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
    4  A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;"
    Perhaps if it is the time for "suffering" then 2 Peter applies.  I don't think it applies at all times or it would be wrong to oppose Hitler.
    (The above would make a great song, don't you think?) (turn, turn, turn)

    The Romans text is preceeded by 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.

    Again you have to qualify who is the subject of these powers and who qualifies as "ruler".  It says here that the "higher powers" are of God.  If you resist the power, you receive damnation.  I think these qualify the subject matter as being "rulers" and "powers" that are not of this plane, but a spiritual one.

    Now I could be wrong (never!!) but that's the way I interpret those verses.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cerpntaxt on March 09, 2007, 10:33:49 AM
    ok, now this thread must die.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on March 09, 2007, 10:37:01 AM
    Though Gene needs some limit set for his chronic asshattery. Remember:

    Quote
    Rules=
    =There are no "rules", but we do ask some things of you. If you are being too obnoxious, your posts can be edited. Not in content, but if you use giant letters or a shitload of smileys in repetition.  Read the contract that you agreed to before signing up!   Very Happy
       1> Be nice, or leave.
       2>Don't double, triple, quadruple, etc. post.
       3>Don't be a douche bag.
       4>No "bump" posts, please.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 09, 2007, 05:18:55 PM
    *please*
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on March 09, 2007, 05:21:52 PM
    I hereby nominate Gene for the BDIU Award
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 10, 2007, 12:45:16 PM
    I'm sure that's not good...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cerpntaxt on March 10, 2007, 07:30:23 PM
    mmm the pinnacle of douchedom
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 10, 2007, 08:53:18 PM
    Note: this posting is being xposted here as it is a proper continuation of this thread.


    The concept of natural rights is the consequence of the conception of a morality derived from human nature. The actual existence of those rights comes into being with the adoption and exercise of that morality.

    Is that clear enough?

    To borrow a line from Mork "Your rights are a concept, now DEATH, that's a reality" (sorry Mork)...

    Your God is is a concept based on either wish fulfilment or self delusion, now the choice of LIFE or DEATH ( to act according to a morality based either on reality or the evasion of reality ), that's a reality. - morkuzick

    One again, I'm not talking about MY God.  I'm talking of any real Creator that may be out there.  His existance is not dependant on my perception of Him however imperfect that may be.  He (if He exists) cannot be called a "concept" as He either is or He is not.  My belief, however, is that He has X Y or Z attributes.  My belief is not going to be perfect, but I try to understand how He would be based on my perceptions of what has happened, what is happening, and what my instincts tell me. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 10, 2007, 09:46:56 PM
    One again, I'm not talking about MY God.  I'm talking of any real Creator that may be out there.  His existance is not dependant on my perception of Him however imperfect that may be.  He (if He exists) cannot be called a "concept" as He either is or He is not.  My belief, however, is that He has X Y or Z attributes.  My belief is not going to be perfect, but I try to understand how He would be based on my perceptions of what has happened, what is happening, and what my instincts tell me. 

    Of course, if there is a God, then he would, by definition, exist. My point is that, given certain descriptions of God, it can be logically proven that he is a concept that does not, in reality, exist. If you believe in a kind of God that is logically plausible, I still have seen no evidence to believe that he  exists. I also don't see how speculation about the existence of a plausible God differs fundamentally from the speculation that a superior alien being engineered the human race.

    Descriptions of God are imperfect and of course cannot be proven to be either true or false.  The only "hard evidence" I can find of His existance is the creation itself.  I marvel at the perfection and complication.  It screams for an intelligent designer. 

    There is a very close resemblence to a God or a superior alien race designing us.  That only leads to speculation of who created them and we are back to square one...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cerpntaxt on March 10, 2007, 10:37:19 PM
    You should call in about that. Mark hasn't talked about evolution in a while.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: rabidfurby on March 10, 2007, 11:13:06 PM
    You should call in about that. Mark hasn't talked about evolution in a while.

    Don't encourage him. I just got un-pissed off from the last time Mark made his complete and utter lack of understanding of evolution and his complete and utter lack of knowledge about how completely and utterly he lacks knowledge known.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on March 10, 2007, 11:36:43 PM
    One again, I'm not talking about MY God.  I'm talking of any real Creator that may be out there.  His existance is not dependant on my perception of Him however imperfect that may be.  He (if He exists) cannot be called a "concept" as He either is or He is not.  My belief, however, is that He has X Y or Z attributes.  My belief is not going to be perfect, but I try to understand how He would be based on my perceptions of what has happened, what is happening, and what my instincts tell me. 

    Of course, if there is a God, then he would, by definition, exist. My point is that, given certain descriptions of God, it can be logically proven that he is a concept that does not, in reality, exist. If you believe in a kind of God that is logically plausible, I still have seen no evidence to believe that he  exists. I also don't see how speculation about the existence of a plausible God differs fundamentally from the speculation that a superior alien being engineered the human race.

    Descriptions of God are imperfect and of course cannot be proven to be either true or false.  The only "hard evidence" I can find of His existance is the creation itself.  I marvel at the perfection and complication.  It screams for an intelligent designer. 

    There is a very close resemblence to a God or a superior alien race designing us.  That only leads to speculation of who created them and we are back to square one...


    Are you saying that God is essentially a superior alien that operates within the realm of what is logically possible and does not perform actual miracles?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 11, 2007, 12:21:03 AM
    No, I'm merely admitting that a superior alien race that had the ability to engineer us would be a similar speculation as to our existance.  An alien race differs in that someone would have had to engineer them.  The idea of a God/Creator who is eternal eliminates that problem but then creates a new problem in trying to understand what "eternal" means...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on March 11, 2007, 01:47:40 AM
    No, I'm merely admitting that a superior alien race that had the ability to engineer us would be a similar speculation as to our existance.  An alien race differs in that someone would have had to engineer them.  The idea of a God/Creator who is eternal eliminates that problem but then creates a new problem in trying to understand what "eternal" means...


    Why does an intelligent entity require a creator and why can't it evolve?

    If it does, then why doesn't God require the same thing?

    Is eternal existence the only difference then, between God and sentient life ?

    If your argument rests on the premise that evolution is impossible and that since life is mortal and therefore if sentient beings are not eternal, the only way they could have come into existence is to be created, then what of the idea that there was no first sentient being, that generations mortal sentient beings go back through eternity past? Then they wouldn't need to be created in the same way that an eternal God wouldn't need to be created. Sentient life would then be, in effect, mortal gods.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on March 11, 2007, 05:18:09 AM
    No, I'm merely admitting that a superior alien race that had the ability to engineer us would be a similar speculation as to our existance.  An alien race differs in that someone would have had to engineer them.  The idea of a God/Creator who is eternal eliminates that problem but then creates a new problem in trying to understand what "eternal" means...

    If something is so complex, it requires a more complex creator, then said creator is so complex, he requires a more complex creator, so said creator is so complex, he requires a more complex creator, so said creator is so complex, he requires a more complex creator, so said creator is so complex, he requires a more complex creator, so said creator is so complex, he requires a more complex creator, so said creator is so complex, he requires a more complex creator, so said creator is so complex, he requires a more complex creator, so said creator is so complex, he requires a more complex creator, so said creator is so complex, he requires a more complex creator, so said creator is so complex, he requires a more complex creator, so said creator is so complex, he requires a more complex creator, so said creator is so complex, he requires a more complex creator, so said creator is so complex, he requires a more complex creator, so said creator is so complex, he requires a more complex creator, so said creator is so complex, he requires a more complex creator, so said creator is so complex, he requires a more complex creator, so said creator is so complex, he requires a more complex creator......

    The immaculate induction, man....mathematical proof you're full of shit.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 11, 2007, 07:21:04 AM
    Truly this is the mystery of creation that our puny minds cannot fathom.  "Creation from nothing" has the same problem.  First there was nothing, then "boom" there was everything - expanding for billions, then collapsing into nothing, then "boom" - there was everything - expanding for billions, then collapsing into nothing, then "boom" - there was everything - expanding for billions, then collapsing into nothing, then "boom" - there was everything - expanding for billions, then collapsing into nothing, then "boom" - there was everything - expanding for billions, then collapsing into nothing, then "boom" - there was everything - expanding for billions, then collapsing into nothing, then "boom" - there was everything - expanding for billions, then collapsing into nothing, then "boom" - there was everything - expanding for billions, then collapsing into nothing, then "boom" - there was everything - expanding for billions, then collapsing into nothing, then "boom" - there was everything - expanding for billions, then collapsing into nothing, then "boom" - there was everything - expanding for billions, then collapsing into nothing, then "boom" - there was everything - expanding for billions, then collapsing into nothing, then "boom" - there was everything - expanding for billions, then collapsing into nothing, then "boom" - there was everything - expanding for billions, then collapsing into nothing, then "boom" - there was everything - expanding for billions, then collapsing into nothing, then "boom" - there was everything - expanding for billions, then collapsing into nothing, then "boom" -

    ad infinitum...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Minsk on March 11, 2007, 08:11:15 AM
    Truly this is the mystery of creation that our puny minds cannot fathom.  "Creation from nothing" has the same problem.

    Do you see a difference between a claim that a particular image of a higher power created the universe through some process, and that the universe appeared through some process that probably behaved much like what we can observe experimentally?

    (Hint: the former requires disproving all other higher powers, which tend to claim immunity to proof or disproof. Good luck...)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 11, 2007, 09:33:14 AM
    Of course we have never "observed experimentally" a condition where matter appears from nothing...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on March 11, 2007, 09:46:03 AM
    When I was younger I used to be obsessed about religion/God and his/her/its nature, heck I even tried "converting" to Shinto in 7th grade (not being Japanese ended that one real fast):

    I live my life.  I look around and I see some wonderful things, I see the outward expression of organic organisms in the fibonachi sequence, I taste sweet, sweet hydro-carbon molecules, and marvel how if one "universal constant" was screwed up...everything would crumble.

    Then I see that everything that we have been able to "discover" has shown that "God's hand" isn't required to constantly make it work.  I think of my experiences as a programmer.  I code something that when it compiles is entirely self-contained.  I never need to touch it once it starts, and all those 1 and 0s whiz by in a circuit board not of my design and are completely ignorant of the fact that it was indeed me that didn't "create" them, but set them on the "path".  Any comments I write in there that say, "written by Branden" are parsed out by a development environment not of my making, thus removing any "smoking guns" of my participation.

    I don't know if those pulses of electricity, once within the confines of the circuit board, can suddenly use the other resources within their sphere of existance to pontificate why they were set in motion, where they came from, and where they will go once that final bit of machine code is executed....nor do I particularly care...they're doing exactly what I wanted to regardless of their desires, even if that function is be completely random based upon a variety of factors including those I have no control over.  I made the program to suit some purpose of mine; either for a client or for whim....the execution of the program is the end goal, the output it generates is the desire of whomever I coded it for.

    If god does exist (and I'm not sure he/she/it does), it seems so far that everything we have been able to observe and measure (and remember, we only had a real consistent and codified "method" for doing this for about 1000 or so years [VERY conservative estimate]), God doesn't seem to be actively playing a part in the execution of what we call "existence."... however, if God does exist, and it's anything similar to the allegory I just described, then that raises some very profound and troubling questions about whether or not my "free will" really is that.

    ...so as I live my life, he/she/it doesn't enter my equations.  I marvel at what is "existence" and have come to the conclusion that I will never ever be able to prove whether or not I was designed by some omniscient being, or if I'm simply the result of multi-billion year process beginning with the formation of the most basic ammino acids.

    ....and if either can be proved conclusively tomorrow, does that make the life I'm living suddenly more or less "real" or "significant" than it is now?

    (EDIT: I didn't "create" the electrons the make up the electrical pulses, so I adjusted that in my allegory)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freeAgent on March 11, 2007, 04:04:59 PM
    I taste sweet, sweet hydro-carbon molecules

    You're making me hungry :)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on March 11, 2007, 04:51:34 PM
    Of course we have never "observed experimentally" a condition where matter appears from nothing...

    Who said there was nothing? Oh yeah, that little book you put so much stock in.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 11, 2007, 06:14:18 PM
    Of course we have never "observed experimentally" a condition where matter appears from nothing...

    Who said there was nothing? Oh yeah, that little book you put so much stock in.

    No, scientists who promote the theory of the bang large...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 11, 2007, 06:21:24 PM

    Then I see that everything that we have been able to "discover" has shown that "God's hand" isn't required to constantly make it work.  I think of my experiences as a programmer.  I code something that when it compiles is entirely self-contained.  I never need to touch it once it starts, and all those 1 and 0s whiz by in a circuit board not of my design and are completely ignorant of the fact that it was indeed me that didn't "create" them, but set them on the "path".  Any comments I write in there that say, "written by Branden" are parsed out by a development environment not of my making, thus removing any "smoking guns" of my participation.


    Actually, the "programmer" analogy is a very good one.  You see your program did not happen by itself.  A bunch of lines of code didn't just happen by random chance but rather it took an "intellegent designer" in order to give them order.  Of course people will postulate that given enough time, even a program can come about but actual observations show the opposite.  Random actions bring about disorder not order.  Someone I'm sure will try to throw out "chaos theory" here, but I've never seen any example of organization from random action.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on March 11, 2007, 06:42:42 PM
    yet you allege the "programmer" needed a "designer." Therefore, the "designer" needed a "maker, the "maker" needed a "composer" and the "composer" needed an "author" and the "author needed a "deviser" and the "deviser" needed an "actualizer" and the "actualizer" needed an "establisher" and the "establisher needed a "fabricator" and the "fabricator" needed an "inventor" and the "inventor" needed a "maker" and the "maker"  needed a "producer" and the "producer" needed.....

    Moral of the story: You're not the only person who owns a thesaurus, fucktard.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on March 11, 2007, 06:57:41 PM
    Sure, Gene, but there's other part of the allegory you seem to either be missing or ignoring.

    1. In this Allegory, there's at least 3 "gods" (the programmer, the hardware manufacturer, and the IDE developer(s)) - with the strong likelyhood of more (I didnt take into account the chip designers, Hard Drive Manufacturers, RAM manufactueres....etc).  These are all seperate entities.  Does this mean that "polytheism" is the more "sensible" answer?

    2. "Free will" is a fiction that is "concluded" as a result of looking through the "computiverse" from the inside (an example of this: "centrifugal" force; which is merely "centripital" force observe from the perspective of the moving object, or similarly the "coriolis" effect), when one of those "variables" consisting of a collection of single electrical pulses is being "random" or "contrary" to the rest of the variables, that's exactly what I wanted it to do, even if it thinks and other "variables" tell it otherwise.

    3. It's just allegory.  Maybe it's a good analogy for what you're trying to prove, but it's still not exactly the same.  I had lots of tools not of my design, making, knowledge or expertise that was needed to make this program run.  Add electricity and a multitude of other "computiverses" out there to the mix, and while I might be "God" of the program, I was merely one conciousness that was able to create something in a limited capacity, which combined with others to create the "grand design".

    4. My central point was, and is, is that even IF God existed, looking on the inside of "his creation" means that we'll never be able to know or prove if he/she/it really did it, or if it's a series of actions not by random chance or actions, but a physical universe that follows a set of mechanical laws that are intrinsic to this state of being.  I'll cover this a little more in a second.

    Therefore, I don't need to look to God to make my life more fulfilling or give my existence "purpose."

    Quote
    Random actions bring about disorder not order

    1. Every action brings more disorder to the Universe.  See:  Second Law of Thermodynamics -> entropy. 

    2. You mentioned Chaos Theory, I would point to Quantum Mechanics instead - your CRT TV works around the fact that we can't measure or predict the path the electrons take when they are shot out of the the Cathode - thus as far as we know... it's completely random, but it somehow works and creates perfectly ordered "pictures" that our brains can translate.

    3. Maybe there's a "big crunch" as the result of gravitational forces slowly and inexorably coalescing in a timeframe far to long for me to comprehend, but I don't know.  We can make "predictions," but those are just that until they are verified with observation and measurement...and again we're still within "the box" so to speak.

    ------------------------------

    Again: I don't know, I'll never know, and really, niether will you.  However, I'm not really stoked on the idea of a wrathful, jealous God who is going to scratch my name from the book of Life because I simply was using the brain he/she/it "gave me" and lived my life as his "omnipotence" intended (see point #2).  :?

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 11, 2007, 07:37:31 PM
    I also do not see God as a vengeful God but rather a loving merciful one.  There is much written about hell that I think is more allegory than an actual place. 

    It is not possible to "prove" that God acted.  I've never stated that I could.  I think that He has left us "clues" to His existance within the "program" He created and we just need to be receptive to them.  I do believe that He acts sometimes in supernatural ways that each individual can experience and use to verify His existance.  These are personal experiences and they comonly are explained away as "chance" or "luck" and in many cases they may be just that - but not all. 

    In your programming example there is "polythesm" in that there are many "creators" for your program to work.  However, if you were the one who created the electricity, hard drives, displays, and etc, then it would be a better example of what I believe God has done.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on March 11, 2007, 08:41:36 PM
    You still have not addressed my argument. Is that because it will send your precious little delusion crashing down?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 12, 2007, 09:35:35 AM
    I'm not sure of which argument you are referring but I did address the last one here:

    http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=11164.msg214903#msg214903

    If that's not it, give me a link...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on March 12, 2007, 03:02:04 PM
    No, you haven't.

    Truly this is the mystery of creation that our puny minds cannot fathom.

    Since when is saying "I don't fucking know" addressing an issue? Your god is invisible, right? So wise up to the obvious fact that you can't hide behind it.

    Any "proving" this point with yet another example of unsubstantiated theories of yours? "Creation from nothing" is yet another xian idea. The big bang theory only attempts to explain formation of the current configuration of the universe, and it never claims creation from nothing.

    In fact, the model only works if it is admitted that matter has always existed. If you can believe that about your god, then why not about something real?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on March 12, 2007, 03:03:15 PM
    I AM GOING TO FUTA/TRAP BOMB THIS THREAD IF IT KEEPS GOING

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on March 12, 2007, 03:11:02 PM
    He'll keep bumping it and hapless noobs will get sucked in anyways, so I'm killing two birds with one stone: keeping him occupied and keeping myself entertained.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
    Post by: ladyattis on March 12, 2007, 03:15:14 PM
    THAT'S IT!!!!!!!

    (http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2360/ghostbusterstraplur3.jpg)

    TRAP BOMB AWAY!

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on March 12, 2007, 03:18:20 PM
    Made ya look! :-P
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...(NSFW)
    Post by: Timothy on March 12, 2007, 08:05:10 PM
    THAT'S IT!!!!!!!

    (http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2360/ghostbusterstraplur3.jpg)

    TRAP BOMB AWAY!

    -- Bridget

    Just remember these helpful words: "When the light is green, the trap is clean"
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 12, 2007, 11:33:10 PM
    No, you haven't.

    Truly this is the mystery of creation that our puny minds cannot fathom.

    Since when is saying "I don't fucking know" addressing an issue? Your god is invisible, right? So wise up to the obvious fact that you can't hide behind it.

    Any "proving" this point with yet another example of unsubstantiated theories of yours? "Creation from nothing" is yet another xian idea. The big bang theory only attempts to explain formation of the current configuration of the universe, and it never claims creation from nothing.

    In fact, the model only works if it is admitted that matter has always existed. If you can believe that about your god, then why not about something real?

    First of all "I don't know" is a legitimate answer especially if one does not know.   Secondly, the rest of that post pointed out that the same quandry exists for the "scientific" view of a "big bang" followed by a "big crunch"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on March 12, 2007, 11:48:42 PM
    Ok you stupid fucker, read what I just fucking said.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on March 13, 2007, 12:15:50 AM
    Ok you stupid fucker, read what I just fucking said.

    He won't since you're gay. :lol:

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on March 13, 2007, 12:16:50 AM
    Die thread, die.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 13, 2007, 12:20:07 AM
    Look, what you are writing (that matter always exisited) is not what the "big bang" is about.  The claim is that prior to the event, there was no universe, no time, no matter.

    If that's not what the theory is, then please explain it to me.  I still say that the same "problem" exists for a scientific explanation as for a religious one...;

    Also, I've stated in the past and I'm re-iterating it now for the uninformed that there is no way to "prove" God (or to disprove) and that is not  now nor has it ever been my intent.  Such an attempt would be fools folly.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on March 13, 2007, 12:45:00 AM
    Sorry guys, I can't help myself:

    Quote
    Also, I've stated in the past and I'm re-iterating it now for the uninformed that there is no way to "prove" God (or to disprove) and that is not  now nor has it ever been my intent.  Such an attempt would be fools folly.

    Alright, Gene.  I respect this position.  You have just admitted that you cannot prove, nor disprove the existence of God, nor can we conclude the prediction of the "big bang/big crunch" theory until we have measurement and observation. Alright, we're on the same page so far.

    So let's sum this up:

    1. God can niether be proved nor disproved. (I contend we'll never be able to, other disagree)
    2. Trying to Prove the existence of God is a fool's folly.
    3. A "fool's folly" is not a "sensible" course of action.

    So:

    How is Christian Anarchy the only "sensible" answer again?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 13, 2007, 01:11:31 AM
    Because I place my "faith" in a Creator/Father who I believe made us and cares for us.  I have no "faith" in fellow men having some pretend authority over me by virtue of their unfounded "belief" in a "fictious" entity called "government".  Now although I cannot prove or disprove the existance of God, I can and have proven that "government" is a fiction and those who believe in it are exhibiting cult like behaviour...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on March 13, 2007, 01:42:45 AM
    Quote
    Because I place my "faith" in a Creator/Father who I believe made us and cares for us.

    Alright, that's fine, as long as you recognize that this is indeed "faith," which is not necessarily nor inherantly sensible.

    Quote
    I have no "faith" in fellow men having some pretend authority over me by virtue of their unfounded "belief" in a "fictious" entity called "government".

    Again, also fine.  I have my own quandries about anarchy which I've already covered, but it least in desire you and I are on the same page on this point.

    Quote
    Now although I cannot prove or disprove the existance of God, I can and have proven that "government" is a fiction and those who believe in it are exhibiting cult like behaviour...

    Here is where you and I part ways.  Simply because God is still (always will be) an "unproven value" does not all of the sudden render it "valid" when placed next to a value that has been widely agreed to be (at least on this forum) a "fiction."  I can't prove that what you would consider to be "Satan" is the "one true god" or not, and that his "anti-morality" is the one morality designed for man, does that make a "satanic anarchy" (or insert any religion of your choice here) more "sensible" than government?

    It would seem "sensible" to treat all unkown values as just that, "unknown".... and to try and limit (or eliminate entirely) these from the foundations of our logic and reasoning.  As I said before, I'll never know if God exists, so he/she/it doesn't enter my "equations" in my daily life or how I relate to other human beings.

    --------------------------
    Interesting you mention "cult like" behavior, which the entymology of that concept is a religious one.  Can I also make the inferrence that the vast majority of Christians, Jews, Muslims, [insert religion of you choice here] are also exhibiting "cult like" behavior?

    If so, how does this make a "religious" faith more sensible than a "secular" one?
    If not, please explain to me how it isn't, as it seems what you're talking about with your "faith" and the "faith" of others in government are similiar, if not the same.
    --------------------------

    Summation: I can't see how you can make the claim of fact that "Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer" when the very pillar of your position rests upon something that is subjective, unprovable and ultimately circular in nature.  It's also something that niether you nor I will convince each other of, so I can respect your position and understand at the end of the day, we're both human beings and we both want more freedoms.

    ...but isn't it interesting that I don't need a "God" or "faith" to come to that conclusion? ;)

    Wouldn't "Anarchy" be a more sensible answer?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on March 13, 2007, 01:44:33 AM
    <Gene-The-Christian-Anarchist> NO IT WOULD NOT, SIR! YOU NEED MORE JESUS! </Gene-The-Christian-Anarchist> :lol:

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 13, 2007, 10:06:29 AM
    Quote
    Because I place my "faith" in a Creator/Father who I believe made us and cares for us.

    Alright, that's fine, as long as you recognize that this is indeed "faith," which is not necessarily nor inherantly sensible.

    It is not "necessarily" or "inherantly" sensible, but it can be sensible.  Every unknown throughout history was once considered unsensible until it was proven to be true.  I part ways with you when you claim that we will never know, because I believe that every man will come face-to-face with our Creator some day.  On that day (granted it is only a "belief" right now) I think we could at least agree that it would be "proven".
    Quote

    Quote
    I have no "faith" in fellow men having some pretend authority over me by virtue of their unfounded "belief" in a "fictious" entity called "government".

    Again, also fine.  I have my own quandries about anarchy which I've already covered, but it least in desire you and I are on the same page on this point.

    Quote
    Now although I cannot prove or disprove the existance of God, I can and have proven that "government" is a fiction and those who believe in it are exhibiting cult like behaviour...

    Here is where you and I part ways.  Simply because God is still (always will be) an "unproven value" does not all of the sudden render it "valid" when placed next to a value that has been widely agreed to be (at least on this forum) a "fiction."  I can't prove that what you would consider to be "Satan" is the "one true god" or not, and that his "anti-morality" is the one morality designed for man, does that make a "satanic anarchy" (or insert any religion of your choice here) more "sensible" than government?

    Yes, I believe that "satanic anarchy" or any other religious choice, would be more sensible than the cult of government...
    Quote


    It would seem "sensible" to treat all unkown values as just that, "unknown".... and to try and limit (or eliminate entirely) these from the foundations of our logic and reasoning.

    And we would not have any of the "discoveries" of the past that prior to the "event" of their discoveries, were "unknown"...
    Quote

    --------------------------
    Interesting you mention "cult like" behavior, which the entymology of that concept is a religious one.  Can I also make the inferrence that the vast majority of Christians, Jews, Muslims, [insert religion of you choice here] are also exhibiting "cult like" behavior?

    If so, how does this make a "religious" faith more sensible than a "secular" one?
    If not, please explain to me how it isn't, as it seems what you're talking about with your "faith" and the "faith" of others in government are similiar, if not the same.
    --------------------------

    Becase a secular view puts your faith in your fellow man to rule over you.  I'd rather put my faith in the Easter Bunny than in G.W.  My faith is in an omnipotent omnipowerful perfect Creator.  Sounds better to me...
    Quote

    Summation: I can't see how you can make the claim of fact that "Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer" when the very pillar of your position rests upon something that is subjective, unprovable and ultimately circular in nature.  It's also something that niether you nor I will convince each other of, so I can respect your position and understand at the end of the day, we're both human beings and we both want more freedoms.

    ...but isn't it interesting that I don't need a "God" or "faith" to come to that conclusion? ;)

    Wouldn't "Anarchy" be a more sensible answer?

    Anarchy is a more sensible answer for how man relates to man.  The "Christian" part is for how man relates to eternity...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on March 13, 2007, 10:24:08 AM
    I like this response, Gene.  You actually addressed everything I said:

    Quote
    It is not "necessarily" or "inherantly" sensible, but it can be sensible.

    Sure.

    Quote
    Every unknown throughout history was once considered unsensible until it was proven to be true.

    True, to a point.  Religion and government aside, the difference is those "unknowns" are explored, not practiced, until "proven."  It's only when they're proven (ideally) that we use it as part of our day-to-day existence.

    Quote
    Yes, I believe that "satanic anarchy" or any other religious choice, would be more sensible than the cult of government...

    Hmmm.  Consistent answer at least.

    Quote
    And we would not have any of the "discoveries" of the past that prior to the "event" of their discoveries, were "unknown"...

    I addressed this above, like I said, it's a good point.... to a point.

    Quote
    Becase a secular view puts your faith in your fellow man to rule over you.  I'd rather put my faith in the Easter Bunny than in G.W.  My faith is in an omnipotent omnipowerful perfect Creator.  Sounds better to me...

    This still revolves around faith.  Why not embrace the reality that there is no one fit to rule over me (in all of "eternity" or "existence") but myself?  I can't control the actions of others, nor can I "get the lowdown" from "God."  So why is faith necessary, and how is a dogmatic adherence to an unknown not "cult like behavior?"

    I'd rather put faith in myself than either the E.B., G.W., J.C., M.i.B, T.L.C, M&M, etc...

    Quote
    Anarchy is a more sensible answer for how man relates to man.  The "Christian" part is for how man relates to eternity...

    Anarchy: Okay, "more sensible" ... for the purpose of my question this works.
    Christian:  Still not quite clear on how this is the "only sensible answer."

    I don't mind discussing theology and metaphysics with you, if this is where you want to go, but I would suggest having a new thread for that one, since this relates to C.A. being the "only sensible answer."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 13, 2007, 10:51:33 AM
    Ah, but my "Christianity" is an integral part of my "anarchy".  In the past I stated on air that I wanted help in choosing a name for a "Christian Anarchist" church...

    http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=5122.0
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: lordmetroid on March 13, 2007, 12:06:41 PM
    This thread is too fucking loong!!!

    I don't even want to look at any of the post before I reply to urge you people to stop this thread...

    Now christian anarchy specially christian anarcho-communism is not the sensible answer. Everything is wrong with the idea from start to beginning. But as long as you don't force me to become a christian anarcho-communist(assumption based on your avatar). I am fine with people wanting to live such a life. I don't want to live in a state of delusion that superstitution such as religion is for all what I consider nor do I want to live in a society where I have no property rights. Just want work for me and many others, that in itself is the most sensible clue to why christian anarchy isn't the sensible answer!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on March 13, 2007, 12:17:54 PM
    (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/149/420102966_846ee6a15c.jpg?v=0)

    OH MY SCIENCE!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on March 13, 2007, 12:23:47 PM
    The funny thing I find about Gene is that he needs faith to validate things rather than rational discourse and empirical observation.

    Lets take rights for example. Do they come from on high or do folks debate about the nature of rights, how they evolve, and then formulate theories about all this [their nature, their evolution, and their application]? Clearly folks do in one form or another, but not Gene. He wants a Sky-Daddy/Nanny to wipe his ass rather than stand on his own two feet. This is why I gave up on debating Gene and started insulting him, because that is the only thing he understands.

    I'm considering calling into the show just to playfully taunt Gene on-air to see if he's willing to debate me some other time on the show if he dares, because this fellow needs to be exposed to more than his shit-laden Bible if he is to be any use to his possible progeny.

    -- Bridget
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 13, 2007, 08:53:40 PM
    This thread is this thread.  Those who feel it's too long merely need to not read it or post in it.  The owners of this bbs have seen fit to make this forum a "free speach" forum and as such, none of you have any power to censor what is posted here.  Lord knows there's plenty of garbage here that I find "offensive" and ignorant.  I could spend my time posting to those threads about how offensive or stupid they are, but that would be a waste of my time and certainly not my business since the bbs "gods" have deemed that all posts are valid.  It would be nice (although I know better than to expect) that those who find this thread offensive would just leave it alone, but I know that will not happen.

    So I continue to ignore anyone who posts just to be offensive or abusive and respond whenever and however I feel. 

    Peace ya'all...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on March 13, 2007, 08:56:01 PM
    Gene. You just need a good assbanging. I'm serious. You're welcome at my place any time. Just bring lube. And Playgirls.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on March 13, 2007, 08:57:30 PM
    No, this thread is a yarn.

    yarn  (yärn)  n. 

       1. A continuous strand of twisted threads of natural or synthetic material, such as wool or nylon, used in weaving or knitting.
       2. Informal A long, often elaborate narrative of real or fictitious adventures; an entertaining tale.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: aquabanianskakid on March 13, 2007, 08:57:46 PM
    Gene has a point guys. As stubborn and bull headed as the old fart is, he is right. Let it be, don't argue with him. This is his kingdom, just ignore it.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on March 13, 2007, 08:59:50 PM
    King of the castle, king of the castle.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on March 13, 2007, 09:23:31 PM
    This thread is this thread.  Those who feel it's too long merely need to not read it or post in it.  The owners of this bbs have seen fit to make this forum a "free speach" forum and as such, none of you have any power to censor what is posted here.  Lord knows there's plenty of garbage here that I find "offensive" and ignorant.  I could spend my time posting to those threads about how offensive or stupid they are, but that would be a waste of my time and certainly not my business since the bbs "gods" have deemed that all posts are valid.  It would be nice (although I know better than to expect) that those who find this thread offensive would just leave it alone, but I know that will not happen.

    So I continue to ignore anyone who posts just to be offensive or abusive and respond whenever and however I feel. 

    Peace ya'all...

    You're 100% right on this.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: lordmetroid on March 13, 2007, 09:31:56 PM
    Wouldn't want it in any other way...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on March 13, 2007, 10:10:25 PM
    Quote
    Ah, but my "Christianity" is an integral part of my "anarchy".  In the past I stated on air that I wanted help in choosing a name for a "Christian Anarchist" church...

    All right, and again there's nothing wrong with this.  For the purposes of this discussion, my "anarchy" doesn't require religion/faith to make it work.  So then the only place to go from here would be "whose anarchy is more sensible," which is something I think either of us would have a hard time to "prove."  Sounds a bit "relativistic," but that's the entire nature of morality, which is "fork in the road" where our discussion has lead to.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 13, 2007, 11:38:40 PM
    And the reason that my "anarchy" requires a moral standard (Christianity) and the reason that I tie the two together is that anarchy alone left to men in general would, I believe, be a bit of a mess (still better than "gov" though).  Anarchists who have a moral basis in Christianity would (I would hope) use love and mercy along with a total distain for "authority" of men for a truly utopian society. 

    It's my dream...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 04, 2007, 10:41:51 AM
    Forgive me for not reading the entire thread, but I agree entirely with C.A.  What is the basis for atheist's morality?  Is it simply a Machiavellian motivation?  (I won't kill you and take all your things, because it serves my purpose at this time.)  Or, is there a deeper reason for being moral?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 04, 2007, 11:05:37 AM
    Forgive me for not reading the entire thread, but I agree entirely with C.A.  What is the basis for atheist's morality?  Is it simply a Machiavellian motivation?  (I won't kill you and take all your things, because it serves my purpose at this time.)  Or, is there a deeper reason for being moral?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 04, 2007, 11:31:08 AM
    Forgive me for not reading the entire thread, but I agree entirely with C.A.  What is the basis for atheist's morality?  Is it simply a Machiavellian motivation?  (I won't kill you and take all your things, because it serves my purpose at this time.)  Or, is there a deeper reason for being moral?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma)

    So...  What is the basis for atheistic morality?  How do you know what is "good"?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 04, 2007, 11:47:31 AM
    Forgive me for not reading the entire thread, but I agree entirely with C.A.  What is the basis for atheist's morality?  Is it simply a Machiavellian motivation?  (I won't kill you and take all your things, because it serves my purpose at this time.)  Or, is there a deeper reason for being moral?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma)

    So...  What is the basis for atheistic morality?  How do you know what is "good"?

    To summarize Euthyphro:  How do theists know what is good?  All they have is a book written by other people who presume to speak for God.  But then they are confronted by the following two problems:

    1.  Is the good determined by God, or does God recognize what is good?
    2.  Why should we trust the writers of sacred texts to be speaking for God, and why doesn't God simply speak for himself?

    To answer the first:  If the former, then the good is arbirtary.  If the latter, then the good is objective and it doesn't matter if we believe in God or not.
    To answer the second: Anybody can write down something and claim that it comes from God, but if they are wrong then it should be discarded, and if they are right then you must refer to the first objection.

    To answer your main question:  How do atheists know what is good?  Many different ways.  There is no single atheistic moral standard, because all atheism means is not believing in gods.  So available to atheists are every moral standard which are not theistic, which are many.  To mention a few:

    Ethical egoism
    Hedonism
    Existentialism
    Utilitarianism
    Natural realism
    Objectivism
    Moral relativisim
    Cultural relativism
    etc.

    Some models are consequentialist (emphasize the consequences of an act) whereas others are more deontological (derived from rules).   If you believe that ethics stem from empathy and emotions, you're more likely to be a Humean, whereas if you believe that ethical rules should be derived from an imperative which all people should be able to follow in every situation, you're more likely to be a Kantian.  If you believe that the good of the many is to be sought then you're a utilitarian (John Stuart Mill) whereas if you believe that the ultimate moral society could be derived from behind a veil of ignorance from which every individual should be able to determine the rules without knowing what their role in society would turn out to be, then you're a Rawlsian (John Rawls).  If you're a cultural relativist, then you believe that the good is entirely determined by culture and cannot be judged by outsiders.   If you're an individual moral relativist, then you believe that the good is entirely determined by individuals.  If you're a hedonist, then you believe that the good is determined by what is pleasurable.

    In essence, you're asking me to summarize the entirety of moral philosophy.  That's not something I care to do-- all I can really do is tell you to check out a book on the subject and find out for yourself.  It's not something that can be fully discussed on an internet forum, but I've tried to give you an idea of the scope of possibilities. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on April 04, 2007, 01:38:08 PM
    (http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/2576/librarianxd8.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cerpntaxt on April 04, 2007, 04:13:24 PM
    Rillion's rocking my socks again
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: lordmetroid on April 04, 2007, 04:31:51 PM
    Somethings are just inherented by the human species.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 04, 2007, 07:29:25 PM
    Somethings are just inherented by the human species.

    Is this to say you believe morailty to be genetic?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 04, 2007, 07:50:07 PM
    Quote
    Is this to say you believe morailty to be genetic?

    I know this wasn't directed at my, but I'll enter my 2c on this:

    I would say that in a way, yes, morality (in all its flavors) in the broadest sense is "genetic" in a very real way.  This is because morality is a result of having a mind capable of reasoning and understanding how one's actions and behaviors affect other rational beings and the environment around them.  That requires a brain with enough complexity in order to happen, which is a direct result of our genes, Gene. ;)

    Plants, and Animals are amoral; They have no morality, good or bad.  Their actions are driven soley on instinct.  There are some animals that certaintly might have the conditions necessary to formulate a morality (dolphins, elephants, higher primates), but they do not have the means to communicate this morality to us if it exists.

    Therefore, if I don't have a brain, then I can't formulate a morality: either my own "Brandenism" or by adopting one that has been communicated to me by others.  In the broadest, observable and measurable reality of our physical universe, I would make the assertion that morality is merely the consequence of having a brain.

    As I said somewhere else:  Our perceptions and existence within our reality is defined through our physicality.

    (edit: removed "I" from a sentance for grammtical correctness.)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: lordmetroid on April 04, 2007, 07:58:51 PM
    What theCelestrian said more or less. Basic morality comes from genetics and the nature of our species living in social groups which demands certain traits in order to function. Other more advanced ethics comes from reasoning, philosophying and communication inbetween people learning by each other and come to a consensus.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 04, 2007, 09:08:21 PM
    Sounds really good (and intellectual), now show in the genome code where this lies...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 04, 2007, 09:31:49 PM
    Show me a human who is in a persitant vegitative state that has, and can communicate, a morality.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 04, 2007, 09:50:42 PM
    So an individual's morality is based on the belief that others are self-aware or conscious.  Morality has developed to aid communal living.  It has further developed as people have free time and excess resources to encompass an number of reasons to be good, it makes one feel good, it just works, etc.  Is that right?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 04, 2007, 10:27:08 PM
    Quote
    So an individual's morality is based on the belief that others are self-aware or conscious

    No, morality is based on human beings (or other species) having a brain capable of reasoning and thus "discovering" (but it reality it's "making") morality.  No reasoning/consciousness...no morality.

    But if you doubt me, try having a morality/metaphysics discussion with your favorite pet.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 04, 2007, 10:44:00 PM
    Don't be so defensive, I'm just trying to understand.  Morality is then based on reason.  It is therefor reasonable to be moral?  Is this what you are saying?  Reasonable beings would naturally be moral?  We are only moral to the extent that we are reasonable?  Immoral people are unreasonable?  Am I close?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 04, 2007, 10:58:38 PM
    I wasn't being defense, just trying to drive the point home.

    Quote
    Don't be so defensive, I'm just trying to understand.  Morality is then based on reason.  It is therefor reasonable to be moral?  Is this what you are saying?  Reasonable beings would naturally be moral?  We are only moral to the extent that we are reasonable?  Immoral people are unreasonable?  Am I close?

    I honestly don't know if morality is based on reason, or if it's a mix of "logical reasoning" and some level of empathy, since most Moralities do require the ability to look beyond yourself, even if it's "self-interest" that drives you.  (Example:  "I want to be free, so in order for me to be free I have to let others be free too...otherwise they might try to oppress me)

    I also should caution you that "morality" is not always necessarily "good."  I could have a "fascist morality" (the strong rule the weak), and most would agree that this morality is "immoral" baed upon their own moral standpoints. So technically, this statement:

    Quote
    e are only moral to the extent that we are reasonable?

    Is accurate, as without a brain and the ability to reason, I cannot adopt any morality,....even if that morality is an aggressive, "harmful" one to others around me.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 04, 2007, 11:16:47 PM
    I think pragmatism would be the most reasonable moral course, but few would say that it is a very moral system.  I really don't think empathy can lead to morality.  Empathy requires a common experience, or at least a perceived common experience.  Those with whom those experiences were not shared would be outside of such a person's moral system, leading to a very situational moral system.  I think you're on to something with the commonality thing.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 05, 2007, 06:33:00 AM
    Plants, and Animals are amoral; They have no morality, good or bad.  Their actions are driven soley on instinct.  There are some animals that certaintly might have the conditions necessary to formulate a morality (dolphins, elephants, higher primates), but they do not have the means to communicate this morality to us if it exists.

    Weeeeelll......primatology is progressing in leaps and bounds these days, so that's not necessarily an accurate statement.  There's a big debate going on about whether chimpanzees and bonobos can practice empathy, and to what extent.  Some are firmly convinced that they can and do, listing examples of them helping or punishing each other, whereas others are more skeptical.  But I think Frans de Waal has shown pretty conclusively that at least the roots  of morality can be seen in primates.  And that really shouldn't be surprising-- if morality has evolved, then it's entirely natural that we should expect to see the beginnings of it in our closest living relatives. 

    Marc Hauser's recent book "Moral Minds" covers a lot of this, and it's a fun read besides....I'd recommend it.  Also Frans de Waal debates with a number of moral philosophers in the book "Primates and Philosophers" about exactly this subject.  Their main objection to him is that even if chimps and bonobos can be observed maintaining a form of morality within their group, they haven't been demonstrated to practice it in any way toward their species as a whole-- but on the other hand, that's not exactly something humans are often good at, either. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 05, 2007, 06:46:39 AM
    So morality does not have a basis in reason?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 05, 2007, 07:11:43 AM
    So morality does not have a basis in reason?

    There are many different possible ways to go in answering that question.  For one thing, you could be asking about morality as it should be, or moral dispositions in reality.  The prevailing idea of moral psychologists up until recently has been that people are basically rational in their moral judgments, and that this is something we learn how to do in our childhood development.  However, the tide is turning more toward a view that morality is generally based on intuitions-- that we like to think of ourselves as scientists or judges, carefully weighing the evidence before coming to conclusions, but in actuality we are more like press secretaries or lawyers who are simply reporting or justifying decisions which have already been made without our knowing it.  For those looking at this process through an evolutionary lens, the idea is to try and find where exactly those intuitions have come from-- is there something in the environment in which we lived 100,000 years ago which might have predisposed us toward thinking about morality in a certain way? 

    The psychologist Jonathan Haidt endorses what he called the Social Intuition Model (SIM) of morality, which basically says that most of our moral judgments by far are based on intuition, and that moral reasoning comes in mainly when we A) have the opportunity and the inclination to reflect privately to ourselves, or B) are in the process of trying to convince others of something we've already concluded.  He says this is the reason why people so often butt heads when they're trying to persuade someone else of a moral viewpoint-- they don't realize that their own position came from their intuitions in the first place, and so did the other person's, so trying to use arguments to change their mind isn't going to be very effective.  There's a saying that "You can't reason a person out of something they didn't reason themselves into in the first place," which is true to a great extent but obviously not completely....it is, of course, possible to argue people out of their positions sometimes, but it usually happens only over a long period of time and/or when the topic is not something to which they have great emotional ties. 

    Haidt says our moral intuitions can be differentiated into five domains:
    1) reciprocity and fairness
    2) aversion to suffering
    3) respect for hierarchy
    4) ingroup vs. outgroup
    5) purity and pollution

    ...and that if your moral concerns lie mainly in different domains than the person you're trying to argue with, then you're not going to get very far because you're simply not building on the same ground in terms of what is fundamentally important.  He describes liberals in the U.S. as being more concerned with domains 1 and 2, for example, and conservatives as caring more about 3-5.  It's not that either group are only partially moral, but rather that their concerns of how  to be moral are founded on different intuitions.  For Haidt, morality is both evolved and encultured-- we evolved to have these different domains in the first place, but our enculturation determines which ones we are more likely to emphasize.

    It's humbling to think that perhaps we're not as rational as we like to think we are when it comes to moral judgments, but at the same time it might help people to communicate better if they can come to understand why arguing with others about morality can feel like bashing your head against a brick wall. 

    (http://towleroad.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/santorumstewart1_1.jpg)
    Quote
    On the July 25, 2005 episode of The Daily Show, liberal host Jon Stewart tried in vain to convince conservative U. S. Senator Rick Santorum that banning gay marriage was an injustice. Quickly realizing the futility of this effort, Stewart remarked, “It is so funny; you know what’s so interesting about this is ultimately you end up getting to this point, this crazy stopping point where literally we can’t get any further. I don’t think you’re a bad dude, I don’t think I’m a bad dude, but I literally can’t convince you.”
    -- Haidt & Graham, "When Morality Opposes Justice," pg. 12


    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 05, 2007, 07:59:21 AM
    O.K. so are we now of a consensus that morality is not genetic??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 05, 2007, 08:08:51 AM
    Quote
    O.K. so are we now of a consensus that morality is not genetic??

    Maybe I'm reading all of this wrong, but it seems like the argument has been made that morality is a direct result of our biology:


    Is this in the ballpark?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 05, 2007, 08:14:51 AM
    If you are saying that the genetic component is only in the forming of the brain which then "enables" us to have something called "morality", that's a bit vague, don't you think?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 05, 2007, 08:19:17 AM
    I know I'm wading into it but, in the SIM model are 1-5 adaptive or reasonable?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 05, 2007, 08:41:00 AM
    I know I'm wading into it but, in the SIM model are 1-5 adaptive or reasonable?

    They are at least adaptive, and potentially reasonable.  As far as morality goes, reason is completely dependent on what your goals are-- that which is reasonable given one goal might be completely unreasonable given another (and here I am using "reasonable" and "rational" interchangeably).  "Adaptive" and "reasonable" are not opposed.  Luckily, research into the inherent characteristics of human nature can give us a hint about what our goals have been and possibly should be (a moral standard which seems perfect but which is in practice impossible is not very useful or effective). 

    See, anthropologists used to believe that "primitive peoples" (that is, people of tribal cultures, which is the much more politically correct way to put it) were basically stupid-- even to the point of being an inferior species.  But then we began to understand (through the work of Bronislaw Malinowski and others) how their behavior was entirely rational, given their specific social context.  And these people provide some interesting clues as to how the rest of us used to be.  The worst of American gang warfare cannot approximate the amount of violence in the culture of the Yanomamo in South America (central Brazil mainly)  because the ingroup/outgroup and hierarchical dynamics are so prevalent for them. 

    So civilization makes us more moral, if reciprocity and aversion to suffering are the benchmarks by which we judge such things-- the myth of the "Noble Savage" is just that.  But the motivations that we have to be moral have evolved.  We can't keep treating emotions and rationality as if they are somehow mutually exclusive.  In order to formulate a coherent plan to reach a goal, you have to have a motivation for choosing that goal in the first place.  The mouse is not going to navigate the maze to get cheese if he doesn't give a damn about having the cheese.  Evolution makes us better maze navigators, and it also makes us want to navigate in the first place.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 05, 2007, 12:03:25 PM
    I made a mistake in naming this thread.  It is accurate in that it represents what I believe but it is inaccurate in that it does not represent other alternatives that can also qualify (in my humble opinion) as "sensible" answers.  A few as previously discussed would be "Budhist Anarchy", "Jewish Anarchy", "Muslim Anarchy", and so on.  The entire point is that "anarchy" represents the form of government (or lack thereof) and "fill in the blank" represents from whence you obtain your moral ruler to guide your life.  Again, what I'm saying is that anarchy is a great way to live, but "men" need some form of direction in their lives that come from (or are believed to come from) the One who Created them...

    So the title of this thread should be: "Christian Anarchy is the best sensible answer - other moral code anarchy is another sensible answer..."

    A little long though...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: lordmetroid on April 05, 2007, 01:44:56 PM
    +1 karma to Gene... Good words and understanding comes from discussion even if this one happens to be utterly long one.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 05, 2007, 05:21:38 PM
    Since one can say that Creator is creator of all and all-powerful, then you might also make the argument that all death is in His hands...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on April 05, 2007, 05:35:59 PM
    Why create death? Even Objectivists, who acknowledge the state of death, attempt to avoid it as often as possible. Many of us Oists are even Longivists and Immortalists. So, why death, which is zero and void. It has no meaning, no value, no hope, no dreams. Just nothing, just null.

    -- Brede
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 05, 2007, 09:01:52 PM
    It was not God's intention that anyone die.  It is the result of free-will.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 05, 2007, 09:49:58 PM
    Of course I don't follow that God kills everyone but I did want to point out that one can claim that with the right argument.  I do not believe that we die but rather change form.  Our physical existence is released so that our spirit can be free.  Death is a death does... (poor Forrest...)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 05, 2007, 10:14:30 PM
    On this I do agree with the atheists, death is death.  The Bible says that the dead know not anything.  Death is a dreamless sleep.  A person (soul) is made up of a spirit and a body, a CD and a CD player if you will.  When the CD is in the player, music is produced.  When the CD is taken out, neither the CD nor the player make any sound.  A person is like this CD player.  When he dies, the spirit goes back to God, and his body turns to dust.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 05, 2007, 10:44:42 PM
    Johnny Cash??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 05, 2007, 10:54:05 PM
    No Seventh-day Adventist.  Third generation, but I liked Cash, still like his music.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on April 05, 2007, 10:56:12 PM
    (http://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/gay_village/pride_2004/gallery1/images/devil_group.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 06, 2007, 12:38:19 AM
    And the reason that my "anarchy" requires a moral standard (Christianity) and the reason that I tie the two together is that anarchy alone left to men in general would, I believe, be a bit of a mess (still better than "gov" though).  Anarchists who have a moral basis in Christianity would (I would hope) use love and mercy along with a total distain for "authority" of men for a truly utopian society. 

    It's my dream...

    You're delusional...   If you are requiring any "moral standard", it's not anarchy.  Not that I think anarchy is feasable, it's simply impossible to maintain.

    For freedom (anarchy) to be possible, requires that a sufficient number of people in a society have a morality that requires respect for the life and liberty of all non-aggressive people (natural rights). Whether the source of this morality is God given, handed down by tradition or derived though philosophical inquiry is not really critical, although I believe that a non-dogmatically derived morality bodes more favorably for the persistence of the commitment to natural rights by the members of this society.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 06, 2007, 01:23:46 AM
    Somethings are just inherented by the human species.

    Is this to say you believe morailty to be genetic?

    If by genetic, you mean "Is morality instinctual?", then the answer is no. I'm no anthropologist, but I consider it likely that there are instinctual social behaviors in animals, possibly including humans, that have evolved to enhance the members of a species ability to get along with each other for their mutual enhancement of survivability.

    Morality, on the other hand, is based on the ability to learn, to think and therefore to choose the things that one holds as values. From these values one forms a code. This code of values is morality.

    You are born with instinct that tells you how to act, by way of feelings (emotion). Your values, on the other hand, and therefore your morality, are freely learned and chosen.*  Moral instinct is consciously learned and accepted values that become automatically programed into our unconscious and inform us, through feelings, proper behavior according to the values we hold.


    * There is some evidence to believe that there is an instinctual bias to accept beliefs and values uncritically from authority figures, which has certain survival advantages for primitive people and especially children, but this is a bias that can be overcome.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 06, 2007, 01:34:32 AM
    So an individual's morality is based on the belief that others are self-aware or conscious.  Morality has developed to aid communal living.  It has further developed as people have free time and excess resources to encompass an number of reasons to be good, it makes one feel good, it just works, etc.  Is that right?

    Only that aspect of morality that concerns itself with how we should behave toward other people. If you lived alone in the woods, you would still need to behave in a way as to protect your values.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 06, 2007, 07:55:05 AM
    No Seventh-day Adventist.  Third generation, but I liked Cash, still like his music.

    "Man in Black"
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 06, 2007, 08:41:27 AM
    [* There is some evidence to believe that there is an instinctual bias to accept beliefs and values uncritically from authority figures, which has certain survival advantages for primitive people and especially children, but this is a bias that can be overcome.

    This is not to say that we should throw out everything that we have learned from authorities.  Other than that, I love this post.  Thanks.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 06, 2007, 01:23:22 PM
    "Question authority"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 06, 2007, 10:00:38 PM
    Question, yes!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 07, 2007, 12:04:27 PM
    From dictionary.com...

    au·thor·i·ty      /əˈθɔrɪti, əˈθɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-thawr-i-tee, uh-thor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
    –noun, plural -ties.
    1.   the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
    2.   a power or right delegated or given; authorization: Who has the authority to grant permission?
    3.   a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency.
    4.   Usually, authorities. persons having the legal power to make and enforce the law; government: They finally persuaded the authorities that they were not involved in espionage.
    5.   an accepted source of information, advice, etc.
    6.   a quotation or citation from such a source.
    7.   an expert on a subject: He is an authority on baseball.
    8.   persuasive force; conviction: She spoke with authority.
    9.   a statute, court rule, or judicial decision that establishes a rule or principle of law; a ruling.
    10.   right to respect or acceptance of one's word, command, thought, etc.; commanding influence: the authority of a parent; the authority of a great writer.
    11.   mastery in execution or performance, as of a work of art or literature or a piece of music.
    12.   a warrant for action; justification.
    13.   testimony; witness.

    What is not determined in the above is FROM WHENCE the "vesting" comes for supposed authority...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 07, 2007, 03:03:51 PM
    From dictionary.com...

    au·thor·i·ty      /əˈθɔrɪti, əˈθɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-thawr-i-tee, uh-thor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
    –noun, plural -ties.
    1.   the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
    2.   a power or right delegated or given; authorization: Who has the authority to grant permission?
    3.   a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency.
    4.   Usually, authorities. persons having the legal power to make and enforce the law; government: They finally persuaded the authorities that they were not involved in espionage.
    5.   an accepted source of information, advice, etc.
    6.   a quotation or citation from such a source.
    7.   an expert on a subject: He is an authority on baseball.
    8.   persuasive force; conviction: She spoke with authority.
    9.   a statute, court rule, or judicial decision that establishes a rule or principle of law; a ruling.
    10.   right to respect or acceptance of one's word, command, thought, etc.; commanding influence: the authority of a parent; the authority of a great writer.
    11.   mastery in execution or performance, as of a work of art or literature or a piece of music.
    12.   a warrant for action; justification.
    13.   testimony; witness.

    What is not determined in the above is FROM WHENCE the "vesting" comes for supposed authority...

    It certainly does! It says that it's the right to control, command or determine. For those of us who believe in natural rights, this right comes from the individual who gives his voluntary consent to abide by the rules of his chosen authority. That's where government by the consent of the governed gets its authority, and that can only come from anarchy, which is a society that creates spontaneous order through a system of voluntary governments, competing in the marketplace as legitimate businesses and/or organizations.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ReverendRyan on April 07, 2007, 05:25:12 PM
    THIS THREAD MUST DIE
    (http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e91/tvarchbold/goatse_tubgirl04.jpg)
    GIVE UP THE MENTAL MASTURBATION
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 07, 2007, 06:37:36 PM
    There is a simple way to end this thread.  Accept the inevitable, government will fail, but Christianity (insert your religion) will take it's place.  You can convince people that the government is illegitimate, but God alone is immortal.

    (He says with a smirk)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on April 07, 2007, 06:56:40 PM
    "Sorry, you can't repeat a karma action without waiting 1 hours. "

    Shit.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 07, 2007, 09:50:24 PM
    I know you were about to applaud my last post.  Thanks.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 07, 2007, 10:41:54 PM
    From dictionary.com...

    au·thor·i·ty      /əˈθɔrɪti, əˈθɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-thawr-i-tee, uh-thor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
    –noun, plural -ties.
    1.   the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
    2.   a power or right delegated or given; authorization: Who has the authority to grant permission?
    3.   a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency.
    4.   Usually, authorities. persons having the legal power to make and enforce the law; government: They finally persuaded the authorities that they were not involved in espionage.
    5.   an accepted source of information, advice, etc.
    6.   a quotation or citation from such a source.
    7.   an expert on a subject: He is an authority on baseball.
    8.   persuasive force; conviction: She spoke with authority.
    9.   a statute, court rule, or judicial decision that establishes a rule or principle of law; a ruling.
    10.   right to respect or acceptance of one's word, command, thought, etc.; commanding influence: the authority of a parent; the authority of a great writer.
    11.   mastery in execution or performance, as of a work of art or literature or a piece of music.
    12.   a warrant for action; justification.
    13.   testimony; witness.

    What is not determined in the above is FROM WHENCE the "vesting" comes for supposed authority...

    It certainly does! It says that it's the right to control, command or determine. For those of us who believe in natural rights, this right comes from the individual who gives his voluntary consent to abide by the rules of his chosen authority. That's where government by the consent of the governed gets its authority, and that can only come from anarchy, which is a society that creates spontaneous order through a system of voluntary governments, competing in the marketplace as legitimate businesses and/or organizations.

    You just made my point, thanks.  The "right" is not something that can be shown to be "vested" from any source... (oh right, "natural rights" - show them to me)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 08, 2007, 12:49:46 AM
    From dictionary.com...

    au·thor·i·ty      /əˈθɔrɪti, əˈθɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-thawr-i-tee, uh-thor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
    –noun, plural -ties.
    1.   the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
    2.   a power or right delegated or given; authorization: Who has the authority to grant permission?
    3.   a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency.
    4.   Usually, authorities. persons having the legal power to make and enforce the law; government: They finally persuaded the authorities that they were not involved in espionage.
    5.   an accepted source of information, advice, etc.
    6.   a quotation or citation from such a source.
    7.   an expert on a subject: He is an authority on baseball.
    8.   persuasive force; conviction: She spoke with authority.
    9.   a statute, court rule, or judicial decision that establishes a rule or principle of law; a ruling.
    10.   right to respect or acceptance of one's word, command, thought, etc.; commanding influence: the authority of a parent; the authority of a great writer.
    11.   mastery in execution or performance, as of a work of art or literature or a piece of music.
    12.   a warrant for action; justification.
    13.   testimony; witness.

    What is not determined in the above is FROM WHENCE the "vesting" comes for supposed authority...

    It certainly does! It says that it's the right to control, command, or determine. For those of us who believe in natural rights, this right comes from the individual who gives his voluntary consent to abide by the rules of his chosen authority. That's where government by the consent of the governed gets its authority, and that can only come from anarchy, which is a society that creates spontaneous order through a system of voluntary governments, competing in the marketplace as legitimate businesses and/or organizations.

    You just made my point, thanks.  The "right" is not something that can be shown to be "vested" from any source... (oh right, "natural rights" - show them to me)...

    Rights are moral entitlements. Morality is a code of values that are held by every person. They are implicit in how they behave, whether or not they are consciously aware of the existence of these values, what they are, where they acquired them or whether they conflict. That's why there are so many people who are morally and emotionally a mess.

    For some people, the source of their moral code of values is God, and so they see the right to  control, command, or determine as vested by God upon either the individual believer a holy man, a church, or a King.

    For some people, the source of their moral code of values is in their love of power, and so they see  authority as vested by the projection of brute force.

    For some people, the source of their moral code of values is the will of the people, and so they see  authority as vested by democracy upon the elected rulers.

    For some people, the source of their moral code of values is the collective will of their ethnic group or race, and so they see authority as vested by collective will upon their leader.

    For the people who believe in natural rights, the source of their moral code of values comes from their observation of Man's nature. To them, values are the things which men must seek to gain or keep in order to sustain life, overcome adversity, and to flourish. They are instinctively rewarded with relief, satisfaction, pleasure and happiness though the successful acquisition of these values, but it is up to their intelligence, judgement and wisdom, though the exercise of their faculty of reason and creativity (The mind) that permits this acquisition. The mind can only operate successfully in an environment of liberty, free from intimidation, violence and coercion. Voluntary cooperation, within a competitive environment allows people to attain their values. Coercion and violence stunt and destroy life and all its values. Their morality requires productive work guided by rationality and creativity( the mind), within a societal framework of voluntary cooperation and trade. They see authority as vested by natural morality upon the individual, or self ownership, which is the right to control, command, or determination over one's own self.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 08, 2007, 08:04:41 AM
    [For some people, the source of their moral code of values is God, and so they see the right to  control, command, or determine as vested by God upon either the individual believer a holy man, a church, or a King.

    For the people who believe in natural rights, the source of their moral code of values comes from their observation of Man's nature.

    God has been used by many to sustain their greed, ambition, etc.  This does not mean that this justification is inherent in a belief in God.  It could be the result of faulty thinking.

    What observations of man's nature have lead to a particular moral code?  I still think, a careful observation of man's nature would lead to a moral code similar to a Machiavellian system in which men would be ruled by a ruthless but savvy ruler.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 08, 2007, 08:57:44 AM
    Rights are moral entitlements. Morality is a code of values that are held by every person. They are implicit in how they behave, whether or not they are consciously aware of the existence of these values, what they are, where they acquired them or whether they conflict. That's why there are so many people who are morally and emotionally a mess.

    So says you and X number of people who hold a similar "viewpoint".  So you make my point again.  No SOURCE of AUTHORITY exists that has a concrete definable basis (other than God).  "Entitlements", "values", "behave", "acquired"...  Huh??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 08, 2007, 07:43:40 PM
    [For some people, the source of their moral code of values is God, and so they see the right to  control, command, or determine as vested by God upon either the individual believer a holy man, a church, or a King.

    For the people who believe in natural rights, the source of their moral code of values comes from their observation of Man's nature.

    God has been used by many to sustain their greed, ambition, etc.  This does not mean that this justification is inherent in a belief in God.  It could be the result of faulty thinking.

    I guess you didn't notice, but one of the possibilities that I mentioned in the first sentence that you quoted was that they see authority as vested by God upon the individual. Where God vests his authority all depends upon which set of attributes that you vest upon your God. I.e., it depends upon your particular religion.

    Quote
    What observations of man's nature have lead to a particular moral code?  I still think, a careful observation of man's nature would lead to a moral code similar to a Machiavellian system in which men would be ruled by a ruthless but savvy ruler.

    This would imply that you must think that the way to achieve man's survival and happiness is to rule men through aggression. Tell me why you think that a moral system that entitles all innocent men to  liberty and justice is inimical to a successful and happy life.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 08, 2007, 07:58:24 PM
    Rights are moral entitlements. Morality is a code of values that are held by every person. They are implicit in how they behave, whether or not they are consciously aware of the existence of these values, what they are, where they acquired them or whether they conflict. That's why there are so many people who are morally and emotionally a mess.

    So says you and X number of people who hold a similar "viewpoint".  So you make my point again.  No SOURCE of AUTHORITY exists that has a concrete definable basis (other than God).  "Entitlements", "values", "behave", "acquired"...  Huh??


    Just as your morality comes from a religion that makes God its source and your morality is the source  of your authority over yourself, so my morality comes from the science of human nature and my morality is the source of my authority over myself.

    BTW: What is the source of your God's authority? If you say that God is his own source, then why couldn't you say that if there is no God, then that the individual is his own source of authority?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 08, 2007, 08:11:27 PM
    Rights are moral entitlements. Morality is a code of values that are held by every person. They are implicit in how they behave, whether or not they are consciously aware of the existence of these values, what they are, where they acquired them or whether they conflict. That's why there are so many people who are morally and emotionally a mess.

    So says you and X number of people who hold a similar "viewpoint".  So you make my point again.  No SOURCE of AUTHORITY exists that has a concrete definable basis (other than God).  "Entitlements", "values", "behave", "acquired"...  Huh??


    Just as your morality comes from a religion that makes God its source and your morality is the source  of your authority over yourself, so my morality comes from the science of human nature and my morality is the source of my authority over myself.

    BTW: What is the source of your God's authority?

    You confuse the morality that I believe in with "God's morality".  I've never claimed that my morality is God's morality.  I would like for my morality to be in agreement with God's, but I do not have perfect insight into exactly what God's morality is.  I have "witnesses" from the past who claimed to have some insight and I have my own spirit which I believe helps me to discern what God's morality is, but I have never claimed to have that perfect insight (I wish I did).

    My point is (again) that our Creator's moral code IS PERFECT.  As Creator, He is the only one who has that right.  He is also the only one with a claim to authority over His created.  Man has no authority over me unless he can show a "delegation" of that authority from God.  So far, I've never seen such a delegation, so I accept no man's authority over me.  So for you to say that I derive my morality from a "religion" is not accurate.  My morality is my morality.  Your morality is your morality.  I try to achieve a harmony with my morality and whatever God's morality is.  You get your morality from I don't know where...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 08, 2007, 09:28:20 PM
    I know this conversation hasn't involved me, but I have a few questions on this last post:

    Quote
    I've never claimed that my morality is God's morality.

    Alright, I have no problem with this, but I want to keep this statement in mind.

    Quote
    I would like for my morality to be in agreement with God's, but I do not have perfect insight into exactly what God's morality is.

    Same thing, no problem so far.

    Quote
    My point is (again) that our Creator's moral code IS PERFECT.

    I guess here is where I stumble a bit.  You've already conceded that:


    So I guess my question is that will all of these things in mind, how can you make the claim of fact that God's moral code "is perfect" when we cannot even come to a conclusion on his/her/its existence, let alone the morality this God may or may not have?  This just doesn't seem to be a consistent position to me.

    Before you get too "uppity"... I know there's the element of faith; either you believe in God and therefore accept his/her/its morality as the "de-facto perfect morality" (after all, if true then he/she/it created the Universe) [EDIT:]even though we don't know what that morality is [/edit] or you don't.  I also know that herein lies the real "line in the sand" that ultimately will prevent me from convincing you of my worldview and vice versa.  This is something that I'm actually very okay with, as I would rather have more liberty-minded people like you who disagrees with me on God's existence than a bunch of agnostics and atheists who feel that the initiation of aggressive coercive force for social, political or ecnomic gain is acceptable.

    I'm just not sure if I agree with your "point."

    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    (2nd Edit:) Oh, and I think it should be fair that I also answer this question since I jumped in:

    Quote
    You get your morality from I don't know where...

    I get my "morality" ultimately from "The Golden Rule" - I treat others the way I want to be treated, but I have also mentioned before in the discussion of "natural rights" that my concepts of what a "right" is and is not is very, very different than what Markuzick and others on this BBS believe it is.  I want to be as free as possible, so therefore I will do everything I can to ensure that you remain as free as possible (within the confines of my abilities and what I deem "reasonable").  As I said earlier in this thread, I don't need God, or a Government to delegate this "morality" to me.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: tc2007 on April 08, 2007, 10:12:13 PM
    I know this conversation hasn't involved me, but I have a few questions on this last post:

    Quote

    • The existence of God cannot be proven
    • Your Morality is not God's morality
    • You do not have perfect insight into what God's morality is

    Three cheers to you my friend! Feel as though you have stole the words right out of my mouth!
    Directed to theCelestrian the quote thing did not show up quite right. oh well
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 09, 2007, 12:08:41 AM
    I guess here is where I stumble a bit.  You've already conceded that:

    • The existence of God cannot be proven
    • Your Morality is not God's morality
    • You do not have perfect insight into what God's morality is

    So I guess my question is that will all of these things in mind, how can you make the claim of fact that God's moral code "is perfect" when we cannot even come to a conclusion on his/her/its existence, let alone the morality this God may or may not have?  This just doesn't seem to be a consistent position to me.


    Not being uppity here but not coming to a conclusion is your problem, not mine.  I have my conclusion but some others disagree with it.  My conclusion is that God exists, He created all that we see, and He has the ultimate authority over us and it.  Seems pretty consistant to me...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 09, 2007, 03:35:54 AM
    Quote
    Not being uppity here but not coming to a conclusion is your problem, not mine

    Conceded.  I guess that's my fault for not sticking with consistent terminology, in this case "proven" and "come to a conclusion."

    So let me rephrase:

    So I guess my question is that will all of these things in mind, how can you make the claim of fact that God's moral code "is perfect" when we cannot even prove his/her/its existence, let alone the morality this God may or may not have?  This just doesn't seem to be a consistent position to me.

    My follow up question would be: How can you know God's morality is "perfect" when you don't even know what it is?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 09, 2007, 04:49:11 AM
    Rights are moral entitlements. Morality is a code of values that are held by every person. They are implicit in how they behave, whether or not they are consciously aware of the existence of these values, what they are, where they acquired them or whether they conflict. That's why there are so many people who are morally and emotionally a mess.

    So says you and X number of people who hold a similar "viewpoint".  So you make my point again.  No SOURCE of AUTHORITY exists that has a concrete definable basis (other than God).  "Entitlements", "values", "behave", "acquired"...  Huh??


    Just as your morality comes from a religion that makes God its source and your morality is the source  of your authority over yourself, so my morality comes from the science of human nature and my morality is the source of my authority over myself.

    BTW: What is the source of your God's authority?

    You confuse the morality that I believe in with "God's morality".  I've never claimed that my morality is God's morality.  I would like for my morality to be in agreement with God's, but I do not have perfect insight into exactly what God's morality is.  I have "witnesses" from the past who claimed to have some insight and I have my own spirit which I believe helps me to discern what God's morality is, but I have never claimed to have that perfect insight (I wish I did).

    My point is (again) that our Creator's moral code IS PERFECT.  As Creator, He is the only one who has that right.  He is also the only one with a claim to authority over His created.  Man has no authority over me unless he can show a "delegation" of that authority from God.  So far, I've never seen such a delegation, so I accept no man's authority over me.  So for you to say that I derive my morality from a "religion" is not accurate.  My morality is my morality.  Your morality is your morality.  I try to achieve a harmony with my morality and whatever God's morality is.  You get your morality from I don't know where...

    Since you claim that your morality is not necessarily the one that God would approve of, then what is the source of your authority over yourself, if not, as in my belief, your own moral judgment, based on observation of Man's nature?

    BTW: If God created Man, then he created a type of being that, by his nature, requires a morality consistent with non-aggression in order to thrive. From this observation, it may be deduced that the morality that God intended Man to have would require Man to live by the principles of anarchism. For both of us, then our natures are the source of our morality and our morality is the source of our authority over ourselves. The only difference between our beliefs is that you believe that God is the source of Man's nature, or, possibly, the source of a universe where it was inevitable for Man to evolve, and I believe that Man's nature evolved in a universe that simply exists.

    Also: God may intend a morality for Man, but to speak of God's morality is to ignore that God is beyond good or evil. God's existence is unconditional and so, for God, there can be no good nor evil.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 09, 2007, 10:58:07 AM
    Quote
    Not being uppity here but not coming to a conclusion is your problem, not mine

    Conceded.  I guess that's my fault for not sticking with consistent terminology, in this case "proven" and "come to a conclusion."

    So let me rephrase:

    So I guess my question is that will all of these things in mind, how can you make the claim of fact that God's moral code "is perfect" when we cannot even prove his/her/its existence, let alone the morality this God may or may not have?  This just doesn't seem to be a consistent position to me.

    My follow up question would be: How can you know God's morality is "perfect" when you don't even know what it is?

    It is my CONCLUSION that God exists and that His moral code is perfect.  I base my conclusion on many things.  Ancient writings, my observations, and observations of others that seem reliable to me.  It's all "my judgement" just as everyone makes all their decisions based on "their judgement".  This is one of the points I've made in the past - that EVERYONE determines for themselves what is morally correct for them.  Even if you cite another source for your morality (Bible, Koran, Confucius) YOU are the one who ultimately decides to adopt that code...

    Question A:  Who decides what is morally correct for you?  1. Yourself.  2. Someone else.

    Question B:  If you answered 1, fine you agree with me.  If you answered 2, then answer

    Question C:  Who?

    Once you answer the who question, you are confronted with the fact that YOU were the one who decided to follow your "who".  So ultimately you are still the one who decides what is morally correct for you...


    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 09, 2007, 06:30:53 PM
    Quote
    It is my CONCLUSION that God exists and that His moral code is perfect.  I base my conclusion on many things.  Ancient writings, my observations, and observations of others that seem reliable to me.  It's all "my judgement" just as everyone makes all their decisions based on "their judgement".  This is one of the points I've made in the past - that EVERYONE determines for themselves what is morally correct for them.  Even if you cite another source for your morality (Bible, Koran, Confucius) YOU are the one who ultimately decides to adopt that code...

    Question A:  Who decides what is morally correct for you?  1. Yourself.  2. Someone else.

    Question B:  If you answered 1, fine you agree with me.  If you answered 2, then answer

    Question C:  Who?

    Once you answer the who question, you are confronted with the fact that YOU were the one who decided to follow your "who".  So ultimately you are still the one who decides what is morally correct for you...

    This is all wonderful, Gene, but you completely sidestepped my point.  I'll distill why I didn't agree with what you said.


    I understand you decide your own morality, I never questioned that, and indeed agreed with you on this point.  My concern is that you are making a claim of fact to bolster your argument (that the moral authority for "rights" derives from God, because his morality is perfect), but this claim of fact is not a fact at all, and you have thus far not provided anything that I can independently observe, measure or verify that would make this "fact" a fact.

    Does this make my "point" more clear?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 09, 2007, 07:13:40 PM

    This would imply that you must think that the way to achieve man's survival and happiness is to rule men through aggression. Tell me why you think that a moral system that entitles all innocent men to  liberty and justice is inimical to a successful and happy life.

    I think a careful observation of human nature would find them to be easily duped, selfish, prone to ambition, etc.  I would think that the purpose of a  moral system would be to transcending our human nature, or at least promote less pronounced aspects of it.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 09, 2007, 07:22:12 PM

    • You made a statement of fact that God's morality is perfect
    • I am asking you how you can claim this fact when you can't prove his/her/its existence, your morality is not God's morality, and you don't have perfect insight as to what his morality is.


    I'm not Gene, but I want to take a stab at this.  If God exists, and He created the universe, then He is in a unique position to describe the moral system best suited for man.  If He created man for a purpose, then He should know what that purpose is."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 09, 2007, 07:52:28 PM
    Quote
    I'm not Gene, but I want to take a stab at this.  If God exists, and He created the universe, then He is in a unique position to describe the moral system best suited for man.  If He created man for a purpose, then He should know what that purpose is."

    I appreciate the attempt, but this still doesn't answer my question.  You're speaking in hypotheticals with "if"... "if God exists."  I am asking Gene (and I guess you if you want to make the attempt) to prove to me that this statement:

    Quote
    My point is (again) that our Creator's moral code IS PERFECT

    Is indeed a fact

    The reason I am being nit-picky about this is because this is something Gene is presenting as a core-pillar of his argument.  This argument is:

    Christian Anarchy is more sensible because "rights" recieve their moral delegation from God, whose morality is perfect.

    So Gene has presented this statement as an assumed fact, which it is neither been established as a fact thus far, nor is it assumed.  My mistake was using the phrase, "come to a conclusion," which he has now pounced on and seems to be holding onto for dear life, which I should have used the term "prove" as I did when I rephrased my question.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are some other questions with your "stab", as Markuzick pointed out when Gene brought up similar arguments.  "If God created the Universe" and everthing in it as you believe, then he also created "evil" as well.  Why isn't "evil," a product of God's creation, an eqaully "perfect" or "sensible" morality then?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 09, 2007, 09:21:42 PM
    I appreciate the attempt, but this still doesn't answer my question.  You're speaking in hypotheticals with "if"... "if God exists."  I am asking Gene (and I guess you if you want to make the attempt) to prove to me that this statement:

    There are some other questions with your "stab", as Markuzick pointed out when Gene brought up similar arguments.  "If God created the Universe" and everthing in it as you believe, then he also created "evil" as well.  Why isn't "evil," a product of God's creation, an eqaully "perfect" or "sensible" morality then?
    So your real problem with the Gene's statement is that God's existence hasn't been proven; well, can't do that one so I'll stick with the hypothetical.

    Concerning evil, it doesn't necessarily follow that because God created all, He is responsible for evil.  God did create beings with free will because he valued love freely given over forced obedience.  Without a choice, free will is meaningless.  Those free agents then are responsible for evil, because they "..chose poorly."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 09, 2007, 09:27:01 PM
    Quote
    So your real problem with the Gene's statement is that God's existence hasn't been proven; well, can't do that one so I'll stick with the hypothetical.

    I already outlined a few posts back what my problem with Gene's statement is, in that it does not seem to be consistent with his previous concessions/statements regarding the existence of God, how his morality is not God's morality, and that he does not have "perfect insight" into what God's morality is (read as: I don't know what God's morality is or is not).

    Quote
    Concerning evil, it doesn't necessarily follow that because God created all, He is responsible for evil.  God did create beings with free will because he valued the love freely given over forced obedience.  Without a choice, free will is meaningless.  Those free agents then are responsible for evil, because they "..chose poorly."

    Nice Indiana Jones (Last Crusade) reference, but God still created man and "the Devil" with a capacity for "evil," if God is, as many claim, Omnipotent and Omnipresent, then he could look to the future and see the results.

    (EDIT:  If he is indeed omnipotent and omnipresent, then I think that he very much is "responsible" for "evil" as he knew this what would result from such a "morality."  Responsibility works both ways, if he's responsible for all the "Good" in the Universe, then he is also responsible for the "bad."   

    It's a pretty inconsistet relativst argument to say that "God inspires the perfect morality" for man, but then to shift the "blame" for evil onto others when they engage in behavior that is consistent with the results of "what god gave them"... in this case "free will")

    Also, if God exists, and he/she/it gave us free will, then am I not acting withing God's morality since I am using what he intended for me to use?  Is not my "use" of free will an expression of this "morality" regardless of my choices?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 09, 2007, 09:35:26 PM
    Since you claim that your morality is not necessarily the one that God would approve of, then what is the source of your authority over yourself, if not, as in my belief, your own moral judgment, based on observation of Man's nature?

    The source for having "authority" over myself is my "belief" that God has granted all men free will.  This belief is again grounded in my understanding of historical writings, personal experience and experiences of others that I determine to be credible.

    Since only God has the legitimate authority over us, only a "delegation" order from Him to someone else is legit.  I believe that he has so delegated authority for each man to have self-will to determine his own "moral code".  I also believe that we are better off eternally if our moral code comes close to Gods perfect moral code.  Since I don't believe in a literal "hell", I believe that a form of punishment is not in reality caused by God but rather a consequence of man living a life whose moral code is so far from Gods, that this man will feel a great deal of "regret" after death for how far wrong he was...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 09, 2007, 09:38:33 PM
    Absolutely not.  If a person is given two choices, this says nothing about which is the preferred choice.  Even in the absence of other direction, the one giving the choice might have a preferred choice, but God has described the preferred choice, obedience.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 09, 2007, 09:42:16 PM
    Quote
    I'm not Gene, but I want to take a stab at this.  If God exists, and He created the universe, then He is in a unique position to describe the moral system best suited for man.  If He created man for a purpose, then He should know what that purpose is."

    I appreciate the attempt, but this still doesn't answer my question.  You're speaking in hypotheticals with "if"... "if God exists."  I am asking Gene (and I guess you if you want to make the attempt) to prove to me that this statement:

    Quote
    My point is (again) that our Creator's moral code IS PERFECT

    Is indeed a fact

    O.K. I'll give it a try.  The big "if" is "if" God exists.  I have determined that He does, you have not.  Now His existence is not dependent on whether we believe in Him or not so lets assume that I am correct and He does exist.  In that case, He is the one who made us and all the "laws" for the universe (physical laws and spiritual laws).  We have been able to determine many of the physical laws by observation.  I believe that we can determine most spiritual laws also by observation (but this is not your question).  If God exists and is in control of all His creation, then I assume that His moral code is the correct one as He creates all real law.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 09, 2007, 09:50:50 PM
    Quote
    Absolutely not.  If a person is given two choices, this says nothing about which is the preferred choice.

    I'll concede that creation does not entail responsiblity, as I would not be responsible for my offspring if they committed a crime in their 20s, but this concession comes with a price: 

    Would you then also agree that by this statement, that God is not responsible for "good" either, since it is not him who is "making the good," but the people who excercise their free will and choose the "good morality"...whichever that may be?

    Quote
    Even in the absence of other direction, the one giving the choice might have a preferred choice, but God has described the preferred choice, obedience.

    I can see where you're coming from as one of the "faithful" but I disagree with this statement.  God has not described the "preferred choice"... only a bunch of people from around 5,000 - 2,000 years ago make the "claim" he has.  If you disagree, I would be more than willing to have you prove to me otherwise.

     What I find interesting about this is that if someone where to make similar claims today, "I am the truth, the light and the way" or that they have an inside track on what God's morality is because he spoke to him/her last night and told you that God wants _______....

    ...you would in all likelyhood call them crazy, in direct proportion to how "different" the message "God gave them" is to what you think the message should be.  However, what makes their claims any less valid?  They claim to have spoken directly to God, how can you prove otherwise?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 09, 2007, 09:54:46 PM
    Also, if God exists, and he/she/it gave us free will, then am I not acting withing God's morality since I am using what he intended for me to use?  Is not my "use" of free will an expression of this "morality" regardless of my choices?

    First, I have never attempted to "prove" the existence of God.  I can point to "evidence" that meets the legal standard of "evidence" which has convinced me that He exists, but you must make your own decision...

    As to God being "responsible" for evil or the "creation" of it, I don't think that is an impossibility.  There are some old-testiment references to God bringing evil on men or "causing" certain evil situations so I will have to make reference to my earlier post about "hell".  I don't believe in a literal one but a figurative one.  Each man's "hell" may be his personal remorse over the errors of his life.  I personall believe that all men will be "reconciled" to God at some time.  Jesus was the sacrifice for all sins so they have been "paid for".  Exactly how these spiritual mechanisms work is not revealed to us, I believe, because we simply don't posses the ability to understand it in this form.  After our transformation to the spiritual realm I believe we will.  There's the scripture that says that we will know as we are known.  God knows everything about us so I take that to mean that we will instantly be capable of understanding all these intricacies when we get to the other side...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 09, 2007, 10:08:47 PM
    Quote
    O.K. I'll give it a try.

    Sounds good. 

    Quote
    The big "if" is "if" God exists.  I have determined that He does, you have not.


    That's fine, but to clarify, I don't know if God exists or not.  I think it's an interesting hypothesis.

    Quote
    Now His existence is not dependent on whether we believe in Him or not so lets assume that I am correct and He does exist.

    Yes, this is true that existence is not dependent on belief, and yes I can "pretend" that this is an observable, independently verifiable fact for this particular discussion.

    Quote
    In that case, He is the one who made us and all the "laws" for the universe (physical laws and spiritual laws).

    Alright, in this scenario this is true.  Let's keep this in mind for later.

    Quote
    We have been able to determine many of the physical laws by observation.

    Correct.  However, it is impossible to "break" physical laws, which should be noted because in this test scenario, this could provide insight to the "spiritual laws" as well.

    Quote
    I believe that we can determine most spiritual laws also by observation (but this is not your question).

    It isn't, but my side-question to this would be, if physical laws can't be broken, how could spiritual laws be, particuilarly if God is in control of all creation and has set these "laws" in motion for this physical Universe?

    Quote
    If God exists and is in control of all His creation, then I assume that His moral code is the correct one as He creates all real law.

    Okay, so I'll concede with this conclusion for this "test case", but I disagree with your interpretation of the results.  There are a number of wild cards that still make the results of this conclusion nebulous at best.  These are:

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Again, all of this requires some assumptions that are not proven as fact, which is why I was concerned about you presenting your position of God's morality being perfect as a fact.  For the most part, however, this is fairly consistent with your belief set, which I have no problems with.

    It does however, raise some interesting questions and possibilities about the results though.


    ------------------------------------------------
    EDIT:  Hey, Gene?  Why did you delete your post? 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 09, 2007, 11:15:45 PM

    Quote
    Okay, so I'll concede with this conclusion for this "test case", but I disagree with your interpretation of the results.  There are a number of wild cards that still make the results of this conclusion nebulous at best.  These are:

    • We have established physical laws cannot be broken, but we cannot establish if spiritual laws can be.

    If God created existence, then Man can't break physical laws, but God can. If God gave Man free will, then Man is free to break moral rules. In fact, if the word morality is to have any meaning, then it implies a free choice.
    Quote
    • If "Spiritual Law" can be broken, then it's not necessarily "real law" as we apply to the term in physics and "physical law"
    • If "Spiritual Law" can be borken, then God is either:
      • Not in control of all His Creation
      • Was intended as part of his Creation, and "breaking of the spiritual law" can be a possiblity of his "morality" and thus "moral"
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If God's existence is unconditional, then God is not subject to morality. The proper morality for Man is inherent in the nature of the kind of being that God created Man to be. That God gave Man moral choice, which is inherent to a creature with a conscious rational mind and free will, implies that the nature of his existence is a struggle against adversity, or evil, both external as well as internal.

    From an earlier post:


    To live and be happy requires a challenge and for it to be meaningful it must be an existential challenge. Without disease, we have no immune function. Without stress our bodies and minds weaken, atrophy and die. Without pain pleasure has no meaning. Without sadness then how could there be happiness? If the reward is high enough, you can bear almost any pain happily.

    To wipe out evil you must wipe out adversity and since life is a process of overcoming adversity, you would have to wipe out all life. A God that is good (only for life, since good doesn't apply to God) and loving will let us live. Maybe that's what they mean by God's will, that what happens in life, both good and evil, is God's will.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 09, 2007, 11:30:17 PM
    Quote
    If God created existence, then Man can't break physical laws, but God can.

    Alright, conceded.

    Quote
    If God gave Man free will, then Man is free to break moral rules. In fact, if the word morality is to have any meaning, then it implies a free choice.

    Then they're rules, and not "laws" as Gene has claimed in this scenario.  Gene claimed that god created "physical and moral laws," not "physical laws and moral guidelines."

    Other than this, I already agree with you on this point.

    Quote
    If God's existence is unconditional, then God is not subject to morality.

    I would think so, but this is not what Gene claimed, and I already echoed a similar statement to this in a previous post.

    Quote
    The proper morality for Man is inherent in the nature of the kind of being that God created Man to be.

    This again, is not what Gene is arguing, but again this is also a statement of belief.  Granted, I think this statement has much more evidence supporting based upon what you consider a "right" to be, which you and I fundamentally disagree (but that was a different thread/conversation), but this statement.

    Quote
    The proper morality for Man is inherent in the nature of the kind of being that God created Man to be.

    Is not a fact.  This is not something I can conclusively observer, measure, independently verify and repeat, because the very word of "proper morality" is again a subjective term. You could say based on this evidence it's the best possible morality, but it may not be the "proper morality" that "God intended."

    This is something, however, that I have no interest in nit-picking with you about at this particular time.

    Quote
    That God gave Man moral choice, which is inherent to a creature with a conscious rational mind and free will, implies that the nature of his existence is a struggle against adversity, or evil, both external as well as internal.

    Then, again: either this "diversity" or "evil" is something God intended for there to be or he didn't.  If the former, then based upon Gene's claim that God has a "perfect morality," then it's a possibility that this choice could be part of his Morality and thus "moral."

    If the later, then God does not, as Gene also claimed, have control of "all" creation, which I think poses some much more fundamental questions about God before his "morality" (or lack thereof, or "preferred morality for man") can be addressed.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 10, 2007, 01:01:41 AM

    This would imply that you must think that the way to achieve man's survival and happiness is to rule men through aggression. Tell me why you think that a moral system that entitles all innocent men to  liberty and justice is inimical to a successful and happy life.

    I think a careful observation of human nature would find them to be easily duped, selfish, prone to ambition, etc.  I would think that the purpose of a  moral system would be to transcending our human nature, or at least promote less pronounced aspects of it.

    What you interpret as an evil or weak nature is a reflection of the fact that Humans are born without an instinct for the virtues required for a successful and happy life. They must learn this from experience and reason. The proper morality for humans to flourish is inherent in human nature, but part of human nature is that the values and virtues of which morality made from, must be discovered by learning by their mistakes and failures. Unfortunately, the good, but often mistaken, intentions of our parents, teachers, holy men, philosophers and leaders can lead to the corruption and/or perversion of the human instinct to survive, turning it away from benevolence, curiosity and pride in personal development and self discipline, turning it, instead, to fear of thinking, hatred of work, the desire for the unearned and the pleasure of inflicting pain on others.

    If God created Man, then by the nature of what God created, Man's proper morality must be discovered by Man himself. That would be because God gave Man a mind and free will.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 10, 2007, 01:40:21 AM
    Quote
    If God created Man, then by the nature of what God created, Man's proper morality must be discovered by Man himself. That would be because God gave Man a mind and free will.

    Just for the record, this is a statement I can agree with, and see the logical progression based upon available observations and evidence. (+1) (edit: with the hypotheticals correctly outlined as such)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 10, 2007, 01:44:43 AM
    Quote
    If God created existence, then Man can't break physical laws, but God can.

    Alright, conceded.

    Quote
    If God gave Man free will, then Man is free to break moral rules. In fact, if the word morality is to have any meaning, then it implies a free choice.

    Then they're rules, and not "laws" as Gene has claimed in this scenario.  Gene claimed that god created "physical and moral laws," not "physical laws and moral guidelines."
    Quote
    Other than this, I already agree with you on this point.

    This is just a question of semantics. You can think of rules as laws. The physical rules of the universe cannot be broken by Man, but the proper moral rules necessary to Man's success and happiness, that are inherent to Man's, allegedly, God given nature, not only can be broken by Man, but are unknown to Man until he discovers them by his own God given faculties.


    Quote
    The proper morality for Man is inherent in the nature of the kind of being that God created Man to be.
    Quote
    Is not a fact.  This is not something I can conclusively observer, measure, independently verify and repeat, because the very word of "proper morality" is again a subjective term. You could say based on this evidence it's the best possible morality, but it may not be the "proper morality" that "God intended."

    I admit that this is based on the assumption that God is not a sadist. God would not be all loving if he created a creature whose inherent nature was in conflict with the morality he commanded it to obey, as opposed to "proper morality", which I define as the morality that is condusive to success at survival and happiness.

    Quote
    That God gave Man moral choice, which is inherent to a creature with a conscious rational mind and free will, implies that the nature of his existence is a struggle against adversity, or evil, both external as well as internal.

    Quote
    Then, again: either this "diversity" or "evil" is something God intended for there to be or he didn't.  If the former, then based upon Gene's claim that God has a "perfect morality," then it's a possibility that this choice could be part of his Morality and thus "moral."

    I think that Gene is equating "God's morality"(A logical impossibility) with God's prescriptive morality for man.
    Quote
    If the later, then God does not, as Gene also claimed, have control of "all" creation, which I think poses some much more fundamental questions about God before his "morality" (or lack thereof, or "preferred morality for man") can be addressed.

    For God to create other beings with free will, implies that God has the power to relinquish some portion of his control. If he couldn't do so, then he would not have control over himself, and so, would not have full control in the first place.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 10, 2007, 02:01:12 AM
    Quote
    This is just a question of semantics. You can think of rules as laws. The physical rules of the universe cannot be broken by Man, but the proper moral rules necessary to Man's success and happiness, that are inherent to Man's, allegedly, God given nature, not only can be broken by Man, but are unknown to Man until he discovers them by his own God given faculties.

    Alright, and on this point I'll concede that based on observable evidence, this is the conclusion that has the highest probability of being true, assuming all of our other assumption made about God's existence are also true.

    Quote
    I admit that this is based on the assumption that God is not a sadist. God would not be all loving if he created a creature whose inherent nature was in conflict with the morality he commanded it to obey, as opposed to "proper morality", which I define as the morality that is condusive to success at survival and happiness.

    Sure would suck if he/she was, but I could see how one could look at the world, look at how humans are constantly in conflict with one another and that this "proper morality" must be learned, and is not instinctive to man as a case that God did indeed create man's nature to be contrary to the "morality" that he has prescribed for them. :?

    Quote
    I think that Gene is equating "God's morality"(A logical impossibility) with God's prescriptive morality for man.

    I'll let Gene clarify what he does or does not mean. ;)

    Quote
    For God to create other beings with free will, implies that God has the power to relinquish some portion of his control. If he couldn't do so, then he would not have control over himself, and so, would not have full control in the first place.

    I won't argue this statement, because there's just too many things that are assumed in this model.  Aside from Assuming God exists, we're assuming that he did indeed intend for us to have free will, and that is wasn't an "unintended byproduct" of our nature, but then could be what he intended all along.  It could also be argued that this "free will" we're describing really isn't free will at all, it just depends on how much stock we're willing to put in the assumptions about God we're making.

    Assuming God did intentionally create us with free will, then yes, I think your statement is logically consistent.  But it also means that he does not have control of ALL creation, regardless of whether that is by choice or not.

    (EDIT: fixed "stok" to "stock")
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 10, 2007, 02:28:03 AM

    Quote
    I admit that this is based on the assumption that God is not a sadist. God would not be all loving if he created a creature whose inherent nature was in conflict with the morality he commanded it to obey, as opposed to "proper morality", which I define as the morality that is conducive to success at survival and happiness.

    Sure would suck if he/she was, but I could see how one could look at the world, look at how humans are constantly in conflict with one another and that this "proper morality" must be learned, and is not instinctive to man as a case that God did indeed create man's nature to be contrary to the "morality" that he has prescribed for them. :?

    If God gave us "morality" as an inborn instinct that we could only obey, that required no thought, no  choice and no effort to achieve, then it could not be thought of as morality, and we could not be thought of as people, or as having free will, or as being much more than the lower animals that live primarily by instinct.

    I addressed the source of this mistaken view 2 posts ago:


    Quote
    What you interpret as an evil or weak nature is a reflection of the fact that Humans are born without an instinct for the virtues required for a successful and happy life. They must learn this from experience and reason. The proper morality for humans to flourish is inherent in human nature, but part of human nature is that the values and virtues of which morality made from, must be discovered by learning by their mistakes and failures. Unfortunately, the good, but often mistaken, intentions of our parents, teachers, holy men, philosophers and leaders can lead to the corruption and/or perversion of the human instinct to survive, turning it away from benevolence, curiosity and pride in personal development and self discipline, turning it, instead, to fear of thinking, hatred of work, the desire for the unearned and the pleasure of inflicting pain on others.

    If God created Man, then by the nature of what God created, Man's proper morality must be discovered by Man himself. That would be because God gave Man a mind and free will.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 10, 2007, 02:45:46 AM
    Quote
    If God gave us "morality" as an inborn instinct that we could only obey, that required no thought, no  choice and no effort to achieve, then it could not be thought of as morality, and we could not be thought of as people, or as having free will, or as being much more than the lower animals that live primarily by instinct.

    I addressed the source of this mistaken view 2 posts ago:

    ::sigh:: Even if this is true, Mark, you didn't address the other "evidence" I cited:

    I read your post back then, and I read it again.  I know you don't believe in God, and I'm pretty agnostic about this whole thing.  I understand your position on learning this morality being part of human nature, but this is again a philisophical assumption made by you.  It could be equally possible that our "instincts" are much more animal in nature, and that our evolved brain has learned to "check" these instinctual responses.

    I would also posit the other point of my claim that you didn't address,... the fact that it seems to be "mans nature" to constantly be in conflict with one another.  This has always happened within our recorded and measurable history, even pre-historic men had evidence of of conflict on their skeletons and remains.

    As I said earlier, one could make the case the human beings are by nature a violent species, which would seem to me to be at odds with this best possible morality that you have outlined for man.  Im not saying your morality is wrong, or that it isn't the best possible morality to ensure mans continued survival, but I am pointing out that available evidence could be interpreted to suggest that "human nature" runs contrary to this morality, and it's only because of our ability to learn and assimilate information and apply that information to ourselves that we can "change our nature" so to speak.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: goten1201 on April 10, 2007, 03:51:31 AM
    is this the original thread, or one of the four floating around the forum?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 10, 2007, 04:27:13 AM
    is this the original thread, or one of the four floating around the forum?
    The original.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 10, 2007, 04:45:59 AM
    Quote
    If God gave us "morality" as an inborn instinct that we could only obey, that required no thought, no  choice and no effort to achieve, then it could not be thought of as morality, and we could not be thought of as people, or as having free will, or as being much more than the lower animals that live primarily by instinct.

    I addressed the source of this mistaken view 2 posts ago:

    ::sigh:: Even if this is true, Mark, you didn't address the other "evidence" I cited:

    I read your post back then, and I read it again.  I know you don't believe in God, and I'm pretty agnostic about this whole thing.  I understand your position on learning this morality being part of human nature, but this is again a philisophical assumption made by you.  It could be equally possible that our "instincts" are much more animal in nature, and that our evolved brain has learned to "check" these instinctual responses.

    I would also posit the other point of my claim that you didn't address,... the fact that it seems to be "mans nature" to constantly be in conflict with one another.  This has always happened within our recorded and measurable history, even pre-historic men had evidence of of conflict on their skeletons and remains.

    As I said earlier, one could make the case the human beings are by nature a violent species, which would seem to me to be at odds with this best possible morality that you have outlined for man.  Im not saying your morality is wrong, or that it isn't the best possible morality to ensure mans continued survival, but I am pointing out that available evidence could be interpreted to suggest that "human nature" runs contrary to this morality, and it's only because of our ability to learn and assimilate information and apply that information to ourselves that we can "change our nature" so to speak.
    I understand what you're saying, but I don't really believe that the evidence you sight it at odds with my interpretation.

    I agree that man is far more destructive and violent than any other species. For me, this is support for my belief, that for man, instinct alone is not sufficient to inform him how to best conduct his behavior, whether by himself or within a social context.

    Man is the animal that needs to discover, through his experience and reason, that optimal behavior for himself. Man, in effect, needs to program most of his own "instincts" and so these instincts are subject to human error and human vulnerabilities.

    I already addressed this idea several pages back on this thread:
    Quote

    If by genetic, you mean "Is morality instinctual?", then the answer is no. I'm no anthropologist, but I consider it likely that there are instinctual social behaviors in animals, possibly including humans, that have evolved to enhance the members of a species ability to get along with each other for their mutual enhancement of survivability.

    Morality, on the other hand, is based on the ability to learn, to think and therefore to choose the things that one holds as values. From these values one forms a code. This code of values is morality.

    You are born with instinct that tells you how to act, by way of feelings (emotion). Your values, on the other hand, and therefore your morality, are freely learned and chosen.*  Moral instinct is consciously learned and accepted values that become automatically programed into our unconscious and inform us, through feelings, proper behavior according to the values we hold.


    * There is some evidence to believe that there is an instinctual bias to accept beliefs and values uncritically from authority figures, which has certain survival advantages for primitive people and especially children, but this is a bias that can be overcome.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 10, 2007, 04:58:42 AM
    Quote
    I understand what you're saying, but I don't really believe that the evidence you sight it at odds with my interpretation.

    Okay, and that's your interpretation, which I can either disagree with or not, but given the subjective nature of this subject I can't either conclusively confirm or deny your claims.  The best I think we can do is talk in terms of probability.

    Quote
    I agree that man is far more destructive and violent than any other species. For me, this is support for my belief, that for man, instinct alone is not sufficient to inform him how to best conduct his behavior, whether by himself or within a social context.

    ...and this is cool too.  You see the measurable evidence to support your belief, I'm not sure if I'm fully convinced, but I see enough in common with your interpretation to say this is highly probable based upon the current "human condition."

    Quote
    Man is the animal that needs to discover, through his experience and reason, that optimal behavior for himself. Man, in effect, needs to program most of his own "instincts" and so these instincts are subject to human error and human vulnerabilities.

    And here's an example where I interpret this being in line with what I said about man having to "change his nature."  Therefore it seems to me that we're coming to similar conclusion, but through different means, which is what I find the most interesting about these kinds of discussions....even more so than the conclusions themselves.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 10, 2007, 05:47:16 AM
    Quote
    I understand what you're saying, but I don't really believe that the evidence you sight it at odds with my interpretation.

    Okay, and that's your interpretation, which I can either disagree with or not, but given the subjective nature of this subject I can't either conclusively confirm or deny your claims.  The best I think we can do is talk in terms of probability.

    Quote
    I agree that man is far more destructive and violent than any other species. For me, this is support for my belief, that for man, instinct alone is not sufficient to inform him how to best conduct his behavior, whether by himself or within a social context.

    ...and this is cool too.  You see the measurable evidence to support your belief, I'm not sure if I'm fully convinced, but I see enough in common with your interpretation to say this is highly probable based upon the current "human condition."

    Quote
    Man is the animal that needs to discover, through his experience and reason, that optimal behavior for himself. Man, in effect, needs to program most of his own "instincts" and so these instincts are subject to human error and human vulnerabilities.

    And here's an example where I interpret this being in line with what I said about man having to "change his nature."  Therefore it seems to me that we're coming to similar conclusion, but through different means, which is what I find the most interesting about these kinds of discussions....even more so than the conclusions themselves.

    I was hoping you would see this. Our main difference is in how we use the word "nature". I use it in reference to the nature we are endowed with in the womb and you use it to mean a combination of both innate nature plus nurture (acquired nature coming from culture) together.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 10, 2007, 08:22:54 AM
    Quote
    I think that Gene is equating "God's morality"(A logical impossibility) with God's prescriptive morality for man.

    I'll let Gene clarify what he does or does not mean. ;)

    That's what I meant.  You guys are doing fine all by yourselves...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 10, 2007, 08:28:50 AM
    As I said earlier, one could make the case the human beings are by nature a violent species, which would seem to me to be at odds with this best possible morality that you have outlined for man.  Im not saying your morality is wrong, or that it isn't the best possible morality to ensure mans continued survival, but I am pointing out that available evidence could be interpreted to suggest that "human nature" runs contrary to this morality, and it's only because of our ability to learn and assimilate information and apply that information to ourselves that we can "change our nature" so to speak.

    After this I got lost.  If man is evil, where does the good come from?  I know by learning and reasoning, but if it isn't in man, doesn't it have to have a source outside of man?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 10, 2007, 08:39:31 AM
    Quote
    After this I got lost.  If man is evil, where does the good come from?  I know by learning and reasoning, but if it isn't in man, doesn't it have to have a source outside of man?

    I never said man was evil, I said that humans are violent (and initiate violence against others)by their nature, which would seem contrary to the "proper morality" for man, which Markuzick made the point that man has to discover for himself.  We both came to a similar conclusion that Man discovers his morality through learning and can thus either "change his nature" as I put it, or "fulfill his nature" as I would coin the sentiment for Mark.

    (EDIT: it's also worth mentioning that God became a non-issue in the endgame discussion between Markuzick and I, which I would point to as an "indrect challenge" on the claim that a christian/religious anarchy is more sensible since the moral authority for "rights" is delegated from God.)

    I was asking you earlier in essence, where the good comes from, as you claimed that God wasn't responsible for "evil", but from those who "chose poorly."  I countered with the statement that is this is true, then God also isn't responsible for "Good," since by the same logic it comes from those who "chose wisely."  The next question is, if God is not responsible for the Good or Evil in the world, then what exactly is he/she/it responsible for?  As Markuzick and I concurred earlier, if he gave man "free will" then he has already reliquished some aspects of control over all creation, which is fundamentally at odds with one of Gene's claims (that God as the creator is in control of all of creation).

    My discussion with Markuzick has reached a conclusion, but I'll be happy to pick up with you where we left off if you like.  However, you could read our conversation again and see what most of my answers/points will likely be, but they could change depending on the tac your arguments go.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 10, 2007, 09:55:40 AM
    The discussion on evil and it's origins I posted a responce in another thread but I'll readdress it.

    The discussion has questioned "evil" and whether God created it or not.  I cannot say for sure as we really don't understand all the spiritual realm as we live in the physical (hence the use of "parables" to try to explain spiritual things).  There's also the verse about us "seeing through a glass darkly" and when we are changed to the spiritual world we will "know as we are known".  Until that time, we can only speculate but here's my speculation:

    I'm going to throw out a shocker here:  God may indeed be the "creator" of evil.  There are some references in the old testament to God bringing "evil" or other terms that are usually associated with bad stuff.  So assume that you are a teacher and you "create" a test for your students.  You give them questions and several answers.  Only one answer is the correct or "right" one, and others (that you created) are the wrong (or evil) ones.  Do your students blame you for putting in evil answers among your correct ones?  (Some might).  Are you a "bad" teacher because you "created" wrong answers??

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 10, 2007, 11:46:19 AM
    The discussion on evil and it's origins I posted a responce in another thread but I'll readdress it.

    The discussion has questioned "evil" and whether God created it or not.  I cannot say for sure as we really don't understand all the spiritual realm as we live in the physical (hence the use of "parables" to try to explain spiritual things).  There's also the verse about us "seeing through a glass darkly" and when we are changed to the spiritual world we will "know as we are known".  Until that time, we can only speculate but here's my speculation:

    I'm going to throw out a shocker here:  God may indeed be the "creator" of evil.  There are some references in the old testament to God bringing "evil" or other terms that are usually associated with bad stuff.  So assume that you are a teacher and you "create" a test for your students.  You give them questions and several answers.  Only one answer is the correct or "right" one, and others (that you created) are the wrong (or evil) ones.  Do your students blame you for putting in evil answers among your correct ones?  (Some might).  Are you a "bad" teacher because you "created" wrong answers??



    That isn't a shocker for me. I for one, have no problem with that, as I've shown that a loving God would , by necessity, allow evil in the world as well as the the choice, for man, to do good or evil. I've said repeatedly on this BBS that the "problem of evil" is an invalid argument against God.

    If I were a theist, I would still claim that the basis of proper morality is a code of values consistent with a successful and happy life according to man's nature. If God created Man, one would assume that God would have the wisdom to allow Man to be Man and to fulfil his own destiny as a wise parent lets go of his child upon its entry into adulthood.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 10, 2007, 11:50:59 AM

    I was asking you earlier in essence, where the good comes from, as you claimed that God wasn't responsible for "evil", but from those who "chose poorly."  I countered with the statement that is this is true, then God also isn't responsible for "Good," since by the same logic it comes from those who "chose wisely."

    I'm sorry, read each post again and I still don't get it.  I have been known to be a bit slow.  What if good is the choice that is consistent with an unfallen nature.  What if God first and unfallen beings  had been choosing the good for eons in the past, and only when one chose to act contrary to his nature did evil enter the universe?  In this way God would not have created evil, it would simply have been a state without good.  Disobedience, sin, etc. takes many forms but has one thing in common, it is not good, it is inconsistent with one's created nature.

    I do not believe that God is responsible for evil beyond the desire for the love of free people, people who could freely choose Him.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 10, 2007, 12:04:41 PM
    If I were a theist, I would still claim that the basis of proper morality is a code of values consistent with a successful and happy life according to man's nature. If God created Man, one would assume that God would have the wisdom to allow Man to be Man and to fulfil his own destiny as a wise parent lets go of his child upon its entry into adulthood.

    Yes, but define "lets go."  I wise parent is very much a part of a child's life even after he has become an adult.  I wish my father was still around, I miss him.  I wish he had never gotten sick.  I wish I was still working in his business.  I wish my children had grown up with him in their lives, I have been such a poor father compared to mine.  A wise parent never abandons his children, as long as they live.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 10, 2007, 12:33:55 PM
    If I were a theist, I would still claim that the basis of proper morality is a code of values consistent with a successful and happy life according to man's nature. If God created Man, one would assume that God would have the wisdom to allow Man to be Man and to fulfil his own destiny as a wise parent lets go of his child upon its entry into adulthood.

    Yes, but define "lets go."  I wise parent is very much a part of a child's life even after he has become an adult.  I wish my father was still around, I miss him.  I wish he had never gotten sick.  I wish I was still working in his business.  I wish my children had grown up with him in their lives, I have been such a poor father compared to mine.  A wise parent never abandons his children, as long as they live.


    The analogy was not meant to be exact. Remember the saying that God helps those who help themselves. I interpret that to mean that God gave us the faculties to help ourselves, but that we must discover our God given nature in order to know how to use them wisely. What's given to us without effort, is never appreciated, nor used wisely.

    Whether God would speak directly to Man, I wouldn't know, but I suspect that if he did, he wouldn't meddle with too much advise, but instead, point in the general direction one should look for truth.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 10, 2007, 01:35:24 PM
    So in other words, God would make a very poor father.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 10, 2007, 06:16:24 PM
    So in other words, God would make a very poor father.

    The analogy is to emphasize the similarities, not to linger over the differences. I already admitted that it's not an exact analogy to say that a God that intervened in the lives of Men could be compared to parents, who unwilling to let go, meddle in the affairs of their adult children. I think that the analogy has some limited value nonetheless.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 10, 2007, 07:59:05 PM
    Back to the subject.  What type of moral system would result from a careful observation of human behavior?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mbd on April 10, 2007, 08:01:47 PM
    (http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/2576/librarianxd8.jpg)

    +1
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on April 10, 2007, 08:09:28 PM
    (http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/2576/librarianxd8.jpg)

    +1

    She looks kind of stinko to me.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mbd on April 10, 2007, 08:31:04 PM
    I think you missed my point.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 10, 2007, 09:08:03 PM
    Back to the subject.  What type of moral system would result from a careful observation of human behavior?

    I am predicating that a proper moral system not only be consistent with human nature, but that its purpose is the promulgation  of the virtues that promote our values, the most basic of which is survival through the successful use of our natural faculties and the resultant pleasure and happiness that are the  instinctive reward and incentive for our effort. Careful observation of human behavior tells us not only what is good for our success and happiness in life, but also, which behaviors are the cause of misery and death. I think that it's clear to libertarians that the observation of human behavior tells us that voluntary pursuit of ones self interest (work, trade and social cooperation, love and entertainment being the broadest categories of positive virtues) and the abstention from aggression (the belief in and the respect for the rights of others, good will and sincerity, giving others the benefit of the doubt and politeness as the broadest categories of negative (self controlling) virtues), is the morality that will promote our personal interest, or values.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 10, 2007, 09:58:14 PM
    I like the sound of your argument but I fail to see how morals can come out of a survival desire.  It seems to me (although I sure don't have any studies or evidence to back me up) that the natural trend would be for the strongest to simply take what they want from others (including sex).  How would there not be such a tendency in an amoral atmosphere?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 10, 2007, 10:02:26 PM
    clear to libertarians
    Libertarians are promoting values that are contrary to human nature.  They are so contrary to human nature that not only can they rarely get elected but find it difficult to explain their values to others.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 10, 2007, 10:42:40 PM
    Quote
    I like the sound of your argument but I fail to see how morals can come out of a survival desire. It seems to me (although I sure don't have any studies or evidence to back me up) that the natural trend would be for the strongest to simply take what they want from others (including sex).  How would there not be such a tendency in an amoral atmosphere?

    Well, we can take a look at the "Animal Kingdom" for some insight into this.  The majority of animals, particularly when it comes to sex, do not simply "take what they want," though they are amoral by our own definition.  Let's run down some examples that anyone can observe by watching a discovery channel show:


    Again, all these animals are amoral, but there are cases where even these animals have evolved social behaviorisms that ensure their mutual and continued success.  Is this "morality," I'm not sure, but sure does seem to indicate that behaviors that require members of the same species in a community to respect the "freedoms" (that is, not simply hogging all the food and using a "might over right" social strata) of the other members of the group do seem to arise when animals reach a certain level of social sophistication.  For some of these, they appear to be "learned behaviors" particularly in the cases of the humpback whales, but zoologists are still trying to conclusively asnwer these questions.

    Again, not sure if these qualify as "morality" but an interesting parallel to draw nonetheless.

    (EDIT: added missing word "for")
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 11, 2007, 09:51:17 PM
    This then, would equate "morals" with nothing more than "habits", would it not?  I see no difference.  If our "habits" included rape as a way to propigate the species, then that would have to be called moral, wouldn't it?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 11, 2007, 09:53:57 PM
    I'm not sure why we are talking about animal behavior, but as long as we are, what happens to old or weak members of these "socially evolved" species?  What happens to young sexually mature male members of these groups?  What happens to other tribes of the same species that pass into their territory?  How do they treat similar species.  Yes, even mobsters can have tender moments with their offspring, but I would not want to adopt their moral code.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 11, 2007, 11:19:08 PM
    Quote
    I'm not sure why we are talking about animal behavior, but as long as we are, what happens to old or weak members of these "socially evolved" species?  What happens to young sexually mature male members of these groups?  What happens to other tribes of the same species that pass into their territory?  How do they treat similar species.  Yes, even mobsters can have tender moments with their offspring, but I would not want to adopt their moral code.

    There was a logical progression here that led me to bring this up.  I'll distill it because it obviously wasn't "obvious":

    -----------------------
    ------------------------

    Does that help?  I never made the claim that this was "morality"... I think in fact, I said no less than 3 times that I wouldn't call it morality because no one can be sure.  I brought it up because I think it sheds some light that indeed it IS possible for certain behaviors we consider "moral" can arise out of an Amoral environment....which is what it does anyway.

    1. The Natural World is Amoral.
    2. Upon birth, a human child is Amoral.
    3. It's only as a result of "learning habits" and which habits are "right" or "wrong" in their community does one learn "morality."

    (note: Mark is claiming that the "proper morality" is the one that encourages the best possible success for man's survival, which includes the respect for the liberties of the individual and all that entails)

    4. Moralities are different from community to community (ex. a muslim morality is not equal to a christian one or an atheist one, right?)

    The only different between us, and these Animals, I contend, is the fact that we have a higher-functioning rational mind.  This allows us to do quite a few things that these animals so far, have not been proven to be capable of, such as "think ahead" about the consequences of our actions,  even consequences beyond our lifetimes, or dissect information for use in the abstract, and then re-apply the newly synthesized information in reality.

    So the mobster analogy isn't quite accurate.

    (EDIT: changed repetitive word "to" to "do", and cleaned up "think ahead" to read more coherantly.)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 12, 2007, 03:15:50 AM
    Quote
    I'm not sure why we are talking about animal behavior, but as long as we are, what happens to old or weak members of these "socially evolved" species?  What happens to young sexually mature male members of these groups?  What happens to other tribes of the same species that pass into their territory?  How do they treat similar species.  Yes, even mobsters can have tender moments with their offspring, but I would not want to adopt their moral code.

    There was a logical progression here that led me to bring this up.  I'll distill it because it obviously wasn't "obvious":

    -----------------------
    • Markuzick: Man's proper morality is learned through reason and experiences because of man's need to survive in the most optimal fashion.
    • Christian Anarchist:  I don't see how morality comes from a survival need, and "might over right" prevails in an Amoral atmosphere.
    • theCelestrian:  "Not neccesarily, we have some examples of animals (amoral) in an Amoral atmosphere exhibiting some signs of not strictly adhering to a 'might over right' social strata all the the time.  I'm not claiming this is morality, but it does raise questions about your assertion."
    ------------------------

    Does that help?  I never made the claim that this was "morality"... I think in fact, I said no less than 3 times that I wouldn't call it morality because no one can be sure.  I brought it up because I think it sheds some light that indeed it IS possible for certain behaviors we consider "moral" can arise out of an Amoral environment....which is what it does anyway.

    1. The Natural World is Amoral.
    2. Upon birth, a human child is Amoral.
    3. It's only as a result of "learning habits" and which habits are "right" or "wrong" in their community does one learn "morality."

    (note: Mark is claiming that the "proper morality" is the one that encourages the best possible success for man's survival, which includes the respect for the liberties of the individual and all that entails)

    4. Moralities are different from community to community (ex. a muslim morality is not equal to a christian one or an atheist one, right?)

    The only different between us, and these Animals, I contend, is the fact that we have a higher-functioning rational mind.  This allows us to do quite a few things that these animals so far, have not been proven to be capable of, such as "think ahead" about the consequences of our actions,  even consequences beyond our lifetimes, or dissect information for use in the abstract, and then re-apply the newly synthesized information in reality.

    So the mobster analogy isn't quite accurate.

    (EDIT: changed repetitive word "to" to "do", and cleaned up "think ahead" to read more coherantly.)

    Excellent. I'm impressed.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 12, 2007, 05:16:16 AM
    I would say that there is strong evidence that morality can arise from a survival need.  Humans have been social animals since before they were humans, and in a social atmosphere you need to find ways of getting along with your group and banding together in conflicts with other groups.  Individuals in the group enhance their survival and chances of passing on their genes by establishing reciprocal relationships with others.  These relationships need to be enforced so as to prevent cheating, which makes punishing cheaters adaptive-- if there were no punishment, then the group would be overtaken by cheaters and would die out.  Reciprocity is the beginning of morality. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 12, 2007, 06:00:17 AM
    dharveymi:
    Quote
    Libertarians are promoting values that are contrary to human nature.  They are so contrary to human nature that not only can they rarely get elected but find it difficult to explain their values to others.

    Christian Anarchist:
    Quote
    I like the sound of your argument but I fail to see how morals can come out of a survival desire.  It seems to me (although I sure don't have any studies or evidence to back me up) that the natural trend would be for the strongest to simply take what they want from others (including sex).  How would there not be such a tendency in an amoral atmosphere?

    This should answer both of you.

    Man's values, once consciously accepted, become integrated into his unconscious mind. These feelings or "instincts" are the means by which his unconscious communicates its instant evaluation of a situation by the standard of his values.

    Man acts according to his desires, in the sense that his desires amount to his emotional response and/or pleasure/pain response, or "instinct" and so he does what feels good or right to him and avoids doing what his "instincts" tell him through unpleasant feelings are wrong.

    Morality is a code of values. It involves the choice of what to value as well as virtue, or the implementation of those values. Since Man's values, once consciously chosen, become integrated into his automatic unconscious mind and it is these feelings that up-well from his unconscious that drive him to act and respond to the world, then any mans actions are a reflection of his deep seated moral "instinct". In this sense, there is no such thing as an amoral person. What you're describing is not amorality, but instead, can be considered as examples of bad morality, irrational morality, simplistic morality and morality based upon conflicting values.

    The "natural trend",as Gene calls it, should be seen by theists as a confirmation of the idea that Man, unlike the other animals, is not given instructions (instincts) on how to survive, individually or as part of a group, at birth by God, but instead, is given a free will and a rational mind, without foreknowledge (except for primal instincts such as breathing and hunger) and the responsibility to choose his morality for himself, though a process of observation and judgment. The desire for survival, alone, will not inform us how to survive, or teach us virtue. The morality of a culture is the product of countless generations of men searching for understanding and truth. For a majority of individuals in a society to understand and accept natural rights, requires that those individuals have at least an intuitive understanding of Man's innate nature and how that nature implies his requirement for liberty.


    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 12, 2007, 06:19:00 AM
    I would say that there is strong evidence that morality can arise from a survival need.  Humans have been social animals since before they were humans, and in a social atmosphere you need to find ways of getting along with your group and banding together in conflicts with other groups.  Individuals in the group enhance their survival and chances of passing on their genes by establishing reciprocal relationships with others.  These relationships need to be enforced so as to prevent cheating, which makes punishing cheaters adaptive-- if there were no punishment, then the group would be overtaken by cheaters and would die out.  Reciprocity is the beginning of morality. 


    What you're describing is the evolution of morality in culture that I spoke of in the last post, which I contrasted to the biological evolution of instinct, although both are sometimes referred to as instinct. (Moral instinct for Man and behavioral instinct for animals.) And yes, I know there is some overlap.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 12, 2007, 07:28:44 AM
    What you're describing is the evolution of morality in culture that I spoke of in the last post, which I contrasted to the biological evolution of instinct, although both are sometimes referred to as instinct. (Moral instinct for Man and behavioral instinct for animals.) And yes, I know there is some overlap.

    Well no, actually I don't see much relationship between what I was saying and your last post.  I don't believe that "Man" (whoever Man is) "has consciously chosen his values." The evolution of morality I was talking about is very much biological-- I believe that natural selection has instilled a moral instinct in us because has enhanced our reproductive fitness.  I believe that most moral choices and judgments (and by "moral," I mean "relating to the concepts of right and wrong beyond social convention") are in fact intuitive, and we generally only consciously think about morality when we're trying to convince ourselves or others of a particular standpoint.  Culturally, is the moral zeitgeist moving in a progressive direction?  Yes, I think so-- but the evolved intuitions are still there. 

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 12, 2007, 07:53:28 AM
    A "rationalization" regarding morals remarkably similar to the above can be found here:

    http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/Posts/Post24.htm

    I disagree, however, simply because all these rationalizations make the assumption that there is no God.  There is also some talk of man's "instinct" and I have never seen that man actually possesses instinct ("'instincts' are defined here as automatic knowledge", according to the writer).  I will concede that if there was no God, then all of these arguments would make sense.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 12, 2007, 08:09:34 AM
    What you're describing is the evolution of morality in culture that I spoke of in the last post, which I contrasted to the biological evolution of instinct, although both are sometimes referred to as instinct. (Moral instinct for Man and behavioral instinct for animals.) And yes, I know there is some overlap.

    Well no, actually I don't see much relationship between what I was saying and your last post.  I don't believe that "Man" (whoever Man is) "has consciously chosen his values." The evolution of morality I was talking about is very much biological-- I believe that natural selection has instilled a moral instinct in us because has enhanced our reproductive fitness.  I believe that most moral choices and judgments (and by "moral," I mean "relating to the concepts of right and wrong beyond social convention") are in fact intuitive, and we generally only consciously think about morality when we're trying to convince ourselves or others of a particular standpoint.  Culturally, is the moral zeitgeist moving in a progressive direction?  Yes, I think so-- but the evolved intuitions are still there. 



    Then your interpretation flies in the face of all the evidence which shows that man can be the most violent and self destructive of all the animals, with whole societies following irrational paths to mistaken dead ends. If Man is responsible for choosing his own morality, then simple human error, human weakness and the arduousness of accumulating  knowledge and wisdom over countless generations, would account for his behavior, both good and bad.

    Man has an instinctual desire to survive and be happy, but the moral intuition that he requires to achieve this, he must discover for himself or learn from his culture.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 12, 2007, 12:28:34 PM
    Then your interpretation flies in the face of all the evidence which shows that man can be the most violent and self destructive of all the animals, with whole societies following irrational paths to mistaken dead ends.

    Umm, hardly.  The discussion is on where morality came from, not what species is capable of the most violence.  The fact that I think morality has evolved doesn't mean I believe plenty of other urges haven't as well.  Not to mention, the moral instinct has itself  manifested in much violence and destruction over our history (remember I said concepts of right and wrong, not actual right and wrong). 

    Quote
    If Man is responsible for choosing his own morality, then simple human error, human weakness and the arduousness of accumulating  knowledge and wisdom over countless generations, would account for his behavior, both good and bad.

    This statement is nonsensical.  First of all, it would help if you would stop talking about "Man choosing his" as if the entirety of the humanity is one (male, apparently) person making "his" choices.  The billions of homo sapiens who have existed over time (not to mention all of the hominids and australopithicenes who have come before them) have made moral choices for a variety of reasons.  Secondly, choices have to come from somewhere-- your calling them "choices" does not say anything about their origin whatsoever.  Intuitions are still choices, though they can't properly be called "conscious."

    The language you're using is decidedly non-scientific.  It doesn't translate into an actual argument about how evolution is related to morality.

    Quote
    Man has an instinctual desire to survive and be happy, but the moral intuition that he requires to achieve this, he must discover for himself or learn from his culture.

    You don't learn or discover intuitions.  They are conclusions you make without realizing it. 

    I think we're talking at cross purposes.  The kind of commentary you're making comes straight out of Hobbes, a kind of fairy tale about the journey of Man from primitive to civilization.  But though it's a nice story, it doesn't actually explain where morality comes from.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 12, 2007, 04:07:24 PM
    This statement is nonsensical.  First of all, it would help if you would stop talking about "Man choosing his" as if the entirety of the humanity is one (male, apparently) person making "his" choices.

    Spoken like an uneducated woman.   If one studies the English language one would know that the terms "man", "mankind", "he", "his", etc when used in reference to the multitude is asexual.  That is to say (for those who need further depth) that the male includes the female...  It's gender neutral folks...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 12, 2007, 11:28:58 PM
    You have revised my thinking a bit.  I think those that are most advanced (from an evolutionary perspective) are those who can convince others of a strict moral code while at the same time convincing them that because of their personal position, heritage, etc. they are somehow exempt from this morality, and any violations of that they must commit of that strict moral code is for the greater good, national security, etc.  Such people have the best chance of passing on their ideas and genes.  It seems to me that all the rest of this is nothing more than a lot of yada...yada.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 12, 2007, 11:46:15 PM
    Quote
    You have revised my thinking a bit.  I think those that are most advanced (from an evolutionary perspective) are those who can convince others of a strict moral code while at the same time convincing them that because of their personal position, heritage, etc. they are somehow exempt from this morality, and any violations of that they must commit of that strict moral code is for the greater good, national security, etc.

    Hmmm.  It's an interesting hypothesis, but I would say this could also have as much to do about humanity's apparent instinctual response to accept authority, which I have made the assertion that this very well could also be an evolved behavior/instinct, as a lot of human "growth" has resulted form the centralization of leadership and the specialization of tasks within a population.

    Quote
    Such people have the best chance of passing on their ideas and genes.  It seems to me that all the rest of this is nothing more than a lot of yada...yada.

    I would also point out though, that societies where this happens is often doomed to mass "unhappiness", revolution, restructuring, recentralization, mass "unhappiness", revolution, restructuring, recentralization....ad infinitum.  While it's very true that the "genetic success" of the few do indeed happen in this particular time, this comes as the cost of "genetic success" of a larger group of people in the population, something that Rillion points out eventaully get "punished," since in essence this can be a kind of "social cheating."  Who knows though, I'm not an anthropologist nor psychologist by education.

    While I can see the arguments made, I think one of the problems we have is that there is no long-term verifiable "test cases" where we can see, measure and observe a society of a group of individuals that collectively share this "proper morality," and therefore cannot draw any real conclusions based on actual observable evidence.  As this thread illustrates, we're dealing mostly in the academic abstracts of hypothesis, hypotheticals and conjecture.


    (EDIT: changed "humanities" to the proper "humanity's")
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 13, 2007, 12:11:01 AM
    yada yada...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 13, 2007, 12:18:55 AM
    Quote
    yada yada...

    Amusing.  Shall I take this as you are tired of talking about the sensibility of Christian Anarchy and all the related issues that entails?


    ....on "your own" thread?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 13, 2007, 12:25:01 AM
    Quote
    yada yada...

    Amusing.  Shall I take this as you are tired of talking about the sensibility of Christian Anarchy and all the related issues that entails?


    ....on "your own" thread?

    No, you should take this as "yada yada..."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 13, 2007, 12:30:59 AM
    Quote
    No, you should take this as "yada yada..."

    Well, "yada yada..." can be taken a lot of ways, generally the most common is "this is just talk, and I've stopped listening."

    Care to clarify? ;)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 13, 2007, 12:44:44 AM
    Jerry Seinfeld...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 13, 2007, 12:48:42 AM
    Ah.  I see.  You and I are speaking different languages, and we're having the discussion "about nothing", are we?  Okay, that's fine.  I won't bother anymore.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 13, 2007, 12:50:45 AM
    Antisemite...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 13, 2007, 12:54:00 AM
    Quote
    yada yada...
    Quote
    Jerry Seinfeld...
    Quote
    Antisemite...


    :? Pretty unimpressive, Gene.  I think I've always been pretty respectful to you, and now you're giving me this...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on April 13, 2007, 01:04:43 AM
    Jerry Seinfeld...

    Wasn't "yada yada yada" the dirty part of the events that were being explained?  Or did I completely lose my mind?  Sorry.  Had to ask. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 13, 2007, 01:10:34 AM
    Quote
    Wasn't "yada yada yada" the dirty part of the events that were being explained?  Or did I completely lose my mind?  Sorry.  Had to ask.

    I never watched Sienfeld... or Network TV as a whole for that matter.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on April 13, 2007, 01:23:05 AM
    Quote
    Wasn't "yada yada yada" the dirty part of the events that were being explained?  Or did I completely lose my mind?  Sorry.  Had to ask.

    I never watched Sienfeld... or Network TV as a whole for that matter.

    Blasphemer.  Okay, I hardly watch television anymore, but still.   :P
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 13, 2007, 06:48:38 AM
    Then your interpretation flies in the face of all the evidence which shows that man can be the most violent and self destructive of all the animals, with whole societies following irrational paths to mistaken dead ends.

    Umm, hardly.  The discussion is on where morality came from, not what species is capable of the most violence.  The fact that I think morality has evolved doesn't mean I believe plenty of other urges haven't as well.  Not to mention, the moral instinct has itself  manifested in much violence and destruction over our history (remember I said concepts of right and wrong, not actual right and wrong).

    Again, you're confusing moral intuition with instinctual personal and social behavior. Morality implies a choice. Instinctual behavior is chosen by either evolution or a creator/designer. Moral intuitions come from values that are learned or discovered. Curiosity is an instinct that is inborn. The desire to survive is an instinct that is inborn. Most technical and social skills, including morality are learned and then become intuitive.

    Quote
    If Man is responsible for choosing his own morality, then simple human error, human weakness and the arduousness of accumulating  knowledge and wisdom over countless generations, would account for his behavior, both good and bad.

    Quote
    This statement is nonsensical.  First of all, it would help if you would stop talking about "Man choosing his" as if the entirety of the humanity is one (male, apparently) person making "his" choices.  The billions of homo sapiens who have existed over time (not to mention all of the hominids and australopithicenes who have come before them) have made moral choices for a variety of reasons.
     

    You shouldn't be falsely accusing me of nonsense, while spewing pure ignorant nonsense of your own. I know that you're knowledgeable, so I can only assume this subject upsets you so greatly as to forget that all of your examples are Man.

    Quote
    Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
    hominid
    1889, "family of mammals represented by man," from Mod.L. Hominidæ the biological family name, coined 1825 from L. homo (gen. hominis) "man." Hominoid "man-like" is from 1927.

    Quote

    Secondly, choices have to come from somewhere-- your calling them "choices" does not say anything about their origin whatsoever.  Intuitions are still choices, though they can't properly be called "conscious."

    You're repeating what I've already made clear, as if I didn't already explain it.  :roll:


    Quote
    The language you're using is decidedly non-scientific.  It doesn't translate into an actual argument about how evolution is related to morality.

    Well, you don't seem to be doing so well with your "official" terminology. Using professional jargon doesn't help, if you don't use it logically, or consistently.

    Quote
    Man has an instinctual desire to survive and be happy, but the moral intuition that he requires to achieve this, he must discover for himself or learn from his culture.

    Quote
    You don't learn or discover intuitions.  They are conclusions you make without realizing it. 
    You're correct. I should have said " but the values upon which the moral intuition that he requires to achieve this are based," That was sloppy of me.

    Quote
    I think we're talking at cross purposes.  The kind of commentary you're making comes straight out of Hobbes, a kind of fairy tale about the journey of Man from primitive to civilization.  But though it's a nice story, it doesn't actually explain where morality comes from.

    You must first know what morality is, as well as the distinction between morality and inborn instinct, before you can converse meaningfully about the subject.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 13, 2007, 10:17:29 AM
    Okay, markuzick, this conversation is not going to go anywhere with such dramatic disagreement about terms. 

    Quote
    Again, you're confusing moral intuition with instinctual personal and social behavior.

    I am saying that moral intuition is  instinctive.  I am saying that moral intuitions are evolved. 

    Quote
    Morality implies a choice.

    Not to me, it doesn't.  Not a conscious one, when the very thing I am saying is that so many of our moral judgments are unconscious.  You can disagree with me, but that doesn't mean I don't understand my own argument. 

    Quote
    You shouldn't be falsely accusing me of nonsense, while spewing pure ignorant nonsense of your own. I know that you're knowledgeable, so I can only assume this subject upsets you so greatly as to forget that all of your examples are Man.

    What I am saying is that when you insist on talking about "Man choosing his," you're basically portraying all of humanity as a single character who has consciously guided "his" own evolution.  That's not what happened-- the whole premise of evolutionary psychology is that a lot of our behavior stems from instincts we developed 100,000 years ago or more.  Before consciousness in the sense we have now even existed. 

    And this subject hardly "upsets" me.  I am frustrated by the difficulty of communicating with you.

    Quote
    You must first know what morality is, as well as the distinction between morality and inborn instinct, before you can converse meaningfully about the subject.

    I already gave you my working definition of morality, and it is not dependent on instinct vs. conscious behavior.  If you want to know where this kind of thinking comes from, I suggest reading this:  http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.emotionaldog.manuscript.pdf (http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.emotionaldog.manuscript.pdf)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 13, 2007, 10:22:43 AM
    Ah.  I see.  You and I are speaking different languages, and we're having the discussion "about nothing", are we?  Okay, that's fine.  I won't bother anymore.

    It's pointless to talk to Gene about the evolution of morality when he denies that evolution even happens. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 13, 2007, 12:25:27 PM
    Quote
    It's pointless to talk to Gene about the evolution of morality when he denies that evolution even happens.

    That doesn't excuse, rationalize or give a pass to what I percieve as undeserved crap behavior, particularly when I have gone out of my way to be respectful, understanding and "tolerant" to his chistio-centric worldview,...which I find amusing given his calling the show to chastize Ian about the virtues of "tolerance."

    (maybe I better just stop posting while I'm under the influence....everything just seems to be pissing me off.)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on April 13, 2007, 12:39:36 PM
    Ah.  I see.  You and I are speaking different languages, and we're having the discussion "about nothing", are we?  Okay, that's fine.  I won't bother anymore.

    It's pointless to talk to Gene about the evolution of morality when he denies that evolution even happens. 

    I don't think morality 'evolved' in the same sense that our species did, but I see your point. He doesn't think knowledge improves over time, and that I concur.

    -- Brede
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 13, 2007, 12:45:59 PM
    Ah.  I see.  You and I are speaking different languages, and we're having the discussion "about nothing", are we?  Okay, that's fine.  I won't bother anymore.

    It's pointless to talk to Gene about the evolution of morality when he denies that evolution even happens. 

    Alas, 'tis true, I don't believe in evolution.  I've seen enough to make up my mind on this subject and short of strong evidence to the contrary (I know you BELIEVE that you have strong evidence...) I must maintain my course.  Thanks for attempting to convince me though...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: peepnklown on April 13, 2007, 01:11:43 PM
    Quote from: Grey
    I thought you were a total kook.

    I still do; well, anyone who believes in a magical supernatural being is mostly a kook to me.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 13, 2007, 05:25:11 PM
    Quote from: Grey
    I thought you were a total kook.

    I still do; well, anyone who believes in a magical supernatural being is mostly a kook to me.


    It's not the believing that makes God exist or not exist.  It's God...

    P.S.  Have you read the beginning of this thread?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bushwacker on April 13, 2007, 08:24:29 PM
    CA, why is it that you only post in this thread? I'm just curious. On another note, I just found out that one of my important business partners is Mormon...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: tc2007 on April 13, 2007, 10:30:09 PM
    Everyone can have there differences about morality and religion. It is freedom that allows this to be acceptable. I think Thomas Jefferson summed this up with the following quote.

    "It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately."

    I don't believe that one belief system or the other is proven right. There has to be some kind of common ground here for everyone to stand on. That way we can all get along and do what really matters in our live. Not argue the same topic, circling around and around. Eventually there will be some proof to who is right and who is wrong. Until that time, it is acceptable to me to believe whatever you want.

    I am not trying to be rude here and stop the thread or anything. I would just like to see some kind of mediation here sooner or later.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 13, 2007, 10:59:14 PM
    I am a Christian, but I do believe in evolution.  I do not however believe that evolution is the origin of species.  I also think that it is unlikely that evolution is progressive.  Instead, I believe that it is much more likely to lead to extinction and fewer species.  Considering the current rate of species extinction, I feel very confident in my belief.

    But, I would very much like to understand what you believe, so let me try again, I think I may have it.  (I'm not talking to anyone in particular, just let me know if you think I'm getting close.)  For the sake of this discussion, there are two parts to a person's morality.  The first is the part that individuals inherit from there parents, this instinctual part is strictly due to natural selection.  The second is a learned and to some extent (at least) internalized system of beliefs about right and wrong (grossly simplified, I know.)  This second system is also evolving, but not in the same sense as biological evolution, because it is effected by emotion, reason, logic, language, and the survival of ideas and cultures.  At any given time, an individual could be more morally advanced than the culture to which he belonged; or, amoral and behind his culture's morals.  Also in comparison, one culture might deem another amoral, because its prevailing morals are viewed as behind its own.

    The origin of second type of morals then is simply a natural result of tribal living, in which the leader would simply impose his morals on the group.  The guilt (or joy) one would feel would result from the conflict between the learned and instinctual values.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: tc2007 on April 13, 2007, 11:12:32 PM
    I think you have an understanding, and am admiring you for trying to understand.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 14, 2007, 08:41:08 AM
    Quote
    It's pointless to talk to Gene about the evolution of morality when he denies that evolution even happens.

    That doesn't excuse, rationalize or give a pass to what I percieve as undeserved crap behavior, particularly when I have gone out of my way to be respectful, understanding and "tolerant" to his chistio-centric worldview,...which I find amusing given his calling the show to chastize Ian about the virtues of "tolerance."

    (maybe I better just stop posting while I'm under the influence....everything just seems to be pissing me off.)

    I'm not trying to excuse, rationalize, or give a pass to it.  Of course it's crap behavior--  it's Gene, are you surprised?  I'm just noting that it's a waste of your time. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 14, 2007, 09:03:26 AM
    I am a Christian, but I do believe in evolution.  I do not however believe that evolution is the origin of species.  I also think that it is unlikely that evolution is progressive.  Instead, I believe that it is much more likely to lead to extinction and fewer species.  Considering the current rate of species extinction, I feel very confident in my belief.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "progressive" here, but if you mean "in pursuit of a goal," then you are correct.  Evolution is not an agent with intentions.  A lot of people think of evolution as having a direction, but that's a mistake.  The creatures which exist now are simply the ones who are best able to reproduce in their current environment (given certain genetic constraints, like having four legs rather than five, or two eyes rather than three).  Environments change, and so species change to adapt.  Right now, the environment contains a lot of humans who are increasing the extinction rate of other species above what it normally would be.  There have been six mass extinction events in the earth's history, and humans are contributing in large part to the sixth, which is still ongoing.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event)

    I would also note that if you don't believe that one species can change into another, then you're basically saying that all of the species that exist now have always existed.    That humans existed at the time of dinosaurs.  I'm not going to argue about that with you (takes much more energy than I want to spare right now), but I think it does deserve some careful thought. 

    Quote
    But, I would very much like to understand what you believe, so let me try again, I think I may have it.  (I'm not talking to anyone in particular, just let me know if you think I'm getting close.)  For the sake of this discussion, there are two parts to a person's morality.  The first is the part that individuals inherit from there parents, this instinctual part is strictly due to natural selection.  The second is a learned and to some extent (at least) internalized system of beliefs about right and wrong (grossly simplified, I know.)  This second system is also evolving, but not in the same sense as biological evolution, because it is effected by emotion, reason, logic, language, and the survival of ideas and cultures.  At any given time, an individual could be more morally advanced than the culture to which he belonged; or, amoral and behind his culture's morals.  Also in comparison, one culture might deem another amoral, because its prevailing morals are viewed as behind its own.

    That's a pretty good way of describing it.  I would also say that "emotion, reason, logic, and language" are evolved, but if you have evolved a hammer and you have an occasion to smash something other than nails, you're certainly able to do so.  The very elements of thought which are malleable enough to allow for learning and variance between cultures-- between people-- were themselves selected for genetically. 

    When talking about the origins of moral judgment, I prefer not to speak of what is "morally advanced," or to put it another way, right.  The question of what is right or wrong is independent of how we came to have beliefs about what is right or wrong.  Confusion between the two is called the naturalistic fallacy-- the mistake of thinking that if something is, it ought to be. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 14, 2007, 10:14:36 AM
    CA, why is it that you only post in this thread? I'm just curious. On another note, I just found out that one of my important business partners is Mormon...

    I'm currently posting in about 4 threads, but why should that matter??  I like this subject so I post here...

    Update- since 4-11 I have posted in the following...
    My Biodiesel Truck
    suggested guests/topics
    Ron Paul joined Alex Jones on air for an hour.. Ron a Conspiracy Theorist??
    RON PAUL on Free Talk Live?

    Again, so what??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 14, 2007, 10:19:23 AM
    Quote
    It's pointless to talk to Gene about the evolution of morality when he denies that evolution even happens.

    That doesn't excuse, rationalize or give a pass to what I percieve as undeserved crap behavior, particularly when I have gone out of my way to be respectful, understanding and "tolerant" to his chistio-centric worldview,...which I find amusing given his calling the show to chastize Ian about the virtues of "tolerance."

    (maybe I better just stop posting while I'm under the influence....everything just seems to be pissing me off.)

    I'm not trying to excuse, rationalize, or give a pass to it.  Of course it's crap behavior--  it's Gene, are you surprised?  I'm just noting that it's a waste of your time. 

    Gosh, from my point of view, it's you guys who have the crap behavior...  To each his own, they used to say (but that was in a time of more "tolerance" than what is popular today).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 14, 2007, 10:22:19 AM
    I'm not sure what you mean by "progressive" here, but if you mean "in pursuit of a goal," then you are correct.  Evolution is not an agent with intentions.  A lot of people think of evolution as having a direction, but that's a mistake.  The creatures which exist now are simply the ones who are best able to reproduce in their current environment

    This is the biggest "problem" with evolutionists, they present their point of view as if it is some kind of real fact.  The fact is, it's not a proven fact and by it's nature can never be a proven fact...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 14, 2007, 11:34:53 PM
    Quote
    Gosh, from my point of view, it's you guys who have the crap behavior...  To each his own, they used to say (but that was in a time of more "tolerance" than what is popular today).

    Come on, Gene, that's not intellectually honest and you know it.  Remember this?

    Quote
    Yada Yada...
    Quote
    Jerry Seinfeld...
    Quote
    Antisemite...

    You implied I was an antisemite because I said, "Ah. I see.  You and I are speaking different languages and having a conversation 'about nothing', are we?  That's fine.  I won't bother anymore,"  and you have the gall to sit there, figuratively look me in the eye and say I'M the one who's being "intolerant."

    :::shakes head::: Jesus fucking christ, Gene.

    Never once have I been "intolerant" to you.  Never once have I given you a series of nonsensical answers simply because I no longer wanted to talk about your beliefs, or call you, or throw any kind of prejorative in your general direction.

    I'll tell you what, Gene, I better never ever hear you call the show to try to give Ian or any of the FTL crew an "object lesson" in tolerance and civility, or talk about "that sneer you guys get in your voice," because I will call the show immediately and call you and that bullshit right then and there, and then you and I can speak "voice-to-voice" about who has shown who the crap behavior.

    Like I said earlier, pretty unimpressive, Gene.  I guess I'm more surprised than anything, because until then I thought you and I were having a pretty respectful and productive discourse.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 15, 2007, 12:02:22 AM
    Quote
    Gosh, from my point of view, it's you guys who have the crap behavior...  To each his own, they used to say (but that was in a time of more "tolerance" than what is popular today).

    Come on, Gene, that's not intellectually honest and you know it.  Remember this?

    Quote
    Yada Yada...
    Quote
    Jerry Seinfeld...
    Quote
    Antisemite...

    Just trying to lighten up the conversation.  Lighten up will you???

    Quote
    Never once have I been "intolerant" to you.  Never once have I given you a series of nonsensical answers simply because I no longer wanted to talk about your beliefs, or call you, or throw any kind of prejorative in your general direction.

    And what makes you think I was referring to you?  There are many others posting here you know...

    Quote
    I'll tell you what, Gene, I better never ever hear you call the show to try to give Ian or any of the FTL crew an "object lesson" in tolerance and civility, or talk about "that sneer you guys get in your voice," because I will call the show immediately and call you and that bullshit right then and there, and then you and I can speak "voice-to-voice" about who has shown who the crap behavior.

    Like I said earlier, pretty unimpressive, Gene.  I guess I'm more surprised than anything, because until then I thought you and I were having a pretty respectful and productive discourse.

    * in best Clint Eastwood voice*
    "Ya gotta ask yourself this question.  Do I feel lucky?  Well, DO ya, punk..."

    Come on man, it's a stupid discussion board and most of what is posted is light-hearted.  Save the violence for those who are trying to enslave us...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 15, 2007, 06:02:36 AM
    I do understand the whole way that evolution is not "progressive" argument, but there of course is something different when it comes to morals.  Besides the fact that a moral system can help a person, groups, and societies choose between "right and wrong", certain individuals have an ability to examine their own moral system, to judge it against a higher system, one they think is better than their societies.  These special individuals, are looking beyond what is to something else, what is that?  What are they comparing against?  It's not their moral system (learned and instinctual), it's not their society's moral system.  What do they see that all of the rest of us are blind to?  From an evolutionary stand-point of course.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on April 15, 2007, 07:53:14 AM
    Hrmm. Page 112. I believe I shall give CA something to chew on and discuss. It concerns the disgusting fable known as the bible. And before you get the idea that I am a believer in evolution, you should think again. Anyway, I know CA to be one of the more rational people who visit these boards, so here is the link to Thomas Paine's work, "The Age of Reason".


    http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part1.html[/b]]http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part1.html (http://[B)

    Discuss.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 15, 2007, 09:37:11 AM
    Quote
    Just trying to lighten up the conversation.  Lighten up will you???

    Alright, fair enough.  Let's reset.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 15, 2007, 09:57:31 AM
    Peace, love (don't forget I'm a child of the '60's...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 15, 2007, 10:20:22 AM
    I do understand the whole way that evolution is not "progressive" argument, but there of course is something different when it comes to morals.  Besides the fact that a moral system can help a person, groups, and societies choose between "right and wrong", certain individuals have an ability to examine their own moral system, to judge it against a higher system, one they think is better than their societies.  These special individuals, are looking beyond what is to something else, what is that?  What are they comparing against?  It's not their moral system (learned and instinctual), it's not their society's moral system.  What do they see that all of the rest of us are blind to?  From an evolutionary stand-point of course.

    Moral systems are not consistent, cohesive package deals-- I'm not even sure that "system" is the right word to refer to the values that a society happens to favor most, because it implies that they were deliberately chosen.  But there are very few people in the world who actually spend much time at all trying to be consistent in their morality-- most are too busy actually trying to survive, find food, etc., and this has been the case even moreso for the vast majority of humans who have ever lived.  Evolution can't really explain the behavior of specific modern individuals who go against the prevailing morality in their culture, because a) they're modern, and b) they're individuals.  By necessity evolutionary explanations are general  ones, and they are ancient ones.  The fact that the capacity for empathy evolved in our ancestors does not explain why a particular German should choose to hide Jews in her basement during the Holocaust while another one turns them in to the S.S., for example.  It may be something in her genes, but it's not a "save the Jews" gene, and it's not a "moral superiority" gene.  Some people just have a disposition toward being more skeptical, more brave, more compassionate, or other qualities which cause them to challenge the morality of those around them. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 15, 2007, 11:19:14 AM
    I found the following essay on Jesus as a tax protester to be interesting.  This is from CHAPTER 7: JESUS CHRIST, ANARCHO-CAPITALIST p. 67

    http://jesus-on-taxes.com/Page2.html

        "How, then, shall we resolve the apparent conflict between the spirit of generosity and active care for “the least” or our fellows, which Jesus urged upon us, with the fiercely competitive, self-seeking aspects of capitalism? 
        In the first place, the comparison is onerous because Jesus did not urge his principles on mankind for the betterment of society; he urged them on individuals for the salvation of their souls, which is why he is called Savior. Society clearly benefits when some individuals practice nonviolence and exhibit love and care for their fellows, but that is merely a benevolent side effect of their adherence to the wisdom of Jesus for the good of one’s soul. If all members of society conformed to Jesus’ principles, the market economy would undoubtedly be profoundly impacted, but it would not change its nature. It would remain a market economy, beneficial to society just as the Jesus-principles are beneficial to an individual’s eternal soul.  Moreover, in the absence of the dangerous prerogative of the state to initiate force, capitalism is the only imaginable societal arrangement. It  thrives on the absence of force. All of the other social formulations that have been concocted require the initiation of force at some point for their implementation, which is why they don’t work well and why Jesus’ principles condemn them.
         In the second place, capitalism often extravagantly rewards, with profits, entrepreneurs who best fulfill the demands of the market. But by the same token, it simultaneously benefits consumers, who acquire the most desirable products and services at the lowest  possible prices as a result of the entrepreneurs’ genius, risk taking and effort."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Stephanie on April 15, 2007, 12:43:00 PM
    http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/eulogy_filled_with_pro
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on April 15, 2007, 01:30:13 PM
    If Jesus was so goddamn smart, then why, praytell did this supposed son of a god seem to be illiterate?

    I haven't seen a single writing of his own to date.

    Its always been heresay, most of which came 40 to 150 years or more after the guy was long dead and allegedly raised to some etheral plane of existence....even more heresay. You know, you would think that this god would have illicited printing machines to make his "word" more easily recognizable and accepted. But no, we have to accept it on the "blind faith" and "good character" of backward thinking, mostly illiterate Jews. To think, an omnipotent GOD, to make his alleged only begotten SON (surprisingly familiar with Osiris and the SUN itself) completely illiterate, and depended upon others to "record" his teachings. Pathetic.

    This is the same god who is supposed to have "created" the heavens and earth in six days, and must have FUCKED UP ROYALLY when he made all the OTHER PLANETS (the jews never really liked astronomy, and had no real knowledge of it) completely worthless chunks of rock in space. Just this one, precious rock has his illiterate son visited. And I guess it must have been a real BOTHER for this god to have had to do the same for all the other inhabited planets this universe probably has.

    Man. This Jesus guy must still be traversing the sands of other planets just WAITING to be crucified for actions other people choose to take upon their own accord.

    Religion is so silly. The one that kicks the shit out of my nuts is this christianity garbage.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 15, 2007, 04:45:55 PM
    If Jesus was so goddamn smart, then why, praytell did this supposed son of a god seem to be illiterate?

    I haven't seen a single writing of his own to date.

    Its always been heresay, most of which came 40 to 150 years or more after the guy was long dead and allegedly raised to some etheral plane of existence....even more heresay. You know, you would think that this god would have illicited printing machines to make his "word" more easily recognizable and accepted. But no, we have to accept it on the "blind faith" and "good character" of backward thinking, mostly illiterate Jews. To think, an omnipotent GOD, to make his alleged only begotten SON (surprisingly familiar with Osiris and the SUN itself) completely illiterate, and depended upon others to "record" his teachings. Pathetic.

    This is the same god who is supposed to have "created" the heavens and earth in six days, and must have FUCKED UP ROYALLY when he made all the OTHER PLANETS (the jews never really liked astronomy, and had no real knowledge of it) completely worthless chunks of rock in space. Just this one, precious rock has his illiterate son visited. And I guess it must have been a real BOTHER for this god to have had to do the same for all the other inhabited planets this universe probably has.

    Man. This Jesus guy must still be traversing the sands of other planets just WAITING to be crucified for actions other people choose to take upon their own accord.

    Religion is so silly. The one that kicks the shit out of my nuts is this christianity garbage.

    O.K. I'll bite.  Who is this Socrates guy?  Socrates was an ancient Greek philosopher who is widely credited for laying the foundation for Western philosophy. But, I have not yet found anything that he has wrote.  If he was so smart why was he illiterate.  (Actually, to be illiterate would mean that he could neither read nor write, not that he chose not to write, but who cares about the truth.)

    Oh, about the astronomy thing, consider Job 9:9; 38:31, 32; Isaiah 13:10; and Amos 5:8.  You might also want to read the first few chapters of Danial.    I don't think you will.  We could talk about the finer points of why Jesus came to earth, but I don't think you really care about that either.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 15, 2007, 05:02:21 PM
    Evolution can't really explain the behavior of specific modern individuals who go against the prevailing morality in their culture, because a) they're modern, and b) they're individuals.

    Is this true about all science or just evolution?  Does this mean that science is limited, unable to answer any question?

    P.S.  Thank you for your help.  I think I understand, and it makes perfect sense to me.  As a matter of fact, I agree completely.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 15, 2007, 05:42:22 PM
    Evolution can't really explain the behavior of specific modern individuals who go against the prevailing morality in their culture, because a) they're modern, and b) they're individuals.

    Quote
    Is this true about all science

    Oh, heavens no.  There's loads of research in moral psychology that I am sure could help you out.  In fact, if you're interested I would really suggest Marc Hauser's book Moral Minds, which has come out recently....it's a treasure trove of all sorts of interesting experimental data about how we think about morality, plus he's a good writer so he makes it come across accessibly and interestingly.  It's just that evolutionary psychology is best used for explaining universal traits of human behavior.  If a tendency isn't universal, it's hard to say that it has an evolutionary basis.

    Quote
    Does this mean that science is limited, unable to answer any question?

    Is science limited?  Sure.  Science can't tell you whether chocolate cake is better than apple pie, or irises are prettier than roses, or the Beastie Boys are better than Beck.  Matters of taste are pretty much off limits. 

    There are two other areas that are off limits, but with caveats: the supernatural and morality.  The party line is that science is methodologically naturalistic, so it can't comment on the existence of the supernatural.  But most belief in supernatural agents include them interacting with the natural world in some way (granting prayers, causing or preventing natural disasters, etc.), and you can study those.  Studies on prayer have already been conducted using hospital patients and having anonymous people pray for them.   A friend of mine is conducting fMRI studies of different kinds of prayer to see what's happening in the brain when people perform them. 

    As for morality-- you're not supposed to derive an "ought" from an "is."  That's the naturalistic fallacy again....just because something is the case doesn't mean it should be.  But at the same time you can't formulate moral judgments in a vacuum, independent of what is actually happening in reality.  So science might not be able to tell us what is moral, but at least it should be able to inform our moral judgments by revealing truths about existence.

    Quote
    P.S.  Thank you for your help.  I think I understand, and it makes perfect sense to me.  As a matter of fact, I agree completely.

    Not at all, it's nice to have productive discussion without drama and sniping.   :)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 15, 2007, 06:09:59 PM
    But most belief in supernatural agents include them interacting with the natural world in some way (granting prayers, causing or preventing natural disasters, etc.), and you can study those.

    I don't really understand this.  Strictly speaking, acts of supernatural intervention would not be repeatable.  What would a person do to "force" a powerful being to repeat a particular behavior.  Any god worth the name would  not consent to be part of an experiment.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 15, 2007, 06:11:38 PM
    Thanks for the recommended reading.  I have it reserved at the library.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on April 15, 2007, 06:23:00 PM
    Imus sucks.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 15, 2007, 06:37:00 PM
    But most belief in supernatural agents include them interacting with the natural world in some way (granting prayers, causing or preventing natural disasters, etc.), and you can study those.

    I don't really understand this.  Strictly speaking, acts of supernatural intervention would not be repeatable.  What would a person do to "force" a powerful being to repeat a particular behavior.  Any god worth the name would not consent to be part of an experiment.

    Are you sure about that?  For one thing, it doesn't sound like a loving god would refuse to heal someone when prayed for, for example, merely because that prayer happened in the context of an experiment.   For another, one would think that a god who loves his creation would welcome the chance to demonstrate his existence so that people can appreciate it.  And lastly, the god of the bible has  in fact been described as demonstrating his existence under "experimental" conditions-- see 1 Kings 18:22-39.   (After which, incidentally, Elijah had all of the naysayers taken off and slaughtered.  A lot more harsh than being rejected by peer review)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 15, 2007, 06:53:31 PM
    I think you missed my point.  No, I think I did not make myself very clearly.  If an experiment was consistent with the hypothesis that God answered prayer.  If would in fact give no evidence for the hypothesis; because in order for God to answer prayer, he would have to exist.  It would be evidence for some process that up to this point had not been described.  If could; for example, be the result of some holographic universe, in which people are connected on some level and have an effect on each other, in effect willing the health of another.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 15, 2007, 07:01:45 PM
    I think you missed my point.  No, I think I did not make myself very clearly.  If an experiment was consistent with the hypothesis that God answered prayer.  If would in fact give no evidence for the hypothesis; because in order for God to answer prayer, he would have to exist.  It would be evidence for some process that up to this point had not been described.  If could; for example, be the result of some holographic universe, in which people are connected on some level and have an effect on each other, in effect willing the health of another.

    Well, you could structure the experiment in such a way as to allow for evidence in one direction or another.  For example, you could have Catholics pray for one group and Hindus pray for another, and see if there's any noticeable difference in which group gets healthier faster.  If it could even be shown that people who are prayed for by anybody  turn out to be better at healing, that wouldn't prove that God exists, but it would be an interesting result which would deserve further exploration. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on April 15, 2007, 07:03:15 PM
    Harvey, your reply was so retarded I think that I am now officially more stupid and cannot even comprise the ability to repond. I shall, however try my best....

    I am without a doubt in awe over your ability to point out a bible that has partial Greek origin and influence and claim it is in fact Hebrew. I am in awe with your wisdom in naming Aristotle an illiterate man.

    Do a Google and read what Thomas Paine had to say about your stories. He was far more inclined and educated than I on the subject.

    This religion stuff can only be fed to monkeys as far as I am concerned.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 15, 2007, 07:04:51 PM
    Quote
    that wouldn't prove that God exists
    Yep.  That's what I said.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 15, 2007, 07:07:31 PM
    Quote
    that wouldn't prove that God exists
    Yep.  That's what I said.

    Right, but I wasn't claiming that science can prove God exists.  ;-)  Just that it's conceivably possible for the supernatural to be tested.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 15, 2007, 07:17:29 PM
    Harvey, your reply was so retarded I think that I am now officially more stupid and cannot even comprise the ability to repond. I shall, however try my best....

    I am without a doubt in awe over your ability to point out a bible that has partial Greek origin and influence and claim it is in fact Hebrew. I am in awe with your wisdom in naming Aristotle an illiterate man.

    Do a Google and read what Thomas Paine had to say about your stories. He was far more inclined and educated than I on the subject.

    This religion stuff can only be fed to monkeys as far as I am concerned.

    You're fun.  But you are the stupid one.  I didn't say Aristotle was illiterate, I said Socrates was (by your stupid definition, Stupid.)

    I never said the Bible was Hebrew as you said.  (What difference that would make is quite beyond me.)

    Oh, and Thomas Paine?  I really don't care what he has to say on the subject.  I really don't care what you have to say on the subject either.  You're stupid.  Was that too harsh? 

    If we offend, it is with our good will.
    That you should think, we come not to offend,
    But with good will.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 15, 2007, 07:23:25 PM
    Quote
    that wouldn't prove that God exists
    Yep.  That's what I said.

    Right, but I wasn't claiming that science can prove God exists.  ;-)  Just that it's conceivably possible for the supernatural to be tested.

    I understand what you are saying, but this would not necessarily be a test of the supernatural.  It would simply be a test of an unknown process of unknown origin.  Scientists often find results that they are unable to explain, but because they are scientists they should never attribute the cause of an unknown process to the supernatural.  This would be contrary to the philosophy of science.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on April 16, 2007, 02:19:54 AM
    I'm not the one who believes in the invisible man up in the sky. Harvey.

    And so you said Socrates was illiterate. You're not accurate, and in fact you are completely wrong. But, you still cannot prove that Jesus wasn't illiterate and incapable of writing his own word of this "god" character.

    And so what does that make you?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 16, 2007, 04:15:55 AM
    Quote
    that wouldn't prove that God exists
    Yep.  That's what I said.

    Right, but I wasn't claiming that science can prove God exists.  ;-)  Just that it's conceivably possible for the supernatural to be tested.

    I understand what you are saying, but this would not necessarily be a test of the supernatural.  It would simply be a test of an unknown process of unknown origin.  Scientists often find results that they are unable to explain, but because they are scientists they should never attribute the cause of an unknown process to the supernatural.  This would be contrary to the philosophy of science.

    That's a good point, and this is the problem with defining the supernatural as "that which is outside the natural," and then saying that only the natural can be tested scientifically.  It basically defines a boundary into existence, and a somewhat arbitrary one at that.  When it comes down to it, we don't know  all of the things that can be tested scientifically.  For all we know, we'll discover new laws, establish new theories, that make it perfectly possible to test things we weren't even aware of before-- things that might be considered supernatural (or at least "paranormal") right now.   In that sense, "supernatural" is more like another word for "mysterious."

    Quantum mechanics is pretty weird and mysterious, and I think that's part of why a lot of people with scant knowledge of it are jumping on it right now to claim it has all sorts of powers-- to grant free will, to give you power to change your life and environment, to claim that matter has emotion, all sorts of gobbledygook.  People want their science and their magical mystery too, I suppose. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 16, 2007, 04:44:00 AM

    That's a good point, and this is the problem with defining the supernatural as "that which is outside the natural," and then saying that only the natural can be tested scientifically.  It basically defines a boundary into existence, and a somewhat arbitrary one at that.  When it comes down to it, we don't know  all of the things that can be tested scientifically.  For all we know, we'll discover new laws, establish new theories, that make it perfectly possible to test things we weren't even aware of before-- things that might be considered supernatural (or at least "paranormal") right now.   In that sense, "supernatural" is more like another word for "mysterious."

    Quantum mechanics is pretty weird and mysterious, and I think that's part of why a lot of people with scant knowledge of it are jumping on it right now to claim it has all sorts of powers-- to grant free will, to give you power to change your life and environment, to claim that matter has emotion, all sorts of gobbledygook.  People want their science and their magical mystery too, I suppose. 

    That's my whole point about religion and science.  To some extent they cannot be held at the same time.  I believe there is a strict boundary between the two.  That boundary exists when studying beings that are significantly more advanced than we are.  A religious philosophy is an attempt to understand these beings.  It makes metaphysical statements and uses an epistemological system not terribly unlike that of science, but is very different in other ways.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 16, 2007, 04:53:52 AM
    I'm not the one who believes in the invisible man up in the sky. Harvey.

    And so you said Socrates was illiterate. You're not accurate, and in fact you are completely wrong. But, you still cannot prove that Jesus wasn't illiterate and incapable of writing his own word of this "god" character.

    And so what does that make you?

    So what did Socrates write?  I'll go check it out at the library.

    Concerning Jesus, the Bible records many places were he quotes other writers, and at least one place where he reads.

    So I guess that makes me pretty smart, well at least smarter than...  well, you.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on April 16, 2007, 05:30:36 AM
    Its all heresay, Harvey. Not one bit of PROOF. I am asking you to show proof that Christ was who all these people SAY he was, but the point is...you can't. And so you shouldn't expect others to believe you either.

    I'm not trying to force my will upon you. I'm not trying to change your mind. Shit, who the FUCK wants to try and convert a Christian anyway? :) you just can't expect others who are using logic and common sense to gain FAITH based on an individual's revelation from thousands of years ago. Accounts which were recorded a full generation or more AFTER this Christ character had already been deceased. We see positive affirmations and references within these texts which mimick Greek mythology and Egyptian astronomy. We know who was where generally at the time, and we can compare this christian philosophy with previous religions and conclude quite easily that it is all a scam.

    But not to those who hold faith in a fable. And that's fine by me because those people are quickly being exterminated.

    As for Socrates, (as if that has anything to do with the bible) he did not enjoy writing things down, as he believed his work was best left to inspire others to think RATIONALLY instead of forcing his own thoughts upon others. He was literate, and studied in the school of Parmenides, and with Zeno. Socrates' very own student, PLATO did in fact write many recorded things, and if a student can be literate, so then should his teacher.

    But as for Jesus? You got me, pal. If you want to claim the same aspect as for Socrates, and relate the disciples to Jesus as being his students, then at least you have to prove where he was educated, and as far as I can tell there weren't too many schools open to poor carpenters whose parents couldn't even afford a bed when he was born.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 16, 2007, 07:43:37 AM
    I'm not the one who believes in the invisible man up in the sky. Harvey.

    And so you said Socrates was illiterate. You're not accurate, and in fact you are completely wrong. But, you still cannot prove that Jesus wasn't illiterate and incapable of writing his own word of this "god" character.

    And so what does that make you?

    Of course you are missing his point (which is glaringly obvious) that YOUR DEFINITION of Jesus being illiterate, is just as valid when applied to Socrates.  And you have only READ that he studied in the school of Parmenides, you can't PROVE he did.  Of course, that fact that you can't even use the name of the historical figure mentioned shows how much attention you are paying to the subject.  You might as well drop out...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 16, 2007, 07:59:22 AM
    That's my whole point about religion and science.  To some extent they cannot be held at the same time.  I believe there is a strict boundary between the two.  That boundary exists when studying beings that are significantly more advanced than we are.

    You mean like aliens?  Why shouldn't we be able to study them scientifically?   :)

    Quote
    A religious philosophy is an attempt to understand these beings.


    No, I don't really think it is.  Understanding the supernatural is not the emphasis of religion for most religious people.  It simply taken to exist, and used to satisfy a variety of needs-- moral justification, comfort, existential grounding, etc.  Gods and spirits are useful (and, for most people, unavoidable), and that's why they've stuck around for so long. 

    Philosophers of religion and theologians attempt to understand the supernatural....but having a religious philosophy and being a philosopher of religion are two very different (though not mutually exclusive) things. 

    Quote
    It makes metaphysical statements and uses an epistemological system not terribly unlike that of science, but is very different in other ways.

    What, in your opinion, is the epistemological system of religion, and how is it not terribly unlike that of science?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 16, 2007, 08:15:11 AM
    You mean like aliens?  Why shouldn't we be able to study them scientifically?   :)
    ...

    No, I don't really think it is.  Understanding the supernatural is not the emphasis of religion for most religious people. 


    Maybe you need this:

    Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
    su·per·nat·u·ral      /ˌsupərˈnætʃərəl, -ˈnætʃrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
    –adjective
    1.   of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
    2.   of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
    3.   of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
    4.   of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.
    –noun
    5.   a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.
    6.   behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.
    7.   direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.
    8.   the supernatural,
    a.   supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively.
    b.   supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence: a deep fear of the supernatural.

    So, how's you gonna 'splain the "supernatural" with "science" which studies the "natural"??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 16, 2007, 10:55:39 AM
    Okay, markuzick, this conversation is not going to go anywhere with such dramatic disagreement about terms. 

    Quote
    Again, you're confusing moral intuition with instinctual personal and social behavior.

    I am saying that moral intuition is  instinctive.  I am saying that moral intuitions are evolved.

    There it instinct that is acquired through thought, education and experience and that is also malleable. Then there is instinct that is inborn and hard wired. Moral intuition can only refer to the first type of instinct, because this kind of instinct is base upon values that one chooses to accept from one's authority figures, peers or through personal experience and thought. These values become integrated into the unconscious mind and so become part of one's instinctual repettoire. Hard wired instinct can evolve only genetically. Moral intuitions are acquired and evolve over one's lifetime. The morality that predominates within a culture and upon which the moral intuitions of of its individual members tend to become based, with immersion into that culture, evolves over countless generations, but cultures do not have moral intuitions, only individuals do.

    Quote
    Morality implies a choice.

    Quote
    Not to me, it doesn't.  Not a conscious one, when the very thing I am saying is that so many of our moral judgments are unconscious.  You can disagree with me, but that doesn't mean I don't understand my own argument.
     

    Moral judgements can be unconscious, but they are based upon a morality, or at least some implied morality, that was at some level consciously accepted.

    Quote
    You shouldn't be falsely accusing me of nonsense, while spewing pure ignorant nonsense of your own. I know that you're knowledgeable, so I can only assume this subject upsets you so greatly as to forget that all of your examples are Man.

    Quote
    What I am saying is that when you insist on talking about "Man choosing his," you're basically portraying all of humanity as a single character who has consciously guided "his" own evolution.  That's not what happened-- the whole premise of evolutionary psychology is that a lot of our behavior stems from instincts we developed 100,000 years ago or more.  Before consciousness in the sense we have now even existed. 

    You are inferring far too much from my words.

    Quote
    You must first know what morality is, as well as the distinction between morality and inborn instinct, before you can converse meaningfully about the subject.

    Quote
    I already gave you my working definition of morality, and it is not dependent on instinct vs. conscious behavior.  If you want to know where this kind of thinking comes from, I suggest reading this:  http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.emotionaldog.manuscript.pdf (http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.emotionaldog.manuscript.pdf)

    I just read the abstract and I find the premise consistent with my beliefs and I'm inclined to believe it.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 16, 2007, 11:50:52 AM
    There it instinct that is acquired through thought, education and experience and that is also malleable.

    Okay, well, that's not how I define "instinct," nor have I ever encountered anyone else who defines it that way.  I define instinct as being innate and evolved.  "Instinctual" and "learned" are diametrically opposed. 

    Quote
    in·stinct (ĭn'stĭngkt') pronunciation
    n.

       1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
    (emphasis added)

    Quote
    Then there is instinct that is inborn and hard wired. Moral intuition can only refer to the first type of instinct, because this kind of instinct is base upon values that one chooses to accept from one's authority figures, peers or through personal experience and thought.

    Disagree with that as well.  There is no particular reason to believe that "moral" = "chosen."

    Quote
    Moral judgements can be unconscious, but they are based upon a morality, or at least some implied morality, that was at some level consciously accepted.

    What is your support for this?  Where is the evidence for it?

    Quote
    You are inferring far too much from my words.

    I'm inferring that you speak of a species making moral choices in the same way you speak of individuals making moral choices, and that doesn't make sense.

    Quote
    I just read the abstract and I find the premise consistent with my beliefs and I'm inclined to believe it.

    I don't know how you can find it consistent with your beliefs when the whole argument of the paper is that the majority of moral judgments involve no rational consideration whatsoever-- that is, no conscious choice at any point. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on April 16, 2007, 12:04:12 PM
    Socrates wasn't (allegedly) preaching about people following him into some place called heaven either.

    Seriously, CA -This Jesus guy really was an illiterate mud hutter.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 16, 2007, 12:19:17 PM
    Socrates wasn't (allegedly) preaching about people following him into some place called heaven either.

    Seriously, CA -This Jesus guy really was an illiterate mud hutter.

    Seriously, Brokor, you haven't studied this subject matter...

    And, it doesn't matter what Socrates was doing, the point remains that you cannot prove anything more about him than we can about Jesus.  Indeed, there's more to indicate what Jesus said...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on April 16, 2007, 01:53:06 PM
    OH HELL NO!

    Don't even go there, man. Hehe. Lost cause, huh?

    Well. Until I change my mind and decide to call you on it again, then...another bat day, same bat channel!

    (P.S. Jesus may very well have been the Lee Harvey Oswald of the religious industry.)

    *cough*
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 16, 2007, 02:23:25 PM
    Hey, you aren't old enough to claim to have seen the Batman series (at least not original air dates), that's MY show...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 16, 2007, 02:55:54 PM
    There it instinct that is acquired through thought, education and experience and that is also malleable.

    Okay, well, that's not how I define "instinct," nor have I ever encountered anyone else who defines it that way.  I define instinct as being innate and evolved.  "Instinctual" and "learned" are diametrically opposed. 

    Quote
    in·stinct (ĭn'stĭngkt') pronunciation
    n.

       1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
    (emphasis added)

    It can also mean a powerful motivation or impulse. E.g., You may have an instinctive revulsion to socialistic sounding ideas and be instinctively draw to free market ideas and for someone else it could be just the reverse. That doesnt mean that you where each genetically destined to become that way. Once you develop learned instincts, they act much like inborn instincts, the difference being that they can be changed.

    Quote
    I just read the abstract and I find the premise consistent with my beliefs and I'm inclined to believe it.

    Quote
    I don't know how you can find it consistent with your beliefs when the whole argument of the paper is that the majority of moral judgments involve no rational consideration whatsoever-- that is, no conscious choice at any point.



    It's consistent with what I've been saying. Unconscious moral judgments are the logical result of one's chosen values. I never said that those values had to be rational or even non-conflicting. I only said they involved choice, even if that choice was only to accept every cultural value blindly and uncritically.

    Again, you're failing to distinguish between behaviors that evolve genetically and behaviors that evolve culturally. You're also ignoring the role of the maverick individuals thoughts and actions, whether rational or not, in the evolution of culture.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on April 16, 2007, 03:58:08 PM
    Batman reruns. ;) Came between the Lone Ranger and Mr. Ed.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 16, 2007, 04:00:19 PM
    These poor saps today don't even know what good television is (or is that an oxymoron?)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on April 16, 2007, 04:08:07 PM
    It was the Smurfs who changed it all. Gargamel created Smurfette to tempt the happy smurfs and it all went to hell after that.

    Damn you all to hellllll!!!!11!!!!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on April 16, 2007, 05:58:12 PM
    I could use some cereal.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 17, 2007, 11:26:48 AM
    It can also mean a powerful motivation or impulse. E.g., You may have an instinctive revulsion to socialistic sounding ideas and be instinctively draw to free market ideas and for someone else it could be just the reverse. That doesnt mean that you where each genetically destined to become that way. Once you develop learned instincts, they act much like inborn instincts, the difference being that they can be changed.

    I would call those intuitions, not instincts. 

    Quote
    It's consistent with what I've been saying. Unconscious moral judgments are the logical result of one's chosen values.

    That's not the argument of the paper.  As I said, the argument of the paper is that most moral judgments were never chosen.

    Quote
    Again, you're failing to distinguish between behaviors that evolve genetically and behaviors that evolve culturally. You're also ignoring the role of the maverick individuals thoughts and actions, whether rational or not, in the evolution of culture.

    By insisting that all moral judgments are chosen, you don't seem to be allowing any room for genetic evolution at all. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 17, 2007, 11:59:59 AM
    you just can't expect others who are using logic and common sense to gain FAITH based on an individual's revelation from thousands of years ago....

     at least you have to prove where he was educated, and as far as I can tell there weren't too many schools open to poor carpenters whose parents couldn't even afford a bed when he was born.

    These are the things I don't understand.

    Why to vitriol against FAITH?  We all have a measure of faith, It's just where we choose to place it.  If you walk into an unfamiliar place, and see something that looks like a chair, you wouldn't think twice about sitting in it, even though you didn't build it, you don't know anyone who built it, and you haven't tested it for yourself.  You have faith in the person that made the chair.  The person that made the chair may be long dead, it doesn't matter to you.

    That's right, in a free market system, sometimes people can't afford school, and their parents are their only teachers.  When Jesus appeared at the synagogue in Jerusalem when he was twelve, the scribes and pharisees where amazed at his wisdom.  When I read the words attributed to him, I am compelled to agree.  I did not make my mind up because I wasn't thinking but because I had examined it for a long time.

    You are right that I can't PROVE it.  But, most of what you believe to be true, you can't prove, if only because no one could live that long.  And yet, you hold to them as tenaciously as any fundamentalist Christian.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 17, 2007, 12:48:55 PM
    Why to vitriol against FAITH?  We all have a measure of faith, It's just where we choose to place it.  If you walk into an unfamiliar place, and see something that looks like a chair, you wouldn't think twice about sitting in it, even though you didn't build it, you don't know anyone who built it, and you haven't tested it for yourself.  You have faith in the person that made the chair.  The person that made the chair may be long dead, it doesn't matter to you.

    If something can be reasonably concluded based on argument or evidence, faith is not required.  Faith is when belief has a moral component-- you believe because you think you ought to, rather than because you are convinced by argument or evidence.

    That's why so many people hate atheists.  If belief in God were a morally neutral issue, then nobody would care whether other people believed in him or not.  But atheists are perceived as having rejected a relationship, something they ought  not do.  Their lack of belief is in essence a moral matter to people, rather than a matter of truth or falsity. 

    Faith is something that, when you lack it, you are a bad person-- not simply mistaken or ignorant. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 17, 2007, 01:03:50 PM
    Christian Brother,

    I sense we have much in common. I look foreword to future exchanges.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 17, 2007, 01:10:49 PM
    Yes, I am a man of The Book...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 17, 2007, 01:12:14 PM
    If something can be reasonably concluded based on argument or evidence, faith is not required.  Faith is when belief has a moral component-- you believe because you think you ought to, rather than because you are convinced by argument or evidence.


    My belief in God is reasonably based on argument or evidence, so I guess I cannot be a man of faith anymore...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 17, 2007, 01:29:29 PM
    It can also mean a powerful motivation or impulse. E.g., You may have an instinctive revulsion to socialistic sounding ideas and be instinctively draw to free market ideas and for someone else it could be just the reverse. That doesnt mean that you where each genetically destined to become that way. Once you develop learned instincts, they act much like inborn instincts, the difference being that they can be changed.

    I would call those intuitions, not instincts.

    I like that. People, including both of us, use "intuition" and "instinct" interchangeably, but intuition is better, as it's more specific, in that it refers to "programmable" instinct.

    WordNet - Cite This Source
    intuition

    noun
    1.    instinctive knowing (without the use of rational processes)
    2.    an impression that something might be the case; "he had an intuition that something had gone wrong"

    WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

    Quote
    It's consistent with what I've been saying. Unconscious moral judgments are the logical result of one's chosen values.
    Quote
    That's not the argument of the paper.  As I said, the argument of the paper is that most moral judgments were never chosen.

    I think you mean that they were never consciously chosen. Regardless, at some point one's values, values being the standard by which moral intuition operates, are consciously chosen, even if only to choose to unconsciously absorb on faith, an uncritical adoption of popular societal values.

    Quote
    Again, you're failing to distinguish between behaviors that evolve genetically and behaviors that evolve culturally. You're also ignoring the role of the maverick individuals thoughts and actions, whether rational or not, in the evolution of culture.

    Quote
    By insisting that all moral judgments are chosen, you don't seem to be allowing any room for genetic evolution at all. 

    I think we've already agreed that there is a distinction to be made between hard wired instinct and intuition. Morality refers to a code of values that, at some level, is chosen. Genetic instinct refers to a code of values which are hard wired, that can, at most, be repressed, but never changed.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 17, 2007, 01:33:21 PM
    If something can be reasonably concluded based on argument or evidence, faith is not required.  Faith is when belief has a moral component-- you believe because you think you ought to, rather than because you are convinced by argument or evidence.

    That's why so many people hate atheists.  If belief in God were a morally neutral issue, then nobody would care whether other people believed in him or not.  But atheists are perceived as having rejected a relationship, something they ought  not do.  Their lack of belief is in essence a moral matter to people, rather than a matter of truth or falsity. 

    Faith is something that, when you lack it, you are a bad person-- not simply mistaken or ignorant. 

    But, what is reasonable to me is nonsense to you.  We could argue till the cows come home, but it won't change what I find reasonable.  As for the rest of it, what most people believe has nothing to do with me.  I have very little in common with most people that call themselves Christians.  I personally have been thrown out (by threat of violence,) from three churches from my own denomination.  Frankly, I couldn't care less whether you believe in God or not.  I don't believe it's a moral matter at all.  I have a great deal of respect for people who can maintain an honest atheistic philosophy.  I have no burning desire to convert you to Christianity or my belief system.  Find meaning in your way, please.  But, because you do, that doesn't make me stupid, illogical, etc.  You find meaning in your way, I find it in mine, some Indian finds it in his way, what makes yours so superior?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on April 17, 2007, 01:38:37 PM
    Faith: Hope for things unproven and unseen.

    I can't fill my belly on it. I can't build a skyscrape from it. I can invest to make a fortune based on it. And so on. So faith is no show and no go, and all zero.

    -- Brede
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 17, 2007, 01:40:01 PM
    I think you mean that they were never consciously chosen.

    The word "choice" implies that it is conscious. 

    Quote
    Regardless, at some point one's values, values being the standard by which moral intuition operates, are consciously chosen

    And what is your evidence for this?  I've asked you to provide it before, but you haven't.

    Quote
    I think we've already agreed that there is a distinction to be made between hard wired instinct and intuition. Morality refers to a code of values that, at some level, is chosen.

    Again, you've given no reason why I should accept this as true.  It is not intrinsic to the definition of morality that it be chosen.  If there is a genetic (that is, evolved) reason why, for example, people are likely to view incest as wrong, then that would be a moral judgment which is emphatically not  chosen. 

    Quote
    Genetic instinct refers to a code of values which are hard wired, that can, at most, be repressed, but never changed.

    The instincts may not be changed, but the behavior resulting from them can be.  If you are sufficiently persuaded (through argument or fear of punishment, or both) that something you have an instinctive desire to do is wrong, then there's no reason you shouldn't be able to refrain from doing it. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 17, 2007, 01:41:41 PM
    Faith: Hope for things unproven and unseen.

    I can't fill my belly on it. I can't build a skyscrape from it. I can invest to make a fortune based on it. And so on. So faith is no show and no go, and all zero.

    -- Brede

    Bullshit!  Without faith there would be no skyscrapers, no fortunes, no zero.  Without an unproven belief in themselves, the people who do these things could never have done them.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on April 17, 2007, 01:44:22 PM
    Bullshit!  Without faith there would be no skyscrapers, no fortunes, no zero.  Without an unproven belief in themselves, the people who do these things could never have done them.

    That's the biggest lie ever told. Nothing in reason is based on faith. Something unproven does not imply in itself to be based on faith. It just means it hasn't been done before, but Nature being non-contradictory allows us to make such judgments when we assess situations, without faith and without blind ignorance. Faith requires one to actively ignore the facts, the unknowns, and the possibilities. Faith requires the mind to literally BLANK OUT. To cease, to silence. Reason requires the opposite; to think, to question, to add to what is known from what is unknown.


    If you wish to know more try Objectivism 101 (http://www.objectivism101.com).

    -- Brede
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 17, 2007, 01:51:59 PM
    If something can be reasonably concluded based on argument or evidence, faith is not required.  Faith is when belief has a moral component-- you believe because you think you ought to, rather than because you are convinced by argument or evidence.

    That's why so many people hate atheists.  If belief in God were a morally neutral issue, then nobody would care whether other people believed in him or not.  But atheists are perceived as having rejected a relationship, something they ought  not do.  Their lack of belief is in essence a moral matter to people, rather than a matter of truth or falsity. 

    Faith is something that, when you lack it, you are a bad person-- not simply mistaken or ignorant. 

    But, what is reasonable to me is nonsense to you.

    Maybe I should take the word "reasonable" out, then.  If you honestly don't care whether somebody agrees with your religious beliefs or not, and wouldn't feel bad in the slightest if you yourself lost them, then I'm not sure your belief should properly be called "faith."

    Quote
    Bullshit!  Without faith there would be no skyscrapers, no fortunes, no zero.  Without an unproven belief in themselves, the people who do these things could never have done them.

    Nothing is proven.  Things can only be, as they say, established beyond a reasonable doubt.  If I decide to cross the road when the light has turned red for oncoming traffic, I don't know that somebody isn't going to drive right through the intersection and hit me anyway.  What I am applying is inductive reasoning, which is the kind of reasoning that deals with probabilities.  I am applying the general to the specific, in this sense:

    1. Every time I've crossed the road at a red light for my entire life (and that's a lot of times), oncoming traffic has stopped and not hit me.
    2. I am now crossing the road at a red light.
    3. Therefore, oncoming traffic will stop and not hit me now.

    Is #3 necessarily true?  No-- no conclusion of an inductive argument is necessarily true.  But it is justified, and if you deny my conclusion you may be mistaken or confused or just plain stupid, but you are not a bad person. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 17, 2007, 02:04:57 PM
    Bullshit!  Without faith there would be no skyscrapers, no fortunes, no zero.  Without an unproven belief in themselves, the people who do these things could never have done them.

    That's the biggest lie ever told. Nothing in reason is based on faith. Something unproven does not imply in itself to be based on faith. It just means it hasn't been done before, but Nature being non-contradictory allows us to make such judgments when we assess situations, without faith and without blind ignorance. Faith requires one to actively ignore the facts, the unknowns, and the possibilities. Faith requires the mind to literally BLANK OUT. To cease, to silence. Reason requires the opposite; to think, to question, to add to what is known from what is unknown.


    If you wish to know more try Objectivism 101 (http://www.objectivism101.com).

    -- Brede

    I was using the definition you gave.  Evidence of things unseen.  Before the first skyscraper was built, it was unseen.  Faith does not require mental blindness, what you are talking about is insanity.  Faith requires thinking, questioning, and adding to what is known from what is unknown as well.  A person that is insane accepts perceptions and suggestions without thought.  I do not.  If I did, every new perception or suggestion would change my thinking.  I would become an atheists when you suggested that there might not be a god.  I do not.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on April 17, 2007, 02:08:36 PM
    Faith does not require mental blindness, what you are talking about is insanity.  Faith requires thinking, questioning, and adding to what is known from what is unknown as well.
    Bullshit, you're conflicting with the biblical definition ("Things unseen but hoped for..."). So I won't deal with you if you can't accept that the common definition is as it stands.

    Quote
    A person that is insane accepts perceptions and suggestions without thought.
    Yet people everyday think there is a God, a Santa Claus, an Easter Bunny, and so on. Also, perception is not conception, so don't think you're given perceptions by people, because that's part of your sense-o-rama that you work upon to get knowledge and etc, no one, not even you, can control it.

     
    Quote
    I would become an atheists when you suggested that there might not be a god.  I do not.
    That's because you're an idiot that wants to anthropomorphize the multi-verse.

    -- Brede
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 17, 2007, 02:09:17 PM
    Faith requires thinking, questioning, and adding to what is known from what is unknown as well.

    I can understand "allows," but "requires"?  Are you honestly suggesting that all people with faith are thinking, questioning people?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on April 17, 2007, 02:10:13 PM
    LOL! Don't even try anymore Rillion, these guys want the universe to be ran by a giant MAN GOD, a penis in the sky, a pecker of all peckers! :lol:

    -- Brede
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 17, 2007, 02:12:37 PM

    Nothing is proven.  Things can only be, as they say, established beyond a reasonable doubt.  If I decide to cross the road when the light has turned red for oncoming traffic, I don't know that somebody isn't going to drive right through the intersection and hit me anyway.  What I am applying is inductive reasoning, which is the kind of reasoning that deals with probabilities.  I am applying the general to the specific, in this sense:

    1. Every time I've crossed the road at a red light for my entire life (and that's a lot of times), oncoming traffic has stopped and not hit me.
    2. I am now crossing the road at a red light.
    3. Therefore, oncoming traffic will stop and not hit me now.

    Is #3 necessarily true?  No-- no conclusion of an inductive argument is necessarily true.  But it is justified, and if you deny my conclusion you may be mistaken or confused or just plain stupid, but you are not a bad person. 

    I'm not sure what you are saying.  Do people with faith not use inductive reasoning?  Because you use inductive reasoning, you don't have faith that drivers will stop?  My faith is based on deductive reasoning, insanity is the alternative.  I have reasons for my faith.  I have evidence for what I believe.  Inductive reasoning is not solely reserved for atheists.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 17, 2007, 02:14:22 PM


    My belief in God is reasonably based on argument or evidence, so I guess I cannot be a man of faith anymore...
    [/quote]

    By terms of this thread I have never been a man of a faith, but a man of reason.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 17, 2007, 02:15:41 PM
    Faith requires thinking, questioning, and adding to what is known from what is unknown as well.

    I can understand "allows," but "requires"?  Are you honestly suggesting that all people with faith are thinking, questioning people?

    Yes!  Or they don't really have faith.  It's something thy simply call faith.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 17, 2007, 02:21:57 PM
    I'm not sure what you are saying.  Do people with faith not use inductive reasoning?

    I am saying that what you are calling "faith" is actually inductive reasoning.

    Quote
    My faith is based on deductive reasoning, insanity is the alternative.  I have reasons for my faith.

    Then you're being inconsistent in your terminology.  If faith means simply believing what is unproven, then a) all kinds of thinking are faith, because nothing is really proven, or b) faith can't be deductive, because deduction is proving. 

    And by "proving" in the second sense, I mean that if the premises are true and the argument is sound, then the conclusion must  be true.  For example:

    1. If A, then B
    2. A
    3. Therefore, B

    is a deductive argument.  It's not an argument that B is likely  to be true.  It's an argument that B is  true. 

    Quote
    I can understand "allows," but "requires"?  Are you honestly suggesting that all people with faith are thinking, questioning people?

    Quote
    Yes!  Or they don't really have faith.  It's something thy simply call faith.

    But again, people believe all kinds of unproven things without really thinking about or questioning them.  So faith can't simply mean "unproven belief" in that sense, either. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 17, 2007, 02:23:57 PM
    Faith does not require mental blindness, what you are talking about is insanity.  Faith requires thinking, questioning, and adding to what is known from what is unknown as well.
    Bullshit, you're conflicting with the biblical definition ("Things unseen but hoped for..."). So I won't deal with you if you can't accept that the common definition is as it stands.

    I'll try again.  The person who wants to build a skyscraper, but has never seen one, hoped that one would exist.  He had no imperical evidence that one would.  Faith was the evidence that he used to begin his efforts to build a skyscraper.  If he had no faith in his own abilities, he would not begin the process and would simply give up, or start another project.  I have no faith in inner-stellar travel with existing terrestrial technology, so I haven't started an inner-stellar travel agency.  If I had faith in somebody who was beginning to implement this kind of technology, I might start one.  You have faith.  I don't know how many ways to say it, but "Nevertheless, it's round."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 17, 2007, 02:41:05 PM
    I am saying that what you are calling "faith" is actually inductive reasoning.

    No.  Faith is evidence for something you can't or won't  prove.  I have faith that my mother had parents.  That the news is mostly factual. That someone will respond to this post.  That I'm not color blind.  That the people in the Bible were real.  That they are relating experiences that they had or believed to be true.  That for thousands of years people have found inspiration and meaning in these accounts.  That I can too (actually, that one I've proven.)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on April 17, 2007, 02:42:38 PM
    I would have bought the fable as a child if the scam was marketed to me as the Mighty Morphin Jesus Rangers.

    If the church is ever going to continue to control the minds of men and keep using them to pump out willing servants to die for a lie by the millions, then they need to get with the times, Yo. New bible time. Dianetics and the Church of Scientology might beat them out in a few decades if these Christians don't get the ball rolling...perhaps all the Muslims and Christians will kill each other off.

    Wouldn't that just be tragic? :)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 17, 2007, 02:50:47 PM
    Many people are called by the name, but that doesn't make them followers of Christ or Mohamed.  Jesus said that to be his follower, one must do as he says.  I would think that was obvious.  If a person is not doing what He said, he is not a Christian, no matter what he says.  Undoubtedly, many have killed and been killed in the name of one who never wanted any to perish.  Christianity is a free society.  We do nothing to enforce the name, that does not mean that everyone is is Christian.  Libertarians are having the same problem.  A lot of people are calling themselves libertarians who are not.  That doesn't make libertarianism bad.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 17, 2007, 02:54:47 PM
    I think you mean that they were never consciously chosen.

    The word "choice" implies that it is conscious. 

    That's obviously wrong, as most choices are made intuitively.

    Quote
    Regardless, at some point one's values, values being the standard by which moral intuition operates, are consciously chosen

    Quote
    And what is your evidence for this?  I've asked you to provide it before, but you haven't.

    Haven't you ever heard of a "knee jerk" conservative. Or any one of numerous examples of acquired beliefs, opinions and tastes and their corresponding values as being the basis of our intuitive reactions?

    Quote
    I think we've already agreed that there is a distinction to be made between hard wired instinct and intuition. Morality refers to a code of values that, at some level, is chosen.

    Quote
    Again, you've given no reason why I should accept this as true.  It is not intrinsic to the definition of morality that it be chosen.  If there is a genetic (that is, evolved) reason why, for example, people are likely to view incest as wrong, then that would be a moral judgment which is emphatically not  chosen.


    Why confuse an inherited behavioral trait with morality? Aren't you able to make distinctions, or is it some personal agenda that forces you to turn a blind eye to such an obvious distinction? Are you proposing that we create two categories of morality; one based on hard wired instinct and the other based on acquired values? Your whole approach to this strikes me as obfuscatory.

    Quote
    Genetic instinct refers to a code of values which are hard wired, that can, at most, be repressed, but never changed.

    Quote
    The instincts may not be changed, but the behavior resulting from them can be.  If you are sufficiently persuaded (through argument or fear of punishment, or both) that something you have an instinctive desire to do is wrong, then there's no reason you shouldn't be able to refrain from doing it.

    Isn't that what I said, but with fewer words?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on April 17, 2007, 03:12:01 PM
    Yeah, I dunno. The whole Jesus story has beauty to it, which aids in acquiring loyal subjects. The whole love story about Jesus dying for humanity and turning the other cheek is a nice touch. I mean, the Jews don't even recognize the fellow to this day, yet there they are still. 'Tis a beautiful story, I must admit. Sad too, did I mention sad? Just horribly sad. Man, I bet when people are down and depressed, all they need is a good 'ol bible to cheer them up. New Testament, that is -or else the old version might make their symptoms worsen. Hmm... I wonder what would happen if a great big UFO or three landed and these little dudes came out and dropped off a few copies of a new book? I bet we have enough technology now to pull off a hoax like that. I think that would be kinda cool. They can be like: "woops, we forgot to mention last time we were here that you were supposed to burn the cross dresser so that some silly folks don't take it upon themselves to actually concoct a story about raising from the dead." The new book can teach people how to pray to a new prophet, amiably named "Barney". And all that Barney wants is for humanity to give him their money. This is because God needs MONEY. Lots and lots of MONEY. With all the UFO craze these past 60 years or so, I wouldn't doubt that some kind of strange event may unfold like that. Who would deny a real, recorded UFO prophecy deliverance? We can make MoOOvies after it and everything!!

    I'm just blabbering, nevermind me.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 17, 2007, 03:44:24 PM
    I would have bought the fable as a child if the scam was marketed to me as the Mighty Morphin Jesus Rangers.

    If the church is ever going to continue to control the minds of men and keep using them to pump out willing servants to die for a lie by the millions, then they need to get with the times, Yo. New bible time. Dianetics and the Church of Scientology might beat them out in a few decades if these Christians don't get the ball rolling...perhaps all the Muslims and Christians will kill each other off.

    Wouldn't that just be tragic? :)

    Well, by your example, someone could go off and murder 1 million people "in the name of Brokor" and I then would be justified in blaming you for all those deaths.  We can only hang you once though...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 17, 2007, 03:51:50 PM
    No offense to the UFO guys, but the Bible is a bit more substantial.  I understand your objections, and I can appreciate them, but the Bible wasn't written by one person, or in one time.  The Bible was written over centuries, by people in various walks of life.  It references works of authority to the people of that day.  It was never the intention of the authors to put it over on unsuspecting people, if it was they did a pretty poor job.  From my reading, the authors were being sincere.  Yes, they may have been sincerely crazy, but then they all were, kings, farmers, fishermen, rabbis, regents.  They didn't believe they were writing fiction (fiction is a rather new invention, by they way.)  They might have all been lying, but they might have crafted a better lie, been a little more "consistent", etc.  Your argument just doesn't ring true.

    I'm not trying to make a Christian out of you, but if you want to be critical of the Bible, you should try harder than comparing it to the Easter Bunny or the Power Rangers.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 17, 2007, 04:11:59 PM
    Faith does not require mental blindness, what you are talking about is insanity.  Faith requires thinking, questioning, and adding to what is known from what is unknown as well.
    Bullshit, you're conflicting with the biblical definition ("Things unseen but hoped for..."). So I won't deal with you if you can't accept that the common definition is as it stands.

    The person who wants to build a skyscraper, but has never seen one, hoped that one would exist.  He had no imperical evidence that one would.  Faith was the evidence that he used to begin his efforts to build a skyscraper.

    An alternative reality exists where he builds a skyscraper not out of faith, but as an experiment. Assuming a given theory and a material experiment he tests a hypothesis that a sky scraper can exist. The same experiment can be applied to interstellar travel without faith… however I wouldn’t open an agency until I had results.

    I would have bought the fable as a child if the scam was marketed to me as the Mighty Morphin Jesus Rangers.

    If the church is ever going to continue to control the minds… 

     

    The essence of every divine religion is the emancipation of man’s control of man, and the freedom to worship his creator. The use of corrupted religious teachings to control the minds of men is a divorce from their original teachings. Scientology however, I believe, was corrupt in it’s first inception.

    Like Christianity, not all Muslims in name are Muslims in deed. And like Libertarianism, the actions of a misguided minority should not mean that Islam is bad.


    I mean, the Jews don't even recognize the fellow to this day…
     

    Of course they don’t… if they did they would categorically be Christian… namely, Jews for Jesus. A group that does exist. Similarly, Muslims accept Jesus as Christ, but if a Christian accepts Muhammad he is categorically a Muslims. And some Jews accept all of these, namely, the Jews for Allah, another group which does exist.

    But the word "faith" doesn't even exist in Arabic as a blind acceptance of the improvable. The closest approximation is "iman" which refers to believes held through reason and evidence.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on April 17, 2007, 04:29:56 PM
    I'll try again.  The person who wants to build a skyscraper, but has never seen one, hoped that one would exist.  He had no empirical evidence that one would.
    Nope, s/he can deduce it from earlier buildings. And from observing even termite hills, which seem to have similar features to modern buildings, and recognize that if a termite hill requires X properties to stand up from its base [underground], then it follows a similar structure made of wood, stone, concrete, steel, and etc would require similar features. Also, much of the basis of skyscrapers are based on other things such as distributing stress loads, which can be measured even in arches, so just that alone would have been sufficient for any architect to conceive of the next step. So your argument loses just on the fact that all things being non-contradictory, then all things must start from an axiom that is deduced [e.g. the termite hill]. [ ]

    -- Brede
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 17, 2007, 11:53:27 PM
    I'll try again.  The person who wants to build a skyscraper, but has never seen one, hoped that one would exist.  He had no empirical evidence that one would.
    Nope, s/he can deduce it from earlier buildings. And from observing even termite hills, which seem to have similar features to modern buildings, and recognize that if a termite hill requires X properties to stand up from its base [underground], then it follows a similar structure made of wood, stone, concrete, steel, and etc would require similar features. Also, much of the basis of skyscrapers are based on other things such as distributing stress loads, which can be measured even in arches, so just that alone would have been sufficient for any architect to conceive of the next step. So your argument loses just on the fact that all things being non-contradictory, then all things must start from an axiom that is deduced [e.g. the termite hill]. [ ]

    -- Brede

    These are simply reasons for his faith.  They are not proof.  Until the first one was built, it was simply faith, based on reason, but faith nonetheless.  An ant hill is not a skyscraper, any more than the Bible is God.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 17, 2007, 11:57:33 PM
    Assuming a given theory and a material experiment he tests a hypothesis that a sky scraper can exist.
    This, in fact, is not an alternate.  Few scientists would perform an experiment (unless he was confirming another's hypothesis,) unless he had faith that indeed the hypothesis was true.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 18, 2007, 12:32:27 AM
    Few scientists would perform an experiment unless he had faith that indeed the hypothesis was true.

    The hypothesis and the experiment can be inspired by ignorance seeking knowledge just as easy as faith seeking proof. And I would argue that both motivations exist. And I would argue that the first is the truest science.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 18, 2007, 07:07:44 AM
    We will have to disagree.  I can imagine all kinds of experiments I might try but won't because I have no faith that they will work.  A good scientist makes a few best "guesses", and doesn't waste time on hypothesis that have "no" chance of being true.  It would be too expensive and take too long to do science your way.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 18, 2007, 07:20:30 AM
    We will have to disagree.  I can imagine all kinds of experiments I might try but won't because I have no faith that they will work.  A good scientist makes a few best "guesses", and doesn't waste time on hypothesis that have "no" chance of being true.  It would be too expensive and take too long to do science your way.

    True.  Even with my biodiesel project,
    http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=13024.0
    I did not (and still do not) have complete faith that this stuff burns as well as diesel and will cause no harm to my fuel delivery system.  I am trying it, however, based on what I have read, and my own "understanding" of the mechanics involved.  I have yet to make my second tank, however, and am currently running on straight diesel until I can modify my pumping station (plumb in a pump bypass for fuel transfers without filtration).  I did have an incident where my engine just died as I started to drive yesterday, but it did start right back up. 

    So even though it has been done by others (so I've read) and it seems like it should work, I'm proving it to myself with an experiment.  Now I had "faith" that I could do it before the experiment or I wouldn't have wasted the time and money to get started, but if I had less faith I would have saved my money and just continued to buy diesel...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 18, 2007, 11:50:59 AM
    I am saying that what you are calling "faith" is actually inductive reasoning.

    Quote
    No.  Faith is evidence for something you can't or won't  prove.

    Facts are evidence.  Faith is not a substitute for facts. 

    Quote
    I have faith that my mother had parents.

    No, you inductively infer that your mother had parents from the fact that everybody else has parents.  That's reasoning from the general to the specific, which was the example I just gave you.  If you don't believe me, look up inductive reasoning and do a little reading about it....I'm not making this stuff up. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 18, 2007, 11:55:07 AM
    I can imagine all kinds of experiments I might try but won't because I have no faith that they will work. 

    We either have a drastically different understanding of faith... or of the scientific method... i suspect both.

    That's fine with me.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 18, 2007, 12:04:06 PM
    Regardless, at some point one's values, values being the standard by which moral intuition operates, are consciously chosen

    Quote
    And what is your evidence for this?  I've asked you to provide it before, but you haven't.

    Quote
    Haven't you ever heard of a "knee jerk" conservative.

    The existence of such people in no way supports your position.  The fact that some people make automatic intuitive judgments in line with conservative thinking does not imply that there was any point at which they consciously chose to make such judgments. 

    Quote
    Why confuse an inherited behavioral trait with morality? Aren't you able to make distinctions, or is it some personal agenda that forces you to turn a blind eye to such an obvious distinction?

    I'm not.  I am defining morality as having and applying concepts of right and wrong, and asking you why concepts of right and wrong must necessarily always be previously consciously chosen.  It's pretty simple. 

    Quote
    Are you proposing that we create two categories of morality; one based on hard wired instinct and the other based on acquired values? Your whole approach to this strikes me as obfuscatory.

    I am proposing that we acknowledge that morality is both hard wired and acquired.  Or to put it more accurately, that it is both hard wired and selectively cultivated. 

    There's a radio show called Open Source which brings on experts to select a given topic, and the topic for Monday's show was "Morality: God-Given or Evolved?"  So I thought of this conversation, and thought I'd mention it.  It was a good show, you should check it out:  http://www.radioopensource.org/morality-god-given-or-evolved/ (http://www.radioopensource.org/morality-god-given-or-evolved/)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 18, 2007, 12:46:22 PM
    Facts are evidence.  Faith is not a substitute for facts.
    Facts are one type of evidence, faith is another, eyewitness accounts are another, etc.  Who said faith was a substitute for facts?  Not me.
    Quote
    No, you inductively infer that your mother had parents from the fact that everybody else has parents.  That's reasoning from the general to the specific, which was the example I just gave you.  If you don't believe me, look up inductive reasoning and do a little reading about it....I'm not making this stuff up. 
    This inductive reasoning is logical and reasonable, but it is not proof.  You didn't know my mother, and even I didn't know my mother's mother.  I only know what I have been told.  She might have been a clone.  It seems crazy I know, but until I have illiminated such possibilities, or devised another proof, I have to have faith.  I might have other evidence (such as inductive reasoning, but I certainly have faith in my mother in this matter.)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 18, 2007, 12:59:31 PM
    Facts are one type of evidence, faith is another

    You've defined faith as belief in something unproven.  How is belief evidence for.....belief?  I'm trying to find a way of interpreting the statement "faith is evidence" in a way that isn't circular, and am not finding one.  Help me out here. 

    Quote
    This inductive reasoning is logical and reasonable, but it is not proof.

    Yes, that would be because there's no such thing as proof.   And that's okay, because we don't need things to be proven in order to act on them rationally. 

    Quote
    You didn't know my mother, and even I didn't know my mother's mother.  I only know what I have been told.  She might have been a clone.  It seems crazy I know, but until I have illiminated such possibilities, or devised another proof, I have to have faith.  I might have other evidence (such as inductive reasoning, but I certainly have faith in my mother in this matter.)

    Inductive reasoning is not evidence-- it is a way of interpreting evidence so as to reach a conclusion about the probability of something. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on April 18, 2007, 01:47:15 PM
    Since god isn't real, nothing can be derived from it -especially morality. One cannot squeeze water from a dry stone. One also cannot pull a needle from a haystack if there was never a needle in the first place.

    What those people who are religious perceive as morals derived from a god, are nothing more than self causal effects. In their search for god, or belief theirin, the person has constructed his/her own perceptions based on the influence of other people. And yes, the book of religion is the work of people. Morality is not derived from a pretend spiritual being no more than one can derive the facts to support the claims that a god exists.

    I see only the works of people, the effects of people, the ideas of people become manifest by their actions, and the physical world in which we reside and derive our sound or silly judgements of this existence. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 18, 2007, 02:40:50 PM
    Since god isn't real,

    Well that's a bold completely unprovable premise... what's that people say about arguments that begin with a dubious premise?

    Quote
    people who are religious perceive as morals derived from a god
    Actually Islam teaches that morality is derived from ones "fitra." It's like your innate nature, or primordial self. Everyone has one... even non religious people. It is demonstrable that most children have similar moral understandings prior to parental or societal instruction.

    Quote
    the book of religion is the work of people.
    "The book" implies "one book." Which book? If you're speaking about the Bible I'd agree. I believe the Bible is the work of men inspired by God. If your speaking about Koran... I think you'd be hardpressed to show that Muhammad wrote it, considering he was illiterate, and it contains scientific truths which were unknown to him, or others in that place and time. If you're talking about the Teachings of Buddha, the Upanishads, or the Bagavagita I would categorize them as divinly inspired books, but also the work of men, although I haven't studied them deeply, that is my impression.

    It sounds to me like you are deriving your conclusions from your faith in the non existence of God.
    And making wild generalizations about religions and books you haven't studied.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 18, 2007, 03:29:14 PM
    Since god isn't real,

    God is real...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 18, 2007, 04:22:06 PM
    Regardless, at some point one's values, values being the standard by which moral intuition operates, are consciously chosen

    Quote
    And what is your evidence for this?  I've asked you to provide it before, but you haven't.

    Quote
    Haven't you ever heard of a "knee jerk" conservative.

    The existence of such people in no way supports your position.  The fact that some people make automatic intuitive judgments in line with conservative thinking does not imply that there was any point at which they consciously chose to make such judgments.

    I never implied that. It means that they have acquired values and beliefs, which at some level required choices to be made. Their "knee jerk" (unconscious) reactions are just that: unconscious.

    Quote
    Why confuse an inherited behavioral trait with morality? Aren't you able to make distinctions, or is it some personal agenda that forces you to turn a blind eye to such an obvious distinction?

    Quote
    I'm not.  I am defining morality as having and applying concepts of right and wrong, and asking you why concepts of right and wrong must necessarily always be previously consciously chosen.  It's pretty simple. 

    The question is not simple, but simplistic. You're showing the root of your confusion in that question, which is based on the implied assumption that a genetically hardwired reaction can be right, wrong, a concept or even based on a concept at all.

    An inborn(genetically acquired) instinct manifests as a feeling or emotion, not a concept. A person may try to explain or justify this reaction after the fact, but the conclusion that he reaches is in no way genetically preordained. It may be fanciful, partially true or solidly true. His desire to know or understand (curiosity) is an inborn trait, but curiosity doesn't give him the tools, only the motivation, to find out why, and in no way guarantees any particular answer.

    Quote
    There's a radio show called Open Source which brings on experts to select a given topic, and the topic for Monday's show was "Morality: God-Given or Evolved?"  So I thought of this conversation, and thought I'd mention it.  It was a good show, you should check it out:  http://www.radioopensource.org/morality-god-given-or-evolved/ (http://www.radioopensource.org/morality-god-given-or-evolved/)

    I listened to almost all of it and yes, it was interesting. As to the title, the answer is "None of the above.". Only the capacity for morality is God-Given or Evolved.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: lordmetroid on April 18, 2007, 04:23:51 PM
    We all like you gene, really your calls to FTL are awesome! Brokor really dishonoured himself there with that comment.

    God is real...
    I can accept that God is real if you can provide me with evidence that God is real. That's why I accept evolution and other scientifical explanations... likewise I am totally open for there to be a God but until my conditions for such an acceptance I can not. So sorry...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 18, 2007, 05:00:35 PM
    Since god isn't real,

    Well that's a bold completely unprovable premise... what's that people say about arguments that begin with a dubious premise?

    Are you implying that Brokor needs to prove that there is no God? It's unreasonable to ask someone to prove a negative. The burden of proof is upon those who claim there is a God. Of course, you first must define what you mean by God. Plausible definitions do exist, although the definitions don't, in and of themselves, give any evidence or explanation for the belief, one way or the other. Most definitions of God that I've heard are based on God as a being with attributes that are self contradictory and so, in these conceptions, the very definition of God constitutes its own logical falsification.



    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 18, 2007, 05:29:23 PM
    Since god isn't real,

    Well that's a bold completely unprovable premise... what's that people say about arguments that begin with a dubious premise?

    Are you implying that Brokor needs to prove that there is no God? It's unreasonable to ask someone to prove a negative. The burden of proof is upon those who claim there is a God. Of course, you first must define what you mean by God. Plausible definitions do exist, although the definitions don't, in and of themselves, give any evidence or explanation for the belief, one way or the other. Most definitions of God that I've heard are based on God as a being with attributes that are self contradictory and so, in these conceptions, the very definition of God constitutes its own logical falsification.


    Since god isn't real,

    Well that's a bold completely unprovable premise... what's that people say about arguments that begin with a dubious premise?

    Are you implying that Brokor needs to prove that there is no God? It's unreasonable to ask someone to prove a negative. The burden of proof is upon those who claim there is a God. Of course, you first must define what you mean by God. Plausible definitions do exist, although the definitions don't, in and of themselves, give any evidence or explanation for the belief, one way or the other. Most definitions of God that I've heard are based on God as a being with attributes that are self contradictory and so, in these conceptions, the very definition of God constitutes its own logical falsification.


    Of course I cannot "prove" God exists (as I've stated many times).  I made that bold statement simply as an example of how unsubstiantial Brokor's statement was.  And if one makes a claim that something doesn't exist, that's a positive statement and subject to the same rules as someone who claims that something does exist.  One can claim that there's no proof that something exists, but they cannot claim that it doesn't exist unless they have proof that it indeed doesn't.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 18, 2007, 06:26:40 PM
    Are you implying that Brokor needs to prove that there is no God?

    I'm saying it's a "bold completely unprovable premise"... and therefore not valid in a structured debate.

    Quote
    It's unreasonable to ask someone to prove a negative. 
    Than it is unreasonable to use a negative as a premise.

    Quote
    The burden of proof is upon those who claim there is a God… of course, you first must define what you mean by God.

    If the subject of debate was the existence of God you may be right, but in any other context the burden of proof is upon the asserter of a claim. Therefore, as it is his premise, the burden is upon him. If I ever make a claim, and the existence of God is my premise, I’ll offer what proof I have.

    At some point maybe I’ll head the topic, “Islamic Nonarchy is the other sensible answer” And I’ll get into my definition, and we can debate it.

    I don’t tend to engage in this debate, because in my experience nonbelievers tend to be far more blinded by faith than believers. The evidence which has proven His existence to me is from personal experience, observation, and reflection. It’s not verifiable in a laboratory, or in a debate. It is personal anecdote. Further, Allah clearly says in the Quran that it is He who changes hearts, not you, which has been taken as proof (in a religious context) that evangelism has no affect on conversion… making the debate pointless from my understanding.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 18, 2007, 07:28:56 PM
    You've defined faith as belief in something unproven.  How is belief evidence for.....belief?  I'm trying to find a way of interpreting the statement "faith is evidence" in a way that isn't circular, and am not finding one.  Help me out here. 
    I'm not sure I can, in a way it is.  Strictly speaking, in order to be circular, one would have to say something like, "I believe the sky is blue because I believe the sky is blue."  Faith starts with something (which or who may not be proven) which leads to other beliefs.  Faith is a kind of placeholder.  It stands in place of, or sometimes in spite of, other evidence, until the belief can be proven.  In a way it is stubborn determination to see a thing out, but it can also be a resignation after failed attempts to prove a thing or it's converse, or it can simply be a deep trust in an individual or his work.

    Alladin: "Do you trust me?"

    P.S.  I do not have faith that God exists.  I have faith in God.  I assume God exists.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 18, 2007, 08:07:07 PM
    Since god isn't real,

    Well that's a bold completely unprovable premise... what's that people say about arguments that begin with a dubious premise?

    Are you implying that Brokor needs to prove that there is no God? It's unreasonable to ask someone to prove a negative. The burden of proof is upon those who claim there is a God. Of course, you first must define what you mean by God. Plausible definitions do exist, although the definitions don't, in and of themselves, give any evidence or explanation for the belief, one way or the other. Most definitions of God that I've heard are based on God as a being with attributes that are self contradictory and so, in these conceptions, the very definition of God constitutes its own logical falsification.



    Of course I cannot "prove" God exists (as I've stated many times).  I made that bold statement simply as an example of how unsubstiantial Brokor's statement was.  And if one makes a claim that something doesn't exist, that's a positive statement and subject to the same rules as someone who claims that something does exist.  One can claim that there's no proof that something exists, but they cannot claim that it doesn't exist unless they have proof that it indeed doesn't.

    A statement which denies something is a negative statement.

    To claim that something doesn't exist, when there's no evidence to show that it does exist, is a reasonable claim that is reasonable to believe, as long as this claim is subject to revision should such evidence become available. This kind of claim is not subject to the burden of evidence or proof, only the lack of it.

    It's also reasonable to claim that something does exist, when there's evidence to show that it does exist, as long as this claim is subject to revision should counter-evidence become available.

    Reasonable claims can only be proven within the limited context of what we understand and so they must be falsifiable. Only claims which are self contradictory can be thought of as absolutely disproved. And probably nothing, outside the realm of abstraction, can be considered absolutely proven.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 18, 2007, 08:19:37 PM
    The existence of god is not the claim, it is the premise which leads to the claim of the origin of morality.

    "Since God is not real, therefore ...etc. etc." is a claim based upon the premise of God's nonexistence. As that is not a valid premise, claims cannot be extrapolated from it and be considered proof of anything. The only correct way to state that is "IF God is not real THAN... etc etc." Such claims are valid, but not proof. They fall into the category of speculation.

    The claim of God's existence or non existence (both reasonable claims if dirived from valid premises) would read:
    "Since... etc etc, therefore God is not real."

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 18, 2007, 08:40:02 PM
    Are you implying that Brokor needs to prove that there is no God?

    I'm saying it's a "bold completely unprovable premise"... and therefore not valid in a structured debate.

    Nothing is ever absolutely provable, except within a limited context, where for the purpose of debate, you assume certain premises to be true. Barring evidence to show otherwise, his claim is a reasonable one. He does not need to prove anything.

    Quote
    It's unreasonable to ask someone to prove a negative. 
    Quote
    Than it is unreasonable to use a negative as a premise.

    Why?

    Quote
    The burden of proof is upon those who claim there is a God… of course, you first must define what you mean by God.

    Quote
    If the subject of debate was the existence of God you may be right, but in any other context the burden of proof is upon the asserter of a claim. Therefore, as it is his premise, the burden is upon him. If I ever make a claim, and the existence of God is my premise, I’ll offer what proof I have.

    No. If the subject of debate was the proof of the existence of God, then the burden of proof would be on the asserter. A reasonable claim for the existence of God requires no proof, only evidence. For you to require Brokor to prove his claim that God doesn't exist is absurd, as he would only have to offer proof if he claimed that he could prove this. In order to be reasonable, his claim only requires a lack of evidence that God exists, just as your claim that God exists, in order to be reasonable, would only require evidence to support your claim.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 18, 2007, 09:47:44 PM
    You just don't get it.  It's been explained in very simple terms.  There is no hope that you will get it with further explanation...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 18, 2007, 10:33:11 PM
    I've been there, I've done it.

    I want my T-shirt!
    I want my T-shirt!
    I'm not kidding, I want my T-shirt!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 18, 2007, 10:45:34 PM
    www.shirtmagic.com
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 19, 2007, 12:00:17 AM
    Do you have any experience with them?  How's the quality?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 19, 2007, 01:09:08 AM
    You just don't get it.  It's been explained in very simple terms.  There is no hope that you will get it with further explanation...

    Maybe the problem is that I get it too well. :wink:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on April 19, 2007, 02:21:15 AM
    It is the premise which leads to the claim of the origin of morality.
    Yet even theologically inclined philosophers like Aquinas have proven that morality can be devised such that it requires no deity. That's what we call the big truck-o-fail dropping in on your party. :3

    -- Brede
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 19, 2007, 02:52:29 AM
    It is the premise which leads to the claim of the origin of morality.
    Yet even theologically inclined philosophers like Aquinas have proven that morality can be devised such that it requires no deity. That's what we call the big truck-o-fail dropping in on your party. :3

    -- Brede

    Aquinas was heavily influenced by Ibn Rushd, an Islamic Philosopher, and as I said, in Islam we believe that morality is derived from the fitra, or "nature" of man. So it doesn't suprise me that Aquinas would say this. This makes this whole arguement especially pointless...

    I am disputing the premise, not the conclusion.

    Ok... just for laughs... lets begin with a different unverifiable faith based premise and see if it makes sense to use it to substantiate a claim.

    Premise:
    Since big foot is not real…

    Claim:
    …nothing can be evidence of him, especially foot prints. 

    What those people who believe in big foot perceive as footprints are nothing more than tracks left by known animals. In their search for big foot, or belief therein, the person has constructed their perceptions based on the influence of other people. And yes, the video of big foot is the work of people. Footprints can not be evidence of some pretend unknown primate any more than one can provide the facts to support claims that a big foot exists.

    So what’s the problem… I don’t believe that big foot exists, you don’t believe that big foot exists. So we have consensus right… no problem. We accept the premise, we accept the claim.

    Problems arise when you introduce a believer in big foot into the debate, because the way this argument is constructed the claim relies upon the premise, but the premise also relies upon the claim.

    To claim “evidence of Big foot doesn’t exist because Big Foot doesn’t exist” is patently absurd - especially if you follow that up with, “Big foot doesn’t exist because I don’t see any evidence of it.” You are  in affect assuming a negative, and then trying to prove it backwards.

    You’re premise cannot be proven, and I don’t accept it. The burden of proof is not upon me. I'm not making any claim. I simply don't accept your premise. You're premise, your burden. The same rules apply if I were an agnostic.

    Notice, though I believe that God exists, and someday, God Willing, I will expound evidence, I have not waged that claim to counter your premise. And if the existence of God was used as a premise to support a claim, it would be equally as unfounded of a claim, unless I could either prove the existence of God, or make the claim to a group which had consensus upon God’s existence.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on April 19, 2007, 05:49:14 AM
    The religious nutbags all come out clammering, looking for some reason to justify their delusions.

    Markuzik beat me to it; the burden of proof is on the hands of the religious zealots to prove God. I cannot prove a negative; that being something which does not exist. :P

    Who is this Muslim guy posting recently? I have just ignored him permanently, as he is far too radical and just....OUT THERE. So, Muslim- please take no offense, but you are annoying me with your blind devotion and ignorance. Please feel free to return the favor.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 19, 2007, 06:14:55 AM
    I never implied that. It means that they have acquired values and beliefs, which at some level required choices to be made. Their "knee jerk" (unconscious) reactions are just that: unconscious.

    I never denied that choices are made.  However, I think that for most of us, values are cultivated rather than acquired.  Everybody except psychopaths has the capacity to have aversion to suffering, for example, but people who are opposed to animal testing (for another example) have had that aversion cultivated and applied to a specific group. 

    Quote
    The question is not simple, but simplistic. You're showing the root of your confusion in that question, which is based on the implied assumption that a genetically hardwired reaction can be right, wrong, a concept or even based on a concept at all.

    No no no no no no no!  I am saying that a genetically hardwired reaction can be about  what is right or wrong.  That's a very important difference. 

    Quote
    An inborn(genetically acquired) instinct manifests as a feeling or emotion, not a concept.

    I'm not sure how you're defining "concept" here, but my position is:

    a) that there are such things as moral emotions, that is emotions which cause us to make moral judgements (judgements about right and wrong)
    b) those moral judgments which stem from the moral emotions are intuitive.
    c) moral emotions are evolved.
    d) moral reasoning is not divorced from moral emotions, but does not always (or even usually) occur when moral judgements are made.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 19, 2007, 06:25:35 AM
    Faith starts with something (which or who may not be proven) which leads to other beliefs.  Faith is a kind of placeholder.  It stands in place of, or sometimes in spite of, other evidence, until the belief can be proven.

    For the last time, NOTHING IS PROVEN.  Deduction proves things only in the context of the logical form of its arguments.  Inductive reasoning, as I said, leads us to be able to act on something based on the assessment of its probability.  When you justifiably think something is likely and you act on it, you have arrived at that belief via reason, not faith.  Faith is absolutely unnecessary for belief.  If you are talking about trust or confidence, then say "trust" or "confidence."  They are perfectly good words.  Use them.

    Why am I harping on this?  Well, because about a thousand times over I have seen equivocation from theists on this.  They water down the definition of "faith" enough that they can say it's about the same as trust or confidence, and then turn around and say "See?  Atheists have faith too!  They are on no more solid ground than us!" which is absurd.  Believing that it's safe to cross the street when you have a signal is a fundamentally different thing than believing that there is a supernatural entity whose existence is untestable but yet created the universe and everything in it, and might send you to tell if you don't worship his dead son. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 19, 2007, 08:24:26 AM
    Atheists have faith too!  They are on no more solid ground than us!" which is absurd.  Believing that it's safe to cross the street when you have a signal is a fundamentally different thing than believing that there is a supernatural entity whose existence is untestable but yet created the universe and everything in it, and might send you to tell if you don't worship his dead son. 

    I don't think it's watering down the definition.  It is the definition.  You may not like it, but the Bible is very clear.  I made it clear that I do not have faith that God exists, I assume God exists.  I have faith in God.  Jesus is not dead.  God did create the universe, Paul says from nothing, many physicists agree.  Although it is a bit complicated, one should worship God alone.  God will never send you to "tell."  If you mean hell, you're already there, he wants to get you out.  If he doesn't you'll die.

    I do think you are right and that we cannot agree.  I'm sorry about that, lets not keep going over it.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 19, 2007, 08:45:56 AM
    I don't think it's watering down the definition.  It is the definition.  You may not like it, but the Bible is very clear.

    Why on earth should I care what the Bible says on the matter?  The Bible is not a dictionary. 

    Quote
    I made it clear that I do not have faith that God exists, I assume God exists.

    Same thing. 

    Quote
    God will never send you to "tell."  If you mean hell, you're already there, he wants to get you out.  If he doesn't you'll die.

    Then frankly, God is an asshole.  Only an asshole would put people in hell and then demand that they believe in him in order to take them out. 

    Quote
    I do think you are right and that we cannot agree.  I'm sorry about that, lets not keep going over it.

    Okay, just please stop defining words to fit your theology. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 19, 2007, 08:55:45 AM
    Quote
    God will never send you to "tell."

    When the grammar/typographical police start coming out to score "points" in the discussion, I think it's safe to assume that the constructiveness of said discussion is over.  That is, however, just my opinion (or claim), and can only offer the direction the thread is turning as evidence of my claim.

    ....since the burden of proof, rests upon me, the claimant.  :wink:  Let me make sure I structure this properly since I noticed this thread has been focusing on proper logical syntax.  "Since the Grammar/Typo Police have come to score "points" in the discussion, the usefullness of the current track of said disucssion is over."

    ...but I'm sure like the Phoenix this thread is, something new and interesting will rise from the ashes.

    Quote
    Who is this Muslim guy posting recently? I have just ignored him permanently, as he is far too radical and just....OUT THERE.

    Really?  I know you like to play "devil's advocate," Brokor, and that you and I have a mutual understanding (I think), but is he really that bad? ;)

    I don't know, I think he's been pretty even-keeled so far.  It's refreshing to see someone who is a follower of Islam put their two cents in here, as I think the "faith" is drastically under-represented among libertarians, and have communicated such to him.

    I think it's pretty admirable that he's clearly said that "preaching is useless," and I haven't seen anything that I can read to be an attempt to convert anyone to Islam, just posts attempting to clarify logical syntax and debating whether or not the existence of God is either a claim, or a premise.... an assertion or an assumption.

    ...it's been an interesting read thus far.

    ----------------------------------------

    "Two Christians, a Muslim, an agnostic, and a few atheists walk into a bar..."






    (edit: capitalized "Muslim" as I believe that is the correct spelling as a noun.  As an agnostic, I don't care about capital "A"... doubt the atheists will either.)

    (2nd edit:  Oh yeah..... followers of Islam don't drink.  My bad MuslimNonarchist. :? )
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on April 19, 2007, 08:55:59 AM
    Rillion, Rillion, Rillion... YOU GOTTA KISS HANK'S ASS! Come now! :lol:

    -- Brede
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 19, 2007, 09:30:55 AM
    The religious nutbags all come out clammering, looking for some reason to justify their delusions.

    Markuzik beat me to it; the burden of proof is on the hands of the religious zealots to prove God. I cannot prove a negative; that being something which does not exist. :P

    Who is this Muslim guy posting recently? I have just ignored him permanently, as he is far too radical and just....OUT THERE. So, Muslim- please take no offense, but you are annoying me with your blind devotion and ignorance. Please feel free to return the favor.



    Can't respond to his reasoning, huh Brokor??  Just another non-religious nutbag who can't support his position...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 19, 2007, 09:46:55 AM
    Rillion, Rillion, Rillion... YOU GOTTA KISS HANK'S ASS! Come now! :lol:

    -- Brede

    Looks like Hank is taking karma from me in an effort to make me kiss his ass. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 19, 2007, 11:30:46 AM
    I never implied that. It means that they have acquired values and beliefs, which at some level required choices to be made. Their "knee jerk" (unconscious) reactions are just that: unconscious.

    I never denied that choices are made.  However, I think that for most of us, values are cultivated rather than acquired.  Everybody except psychopaths has the capacity to have aversion to suffering, for example, but people who are opposed to animal testing (for another example) have had that aversion cultivated and applied to a specific group.
     

    If it's true that an aversion to suffering is genetically hardwired, then it is not a moral intuition, but an evolved instinct. Upon reflection of this feeling, people may attempt to justify it though individual moral reasoning or through an attempt to make it conform to the values of their culture. By the same process, they may attempt to justify actions that defy this feeling under certain circumstances, thereby creating moral intuitions that can either reinforce or cancel out an inherited instinct.

    I can give you a related personal example that you may find interesting. Since early childhood while I was able to enjoy eating meat, I felt a growing conflict about killing animals in order to do so, that I experienced as a mild revolution, accompanied by troubling cannibalistic self image. As a young adult, I found myself progressively eating less red meat, until I noticed that I wasn't eating it at all. Within a year or two, I followed the same pattern with poultry. I still eat fish, although it bothers me, it's to a lesser extent.( I must feel a greater affinity to the warm blooded animals.)

    People always ask me if I avoid meat for health reasons, but I deny that there is any nutritional benefit to my behavior and that, in fact, for the most part, the opposite is true.

    Now here is the part that may shed light on the way I think:

    People then ask me if I do it for religious or moral reasons and I have always denied having any moral beliefs that would cause this aversion to harming animals and that it was strictly a non-moral empathy for animals that I am fully capable of ignoring, without moral guilt, should it become necessary for me to kill animals.

    For me, there has never been any confusion between natural drives and moral intuition, although I can see how it may confuse some people. I notice that some people, especially the religious, have a strong desire to believe that morality is somehow inherent to their God given instincts, as exemplified by their insistence that moral truth must come from the "heart" and that evil is the product of thinking for one's self. I regard materialism as another form of religion, that replaces God with evolution, that regards free will and rational morality as delusions which cause evil and that moral truth must come from the "heart" in the form of evolved instinct.

    Quote
    The question is not simple, but simplistic. You're showing the root of your confusion in that question, which is based on the implied assumption that a genetically hardwired reaction can be right, wrong, a concept or even based on a concept at all.

    Quote
    No no no no no no no!  I am saying that a genetically hardwired reaction can be about  what is right or wrong.  That's a very important difference.


    That it may or may not coincide with what's right or wrong is only further evidence that it is non-moral.

    Quote
    An inborn(genetically acquired) instinct manifests as a feeling or emotion, not a concept.
    Quote
    I'm not sure how you're defining "concept" here, but my position is:

    Quote
    a) that there are such things as moral emotions, that is emotions which cause us to make moral judgements (judgements about right and wrong)

    1. If the feeling comes from an inborn drive, it's an instinct, but not a moral intuition.
    2. If the feeling is a moral intuition, it is the result of an unconscious moral judgment, not the cause of one.

    Quote
    b) those moral judgments which stem from the moral emotions are intuitive.

    That's backwards, although sometimes inherited instinctive drives may cause someone to rationalise along these lines:

    1. Something feels good/bad.
    2. If it feels good/bad it must be right/wrong.

    This type of moral reasoning results in the reinforcement of instinctive inherited drives with moral intuition.

    Quote
    c) moral emotions are evolved.

    Only the capacity for moral intuition is an evolved trait. The moral intuition varies with one's values.

    Quote
    d) moral reasoning is not divorced from moral emotions, but does not always (or even usually) occur when moral judgements are made.

    That true.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 19, 2007, 11:35:15 AM
    Okay markuzick, I think that we are actually a lot closer to agreeing than not, and definitions of terms are a bigger barrier than they need to be.  I believe that intuitions can be instinctive (that is, inborn) whereas you apparently do not.  That seems to be the biggest obstacle, but we both seem to grant that there are evolved, emotional aspects to morality and reasoned ones as well.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 19, 2007, 11:50:08 AM
    The religious nutbags all come out clammering, looking for some reason to justify their delusions.

    Markuzik beat me to it; the burden of proof is on the hands of the religious zealots to prove God. I cannot prove a negative; that being something which does not exist. :P

    Who is this Muslim guy posting recently? I have just ignored him permanently, as he is far too radical and just....OUT THERE. So, Muslim- please take no offense, but you are annoying me with your blind devotion and ignorance. Please feel free to return the favor.



    Please act like an adult. There's no reason to start calling people nutbags, just because you think they have mistaken beliefs. What does that accomplish? It doesn't add any credibility to your position. If you don't enjoy religious debate, then don't. Just concentrate on areas where you share some commonality.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on April 19, 2007, 12:09:32 PM
    Aquinas was heavily influenced by Ibn Rushd, an Islamic Philosopher, and as I said, in Islam we believe that morality is derived from the fitra, or "nature" of man.
    Nature as in a human's ability to reason or nature as in a metaphysical essence that defines moralness? I don't buy the latter, but I accept the former.

    -- Brede
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 19, 2007, 12:09:40 PM
    Okay markuzick, I think that we are actually a lot closer to agreeing than not, and definitions of terms are a bigger barrier than they need to be.  I believe that intuitions can be instinctive (that is, inborn) whereas you apparently do not.  That seems to be the biggest obstacle, but we both seem to grant that there are evolved, emotional aspects to morality and reasoned ones as well.

    Now you're confusing me. Your the one who introduced the word intuition to help make a distinction between acquired instinct and inherited instinct.

    Feelings can be the result of unconscious moral judgements, but are not the cause of morality, although, as I explained, they may influence moral reasoning, as people tend to want to justify their feelings.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 19, 2007, 12:18:52 PM
    It is the premise which leads to the claim of the origin of morality.
    Yet even theologically inclined philosophers like Aquinas have proven that morality can be devised such that it requires no deity. That's what we call the big truck-o-fail dropping in on your party. :3

    -- Brede

    Aquinas was heavily influenced by Ibn Rushd, an Islamic Philosopher, and as I said, in Islam we believe that morality is derived from the fitra, or "nature" of man. So it doesn't suprise me that Aquinas would say this. This makes this whole arguement especially pointless...

    I am disputing the premise, not the conclusion.

    Ok... just for laughs... lets begin with a different unverifiable faith based premise and see if it makes sense to use it to substantiate a claim.

    Premise:
    Since big foot is not real…

    Claim:
    …nothing can be evidence of him, especially foot prints. 

    What those people who believe in big foot perceive as footprints are nothing more than tracks left by known animals. In their search for big foot, or belief therein, the person has constructed their perceptions based on the influence of other people. And yes, the video of big foot is the work of people. Footprints can not be evidence of some pretend unknown primate any more than one can provide the facts to support claims that a big foot exists.

    So what’s the problem… I don’t believe that big foot exists, you don’t believe that big foot exists. So we have consensus right… no problem. We accept the premise, we accept the claim.

    Problems arise when you introduce a believer in big foot into the debate, because the way this argument is constructed the claim relies upon the premise, but the premise also relies upon the claim.

    To claim “evidence of Big foot doesn’t exist because Big Foot doesn’t exist” is patently absurd - especially if you follow that up with, “Big foot doesn’t exist because I don’t see any evidence of it.” You are  in affect assuming a negative, and then trying to prove it backwards.

    You’re premise cannot be proven, and I don’t accept it. The burden of proof is not upon me. I'm not making any claim. I simply don't accept your premise. You're premise, your burden. The same rules apply if I were an agnostic.

    Notice, though I believe that God exists, and someday, God Willing, I will expound evidence, I have not waged that claim to counter your premise. And if the existence of God was used as a premise to support a claim, it would be equally as unfounded of a claim, unless I could either prove the existence of God, or make the claim to a group which had consensus upon God’s existence.



    In your Big Foot example, each side has evidence which he believes to support his claim, so it is reasonable for both of them to make their contradictory claims, although only one of them is correct.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on April 19, 2007, 12:30:55 PM
    I am acting like an adult, Markuzick. I don't know if you can imagine my perspective, however. I don't want to hear what any person wants to say if they cannot have a reasoned debate. I ask for proof, and clearly state my claim and all that is spoken in response is that I must provide proof of their delusions. furthermore, as a soldier I have to return to the desert in a few months or so and quite possibly physically fight radical religious fundamentalists at the possible cost of my life. That means I also have to watch more of my buddies die from bombs placed by these lunatics -because they believe that they are doing the work of their GOD. Well, let me boil it down for everybody...

    GOD isn't killing people. PEOPLE are killing people, and it matters not what you say as much as it matters what you DO. I don't see any divine action, I see death. And the words of religion are death, because the work of mankind uses religion to kill and conquer. Is any one side better than the other in these wars? I would say no, because in the end people are just as dead. I chose to ignore Muslim because his words and his mentality are exactly what I have to put up with in the physical world, and it is not my intention to piss on his parade or illicit hatred and contempt by becoming angry with him for no reason. I stated my claim. He stated his. I ended my conversation with him as politely as I could manage, and with my perspective on what I think of the religious minded people of the world in general. I am not going to speak with people who cannot debate using facts, and this thread is ChristianAnarchists, and I come here to try and poke holes in his theory, not to fight unecessarily. To me, I have responded maturely and reasonably given my situation. I also invite others to place me on ignore, as I do not wish to have a pissing contest over opinion.

    I wish I could be perfectly civil all the time, but I know when to bow out, even if not too gracefully. Not too immature if you ask me.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 19, 2007, 12:32:40 PM
    Aquinas was heavily influenced by Ibn Rushd, an Islamic Philosopher, and as I said, in Islam we believe that morality is derived from the fitra, or "nature" of man.
    Nature as in a human's ability to reason or nature as in a metaphysical essence that defines moralness? I don't buy the latter, but I accept the former.

    -- Brede

    Neither... "nature" is a rough translation of fitra... not a good one. It's like "faith" is really poor translation for iman... it makes things difficult... let me think...

    OK... "Fitra" It's derived from the roots "fa-ta-ra" which in a verb form means to split... "that which is split" This is irrelevant...

    It's like the primordial self, the self which is intact at birth, before indoctrination (before the split I guess). The ability to reason is absolutely one aspect of Fitra. The metaphysical essence of man is the "Ruh." Roughly "spirit", literally "breath"... something totally different.

    I've been thinking alot about this point about Aquinas, and I'd like to propose an edit of his claim.
    I propose that morality does not depend upon knowledge of God, and that it is innate, and in the event that it is indoctrinated out of a person it can be revived through reason, also without knowledge of God.

    A non believer can stop there, while the believer might believe that the origin of fitra is God.
    Indeed a believer should believe that the origin of everything is God.
    But framed this way, the existance or non existance of God is divorced from the question.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 19, 2007, 12:35:19 PM

    In your Big Foot example, each side has evidence which he believes to support his claim, so it is reasonable for both of them to make their contradictory claims, although only one of them is correct.

    Exactly Right.

    But unreasonable to support another claim with that premise.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 19, 2007, 09:01:35 PM
    I am acting like an adult, Markuzick. I don't know if you can imagine my perspective, however. I don't want to hear what any person wants to say if they cannot have a reasoned debate. I ask for proof, and clearly state my claim and all that is spoken in response is that I must provide proof of their delusions. furthermore, as a soldier I have to return to the desert in a few months or so and quite possibly physically fight radical religious fundamentalists at the possible cost of my life. That means I also have to watch more of my buddies die from bombs placed by these lunatics -because they believe that they are doing the work of their GOD. Well, let me boil it down for everybody...

    GOD isn't killing people. PEOPLE are killing people, and it matters not what you say as much as it matters what you DO. I don't see any divine action, I see death. And the words of religion are death, because the work of mankind uses religion to kill and conquer. Is any one side better than the other in these wars? I would say no, because in the end people are just as dead. I chose to ignore Muslim because his words and his mentality are exactly what I have to put up with in the physical world, and it is not my intention to piss on his parade or illicit hatred and contempt by becoming angry with him for no reason. I stated my claim. He stated his. I ended my conversation with him as politely as I could manage, and with my perspective on what I think of the religious minded people of the world in general. I am not going to speak with people who cannot debate using facts, and this thread is ChristianAnarchists, and I come here to try and poke holes in his theory, not to fight unecessarily. To me, I have responded maturely and reasonably given my situation. I also invite others to place me on ignore, as I do not wish to have a pissing contest over opinion.

    I wish I could be perfectly civil all the time, but I know when to bow out, even if not too gracefully. Not too immature if you ask me.

    I view democracy as well as other forms of statism as a religion. I take the view that the USA is run by a bunch of democratic fundamentalist nut bags that are invading other theocracies and spreading death and destruction in the name of this irrational national religion, thereby empowering religious fanatics in this country and in the countries that are attacked or intimidated by "our" zealots, while weakening the more more rational moderates of all religions, as well as the non-religious. The theists that post here are still libertarians.(I include among the theists, not only the Christians ,Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Satanists, but the Minarchists and other Statists as well.) As such, they deserve to be treated with respect for their persons, if not their beliefs. Remember that no one is perfect and that nearly all of the great men and women who have contributed to cultural, technical and scientific legacy of mankind were/are theists of one kind or another.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 19, 2007, 09:35:02 PM
    When the grammar/typographical police start coming out to score "points" in the discussion, I think it's safe to assume that the constructiveness of said discussion is over.

    I thought it was funny.  I was just making a joke.  I thought other people would think it was funny too, wrong as usual.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 19, 2007, 09:57:16 PM
    Why on earth should I care what the Bible says on the matter?  The Bible is not a dictionary. 
    Merriam-Webster
    Main Entry: 1faith
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
    1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
    2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
    3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction
    ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

    KJV Bible
    Heb. 11: 1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

    Thayer's Lexicon
    conviction of the truth of anything

    I'm not making up my own definition.  You are.

    Quote
    Quote
    I made it clear that I do not have faith that God exists, I assume God exists.

    Quote
    Same thing. 

    Well, as long as you say so.  Then it must be true.

    Quote
    Then frankly, God is an asshole.  Only an asshole would put people in hell and then demand that they believe in him in order to take them out.
    Who said God puts you in hell?  I didn't say that.
    Quote
    Okay, just please stop defining words to fit your theology. 
    I'll do as I please, thank you very much.  What do you care?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 19, 2007, 10:14:04 PM
    ...as a soldier I have to return to the desert in a few months or so and quite possibly physically fight radical religious fundamentalists at the possible cost of my life.
    Instead of killing patriots defending their homes and country from foreign invaders, you could live up to your duty and defend the constitution against enemies domestic (politicians.)  Just a thought, I don't think their religious beliefs have a whole lot to do with it.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 19, 2007, 10:42:49 PM
    You guys have me pondering some strange avenues. I want to participate but I’m having a language barrier, especially that whole faith as a prerequisite for experiment exchange. Part of it is that I don’t accept the dictionary as a source of definition. It seems to me that a Christian shouldn’t either, but instead study the Greek, but that’s another matter. I want to share this for discussion. What follows is information, not argument. This is just my understanding of faith.

    The root of the word “Iman” (which is what I mean when I say faith) is “am-ma-na” which means to be calm in one’s heart/mind, to be without fear, or to have trust. “Iman” means to be convinced, to verify, and to rely upon with confidence. According to the Quran, Iman is conviction which is based upon reason, knowledge, and intellectual satisfaction, which results in a feeling of inner contentment.
    So, I might change the question from “What do you believe without evidence?” to “What truth have you been convinced of, that your heart/mind relies upon, and which gives you peace of mind/heart?”

    If we can agree upon that definition, we can ask that question.
    If we can ask that question, we can answer it.
    Then maybe we can explain why we are convinced, rather than trying to convince each other.

    PS. I found this verse and felt like sharing, like it or hate it.
    "The worst of beasts in the sight of God are the deaf and dumb who do not use their intellect to understand." (8:22)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on April 19, 2007, 10:58:44 PM
    Your perceptions are your own, Harvey. My reasons are not open for debate, I am sorry. I do not want to chat about "why I am a soldier", and I regret that I even mentioned it in the first place.

    I cannot expect everybody to view everything as I do. And I will continue to use the ignore feature as long as I wish to do so. Why worry about what I SEE when I visit the forums? If you ask me, I think that this is all being blown out of proportion, and it is silly to expect me to SAY and ACT as some people on this forum have expected me to.

    I am in control of my own life, thank you very much for being concerned. :)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 19, 2007, 11:34:31 PM
    Yeah, no problem.  I'm sure you have perfectly good reasons for violence; for example,  people don't believe like you.  Makes sense.  I know, I've been on the receiving end of some pretty harsh words.  You really can't expect people to give you a pass for your beliefs when you attack others for theirs.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on April 20, 2007, 01:52:51 AM
    You don't know me, Harvey. And you quite obviously don't know shit, either. How dare you judge me because you disagree with politics. I am a soldier and I follow orders, and damn you for blaming me for the worlds' problems.

    I don't retalliate toward the beliefs of others with violence, and I don't ignore people on this forum unless I feel that I need to pull away from discussions with them in the future.

    Your statement is completely irrational and you are applying terms to the situation that is unecessary and unadulterated.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 20, 2007, 03:12:55 AM
    Merriam-Webster
    Main Entry: 1faith
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
    1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
    2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
    3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction
    ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

    ......and there we have our equivocation!  Thanks for not letting me down.  After all, if faith is believing in something not proven, and nothing is proven, then believing I can cross the street safely is just like believing in the supernatural.  Therefore we all have faith and we might as well believe in anything we please. 

    Quote
    Then frankly, God is an asshole.  Only an asshole would put people in hell and then demand that they believe in him in order to take them out.
    Quote
    Who said God puts you in hell?  I didn't say that.

    If God put me here, and here is hell, then God put me in hell.  QED. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on April 20, 2007, 03:19:53 AM
    Did faith make the first humans look up at the stars and ask, "What's out there?" Did faith make it possible for them to make telescopes to see? Did faith make it possible for them to write voluminous works of fiction about being out there? Will faith make the dream of nearly countless children that want go out there possible? Can faith even do anything?

    I ask it as a series of questions because the fact remains is faith does nothing. Tesla didn't make the first AC generator on faith, he knew it would work by reason. In fact, Tesla conceived the entire machine in his mind and tested in his mind, the first prototype worked perfectly because he didn't believe, he knew. Faith is no substitute for an ever working mind. Faith can't fill the mind, nor give it the desire to fill itself with something. The mind and faith are opposites. The mind is what allows us to have hope in the future, a belief in something real, not unreal. That kind of hope I can take to the bank, faith I cannot.

    -- Brede
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 20, 2007, 03:53:21 AM
    Merriam-Webster
    Main Entry: 1faith
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
    1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
    2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
    3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction
    ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

    ......and there we have our equivocation!  Thanks for not letting me down.  After all, if faith is believing in something not proven, and nothing is proven, then believing I can cross the street safely is just like believing in the supernatural.  Therefore we all have faith and we might as well believe in anything we please.


    It all depends on which definition your using. To have a strong conviction, if it's backed up by strong evidence and careful reasoning, even if there is no proof, is perfectly reasonable. The key to the reasonableness of faith depends on the word "firm" that's used in this definition. If by "firm" you mean absolute, then you have dogmatism, or religious faith. If "firm" just means strong, yet still open to new evidence or interpretation, then it's reasonable.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 20, 2007, 04:30:55 AM
    It all depends on which definition your using. To have a strong conviction, if it's backed up by strong evidence and careful reasoning, even if there is no proof, is perfectly reasonable. The key to the reasonableness of faith depends on the word "firm" that's used in this definition. If by "firm" you mean absolute, then you have dogmatism, or religious faith. If "firm" just means strong, yet still open to new evidence or interpretation, then it's reasonable.

    Exactly-- that's a very good explanation.  What frustrates me is the way the same word "faith" is used so often to describe beliefs reached via reason and beliefs reached via sheer desire and attempts to be a good person.  That's why I was attempting to describe religious faith in terms of morality earlier, because that seems to be the key component that makes people believe in something without sufficient evidence. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 20, 2007, 07:15:55 AM
    You don't know me, Harvey. And you quite obviously don't know shit, either. How dare you judge me because you disagree with politics. I am a soldier and I follow orders, and damn you for blaming me for the worlds' problems.

    I don't retaliate toward the beliefs of others with violence, and I don't ignore people on this forum unless I feel that I need to pull away from discussions with them in the future.

    Your statement is completely irrational and you are applying terms to the situation that is unecessary and unadulterated.

    Yeah, damn me!  I don't know shit, the devil made me do it; I was just following orders. 

    I don't know about the world.  I know about people.  It is people who follow orders, it is people that kill people.  Didn't you say that?

    P.S.  Ignore me if you like.  Or don't, get mad instead, damn me.  Quit your job, and I'll stop attacking people on the forum for their religious beliefs.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 20, 2007, 07:21:38 AM
    Therefore we all have faith and we might as well believe in anything we please. 
    That's right!  And, that's why I'm saying that we shouldn't be so judgmental, emphasis on MENTAL.
    Quote
    If God put me here, and here is hell, then God put me in hell.  QED. 
    I didn't say God put you here.  You weren't immaculately conceived.

    If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 20, 2007, 07:25:04 AM
    The mind is what allows us to have hope in the future, a belief in something real, not unreal. That kind of hope I can take to the bank, faith I cannot.

    -- Brede
    Semantics.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 20, 2007, 07:30:25 AM
    If by "firm" you mean absolute, then you have dogmatism, or religious faith. If "firm" just means strong, yet still open to new evidence or interpretation, then it's reasonable.
    I don't see any justification for equating religious faith with dogmatism.  I have changed my mind about my religious beliefs after examining them in the light of further evidence.

    Main Entry: dog·ma·tism
    Pronunciation: 'dog-m&-"ti-z&m, 'däg-
    Function: noun
    1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant
    2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 20, 2007, 07:34:15 AM
    Therefore we all have faith and we might as well believe in anything we please. 
    Quote
    That's right!

    Umm, no.  I don't care to live in an absurd world of people believing things because they are "pleased" by them.  I would prefer that people believe things because the beliefs are reasonably concluded and justified, attempting to conform their beliefs to reality rather than reality to their beliefs.  Crazy thought, I know. 

    Quote
    If God put me here, and here is hell, then God put me in hell.  QED. 
    Quote
    I didn't say God put you here.  You weren't immaculately conceived.

    You don't believe that God created everything?  Interesting...and here I thought you believed in the Bible. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 20, 2007, 07:47:22 AM
    Umm, no.  I don't care to live in an absurd world of people believing things because they are "pleased" by them.  I would prefer that people believe things because the beliefs are reasonably concluded and justified, attempting to conform their beliefs to reality rather than reality to their beliefs.  Crazy thought, I know. 
    Now who is living in a fantasy world?  Beliefs rule you, not the other way around.  Examine you own actions on this forum.

    Quote
    You don't believe that God created everything?  Interesting...and here I thought you believed in the Bible. 
    I do believe in the Bible; don't presume you can dictate what I believe about the Bible.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 20, 2007, 07:55:36 AM
    Now who is living in a fantasy world?  Beliefs rule you, not the other way around.  Examine you own actions on this forum.

    When push comes to shove, there is no "me" in comparison to my beliefs.  I am  my beliefs.  But I can still obviously prefer that those beliefs be based on reality.   If you're going to go all meme theory on me, I can just as easily say that it's in our best interest for the memes for rationality and critical thinking to win out over memes for self-delusion, even pleasurable self-delusion. 

    Quote
    You don't believe that God created everything?  Interesting...and here I thought you believed in the Bible. 
    Quote
    I do believe in the Bible; don't presume you can dictate what I believe about the Bible.

    It's a neat trick to claim to believe in the Bible while repeatedly denying things in it.  It's like saying "Yes, I believe in Catcher in the Rye...I just think Holden Caulfield was a 60 year old woman who lived in Egypt and had a pet dragon.  Hey, don't presume you can dictate what I believe about Catcher in the Rye!"
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 20, 2007, 08:13:07 AM
    [
    When push comes to shove, there is no "me" in comparison to my beliefs.  I am  my beliefs.  But I can still obviously prefer that those beliefs be based on reality.   If you're going to go all meme theory on me, I can just as easily say that it's in our best interest for the memes for rationality and critical thinking to win out over memes for self-delusion, even pleasurable self-delusion. 
    You are your beliefs, but you can examine them and change them as well.  When you make unwarranted positive judgments about them, it makes it very difficult to do this.  I can suspend my disbelief and talk to you reasonably about yours.  You seem incapable of returning the favor.

    Quote
    It's a neat trick to claim to believe in the Bible while repeatedly denying things in it.  It's like saying "Yes, I believe in Catcher in the Rye...I just think Holden Caulfield was a 60 year old woman who lived in Egypt and had a pet dragon.  Hey, don't presume you can dictate what I believe about Catcher in the Rye!"
    I just don't make my mind up about a book after studying very carefully the first sentence, like you, apparently, are very talented at doing.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 20, 2007, 08:22:07 AM
    You are your beliefs, but you can examine them and change them as well.  When you make unwarranted positive judgments about them, it makes it very difficult to do this.  I can suspend my disbelief and talk to you reasonably about yours.  You seem incapable of returning the favor.

    You can suspend your disbelief in what, exactly?  And what disbelief should I be suspending?  If you're suggesting I should suspend my disbelief in God or Christianity, I can do so....however every time I try to work on the basis that something in the Bible is true as written, you deny that you believe it.  So I really don't know how to talk to you on the terms of your faith, because the terms of your faith are muddy as hell.   Of course, this is a problem theists also often have when speaking to each other, if they discover a discrepancy in the way they, respectively, think about God.  It just happens that the discrepancy between your ideas and mine are a bit larger than that.

    Quote
    It's a neat trick to claim to believe in the Bible while repeatedly denying things in it.  It's like saying "Yes, I believe in Catcher in the Rye...I just think Holden Caulfield was a 60 year old woman who lived in Egypt and had a pet dragon.  Hey, don't presume you can dictate what I believe about Catcher in the Rye!"
    Quote
    I just don't make my mind up about a book after studying very carefully the first sentence, like you, apparently, are very talented at doing.

    Very clever.  I don't believe in the Bible or think the god depicted in it is a stellar individual, therefore I must not have read it very carefully.  Do you have any idea of the kind of hubris it takes to make a statement like that?  You really need to stop presuming that you know the intellectual background of people who disagree with you. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 20, 2007, 08:30:17 AM
    [So I really don't know how to talk to you on the terms of your faith, because the terms of your faith are muddy as hell.   Of course, this is a problem theists also often have when speaking to each other, if they discover a discrepancy in the way they, respectively, think about God.  It just happens that the discrepancy between your ideas and mine are a bit larger than that.
    Hardly, you're still talking to me, most Christians won't.  You might try to be less judgmental.  You don't bring us scripture to understand what I think about it, you bring it up (out of context) to ridicule me.  I am not judgmental of atheists.

    Quote
    Very clever.  I don't believe in the Bible or think the god depicted in it is a stellar individual, therefore I must not have read it very carefully.  Do you have any idea of the kind of hubris it takes to make a statement like that?  You really need to stop presuming that you know the intellectual background of people who disagree with you. 
    I do presume.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 20, 2007, 08:52:42 AM
    Wow, this got real nasty real fast.

    Aren't we all "pro-liberty" people here, regardless of "faith" or "skepticism?"  

    Harvey: You believe in the bible and have faith in the existence of God.  Awesome.  Personally as an agnostic, I simply don't know.  Doesn't mean I haven't tried, and I've become more agnostic the older I've gotten... I simply can't make a conclusion when I observe a lack of evidence that is independently and objectively observable, measurable and verifiable.

    God's existence currently cannot (I doubt ever) be categorized as thus.  As you and MuslimNonarchist (For everyone: isn't it interesting it's the muslim in this thread who isn't "flaming" anyone for whatever reason.....certainly does pose an interesting subtext and challenge to the "stereotypes" to this discussion) pointed out, the "evidence" and "nature" of God is extremely personal, subjective and unique.  Doesn't make it any less powerful or "real" to the person experiencing it, it just means that I nor anyone else will truly be able to "understand" what drives your faith, and makes it all the more diffucult when trying to discuss the subject in an arena that accepts the meaning of "truth" to be something that can be observed and measured (that "arena" would be the realms of "debate" "academics" and "science").

    To defend Brokor a little, it's not as easy as "quitting" the military.  If it was that simple to "defend the constitution," then what's stopping you or I from "Storming the Capital" right now to do our part to "defend ourselves" from the initiation of force perpetrated against us by the government?  The reality is always a little more grey than the black and white of the principle, something I try to say all the time.  I'm not harping on you or trying to talk down to you, but I'm sure everyone of us has something in our life that wouldn't be the most "principled" of practices.  That's what happens when we have to take part in a system the is founded on violence.

    Not excusing it, but I guess I was trying to say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," without inciting a religious angle.....at which I just failed.

    Rillion:  I've always found your arguments inciteful, and I certainly see where your coming from, particularly your reticece to equivocate "faith" with "curiosity" or "experimental desire."  I would also assert that skepticism can also drive the need to "experiment." An example.... I don't know if Biodesiel will work on my (non-existant) truck, so I might try it out on something similar but smaller in scope to see if it is indeed possible and plausible.  In this case, there's no "belief in anything".... because of the lack of evidence.  Thus, the experiment is created to generate the evidence needed to form a hypothesis either way.

    However, as we've seen, definitions are different things to different people.  This makes the "religious" aspect of this conversation even harder, because everyone has their own notions of what "god" "faith" "conviction" and "belief" are.  As you pointed out, this also makes debate difficult, if not impossible, because we still haven't really gotten past the "defining terms" phase to actually use in the "debate itself."

    Other than that, really "whattaya' gonna' do?"  :?

    Markuzick:  Good job so far.  I understand the arguments you're making, like Rillion I think the three of us have similar conclusions arrived from differing roads when it comes to "morality", but it's that road that I find interesting.

    MuslimNonarchist:  I think you're my new best friend on this BBS right now.  You've always made disclaimers the few times you've talked about your faith in respect to making a point, and you seem genuinely interested in what everyone has to say.

    ....although coming from a picture and a bunch of words on a BBS, that's probably not the most "valuable" of compliments.

    Brokor: Easy, big guy :) You like to bust balls, well turnabout is fair play.  I understand you "don't understand the theists," but remember, at the end of the day we're still all "pro-liberty" people and at the very least recognize the scope and size of the State to be a huge problem.





    Sorry to have to come in and pretend that I'm Mr. Peacemaker, (EDIT: especially since I'm no "saint" myself sometimes, and will look to "cause a ruckus" every now and again.) but let's look at the last page or two of posts.... really.  I do it mostly out of self-interest:  The disucssion was really getting interesting until the current "derailment."


    Maybe reset, try again, guys?


    (EDIT: fixed "me" to "I'm")
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 20, 2007, 09:17:41 AM
    God's existence currently cannot (I doubt ever) be categorized as thus.  As you and MuslimNonarchist (For everyone: isn't it interesting it's the muslim in this thread who isn't "flaming" anyone for whatever reason.....certainly does pose an interesting subtext and challenge to the "stereotypes" to this discussion) pointed out, the "evidence" and "nature" of God is extremely personal, subjective and unique.  Doesn't make it any less powerful or "real" to the person experiencing it, it just means that I nor anyone else will truly be able to "understand" what drives your faith, and makes it all the more diffucult when trying to discuss the subject in an arena that accepts the meaning of "truth" to be something that can be observed and measured (that "arena" would be the realms of "debate" "academics" and "science").


    I find it interesting that even though, as far as I know, only one person has actually ignored me, no one, in any topic thread, has really engaged me.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 20, 2007, 09:21:44 AM
    Quote
    I find it interesting that even though, as far as I know, only one person has actually ignored me, no one, in any topic thread, has really engaged me.

    Sorry.  There was a couple times at work I saw your posts, particularly about the language barrier, but I didn't have enough time.  I hope that short paragraph gave you a litte "engagement," as I have been reading what you've said and summed up your points as I understood them....but I also noticed you pulled back from this thread a little bit ago.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 20, 2007, 09:33:17 AM
    If by "firm" you mean absolute, then you have dogmatism, or religious faith. If "firm" just means strong, yet still open to new evidence or interpretation, then it's reasonable.
    I don't see any justification for equating religious faith with dogmatism.  I have changed my mind about my religious beliefs after examining them in the light of further evidence.

    Main Entry: dog·ma·tism
    Pronunciation: 'dog-m&-"ti-z&m, 'däg-
    Function: noun
    1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant
    2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises

    You are correct. Instead of "religious faith, or dogmatism" I should have simply said "religious dogmatism". "Religious faith" so often takes the form of "religious dogmatism" that in my mind they had become conflated. According to some of the possible definitions of "religion" and of "faith", it would be logically possible to have a rationally based system of beliefs and to label it as a "religious faith". Unfortunately, because "religious faith" is so commonly used to denote "religious dogmatism", using that phrase to describe a rational system of beliefs is almost certain to cause confusion.

    This creates a problem for me. Now instead of saying that Statism is a religion, I need to say that it is a "religious dogmatism".
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 20, 2007, 09:36:35 AM
    Hardly, you're still talking to me, most Christians won't.  You might try to be less judgmental.  You don't bring us scripture to understand what I think about it, you bring it up (out of context) to ridicule me.  I am not judgmental of atheists.

    My desire is not to ridicule you, but I am not obligated to respect the Bible or belief in it.  If you find that I believe in something you consider to be obviously non-factual and immoral, you are welcome to point it out to me. 

    Quote
    Very clever.  I don't believe in the Bible or think the god depicted in it is a stellar individual, therefore I must not have read it very carefully.  Do you have any idea of the kind of hubris it takes to make a statement like that?  You really need to stop presuming that you know the intellectual background of people who disagree with you. 
    Quote
    I do presume.

    Yes, you said that already.  If you're going to keep "presuming," then I'm going to end the conversation because I honestly can't abide trying to have a discussion with someone who thinks he knows more about me than I do. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 20, 2007, 09:37:06 AM
    Quote
    You are correct. Instead of "religious faith, or dogmatism" I should have simply said "religious dogmatism". "Religious faith" so often takes the form of "religious dogmatism" that in my mind they had become conflated. According to some of the possible definitions of "religion" and of "faith", it would be logically possible to have a rationally based system of beliefs and to label it as a "religious faith". Unfortunately, because "religious faith" is so commonly used to denote "religious dogmatism", using that phrase to describe a rational system of beliefs is almost certain to cause confusion

    Hmmmm..... interesting.  Probably doesn't help that "religion" and "dogma" are often used in an almost interchangable manner in our culture.

    Good job, Harvey.... and same to you, Mark.  I probably would have missed this had you not pointed it out.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 20, 2007, 09:39:12 AM
    Quote
    I find it interesting that even though, as far as I know, only one person has actually ignored me, no one, in any topic thread, has really engaged me.

    Sorry.  There was a couple times at work I saw your posts, particularly about the language barrier, but I didn't have enough time.  I hope that short paragraph gave you a litte "engagement," as I have been reading what you've said and summed up your points as I understood them....but I also noticed you pulled back from this thread a little bit ago.


    Well, I bounce around in other topics, and other forums... I can't really respond to people shouting at each other in words I don't use. There's certainly no point in me getting into a debate of Bible criticism with an atheist because neither of use accept it as infallible.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on April 20, 2007, 09:42:55 AM
    Quote
    Well, I bounce around in other topics, and other forums... I can't really respond to people shouting at each other in words I don't use. There's certainly no point in me getting into a debate of Bible criticism with an atheist because neither of use accept it as infallible

    I understand, but I would suggest that this is what "pretending" and "imagination" is for. ;)  I "pretend something is true" for the sake of the discussion all the time, and I know lots of people do on this BBS also.

    Look at Markuzick.... total atheist but he often speaks from the assumption god exists when trying to make some points, particularly about man's "proper morality."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on April 20, 2007, 11:45:13 AM
    The mind is what allows us to have hope in the future, a belief in something real, not unreal. That kind of hope I can take to the bank, faith I cannot.

    -- Brede
    Semantics.

    Everything is semantics. By virtue of the fact that everything that is defined comes from the integration of a percept into a concept. To integrate a concept, you have to know at least two different units from which you can identify the concept by, and to form its definition. Therefore, knowledge is based on semantics, thus as corollary all propositions are  about semantics.  Btw, we call that QED.

    /me draws the square.
     [ ]

    -- Brede
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 20, 2007, 01:00:16 PM
    The mind is what allows us to have hope in the future, a belief in something real, not unreal. That kind of hope I can take to the bank, faith I cannot.

    -- Brede
    Semantics.

    Everything is semantics. By virtue of the fact that everything that is defined comes from the integration of a percept into a concept. To integrate a concept, you have to know at least two different units from which you can identify the concept by, and to form its definition. Therefore, knowledge is based on semantics, thus as corollary all propositions are  about semantics.  Btw, we call that QED.

    /me draws the square.
     [ ]

    -- Brede

    I'm feeling a little inundated, in that I know you are refering to concepts with huge information payloads that I don't have... but on the surface I think I agree.

    But I believe semantics are a tool for integrating concept in dialog, not integral to a concept in and of itself. To the individual, for example AbsurdParadox's conception of god, the concept exists without definition or identification... it's only when he tries to convey the concept that the failing semantics reveals his lack of clarity... which is not a failure, but a work in progress.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 20, 2007, 01:06:12 PM
    My desire is not to ridicule you, but I am not obligated to respect the Bible or belief in it.  If you find that I believe in something you consider to be obviously non-factual and immoral, you are welcome to point it out to me. 


    I'm sure there are all kinds of "non-factual" things (at least in the scientific sense) that you "believe" in.  How about "love", "beauty", "admiration" (add many others here)?

    None of these are "scientific" nor can their existence be "proven", yet I bet you never even question their "existence"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 20, 2007, 01:30:20 PM
    Quote
    Well, I bounce around in other topics, and other forums... I can't really respond to people shouting at each other in words I don't use. There's certainly no point in me getting into a debate of Bible criticism with an atheist because neither of use accept it as infallible

    I understand, but I would suggest that this is what "pretending" and "imagination" is for. ;)  I "pretend something is true" for the sake of the discussion all the time, and I know lots of people do on this BBS also.

    Look at Markuzick.... total atheist but he often speaks from the assumption god exists when trying to make some points, particularly about man's "proper morality."

    Only to make the point that Man's proper morality is inherent to his nature, regardless of his origin, and also to make the corollary point that a loving God would not command Man to follow a morality that was in conflict with his God given nature. A loving God would respect his creation by allowing Man to make mistakes and discover morality for himself nor would he interfere with, thereby destroying, Man's purpose for living, which is the pleasure and happiness he derives from using his God given faculties to overcome evil in his instinctive drive toward safety, survival and prosperity.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 20, 2007, 01:40:20 PM

    Only to make the point that Man's proper morality is inherent to his nature, regardless of his origin, and also to make the corollary point that a loving God would not command Man to follow a morality that was in conflict with his God given nature.

    I totally agree with this, and I think that's the tradition Islamic stance on morality, nature, and God's command.

    Quote
    A loving God would respect his creation by allowing Man to make mistakes and discover morality for himself
    Clearly he does, because we do. If didn't allow it, we wouldn't be able to do that. In fact the Quran commands this, and forbids blind acceptance, instructing us over and over to reflect. Although it's posed as a question, "Do you not reflect?"

    Quote
    Nor would he interfere with, thereby destroying, Man's purpose for living, which is the pleasure and happiness he derives from using his God given faculties to overcome evil in his instinctive drive toward safety, survival and prosperity.
    I'm not sure I accept this as a purpose for living, but a function of nature which preserves life. If God exists, and he interferes, it can only be to return man to his purpose for living. Further, If God exists, and created man, the purpose of living in His to define not ours. Although we are free, as you said, to reject that purpose, and create our own.

    I don't accept the word "evil" to describe man's instinctive drive stuff. Original sin is a uniqly Christian concept (as far as I know). Muslims believe in something called "naffs" the lower soul, which is not evil, it just desires the pleasure and happiness of this world, which is good, in fact neccassary for the preservation of life, which is one purpose. But they also believe in the "Ruh" the higher soul, whose purpose is to seek and know God.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 20, 2007, 01:49:20 PM
    Look at Markuzick.... total atheist but he often speaks from the assumption god exists when trying to make some points.

    Markuzick,
    I hope you don't mind me argueing with this premise, at least with you. I assumed this was true.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on April 20, 2007, 04:30:59 PM
    I find myself in complete agreement with Ladyattis, and instead of making my own comments, I will just acknowledge what she said. I am no way near as well spoken, of course...and I am certainly rough around the edges, and I apologize for that.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 20, 2007, 10:40:12 PM

    Only to make the point that Man's proper morality is inherent to his nature, regardless of his origin, and also to make the corollary point that a loving God would not command Man to follow a morality that was in conflict with his God given nature.

    I totally agree with this, and I think that's the tradition Islamic stance on morality, nature, and God's command.

    Quote
    A loving God would respect his creation by allowing Man to make mistakes and discover morality for himself
    Clearly he does, because we do. If didn't allow it, we wouldn't be able to do that. In fact the Quran commands this, and forbids blind acceptance, instructing us over and over to reflect. Although it's posed as a question, "Do you not reflect?"

    Quote
    Nor would he interfere with, thereby destroying, Man's purpose for living, which is the pleasure and happiness he derives from using his God given faculties to overcome evil in his instinctive drive toward safety, survival and prosperity.
    I'm not sure I accept this as a purpose for living, but a function of nature which preserves life. If God exists, and he interferes, it can only be to return man to his purpose for living. Further, If God exists, and created man, the purpose of living in His to define not ours. Although we are free, as you said, to reject that purpose, and create our own.

    If God created this "function of nature which preserves life" which I refer to as Man's nature and which gives him as a reward for successful use of his faculties, primarily Man's capacity for rational and purposeful thought and deed, pleasure, satisfaction, relief from pain and sadness, joy, admiration and love, aesthetic inspiration and happiness, then these "spiritual" rewards for achievement must be Man's purpose for living. To deny this purpose would be to put morality into conflict with Man's God given nature.

    Quote
    I don't accept the word "evil" to describe man's instinctive drive stuff. Original sin is a uniqly Christian concept (as far as I know). Muslims believe in something called "naffs" the lower soul, which is not evil, it just desires the pleasure and happiness of this world, which is good, in fact neccassary for the preservation of life, which is one purpose. But they also believe in the "Ruh" the higher soul, whose purpose is to seek and know God.

    I know very little where the Bible is concerned, so please excuse me if I'm mistaken, but I thought that the concept of original sin started with the Jews, in their book of Genesis and its story about Adam and Eve and the doctrine that all descendents of Adam are cursed by God with original sin.



    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 20, 2007, 11:10:55 PM
    Only to make the point that Man's proper morality is inherent to his nature, regardless of his origin, and also to make the corollary point that a loving God would not command Man to follow a morality that was in conflict with his God given nature. A loving God would respect his creation by allowing Man to make mistakes and discover morality for himself nor would he interfere with, thereby destroying, Man's purpose for living, which is the pleasure and happiness he derives from using his God given faculties to overcome evil in his instinctive drive toward safety, survival and prosperity.

    The only concept I recognize in here is God.  Who said that the nature we have is a God given nature.  Doesn't sin affect a person's nature.  Every time a person does anything his character is changed; if he does good, it's changed for the good; if he does bad, it's changed towards evil.  Why do you then blame (credit) God with man's nature.

    I also like your interpretation of man's purpose for living.  If that was my purpose for living, I would seriously consider suicide.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 20, 2007, 11:14:07 PM
    I find myself in complete agreement with Ladyattis, and instead of making my own comments, I will just acknowledge what she said. I am no way near as well spoken, of course...and I am certainly rough around the edges, and I apologize for that.

    You were not apologizing to me.  No way!

    But, if you were, right back at you.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 20, 2007, 11:25:04 PM
    The mind is what allows us to have hope in the future, a belief in something real, not unreal. That kind of hope I can take to the bank, faith I cannot.

    -- Brede
    Semantics.

    Everything is semantics. By virtue of the fact that everything that is defined comes from the integration of a percept into a concept. To integrate a concept, you have to know at least two different units from which you can identify the concept by, and to form its definition. Therefore, knowledge is based on semantics, thus as corollary all propositions are  about semantics.  Btw, we call that QED.

    /me draws the square.
     [ ]

    -- Brede
    Big words, difficult concepts, head spinning.  Faith is based in the real not the unreal.  What is the unreal?  Is it like the undead, no that's another thread.

    Seriously, the real problem you have with people like me is that you insist that nothing outside of the realm of observability, repeatability, testability, etc. is real.  This is demonstrably foolish, besides religion, history doesn't exist in this realm.  We don't exist in this realm, and certainly any sufficiently powerful being would not exist in this realm.  Please get over your bad self.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 20, 2007, 11:37:00 PM
    Only to make the point that Man's proper morality is inherent to his nature, regardless of his origin, and also to make the corollary point that a loving God would not command Man to follow a morality that was in conflict with his God given nature. A loving God would respect his creation by allowing Man to make mistakes and discover morality for himself nor would he interfere with, thereby destroying, Man's purpose for living, which is the pleasure and happiness he derives from using his God given faculties to overcome evil in his instinctive drive toward safety, survival and prosperity.

    The only concept I recognize in here is God.  Who said that the nature we have is a God given nature.  Doesn't sin affect a person's nature.  Every time a person does anything his character is changed; if he does good, it's changed for the good; if he does bad, it's changed towards evil.  Why do you then blame (credit) God with man's nature.

    If you're saying that Man's character is changed by his deeds, then that itself would be one of the characteristics of Man's God given nature.

    Quote
    I also like your interpretation of man's purpose for living.  If that was my purpose for living, I would seriously consider suicide.

    Then what is your purpose for living, if not the spiritual rewards inherent to the exercise of your God given faculties?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 20, 2007, 11:37:17 PM
    My desire is not to ridicule you, but I am not obligated to respect the Bible or belief in it.  If you find that I believe in something you consider to be obviously non-factual and immoral, you are welcome to point it out to me. 
    Really! Hard to imagine, all this has been inadvertent. 

    If I do, I would certainly approach you with much more respect than I have been afforded.  That's all I'm saying.  Is it possible, that maybe I have a unique perspective, or barring that that people in general are due a little respect even if their beliefs are silly.

    Have I tried to ram my beliefs down anyone's throat?  Have I threatened anyone with violence?  Why is every other post about how silly, irrational, stupid, or immoral I am because I claim to be a Christian?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 20, 2007, 11:41:13 PM
    Wow, this got real nasty real fast.

    Aren't we all "pro-liberty" people here, regardless of "faith" or "skepticism?" 

    Harvey: You believe in the bible and have faith in the existence of God.
    In case you hadn't noticed, I was responding to the usual Christians are stupid, irrational, immoral, and crazy crap, that passes for civil discourse on this thread.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 21, 2007, 12:07:32 AM
    If you're saying that Man's character is changed by his deeds, then that itself would be one of the characteristics of Man's God given nature.
    That's like saying, I gave my son a tattoo, because half of the genes in his skin are from me.  Ridiculous.

    Quote
    Then what is your purpose for living, if not the spiritual rewards inherent to the exercise of your God given faculties?

    This is what you actually said:
    Quote
    A loving God would respect his creation by allowing Man to make mistakes and discover morality for himself nor would he interfere with, thereby destroying, Man's purpose for living, which is the pleasure and happiness he derives from using his God given faculties to overcome evil in his instinctive drive toward safety, survival and prosperity.
    A loving God desires to be with His creation, to enjoy their company.  Sin prevents this.  Why would a loving God leave his friends in the dark?  What would be loving about leaving your friends to fend for themselves?

    You might notice I didn't answer your question.  I would have to quote scripture.  I know what that does to people's blood pressure.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on April 21, 2007, 12:13:27 AM
    Faith is based in the real not the unreal.
    So faith that a child has that Santa Claus will give them presents if they're good, or the faith of an old man wanting to live ever after in some paradise is not unreal? Unreal means that which is not real, or specifically, things not of Nature or that contradict all percepts and concepts therein.

    Quote
    Seriously, the real problem you have with people like me is that you insist that nothing outside of the realm of observability, repeatability, testability, etc. is real.  This is demonstrably foolish, besides religion, history doesn't exist in this realm.
    Prove that claim by making a logic proof where God is non-contradictory to the nature of reality, such that God cannot trump reality. If you can't, will you obey the mandate of reason and retract all your falsehoods as stated prior?

    -- Brede
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 21, 2007, 12:25:33 AM
    I know very little where the Bible is concerned, so please excuse me if I'm mistaken, but I thought that the concept of original sin started with the Jews, in their book of Genesis and its story about Adam and Eve and the doctrine that all descendents of Adam are cursed by God with original sin.

    How polite!  Give this man a gold star!  Are you a man?  Doesn't matter. ...  Well, I'm sure it matters you and your family.

    Not to be narrow minded, but, original sin (a phrase which does not appear in the Bible, along with "the rapture", "Trinity", and "Sunday") originated with the Catholic church.  As evidence for it some people use Rom 3:23, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"  Although this text does suggest the universal nature of sin, it does not suggest that it is original, or continual.  As a matter of fact, notice, "have sinned", past tense.  It may imply that there are those that have abandoned sin.  Considering the positive injuction attributed by the author of Matthew to Christ, Mat 5:48, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect," this would be logical.  For what would be the purpose of commanding one to do the impossible?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 21, 2007, 12:46:42 AM
    So faith that a child has that Santa Claus will give them presents if they're good, or the faith of an old man wanting to live ever after in some paradise is not unreal? Unreal means that which is not real, or specifically, things not of Nature or that contradict all percepts and concepts therein.

    I don't believe in Santa Claus, or life after death before the resurrection, but for the sake of argument:

    There is evidence for the existence of Santa Claus, people make movies about him, the weather man talks about him, there are stories and images of him all over, people dress up like him.  Are these things unreal?  Is the joy of opening presents real?  There is evidence for Santa Claus' existence.  It's not great evidence, and many people have recanted their recollections, but there is still evidence.  I'm still waiting on the proof.

    There is evidence for life after death.  There are the bright light, near death accounts.  There are traditions in every culture.  All of these things are real.  They are evidence for the things to which the testify.  They are not proof, but to say they are not evidence is the worst kind of closed-mindedness (is that a word?)

    Do you presume to know all the precepts and concepts of nature.  Aren't physicists still working on a unified field theory?  Has everything been discovered?  Is there no unknown?  Can there not be a paradigm shift?  Have I called you a fundamentalist yet?  It's an oversight if I haven't.

    Quote
    Prove that claim by making a logic proof where God is non-contradictory to the nature of reality, such that God cannot trump reality. If you can't, will you obey the mandate of reason and retract all your falsehoods as stated prior?

    -- Brede
    Now this one is a stumper?  I really have no idea what you are talking about.  I've ciphered and ciphered, and I'm coming up empty.  It looks like a challenge of some kind, but nope!  I really can't figure it.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on April 21, 2007, 12:55:10 AM
    There is evidence for the existence of Santa Claus, people make movies about him, the weather man talks about him, there are stories and images of him all over, people dress up like him.  Are these things unreal?
    They contradict Nature, therefore not evidence.

    Quote
    There is evidence for life after death.  There are the bright light, near death accounts.  There are traditions in every culture.  All of these things are real.  They are evidence for the things to which the testify.  They are not proof, but to say they are not evidence is the worst kind of closed-mindedness (is that a word?)
    Actually this was refuted years ago, almost a decade ago to be honest, a US Airforce gravity force testing station noticed that at least 20% of its pilots would pass out and report after waking up that they had the same kind of experiences such as the lighted tunnel, the visitation of long dead relatives, and the feeling of bless/euphoria. So that means this argument is shot down. If you don't like, too bad. Science wins, faith loses. :3

    Quote
    Do you presume to know all the precepts and concepts of nature.
    Knowing all does not imply knowing enough. We know enough via the laws of identity, causality, and non-contradiction [and the excluded middle]. So, we don't need to know the particular location of every atom, or every entity in Nature to know whether God is possible or not. If God violates any of the laws I've described, then God is not possible: period and end of story, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred FRNs, et. al. So, either you prove that the laws I've described are wrong, or yield. There are no other options on the table. No fanciful nether realms. No rabbit holes to dive into. And no contradictions will be accepted.

    Quote
    Now this one is a stumper?  I really have no idea what you are talking about.  I've ciphered and ciphered, and I'm coming up empty.  It looks like a challenge of some kind, but nope!  I really can't figure it.

    Then you lose, yield.

    -- Brede
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 21, 2007, 12:55:39 AM
    Big words, difficult concepts, head spinning.  Faith is based in the real not the unreal.  What is the unreal?  Is it like the undead, no that's another thread.

    Did you notice that it rhymed?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 21, 2007, 01:12:48 AM
    They contradict Nature, therefore not evidence.
    Owe!  Big bad Nature!  Can't contradict nature!
    I'll take two natures and raise you one supreme being.

    Quote
    US Airforce gravity force testing station... Science wins, faith loses. :3
    Yeah, isn't the US Airforce a branch of the US Government?  The Government never lies. Right!  Faith: 1, Government: 0.

    Quote
    All that monopoly stuff.
    All of these presume a naturalistic epistemology, which I don't accept, and you shouldn't either.  Demonstrably you cannot always trust your senses.

    Quote
    Then you lose, yield.
    I will not yield.  If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve; if assassinated, I will not die.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on April 21, 2007, 01:20:24 AM
    Owe!  Big bad Nature!  Can't contradict nature! I'll take two natures and raise you one supreme being.
    Your behaviour proves my point.

    Quote
    Yeah, isn't the US Airforce a branch of the US Government?  The Government never lies. Right!  Faith: 1, Government: 0.
    Prove that they're lying. If you're a paranoid SOB, you have the research by psychologists in which they used rare earth magnets to induce states of euphoria in the frontal lobes, which were similar to NDEs and alien abductions. So, that means, either you falsify it, or you get ignored for your acts of incredulity.

    Quote
    All of these presume a naturalistic epistemology, which I don't accept, and you shouldn't either.  Demonstrably you cannot always trust your senses.
    Try reading Kelley's Evidence of the Senses. And J.J. Gibson's paper about Visual Perception of animals. If you don't accept it, too bad, but the senses are valid, even in optical illusions, because the senses are not what makes concepts, it is the mind that does that.


    Quote
    I will not yield.
    Then you get ignored, enjoy your AIDS.

    -- Brede
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 21, 2007, 01:46:09 AM
    Then you get ignored, enjoy your AIDS.
    This is my point.  If I don't agree with you.. well, I'm not sure what, some vague reference to a communicable disease.  Is this a threat?  Are you threatening me?

    I'm just trying to lighten the conversation a little.  Are you really so blind that you can't recognize the logic behind what I am saying?  I said I didn't believe in life after death or Santa Claus.  All I'm saying is that there is evidence.  You may not like it, I may not accept the methods you use to invalidate it.  Can't you recognize that at the heart of each of your arguments is the assumption that God doesn't exist.  Don't you see that anything that threatens this precious idea, must be attacked with all the venom of a women scorned? (just an expression.)  Don't you recognize this is the conclusion that comes before every argument you make?  I'm not trying to prove that God exists, I really couldn't care less.  But, if He does exists, and He's like I think He is, I want to be with Him.  That's all.  I'm not trying to ram it down your throat.

    P.S.  I question the methodology of the two studies you mentioned.  To address the real issue, they would have to show that the experience of test subjects was qualitatively different from that of the control group.  Oh, but wait, there was no control group...  Just kidding, didn't read them at all.  Doesn't really interest me.  I don't see what they could show besides the obvious, and I'm sure they are irrelevant to the point I was trying to make, but then you probably knew that, you just like name dropping.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 21, 2007, 01:50:47 AM
    If you're saying that Man's character is changed by his deeds, then that itself would be one of the characteristics of Man's God given nature.
    That's like saying, I gave my son a tattoo, because half of the genes in his skin are from me.
    How is that? Can you explain your analogy?

    Quote
    Then what is your purpose for living, if not the spiritual rewards inherent to the exercise of your God given faculties?
    Quote
    This is what you actually said:
    Quote
    A loving God would respect his creation by allowing Man to make mistakes and discover morality for himself nor would he interfere with, thereby destroying, Man's purpose for living, which is the pleasure and happiness he derives from using his God given faculties to overcome evil in his instinctive drive toward safety, survival and prosperity.

    Quote
    A loving God desires to be with His creation, to enjoy their company.  Sin prevents this.  Why would a loving God leave his friends in the dark?  What would be loving about leaving your friends to fend for themselves?

    If God created Man, then the only sin would be for men to damn existence and their gift of life from God, by choosing to believe that nature of God's universe and the God given nature of Man was evil and then acting upon that destructive and ungrateful premise.

    If God created Man, he did not leave Man alone in the dark. He gave Man eyes to see and a mind to think. He gave Man a spiritual capacity for pleasure, joy and happiness to be made more meaningful by pain, sorrow, guilt and fear. All these are the tools and guideposts to find our way through the darkness of confusion toward the light of wisdom.

    Quote
    You might notice I didn't answer your question.  I would have to quote scripture.  I know what that does to people's blood pressure.

    If you understand scripture, then you can tell me, in your own words, the purpose of your life.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 21, 2007, 02:06:40 AM
    I know very little where the Bible is concerned, so please excuse me if I'm mistaken, but I thought that the concept of original sin started with the Jews, in their book of Genesis and its story about Adam and Eve and the doctrine that all descendants of Adam are cursed by God with original sin.

    How polite!  Give this man a gold star!  Are you a man?  Doesn't matter. ...  Well, I'm sure it matters you and your family.

    What does this mean? Are you implying that it's unmanly to be polite?

    Quote
    Not to be narrow minded, but, original sin (a phrase which does not appear in the Bible, along with "the rapture", "Trinity", and "Sunday") originated with the Catholic church.  As evidence for it some people use Rom 3:23, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"  Although this text does suggest the universal nature of sin, it does not suggest that it is original, or continual.  As a matter of fact, notice, "have sinned", past tense.  It may imply that there are those that have abandoned sin.  Considering the positive injuction attributed by the author of Matthew to Christ, Mat 5:48, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect," this would be logical.  For what would be the purpose of commanding one to do the impossible?

    I checked Wikipdia and found this:

    Original sin
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    According to Christian tradition, original sin is the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born (Psalm 51:5). Original sin is also called hereditary sin, birth sin, or person sin. Used with the definite article ("the original sin"), it refers to the first sin, committed when Adam and Eve succumbed to the serpent's temptation. This Biblical story of original sin is the sign and seed of future evil choices and effects for the whole human race. Christians usually refer to this first sin as "the Fall". Original sin is distinguished from actual sin as cause and effect: "a bad tree bears bad fruit" (Matthew 7:17, NIV). Original sin is not "personal" (in the modern sense of this word)—in that it is not the consequence of personal choice or personal failure to act—but nevertheless it is "personal" in the sense that every individual person is personally subject to the effects of original sin.

    Jews do not believe in "original sin," but it is a key teaching for most Christians. In line with the Hebrew Tradition, contemporary Christian theologian Matthew Fox's doctrine of "original blessing" is sometimes used in contrast to original sin so as to recall, on the other hand, the many blessings of Creation with which God blesses the human race. For Christians, atonement for original sin (and actual sin) requires the redemption of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection. Subsequently, many Christians require baptism either to wash away this sin or to make a public and symbolic representation of one's redemption. Some churches, such as the Unity Church, regard the concept as blasphemy, as they believe the concept of a perfect creator consistently creating a flawed creation implies an imperfect God.

    By analogy the term is used in fields other than religion to indicate a pervading inherent flaw.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 21, 2007, 02:36:26 AM
    If you're saying that Man's character is changed by his deeds, then that itself would be one of the characteristics of Man's God given nature.
    That's like saying, I gave my son a tattoo, because half of the genes in his skin are from me.
    How is that? Can you explain your analogy?
    Sure...  I didn't choose for my son to have a tatoo, so I am not responsible for his appearance.  In the same way, God did not make our choices for us so he is not responsible for our nature.  If we had made the choices he intended, we would have the nature that he intended.

    Quote
    If God created Man, then the only sin would be for men to damn existence and their gift of life from God, by choosing to believe that nature of God's universe and the God given nature of Man was evil and then acting upon that destructive and ungrateful premise.
    You seem to deny the change brought on by sin.  Although God created the universe and man, he endowed all beings with free will.  The universe, our earth, and man, although created by God, have been marred by sin.  They are not as He intended.    Because God is too holy to behold sin, he has been forced to withdraw Himself from us, or we would be destroyed by His presence.  The problem with this is that without God to sustain us, everything dies.  He wants very much to be reunited with us, but he values our freedom even more.  He has given us the way to overcome sin, and be reunited with Him, but few choose this way.

    So, what is sin, and why is it so bad?  Sin is the transgression of the law?  What is the law?  Love for God and man.  So why should we love God?  Because He first loved us.  How do I know he loves me?  He was willing to give up the one thing that was most precious to Him, the one thing he couldn't replace, His only born Son?  So, why couldn't He replace Him?  He wasn't created.  If Jesus wasn't created, how did he come to be?  He was born before time.  Who was His Mother?  He had none, he came from the bosom of His Father.  Why should I love my fellow man?  Because God loves them.  So why is this the law?  Because this the way we were created, this is our purpose.  To fear (love, respect) God, and give glory to him (do things that are true to His character.)  It's like the laws of motion, it's the way that bodies in motion are supposed to behave.

    Quote
    If God created Man, he did not leave Man alone in the dark. He gave Man eyes to see and a mind to think. He gave Man a spiritual capacity for pleasure, joy and happiness to be made more meaningful by pain, sorrow, guilt and fear. All these are the tools and guideposts to find our way through the darkness of confusion toward the light of wisdom.
    God is not the author of pain, sorrow, guilt, fear, darkness or confusion, anymore than the maker of a gun is the author of school shootings.

    Quote
    If you understand scripture, then you can tell me, in your own words, the purpose of your life.
    Couldn't help myself, my words in parenthesis.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 21, 2007, 07:15:15 AM
    If I do, I would certainly approach you with much more respect than I have been afforded.  That's all I'm saying.  Is it possible, that maybe I have a unique perspective

    Maybe, but I don't think very likely.  Because, see, everything you've been saying I have already heard at least 100 times before.  I know you want to think that you've got some new innovative perspective on Christianity, but honestly I've talked to people saying similar things probably more than I've talked to so-called "normal" Christians.  It's what happens when people seriously try to reconcile their Christian beliefs with reality-- I commend you for actually trying to do so, since many people can't be bothered.   Oftentimes the Christians you find on the web are the more thoughtful ones, because if they're actually interested in their faith enough to want to talk about it in some forum or some chat room, they are at least engaging their own beliefs and taking part in dialogs where they may be challenged. 

    Quote
    or barring that that people in general are due a little respect even if their beliefs are silly.

    I don't recall calling you names or hurling abuse at you.  I respect you as a human being, but there's no reason for me to respect your beliefs. 

    Quote
    Have I tried to ram my beliefs down anyone's throat?  Have I threatened anyone with violence?  Why is every other post about how silly, irrational, stupid, or immoral I am because I claim to be a Christian?

    It's not because you claim to be a Christian.  It's because, like Gene in many ways, you've been ducking and dodging honest questions and challenges (I'm not talking about Brokor, he's plainly been being a dick), and people don't have a lot of tolerance for that sort of thing.  We were doing okay talking about morality, but when it comes to the subject of your own belief in God and beliefs about God, you don't seem willing to say "I believe in God and believe that he is a certain kind of being but don't have any reason to do so which I can rationally justify," which is what it boils down to. 

    I honestly don't have a problem with a theist who acknowledges frankly that their theism is not justified, and they "just have faith."   It's when they try to argue that it is, or argue that I have the same kind of beliefs but don't acknowledge it, or-- this is a great one-- that I was never really a Christian because I stopped being one, or that non-theists are morally bankrupt, or that people who reject the god in the Bible haven't read the Bible properly-- that I tend to get annoyed. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 21, 2007, 08:46:53 AM
    If you're saying that Man's character is changed by his deeds, then that itself would be one of the characteristics of Man's God given nature.
    That's like saying, I gave my son a tattoo, because half of the genes in his skin are from me.
    How is that? Can you explain your analogy?
    Sure...  I didn't choose for my son to have a tatoo, so I am not responsible for his appearance.  In the same way, God did not make our choices for us so he is not responsible for our nature.  If we had made the choices he intended, we would have the nature that he intended.

    If God created Man, then he created a being whose nature it is to :

    *have free will.
    *develop his own character.
    *choose his own values and form a moral code.
    *experience spiritual reward and punishment from the development and exercise of his mental and physical faculties.

    If God created Man with inherent characteristics that we call Man's nature, integral to that nature is free will and so what men do with this gift is not God's responsibility.


    Quote
    If God created Man, then the only sin would be for men to damn existence and their gift of life from God, by choosing to believe that nature of God's universe and the God given nature of Man was evil and then acting upon that destructive and ungrateful premise.
    Quote
    You seem to deny the change brought on by sin.  Although God created the universe and man, he endowed all beings with free will.  The universe, our earth, and man, although created by God, have been marred by sin.  They are not as He intended.    Because God is too holy to behold sin, he has been forced to withdraw Himself from us, or we would be destroyed by His presence.  The problem with this is that without God to sustain us, everything dies.  He wants very much to be reunited with us, but he values our freedom even more.  He has given us the way to overcome sin, and be reunited with Him, but few choose this way.

    If God created Man, then, the change brought on by sin happens when men disrespect or abuse God's gift to them. The way to overcome sin and be reunited with God is to live by the morality that is in accordance with Man's God given nature, starting with self love, which then overflows into love for one's fellow man to the extent that we find in him a reflexion of what we esteem in ourselves.

    Quote
    So, what is sin, and why is it so bad?  Sin is the transgression of the law?  What is the law?  Love for God and man.  So why should we love God?  Because He first loved us.  How do I know he loves me?  He was willing to give up the one thing that was most precious to Him, the one thing he couldn't replace, His only born Son?  So, why couldn't He replace Him?  He wasn't created.  If Jesus wasn't created, how did he come to be?  He was born before time.  Who was His Mother?  He had none, he came from the bosom of His Father.  Why should I love my fellow man?  Because God loves them.  So why is this the law?  Because this the way we were created, this is our purpose.  To fear (love, respect) God, and give glory to him (do things that are true to His character.)  It's like the laws of motion, it's the way that bodies in motion are supposed to behave.

    Since a loving God would not command us to follow a law that was contrary to our nature, then, as you said above, our purpose is to be found in "the way we were created". I.e., God's law is implied in our God given nature.



    Quote
    If God created Man, he did not leave Man alone in the dark. He gave Man eyes to see and a mind to think. He gave Man a spiritual capacity for pleasure, joy and happiness to be made more meaningful by pain, sorrow, guilt and fear. All these are the tools and guideposts to find our way through the darkness of confusion toward the light of wisdom.
    Quote
    God is not the author of pain, sorrow, guilt, fear, darkness or confusion, anymore than the maker of a gun is the author of school shootings.
    As I said, they are a necessary part of the tools and guideposts that would be provided by a loving God to help us to stay on the right path.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 21, 2007, 08:52:51 AM
    US Airforce gravity force testing station... Science wins, faith loses. :3
    Yeah, isn't the US Airforce a branch of the US Government?  The Government never lies. Right!  Faith: 1, Government: 0.



    Actually, dharvey wins.  All you "non-faith" types keep talking about "government" and "US Airforce" etc, as if they actually exist.  The are FICTIONS.  They cannot be proved to exist.  Only faith in them causes people to THINK they exist.  There is no "government".  There is no "US Airforce"...

    I notice, Mr. Dharvey, that your ridiculous fiction "karma" has been taking a hit lately.  It's because you have rattled the atheists and homosexuals on this board.  And you've done it by not even calling them names or being unreasonable in your assumptions and arguments.  All you've done is challenge their preconceived beliefs...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 21, 2007, 08:53:51 AM
    I don't recall calling you names or hurling abuse at you.  I respect you as a human being, but there's no reason for me to respect your beliefs. 
    I'm sorry you feel that way.  I think when a person is being reasonable, it's reasonable to response in a similar fashion.  Do you really think you can respect me as a human being while calling my beliefs silly, unreasonable, etc.?  I'm not saying you have to believe what I say, but being unkind is not likely to lead to understanding.  Maybe the problem is that you have met so many people like me.  It's easy to fit this peg in a hole.  I'm sorry, no one is a peg.  It's just not nice.  Would it be such a crime to just say, "I don't believe that for such and such a reason."[/quote]

    Quote
    It's not because you claim to be a Christian.  It's because, like Gene in many ways, you've been ducking and dodging honest questions and challenges (I'm not talking about Brokor, he's plainly been being a dick), and people don't have a lot of tolerance for that sort of thing.  We were doing okay talking about morality, but when it comes to the subject of your own belief in God and beliefs about God, you don't seem willing to say "I believe in God and believe that he is a certain kind of being but don't have any reason to do so which I can rationally justify," which is what it boils down to. 
    So you are looking for me to say certain words.  Just say that up front.  "Before I can respond to your posts, you need to admit this..."  You can give a few reasons if you choose and then leave it at that.

    Quote
    any reason to do so which I can rationally justify
    I don't think we are going to get very far in this conversation though.  You seem to reject any evidence that is not gained through scientific exploration.  Eye-witness isn't evidence, the Bible isn't evidence, cultural traditions are not evidence.  I believe it to be irrational to reject a whole body of human knowledge because it is outside of scientific exploration (I know you say it's not, because science has "debunked" each of these, but not by adopting the methods of it's exploration, but by rejecting them.)  I won't reject this whole body of knowledge on the word of a few modern people whose credentials I question.  I just don't trust "science" or "scientists" on anything or real import.  I think science is much more likely to be motivated by money than any quest for the truth.  This is not to say that I reject the scientific method or logic.  I just recognize the limitations of science which you are unwilling to admit.

    Can you admit that, "Scientific claims should be limited to things that can be repeated."  I didn't think so.  We are at an impasse.  I will stop short of saying you are being unreasonable, stupid, or a believer in modern mythology, because that's just not very nice.

    Quote
    I honestly don't have a problem with a theist who acknowledges frankly that their theism is not justified, and they "just have faith."   It's when they try to argue that it is, or argue that I have the same kind of beliefs but don't acknowledge it, or-- this is a great one-- that I was never really a Christian because I stopped being one, or that non-theists are morally bankrupt, or that people who reject the god in the Bible haven't read the Bible properly-- that I tend to get annoyed. 
    Besides the semantic difference we have for the word faith, I have admitted as much.  I claim I have no proof for the existence of God.  I do believe that a naturalistic philosophy has no inherent justifiable basis, by definition.  I am truly mystified by arguments to the contrary.  I'm sorry you have a problem with me because of that, but it is an intellectual debate; I don't understand why you would have a problem with me because of it.
    Quote
    I was never really a Christian because I stopped being one
    I don't know what this means but I never made this claim.
    Quote
    non-theists are morally bankrupt
    I never made this claim.  But it's been made of me.
    Quote
    people who reject the god in the Bible haven't read the Bible properly
    I really didn't say this, although you thought I had.  I was angry that you were telling me what I must believe, because I believe in the Bible.  Because you have studied the Bible, doesn't mean I haven't.  It also doesn't make your interpretation the correct interpretation. (Admittedly, this applies to me as well.)

    So, I'm sorry if you are annoyed.  If it bothers you so much, just don't respond to me.  If enough people do that, I guarantee, I'll go away.  I'll get bored.  I hope you will not.  I have enjoyed some of our discussions.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 21, 2007, 08:58:35 AM
    yada...yada
    Do you disagree with me in some way?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 21, 2007, 09:01:36 AM
    I don't recall calling you names or hurling abuse at you.  I respect you as a human being, but there's no reason for me to respect your beliefs. 
    I'm sorry you feel that way.  I think when a person is being reasonable, it's reasonable to response in a similar fashion.  Do you really think you can respect me as a human being while calling my beliefs silly, unreasonable, etc.?


    You wanna really stir up the pot?  How about this... "homosexuality" is silly and unreasonable (that'll kick it up a notch)...

    After all, it defeats the purpose of "nature" which so many here seem to think is important.  Sexual organs are for reproduction (oh yeah, that will get disputed).  Homosexual behavior DOES NOT result in reproduction.  Therefore, homosexuality is silly and unreasonable...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 21, 2007, 09:02:00 AM
    Actually, dharvey wins.

    I appreciate the vote of support.  I know we don't agree on everything, I hope we somehow find some space to discuss or respective beliefs.

    I admire your devotion to freedom, and loved the gun story you told on air.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 21, 2007, 09:04:34 AM
    I don't recall calling you names or hurling abuse at you.  I respect you as a human being, but there's no reason for me to respect your beliefs. 
    I'm sorry you feel that way.  I think when a person is being reasonable, it's reasonable to response in a similar fashion.  Do you really think you can respect me as a human being while calling my beliefs silly, unreasonable, etc.?


    You wanna really stir up the pot?  How about this... "homosexuality" is silly and unreasonable (that'll kick it up a notch)...

    After all, it defeats the purpose of "nature" which so many here seem to think is important.  Sexual organs are for reproduction (oh yeah, that will get disputed).  Homosexual behavior DOES NOT result in reproduction.  Therefore, homosexuality is silly and unreasonable...

    Good point.  I don't want to suggest that we are intolerant in any way.  That would be horrible.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 21, 2007, 09:07:10 AM
    I don't recall calling you names or hurling abuse at you.  I respect you as a human being, but there's no reason for me to respect your beliefs. 
    I'm sorry you feel that way.  I think when a person is being reasonable, it's reasonable to response in a similar fashion.  Do you really think you can respect me as a human being while calling my beliefs silly, unreasonable, etc.?


    You wanna really stir up the pot?  How about this... "homosexuality" is silly and unreasonable (that'll kick it up a notch)...

    After all, it defeats the purpose of "nature" which so many here seem to think is important.  Sexual organs are for reproduction (oh yeah, that will get disputed).  Homosexual behavior DOES NOT result in reproduction.  Therefore, homosexuality is silly and unreasonable...

    Good point.  I don't want to suggest that we are intolerant in any way.  That would be horrible.

    Yes, the intolerance can be left to the atheists and homosexuals.  It's something they seem to excel in...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 21, 2007, 09:31:28 AM
    Do you really think you can respect me as a human being while calling my beliefs silly, unreasonable, etc.?

    Yes, I do.  I can be polite to you, and wholeheartedly support your right to say what you want, while simultaneously criticizing the content of what you say.

    Quote
    So you are looking for me to say certain words.  Just say that up front.  "Before I can respond to your posts, you need to admit this..."

    I've been responding to your posts without you saying what I want, so obviously that's not the case. 

    Quote
    Can you admit that, "Scientific claims should be limited to things that can be repeated."

    I can admit that scientific claims should be limited to conclusions that can be reached via the scientific method.  Why should I do otherwise?

    Quote
    Besides the semantic difference we have for the word faith, I have admitted as much.  I claim I have no proof for the existence of God.  I do believe that a naturalistic philosophy has no inherent justifiable basis, by definition.

    You can claim to believe that, but you've provided no argument for it whatsoever-- for that matter, you haven't provided an argument for why anything  has an "inherent justifiable basis," whatever that means. 

    Quote
    I was angry that you were telling me what I must believe, because I believe in the Bible.

    I assumed that when you said you believe in the Bible, that you meant that you believe what the Bible says.  Can't say I can apologize for that. 

    Quote
    Because you have studied the Bible, doesn't mean I haven't.

    I never said otherwise.  In fact, you  have alleged as much to me.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on April 21, 2007, 09:34:29 AM
    Yes, I do.  I can be polite to you, and wholeheartedly support your right to say what you want, while simultaneously criticizing the content of what you say.
    I think you've been too generous, Rillion. This fellow acts like me but in a subversive manner. At least you know when I'm being a jackhole. This chap wants to worm his way to being "your friend." I say that because I know his type. He tries to use psychological tactics to win rather than facts and values.

    Quote
    You can claim to believe that, but you've provided no argument for it whatsoever-- for that matter, you haven't provided an argument for why anything  has an "inherent justifiable basis," whatever that means.
    He can't without producing a contradiction.

    -- Brede
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 21, 2007, 09:46:40 AM
    After all, it defeats the purpose of "nature" which so many here seem to think is important.  Sexual organs are for reproduction (oh yeah, that will get disputed).  Homosexual behavior DOES NOT result in reproduction.  Therefore, homosexuality is silly and unreasonable...

    Quote
    There are examples of homosexual intercourse in other species too, that's not for procreation. Why does God hate homosexuals when he created the min the first place? Your God's a bastard.

    You can point out the existence of homosexuality in other species, but in a way that affirms the naturalistic fallacy-- that for some reason, we are "supposed" to serve nature, that somehow nature has opinions about how we should act which should be followed.  But in fact there is no such thing as a "crime against nature," and so that argument is complete crap. 

    ...not that Gene would ever let such an idea sink through his skull, of course.  You're better off arguing with a log.  It's interesting that, outside of the Catholics, you hardly ever meet a "sex organs are for reproduction" homophobe who has a problem with birth control. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on April 21, 2007, 09:50:45 AM
    By Gene's logic, it's bad that we use vaccines since they are not inherent to Nature in that hey require the integration of concepts and values for life to make them so. Or how about a building, a gun, a car, a human toy, and so on.

    The naturalistic fallacy is in itself a fallacy, but on the grounds that supposes no moral proposition can be grounded in reality. I say all moral propositions are grounded in reality since either the moral proposition says something about life to its benefit or antithesis. If it says neither, then it's not a moral proposition. Either way, that means even Gene's argument fails big time because one cannot subscribe good or bad to states of nature such that they do not require volition to occur, thus his suggestion implies that morality is to be in conflict with existence rather than in harmony with it such that anything not volitional is not im/moral. Ayn Rand made that point long ago, and so did many folks before her. No one has yet countered it.

    -- Brede
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 21, 2007, 11:07:51 AM
    I've been responding to your posts without you saying what I want, so obviously that's not the case. 
    I was recommending it as a course of action.

    Quote
    Quote
    Can you admit that, "Scientific claims should be limited to things that can be repeated."

    I can admit that scientific claims should be limited to conclusions that can be reached via the scientific method.  Why should I do otherwise?
    And yet you criticize people who do not accept that the origin of species is evolution (short-hand for what you believe, insert correct verbiage, if mine is lacking.)  Which of course cannot be repeated.

    Quote
    Quote
    Besides the semantic difference we have for the word faith, I have admitted as much.  I claim I have no proof for the existence of God.  I do believe that a naturalistic philosophy has no inherent justifiable basis, by definition.

    You can claim to believe that, but you've provided no argument for it whatsoever-- for that matter, you haven't provided an argument for why anything  has an "inherent justifiable basis," whatever that means. 
    I'm sure your are referring to the latter statement, and this is what we've been arguing about for days.  You just don't like my arguments.  Sorry.

    Quote
    Quote
    I was angry that you were telling me what I must believe, because I believe in the Bible.

    I assumed that when you said you believe in the Bible, that you meant that you believe what the Bible says.  Can't say I can apologize for that. 

    I do believe in what the Bible says, but you certainly must understand the concept of "context".  Taken out of context, I have admitted that there are many disturbing things in the bible, as there are probably such disturbing statements in any anthology.  I'm not asking you to apologize, but because you don't feel like to should apologize, does not mean that I was unjustifiably angry.

    Quote
    Quote
    Because you have studied the Bible, doesn't mean I haven't.

    I never said otherwise.  In fact, you  have alleged as much to me.
    But, you implied it.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 21, 2007, 11:16:15 AM
    By Gene's logic, it's bad that we use vaccines since they are not inherent to Nature in that hey require the integration of concepts and values for life to make them so. Or how about a building, a gun, a car, a human toy, and so on.

    The naturalistic fallacy is in itself a fallacy, but on the grounds that supposes no moral proposition can be grounded in reality. I say all moral propositions are grounded in reality since either the moral proposition says something about life to its benefit or antithesis. If it says neither, then it's not a moral proposition. Either way, that means even Gene's argument fails big time because one cannot subscribe good or bad to states of nature such that they do not require volition to occur, thus his suggestion implies that morality is to be in conflict with existence rather than in harmony with it such that anything not volitional is not im/moral. Ayn Rand made that point long ago, and so did many folks before her. No one has yet countered it.

    -- Brede
    Yeah, I think you miss the point.  Gene was saying that homosexuality was silly, unreasonable, etc.  Not morally "bad."  Although, he might believe that as well.  Personally, I believe that only the practice of homosexuality is immoral, not the state of homosexuality, but that's not really the point.  Homosexuality is silly, unreasonable, irrational, etc.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 21, 2007, 11:37:34 AM
    Quote
    And yet you criticize people who do not accept that the origin of species is evolution (short-hand for what you believe, insert correct verbiage, if mine is lacking.)  Which of course cannot be repeated.

    I hope you're not operating under the bizarre belief that something which happened in the past can't be studied scientifically-- are you throwing geology and archeology out as well?  Vast amounts of astronomy?  Besides, speciation has  been observed-- many times.  I've already pointed that out to you, as a matter of fact.  And if you're talking about the origin of ALL species, that's called abiogenesis and doesn't fall under the domain of evolution anyway. 

    Quote
    Besides the semantic difference we have for the word faith, I have admitted as much.  I claim I have no proof for the existence of God.  I do believe that a naturalistic philosophy has no inherent justifiable basis, by definition.
    Quote
    You can claim to believe that, but you've provided no argument for it whatsoever-- for that matter, you haven't provided an argument for why anything  has an "inherent justifiable basis," whatever that means. 
    Quote
    I'm sure your are referring to the latter statement, and this is what we've been arguing about for days.  You just don't like my arguments.  Sorry.

    What latter statement?  I confess, I don't know what the hell you're talking about here.  And you haven't made any arguments against naturalistic philosophy for me to dislike. 

    Quote
    I do believe in what the Bible says, but you certainly must understand the concept of "context".  Taken out of context, I have admitted that there are many disturbing things in the bible, as there are probably such disturbing statements in any anthology.


    Wow, if you're shooting for the Top 10 Most Repeated Ridiculous Statements from Christians, you're doing pretty well.  I've heard this one hundreds of times-- if there's something in the Bible that appears to be disturbing, it must be taken out of context!  Any time God is described as slaughter mass numbers of people or ordering them to be slaughtered?  Out of context.  Any time God orders somebody to kill their child for him?  Out of context.  Any time God hands down sadistic punishments for minor infractions?  Out of context.  Any time Jesus yells at someone or threatens them with hellfire?  Out of context.  Very convenient, that. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ladyattis on April 21, 2007, 11:46:48 AM
    I'm still looking for a causality based argument that shows homosexuality is wrong. Why causality based? Because there is no explicit declaration in reality to duty to anything.

    -- Brede
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 21, 2007, 12:27:31 PM
    I'm still looking for a causality based argument that shows homosexuality is wrong. Why causality based? Because there is no explicit declaration in reality to duty to anything.

    -- Brede

    Yeah! Once again, silly not wrong.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 21, 2007, 12:32:08 PM
    I'm not sure why homosexuality is any sillier than heterosexuality.  If you're like me and not concerned with having kids, it's probably actually a lot more practical.  Too bad it's not a switch most of us can flip at will. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 21, 2007, 12:49:38 PM
    I hope you're not operating under the bizarre belief that something which happened in the past can't be studied scientifically-- are you throwing geology and archeology out as well?

    Note the word bizarre.

    Let's take them one at a time.  Let's assume some geologist makes a claim about the past.  He wasn't there.  He can't go back and check his hypothesis.  The best he can do is suggest that according to the way the world works now, his hypothesis is true.  What if things have changed?
    Quote
    Besides, speciation has  been observed-- many times.
    Ok, I'll get my seeds, set up my lab the way he had his.  Grow my plants, and should expect to find the same results.  No, these are events in the past.  These are not accounts of science, they are at best scientific reporting.
    Quote
    abiogenesis and doesn't fall under the domain of evolution anyway. 
    I'll bite, so what does it fall under, a car I hope.  You know this is the problem that Christians have with evolution and what most people think of when you say evolution.  Come on!

    Quote
    Besides the semantic difference we have for the word faith, I have admitted as much.  I claim I have no proof for the existence of God.  I do believe that a naturalistic philosophy has no inherent justifiable basis, by definition.
    Quote
    You can claim to believe that, but you've provided no argument for it whatsoever-- for that matter, you haven't provided an argument for why anything  has an "inherent justifiable basis," whatever that means. 
    Quote
    I'm sure your are referring to the latter statement, and this is what we've been arguing about for days.  You just don't like my arguments.  Sorry.

    Quote
    What latter statement?
      Latter- the last, the one following the others.  I question how you know what you know.  This is what we disagree on.  You reject the collected knowledge of the past, in favor of what can be empirically proved.  I do not.

    Quote
    I do believe in what the Bible says, but you certainly must understand the concept of "context".  Taken out of context, I have admitted that there are many disturbing things in the bible, as there are probably such disturbing statements in any anthology.
    [[

    Quote
    Wow, if you're shooting for the Top 10 Most Repeated Ridiculous Statements from Christians, you're doing pretty well.  I've heard this one hundreds of times-- if there's something in the Bible that appears to be disturbing, it must be taken out of context!  Any time God is described as slaughter mass numbers of people or ordering them to be slaughtered?  Out of context.  Any time God orders somebody to kill their child for him?  Out of context.  Any time God hands down sadistic punishments for minor infractions?  Out of context.  Any time Jesus yells at someone or threatens them with hellfire?  Out of context.  Very convenient, that. 
    Convenient yes, but true.  I would be happy to take each of these, but of course you have heard it all before, so what's the point?
    Note the phrase Top 10 Most Repeated Ridiculous Statements.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 21, 2007, 01:10:53 PM
    Okay, dharveymi, you're being pretty wacky now so this is probably my last post to you on this subject.  We can't go on forever, and I'm perceiving diminishing returns. 

    Quote
    Let's assume some geologist makes a claim about the past.  He wasn't there.  He can't go back and check his hypothesis.  The best he can do is suggest that according to the way the world works now, his hypothesis is true.  What if things have changed?

    Please, for your own sake, go do some research into how scientific research that studies the past is performed. The scientific method involves making observations, forming hypotheses based on those observations, and testing them.  The testing does not have to be about what happens in the future-- it can be about what the scientist expects to find.  For example, if I observe that all land mammals have fingers/toes, and I suspect that ocean mammals have evolved from them, then it is evidence in support of my theory to find that whales, dolphins etc. have fingers/toes inside their flippers.  Likewise, a geologist or archaeological anthropologist can predict that he will find a certain type of matter (bones, pottery, whatever he's looking for) on a certain dig site, and finding it there will lend support to his theory. 

    Quote
    Ok, I'll get my seeds, set up my lab the way he had his.  Grow my plants, and should expect to find the same results.  No, these are events in the past.  These are not accounts of science, they are at best scientific reporting.

    This doesn't even make sense, but I'm going to give you-- again-- a link to a list of speciation events that have been observed.  Please, read it this time:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)

    Quote
    abiogenesis and doesn't fall under the domain of evolution anyway. 
    Quote
    I'll bite, so what does it fall under, a car I hope.  You know this is the problem that Christians have with evolution and what most people think of when you say evolution.  Come on!

    Again, WTF?  It's simply a fact that the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory.  Most people who know what evolution IS know that.  If Christians have a problem with evolution because they confuse it with abiogenesis, then they're ignorant and should educate themselves. 

    Quote
    I question how you know what you know.  This is what we disagree on.

    How I know what I know?  Observation, reasoning, experience-- the same way everybody knows what they know. 

    Quote
    You reject the collected knowledge of the past, in favor of what can be empirically proved.  I do not.

    Yes, you've made it abundantly clear that you don't care much at all about what can be demonstrated empirically.  I'm not sure how that is supposed to constitute an argument against naturalist philosophy, however.   

    Quote
    Wow, if you're shooting for the Top 10 Most Repeated Ridiculous Statements from Christians, you're doing pretty well.  I've heard this one hundreds of times-- if there's something in the Bible that appears to be disturbing, it must be taken out of context!  Any time God is described as slaughter mass numbers of people or ordering them to be slaughtered?  Out of context.  Any time God orders somebody to kill their child for him?  Out of context.  Any time God hands down sadistic punishments for minor infractions?  Out of context.  Any time Jesus yells at someone or threatens them with hellfire?  Out of context.  Very convenient, that. 

    Quote
    Convenient yes, but true.

    Like I said, you might as well abandon the Bible altogether and just read God's mind....that's what you're doing already. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 21, 2007, 02:32:24 PM
    "Silliness" is an opinion, and to be quite frank, given Gene's opinion on a good many things, I'm not really inclined to take him seriously.

    Go back and read the post.  The term "silliness" was taken from a quote.  I merely reversed and used it in an example (in this case, homosexuality)...

    (But then who expects anyone here to actually READ the post they are criticizing??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 21, 2007, 02:33:28 PM
    Okay, dharveymi, you're being pretty wacky now

    Okay, Rillion, you're being pretty wacky now...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 21, 2007, 02:35:27 PM
    I'm not sure why homosexuality is any sillier than heterosexuality.  If you're like me and not concerned with having kids, it's probably actually a lot more practical.  Too bad it's not a switch most of us can flip at will. 

    It's not "silly" because it propigates the species.  If "homosexuality" were really genetic, it would have been "naturally selected" into extinction long ago...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on April 21, 2007, 02:38:33 PM
    Gene's hot. I want to touch him in his pants.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on April 21, 2007, 02:47:41 PM
    So we should definitely round up everyone with homosexual tendencies, and put them in camps, right? 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on April 21, 2007, 02:48:30 PM
    We have to protect The Children.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on April 21, 2007, 02:50:53 PM
    And once we get that perversion out of the general populous, procreation can continue as intended. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on April 21, 2007, 02:52:08 PM
    I've heard that Jesus was a homosexual. Thoughts?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on April 21, 2007, 02:53:20 PM
    I've heard that Jesus was a homosexual. Thoughts?

    Martin Scorsese had a lot to say about that.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on April 21, 2007, 02:54:30 PM
    That movie was hott.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on April 21, 2007, 04:47:45 PM
    If God created Man, then in order to be able to fulfill their purpose in living, men must use the minds that God gave them to achieve self mastery and mastery over Man's dominion. Blind adherence to dogmatic religious doctrine and its concomitant rejection of reason is an attempt to cheat one's way into the unearned favor of God. No person is totally evil, but to the extent that one rejects God's gift in favor of dogma, he has spit in God's eye and damned himself to hell on earth.

    An atheist can substitute the words "existence" or "nature" into the above statement, for a dogmatic religious doctrine does not require a God and so the statement will still be true, for correct morality depends only on Man's nature, not on Man's origin.

    Maria Montessori was a devout Christian. While she didn't use the exact same words, Her philosophy and everything that she advocated was based on an implicit recognition of the above:

    http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/montessori/method/method.html (http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/montessori/method/method.html)

    "But if the administrative departments are not carried on in a way which would seem suitable to a nation's greatness; if corruption too easily finds a place; it is the result of having extinguished the true greatness of man in the mind of the employee, and of having restricted his vision to those petty, immediate facts, which he has come to look upon as prizes and punishments. The country stands, because the rectitude of the greater number of its employees is such that they resist the corruption of the prizes and punishments, and follow an irresistible current of honesty. Even as life in the social environment triumphs against every cause of poverty and death, and proceeds to new conquests, so the instinct of liberty conquers all obstacles, going from victory to victory.

    It is this personal and yet universal force of life, a force often latent within the soul, that sends the world forward.


    But he who accomplishes a truly human work, he who does something really great and victorious, is never spurred to his task by those trifling attractions called by the name of "prizes," nor by the fear of those petty ills which we call "punishments." If in a war a great army of giants should fight with no inspiration beyond the desire to win promotion, epaulets, or medals, or through fear of [Page 24]  being shot, if these men were to oppose a handful of pygmies who were inflamed by love of country, the victory would go to the latter. When real heroism has died within an army, prizes and punishments cannot do more than finish the work of deterioration, bringing in corruption and cowardice.

    All human victories, all human progress, stand upon the inner force.

    Thus a young student may become a great doctor if he is spurred to his study by an interest which makes medicine his real vocation. But if he works in the hope of an inheritance, or of making a desirable marriage, or if indeed he is inspired by any material advantage, he will never become a true master or a great doctor, and the world will never make one step forward because of his work. He to whom such stimuli are necessary, had far better never become a physician. Everyone has a special tendency, a special vocation, modest, perhaps, but certainly useful. The system of prizes may turn an individual aside from this vocation, may make him choose a false road, for him a vain one, and forced to follow it, the natural activity of a human being may be warped, lessened, even annihilated.

    We repeat always that the world progresses and that we must urge men forward to obtain progress. But progress comes from the new things that are born, and these, not being foreseen, are not rewarded with prizes: rather, they often carry the leader to martyrdom. God forbid that poems should ever be born of the desire to be crowned in the Capitol! Such a vision need only come into the heart of the poet and the muse will vanish. The poem must spring from the soul of the poet, when he thinks neither of himself nor of the prize. And if he does win [Page 25]  the laurel, he will feel the vanity of such a prize. The true reward lies in the revelation through the poem of his own triumphant inner force.

    There does exist, however, an external prize for man; when, for example, the orator sees the faces of his listeners change with the emotions he has awakened, he experiences something so great that it can only be likened to the intense joy with which one discovers that he is loved. Our joy is to touch, and conquer souls, and this is the one prize which can bring us a true compensation.

    Sometimes there is given to us a moment when we fancy ourselves to be among the great ones of the world. These are moments of happiness given to man that he may continue his existence in peace. It may be through love attained or because of the gift of a son, through a glorious discovery or the publication of a book; in some such moment we feel that there exists no man who is above us. If, in such a moment, someone vested with authority comes forward to offer us a medal or a prize, he is the important destroyer of our real reward–"And who are you?" our vanished illusion shall cry, "Who are you that recalls me to the fact that I am not the first among men? Who stands so far above me that he may give me a prize?" The prize of such a man in such a moment can only be Divine.

    As for punishments, the soul of the normal man grows perfect through expanding, and punishment as commonly understood is always a form of repression. It may bring results with those inferior natures who grow in evil, but these are very few, and social progress is not affected by them. The penal code threatens us with punishment if we are dishonest within the limits indicated by the laws. But we are not honest through fear of the laws; if we [Page 26]  do not rob, if we do not kill, it is because we love peace, because the natural trend of our lives leads us forward, leading us ever farther and more definitely away from the peril of low and evil acts.

    Without going into the ethical or metaphysical aspects of the question, we may safely affirm that the delinquent before he transgresses the law, has, if he knows of the existence of a punishment, felt the threatening weight of the criminal code upon him. He has defied it, or he has been lured into the crime, deluding himself with the idea that he would be able to avoid the punishment of the law. But there has occurred within his mind, a struggle between the crime and the punishment. Whether it be efficacious in hindering crime or not, this penal code is undoubtedly made for a very limited class of individuals; namely, criminals. The enormous majority of citizens are honest without any regard whatever to the threats of the law.

    The real punishment of normal man is the loss of the consciousness of that individual power and greatness which are the sources of his inner life. Such a punishment often falls upon men in the fullness of success. A man whom we would consider crowned by happiness and fortune may be suffering from this form of punishment. Far too often man does not see the real punishment which threatens him."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 21, 2007, 05:13:12 PM
    So we should definitely round up everyone with homosexual tendencies, and put them in camps, right? 

    Is this your idea??  I haven't heard anyone else spout such nonsense...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 21, 2007, 06:14:41 PM
    Well I responded...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 21, 2007, 08:54:26 PM
    You're welcome.  Nice to see you can exercise manners...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on April 21, 2007, 11:40:38 PM
    So we should definitely round up everyone with homosexual tendencies, and put them in camps, right? 

    Is this your idea??  I haven't heard anyone else spout such nonsense...

    You really need to work on the nuances of human conversation.  Learn some social skills, and you may be able to some of the problems you've run in to here.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 21, 2007, 11:49:02 PM
    So we should definitely round up everyone with homosexual tendencies, and put them in camps, right? 

    Is this your idea??  I haven't heard anyone else spout such nonsense...

    You really need to work on the nuances of human conversation.  Learn some social skills, and you may be able to some of the problems you've run in to here.

    O.K. kid.  I'll maybe I can " be able to some of the problems you've run in to here."  (???)

    Talk about "nuances of human conversation".
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bignasty022 on April 22, 2007, 03:55:13 PM
    Christian ANYTHING is never "sensible."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mbd on April 22, 2007, 04:49:45 PM
    So we should definitely round up everyone with homosexual tendencies, and put them in camps, right? 

    Is this your idea??  I haven't heard anyone else spout such nonsense...

    You really need to work on the nuances of human conversation.  Learn some social skills, and you may be able to some of the problems you've run in to here.


    This thread has an unusually high sarcasm level. Like maybe 43.8022%, roughly.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mbd on April 22, 2007, 06:25:55 PM
    I said roughly.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on April 22, 2007, 11:08:51 PM
    I would never use sarcasm.  It's bad for the children. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 23, 2007, 09:36:23 AM
    Please, people, I'm down to -80 right now and I'm asking all you great people out there to help me meet my goal of -100 before the weeks out and perhaps -1000 by years end.  Let's give it the ol' college spirit now and help out here. 

    All together now - *SLAP*

    Rah-rah-rah, sis-kum-bah...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 24, 2007, 06:32:02 PM
    If God created Man, then in order to be able to fulfill their purpose in living, men must use the minds that God gave them to achieve self mastery and mastery over Man's dominion. Blind adherence to dogmatic religious doctrine and its concomitant rejection of reason is an attempt to cheat one's way into the unearned favor of God. No person is totally evil, but to the extent that one rejects God's gift in favor of dogma, he has spit in God's eye and damned himself to hell on earth.

    An atheist can substitute the words "existence" or "nature" into the above statement, for a dogmatic religious doctrine does not require a God and so the statement will still be true, for correct morality depends only on Man's nature, not on Man's origin.

    Maria Montessori was a devout Christian. While she didn't use the exact same words, Her philosophy and everything that she advocated was based on an implicit recognition of the above:

    http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/montessori/method/method.html (http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/montessori/method/method.html)

    "But

    The real punishment of normal man is the loss of the consciousness of that individual power and greatness which are the sources of his inner life. Such a punishment often falls upon men in the fullness of success. A man whom we would consider crowned by happiness and fortune may be suffering from this form of punishment. Far too often man does not see the real punishment which threatens him."

    I just had a chance to read this post and found myself in agreement with much of it (I clipped it for brevity, but I recommend everyone go back and read the original post).  I too, do not feel that the "punishment" man ultimately faces is really any physical pain or torture, but rather the pain of feeling a loss of what one could have been or done.  My greatest regret in my life is how much time I've wasted doing unproductive things in my life.  I'm currently transferring all our old camcorder tapes to DVD and I see our son when he was little and think of how much time I spent doing really dumb stuff when I could have spent more time answering his questions, helping him explore our world and simply enjoying his and my wife's company.  Countless hours that I wasted on foolish activities (too numerous to mention) that I now wish I'd spent with my wife and son (true productivity)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 25, 2007, 08:23:04 PM
    Can some of the evolution supporters answer the problem of well preserved fossilized trees within multiple strata layers?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: money dollars on April 25, 2007, 08:34:01 PM
    Can some of the evolution supporters answer the problem of well preserved fossilized trees within multiple strata layers?

    Do you believe Noah had dinosaurs on his ark?

    http://web.archive.org/web/20060422113013/http://answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 25, 2007, 08:45:07 PM
    Can some of the evolution supporters answer the problem of well preserved fossilized trees within multiple strata layers?

    Do you believe Noah had dinosaurs on his ark?

    http://web.archive.org/web/20060422113013/http://answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp

    Can you just answer the question posed?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: money dollars on April 25, 2007, 08:52:23 PM
    Can some of the evolution supporters answer the problem of well preserved fossilized trees within multiple strata layers?

    Do you believe Noah had dinosaurs on his ark?

    http://web.archive.org/web/20060422113013/http://answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp

    Can you just answer the question posed?
    wikipedia has it covered for both sides.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 25, 2007, 09:25:29 PM

    wikipedia has it covered for both sides.

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


    Interesting.  A good article devoid of the usual bickering (which is so common here)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 25, 2007, 11:19:48 PM
    Rapid sedimentation.  Yeah, that's what I thought.  So, how can you tell the difference between rapid and slow sedimentation?

    I wonder if dinosaur eggs taste like chicken eggs?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 26, 2007, 12:58:14 AM
    Rapid sedimentation.  Yeah, that's what I thought.  So, how can you tell the difference between rapid and slow sedimentation?

    I wonder if dinosaur eggs taste like chicken eggs?

    Probably not, but they do resolve the age old question of whether it was the chicken or the egg that came first.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on April 26, 2007, 01:00:47 AM
    Probably not, but they do resolve the age old question of whether it was the chicken or the egg that came first.

    Egg. The animal that laid it wasn't quite a chicken.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 26, 2007, 07:39:27 AM
    Probably not, but they do resolve the age old question of whether it was the chicken or the egg that came first.

    Egg. The animal that laid it wasn't quite a chicken.

    What are the birds that lay their eggs in someone else's nest?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on April 26, 2007, 12:54:39 PM
    Probably not, but they do resolve the age old question of whether it was the chicken or the egg that came first.

    Egg. The animal that laid it wasn't quite a chicken.

    What are the birds that lay their eggs in someone else's nest?

    That would be a Cuckoo.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 26, 2007, 01:05:27 PM
    Probably not, but they do resolve the age old question of whether it was the chicken or the egg that came first.

    Egg. The animal that laid it wasn't quite a chicken.

    What are the birds that lay their eggs in someone else's nest?

    That would be a Cuckoo.

    Hey, fish lay eggs... amphibians lay eggs... reptiles lay eggs... birds lay eggs... mammals are the most complicated reproductive method.

    I think the egg was always first.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 27, 2007, 08:02:45 AM
    Probably not, but they do resolve the age old question of whether it was the chicken or the egg that came first.

    Egg. The animal that laid it wasn't quite a chicken.

    What are the birds that lay their eggs in someone else's nest?

    That would be a Cuckoo.

    Hey, fish lay eggs... amphibians lay eggs... reptiles lay eggs... birds lay eggs... mammals are the most complicated reproductive method.

    I think the egg was always first.

    Does the Koran have a "creation story" like the Bible's??  If it does, then wouldn't the egg exist after the created creature who lays the egg? 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 27, 2007, 10:16:57 AM
    Probably not, but they do resolve the age old question of whether it was the chicken or the egg that came first.

    Egg. The animal that laid it wasn't quite a chicken.

    What are the birds that lay their eggs in someone else's nest?

    That would be a Cuckoo.

    Hey, fish lay eggs... amphibians lay eggs... reptiles lay eggs... birds lay eggs... mammals are the most complicated reproductive method.

    I think the egg was always first.

    Does the Koran have a "creation story" like the Bible's??  If it does, then wouldn't the egg exist after the created creature who lays the egg? 

    You make an excellent point brother. It hadn't occurred to me to think of it that way.

    The creation in the Koran is similar to the Bible, the word more accurately translates as "stages" not "days" and and there are six, not seven, because God does not rest. That and it doesn't begin with "let there be light" but instead explains that God brought everything together into a single unit and then cast it asunder, and that the heavens are constantly expanding in precisely calculated orbits. More Big Bang like... although I still maintain that the Big Bang was not a Bang, as there were no particles to vibrate, but far more likely, if observed from the outside, a flash of light.

    There are Muslim scholars who accept and reject evolution. But they obviously prefer an "intelligent design" theory. The leading scholar on the subject is Harun Yahya. You can find him at www.harunyahya.com or search for him on youtube or googlevideo. He's pretty interesting. Nothing specifically contradicts it in the Koran when you consider that the origin of the cell is still unknown. I my self do not know enough about it... but pondering it, I think that the theory of evolution is incomplete, but I won't claim it's completely inaccurate.

    "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
    'The Origin of Species' by Charles Darwin, 6th edition 1988 New York University press (p154)

    This of course describes just about every organ... but most notably, the living cell.

    So, the answer to greater mystery of the egg remains at large.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 27, 2007, 09:55:33 PM
    I've heard that Christians have more in common with Muslims than with (what seems to be the 2nd most "popular" religion for most Christians) Judiasm...

    I guess if Muslims accept that Jesus was the Messiah, then that would be true since Jews reject that claim.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 28, 2007, 12:42:50 AM
    I've heard that Christians have more in common with Muslims than with (what seems to be the 2nd most "popular" religion for most Christians) Judaism...

    I guess if Muslims accept that Jesus was the Messiah, then that would be true since Jews reject that claim.

    Hmmm... Well, there's a book out now called, "The Case for Islamo-Christian Society" and that's the author's claim. But I've only read the introduction... But I don't want to get into the obvious implications of removing "Judeo" and how pissed off most people would be if a Muslim were to start doing that. I don't think that was the author's motivation... but if judged by it's cover, as most people do, it looks bad.

    There's cases for similarties with both.

    From a legal perspective Islam is closest with Orthodox Judaism. Similar Kosher laws, social structure, rules for modesty, etc.

    Islam is also closest to Judaism in the conception of God. Strict monotheism. Belief in the one God of Abraham without a son, or any physical manifestation. A genderless, invisible God. The Trinity is uniquely Christian.

    We also share Judaism's conception of the Messiah, not as a literal physical son of God (Although we accept the virgin birth), but a spiritual son, as David is referred to as in the old testament. Although Jews are still waiting, may God guide them. Muslims view Jesus as the anointed, the most unique of prophets, and the one to return on the day of recompense. As he says, he was sent to fulfil the Jewish scripture.

    But Muhammad is allot like Jesus in that both began their mission alone, and established an entirely new nation, while all the prophets of the ancient Jews brought messages to a specific tribe of people. Both Jesus and Muhammad spread the message in the face of a pagan society. And both religions initially faced conflicts with existing empires... Unfortunately each other at times.

    Both Christianity and Islam are characterized as the catalyst of huge advances in science, philosophy, and theology. Often in conjunction with each other.

    I wish people focused more on those period of cooperation... we could likely use it as a model for a modern solution.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 28, 2007, 07:53:41 AM
    What do you say to those who make the claim that the Koran promotes violence, aka, Jihad, and the slaying of non-belivers?  Are those claims based on quotes from the Koran and are those quotes easy to misrepresent?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 28, 2007, 08:21:24 AM
    Yes, they can.  And I would say that those are erroneous interpretations of what is promoted.  The actions of people who misinterpret something cannot be used to besmirch that which they misinterpret.  I guess J.D. Salinger should bear some responsibility for Kennedy's and Lennon's assassinations then...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on April 28, 2007, 10:19:23 AM
    How is it misinterpreted? If Moses goes into a city and slays everyone, that seems pretty clear to me. The reason doesn't really matter.

    Help me to understand.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 28, 2007, 10:36:26 AM
    Yes, they can.  And I would say that those are erroneous interpretations of what is promoted.  The actions of people who misinterpret something cannot be used to besmirch that which they misinterpret.  I guess J.D. Salinger should bear some responsibility for Kennedy's and Lennon's assassinations then...

    That's pretty much what I would say. About Islam

    The very few violent verses in the Quran are rairly put in their proper context, which was battles with a specific Arabian Tribe called the Quraish that tortured Muslims, beat them and burned them, broke into their homes, destroyed their property, and killed a great many of them while the Muslims were in Mecca.

    During that time the Muslims were not permitted to fight back.

    It wasn't until the Muslims left Mecca, and fled to to Medina, when the Quraish formed armies and marched on medina, violating an existing peace treaty, that they were allowed to defend themselves.

    You can't read the Quran out of context, it will lead to extremism. There are other sacred sourses in Islam. The Hadith, the Sunna, the Tafsir... There sourses are part of Islam all the way back, and there's difference of oppinion concerning their strength, and interpretation, but it's in these that we see the actuall sayings, actions, and explainations of the Prophet himself.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 28, 2007, 10:41:03 AM
    How is it misinterpreted? If Moses goes into a city and slays everyone, that seems pretty clear to me. The reason doesn't really matter.

    Help me to understand.

    I don't believe these old Bible stories where the prophets do thees horrendous things. The Bible is just not reliable enough of a record for me to believe that actually happened.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on April 28, 2007, 10:42:47 AM
    ...and I agree. :)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on April 28, 2007, 12:28:59 PM
    The Bible is just not reliable enough of a record for me to believe that actually happened.

    This is only half of the quote.  I don't want you, or anyone else to think I'm misquoting you in any fashion.  The quote is effectively an independent clause, and stands alone.  Now...to the point. 

    I think this is what a lot of the individuals who are disagreeing here are trying to say. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 28, 2007, 03:22:25 PM
    How is it misinterpreted? If Moses goes into a city and slays everyone, that seems pretty clear to me. The reason doesn't really matter.

    Help me to understand.

    I don't believe these old Bible stories where the prophets do thees horrendous things. The Bible is just not reliable enough of a record for me to believe that actually happened.

    I guess the same thing could be said about the Koran, or maybe the Leftist press, when they say all those horrible things about George Bush.  Reporters are just people.  They're probably lying about old Georgy (Georgee?)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 28, 2007, 03:23:50 PM
    How is it misinterpreted? If Moses goes into a city and slays everyone, that seems pretty clear to me. The reason doesn't really matter.

    Help me to understand.

    I don't believe these old Bible stories where the prophets do thees horrendous things. The Bible is just not reliable enough of a record for me to believe that actually happened.

    I guess the same thing could be said about the Koran, or maybe the Leftist press, when they say all those horrible things about George Bush.  Reporters are just people.  They're probably lying about old Georgy (Georgee?)

    No! It's those nasty scientists, they're the ones that can't be trusted.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 28, 2007, 04:23:17 PM
    How is it misinterpreted? If Moses goes into a city and slays everyone, that seems pretty clear to me. The reason doesn't really matter.

    Help me to understand.

    I don't believe these old Bible stories where the prophets do thees horrendous things. The Bible is just not reliable enough of a record for me to believe that actually happened.

    I guess the same thing could be said about the Koran, or maybe the Leftist press, when they say all those horrible things about George Bush.  Reporters are just people.  They're probably lying about old Georgy (Georgee?)

    Except that the Koran doesn't say all the horrible things about Moses or David... or even Muhammad.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 28, 2007, 09:01:51 PM
    Okay, whoever is applauding me stop it right now.  If you want to "help" me, slap me every hour if you can.  I'm trying for an all-time high in negative so-called "karma".  (A high in negative... oh heck, just hit me...)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 28, 2007, 09:05:18 PM
    How is it misinterpreted? If Moses goes into a city and slays everyone, that seems pretty clear to me. The reason doesn't really matter.

    Help me to understand.

    Well, I've stated in the past that I believe the Bible to be at least 99% accurate.  Extremely relaible for any historical record (I would say "miraculous").  I do believe that there are errors though.  You might be looking at one such error.  You have to realize (as many Christians do not) that the writings have been through a lot of hands in 6000 years and there may have been transcription errors, translation errors, and maybe some deliberate errors.  There are enough "manuscripts" however to weed out most errors and provide a record that is highly relaible...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cerpntaxt on April 29, 2007, 05:35:49 AM
    How do you know that Christianity is the right religion?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 29, 2007, 07:18:51 AM
    How is it misinterpreted? If Moses goes into a city and slays everyone, that seems pretty clear to me. The reason doesn't really matter.

    Help me to understand.

    I don't believe these old Bible stories where the prophets do thees horrendous things. The Bible is just not reliable enough of a record for me to believe that actually happened.

    I guess the same thing could be said about the Koran, or maybe the Leftist press, when they say all those horrible things about George Bush.  Reporters are just people.  They're probably lying about old Georgy (Georgee?)

    Except that the Koran doesn't say all the horrible things about Moses or David... or even Muhammad.
    No.  It just calls them liars.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on April 29, 2007, 07:20:54 AM
    How do you know that Christianity is the right religion?
    Never said it was, just right for me.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 29, 2007, 05:33:47 PM
    I say that Christianity is the "right" one.  Indeed, if I didn't think so, I would be quite the hypocrite.  Even Paul stated such that if the basic story of Jesus, that he was raised from the dead, were not true, then those believers are of all men most miserable.  So it would be truly insane to claim to be a believer in Christ and deny the resurrection which is the main reason for His life on this ball.

    1 Cor 15
    14  And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
    15  Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
    16  For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
    17  And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
    18  Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
    19  If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

    So here I have to agree with the "atheists" here on this board in that if there is no resurrection and Christ did not raise from the dead, then we are truly living our lives and everything we believe in in vain.  I, however, accept the "evidence" of that resurrection (testimony is evidence and there is the testimony of many who saw it and later died for their belief that it was real).

    As I've explained in the past, there is "evidence" in the legal sense and not in the "scientific" sense.  Indeed, there is no way to use any scientific method to "prove" historical events (oh, no, here come the naysayers with the same arguments against my "evidence")...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on April 29, 2007, 05:43:14 PM
    Okay, whoever is applauding me stop it right now.  If you want to "help" me, slap me every hour if you can.  I'm trying for an all-time high in negative so-called "karma".  (A high in negative... oh heck, just hit me...)

    You're not that annoying, Gene. Besides, you aren't gonna beat Ballapuran by arguing about God. You have to troll more.

    Oh, and you're shy by about -550 Karma. ;-)

    That dude was such an ass.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on April 29, 2007, 06:56:14 PM
    BenTucker had way more than Ballapuran.

    And if I gave a testimony that I saw the Flying Spaghetti Monster shoot out of some guy's ass, and I wrote it down, and 2000 years later people believed this to be a true account, would that make it 'evidence'? What if I died for that belief? Would it be considered evidence then?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Richard_III on April 29, 2007, 07:48:50 PM
    I say that Christianity is the "right" one.  Indeed, if I didn't think so, I would be quite the hypocrite.  Even Paul stated such that if the basic story of Jesus, that he was raised from the dead, were not true, then those believers are of all men most miserable.  So it would be truly insane to claim to be a believer in Christ and deny the resurrection which is the main reason for His life on this ball.

    1 Cor 15
    14  And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
    15  Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
    16  For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
    17  And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
    18  Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
    19  If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

    So here I have to agree with the "atheists" here on this board in that if there is no resurrection and Christ did not raise from the dead, then we are truly living our lives and everything we believe in in vain.  I, however, accept the "evidence" of that resurrection (testimony is evidence and there is the testimony of many who saw it and later died for their belief that it was real).

    As I've explained in the past, there is "evidence" in the legal sense and not in the "scientific" sense.  Indeed, there is no way to use any scientific method to "prove" historical events (oh, no, here come the naysayers with the same arguments against my "evidence")...

    Hey Gene,

    Go back a little to 1 Corinthians 7 and you will find this interesting statement by "Paul":
    -----------
    25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. 27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

     29What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
    -------------

    Phony "Paul" has so convinced himself that the return of Christ would occur in his lifetime, or in that of his next generation. Paul is so sure of this return, that he advises the "virgins" to not even bother to get married and procreate!!! Paul is actually encouraging a self administered genocide of his own people!!! OOOPS...well 2 thousand years later and we are all still waiting for this return of Christ.

    What is odd about Paul's pathetic prediction, is that Paul claims to be in contact with the spirit of Christ. The Ghostly "Christ" would occasionally give Paul information that was to be forwarded to the Christian followers. How is it that Paul could be so OFF with such an important prediction, when he claims to communicate with the very Christ, himself?!?!?!

    There must have been a mix up with those transcendental radio waves between Jesus and Paul.

    anywayz, if you believe in this silly book, then you are either brainwashed or too desperate for closure.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 29, 2007, 10:52:42 PM
    There must have been a mix up with those transcendental radio waves between Jesus and Paul.


    Then again, it may be that you are not interpreting his words as he meant them.  The passage is quite vague and up to interpretation.  One must also look at what was happening historically when those words were written.  It was perhaps a time of Roman persecution, etc...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cerpntaxt on April 30, 2007, 12:18:50 AM
    So it means whatever you want it to?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Caveman on April 30, 2007, 01:07:25 AM
    So it means whatever you want it to?

    No it doesn't, it very clearly says what it does and the Christians just use that excuse as a universal cop-out.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 30, 2007, 07:01:40 AM
    There are so many issues when dealing with ancient writings.  There's the language barrier.  There's the historical content.  There's something called "manuscript authority".  This is the reason I make the claim that the Bible is 99% accurate.  Some things have to be examined in great detail and even after the best historical scholars have looked at all the manuscripts and consulted the best translators, we still will not have perfect understanding.  Even today, if we put 1000 people in a hall listening to a speech by the pope, there will be 1000 "flavors" of that speech.  They will agree mostly on what was said.  Some will take to heart any portion that they hold dearer...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on April 30, 2007, 11:05:54 AM
    Why would an infallible being trust fallible creatures to preserve his 'word' when he knew they were just going to muck it up and cause disbelief?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 30, 2007, 11:56:54 AM
    For the same reason He didn't create a bunch of automatons that simply follow programming and are 100% predictable...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on April 30, 2007, 12:26:51 PM
    Some of the "best historical scholars" have also said that the Bible is a terriffic work of fiction.

    I concur with Toars' spaghetti from the ass synopsis. The only truth of the Bible is that it was written by MEN who claimed to have a REVELATION, which is a totally personal event, and to accept their word is to promote heresay, because YOU and I did not have the revelation, some other dude did, or claimed to.

    If you want to base your beliefs on heresay, then more power to you, but don't expect others to as well. :)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on April 30, 2007, 02:04:12 PM
    For the same reason He didn't create a bunch of automatons that simply follow programming and are 100% predictable...

    But if he wanted his divine word to be spread out among the masses and believed, shouldn't he have taken a little more time and care with the work? He's insured a lot of people a place in hell because of how unbelievable the Bible tends to be.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Richard_III on April 30, 2007, 02:21:09 PM
    There must have been a mix up with those transcendental radio waves between Jesus and Paul.


    Then again, it may be that you are not interpreting his words as he meant them.  The passage is quite vague and up to interpretation.  One must also look at what was happening historically when those words were written.  It was perhaps a time of Roman persecution, etc...

    First of all Gene, it is not my interpretation. Paul's "end of the world" passage is acknowledged by researchers in every part of the globe. I am just in agreement with this interpretation...I did not invent it. Do your homework and you will see what I mean.

    The problem for the religionists is in trying to spin the passage so as to avoid Paul's catastrophic blunder. When you look over the excuses, they are all varied, but equally embarrassing. The "scholars" would rather just avoid this passage altogether, but unfortunately, there are jerks like me, going around, reminding susceptible people to be wary of the scoundrel scholars.

    The Christians think they are so clever when it comes to their methods of manipulation. It is like a child trying to trick his mother or father- the parent can quickly recognize when their child is trying to fool them...but the child is not smart enough to know that the joke is really on the poor kid.

    The Christians will fool themselves till the end of time.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on April 30, 2007, 03:36:38 PM
    Things would have been so simple if this "God" would have just made the Bible with his/her own hands and created it to be indestructible and shiny and pretty. But no. I can take a Bible, take out a page or two, type up my own rendition of Mark, or John, and have a little party afterwards. Hell, I can make a whole Bible just for ME, and call myself a MORMON or something...

    And have lots of wives.

    WHOA.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: money dollars on April 30, 2007, 03:43:42 PM
    you don't need a book to know god, you just need to remember
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on April 30, 2007, 04:18:31 PM
    "You ain't gotta go to church to get to know your God" - Jedi Mind Tricks
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Caveman on April 30, 2007, 06:10:23 PM
    Things would have been so simple if this "God" would have just made the Bible with his/her own hands and created it to be indestructible and shiny and pretty. But no. I can take a Bible, take out a page or two, type up my own rendition of Mark, or John, and have a little party afterwards. Hell, I can make a whole Bible just for ME, and call myself a MORMON or something...

    And have lots of wives.

    WHOA.

    Sign me up
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 30, 2007, 07:45:57 PM
    OK, the passage in question follows:  My understanding follows:

    26I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is.

     27Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.

     28But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.

     29But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none;

     30and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess;

     31and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away.

     32But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord;

     33but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,

     34and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

     35This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

     36But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry.

     37But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well.

     38So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.

     39A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only (AI)in the Lord.

     40But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.


    So how does one interpret it??  Paul was single.  He saw how a single person can spend more time promoting God.  He advised others to remain single, yet he also says that if you can't do the single thing, do the married thing.  He makes a passing statement that the time is short, and so it is.  I do not see any "urgency" in his statements that the end is just around the corner.  Indeed, he is quoted elsewhere that no man knows the time.  He makes it clear that this whole passage is his "opinion" and that it is not inspired by God speaking through him.

    I don't see the big controversy.  Indeed, if this is the best you can come up with, you are not very convincing...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Richard_III on April 30, 2007, 10:05:47 PM
    Does the "Word of God" always make you this relaxed? Do you keep a bottle of Valium, beside your bible? Dear oh Dear, so then why all the fuss over this passage??? Why do researchers consider this passage highly controversial, when Gene: The Master of Interpretation, sees nothing particularly odd here? So, you do not find it odd that Paul is trying to dissuade average "virgins" from getting married and procreating? So, then Paul's "time is short" talk, is nothing more than a bland reference to the short life span of a human being???

    You can put the brakes on reality if you want to, Gene, but like I said, you are only fooling yourself.

    The character of Paul is well known to be an advocate for apocalyptic doooooom. Apologist researchers will tell you that Paul's strange "end of the world" leanings, were attributed to the general outlook of that time. So in a sense, wise Paul was a victim of the paranoid populace, and that is how some researchers justify Paul's hysterical ramblings.

    Paul is like an Alex Jones.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Caveman on April 30, 2007, 10:16:06 PM
    Can i be hit by lightning and go blind for a couple days then be cured. If God did that then I would belive, why the selective miracle treatment?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on April 30, 2007, 11:53:52 PM
    Things would have been so simple if this "God" would have just made the Bible with his/her own hands and created it to be indestructible and shiny and pretty. But no. I can take a Bible, take out a page or two, type up my own rendition of Mark, or John, and have a little party afterwards. Hell, I can make a whole Bible just for ME, and call myself a MORMON or something...

    And have lots of wives.

    WHOA.

    Why would an infallible being trust fallible creatures to preserve his 'word' when he knew they were just going to muck it up and cause disbelief?


    But if he wanted his divine word to be spread out among the masses and believed, shouldn't he have taken a little more time and care with the work? He's insured a lot of people a place in hell because of how unbelievable the Bible tends to be.


    I'd love to get in on this, as Bible criticism is one of my favorite subjects, but I just don't agree with either side here.

    From my perspective, God didn't want his message preserved in a botched cut and paste job, so he sent a final revelation in his own words, which confirmed all that was true, and corrected all that was false of what man kind had brought. He preserves it himself, as he says, "Surely I have brought this book and surely I will preserve it." It has been unchanged, and it even has a shiny cover... usually.

    It even challenges people to imitate the perfection of it's prose... which no one has ever done. This is proven mathematically. So you couldn't rip out a page and write your own.

    The only criticisms I've ever heard from the Quran were from people who didn't like the rules... and usually didn't even have them right. People who found contradictions, at least all that I've seen, were the result of a poor understanding of Arabic grammar.

    Oh, yeah, Caveman, you never answered whether you thought my conclusions were rational.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 01, 2007, 09:36:20 AM
    And I believe there is "some truth" available pretty much everywhere.  The Koran, Confucius, American Indians, Buddhism, and other cultural sources are insights to what men before us have written about their understanding of the universe which, by my definition, is insight into the mind of the Creator.  Even most science is useful for peering into the mind of God...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: money dollars on May 01, 2007, 10:39:17 AM
    It even challenges people to imitate the perfection of it's prose... which no one has ever done.
    I don't think there is such a think as perfect prose....but I have heard this before.

    Quote
    This is proven mathematically.
    I have not heard this.

    ohhhhh...

    http://www.submission.org/quran/quranthewordofgod.html
    Quote
    O N E  O F  T H E  G R E A T  M I R A C L E S [74:35]

    For the first time in history, we have a built-in proof that the Quran is the unaltered, original and complete word of God. A proof that is verifiable by anyone. So powerful is the proof, that in a few generations it will become obvious, that any religion or any group of people, which advocates faith, as a pre-requisite or basis for belief will immediately be exposed as a false religion. Since we now have proof, blind faith is no longer valid.

    "You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for
    yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the
    brain, and you are responsible for using them." (17:36)

    The mathematical structure of the Quran was discovered by Dr. Rashad Khalifa, an Egyptian born American biochemist, in the 1970's. Dr. Khalifa, started translating the Quran into English with the determination to find an explanation for the mysterious initials prefixing 29 Suras. He initiated an extensive research on these initials (for example: the Arabic letter "Qaaf" in Suras 42 and 50), after placing the Quranic text of the initialed Suras into a computer. His objective was to find a mathematical pattern which would explain the significance of the initials, although he had no idea where and what to look for. After several years of research, Dr. Khalifa published his first results in a book entitled MIRACLE OF THE QURAN, Significance of the Mysterious Alphabets (Islamic Productions), in 1973. It was in 1974 that Dr. Khalifa discovered that there was a common denominator in the initials and throughout the Quran - the number 19. Subsequently Dr. Khalifa published, THE COMPUTER SPEAKS: GOD'S MESSAGE TO THE WORLD (Renaissance Productions, 1981), QURAN: Visual Presentation of the Miracle (Islamic Productions, 1982); and the translation of the Quran in English (Islamic Productions, 1989). All these publications are good tools to verify the mathematical structure. (The books can be ordered from ICS, PO Box 43476, Tucson, Az 85733-3476).

    SOME SIMPLE FACTS

    1. The first verse (1:1), "Basmalah" consists of 19 Arabic letters.

    2. Each of the four Arabic words of "Basmalah" are repeated in the Quran in multiples of 19 in numbered verses.
    The first word..."Ism" (Name).....occurs...19 times
    The second word.."Allah" (God)....occurs...2698 times (19x142).
    The third word..."Al-Rahman" (Most Gracious)...57 times (19x3)
    The fourth word.."Raheem" (Most Merciful)..114 times (19x6)

    The above can be verified by the following:

    A. In the Concordance of the Quran by Abdul Baqy on page 362 the word ISM is listed with 19 occurrences. The peculiar spelling of the word ISM as BISM is repeated in the Quran three times in verses 1:1, 27:30 & 11:41. (1+1+27+30+11+41 + number of occurrences 3 =114 or 19x6)

    B. The count of the word ALLAH can best be verified by Dr. Rashad Khalifa's translation of the Quran which carries the cumulative total occurrences of ALLAH on each page. Abdul Baqy gets the same count when the numbered verse 1:1 is included in his count.

    C. On page 307 on Abdul Baqy's concordance we find AL REHMAN to be 57 as total occurrences.

    D. The word AL RAHEEM is listed on page 307 as occurring 95 times, while RAHEEM is listed on page 309 as occurring as 20 times. The total occurrence is 114 (95 -1 + 20 = 114). AL RAHEEM in verse 9:128 is not counted (Note: verses 9:128 & 129 were falsely injected into the Quran after the death of the prophet. The subject will be discussed in another topic).

    3. The Quran consists of 114 suras, which is ...19 x 6

    4. The total number of verses in the Quran is 6346, or ..19x334.

    6346 is the total of 6234 numbered verses and 112 un-numbered verses (Basmalah)
    Also 6 + 3 + 4 + 6 = 19

    5. From the missing Basmalah in sura 9 to the extra Basmalah in sura 27, there are precisely 19 suras.

    6. The first revelation (96:1-5) consists of 19 words and 76 letters (19 x 4)

    7. First sura revealed (sura 96) consists of 19 verses and 304 Arabic letters (19 x 16).

    8. The Quran mentions 30 different numbers.(Eg: 300 & 9 in verse 18:25). The sum of the 30 numbers is 162,146 or 19 x 8534.

    9. The sum of all verse numbers where God "Allah" is mentioned is 118,123 or 19 x 6,217.

    QURANIC INITIALS

    There are 29 suras in the Quran with prefixed initials. All the initials are linked to the common denominator - 19.

    "Q" (Qaaf) is initialed in suras 42 and 50. In both the suras,"Q" is repeated 57 times or 19 x 3.

    "Nun" (Noon) is initialed in sura 68 and the name of the letter is spelled out as - "noon wow noon" - in the original text. The total count of "Nun" is 133 or 19 x 7.

    "S" (Saad) is initialed in suras, 7, 19, 38, and the total occurrence in the three suras is 152 or 19 x 8.

    "Y.S" (Ya Seen). These two letters are prefixed in Sura 36 and the total occurrence for both of them is 285 or 19 x 15.

    "H.M" (Ha Mim). These letters prefix suras 40 through 46 and their total occurrence in the seven "H.M" initialed suras is 2147 or 19 x 113.

    "`A.S.Q" ('Ayn Seen Qaf). These initials constitute Verse 2 of sura 42 and are repeated in the sura 209 or 19 x 11 times.

    "A.L.M" (Alef Laam Mim). These most frequently used letters in the Arabic language are prefixed in six suras - 2, 3, 29, 30, 31 and 32 and the total occurrence of the three letters in each of the six suras in 9899 (19x521), 5662 (19x298), 1672 (19x88),1254 (19x66), 817 (19x43) and 570 (19x30) respectively.

    All other Quranic initials, without exception, show similar patterns of being multiples of 19.

    GEMATRICAL VALUE

    When the Quran was revealed, 14 centuries ago, the numbers known today did not exist. Alphabets of Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages were used as numerals with a value for each alphabet. For example, "alef" had a value of 1, "wow" had a value of 6, etc. The total sum of the 19 letters of "Basmalah" is 786, a number known to muslim masses all over the world by God's will. It is beyond the scope of this article to give the mathematical patterns in the Quran, taking into consideration the Gematrical Value of Arabic letters. Only one example will be given. The total sum of the 14 Arabic letters which participate in the formation of Quranic initials in 29 suras is 693.....693 + 29 = 722 or 19 x 19 x 2.

    COMPLEX NUMBERS

    The use of a computer becomes mandatory in certain complex aspects of the mathematical miracle of the Quran. For example, the sum of the number of verses in each of the 114 suras plus the sum of every single verse number in all the suras is equal to 339,644 or 19 x 17,876.

    If we take the same number used in getting the total of 339,644 and put them all, side by side, from the first sura to the last sura, we obtain a 12,692 digit number. The number 12,692 is divisible by 19 (19 x 668). But more importantly, the entire 12,692 digit number is also a multiple of 19.

    7 1234567 286 1234....285286 200 123......5 12345 6 123456.

    OVER IT IS NINETEEN (74:30)

    We now know the meaning of verse 30 of sura 74. God has chosen the number nineteen as his signature on his creation - the Glorious Quran. Anyone who cares to study and verify the mathematical structure of the Quran will know with certainty that such a book can never be authored by anyone, other than by God. When this mathematical structure is taken together with the literary excellence of the Quran, one can appreciate God's assertion in the following verses in the same sura 74, that this is one of the God's great miracles.

    "Absolutely, (I swear) by the moon.
    "And the night as it passes.
    "And the morning as it shines.
    "THIS IS ONE OF THE GREAT MIRACLES." (74:32-35)

    REASON FOR THE MIRACLE OF QURAN

    Verse 74:31 gives five reasons for the miracle of the Quran with number 19 as the common denominator.

    1. To disturb the disbelievers.

    2. To convince the Christians and the Jews (that this is divine scripture).

    3. To strengthen the faith of the faithful.

    4. To remove all traces of doubt from the hearts of Christians, Jews, as well as the believers; and

    5. To expose those who harbor doubt in their hearts, and the disbelievers; who will say, "What did God mean by this allegory?" (or "So What?").

    NEW ERA IN RELIGION

    With mankind having a verifiable proof, that the Quran, the Final Testament, is the unaltered word of God, we have entered a new era in religion. Verse 17:36 quoted above mandates, that we use our hearing , eyesight and brain to verify all information, including the miracle of the Quran by ourselves.

    This new era also mandates that we seek proof for any religious law or practice dictated upon us. What makes the religion of Submission (Islam) so easy, is the proof, we now have, that the Quran is the unaltered and complete word of God. As submitters (Muslims) to God, we have to accept God's assertion in the Quran; that the Quran is complete, fully detailed and the only source of religious law.

    That is proof?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on May 01, 2007, 11:11:12 AM
    That is proof?

    Well, I'd be a little careful of submission.org... Rashad Kalifa went a little crazy, in my opinion. I prefer the mathematical works Harun Yahya. Non the less, regardless of the scholar, there is at least concensus that mathematical precision exists which is far too complicated to have been inserted by Muhammad, especially considering he was illiterate, and didn't know how to spell what he was reciting.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on May 01, 2007, 11:26:43 AM

    I don't think there is such a think as perfect prose....but I have heard this before.

    Regarding the prefection of the prose, there are a number of factors. First, the meter, rhyme, meaning. There is a rhythm to arabic poetry which is very difficult to emulate. Poetry was a prevailing form or performance art in pre Islamic arabia, and to convey meaning while maintaining this rhythm was very difficult. To use a modern equivalent, imagin if you went to a poetry slam where poets competed. All of the artists recited poems in typical spoken word rhthyms, with meter changes, rhyme changes, and often misprounounciations to fit the thing together... and also recited from memory. Then a mand stands up who everyone knows is illiterate, and has never been known for his poetry, then he recites a poem, in real time, not from memory, that was in the queens english (not his dialect) all in perfect iambic pentameter.

    Numerous poets in that time, and since have tried to emulate this, by have been unable to withour resulting to using obscure words which do not convey the correct meaning, manipulated grammar, or abandoning the structure slightly.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 01, 2007, 07:22:07 PM
    If your God is proven to exist, I'd consider going to hell a blessing.

    You may be blessed, my son...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 01, 2007, 07:27:15 PM
    Damn judgments.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 01, 2007, 07:32:49 PM
    Judgements are a part of everyday living...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 01, 2007, 07:33:58 PM
    And are usually kept to yourself. That's the difference between regular people and Christians.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 01, 2007, 07:41:36 PM
    Why is it only you get to make judgements??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 01, 2007, 07:42:17 PM
    I am king.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on May 01, 2007, 07:42:48 PM
    No lie.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on May 01, 2007, 07:44:17 PM
    Wow. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 01, 2007, 07:45:18 PM
    Kings tend to "lose" their heads...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on May 01, 2007, 07:47:12 PM
    Are you threatening me?

    (http://www.blowing-kisses.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_db_beavis_cornholio1.gif)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 01, 2007, 07:47:51 PM
    Kings tend to "lose" their heads...

    Like Jesus, when he was crucified?

    I bet he screamed like a little girl.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on May 01, 2007, 07:48:28 PM
    Before or after the anal rape?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on May 01, 2007, 07:48:47 PM
    I suppose we'll never get that part of the story. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 01, 2007, 07:49:11 PM
    He probably enjoyed the anal rape so I'm sure he moaned in delight.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on May 01, 2007, 07:49:25 PM
    It's on the Special Edition DVD.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 01, 2007, 07:50:48 PM
    The Last Temptation of (Faggoty-Ass) Christ?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on May 01, 2007, 07:51:07 PM
    It was a great movie.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 01, 2007, 07:51:21 PM
    What happens in it?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on May 01, 2007, 07:58:10 PM
    Gay shit.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 01, 2007, 07:58:58 PM
    Does Jesus's butthole get anally violated?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on May 01, 2007, 07:59:10 PM
    I came.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 01, 2007, 07:59:58 PM
    Taors sure likes the homo stuff.  You and joe are quite a couple...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on May 01, 2007, 08:00:32 PM
    We have a Gene Real Doll we bring in for threesome night.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on May 01, 2007, 08:00:53 PM
    Taors sure likes the homo stuff.  You and joe are quite a couple...

    pwn3d by Gene.  Sorry man. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on May 01, 2007, 08:01:23 PM
    Eeeeeeeeee.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 01, 2007, 08:01:54 PM
    The homo stuff is SOOOO very effective... NOT!!

    Grow up little girls...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 01, 2007, 08:02:04 PM
    Gene's great for those vindictive quips you'd expect from a typical southern Christian. I've heard them before.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on May 01, 2007, 08:02:34 PM
    Fucking chinks.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 01, 2007, 08:03:37 PM
    Taors sure likes the homo stuff.  You and joe are quite a couple...

    pwn3d by Gene.  Sorry man. 

    Like the "judgement" of a little girl who likes to talk about her genitals to a bunch of losers who can't get a date means anything...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 01, 2007, 08:04:00 PM
    (http://www.afa.net/images/jesus_and_man.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on May 01, 2007, 08:04:19 PM
    Taors sure likes the homo stuff.  You and joe are quite a couple...

    pwn3d by Gene.  Sorry man. 

    Like the "judgement" of a little girl who likes to talk about her genitals to a bunch of losers who can't get a date means anything...


    Oh shit.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 01, 2007, 08:04:30 PM
    Taors sure likes the homo stuff.  You and joe are quite a couple...

    pwn3d by Gene.  Sorry man. 

    Like the "judgement" of a little girl who likes to talk about her genitals to a bunch of losers who can't get a date means anything...

    LINDSEY JUST GOT PWNED!!!!!!!!!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on May 01, 2007, 08:04:59 PM
    THE PWNINTATION IS TOO MUCH FOR ME!
    /me slits wrists likea teh emoz
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on May 01, 2007, 08:05:23 PM
    Taors sure likes the homo stuff.  You and joe are quite a couple...

    pwn3d by Gene.  Sorry man. 

    Like the "judgement" of a little girl who likes to talk about her genitals to a bunch of losers who can't get a date means anything...

    Okay, we'll all go back to not giving you kudos when you say something that makes sense.  Is this supposed to be your method of reverse-psychology or something? 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 01, 2007, 08:06:15 PM
    Lindsey and the rest of you PWN youselves with pretty much every post.  The imaturity of you as a group is quite amazing...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 01, 2007, 08:07:18 PM
    Look how vindictive Gene's getting. He's certainly representing the Christian way. It's making me want to become one.

    (http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/interactive/prayer.jpg)

    Getting into the anal position...helllll yeaaaaaaaahhhhh.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 01, 2007, 08:07:39 PM
    Taors sure likes the homo stuff.  You and joe are quite a couple...

    pwn3d by Gene.  Sorry man. 

    Like the "judgement" of a little girl who likes to talk about her genitals to a bunch of losers who can't get a date means anything...

    Okay, we'll all go back to not giving you kudos when you say something that makes sense.  Is this supposed to be your method of reverse-psychology or something? 

    Like I care about "kudos"...  I have real things to tend to.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on May 01, 2007, 08:07:54 PM
    Because your insults display the utmost in maturity.  That's quite the set of Christian values you have there, Gene.  You're a decent guy - why you've decided to cast that aside is beyond me. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on May 01, 2007, 08:07:59 PM
    Doesn't matter, he can do anything as long as he goes to confession or gets rebaptised.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 01, 2007, 08:08:04 PM
    Lindsey and the rest of you PWN youselves with pretty much every post.  The imaturity of you as a group is quite amazing...

    The same could be said about you. I haven't seen one mature post from you in this thread.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on May 01, 2007, 08:08:39 PM
    I have real things to tend to.

    Like calling into FTL and saying stupid shit?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 01, 2007, 08:08:51 PM
    Taors sure likes the homo stuff.  You and joe are quite a couple...

    pwn3d by Gene.  Sorry man. 

    Like the "judgement" of a little girl who likes to talk about her genitals to a bunch of losers who can't get a date means anything...

    Okay, we'll all go back to not giving you kudos when you say something that makes sense.  Is this supposed to be your method of reverse-psychology or something? 

    Like I care about "kudos"...  I have real things to tend to.

    Like spreading the message of Christianity and Anarchy to people who don't give a shit?

    (http://www.429news.com/photos/uncategorized/04042006_03.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on May 01, 2007, 08:09:04 PM
    Taors sure likes the homo stuff.  You and joe are quite a couple...

    pwn3d by Gene.  Sorry man. 

    Like the "judgement" of a little girl who likes to talk about her genitals to a bunch of losers who can't get a date means anything...

    Okay, we'll all go back to not giving you kudos when you say something that makes sense.  Is this supposed to be your method of reverse-psychology or something? 

    Like I care about "kudos"...  I have real things to tend to.

    Real things eh?  Like a really long thread about Christian Anarchy?  Don't go calling us losers - you continue to come here. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 01, 2007, 08:09:28 PM
    I have real things to tend to.

    Like calling into FTL and saying stupid shit?

    HAY GUYZ I JUS WANTED 2 CALL IN N SAY DAT DA IRS IS REALLLLY REALLY BAD!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 01, 2007, 08:10:10 PM
    Lindsey and the rest of you PWN youselves with pretty much every post.  The imaturity of you as a group is quite amazing...

    The same could be said about you. I haven't seen one mature post from you in this thread.

    Hey, I can give as well as get.  You guys started and I will continue, but not now.  I have real living to do so I'll have to catch up on all this fantastic banter some other time (gosh, how will I be able to stay away??)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 01, 2007, 08:11:15 PM
    Lindsey and the rest of you PWN youselves with pretty much every post.  The imaturity of you as a group is quite amazing...

    The same could be said about you. I haven't seen one mature post from you in this thread.

    Hey, I can give as well as get.  You guys started and I will continue, but not now.  I have real living to do so I'll have to catch up on all this fantastic banter some other time (gosh, how will I be able to stay away??)


    Jesus said to turn the other cheek you fucking blasphemer.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on May 01, 2007, 08:14:21 PM
    Someones having Chinese tonight.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Richard_III on May 01, 2007, 08:15:13 PM
    LOL! GENE GENE....THE RETARD MACHINE!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 01, 2007, 08:16:10 PM
    I bet he's using chopsticks.

    I wonder what she'll use on his old hairy balls?

    (http://hometown.aol.com/antlanara/images/hairy%20man.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Richard_III on May 01, 2007, 08:24:30 PM
    If this continues any further, I bet the muslim on here will go eastward.

    Kill 2 doves of peace with one stone. The "stone" being hilarity, of course.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on May 01, 2007, 08:30:28 PM
    I bet he's using chopsticks.

    I wonder what she'll use on his old hairy balls?

    (http://hometown.aol.com/antlanara/images/hairy%20man.jpg)

    Someone get that man some Nair.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: money dollars on May 01, 2007, 09:59:57 PM
    Don't go calling us losers 

    i'm a loser  :(
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: money dollars on May 01, 2007, 10:16:19 PM
    I like this version of the jesus story better:

    The Gospel of the Holy Twelve
    AKA
    The Gospel of the Perfect Life (http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_intro.htm)

    Quote
    TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL ARAMAIC
    AND EDITED BY THE REV. GIDEON JASPER RICHARD OUSELEY

        Introduction

        An Irish clergyman, Rev. G. J. Ouseley claims to have discovered the Original Gospel from which the present Four Gospels were derived, which, he says, was "preserved in one of the Buddhist monasteries in Tibet, where it was hidden by some of the Essene Community for safety from the hands of the corrupters, and is now for the first time translated from the Aramaic."

        This statement was made by Rev. Ouseley in a preface to his publication of this Gospel, in a book entitled "Gospel of the Holy Twelve." E. F. Udny, in an introduction to this work, writes:

        "At the time of the corruption of the Gospels, the Epistles and Revelation' were presumably already in existence, and if the Gospels were tampered with, so no doubt was the rest of the New Testament, which is now equally destitute of the teachings removed from the Gospels. It may well be that uncorrupted copies of the Epistles and Revelation were similarly sent by the Essenes to the safety of a Buddhist monastery, and that, when the world has assimilated to the New Gospel, those, too, may be give us."

        Rev. Ouseley claims that he received a transcription Of the Original Gospel from a Buddhist monastery in Tibet where it is preserved. In this documant the teachings of Jesus includes an admonition for his followers to practice the seventh day sabbath, non-violence to all living creatures and the secret to eternal life.

        Rev. Ouseley writes:
        "The early Christian Fathers did well their work of destroying the sources and records from which they gathered the information and data put by them in the Bible. But they failed to destroy it all. Some escaped, and as it is discovered here and there by patient research workers, it is astonishing to see how the world has been deceived by the Christian Fathers.

        "The Original Gospel is preserved in one of the Buddhist monasteries in Tibet, and is written in Aramaic. These 'correctors' (men authorized to 'correct' the text of Scripture in the interests of what was considered orthodoxy) cut out of the Gospels with minute care certain teachings of Our Lord's which they did not propose to 'follow, namely, those against flesh eating, such as accounts of our Lord's interference, on several occasions, to save animals from ill treatment, and even the interesting and important teachings ever prominent in Eastern scriptures."

        We have referred elsewhere to the "correctors" who were hired by the Church Fathers at the Council of Nicea to alter the original text of the Gospels, leaving out those doctrines that were obnoxious to their emperor, Constantine, whom they desired to convert to Christianity, which he opposed. Chief among these objectionable doctrines were the prohibition against the use of flesh meat and alcohol, and the recommendation of kindness to animals, all of which constituted the fundamental doctrines of the teachings of Christ. On this point Udny writes: "The great significance of the corruption of the Text lies rather in the nature of the matter struct out by the 'correctors' than in the amount. It is evident that the 'correctors' and those who appointed them were at least unwilling to denounce their beef and beer, a convenient alliteration for flesh and alcohol."

        In the original Sanscrit and Aramaic gospel, the duty of abstaining from meat and wine were emphasized, while in the later versions, it was omitted. Since those who founded the Christian Church, like their emperor, Constantine, were meat eaters and drinkers of wine, naturally they were opposed to these doctrines, whose acceptance would involve a revolutionary transformation of their living habits, they interpreted the first promise to mean, "Thou shalt not kill". implying that the commandment applied only to humans and that the slaughter of animals was not killing.

        The Original Gospel, representing the teachings of Christ, the Lord of Love, taught harmlessness and compassion to all living beings, including both animals and humans. For reasons above stated, the Roman Churchmen at Nicea opposed these doctrines and eliminated them from the Gospels, which they radically changed so as to be acceptable to Constantine, who loved the red meats and flowing wine of his midnight feasts too much to accept a religion that prohibited these pleasures, which was a main reason why he so bitterly persecuted the early Christians who advocated these doctrines. For this reason the Church Fathers changed the Gospel in such a way that Love and Compassion were limited only to human beings but the animal expressions of life were excluded from receiving these benefits. But the savior of the Original Gospel, as Christ were represented to be, was a redeemer of the animal world, as he was of men, seeking to alleviate the sufferings of all living beings.

        "The all pitying love of Our Savior embraces not only mankind, but also the so-called lower creatures of God, sharers with us of the one breath of life, and with us on the road of ascent to that which is higher. Never has the providence with which the All-Merciful watches over man and beast alike been more impressively brought home to us than in the saying of the Savior, 'Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, but not one of them is forgotten by God'. How were it possible to doubt that the Savior would have pity and compassion on the creatures who must bear their pain in silence? Would it not seem a blasphemy if it were said that He would behold without pity or succor the ill-treatment of helpless animals? Nay, rather, when he brought redemption to a world sunk in selfishness, hard heartedness and misery, and proclaimed the gospel of all embracing love, there was a share in this redemption for all suffering creatures; since when man opened his heart to the divine love, there could be no room left in it for pitiless hardness toward the other creatures of God, who have, like himself, been called into life with a capacity for enjoyment and suffering.

        'Those who bear the mark of the Redeemer practice His all pitying love; and how little it is that the minimum of compassion for helpless creatures demand of us; Only not to inflict on them torture; to help them when they are in trouble, or when they appeal to us for succor, and if of necessity we take their life, to let it be a speedy death with the least pain-a gentle sleep. But, alas, how little we are penetrated with these divine lessons of mercy and compassion. How many grievous tortures are inflicted on them, under the pretense of science, or to gratify an unnatural appetite, or cruel lusts, or the promptings of vanity!"

        We shall now present the Original Gospel claimed by Rev. Ouseley to have been preserved since the early centuries of our era in a Buddhist monastery in Tibet, which expounds the doctrines of Christ on universal compassion, vegetarianism and kindness to animals (involving abolition of animal sacrifices). Of which teachings the barbarous practice of animal sacrifices, which was recommended by the Old Testament, a book accepted as holy and divinely inspired by both the Jews and Christians, was abolished and rejected by the New Christian Church, so that it never played a part in Christianity as it did in original Judaism.

        After the Council of Nicea, when this gospel was changed to suit Constantine, as well as converted into Four Gospels, "Jesus Christ" while his humane, vegetarian and pacifistic doctrines were largely eliminated and replaced by a false supernaturalism.

        Rev. G. J. Ouseley

        In 1881 an English minister, Rev. G. J. Ouseley, got hold of a hitherto unknown, not rewritten evangelical text. This uncorrupted text has century after century been secured from all falsification in a buddistic monastary in Tibet, since the day a man has hidden it there, an man of the Essene society. Ouseley translated the Aramaic text and gave it the name The Gospel of the Holy Twelve. It has later been translated into German.

        During the last century also many old fragments of the gospel have come into light. Some of them have been found in old libraries and other from excavations. These fragments are called Logins or Agraphas. They a older than and more original than the canonized gospels. Their great value is due to the fact that they are uncorrupted. The curious thing is, however, that many parts of these fragments mostly agree, word for word, with the Gospel of Ouseley, though they are completely missing in the canonical gospels.

        The Hungarian physician, Prof. Edmond Szekely, found some ten years ago a evangelical text in the royal library in Wien, written in old Slavonian language; he copied it. Later he found the original to the old Slavonian translation in the Vatican library. The original, that was translated into the Slavonian language, was written in Aramaic, Szekely in 1937 published the parts which deal with the health of the human body, about 1/8th of the text. His pamphlet was published in German under the name of Heliand.

        END
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on May 01, 2007, 10:26:39 PM
    Phony "Paul" has so convinced himself that the return of Christ would occur in his lifetime, or in that of his next generation. Paul is so sure of this return, that he advises the "virgins" to not even bother to get married and procreate!!! Paul is actually encouraging a self administered genocide of his own people!!! OOOPS...well 2 thousand years later and we are all still waiting for this return of Christ.

    What is odd about Paul's pathetic prediction, is that Paul claims to be in contact with the spirit of Christ. The Ghostly "Christ" would occasionally give Paul information that was to be forwarded to the Christian followers. How is it that Paul could be so OFF with such an important prediction, when he claims to communicate with the very Christ, himself?!?!?!

    There must have been a mix up with those transcendental radio waves between Jesus and Paul.

    anywayz, if you believe in this silly book, then you are either brainwashed or too desperate for closure.
    I just love the level of discussion on this thread.  I understand that there are people who call themselves Christians who are hateful people.  Gene is not one of them.  There are people who call themselves Americans who are hateful people.  Are all Americans evil?  Aren't we all on 'Liberty's' side?  Don't you all have some strange beliefs?  Haven't you been criticized by others for those beliefs?  Do you want to be criticized more often?

    Anyway,

    I agree that Paul believed that the second coming of Christ was near.  I agree that Jesus spoke with Paul on a personal basis.  I don't believe that everything Paul wrote came directly from the lips of God.  I believe Paul was correctly interpreting the "signs of the times", prophecies that would indicate that the end of the world was near.  I believe the was giving good advice to his followers.

    The misconception here is there is some set time for Christ's return.  There is no set time.  God in His mercy has delayed the second coming of His Son.  This delay is needed so the principles of His kingdom can perfectly be reproduced in His people.  If Paul's followers had taken his advice and dedicated themselves to the kingdom of God, God's will would have been done on earth, speeding the second coming of Christ and blessing all people on earth.  They did not follow his advice, God's kingdom was not furthered on earth, Christ did not return.  The blame rests not with Paul's relationship with Christ but with our relationship with Christ.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Richard_III on May 01, 2007, 11:10:52 PM
    Phony "Paul" has so convinced himself that the return of Christ would occur in his lifetime, or in that of his next generation. Paul is so sure of this return, that he advises the "virgins" to not even bother to get married and procreate!!! Paul is actually encouraging a self administered genocide of his own people!!! OOOPS...well 2 thousand years later and we are all still waiting for this return of Christ.

    What is odd about Paul's pathetic prediction, is that Paul claims to be in contact with the spirit of Christ. The Ghostly "Christ" would occasionally give Paul information that was to be forwarded to the Christian followers. How is it that Paul could be so OFF with such an important prediction, when he claims to communicate with the very Christ, himself?!?!?!

    There must have been a mix up with those transcendental radio waves between Jesus and Paul.

    anywayz, if you believe in this silly book, then you are either brainwashed or too desperate for closure.
    I just love the level of discussion on this thread.  I understand that there are people who call themselves Christians who are hateful people.  Gene is not one of them.  There are people who call themselves Americans who are hateful people.  Are all Americans evil?  Aren't we all on 'Liberty's' side?  Don't you all have some strange beliefs?  Haven't you been criticized by others for those beliefs?  Do you want to be criticized more often?

    Anyway,

    I agree that Paul believed that the second coming of Christ was near.  I agree that Jesus spoke with Paul on a personal basis.  I don't believe that everything Paul wrote came directly from the lips of God.  I believe Paul was correctly interpreting the "signs of the times", prophecies that would indicate that the end of the world was near.  I believe the was giving good advice to his followers.

    The misconception here is there is some set time for Christ's return.  There is no set time.  God in His mercy has delayed the second coming of His Son.  This delay is needed so the principles of His kingdom can perfectly be reproduced in His people.  If Paul's followers had taken his advice and dedicated themselves to the kingdom of God, God's will would have been done on earth, speeding the second coming of Christ and blessing all people on earth.  They did not follow his advice, God's kingdom was not furthered on earth, Christ did not return.  The blame rests not with Paul's relationship with Christ but with our relationship with Christ.

    The clear-minded philosophers know what the truth is. If I were to tell you the truth, you would not believe me, and you may set out to try to destroy the knowledge that the clear-minded philosophers have been transmitting, well before the age of the fictional Jesus. You do not take into account the esoteric elements of religion, and because of this, you feel compelled to wallow in whatever is openly given to you.

    The truth is protected, and you perverts are forced to struggle with your ridiculous beliefs.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on May 01, 2007, 11:30:12 PM
    [clear-minded philosophers
    Been looking for them.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Richard_III on May 01, 2007, 11:44:49 PM
    [clear-minded philosophers
    Been looking for them.

    Where have you been looking?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on May 01, 2007, 11:50:59 PM
    Do you have some comment directly related to the post, or are you simply being contrary?  I know you don't believe.  So I wasn't talking to you.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Richard_III on May 01, 2007, 11:57:53 PM
    Do you have some comment directly related to the post, or are you simply being contrary?  I know you don't believe.  So I wasn't talking to you.

    So, then why are you replying to my posts, Mr. Smarty Pants?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on May 02, 2007, 12:00:09 AM
    Yep! My mistake. Begging your pardon sir, I won't make that mistake again.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Richard_III on May 02, 2007, 12:03:19 AM
    Yep! My mistake. Begging your pardon sir, I won't make that mistake again.

    Very well then.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 02, 2007, 07:39:05 AM
    ... well before the age of the fictional Jesus.

    Only an idiot or a total lier would make the claim that there was no historical Jesus.  Which are you??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on May 02, 2007, 07:41:51 AM
    Ooh, ooh, ooh, pick me, pick me, I know the answer.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 02, 2007, 07:49:10 AM
    Ooh, ooh, ooh, pick me, pick me, I know the answer.

    It's a tough one, but I think we both know...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 02, 2007, 08:01:21 AM
    ANY one...

    Ooooh, post 2001 - "A Space Odyssey"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on May 02, 2007, 08:13:55 AM
    ANY one...

    Ooooh, post 2001 - "A Space Odyssey"...
    HAL: I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am a HAL 9000 computer. I became operational at the H.A.L. plant in Urbana, Illinois on the 12th of January 1992. My instructor was Mr. Langley, and he taught me to sing a song. If you'd like to hear it I can sing it for you.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 02, 2007, 08:20:31 AM
    Yes Hal, I'd like to hear it...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 02, 2007, 12:08:48 PM
    Which version? There are half a dozen historical Jesus'.

    I quite like Apollonius personally.

    Apollonius was cool.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Richard_III on May 02, 2007, 02:16:39 PM
    ... well before the age of the fictional Jesus.

    Only an idiot or a total lier would make the claim that there was no historical Jesus.  Which are you??

    Sorry Gene, gotta run....I'm having tea with the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and Bigfoot.

    Catch ya later, brainiac.  :lol:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 02, 2007, 03:34:44 PM
    So it's "idiot" then...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dharveymi on May 02, 2007, 06:23:35 PM
    That's the consensus. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 02, 2007, 07:24:28 PM
    I don't think 2 people count as a 'consensus.'

    Nor does a consensus reflect reality.

    It does when you're a Christian.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 02, 2007, 10:43:37 PM
    Actually, a "consensus" can be 1...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on May 02, 2007, 11:01:01 PM
    Or a -1
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 03, 2007, 08:43:53 PM
    Of course what I meant was that "one" can be a consensus when that "one" is God...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on May 03, 2007, 08:52:31 PM
    If there is a God, may he strike me dead...right...NOW!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 03, 2007, 08:53:43 PM
    Jay's mom just called my house and told me that Jay was just struck by lightning...JESUS CHRIST SOMEONE HELP ME I DONT KNOW WHAT TO FUCKING DO!!!!!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on May 03, 2007, 08:57:27 PM
    I'm back. Apparently there is a God. I'm so sorry, Gene.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 03, 2007, 09:06:00 PM
    Yes, you are...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 03, 2007, 09:14:28 PM
    Nuh uh.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theghostofbj on May 03, 2007, 09:44:08 PM
    Fuck, why won't it let me bitchslap more than once an hour?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 03, 2007, 09:49:22 PM
    Thanks guys, every hit helps.  I'll get to -1000 or bust...

    P.S. Your mother wears combat boots...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 04, 2007, 07:55:50 AM
    Every quarter helps...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on July 20, 2007, 10:58:06 AM
    In the extremely unlikely case that there is a God, will bumping this thread after two and a half months of idleness guarantee entry to heaven?



    Alex, Alex...

    Why?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on July 20, 2007, 11:33:30 AM
    Damn, man, I don't care if you bump this thread, why fake that quote and pretend I bumped it first then deleted my post?!  That's rude!

    :mrgreen:

    Alex, you're kinda acting like an ass. Why don't you knock it off?
    I'll not be replying to this thread again.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on July 20, 2007, 12:31:53 PM
    Coming from the guy on his third (or fourth?) account who thinks the world is run by lizardmen... :lol:

    He resurrected this thread, waited for a response, and deleted his posts. Then blamed me for responding to "Nothing."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: AlexLibman on July 20, 2007, 12:48:46 PM
    The world is *NOT (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/not#English)* run by lizardmen!

    The lizardmen are controlled by the international bankers, who are controlled by the European royalty, who are controlled by the unseen Vatican ruling class, who in turn are controlled by Adam Sander.  Jeez, do the research!

    And I think John Shaw gets lonely so he makes up conversations...  That skill will come useful in solitary confinement though.  I wonder if he'll rip out his hair and make a little Alex doll to argue with...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 20, 2007, 03:04:38 PM
    You guys keep messing with my thread I'm going to have to start preaching again.  You need a little preaching anyway (no, actually a LOT)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: wtfk on July 20, 2007, 03:11:35 PM
    (http://www.yogurtland.com/images/baklava/baklava.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 21, 2007, 08:28:44 AM
    God loves you all...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: jckeyser on July 21, 2007, 06:44:13 PM
    Hurray, a fictional being loves me!

    I, too, am happy about a being such as he who think it ok to sell your children into slavery and stone innocent people in the town square.
    Just as long as it isn't gay love, or he'll be forced to burn for eternity for doing what makes him feel good.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 22, 2007, 07:08:16 AM
    It only makes sense that the One who created you would love you, His creation.  When I "create" something, depending on the amount of effort I put into it, I usually care about it.  I take effort to make sure that it's "cared for" (oil changes and wax perhaps).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: aquabanianskakid on July 22, 2007, 09:35:39 AM
    Hurray, a fictional being loves me!

    I, too, am happy about a being such as he who think it ok to sell your children into slavery and stone innocent people in the town square.
    Just as long as it isn't gay love, or he'll be forced to burn for eternity for doing what makes him feel good.

    You left out some absurdities like women not being allowed to speak in church, men not cutting their hair, and God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Silly God he was just "testing" Abraham... doesn't that sound fun?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 22, 2007, 08:55:29 PM
    Hurray, a fictional being loves me!

    I, too, am happy about a being such as he who think it ok to sell your children into slavery and stone innocent people in the town square.
    Just as long as it isn't gay love, or he'll be forced to burn for eternity for doing what makes him feel good.

    You left out some absurdities like women not being allowed to speak in church, men not cutting their hair, and God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Silly God he was just "testing" Abraham... doesn't that sound fun?

    But then these "absurdities" came from A) The mouth of God, or B) The mouthes of men???
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 23, 2007, 12:17:38 PM
    Everything in religion is from the mouths of men, including god.

    The mouths of men cannot "create" a Creator.  That which created us is, "that which created us".  Whatever we think about "it" or however we perceive "it" does not affect "Him".
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on July 23, 2007, 12:43:26 PM
    No, but they CAN create a myth about a creator.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 23, 2007, 03:43:45 PM
    No, but they CAN create a myth about a creator.

    They can and they do.  However, some of man's perceptions about the Creator are going to be true.  You just have to decide for yourself which ones you believe to be true.  It's really no different than any other aspect of life.  I have to decide what to believe or not believe.  I believe that a large round body revolves around our planet because I see a circular object in the sky which others have told me is a large moon (as far as planet/moon systems go).  I've never been there.  I've never seen it from any perspective other than from this planet.  I've seen photographs and movies which I "believe" to be accurate representations of this same object I see in the sky, but again, I did not take those photo and videos so I'm taking another's word and analysing that info based on my life experiences...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: jckeyser on July 23, 2007, 05:22:28 PM
    However, some of man's perceptions about the Creator are going to be true.

    Why?

    Because god LOVES you and bullshit bullshit bullshit
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on July 23, 2007, 08:19:32 PM
      You just have to decide for yourself which ones you believe to be true. 

    I chose to believe only those things for which I have reasonable evidence exist.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 23, 2007, 08:48:27 PM
      You just have to decide for yourself which ones you believe to be true. 

    I chose to believe only those things for which I have reasonable evidence exist.

    I see a great deal of reasonable evidence for the existance of a Creator...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on July 23, 2007, 08:52:38 PM
    Gene, we spend countless pages on your "evidence." It boils down to, "I feel it strongly, so I know it's true!"
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 23, 2007, 09:34:48 PM
    I've presented plenty of "evidence" that meets the requirement for legal testimony (which is all we have in regards to past events) here:

    http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=3398.msg62948#msg62948
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on July 23, 2007, 09:44:26 PM
    I've presented plenty of "evidence" that meets the requirement for legal testimony (which is all we have in regards to past events) here:

    http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=3398.msg62948#msg62948


    Selectively sifting through scientific data and keeping only what will support a predetermined outcome while ignore anything that contradicts it hardly constitutes valid evidence. Nor does creatively misinterpreting the data.

    No serious scientists looks at the evidence and actually reaches the conclusion that the earth is only a few thousand years old, for example.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 24, 2007, 08:11:29 AM
    I've presented plenty of "evidence" that meets the requirement for legal testimony (which is all we have in regards to past events) here:

    http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=3398.msg62948#msg62948


    Selectively sifting through scientific data and keeping only what will support a predetermined outcome while ignore anything that contradicts it hardly constitutes valid evidence. Nor does creatively misinterpreting the data.

    No serious scientists looks at the evidence and actually reaches the conclusion that the earth is only a few thousand years old, for example.

    Sorry mike, but "evolutionists" are just as guilty of all of the above.  Everyone has their "predetermined outcome" in mind when doing research.  "I think x is true.  Therefore if I do z it should result in y."  This is exactly why most big bang adherents believe there's something called "dark matter", since their "theories" can't be true without it...

    Of course their "theories" can't be true even if there is "dark matter" since if you try to compress all the estimated mass of the universe into a singularity it becomes so large (light years across) that if it did "explode" it could never reach enough velocity to escape...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on July 24, 2007, 11:25:25 AM
    We already covered all of that, Gene. You cannot claim use of science, and then deny the results of scientific data. The results are not open to wild "interpretation." For example, someone sails around the world, thus proving it is round. Someone cannot then say, "Well, that's his interpretation. I say that sailing around the world proves it is flat."

    You cannot find a serious scientists anywhere who accepts the idea that the universe is only a few thousand years old. Hell, I can go out in my backyard at night and find proof the universe is older than that!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 24, 2007, 10:20:48 PM
    We already covered all of that, Gene. You cannot claim use of science, and then deny the results of scientific data. The results are not open to wild "interpretation." For example, someone sails around the world, thus proving it is round. Someone cannot then say, "Well, that's his interpretation. I say that sailing around the world proves it is flat."

    You cannot find a serious scientists anywhere who accepts the idea that the universe is only a few thousand years old. Hell, I can go out in my backyard at night and find proof the universe is older than that!

    Yeah mike, tell me about "dark matter" why don't you??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: scooter on July 24, 2007, 10:29:17 PM
    No!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAntichrist on July 24, 2007, 10:29:54 PM
    Yes!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: scooter on July 24, 2007, 10:30:26 PM
    No!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAntichrist on July 24, 2007, 10:30:54 PM
    Yes!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on July 24, 2007, 10:38:03 PM
    Alright, I'll bite. Virtually all who have studied the matter conclude that dark matter exists. They have some very good reasons for accepting this, based on observations about the way the universe behaves. (If you want details on this, just poke around on the net for a bit, or go to any bookstore and look in the science section.)

    Scientists do not claim to know just what it is yet. But, they DO NOT say, "Hell, search us what the hell it is. Must be the work of some god."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 24, 2007, 10:43:34 PM
    Wow!  wtfk is back posting as me again.  He must really like me alot.  I take it as a complement that he wants to emulate me.  My own little "mini-me"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 24, 2007, 10:45:46 PM
    Alright, I'll bite. Virtually all who have studied the matter conclude that dark matter exists. They have some very good reasons for accepting this, based on observations about the way the universe behaves. (If you want details on this, just poke around on the net for a bit, or go to any bookstore and look in the science section.)

    Scientists do not claim to know just what it is yet. But, they DO NOT say, "Hell, search us what the hell it is. Must be the work of some god."

    Of course you cannot explain "dark matter" as demonstrated above.  It's because there's ZERO evidence of it's existance.  It is only BELIEVED to exist (concluded) by some scientists since their theories are dead in the water without it...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAntichrist on July 24, 2007, 10:56:33 PM
    Wow!  wtfk is back posting as me again.  He must really like me alot.  I take it as a complement that he wants to emulate me.  My own little "mini-me"...

    Any resemblance is purely for comic relief.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on July 24, 2007, 11:08:41 PM
    Of course you cannot explain "dark matter" as demonstrated above.  It's because there's ZERO evidence of it's existance.  It is only BELIEVED to exist (concluded) by some scientists since their theories are dead in the water without it...

    Gene, I think your knowledge of dark matter is somewhat limited. Evidence for the existence of dark matter comes from more than some need to fulfill a theory. In fact, cosmological theories were very comfortable without dark matter, except that observations of how galaxies and other cosmic structure behave indicated that some additional gravity was acting on them. Theory predicted these ought to be of a certain shape, but actual observation showed that something else was going on. Unlike religion, which must reinterpret reality to fit itself, science re-thinks its theories to fit new evidence. I doubt there is a single theory in science that has not been modified as new facts are discovered. (Unlike religion, which must twist or ignore anything that doesn't suit dogma.)

    This is no different from many other instances in science. At one time, science assumed that the sun went around the earth. Actual observation showed this to be incorrect--although for the life of them, scientists couldn't figure out what might keep the earth in orbit around the sun instead of flying off into space. Newton proposed a new force--gravity--which caused all objects to be attracted to one another. Has this force been observed? No--although it's effects are seen (just as are the effects of dark matter.) Does gravity exist? I hope so!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 25, 2007, 02:41:16 PM
    I think I get the jist of "dark matter"...  It's another fiction invented by the propagandists to promote a theory that otherwise doesn't hold water...

    "Definitely most astronomers are extremely unwilling to give up Newtons law," he says. "So its essentially a choice of two evils: You either hypothesize that Newtons law is wrong, and that our knowledge of the gravity theory is incomplete. Or, you hypothesize a fundamental microscopic particle that has never been detected in any physics lab, whose properties are only constrained by these astronomical observations. Which is a pretty uncomfortable position for physicists to be in."

    ..."But with dark matter as the explanation, Trimble says, "You only need one Tooth Fairy."

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/cosmic_darkmatt_020108-1.html

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 25, 2007, 03:12:07 PM
    Wow!  wtfk is back posting as me again.  He must really like me alot.  I take it as a complement that he wants to emulate me.  My own little "mini-me"...

    Any resemblance is purely for comic relief.

    A likely story.  Fess up, you really like me, you really, really like me (sob)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on July 25, 2007, 10:08:24 PM
    If you don't like the idea of dark matter, Gene, you need to hypotheses another idea that fits the observed phenomenon.

    I mean, something other than, "Well, I'll be damned if I can figure it out. Must be some supernatural agency at work."

    Are we also supposed to dismiss sub atomic particles as real because we can't actually see them?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 25, 2007, 10:40:40 PM
    If you don't like the idea of dark matter, Gene, you need to hypotheses another idea that fits the observed phenomenon.

    I mean, something other than, "Well, I'll be damned if I can figure it out. Must be some supernatural agency at work."

    Are we also supposed to dismiss sub atomic particles as real because we can't actually see them?

    Sorry, but you are accusing me of exactly what your beloved physicists are doing.  "Well I'll be darned if I can figure out why there not 10 times more matter in the universe as our theory supposes.  I guess there's some invisible matter at work here"...

    Are we also supposed to dismiss our Creator as real because we can't actually see Him??

    Boing, boing, boing - right back at ya...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on July 25, 2007, 11:00:16 PM
    No, we can dismiss him on the grounds that, unlike dark matter (or dark energy) there is no reasonable evidence for his existence.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 26, 2007, 07:24:49 AM
    No, we can dismiss him on the grounds that, unlike dark matter (or dark energy) there is no reasonable evidence for his existence.

    Excuse me but it's exactly as reasonable to say that since there's a "creation" that we cannot explain it's beginning, that there was a "Creator" which created it as it is to say that since our theories to a natural occurance is lacking 90% of it's matter that there is "dark matter" to fill the gap...

    Both are unobservable and both require faith to believe in.  I have my Creator, you have your "tooth fairy" as indicated in previous post...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on July 26, 2007, 08:53:02 AM


    Excuse me but it's exactly as reasonable to say that since there's a "creation" that we cannot explain it's beginning, that there was a "Creator" which created it as it is to say that since our theories to a natural occurance is lacking 90% of it's matter that there is "dark matter" to fill the gap...



    I'm unsure what you mean here. Are you going back to the argument from cause? (In which case, we have to wonder again about where the causer came from. Is there an endless regression of deities?) But, we KNOW reality exists. We can see it. It behaves in certain ways, and from that behavior, we can detect parts of it that we cannot see directly.

    Matters are different when it comes to supernatural beings. We can't see them--nor can we infer their existence from the behavior of matter in the universe.

    At one time, it was thought that planets moved because they were pushed by the hand of God. We are far past the time when people needed to evoke the gods to explain the movement of the planets. As I already said, scientists do not explain the unknown by writing it up to some act of God. If such were the case, then all science would have stopped long ago. Instead, they look for evidence for a real, actual, physical cause.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 26, 2007, 01:40:42 PM


    Excuse me but it's exactly as reasonable to say that since there's a "creation" that we cannot explain it's beginning, that there was a "Creator" which created it as it is to say that since our theories to a natural occurance is lacking 90% of it's matter that there is "dark matter" to fill the gap...



    I'm unsure what you mean here. Are you going back to the argument from cause? (In which case, we have to wonder again about where the causer came from. Is there an endless regression of deities?) But, we KNOW reality exists. We can see it. It behaves in certain ways, and from that behavior, we can detect parts of it that we cannot see directly.

    Matters are different when it comes to supernatural beings. We can't see them--nor can we infer their existence from the behavior of matter in the universe.

    At one time, it was thought that planets moved because they were pushed by the hand of God. We are far past the time when people needed to evoke the gods to explain the movement of the planets. As I already said, scientists do not explain the unknown by writing it up to some act of God. If such were the case, then all science would have stopped long ago. Instead, they look for evidence for a real, actual, physical cause.

    I guess you can't see that your "dark matter" is the same as a supernatural being in that you can't see it, measure it, determine it's existence by any know means.  It is only "believed" to be there because certain people WANT to believe it's there...

    So your scientists are "cultists"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on July 26, 2007, 04:32:47 PM
    One again, Gene--there is no reason for supposing the existence of a god. No observed phenomenon suggests the existence of a god. Observed phenomena does suggest the existence of additional matter that cannot be seen.

    Right now, I'm sitting in a room. In the next room, a bright light is on, illuminating the wall next to me. Now, if a shadow appears on that wall, I can safely assume that it's being case by some object between the wall and the light source. I don't have to actually SEE the object to know it's there.

    None of this proves that there is no god. You can have your "God of the gaps," if you want. That's fine, so long as He remains on the dark fringes, inhabiting those places not yet illuminated by the light of reason and science. But, I'm afraid that the guy's kingdom is shrinking all the time, as understanding of the real world increases.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 26, 2007, 06:08:13 PM
    Once again mike, there is NO observed phenomena that suggests the presence of "dark matter".  It's a "tooth fairy" invention because of a "THEORY" that cannot be true without it.  The theory could be that the moon is made of green cheese but we can't see it because there's something called "dark matter" that makes it invisible to us.  There is NO OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA suggesting "dark matter".  Get it yet??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on July 26, 2007, 06:14:18 PM
    You're wrong, Gene. Observations about the behavior of galaxies and other space structures shows that something is acting upon them. Changes in the velocity of distant space objects also shows the influence of dark matter. The distribution of matter throughout space is another indication that something is acting on the matter.

    But, I'm not going to do your research for you. There are plenty of good books out there that can do that, if you REALLY are interested. Bottom line is, your blank assertion is just plain wrong.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 26, 2007, 10:21:15 PM
    Bottom line is you still don't get it.  There are no "observations" that lead to the "conclusion" that there is "dark matter"...

    What there is is a "theory" regarding the genesis of the universe that is missing about 90% of the mass necessary for that theory to be true.  Rather than discard the theory as any honest scientist would do, they ask for the "tooth fairy" to make an invisible undetectable substance that contains as much as 90% of the mass of the universe just so they can continue to believe that their "theory" is true.  Talk about unbridled faith...  I need to use these men as examples...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on July 27, 2007, 08:07:02 AM
    Yeah, I guess I don't get it. Science is all about making observations, and then developing theories to explain those observations. For example, when Rutherford discovered the proton not because he SAW a proton, but by observing the influence it had on nitrogen gas. And, in the late Nineteenth Century when observed phenomenon on the nature of light did not jibe with the current theory, a new theory had to be developed by Einstein that explained the theory.

    Unlike religion, which is ridged and afraid of new data, scientific theory is ever-changing as new information based on observation makes things clearer.

    If celestial masses are behaving in ways that suggest some unobserved mass is influencing them, then it's a pretty safe bet that some unobserved mass actually IS at work.

    Sorry, but I just don't see what your gripe is about. Do you doubt the existence of OTHER things in nature that were found in similar ways? Say, atoms and electrons? Or, gravity?

    But, I probably won't be around to hear the answer (which I suspect will be simply another repeat of the same ol' same ol' anyway), since I am leaving on vacation in an hour and won't be back for awhile. (Unless I get lucky and find wi-fi somewhere.)

    In any case, I've already sinned too much in keeping this tired old thread going.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 27, 2007, 11:57:41 AM
    Yes, you're a sinner.  Still it's quite a bit different to apply scientific observations regarding observations and trying to fit what we see into a theory by adding an unknown.  The "theory" is the "big bang" (hardly a consensus in the scientific community).  There are several problems with this theory other than "dark matter" but in this area we observe a universe as it exists today (or 'x' light years ago) and try to force those observations into a theory of big banging...   In order for it to fit, we need to invent more mass to make known observations fit the theory.  The more logical conclusion would be to chuck the theory as it does not fit observations, but noooooo, we will make it fit by inventing fairly tales. 

    The other very large problem with the big bangaroo is that even the mass that we know of would (if compressed into a singularity) be so many light years across that no explosion could ever get any of the mass to escape velocity.  Oh well, we'll invent another tooth fairy for that problem.

    Let's just be honest about it and admit that science cannot explain the existence of the universe...


    PS.  Have a great vacation.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on September 24, 2007, 10:13:15 PM
    (http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/7465/jackhammerjesusnunbv3.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on September 24, 2007, 10:15:11 PM
    (http://static.flickr.com/11/13579816_ebd1acae7a.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bonerjoe on September 24, 2007, 10:17:11 PM
    (http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/4502/jesuslegumegs2.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 24, 2007, 10:17:50 PM
    Thanks for bumping my thread BJ...

    Have fun while I'm gone.  I have to fix my disc brakes...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 24, 2007, 11:53:21 PM
    Yes, you're a sinner.  Still it's quite a bit different to apply scientific observations regarding observations and trying to fit what we see into a theory by adding an unknown.  The "theory" is the "big bang" (hardly a consensus in the scientific community).  There are several problems with this theory other than "dark matter" but in this area we observe a universe as it exists today (or 'x' light years ago) and try to force those observations into a theory of big banging...   In order for it to fit, we need to invent more mass to make known observations fit the theory.  The more logical conclusion would be to chuck the theory as it does not fit observations, but noooooo, we will make it fit by inventing fairly tales. 

    The other very large problem with the big bangaroo is that even the mass that we know of would (if compressed into a singularity) be so many light years across that no explosion could ever get any of the mass to escape velocity.  Oh well, we'll invent another tooth fairy for that problem.

    Let's just be honest about it and admit that science cannot explain the existence of the universe...


    PS.  Have a great vacation.

    Gene, can you explain what sin is? Is there a punishment?

    I cannot explain sin, sorry.  I believe "punishment" is our grief when we realize how wrong we were during our lives...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on September 25, 2007, 12:02:07 AM
    Why can't you explain sin?  I think he's just looking for your personal take on it.  I'm pretty interested in it, myself.   :?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on September 25, 2007, 12:03:00 AM
    Going against the will of God is sin.

    What the will of God is is a whole different issue.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on September 25, 2007, 12:04:12 AM
    I cannot explain sin, sorry.  I believe "punishment" is our grief when we realize how wrong we were during our lives...

    Personally, I don't think sin exists. It is a creation of man which coded into writing. Say God, a.k.a the Universe created sin, then that would just be counterproductive. Sin creates a conflict with whatever is considered "good" in our society.

    I had thought of that before.  What is the point of the "temptation"?  Why create something if man (humans in general) should not have it?  Why not save yourself a few steps and just give us things that aren't forbidden? 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 25, 2007, 08:01:32 AM
    Why can't you explain sin?  I think he's just looking for your personal take on it.  I'm pretty interested in it, myself.   :?

    Suuurrrrre you are...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on September 25, 2007, 08:42:51 AM
    Why can't you explain sin?  I think he's just looking for your personal take on it.  I'm pretty interested in it, myself.   :?

    Suuurrrrre you are...

    Think what ever you may, Gene.  If you've come to the point where you refuse to have an adult conversation in a thread of your own making, I'm cool with that.  There are plenty of other people here who will actually directly answer a question when asked.  I don't need to lie or suck up to you, because I don't really like you much as of late.  And you don't care.  It's all good.  You used to contribute things of value, and now you've stopped.  Continue spamming, my friend. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 25, 2007, 09:41:02 AM
    Why can't you explain sin?  I think he's just looking for your personal take on it.  I'm pretty interested in it, myself.   :?

    Suuurrrrre you are...

    Think what ever you may, Gene.  If you've come to the point where you refuse to have an adult conversation in a thread of your own making, I'm cool with that.  There are plenty of other people here who will actually directly answer a question when asked.  I don't need to lie or suck up to you, because I don't really like you much as of late.  And you don't care.  It's all good.  You used to contribute things of value, and now you've stopped.  Continue spamming, my friend. 

    Forgive me for not taking you seriously.  In all my time here you have never been "interested" before and by your track record, I don't believe you are interested now.  You seem to have a lot more in common with the likes of BJ and that's your right...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Ceon on September 25, 2007, 10:04:23 AM
    Gene, don’t take your inability to defend your foolish arguments out on others.

    What you’re doing is petty and childish. Above all though it’s futile, I mean it clearly it isn’t having the desired effect you wanted. So why don’t you give it up and just go back to your old ways before no one wants to talk to you?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 25, 2007, 12:52:34 PM
    Gene, don’t take your inability to defend your foolish arguments out on others.

    What you’re doing is petty and childish. Above all though it’s futile, I mean it clearly it isn’t having the desired effect you wanted. So why don’t you give it up and just go back to your old ways before no one wants to talk to you?

    Uh, OK... You talked me into it...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bakerbaker on September 25, 2007, 05:36:34 PM
    how come your not spamming this thread with disgusting images, gene?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Ed on September 25, 2007, 05:38:23 PM
    Why can't you explain sin?  I think he's just looking for your personal take on it.  I'm pretty interested in it, myself.   :?

    Suuurrrrre you are...

    You used to contribute things of value

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :lol:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 25, 2007, 07:09:45 PM
    how come your not spamming this thread with disgusting images, gene?

    That's for others to do... (you know who you are)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on September 25, 2007, 07:42:57 PM
    Why can't you explain sin?  I think he's just looking for your personal take on it.  I'm pretty interested in it, myself.   :?

    Suuurrrrre you are...
    Think what ever you may, Gene.  If you've come to the point where you refuse to have an adult conversation in a thread of your own making, I'm cool with that.  There are plenty of other people here who will actually directly answer a question when asked.  I don't need to lie or suck up to you, because I don't really like you much as of late.  And you don't care.  It's all good.  You used to contribute things of value, and now you've stopped.  Continue spamming, my friend. 

    Forgive me for not taking you seriously.  In all my time here you have never been "interested" before and by your track record, I don't believe you are interested now.  You seem to have a lot more in common with the likes of BJ and that's your right...

    Yeah, because you're really interested in what I have to say.  Pfft.  Get off your soapbox.  If you looked at any of the threads you've been posting in, maybe you'd know differently.  Instead, you open them up, skim what you want, and post a nasty picture.  Before, you wouldn't even respond to any other threads.  Only your own special one.  Gene, really.  There's no need to be an asshole.  I'm an intelligent woman, but I can have a sick, twisted sense of humor if I damn well please.  I don't need validation from an individual posting pictures of children who have been crushed to death.  You can share, or you can keep it to yourself.  I'm not going to lose sleep over you and this BBS. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 25, 2007, 09:08:39 PM
    Let's see, there are 2095 posts in this thread and I have posted 2100+ times total.  Since at least 75% of the posts here (conservative estimate) are other than mine, that means I've posted somewhere near 500 times in this thread.  This means that over 75% of my posts have been in otherthreads (but lets not confuse anyone with facts)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on September 25, 2007, 10:23:33 PM
    Oh right.  Your truck threads, and that one time you decided you weren't going to respond in threads other than one you created...so everyone should look there to see what you had to say.  Come up with something new, you're not one to stick to fact.  They don't become you.  That's rich.  I like how you didn't address the point of my post, either.  Keep dodging, Gene.  Eventually you're going to get hit. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Ed on September 25, 2007, 10:41:09 PM
    Oh right.  Your truck threads, and that one time you decided you weren't going to respond in threads other than one you created...so everyone should look there to see what you had to say.  Come up with something new, you're not one to stick to fact.  They don't become you.  That's rich.  I like how you didn't address the point of my post, either.  Keep dodging, Gene.  Eventually you're going to get hit. 

    I've never seen him do anything besides dodge valid points people make about him or his posts. It's his specialty.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on September 25, 2007, 10:43:14 PM
    Oh right.  Your truck threads, and that one time you decided you weren't going to respond in threads other than one you created...so everyone should look there to see what you had to say.  Come up with something new, you're not one to stick to fact.  They don't become you.  That's rich.  I like how you didn't address the point of my post, either.  Keep dodging, Gene.  Eventually you're going to get hit. 

    I've never seen him do anything besides dodge valid points people make about him or his posts. It's his specialty.

    I think the rest of the free world has picked up on that too.  For the record, I like Nathyn better. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Ed on September 25, 2007, 10:44:17 PM
    Oh right.  Your truck threads, and that one time you decided you weren't going to respond in threads other than one you created...so everyone should look there to see what you had to say.  Come up with something new, you're not one to stick to fact.  They don't become you.  That's rich.  I like how you didn't address the point of my post, either.  Keep dodging, Gene.  Eventually you're going to get hit. 

    I've never seen him do anything besides dodge valid points people make about him or his posts. It's his specialty.

    I think the rest of the free world has picked up on that too.  For the record, I like Nathyn better. 

    Hell, I liked ballapuran better.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on September 25, 2007, 10:48:32 PM
    Like I said over at NHFree.  You come in to a forum, and basically imply that everyone there is wrong, and try to shove a solution up their asses...you're not going to get very far.  At least be skilled in the art of conversation. 

    This is like a vortex sucking in good conversation.  It spits it out in the form of a picture of a dead child.  Fuck this. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Ed on September 25, 2007, 11:03:52 PM
    and basically imply that everyone there is wrong, and try to shove a solution up their asses...


    Isn't this what Christians have been doing since the start of the religion? :lol:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on September 25, 2007, 11:07:00 PM
    and basically imply that everyone there is wrong, and try to shove a solution up their asses...


    Isn't this what Christians have been doing since the start of the religion? :lol:

    Exactly.  Bad habits send people to Hell. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Hologene Relapse on September 26, 2007, 12:12:30 AM
    Bottom line is you still don't get it.  There are no "observations" that lead to the "conclusion" that there is "dark matter"...

    Utter bullshit, dude. We can measure the variations in the motion of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. The only way they can be understood is with the energy and matter that is ambient, but not directly detectible (dark matter and dark energy). What you can't grasp is that we can measure this variation in each individual motion of each galaxy and cluster of galaxies. We can't measure God. God is outside of space and time, according to theologians. Therefore, God is not a matter of scientific inquiry, whereas dark matter and dark energy are matters of scientific inquiry. The fact, you have no knowledge of scientific methodology, and no wish to learn, pretty much makes your arguments at best, specious, and at worse, a waste of time.

    Gene, if you're so convinced in your views why do you even bother with us? The Bible states that if you are rejected by a 'town' you are to brush off the dust of that town off your sandles and get going, meaning you have attempted to bring people to The Word, and those who willingly reject it for various reasons, valid or invalid, are doomed and not of your concern anymore. This constant barrage of your views onto others proves that you have a grave doubt of them. And that's pretty damn sad to me, because I was there once, until I realized I didn't need faith to live a good life. It gets harder as you fight it, Gene, just come to your senses and live a good life, and tell faith to fuck off.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 26, 2007, 04:15:30 AM
    You're pretty good with the bible verses.  I encourage you to keep it up the study...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Hologene Relapse on September 26, 2007, 09:38:26 AM
    You're pretty good with the bible verses.  I encourage you to keep it up the study...

    In my 27 years of life, I have probably studied the Bible more than you.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 26, 2007, 01:32:19 PM
    Great.  I look forward to more wisdom from you...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Hologene Relapse on September 26, 2007, 02:16:34 PM
    Great.  I look forward to more wisdom from you...

    The Bible is a fraud. If you want to know the truth, check your premises.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 26, 2007, 04:27:41 PM
    Great.  I look forward to more wisdom from you...

    The Bible is a fraud. If you want to know the truth, check your premises.

    OK Mr. Attis, OOPS,  I mean Hologene...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Ed on September 26, 2007, 04:34:22 PM
    (http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/2673/atheistskj8.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 26, 2007, 09:09:54 PM
    Good advice, that...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on September 28, 2007, 06:12:57 PM
    Gene, everybody knows that the real reason the Bible was written was to embed the code needed to hide the true location to the Templar's gold. We all know that Jesus was the first Templar and had lots of French babies and they grew up and had more babies and then their babies begot more babies which grew up and still managed to wage war against the evil Pope regime and print paper money and charge interest and then use fractional reserve banking to rob kings of wealth and power to ultimately be hunted and destroyed and forever scorned. This is the simple, clearly written word of GOD we are talking about, here!

    You, too can become a disciple of God and Jesus, Gene. Hell, pray to Jacques DeMarlay if you want to. Just know that this requires you to do only one thing...die. Die so you can be reborn into that lovely paradise that your God has promised you! I know that this is your goal -you want to die, you really, really do!!!!!!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 28, 2007, 06:17:11 PM
    Thanks for your opinion, but you didn't get the message - you're supposed to be ignoring me.  Can't you pay attention???
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on September 28, 2007, 06:20:38 PM
    Sorry.

    My bible doesn't tell me to ignore you. Oh Christ! WWJD?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 02, 2007, 07:51:32 PM
    Sorry.

    My bible doesn't tell me to ignore you.

    Did you check 2nd Hezekiah??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on October 02, 2007, 11:23:57 PM
    *Sigh*

    (http://www.m-azlan.com/shows/neverending-story/pictures/nes1cd.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 03, 2007, 07:53:49 AM
    "And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us.  God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him."
    1 John 4:16
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: WallyC33 on October 06, 2007, 04:03:05 PM
    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.


    Although I disagree with your reasoning, I agree that christian anarchy is the only answer.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Mr. Snuggles on October 06, 2007, 04:07:17 PM
    "And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us.  God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him."
    1 John 4:16

    ChristianAnarchist, for the love of god, I will PAY you to delete this thread. There is nothing more boring than the bible. Nothing. Except for maybe a Greg Bear book. That would come close.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: foxdie on October 06, 2007, 04:44:52 PM
    Sorry.

    My bible doesn't tell me to ignore you.

    Did you check 2nd Hezekiah??

    Did you check 2nd Kiss my ass?? That's right beside 1:17 STFU.

    Bahahahaha
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Mr. Snuggles on October 06, 2007, 04:48:24 PM
    Sorry.

    My bible doesn't tell me to ignore you.

    Did you check 2nd Hezekiah??

    Did you check 2nd Kiss my ass?? That's right beside 1:17 STFU.
    AHAHAHAHA, awesome I missed this one!

    Richard, GRIDS may take you, but atleast you left this world with people around you laughing.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 06, 2007, 08:55:43 PM

    Although I disagree with your reasoning, I agree that christian anarchy is the only answer.

    In what regard do you disagree with my reasoning??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Kittenz on January 11, 2008, 01:37:52 AM
    Thank you Gene! I was so blind before...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 11, 2008, 01:40:13 AM
    Thank you Gene! I was so blind before...

    Oh, for fucks sake.

    This has to be Libman. Necro threading motherfucker.

    (I know who this really is.)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Kittenz on January 11, 2008, 01:43:41 AM
    Thank you Gene! I was so blind before...

    Oh, for fucks sake.

    This has to be Libman. Necro threading motherfucker.

    (I know who this really is.)

    Nope, I'm not Alex. This is Major Jizz.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 11, 2008, 08:21:27 AM
    HE'S ALIVE !!!!!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: jimmed on April 27, 2008, 12:41:42 AM
    NECRO THREAD!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Alex Libman on April 27, 2008, 02:57:55 AM
    I'z wazez kittenzez znotz'ez.

    But I'z makez ze diagramz ov ze beastz:

    (http://www.alexlibman.com/__imagebucket2/diagram-of-the-beast.gif)

    Zany queztizonz?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on April 27, 2008, 10:22:59 AM
    Revelations 13:

    1    And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea,  Dan. 7.3  having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.  Rev. 17.3--0.-12
    2    And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: Dan. 7.4-6 and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
    3    And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
    4    And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
    5    ¶ And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
    6    And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, Dan. 7.8, 25 ; 11.36 to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
    7    And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: Dan. 7.21 and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
    8    And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life Ps. 69.28 of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
    9    If any man have an ear, let him hear.
    10    He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: Jer. 15.2 he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
    11    ¶ And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
    12    And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
    13    And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
    14    and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
    15    And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
    16    And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
    17    and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
    18    Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

    ...

    (http://www.nationalclergycouncil.org/images/Barack%20Obama%20Official%20small.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: TheRothbardian on April 27, 2008, 10:54:39 AM
    I would be careful using the term "Christian Anarchist." This label has traditionally been used to identify communistic anarchists who just happen to be christian as well. One example is that of Leo Tolstoy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism#Leo_Tolstoy
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on April 27, 2008, 11:07:19 AM
    I would be careful using the term "Christian Anarchist." This label has traditionally been used to identify communistic anarchists who just happen to be christian as well. One example is that of Leo Tolstoy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism#Leo_Tolstoy

    I don't understand your point. As far as I can tell, anarchism is the only system communism can function correctly or voluntarily in. Gene very well may want to start his own Christian commune in Anarchtopia.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: TheRothbardian on April 27, 2008, 11:16:49 AM
    I would be careful using the term "Christian Anarchist." This label has traditionally been used to identify communistic anarchists who just happen to be christian as well. One example is that of Leo Tolstoy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism#Leo_Tolstoy

    I don't understand your point. As far as I can tell, anarchism is the only system communism can function correctly or voluntarily in. Gene very well may want to start his own Christian commune in Anarchtopia.

    Gene could, not sure if he would want to, but I do not believe that communism can ever actually work. Communes more often than not fail and there are economic theories, especially in Austrian economics, that illustrate why small communes are actually not communistic but instead are "household economies." This would be too complex of a discussion though.

    All I meant to say was that Christian Anarchism has a sort of communistic tinge to it that I think he should be aware of.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on April 27, 2008, 11:22:24 AM
    I would be careful using the term "Christian Anarchist." This label has traditionally been used to identify communistic anarchists who just happen to be christian as well. One example is that of Leo Tolstoy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism#Leo_Tolstoy

    I don't understand your point. As far as I can tell, anarchism is the only system communism can function correctly or voluntarily in. Gene very well may want to start his own Christian commune in Anarchtopia.

    Gene could, not sure if he would want to, but I do not believe that communism can ever actually work. Communes more often than not fail and there are economic theories, especially in Austrian economics, that illustrate why small communes are actually not communistic but instead are "household economies." This would be too complex of a discussion though.

    All I meant to say was that Christian Anarchism has a sort of communistic tinge to it that I think he should be aware of.

    I see what you mean.

    The only thing about communes not working, is if one cog in the machine disbelieves in the ideal. That's why it would be imperative for those starting the commune to interview every single person that decides to sign up. If one person disbelieves, the commune is doomed to failure.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: virobrat on April 29, 2008, 03:34:16 PM
    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.


    Ok so what if slavery became legal again, how should  the christian react if he finds himself a legal slave, in the old fashioned sense, according to your politcal belief of christian anarchy?

    By the way as far as i can understand the political solution you call christian anarchy, i do believe you are preaching another gospel, you are politicising the spiritual reality of the kingdom of heaven, which is both impossible and a sin.

    satan is the god of this age , dont you know?
    and the prince of this world,
    how then are you going to reform this world?

    the kingdom of heaven is not to do with this world.
    we are in the world but not of it.
    Christ will only do away with   the kingdoms of this world  and their present political orders at his return and replace them with his kingdom.

    All you will end up with , with your political model , will be like the false hope of communism(which was inveted by  catholic church by the way)  or even worse the blood thirsty rule of the roman catholic church.
    Oh they both same lol




    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Zhwazi on April 29, 2008, 03:44:07 PM
    FUCK FUCK FUCK GTFO FAGGOT YOURE GOING TO MAKE HIM COME BACK DAMMIT

    WHY WONT THIS THREAD DIE???
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: virobrat on April 29, 2008, 04:01:09 PM
    Libertarians will never obtain the freedom they desire, for presently they only want to use any freedom they have now as an excuse to offend and promote their own lusts..
    they are like brute beasts senseless and unreasoned, they have no means of sensible argument only the forces of ridicule and offence.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: virobrat on April 29, 2008, 04:13:36 PM
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
    Main Entry:
       
    Pronunciation:
        \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
    Function:
        noun
    Etymology:
        Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-
    Date:
        1539

    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 government2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order b: absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>3: anarchism

    Anarchy = Having no ruler

    Christian Anarchist is a contradiction in terms


    << 1 Peter 2 >>
    King James Bible   
    1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, all evil speakings, 2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: 3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

    4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

    6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

    7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

    8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

    9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

    11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; 12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

    13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: 16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. 17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

    18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. 19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.

    21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

    << 1 Peter 2 >>







    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: virobrat on April 29, 2008, 04:35:31 PM

    Although I disagree with your reasoning, I agree that christian anarchy is the only answer.

    In what regard do you disagree with my reasoning??

    Lol you joined in 2005? and have been ignored by only 5 members
    i joined about two weeks ago and have been ignored by 8 already seemingly, and  i think i am in the lead  of all the board also.

    i must be doing something right!
    I must keep going
    A true patriot is indeed a scarce thing , for they all seem to give allegience to their various countries and their various kings' instead of their true king and their hoped for eternal home.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Zhwazi on April 29, 2008, 05:12:06 PM
    Libertarians will never obtain the freedom they desire, for presently they only want to use any freedom they have now as an excuse to offend and promote their own lusts..
    they are like brute beasts senseless and unreasoned, they have no means of sensible argument only the forces of ridicule and offence.
    And Christians are arrogant dismissive irrational animals who think they're better than everybody else. All they know how to do is make morally assumptive overgeneralized claims about philosophies they clearly don't understand, deploying a pseudoimpersonal ad hominem argument as if to rebut a message which was in no way intended to rebut them in the first place.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: virobrat on April 29, 2008, 06:45:14 PM
    Libertarians will never obtain the freedom they desire, for presently they only want to use any freedom they have now as an excuse to offend and promote their own lusts..
    they are like brute beasts senseless and unreasoned, they have no means of sensible argument only the forces of ridicule and offence.
    And Christians are arrogant dismissive irrational animals who think they're better than everybody else. All they know how to do is make morally assumptive overgeneralized claims about philosophies they clearly don't understand, deploying a pseudoimpersonal ad hominem argument as if to rebut a message which was in no way intended to rebut them in the first place.

    I have seen no proof of what you say, but if you check out my claim there is infact ample proof.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Zhwazi on April 29, 2008, 06:49:56 PM
    Libertarians will never obtain the freedom they desire, for presently they only want to use any freedom they have now as an excuse to offend and promote their own lusts..
    they are like brute beasts senseless and unreasoned, they have no means of sensible argument only the forces of ridicule and offence.
    And Christians are arrogant dismissive irrational animals who think they're better than everybody else. All they know how to do is make morally assumptive overgeneralized claims about philosophies they clearly don't understand, deploying a pseudoimpersonal ad hominem argument as if to rebut a message which was in no way intended to rebut them in the first place.

    I have seen no proof of what you say, but if you check out my claim there is infact ample proof.


    I have seen no proof of what you say, but if you look in the mirror you'll find ample proof of what I say.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 19, 2008, 09:16:59 PM
    And Christians are arrogant dismissive irrational animals who think they're better than everybody else.

    Generalization - dismissed...

    I have not gone back and reviewed everything you have posted (and don't intend to) but as a Christian, I have to say that you are wrong as I do not fit your description above and I know that there are others who also do not fit that box...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 19, 2008, 09:18:09 PM
    And Christians are arrogant dismissive irrational animals who think they're better than everybody else.

    Generalization - dismissed...

    I have not gone back and reviewed everything you have posted (and don't intend to) but as a Christian, I have to say that you are wrong as I do not fit your description above and I know that there are others who also do not fit that box...


    Gene, have you ever been contacted by an Archangel?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 19, 2008, 09:25:33 PM
    no...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on May 20, 2008, 12:13:33 AM
    That sucks.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Alex Libman on May 20, 2008, 03:43:52 AM
    Dat does it, the first thing I do after I get my time machine working is I'm gonna drag Christ's ass over to CA's house and make them fuck on video tape!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Andy on May 20, 2008, 03:57:14 AM
    Dat does it, the first thing I do after I get my time machine working is I'm gonna drag Christ's ass over to CA's house and make them fuck on video tape!


    Why?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Alex Libman on May 20, 2008, 05:17:27 AM
    For the greater glory of... man.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Zhwazi on May 20, 2008, 08:37:05 AM
    Generalization - dismissed...
    Good, 'cause I was being 100% serious business just like my title says.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Alex Libman on May 20, 2008, 02:10:00 PM
    Gene, have you ever been contacted by an Archangel?

    Dat does it, the first thing I do after I get my time machine working is I'm gonna drag Christ's ass over to CA's house and make them fuck on video tape!
    Why?


    By the way, Jesus is also the archangel, Michael, as well as Abaddon/Appolyon from the book of Revelation.

    If you read the Bible and you don't know that, it's like watching the Godfather and not knowing they're Italian.

    :lol:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Porcupine_in_MA on May 20, 2008, 02:13:52 PM
    <-----Is a Baal fan.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: fields2grand on July 06, 2008, 10:37:30 PM
    is this thread dead too?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BonerJoe on July 06, 2008, 10:59:27 PM
    is this thread dead too?

    NIGGER
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on July 06, 2008, 11:54:26 PM
    is this thread dead too?

    Requesting ban on this shithead.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: meaticus on July 07, 2008, 03:48:26 PM
    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".
    I apologize for covering territory that's already been covered, if I do.
    I'd like to know why humans have this obsession with having a "creator."
    It makes perfect sense to me that we are conceived, and grow physically, and our soul does the same.
    We are our own creators.
    As to the rights of life and liberty, and the rights necessary for the preservation of those, they are not bestowed upon us, they are inherent because no other individual, or group has the authority to infringe upon them. "Endowed by our creator" is simply a term. It reflects the understanding of a man who was born over two hundred years ago. It isn't some kind of validation from a supreme authority on the existence of God, or intended to explain the source of our rights. Jefferson was a deist.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: meaticus on July 08, 2008, 08:15:13 PM

    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.

    First of all, the Founding Fathers held a mixture of beliefs that varied from one individual to another. Coming from a primarily WASPish culture, they spoke - and thought - in those terms, but their philosophy was solidly non-theistic.
    And the idea that individual sovereignty originated in the bible is also wrong. The concept is something that humans have an inherent understanding of (and struggle with), and that philosophers were thinking and writing about long before Paul (or Christ). The Bible is chock full of wonderfully insightful statements, but without a proof based in logic, a statement is just a statement (and open to misinterpretation). Most of what the bible has to say - especially the New Testament - is based in prior thought.

    The "New Idea" was largely accidental. It's true that the U.S. was the first attempt to design a country's government around the concept that the individual is sovereign, and to spell out that the individuals who hold positions in the government are still men - with no greater claim to authority than the common man, but it was the emergence of an adversarial two party power structure that limited government infringement upon individual sovereignty for so long.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freeAgent on July 08, 2008, 09:15:09 PM
    KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!

    This thread again?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: meaticus on July 09, 2008, 02:45:04 PM
    KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!

    This thread again?
    :twisted:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 12, 2008, 08:55:05 PM

    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.

    First of all, the Founding Fathers held a mixture of beliefs that varied from one individual to another. Coming from a primarily WASPish culture, they spoke - and thought - in those terms, but their philosophy was solidly non-theistic.
    And the idea that individual sovereignty originated in the bible is also wrong. The concept is something that humans have an inherent understanding of (and struggle with), and that philosophers were thinking and writing about long before Paul (or Christ). The Bible is chock full of wonderfully insightful statements, but without a proof based in logic, a statement is just a statement (and open to misinterpretation). Most of what the bible has to say - especially the New Testament - is based in prior thought.

    The "New Idea" was largely accidental. It's true that the U.S. was the first attempt to design a country's government around the concept that the individual is sovereign, and to spell out that the individuals who hold positions in the government are still men - with no greater claim to authority than the common man, but it was the emergence of an adversarial two party power structure that limited government infringement upon individual sovereignty for so long.

    Well, I think what I wrote about Jefferson here has pretty well covered it: http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=11164.msg178831;topicseen#msg178831
    Many say that he was a deist but I don't agree based on many things he wrote that express his belief in Christianity unless you are claiming that he was just foolin'.  And the same can be said for those "other" founding fathers you question.  I think that most of them were indeed Christian (again based on what they themselves wrote) but certain political types would like to undermine this idea and have an agenda in interpreting history differently.  After all, ALL history is questionable.  We were not there and we therefore have to go by what others have written (and some little archaeological evidence that usually has more than one interpretation)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BonerJoe on July 12, 2008, 09:41:56 PM
    NIGGGGGGGGER THREAD
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on July 13, 2008, 03:57:59 AM
    This thread makes baby Jesus cry.

    So why did you bump it you fucking moron?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: meaticus on July 15, 2008, 05:01:29 AM
    This thread makes baby Jesus cry.
    ummm. if u don't like it here, u can always leave :D
    heh heh
    (same 2 u boner)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: meaticus on July 15, 2008, 05:09:12 AM
    i'll respond to CA when i've got a little less of this cheap ass zinfandel runnin through my bloodstream :? :D :?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on July 15, 2008, 05:34:52 AM
    God damn you.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on July 15, 2008, 04:44:01 PM

    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.

    First of all, the Founding Fathers held a mixture of beliefs that varied from one individual to another. Coming from a primarily WASPish culture, they spoke - and thought - in those terms, but their philosophy was solidly non-theistic.
    And the idea that individual sovereignty originated in the bible is also wrong. The concept is something that humans have an inherent understanding of (and struggle with), and that philosophers were thinking and writing about long before Paul (or Christ). The Bible is chock full of wonderfully insightful statements, but without a proof based in logic, a statement is just a statement (and open to misinterpretation). Most of what the bible has to say - especially the New Testament - is based in prior thought.

    The "New Idea" was largely accidental. It's true that the U.S. was the first attempt to design a country's government around the concept that the individual is sovereign, and to spell out that the individuals who hold positions in the government are still men - with no greater claim to authority than the common man, but it was the emergence of an adversarial two party power structure that limited government infringement upon individual sovereignty for so long.

    Well, I think what I wrote about Jefferson here has pretty well covered it: http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=11164.msg178831;topicseen#msg178831
    Many say that he was a deist but I don't agree based on many things he wrote that express his belief in Christianity unless you are claiming that he was just foolin'.  And the same can be said for those "other" founding fathers you question.  I think that most of them were indeed Christian (again based on what they themselves wrote) but certain political types would like to undermine this idea and have an agenda in interpreting history differently.  After all, ALL history is questionable.  We were not there and we therefore have to go by what others have written (and some little archaeological evidence that usually has more than one interpretation)...

    He was a Christian Deist.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: hellbilly on July 15, 2008, 08:10:28 PM
    What's the question on this here topic anyway?

    Apparently, Christain (sp?) Anarchy [tm] is the only sensible answer.. but what's the question?

    I think maybe we need to start all over again on this one.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: rabidfurby on July 15, 2008, 09:57:50 PM
    but what's the question?

    "Are there any topics capable of generating an insanely long, goddamn annoying thread that will never, ever die?"
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 16, 2008, 04:07:40 PM
    I have allowed this thread to retire several times now, but others seem interested in "resurrecting" it, so there must be an interest.  I will continue to address questions directed my way if they are "real"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on July 16, 2008, 04:10:42 PM
    (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v99/zeonzumdeikun/why_we_cant_have_nice_things.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: hellbilly on July 16, 2008, 09:58:53 PM
    "Christian Anarchy" [tm] ..seriously, we need to [tm] that, get a copyright on it and protect the term as our very own Intellectual Property.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: trollfreezone on July 16, 2008, 11:33:08 PM
    "Christian Anarchy" [tm] ..seriously, we need to [tm] that, get a copyright on it and protect the term as our very own Intellectual Property.

    ...and send the feds after Gene to lock him up for using it...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on July 17, 2008, 03:56:14 PM
    (http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/5261/1216307977671xx3.jpg)
    Hah, well that pretty much sums it up
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BonerJoe on July 17, 2008, 05:25:59 PM
    I think I'm gonna become a Mormon. For the hot chicks that want to get married and have 19 kids.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bakerbaker on July 17, 2008, 05:28:31 PM
    I think I'm gonna become a Mormon. For the hot chicks that want to get married and have 19 kids.

    way too many
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BonerJoe on July 17, 2008, 05:29:14 PM
    I think I'm gonna become a Mormon. For the hot chicks that want to get married and have 19 kids.

    way too many

    Gotta have someone to take care of me when I get old.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bakerbaker on July 17, 2008, 05:31:17 PM
    I think I'm gonna become a Mormon. For the hot chicks that want to get married and have 19 kids.

    way too many

    Gotta have someone to take care of me when I get old.

    i suppose.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BonerJoe on July 17, 2008, 05:33:01 PM
    I think I'm gonna become a Mormon. For the hot chicks that want to get married and have 19 kids.

    Good luck in dealing with their oddball neoconservative families.

    Meh.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BonerJoe on October 18, 2008, 11:53:04 PM
    Shaddup, Hansen.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Stobrawa on October 19, 2008, 12:04:19 AM
    If Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer then the question is probably inane and irrelevant.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on October 19, 2008, 05:38:51 AM
    (http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/5261/1216307977671xx3.jpg)

    I think somewhere in there it needs to include that the Jewish zombie is his own dad. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 21, 2008, 08:50:42 PM
    Everyone reading this subject for the first time (new members) please review the start of this thread and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: rabidfurby on October 21, 2008, 11:35:16 PM
    Everyone reading this subject for the first time please get out while you still can.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BonerJoe on October 21, 2008, 11:36:45 PM
    Everyone reading this subject for the first time (new members) please review the start of this thread and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

    GOD DAMN IT
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on October 22, 2008, 08:12:54 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.

    Gene - first, let me say that I totally love to hear your calls on FTL. You're both witty and educated in the points you make to Ian and Mark, and it always adds to the show when you ring in. Keep calling in! :D

    However, while we both agree on anarchy, I would hasten to quiz you on how the xian doctrine is compatible with individualism and anarchy

    You have mentioned 'Adam and Eve' - my understanding of the xian concept of 'original sin' is that Adam/ Eve were punished due to accepting the Seprent's offer of 'knowledge.'

    How can you justify punishment of a person (of a whole world?!) who, simply, want to know more? Is god's action of denying 'knowledge' (self-awareness) not going to reduce the personal responsibility a person has, in favour of his totalitarian regime? Surely, to the individualist - as well as to the anarchist - 'knowledge' is not only power, but also vital?

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Elitist Bitch on October 22, 2008, 10:50:15 AM
    This thread needs to DIAF.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 22, 2008, 09:18:29 PM
    This thread needs to DIAF.

    Check the history.  I did not revive this thread but now that it's again active, I will address questions posed here (as below)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 22, 2008, 09:32:06 PM
    Gene - first, let me say that I totally love to hear your calls on FTL. You're both witty and educated in the points you make to Ian and Mark, and it always adds to the show when you ring in. Keep calling in! :D

    However, while we both agree on anarchy, I would hasten to quiz you on how the xian doctrine is compatible with individualism and anarchy

    You have mentioned 'Adam and Eve' - my understanding of the xian concept of 'original sin' is that Adam/ Eve were punished due to accepting the Seprent's offer of 'knowledge.'

    How can you justify punishment of a person (of a whole world?!) who, simply, want to know more? Is god's action of denying 'knowledge' (self-awareness) not going to reduce the personal responsibility a person has, in favour of his totalitarian regime? Surely, to the individualist - as well as to the anarchist - 'knowledge' is not only power, but also vital?



    Thank you.  I do use "logic" to come to my conclusion that God is real and that a man/God commonly referred to
    as "Jesus" lived and died (and was resurrected) some 2k years ago.  I do acknowledge that there is most probably
    some deterioration of the story over time.  I do not know exactly what has been changed but looking at the
    evidence we have, one would have to really stretch the facts to claim that "Jesus" did not exist.  You then
    have 3 logical conclusions.  Either He was a lunatic, or he was a charlatan, or He was indeed what has been
    recorded that He said he was - God incarnate.  Since most of the apostles died for their belief rather than
    "admit" it was all a hoax, it is highly unlikely that they did not believe.  Since we were not there, we have
    only the testimony of those who were.  We have to determine the reliability of the witnesses for ourselves.
    From my position, I find these men very believable and find the historical evidence also supportive of these
    conclusions.  There is a book called "More than a Carpenter" that I feel pretty much blows away the two
    arguments against Jesus being just who he says he is. 

    On the other side, I find the "logic" in evolution (as well as the facts) to be not convincing.  I also find
    most "scientists" that I used to work with at the University of Nevada Physics department to be quite
    understanding of my positions and even admitting that there is no proof that I am not correct. 

    Logic prevails...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on October 22, 2008, 10:28:07 PM
    This thread needs to DIAF.

    Check the history.  I did not revive this thread but now that it's again active, I will address questions posed here (as below)...

    You never DID answer me how that whole "salvation" thing works. Let's see...God kills his son, and by some Rube Goldberg system that absolves everyone else of their sins. Sorry, I just don't see the mechanism of this.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 22, 2008, 11:53:06 PM
    This thread needs to DIAF.

    Check the history.  I did not revive this thread but now that it's again active, I will address questions posed here (as below)...

    You never DID answer me how that whole "salvation" thing works. Let's see...God kills his son, and by some Rube Goldberg system that absolves everyone else of their sins. Sorry, I just don't see the mechanism of this.

    Maybe it's because I don't KNOW how the whole "salvation" thing works.  I can guess or speculate, but I don't think that's what you want.  I think what you want is "proof" and I don't have it and can't offer it.  As I've presented throughout this entire thread, it's my BELIEF.  I will pit my BELIEF against the BELIEF that we all crawled up from a gooey mess some billions of years ago any day. 

    Now as to what I BELIEVE after reading what I can find on the subject and weighing all of that against my personal logic, I conclude that man was CREATED perfect and sinless.  That through an act of rebellion against his Creator, our ancestor lost that perfection and imperfection (like an infection) set in causing death and misery in the lives of all human offspring.  This, I "believe" is the reason we see DNA information degrading over the last several thousand years (inbreeding and defective reproduction).  I do not understand how but this "sacrifice" of God becoming one of us and living among us and dieing for us is the "elixir" to our illness.  I do not believe in a "hell" as that seems to be a more recent belief that perhaps was a political tool (OH NO, SAY IT AIN'T SO) to scare people into submission.  I do believe that all men will someday reunite with their Creator as intended from the beginning (yes, even Jeffery Dalhmer). 

    Now, don't say I haven't addressed your question.  This is the best answer I can give you and I sure ain't going to guarantee you that it's correct...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on October 23, 2008, 03:21:08 AM
    looking at the evidence we have, one would have to really stretch the facts to claim that "Jesus" did not exist.  You then have 3 logical conclusions.  Either He was a lunatic, or he was a charlatan, or He was indeed what has been recorded that He said he was - God incarnate.

    It's funny but this is exactly the logical argument Gary Miller (http://www.islam101.com/science/GaryMiller.html) uses for Muhammad. In fact this is exactly the dilemma that the pagan Arabs of Arabia found themselves in arguing against Muhammad in his lifetime... (http://books.google.com/books?id=0OrCo4VyvGkC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=Ibn+Hisham+poet+sorcerer&source=web&ots=nO96c4_emw&sig=Cg7jqD0jv5PQJs-ewq56b-v26mo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result) except they also accused him of being a poet, and a sorcerer.

    I believe that Jesus was as he said he was, a prophet seeking not his own will, but the Will of Father.

    It's good to read you again Gene. It's been too long. As usual we basically agree... sort of. Or at least we've reached only slightly different conclusions the same way. Someday I'd like to discuss it over coffee.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on October 23, 2008, 04:26:57 AM
    This thread needs to DIAF.

    Check the history.  I did not revive this thread but now that it's again active, I will address questions posed here (as below)...

    Gene - thanks for the reply, however you didn't answer my questionl; why does 'knowledge' threaten god? Why is the pursuit of 'knowledge' seen not only as sinful, but as the very origin of sin?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 23, 2008, 07:51:19 AM
    This thread needs to DIAF.

    Check the history.  I did not revive this thread but now that it's again active, I will address questions posed here (as below)...

    Gene - thanks for the reply, however you didn't answer my questionl; why does 'knowledge' threaten god? Why is the pursuit of 'knowledge' seen not only as sinful, but as the very origin of sin?


    Knowledge does not threaten God.  The "knowledge" of good and evil (or rather the knowledge of how to DO evil) was what our Creator did not want for us.  As His creation, He loves us more than anything else and did not want for us to suffer (suffering is the result of doing evil).  As far as "scientific" knowledge, this is good for us as long as we use it constructively.  We, however, tend to use our knowledge for destruction instead.  No matter what our "new" discoveries are, we pervert them into weapons and death.  Even our newfound knowledge of DNA is being used to develop new "race specific" biological weapons.  My very good friend who is a professor at UNR physics department gets most of his funding for "stockpile stewardship".  All these "good" people are little cogs in the wheels of destruction and death.  I've said many times that "science" will ultimately end the human race when someone invents that one super machine capable of destroying us and some P.H.D. decides to "push the button" to see if it works...

    Don't even ask me for an "answer" to this problem as I don't think there is one.  Mankind is not capable of either of the two only "solutions" I see: 1. Cease all further advancement or 2. Use all future discoveries with responsibilities (yeah, right!!).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on October 23, 2008, 07:55:56 AM
    Maybe it's because I don't KNOW how the whole "salvation" thing works.  I can guess or speculate, but I don't think that's what you want.  I think what you want is "proof" and I don't have it and can't offer it.  As I've presented throughout this entire thread, it's my BELIEF.  I will pit my BELIEF against the BELIEF that we all crawled up from a gooey mess some billions of years ago any day. 

    Now as to what I BELIEVE after reading what I can find on the subject and weighing all of that against my personal logic, I conclude that man was CREATED perfect and sinless.  That through an act of rebellion against his Creator, our ancestor lost that perfection and imperfection (like an infection) set in causing death and misery in the lives of all human offspring.  This, I "believe" is the reason we see DNA information degrading over the last several thousand years (inbreeding and defective reproduction).  I do not understand how but this "sacrifice" of God becoming one of us and living among us and dieing for us is the "elixir" to our illness.  I do not believe in a "hell" as that seems to be a more recent belief that perhaps was a political tool (OH NO, SAY IT AIN'T SO) to scare people into submission.  I do believe that all men will someday reunite with their Creator as intended from the beginning (yes, even Jeffery Dalhmer). 

    Now, don't say I haven't addressed your question.  This is the best answer I can give you and I sure ain't going to guarantee you that it's correct...

    Of course, being God--who supposedly can do anything--He could have simply used his magic to resolve the situation without resorting to the whole "death on the cross" scenario. There really wasn't much need for all of the pain and angst.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 23, 2008, 08:26:49 AM
    Now, don't say I haven't addressed your question.  This is the best answer I can give you and I sure ain't going to guarantee you that it's correct...

    Of course, being God--who supposedly can do anything--He could have simply used his magic to resolve the situation without resorting to the whole "death on the cross" scenario. There really wasn't much need for all of the pain and angst.

    I guess He disagrees with you on that point...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on October 23, 2008, 09:04:45 AM
    Sigh.

    Gene, you are so deluded by dogma that you can't even see the inherent divinity displayed in your religious text of choice. Try reading the Bhagavad Gita sometime, or the Tao Te Ching. The Egyptian and Tibetan Books of the Dead are really good too. With some meditation you'll find the basic simple truth in every one of them.

    I'm so sorry for you...BUT, if it works for you, it works for you, eh mon capitán?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on October 23, 2008, 03:02:15 PM
    Gene, I think you are reading into the 'knowledge of good and evil' what you feel would suit your anarchy standpoint best.

    What we're really talking about is 'choice' - ie: choice to do what one wants; choice to do 'good' or 'evil' or whatever one decides is 'good' or 'evil.'

    Surely that's the most basic principle of liberty? Surely god's intervention was prohibition?

    In my opinion, religion is like the opposite of liberty. It takes personal responsibility away from its adherents and offers mind control (either blatant or subtle) in its place.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 23, 2008, 05:28:01 PM
    Gene, I think you are reading into the 'knowledge of good and evil' what you feel would suit your anarchy standpoint best.

    What we're really talking about is 'choice' - ie: choice to do what one wants; choice to do 'good' or 'evil' or whatever one decides is 'good' or 'evil.'

    Surely that's the most basic principle of liberty? Surely god's intervention was prohibition?

    In my opinion, religion is like the opposite of liberty. It takes personal responsibility away from its adherents and offers mind control (either blatant or subtle) in its place.

    Actually, God did just that.  He gave mankind the choice and mankind chose to "know" and "do" evil.  That's freedom.  God advised against it as He knows that evil only causes grief and pain.  If he didn't give them the freedom to do as they wanted, they never could have "eaten" from that tree now could they have?

     
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on October 23, 2008, 05:29:16 PM
    Actually, God did just that.  He gave mankind the choice and mankind chose to "know" and "do" evil.  That's freedom.  God advised against it as He knows that evil only causes grief and pain.  If he didn't give them the freedom to do as they wanted, they never could have "eaten" from that tree now could they have?

    Then Gods creation was flawed.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 23, 2008, 05:36:06 PM
    Sigh.

    Gene, you are so deluded by dogma that you can't even see the inherent divinity displayed in your religious text of choice. Try reading the Bhagavad Gita sometime, or the Tao Te Ching. The Egyptian and Tibetan Books of the Dead are really good too. With some meditation you'll find the basic simple truth in every one of them.

    I'm so sorry for you...BUT, if it works for you, it works for you, eh mon capitán?

    Oh but there is a great deal of truth in all those writings and many that you don't list.  One can take the truth and learn from it.  You also have to beware of the "changes" in all texts throughout history that corrupt those writings and the wisdom that was there.  I have no doubt that if you could read the ORIGINAL of all these texts (quite impossible, I'm afraid) you would have a much clearer representation of the "truth" (you may have forgotten that I spend some time in China each year)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 23, 2008, 05:37:07 PM
    Actually, God did just that.  He gave mankind the choice and mankind chose to "know" and "do" evil.  That's freedom.  God advised against it as He knows that evil only causes grief and pain.  If he didn't give them the freedom to do as they wanted, they never could have "eaten" from that tree now could they have?

    You have the logic of a child. Take a physics course at a community college or something... My goodness, Gene...

    Ah yes, perhaps I can take a course from you.  I'm sure that you could enlighten me...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 23, 2008, 05:47:24 PM
    Actually, God did just that.  He gave mankind the choice and mankind chose to "know" and "do" evil.  That's freedom.  God advised against it as He knows that evil only causes grief and pain.  If he didn't give them the freedom to do as they wanted, they never could have "eaten" from that tree now could they have?

    You have the logic of a child. Take a physics course at a community college or something... My goodness, Gene...

    Ah yes, perhaps I can take a course from you.  I'm sure that you could enlighten me...

    Seriously Gene... "He gave mankind the choice and mankind chose to "know" and "do" evil."
    Are you kidding me?

    Here's a test for you if you dare to take it...

    The planet Earth is warming primarily because of the gases emitted into the air by humans:    (  )  Yes          (   )  No

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on October 23, 2008, 05:53:07 PM
    If God knows the future and everything each person will choose to do before he even creates their soul, then man does not have free will and is in no way responsible for his actions.

    In a universe with a god who is all knowing, man is just a robot.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on October 23, 2008, 05:55:48 PM
    Answer - Four.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Balden on October 23, 2008, 06:04:30 PM
    Gene, I think you are reading into the 'knowledge of good and evil' what you feel would suit your anarchy standpoint best.

    What we're really talking about is 'choice' - ie: choice to do what one wants; choice to do 'good' or 'evil' or whatever one decides is 'good' or 'evil.'

    Surely that's the most basic principle of liberty? Surely god's intervention was prohibition?

    In my opinion, religion is like the opposite of liberty. It takes personal responsibility away from its adherents and offers mind control (either blatant or subtle) in its place.

    Actually, God did just that.  He gave mankind the choice and mankind chose to "know" and "do" evil.  That's freedom.  God advised against it as He knows that evil only causes grief and pain.  If he didn't give them the freedom to do as they wanted, they never could have "eaten" from that tree now could they have?

    In a world where omniscience is possible such as that allegedly possessed by Gods, how can "choice" be possible? Does not the capacity to know all imply that the world is deterministic? If God is omniscient, and if man is really deterministic, then why morality? Why should men be held responsible for what they do, when in reality they have no "choice" in their actions? "Ought implies can." -- Immanuel Kant
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Balden on October 23, 2008, 06:05:02 PM
    If God knows the future and everything each person will choose to do before he even creates their soul, then man does not have free will and is in no way responsible for his actions.

    In a universe with a god who is all knowing, man is just a robot.

    Damn, you beat me to it.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on October 23, 2008, 06:06:16 PM
    If God knows the future and everything each person will choose to do before he even creates their soul, then man does not have free will and is in no way responsible for his actions.

    In a universe with a god who is all knowing, man is just a robot.

    Damn, you beat me to it.

    You can say it again, because Gene never responds to me.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on October 23, 2008, 06:06:35 PM
    If God knows the future and everything each person will choose to do before he even creates their soul, then man does not have free will and is in no way responsible for his actions.

    In a universe with a god who is all knowing, man is just a robot.

    Exactly. Also, what kind of choice does god really offer throughout the old testament?

    'Live free or die'?

    Nope.

    'Worship me/ agree with me/ play mindgames with me/ kill who I tell you to kill (including babies), or die'

    judeo/ xian jaweh = liberty-free ethics

    You are right though, Gene, about various religions evolving from eachother. A quick dukie at Robert Graves' THE GREEK MYTHS (especially the creation myths) and you'll find variations on the same themes found in xianity.

    Jesus? Dionysus? Osiris (Egyptian mythology)? All playing the same tunes to different audiences.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on October 23, 2008, 06:09:46 PM
    If God knows the future and everything each person will choose to do before he even creates their soul, then man does not have free will and is in no way responsible for his actions.

    In a universe with a god who is all knowing, man is just a robot.

    Damn, you beat me to it.

    You can say it again, because Gene never responds to me.

    It's because we are dark sided and un-Godly to him.

    I think it might be because my arguments are fairly ironclad. He always apologizes and claims he didn't notice my post, and then never responds to the content.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Dylboz on October 23, 2008, 06:42:19 PM
    Everyone reading this subject for the first time (new members) please review the start of this thread and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

    Bizarre that you would choose that phrasing, when the whole Wizard of Oz thing was a metaphor for the evil men (bureaucrats and priests) pulling strings behind the scenes, threatening people with the might and power of a non-existent omnipotent force (God or the State), when they are really just impotent little manipulators hiding behind the curtains, afraid someone will discover their fraud and stop believing their lies.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 23, 2008, 07:13:55 PM
    Everyone reading this subject for the first time (new members) please review the start of this thread and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

    Bizarre that you would choose that phrasing, when the whole Wizard of Oz thing was a metaphor for the evil men (bureaucrats and priests) pulling strings behind the scenes, threatening people with the might and power of a non-existent omnipotent force (God or the State), when they are really just impotent little manipulators hiding behind the curtains, afraid someone will discover their fraud and stop believing their lies.

    Exactly why I used it...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 23, 2008, 07:17:34 PM
    If God knows the future and everything each person will choose to do before he even creates their soul, then man does not have free will and is in no way responsible for his actions.

    In a universe with a god who is all knowing, man is just a robot.

    Damn, you beat me to it.

    You can say it again, because Gene never responds to me.

    It's because we are dark sided and un-Godly to him.

    I think it might be because my arguments are fairly ironclad. He always apologizes and claims he didn't notice my post, and then never responds to the content.

    Poor Mr. Shaw.  Believe it or not (you can look at my post history if you want), I do not spend all my free time posting answers to the multitude of posts on this board.  Nothing personal.  I don't even find your "arguments" especially convincing nor unique.  I've heard all of this before and answered these points over and over.  Since I have limited time to respond I cannot give everyone personal attention.  I'm sorry you feel that I ignore you but if you will note the response to your post yesterday, I don't see how you can honestly make the claim...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 23, 2008, 07:23:42 PM
    A review of recent posts finds a concern that freewill cannot exist because God knows the future.  I hardly find this convincing.  Because someone has KNOWLEDGE of what you will do is not the same as MAKING you do it.  You have the freewill to make your decisions.  You were CREATED with freewill AND rights.  Your rights and your freewill follow you wherever you travel  in the universe.  When I'm in China, I have a right to keep and bear arms, for instance.  There are, however, armed CULT MEMBERS who feel (mistakenly) that they have authority to take my weapons or even kill me.  That does not mean that my rights do not exist, it means that a gang of thugs want to VIOLATE those rights.  If I were to carry a pistol in China (they are available on the black market) I would do so concealed.  Indeed, in China, it is less likely that I would be searched then here...


    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Balden on October 23, 2008, 07:35:11 PM
    A review of recent posts finds a concern that freewill cannot exist because God knows the future.

    But does God know what you will do before you yourself decide to do it? If so, then I can hardly see how this does not imply determinism, or that all actions are predetermined. Does God know weather I will vote for Obama, McCain, or not vote at all? If he knows for certain, for example, that I will vote for Obama, BEFORE I HAVE DECIDED TO DO SO MYSELF, then have I not been deprived of the opportunity to vote McCain? Why should I then be held responsible for the horrible policies of Obama, if I had no hand in deciding my fate?

    Why should Rosie O'Donnell be held responsible for her gun-grabbing ambitions if her actions are entirely knowable long before they ever occur to her, or long before O'Donnell is even born? How could she resist the apparently undeniable omniscience of GOD?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 23, 2008, 08:04:51 PM
    A review of recent posts finds a concern that freewill cannot exist because God knows the future.

    But does God know what you will do before you yourself decide to do it? If so, then I can hardly see how this does not imply determinism, or that all actions are predetermined. Does God know weather I will vote for Obama, McCain, or not vote at all? If he knows for certain, for example, that I will vote for Obama, BEFORE I HAVE DECIDED TO DO SO MYSELF, then have I not been deprived of the opportunity to vote McCain? Why should I then be held responsible for the horrible policies of Obama, if I had no hand in deciding my fate?

    Why should Rosie O'Donnell be held responsible for her gun-grabbing ambitions if her actions are entirely knowable long before they ever occur to her, or long before O'Donnell is even born? How could she resist the apparently undeniable omniscience of GOD?

    Having foreknowledge of how an event will end does not affect the outcome of the event nor influence the event.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on October 23, 2008, 08:16:49 PM
    Sigh.

    Gene, you are so deluded by dogma that you can't even see the inherent divinity displayed in your religious text of choice. Try reading the Bhagavad Gita sometime, or the Tao Te Ching. The Egyptian and Tibetan Books of the Dead are really good too. With some meditation you'll find the basic simple truth in every one of them.

    I'm so sorry for you...BUT, if it works for you, it works for you, eh mon capitán?

    Oh but there is a great deal of truth in all those writings and many that you don't list.  One can take the truth and learn from it.  You also have to beware of the "changes" in all texts throughout history that corrupt those writings and the wisdom that was there.  I have no doubt that if you could read the ORIGINAL of all these texts (quite impossible, I'm afraid) you would have a much clearer representation of the "truth" (you may have forgotten that I spend some time in China each year)...

    the Will of Father.

    This is all the truth that you need. However, you have to read between the lines.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Balden on October 23, 2008, 08:30:57 PM
    A review of recent posts finds a concern that freewill cannot exist because God knows the future.

    But does God know what you will do before you yourself decide to do it? If so, then I can hardly see how this does not imply determinism, or that all actions are predetermined. Does God know weather I will vote for Obama, McCain, or not vote at all? If he knows for certain, for example, that I will vote for Obama, BEFORE I HAVE DECIDED TO DO SO MYSELF, then have I not been deprived of the opportunity to vote McCain? Why should I then be held responsible for the horrible policies of Obama, if I had no hand in deciding my fate?

    Why should Rosie O'Donnell be held responsible for her gun-grabbing ambitions if her actions are entirely knowable long before they ever occur to her, or long before O'Donnell is even born? How could she resist the apparently undeniable omniscience of GOD?

    Having foreknowledge of how an event will end does not affect the outcome of the event nor influence the event.

    If God knows, with 100% absolute certainty, that person A will decide to perform action B, before person A is ever born, does this not deprive person A the ability to perform action C instead? If person A can defy God's foreknowledge, and instead perform action C, then God is not omniscient, for his prediction was false.

    Furthermore, I think it is important to note that we are debating free will and decision, not mere unconscious events. You can predict that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, but this is insignificant to our debate about free will, since the sun (presumably) has no free will. However, if I could predict with absolute certainty the decisions of others, then this renders the decisions of others deterministic, because it constricts their field of action to only one possible choice: my will, or rather my prediction. Anything less would invalidate my omniscience.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on October 23, 2008, 11:22:01 PM
    Oh but there is a great deal of truth in all those writings and many that you don't list.  One can take the truth and learn from it.  You also have to beware of the "changes" in all texts throughout history that corrupt those writings and the wisdom that was there.  I have no doubt that if you could read the ORIGINAL of all these texts (quite impossible, I'm afraid) you would have a much clearer representation of the "truth" (you may have forgotten that I spend some time in China each year)...
    the Will of Father.
    This is all the truth that you need. However, you have to read between the lines.

    With all respect Gene... the Quran is still an anomaly in your world view. Even secular academics agree it's unchanged. You can read the ORIGINAL. If your arguing for a prophetic origin of all the scriptures, like it seems you are, I think it's worth your consideration. Also, it post dates the Gospel... which means, if it's origins are authentic, it could clear up the deteriorations in the story that you even acknowledge.

    So I'm curious... have you read it? And if so... what was Muhammad

    (  ) Lunatic     (  ) Charlatan     (  ) Poet    (  ) Sorcerer   (  ) A prophet seeking not his own will, but the Will of God.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on October 23, 2008, 11:43:55 PM
    Oh but there is a great deal of truth in all those writings and many that you don't list.  One can take the truth and learn from it.  You also have to beware of the "changes" in all texts throughout history that corrupt those writings and the wisdom that was there.  I have no doubt that if you could read the ORIGINAL of all these texts (quite impossible, I'm afraid) you would have a much clearer representation of the "truth" (you may have forgotten that I spend some time in China each year)...
    the Will of Father.
    This is all the truth that you need. However, you have to read between the lines.

    With all respect Gene... the Quran is still an anomaly in your world view. Even secular academics agree it's unchanged. You can read the ORIGINAL. If your arguing for a prophetic origin of all the scriptures, like it seems you are, I think it's worth your consideration. Also, it post dates the Gospel... which means, if it's origins are authentic, it could clear up the deteriorations in the story that you even acknowledge.

    So I'm curious... have you read it? And if so... what was Muhammad

    (  ) Lunatic     (  ) Charlatan     (  ) Poet    (  ) Sorcerer   (  ) A prophet seeking not his own will, but the Will of God.


    Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about the Quran or Islam itself, just the four little words you mentioned (hey, four words! Tetragrammaton anybody?).

    (x) Poet   
    (x) Sorcerer   
    (x) A prophet seeking not his own will, but the Will of God.

    But here's my analysis from what I've read.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on October 23, 2008, 11:52:48 PM
    Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about the Quran or Islam itself, just the four little words you mentioned (hey, four words! Tetragrammaton anybody?).

    (x) Poet   
    (x) Sorcerer   
    (x) A prophet seeking not his own will, but the Will of God.

    But here's my analysis from what I've read.

    Thelemite?

    I don't believe we've met Dr. Z. but this is the Crowley party line on Muhammad. Just curious.

    EDIT: And that was five words... the Pentagrammaton?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on October 24, 2008, 12:02:23 AM
    Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about the Quran or Islam itself, just the four little words you mentioned (hey, four words! Tetragrammaton anybody?).

    (x) Poet   
    (x) Sorcerer   
    (x) A prophet seeking not his own will, but the Will of God.

    But here's my analysis from what I've read.

    Thelemite?

    I don't believe we've met Dr. Z. but this is the Crowley party line on Muhammad. Just curious.

    EDIT: And that was five words... the Pentagrammaton?

    Dude, it's Taors. Come on, now. And no, I'm not a Thelemite.

    You said 4 words, not 5. The Will of Father. I assume that you were referring to "I AM BECOMING THAT I AM BECOMING"?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on October 24, 2008, 12:11:51 AM
    You said 4 words, not 5. The Will of Father. I assume that you were referring to "I AM BECOMING THAT I AM BECOMING"?

    Wow... this conversation makes so much more sense now... what's up man?
    I thought you meant the words that were options (prophet, lunatic, charlatan, poet, sorcerer)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on October 24, 2008, 12:14:55 AM
    You said 4 words, not 5. The Will of Father. I assume that you were referring to "I AM BECOMING THAT I AM BECOMING"?

    Wow... this conversation makes so much more sense now... what's up man?
    I thought you meant the words that were options (prophet, lunatic, charlatan, poet, sorcerer)

    Nothing much. Just trying to waft through all this fucking dogma.

    Your dogma's cooler than Gene's though. At least the 5 prayer positions are yogic in nature and actually DO something. You can hardly find anything like that in Christianity! At least, modern day Christianity. The Gnostics knew their shit.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on October 24, 2008, 12:51:19 AM
    Nothing much. Just trying to waft through all this fucking dogma.

    Your dogma's cooler than Gene's though. At least the 5 prayer positions are yogic in nature and actually DO something.

    I just recently found a book called, "To Pray as a Jew." It was by an Orthodox Rabbi trying to call people back to Judaism's original ritual, which incidentally was just about identical to the Islamic prayer, even included washing before prayer.

    (http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c333/ArtBurn2005/JewishProstrate.jpg)

    In all likelihood this is how Jesus... and all the prophet's prayed. Probably why yoga is what it is today.





    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on October 24, 2008, 11:14:41 AM
    Nothing much. Just trying to waft through all this fucking dogma.

    Your dogma's cooler than Gene's though. At least the 5 prayer positions are yogic in nature and actually DO something.

    I just recently found a book called, "To Pray as a Jew." It was by an Orthodox Rabbi trying to call people back to Judaism's original ritual, which incidentally was just about identical to the Islamic prayer, even included washing before prayer.

    (http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c333/ArtBurn2005/JewishProstrate.jpg)

    In all likelihood this is how Jesus... and all the prophet's prayed. Probably why yoga is what it is today.


    I don't think there's any doubt that Jesus knew about the energy centers in the body.

    http://www.amazon.com/Yoga-Jesus-Understanding-Teachings-Gospels/dp/0876125569
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 24, 2008, 12:35:54 PM
    I have no doubt about the advantages of yoga and that the ancients knew more than we do today about understanding our world.  We confuse ourselves with test tubes (not that they aren't useful) and forget about our own harmony with the creation and our fellow men (neuter gender gals...).

    I have to claim ignorance about Muhammad as I have not read the Koran and don't know when I will have the time to check it out.  I have no aversion to reading it but of course I have pre-conceived notions of what is there because of what others have told me.  I have learned along time ago, however, to not put too much stock in what others say.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on October 24, 2008, 12:50:24 PM
    the ancients knew more than we do today about understanding our world.

    Only because it's been hidden from us. It's still there.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 24, 2008, 01:41:32 PM
    A review of recent posts finds a concern that freewill cannot exist because God knows the future.

    But does God know what you will do before you yourself decide to do it? If so, then I can hardly see how this does not imply determinism, or that all actions are predetermined. Does God know weather I will vote for Obama, McCain, or not vote at all? If he knows for certain, for example, that I will vote for Obama, BEFORE I HAVE DECIDED TO DO SO MYSELF, then have I not been deprived of the opportunity to vote McCain? Why should I then be held responsible for the horrible policies of Obama, if I had no hand in deciding my fate?

    Why should Rosie O'Donnell be held responsible for her gun-grabbing ambitions if her actions are entirely knowable long before they ever occur to her, or long before O'Donnell is even born? How could she resist the apparently undeniable omniscience of GOD?

    Having foreknowledge of how an event will end does not affect the outcome of the event nor influence the event.

    If God knows, with 100% absolute certainty, that person A will decide to perform action B, before person A is ever born, does this not deprive person A the ability to perform action C instead? If person A can defy God's foreknowledge, and instead perform action C, then God is not omniscient, for his prediction was false.

    Furthermore, I think it is important to note that we are debating free will and decision, not mere unconscious events. You can predict that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, but this is insignificant to our debate about free will, since the sun (presumably) has no free will. However, if I could predict with absolute certainty the decisions of others, then this renders the decisions of others deterministic, because it constricts their field of action to only one possible choice: my will, or rather my prediction. Anything less would invalidate my omniscience.

    At this point we simply have to disagree.  I do not see your claim that simply knowing something in advance affects the outcome.  I do not accept that supposition and if you do, then we will never be able to come to agreement.  You are seeing a problem that I simply don't see as real.  I don't believe that just because God knows what you will do before you do it removes your ABILITY to have chosen a different path.  It's simply that He KNEW what path you would ultimately CHOOSE. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 24, 2008, 01:44:07 PM
    As a side note I now see that I have "delete" privileges here on this thread (not sure if this is the new policy).  Now everyone MUST behave or the great and powerful CA will make you vanish, BUAHHHH, HAAAA, HAAA HA...

    Edit:  Just found the reason for the change.  Good idea...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on October 24, 2008, 01:57:23 PM
    I have no doubt about the advantages of yoga and that the ancients knew more than we do today about understanding our world.  We confuse ourselves with test tubes (not that they aren't useful) and forget about our own harmony with the creation and our fellow men (neuter gender gals...).

    I have to claim ignorance about Muhammad as I have not read the Koran and don't know when I will have the time to check it out.  I have no aversion to reading it but of course I have pre-conceived notions of what is there because of what others have told me.  I have learned along time ago, however, to not put too much stock in what others say.

    You know Gene, I appreciate that. If you ever decide you want some materials PM me an mailing address and I'll make you a care package.

    And Dr. Z... is there a better word than Thelemite? I always jump to that term because that's my background, what term do you use? Unless perhaps have you ascended beyond the level of distinction making ;)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: bakerbaker on October 24, 2008, 02:00:11 PM
    the ancients knew more than we do today about understanding our world.

    Only because it's been hidden from us. It's still there.

    it's buried next to the ark of the covenant.
    zelda told me what's up.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on October 24, 2008, 05:22:06 PM
    A review of recent posts finds a concern that freewill cannot exist because God knows the future.  I hardly find this convincing.  Because someone has KNOWLEDGE of what you will do is not the same as MAKING you do it.  You have the freewill to make your decisions.  You were CREATED with freewill AND rights.  Your rights and your freewill follow you wherever you travel  in the universe.  When I'm in China, I have a right to keep and bear arms, for instance.  There are, however, armed CULT MEMBERS who feel (mistakenly) that they have authority to take my weapons or even kill me.  That does not mean that my rights do not exist, it means that a gang of thugs want to VIOLATE those rights.  If I were to carry a pistol in China (they are available on the black market) I would do so concealed.  Indeed, in China, it is less likely that I would be searched then here...

    My problem isn't with predestination, Gene - although, I do agree that is an outrageous scorn of liberty - yet, I've more of a problem with god's character (mainly in the OT) and behaviour throughout the scriptures.

    The god I read about is a tyrant - a raping, pillaging, genocide-inducing, jealous bastard, with no care for either life or liberty. Here's a glimpse at him at his very worst:

    First there's the book of Job. What we have there, in essence, is a wager between god and satan. Biblegod is challenged (because he's bored one day?) to torture a man in order to test his faith. Job loses literally everything - his wife, kids, possessions, livestock, health etc. Just so god can prove a point...

    ...that's not a fun god.

    Need more convincing?

    A little flesh-eating for the horror fans:
     
    (Lev 26:27-28 NRSV) But if, despite this, you disobey me, and continue hostile to me, I will continue hostile to you in fury; I in turn will punish you myself sevenfold for your sins.

    (Lev 26:29 NRSV) You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters.

    (Jer 19:9 NRSV) And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and all shall eat the flesh of their neighbors in the siege, and in the distress with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them.

    And here's more baby-killing sponsored by the ever-charitible god:

    (Exo 12:29 NRSV) At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the prisoner who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock.

    (Ezek 20:26 NRSV) I defiled them through their very gifts, in their offering up all their firstborn, in order that I might horrify them, so that they might know that I am the LORD.

    (Hosea 13:16 NRSV) Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.

    (Lev 26:22 NRSV) I will let loose wild animals against you, and they shall bereave you of your children…

    Now, is that a nice god? Taken out of context, perhaps? Think about it this way - if all of the above was written in Mein Kampf, would you be trying to find a context that lets Hitler off the hook?

    You can grab a lot of stuff from the bible to show god at his very worst - a dictator who will kill, mame and spread disease over his own and other gods' followers. The above is just a brief overview. I could go on for pages and pages.

    Anyway, I'll leave you to it, Gene. Mucho respect to you, dude. I don't think any of us are going to budge on our positions :)

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: rabidfurby on October 24, 2008, 06:50:08 PM
    As a side note I now see that I have "delete" privileges here on this thread (not sure if this is the new policy).

    Deleting posts by anyone who disagrees with you is the only sensible answer.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on October 24, 2008, 07:37:04 PM
    I have no doubt about the advantages of yoga and that the ancients knew more than we do today about understanding our world.  We confuse ourselves with test tubes (not that they aren't useful) and forget about our own harmony with the creation and our fellow men (neuter gender gals...).

    I have to claim ignorance about Muhammad as I have not read the Koran and don't know when I will have the time to check it out.  I have no aversion to reading it but of course I have pre-conceived notions of what is there because of what others have told me.  I have learned along time ago, however, to not put too much stock in what others say.

    And Dr. Z... is there a better word than Thelemite? I always jump to that term because that's my background, what term do you use? Unless perhaps have you ascended beyond the level of distinction making ;)

    Thelema is a specific religion started by Aleister Crowley in the early 20th century with the introduction of the Ordo Templi Orientis, based on The Book of the Law that was supposedly channeled through him in Egypt in the spring of 1904. I don't think it's bad or anything, it's just not for me, at least in my current stage of development. First and foremost, I consider myself open minded in all things. I have been a Christian, an agnostic, an existentialist, an atheist, an Objectivist, a fascist, and a socialist among other things throughout my life. Secondly, you could call me a modern day shaman, or mystic. Personally I'm fond of the term Renaissance Man, but call me what you will.

    I like to employ many techniques from various schools of thought (an example would be sigil magic, which is more about developing the psyche into an ideal model of your choosing...in other words, dominating the subconscious to control actions you might otherwise not have any control over; Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Yoga, Neuro-Linguistic Programming, psychedelic experience, etc.), and a Qabalistic magician/Hermeticist second because it's the philosophy/practice I most agree with and get the most out of at the present moment.

    Some people disagree on whether or not the 'entities' and 'beings' magicians and shaman work with are 'real', whatever that means. A lot of magic has to do with psychology, and one line of thought is that these beings are various archetypes within the mind representing different modes of the psyche. Having a relationship with these beings can lead to deeper insight of the self. I don't have enough experience in invocation or evocation to have an informed opinion on the matter; however...whatever these beings are, communication with them is very real, and through our PMs I believe you know what I'm talking about. They are known as the Jinn in Islam, and they have been with humanity since the beginning of time.

    At the moment I'm in the process of contacting Auriel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auriel), the Archangel of the element Earth. All I will say is that I was pleasantly surprised earlier this morning. :P
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BonerJoe on October 24, 2008, 07:37:36 PM
    DO CHRISTIANS LOVE FILIPINOS?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on October 24, 2008, 09:13:11 PM
    I'm not going to move or delete the above post - Gene can take care of that one if he wants to.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BonerJoe on October 24, 2008, 09:13:55 PM
    I'm not going to delete the above post - Gene can take care of that one if he wants to.

    GENE WONT DELETE IT BECAUSE HE'S NOT A RACIST, UNLIKE SOMEONE NAMED SCHUYLER?

    WHO THE FUCK NAMES A KID SOMETHING GAY LIKE THAT ANYWAYS?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 25, 2008, 08:40:30 AM
    A review of recent posts finds a concern that freewill cannot exist because God knows the future.  I hardly find this convincing.  Because someone has KNOWLEDGE of what you will do is not the same as MAKING you do it.  You have the freewill to make your decisions.  You were CREATED with freewill AND rights.  Your rights and your freewill follow you wherever you travel  in the universe.  When I'm in China, I have a right to keep and bear arms, for instance.  There are, however, armed CULT MEMBERS who feel (mistakenly) that they have authority to take my weapons or even kill me.  That does not mean that my rights do not exist, it means that a gang of thugs want to VIOLATE those rights.  If I were to carry a pistol in China (they are available on the black market) I would do so concealed.  Indeed, in China, it is less likely that I would be searched then here...

    My problem isn't with predestination, Gene - although, I do agree that is an outrageous scorn of liberty - yet, I've more of a problem with god's character (mainly in the OT) and behaviour throughout the scriptures.

    The god I read about is a tyrant - a raping, pillaging, genocide-inducing, jealous bastard, with no care for either life or liberty. Here's a glimpse at him at his very worst:

    First there's the book of Job. What we have there, in essence, is a wager between god and satan. Biblegod is challenged (because he's bored one day?) to torture a man in order to test his faith. Job loses literally everything - his wife, kids, possessions, livestock, health etc. Just so god can prove a point...

    ...that's not a fun god.

    ...........

    Now, is that a nice god? Taken out of context, perhaps? Think about it this way - if all of the above was written in Mein Kampf, would you be trying to find a context that lets Hitler off the hook?

    You can grab a lot of stuff from the bible to show god at his very worst - a dictator who will kill, mame and spread disease over his own and other gods' followers. The above is just a brief overview. I could go on for pages and pages.

    Anyway, I'll leave you to it, Gene. Mucho respect to you, dude. I don't think any of us are going to budge on our positions :)


    Yes, all that and more is in the group of writings that several men in the past decided to group together into one place and name "The Bible".  I'm not sure how true all of it is and certainly doesn't sound like the Creator I know and love.  I know a loving Creator who lets us learn from our environment, but I don't believe he helps to make us more miserable for fun.  So is He suffering from a dual personality?  I don't think so.  I can only believe that those things either never occurred or occurred differently than is recorded. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 25, 2008, 08:55:29 AM
    I'm not going to move or delete the above post - Gene can take care of that one if he wants to.

    Not sure why I'd delete it or why you would.  It's just a comment about Filipinos. 
    DO CHRISTIANS LOVE FILIPINOS?
    (Of course Christians love all peoples)

    I might delete him just because he's mean and nasty but in this case he's not particularly so.  I'm not sure why joe's status has been changed to "shithead" but I've had nothing but trouble from the beginning with him.  I do, however find the idea of changing someones status to "shithead" to be just plain childish.  If someone is causing trouble on the boards just warn them and then ban them.  I really disagree with banning someone for "racist" comments anyway.  Free speech includes unpopular speech and God knows you allow all kinds of unpopular garbage on this board.  Racist speech is not the most vulgar for sure and sometimes can be quite funny (lighten up everyone).  We used to have a much better sense of humor when I was young.  Indeed, racist humor can really show how stupid racism really is.  Indeed, allowing someone to show they are a rabid racist can show how stupid racism really is.  Why is it only "black" people can have fun with racist humor?? 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on October 25, 2008, 02:18:56 PM
    gene, check out the rubber room thread to get a better idea about bonerjoe aka hansen.

    Also, we've been clear the humor is generally excluded, and Ive even made a safe zone for their idiocy...
    Title: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: JohnnyRebel on October 25, 2008, 02:19:39 PM
    God didn't torture Job.  Satan tormented Job and God allowed it because He knew that Job's faith was strong enough to stand against anything Satan could do outside of death.

    It rains on the just and the unjust much like the sun shines on the plowing of the wicked.

    What is the foundation of your faith Gene?  If you question the Bible I wonder how you could accept any of it.  What part is true and what part isn't?  Do you decide what parts are false based on how they fit your reality?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on October 25, 2008, 02:24:10 PM
    God didn't torture Job.  Satan tormented Job and God allowed it because He knew that Job's faith was strong enough to stand against anything Satan could do outside of death.

    1. Actually, Job's faith did falter.

    2.  God, in this scenario, is still a douchebag.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on October 25, 2008, 02:29:30 PM
    Shhh. Christians don't like talking about the book of Job.

    In before "The old testament doesn't apply anymore"
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: JohnnyRebel on October 25, 2008, 02:36:49 PM
    1. Actually, Job's faith did falter.

    2.  God, in this scenario, is still a douchebag.


    please explain
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on October 25, 2008, 02:49:08 PM
    1. Actually, Job's faith did falter.

    2.  God, in this scenario, is still a douchebag.


    please explain

    The original concept was that Satan basically double-dog dared God to test one of his children not to give up faith, and God took him up on it. It went down pretty much like this:

    8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."

    9 "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. 10 "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."

    12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."

    What happens next? Well, first Job's servants are all killed. Then all of his sheep are burnt by fire from heaven. The some guys run off with his camels. Then the roof falls in on his sons and daughters, and smashes them all flat. What does Job say?

    "Naked I came from my mother's womb,
    and naked I will depart. [c]
    The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away;
    may the name of the LORD be praised."

    So Satan comes back to check in with God-- "Hey God, how's it going with your servant?"
    God: "Still worships me, nyah nyah."
    Satan: "Oh really? I know-- strike at his body, that'll do the trick!"

    So Job was then covered with painful sores from head to toe. Job's wife says "Holy crap, Job, how long are you going to worship a god who allows this?" Job replies "Shut up, bitch!" Job's friends come to visit, and they can barely recognize him, he looks so bad. They weep and tear their clothes apart, then sit with him for a week without saying anything about how terrible he looks.

    Job seems to have an idea, though, because he then curses the day he was born, wishing instead that he had been buried as a stillborn child. To say that Job is in a funk is an understatement.

    Then somebody named Eliphaz the Temanite (who?) speaks up: "Hey Job, quit your bitching! God brought you into this world, and he can take you out!" He takes a very long time to say this.

    Job replies: "God really seems to have it in for me. I really wish he would just kill me off now, and have done with it......dammit." He takes a very long time to say this.

    Then somebody named Bildad the Shuhite (who?) speaks up: "Hey Job, don't be dogging on God like that. He has your back, really. You'll see. Any time now, you'll see!"

    Job replies: "Yeah, I guess you're right. I didn't do anything wrong, but I hate myself anyway. God is still awesome, of course."

    Then somebody named Zophar the Naamathite (good god, how long is this conversation going to be?) speaks up: "Hey man, don't even pretend like you're blameless. God will smite you down for talk like that, and you'll deserve it."

    Job replies: "Well, shit. Everybody's laughing at me. The world doesn't seem beautiful anymore. But since God created it, I guess that's his prerogative."

    Then Eliphaz the Temanite says: "God's gonna wash out your mouth with soap, boy!"

    Job replies: "Yeah, I know. But I'm going to go ahead and say it: God's being a real dickweed."

    Then Bildad the Shuhite says: "Start talking some sense again, and I'll talk to you. But that's enough of that!"

    Job replies: "Meh. If you're not going to help me, just go away. I'm sick of you guys yelling at me. I haven't seen any of you all covered in sores lately."

    But they did not go away. They stuck around and argued with him for a while longer. Job, meanwhile, continued to complain. For a very, very long time.

    So finally the three guys figure out that Job wasn't going to budge, and they stop hassling him.
    But Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, shows up. He's very angry with Job for justifying himself rather than God.

    So Elihu takes his turn arguing with Job for a while, but doesn't get any further than the other guys.

    But then-- FINALLY-- God himself decides to show up: "Job, you smartass! You weren't here when I made the earth, were you? No, I didn't think so. No, shut up-- you've done enough talking. You weren't here when I hung the stars, am I correct? English boy, do you speak it? No, I guess you speak Hebrew. Anyway, my point being....shut up, bitch. My way or the highway.

    Job replies: "All right, you win. I suck. I am the slime of the universe. I despise myself-- I'm just going to go dig a hole and lie in it now, okay?"

    Then God castigates Job's friends for butting in on Job's business, and tells them that if they go sacrifice some bulls for him and Job prays for them, they'll be fine. So they do, and he does, and they are. Then God throws a big party for Job and his friends, and all of his brothers and sisters (who have escaped death for some reason) attend. God gives Job a bunch of cash, and some more sons and daughters to replace the ones who were smashed to death earlier. And a whole bunch of livestock.

    Later, God to Satan: "You owe me a dollar. You shouldn't have bet me anyway, you know, because I'm omniscient (that means all knowing), so I knew all along that this would be the way things turn out!"

    Satan: "If you knew all along, then why the hell did you allow Job to have his entire life destroyed like that?"

    God: "Errr...."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on October 25, 2008, 02:55:07 PM
    And let's not even get into Lot turning over his daughters to be gang raped by a bunch of dudes who wanted to bone some angels that were hanging at his crib.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on October 25, 2008, 04:21:10 PM
    Suppose there are two boys, a small younger brother and his bigger brother, who protects him from the neighborhood bully. The little brother looks up to and respects his big brother.

    Bully: "Your little brother only likes you because you protect him."

    Big Brother: "Oh, yeah? Well, he'll still like me even if I stand by and let you beat the shit out of him."

    Bully beats the shit out of the little brother. Oh nos!

    That's pretty much the story of Job. Oh, and the message was supposed to be, "Hey, I'm God. I made you and I can do whatever the hell I want!" In fact, God gives almost this exact speech in the book.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on October 25, 2008, 05:05:54 PM
    You can grab a lot of stuff from the bible to show god at his very worst - a dictator who will kill, mame and spread disease over his own and other gods' followers. The above is just a brief overview. I could go on for pages and pages.


    Yes, all that and more is in the group of writings that several men in the past decided to group together into one place and name "The Bible".  I'm not sure how true all of it is and certainly doesn't sound like the Creator I know and love.  I know a loving Creator who lets us learn from our environment, but I don't believe he helps to make us more miserable for fun.  So is He suffering from a dual personality?  I don't think so.  I can only believe that those things either never occurred or occurred differently than is recorded. 

    Geez, Gene. How can I reply to that?!  :lol:

    You've made your mind up despite the evidence weighting against you. I guess you get something very personal out of your faith - and more power to you for it. But, you got to see how many, many people aren't going to agree with you that 'xian anarchy is the only sensible answer'  :?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 25, 2008, 05:40:04 PM
    God didn't torture Job.  Satan tormented Job and God allowed it because He knew that Job's faith was strong enough to stand against anything Satan could do outside of death.

    1. Actually, Job's faith did falter.

    2.  God, in this scenario, is still a ______bag.

    Rillian, I realize you are one who hates the discussion of God but this is your one and only warning.  Since I now have delete privileges on this thread, I want everyone to know that such language can be taken elsewhere.  Start your own posts if you want to be offensive, but I will delete such in the future...

    And to further clarify, I will not tolerate language wherein the sole purpose is to ridicule God.  Ridicule me all you want...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on October 25, 2008, 05:43:22 PM
    And to further clarify, I will not tolerate language wherein the sole purpose is to ridicule God.  Ridicule me all you want...

    //Joke// I RIDICULE GENE BECAUSE HE WORSHIPS SKY WIZARDS!!!!1111 //Joke//

    Seriously though, you should really just start a blog and be done with it, Gene. Share your message with the people who want to hear it, and save yourself the trouble with the people who don't.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on October 25, 2008, 06:09:00 PM
    God didn't torture Job.  Satan tormented Job and God allowed it because He knew that Job's faith was strong enough to stand against anything Satan could do outside of death.

    1. Actually, Job's faith did falter.

    2.  God, in this scenario, is still a ______bag.

    Rillian, I realize you are one who hates the discussion of God but this is your one and only warning.  Since I now have delete privileges on this thread, I want everyone to know that such language can be taken elsewhere.  Start your own posts if you want to be offensive, but I will delete such in the future...

    And to further clarify, I will not tolerate language wherein the sole purpose is to ridicule God.  Ridicule me all you want...

    1.  Your supposed knowledge of me is invalidated by the fact that you can't even spell my name correctly.
    2.  Delete whatever you want.  If there is indeed a god, then your moronic egomania is more effective ridicule to him than anyone here could hope for.  Believers in God inevitably seem to insult him more in their belief than non-believers ever could in their non-belief. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on October 25, 2008, 06:31:42 PM
    And to further clarify, I will not tolerate language wherein the sole purpose is to ridicule God.  Ridicule me all you want...

    I wouldn't dream of ridiculing you, Gene, but, for me, the statement 'Xian anarchy is the only sensible answer' represents the very opposite of common sense - for all the reasons I've mentioned thus far, and more.

    Perhaps you may wish to revise that statement?

    Your replies to my posts have shown how, while you reject evolution due to your perceived kack of evidence for such, you're quite willing to accept very shaky evidence for the existance of your seemingly very flexible understanding of god. How can 'Xian anarchy' be the 'only sensible answer' if it defies common sense as well as any form of academic scrutiny?

    I'm quite comfortable with a statement like 'xian anarchy is my answer' (ie: Gene's answer) but, without a doubt, it is not the 'only sensible answer.'
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 26, 2008, 09:20:52 AM
    And to further clarify, I will not tolerate language wherein the sole purpose is to ridicule God.  Ridicule me all you want...

    I wouldn't dream of ridiculing you, Gene, but, for me, the statement 'Xian anarchy is the only sensible answer' represents the very opposite of common sense - for all the reasons I've mentioned thus far, and more.

    Perhaps you may wish to revise that statement?

    Your replies to my posts have shown how, while you reject evolution due to your perceived kack of evidence for such, you're quite willing to accept very shaky evidence for the existance of your seemingly very flexible understanding of god. How can 'Xian anarchy' be the 'only sensible answer' if it defies common sense as well as any form of academic scrutiny?

    I'm quite comfortable with a statement like 'xian anarchy is my answer' (ie: Gene's answer) but, without a doubt, it is not the 'only sensible answer.'

    This thread has always been presented as why I believe that "Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer" and as such the title is accurate.  I have admitted (if one would care to review past posts - which I know only a madman would) that "(fill-in-the-blank religion) anarchy is also a good answer".  The reasoning behind the statement is that without a belief in a Creator who made us for a purpose, the practice (or rather reality of) anarchy would not be as preferred because of a lack of moral basis.  Whatever your views about "religion", you have to admit that it at least gives the believers a basis to try to uphold some moral standard.  If one "believes" in evolution and life springing up from non-life for no particular reason or purpose, you really have no argument against people who simply want to "rape and pillage"  after all, passing the "seed" to as many "hatcheries" would be the only "purpose" in evolution.  Gaining as much pleasure as one could gain with total disregard for others would be "acceptable" as you have no rules (at least today we still condemn such behavior even though it is common).

    As far as "evolution" having supposed "evidence" I've addressed it long ago but we can address it again if you wish.  I will state that for one to believe that "everything" came from "nothing" "onaconabecause" takes a lot more faith than I have (cosmic evolution has to precede biological evolution unless you believe that the universe has always existed and then you have to explain how that could be...)

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on October 26, 2008, 02:33:10 PM
    I think there's a fundamental disconnect when people people take Gene's thesis and then try to argue whether or not God is liberty minded because of His actions in the Bible. Gene's thesis of Christian Anarchy, as well as mine of Muslim Nonarchy, concerns how men should treat one another, and is largely based upon the idea that government men have no legitimate authority. Arguing that God is not libertarian is as asinine as arguing that gravity is not libertarian. It's a non sequitur. Allah al-Malik... God is Sovereign. The act of creation is by fundamentally an initiation of force. Were God not liberty minded freewill would not exist at all, but like gravity, consequences result from freewill, and freewill is limited by the physical world. Call it God, call it Nature, call it whatever you like, the character of the Creator, the Sovereign, the Sustainer is not relevant this this thesis UNLESS one believes that the Sovereign grants authority to some men to aggress against others. Gene's thesis, and mine, is that He doesn't.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on October 26, 2008, 05:50:14 PM
    Call it God, call it Nature, call it whatever you like, the character of the Creator, the Sovereign, the Sustainer is not relevant this this thesis UNLESS one believes that the Sovereign grants authority to some men to aggress against others. Gene's thesis, and mine, is that He doesn't.

    And my thesis, is that "He" (quoted because I use that term loosely) is neutral in the matter.

    Without people initiating force, we would not have the kind of life-changing drama that all of us are currently experiencing. There would be no heroes, and there would be no romance. In order for Jesus to be captured, and to die on the cross, Judas Iscariot and his actions had to exist at some point in time and space. Without them, in modern day Christian theology, there would be no salvation. All the world is a stage.

    The fact that 'they' exist, makes victory against 'them' all the more sweeter...and in my opinion, brings us closer to divinity.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on October 26, 2008, 06:35:35 PM
    It's like arguing whether Santa is a free-stater.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on October 26, 2008, 06:37:01 PM
    It's like arguing whether Santa is a free-stater.

    I'm pretty sure he's not.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 26, 2008, 06:41:36 PM
    It's like arguing whether Santa is a free-stater.

    I'm pretty sure he's not.

    I have good information that he is (sorry, my source is confidential...)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on October 26, 2008, 06:55:10 PM
    It's like arguing whether Santa is a free-stater.

    I'm pretty sure he's not.

    I have good information that he is (sorry, my source is confidential...)


    Dude, I got my shit directly from an elf. Your source is probably a gnome. You know how those gnomes are.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Russell Griswold on October 26, 2008, 06:56:39 PM
    You know how those gnomes are.

    They are filthy liars! Please excuse my language...  :oops:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on October 27, 2008, 03:00:56 PM
    I think there's a fundamental disconnect when people people take Gene's thesis and then try to argue whether or not God is liberty minded because of His actions in the Bible. Gene's thesis of Christian Anarchy, as well as mine of Muslim Nonarchy, concerns how men should treat one another, and is largely based upon the idea that government men have no legitimate authority. Arguing that God is not libertarian is as asinine as arguing that gravity is not libertarian. It's a non sequitur. Allah al-Malik... God is Sovereign. The act of creation is by fundamentally an initiation of force. Were God not liberty minded freewill would not exist at all, but like gravity, consequences result from freewill, and freewill is limited by the physical world. Call it God, call it Nature, call it whatever you like, the character of the Creator, the Sovereign, the Sustainer is not relevant this this thesis UNLESS one believes that the Sovereign grants authority to some men to aggress against others. Gene's thesis, and mine, is that He doesn't.

    I would feel very ashamed of myself if I was to subscribe to a god who raped and pillaged. Even if god (or whatever name you wish to give to your chosen sky-deity) did exist (and the evidence against such is heavily weighted) I wouldn't worship him - what's written about him disgusts me.

    In fact, the very act of worship is against liberty, and personal responsibility, in my opinion.

    However, the act of respecting others' rights to worship is VERY MUCH what liberty is about - so, eat your heart out, guys. I would fight for your rights to worship whatver the hell you wished to worship, and I trust you would do the same.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on October 27, 2008, 04:32:16 PM
    This thread should be titled "Cosmic Monarchy is the only sensible answer." or perhaps it should be a cosmic dictatorship, right Gene? After all, there can only ONE all powerful creator being right? That creator having ultimate power over everything?

    I find it interesting that you don't mix your beliefs in anarchy with your beliefs in how the universe should be run.
    Vote Jesus in 2008!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on October 27, 2008, 04:37:54 PM
    Aw hell.

    (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: NHArticleTen on October 27, 2008, 04:44:44 PM
    It's like arguing whether Santa is a free-stater.

    I'm pretty sure he's not.

    damn, there goes christmas...

    what about the Great Pumpkin...

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on October 27, 2008, 04:46:20 PM
    (http://larcho.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/can_of_worms_ahead.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: NHArticleTen on October 27, 2008, 04:47:58 PM

    (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)
    (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)
    (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)
    (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)(http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn1.gif)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on October 27, 2008, 04:48:10 PM
    SHAW UFO UBER ALLES

    (http://www.shackpics.com/download.x?file=JohnsPolitics_3qxerg9qhhs2o9rd332n.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 27, 2008, 07:27:37 PM
    This thread should be titled "Cosmic Monarchy is the only sensible answer." or perhaps it should be a cosmic dictatorship, right Gene? After all, there can only ONE all powerful creator being right? That creator having ultimate power over everything?

    I find it interesting that you don't mix your beliefs in anarchy with your beliefs in how the universe should be run.
    Vote Jesus in 2008!

    Actually you are correct that God is a Monarch.  "Democracy" is quite evil as we of the liberty movement can see.  The "creation" will never be able to unseat the "Creator" as that would be against nature.  I've made it clear from the start that I'm an "anarchist" as far as any human "monarch" or "ruler".  I recognize none.  They are nothing more than MEN who use FORCE to STEAL and PILLAGE.  Eventually they succumb to a someone who overturns them (or their successor) by "FORCE".  The old saying "live by the sword..."

    To be an "anarchist" towards your own Creator would be foolish as well as "against nature"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Russell Griswold on October 27, 2008, 07:34:09 PM
    When I think of monarchies, I think of violent czars of Russia. They stole land from poor folks and created collectivist dictatorships.  :(
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: hellbilly on October 27, 2008, 07:44:28 PM
    Jesus kinda sorts rules by force don't he?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on October 27, 2008, 07:48:11 PM
    "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it."
    Matthew 10:34-39
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on October 27, 2008, 07:52:46 PM
    I'm guessing by the above quote... more of a dictator than a monarch right?

    Quote
    To be an "anarchist" towards your own Creator would be foolish as well as "against nature"...

    You must take that "Honour Thy Parents" thing really seriously...
    I know a girl who was raped by her father... In more ways that one, for since then, she now lives her life for Jesus.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on October 27, 2008, 07:55:12 PM
    (http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_01/mosesHeston2703_468x611.jpg)

    (http://sharprightturn.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/charleton-heston-the-ten-commandments1.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on October 27, 2008, 08:00:00 PM
    http://www.foundrymusic.com/audio.cfm?id=4953
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on October 27, 2008, 08:02:31 PM
    religous faggots

    A. You spelled "religious" incorrectly.

    B. I hope Gene deletes your post, because you're an ass.

    C. PLATINUM PENIS.


    EDIT: Also "sovereignty", "concerned", and "succumb".
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Russell Griswold on October 27, 2008, 08:39:58 PM
    Isn't sock-puppetry fun?!

    I'm betting, it's error.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BonerJoe on October 27, 2008, 09:29:03 PM
    Obviously it's Travis.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Lindsey on October 27, 2008, 09:31:32 PM
    I'm going to leave it up to Gene to delete this from his own thread.  He is an AMPlifier, isn't he? 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Russell Griswold on October 27, 2008, 10:20:06 PM
    I'm betting, that you, fail at, grammar.

    Go away.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on October 28, 2008, 03:19:35 AM
    Well, I guess Gene will be happy that something in this thread made me say "JESUS CHRIST!"

    Thanks for fucking up my day, asshole. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on October 28, 2008, 03:52:56 AM
    Fucker is perma-ignored and banned from all my threads. Fuck that.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on October 28, 2008, 04:43:19 AM
    Moderately self censored out of respect for Gene, because Gene offers people the same respect (highlight for censored words)
    (even though I think his overall world view is total crap, and destroys my opinion of him as a person)

    Well, I'm definitely done attempting to clean up the intentional hatred on the BBS. Ian's reversal of my shitheading of this asshole poster (who,  at the time I did so, had all of THREE posts before starting up with this bullshit) makes it clear that Ian wants a policy of "no poster left behind" on the BBS. I didn't delete the posts, I left that to Gene, since this IS an amper thread... I also don't have a problem with the content of either post - but I do have a problem with the intent, which is to intentionally be a fuckhead, and piss people off and ruin someone's day.
    I see the BBS as a potential to say - look here's a variety of choices for where you can post your shit... The Annoying assholes go over here, and rational over there... Everybody has a choice... I'm not gonna fuck with a thread where people are just having fun and telling jokes, or looking at lewd pictures of things they think are hot. I do feel the need to intervene when people are deliberately being rude and trying to fuck with other posters on the BBS.

    Ian is giving in to the fucks that want to take over the BBS and he's gonna treat it like a poverty level public school where the disruptive kids don't get booted the fuck out of class, or tossed in the corner with a dunce cap like they should. Instead, just like a public school, everyone is going to be forced together.
    I tried to take the middle ground between Error (boot everyone who is an asshole off the BBS entirely) and Julia (don't moderate anyone for anything) and make a place for the assholes to get drunk and have their party posts where they mutually masturbate one another over how clever they think they are at the virtual equivalent of slapping "kick me" signs on people's backs. (A place where being disrespectful is expected, regardless of what the content is)

    I guess the real message is that if you want a decent, respectful BBS, it's obvious that you should take a cue from Ian and go elsewhere. He's posted as many posts this month on another bbs (One that is less than 1/100th the size and activity level as this BBS) and when you take into account how many of the posts on this bbs were just about the business of the show... It's pretty clear... It's time to just give up on the FTL bbs. The FTL bbs is now the place to go if you want to see cock pics and read unoriginal racist jokes, without the benefit of the memes that 4chan provides.

    Why am I announcing this? I just want to warn people that having a rational conversation without being molested exactly like what has happened in this thread - it's probably unlikely going forward. Enough assholes have gathered that want to collectively take a dump on this BBS that they will do so until everyone they can mess with leaves, and obviously nothing is going to be allowed to be done to change that.

    I think it's a really stupid move... I think the point about what program directors will see is completely valid... What new listeners will see - even MORE valid... (who wants to try to join a new community only to be crapped on and disrespected?) but it must simply be that I just want to censor people and take away freedom of speech, so... I'm not going to do that anymore. Have fun destroying threads people... No one is going to stop you, unless they happen to be an amper and watching their threads at the time.

    If you are interested in porn pics, racism, and / or unoriginal formulaic humor - by all means, stick around. I know I won't be trying to act like a moderator anymore - it's a FREE FOR ALL on the FTL BBS... No respect for ANYONE. Wheeeeeeeee!!!!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on October 28, 2008, 08:49:25 AM
    This thread should be titled "Cosmic Monarchy is the only sensible answer." or perhaps it should be a cosmic dictatorship, right Gene? After all, there can only ONE all powerful creator being right? That creator having ultimate power over everything?

    I find it interesting that you don't mix your beliefs in anarchy with your beliefs in how the universe should be run.
    Vote Jesus in 2008!

    Actually you are correct that God is a Monarch.  "Democracy" is quite evil as we of the liberty movement can see.  The "creation" will never be able to unseat the "Creator" as that would be against nature.  I've made it clear from the start that I'm an "anarchist" as far as any human "monarch" or "ruler".  I recognize none.  They are nothing more than MEN who use FORCE to STEAL and PILLAGE.  Eventually they succumb to a someone who overturns them (or their successor) by "FORCE".  The old saying "live by the sword..."

    To be an "anarchist" towards your own Creator would be foolish as well as "against nature"...

    This is a crucial point for me, Gene.

    If god was any more just than a human monarch, he wouldn't use FORCE to STEAL and PILLAGE, yet he very clearly sanctions those very things A LOT in the old testement.

    So, it begs the question of why you would place your trust in or worship a being whose behaviour is equal to/ worse than any human monrch thus far?

    A clear answer in plain english, please!  :D
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 28, 2008, 12:18:00 PM
    When I think of monarchies, I think of violent czars of Russia. They stole land from poor folks and created collectivist dictatorships.  :(

    Yes, that's what happens when your "monarch" is a mere mortal...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: FTL_Ian on October 28, 2008, 12:25:07 PM
    I appreciate all the suggestions from everyone.  Johnson, thank you for all your assistance and ideas.  Your changes were mostly great, I just think you jumped the gun with this kitty-killing-pic posting sicko.  Shitheads need to have a pattern and he was brand new.

    Everything will settle down and be fine as it always is.  I agree this was a nice midpoint between error and Julia.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 28, 2008, 12:28:36 PM
    This thread should be titled "Cosmic Monarchy is the only sensible answer." or perhaps it should be a cosmic dictatorship, right Gene? After all, there can only ONE all powerful creator being right? That creator having ultimate power over everything?

    I find it interesting that you don't mix your beliefs in anarchy with your beliefs in how the universe should be run.
    Vote Jesus in 2008!

    Actually you are correct that God is a Monarch.  "Democracy" is quite evil as we of the liberty movement can see.  The "creation" will never be able to unseat the "Creator" as that would be against nature.  I've made it clear from the start that I'm an "anarchist" as far as any human "monarch" or "ruler".  I recognize none.  They are nothing more than MEN who use FORCE to STEAL and PILLAGE.  Eventually they succumb to a someone who overturns them (or their successor) by "FORCE".  The old saying "live by the sword..."

    To be an "anarchist" towards your own Creator would be foolish as well as "against nature"...

    This is a crucial point for me, Gene.

    If god was any more just than a human monarch, he wouldn't use FORCE to STEAL and PILLAGE, yet he very clearly sanctions those very things A LOT in the old testement.

    So, it begs the question of why you would place your trust in or worship a being whose behaviour is equal to/ worse than any human monrch thus far?

    A clear answer in plain english, please!  :D

    Sure.  I don't accept that God is behavior is equal or worse than any human monarch.  If I did, I sure wouldn't be looking up to Him...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 28, 2008, 12:29:50 PM
    Hey, I just realized I can "delete" Ian's post.  "Watch it sucker..."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Soundwave on October 28, 2008, 01:37:09 PM

    Ian is giving in to the fucks that want to take over the BBS and he's gonna treat it like a poverty level public school where the disruptive kids don't get booted the fuck out of class, or tossed in the corner with a dunce cap like they should. Instead, just like a public school, everyone is going to be forced together.
    I tried to take the middle ground between Error (boot everyone who is an asshole off the BBS entirely) and Julia (don't moderate anyone for anything) and make a place for the assholes to get drunk and have their party posts where they mutually masturbate one another over how clever they think they are at the virtual equivalent of slapping "kick me" signs on people's backs. (A place where being disrespectful is expected, regardless of what the content is)


    Uh... it's a virtually unmoderated board dude. I occasionally delete spam threads and label things NSFW. What else should I be doing? It's not my BBS.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Russell Griswold on October 28, 2008, 01:53:56 PM
    When I think of monarchies, I think of violent czars of Russia. They stole land from poor folks and created collectivist dictatorships.  :(

    Yes, that's what happens when your "monarch" is a mere mortal...

    It's the idea of a monarch, it clashes with anarchy. Monarchy means, one ruler, mono-archy. Compared to an-archy, meaning, without ruler.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on October 28, 2008, 02:39:50 PM
    This thread should be titled "Cosmic Monarchy is the only sensible answer." or perhaps it should be a cosmic dictatorship, right Gene? After all, there can only ONE all powerful creator being right? That creator having ultimate power over everything?

    I find it interesting that you don't mix your beliefs in anarchy with your beliefs in how the universe should be run.
    Vote Jesus in 2008!

    Actually you are correct that God is a Monarch.  "Democracy" is quite evil as we of the liberty movement can see.  The "creation" will never be able to unseat the "Creator" as that would be against nature.  I've made it clear from the start that I'm an "anarchist" as far as any human "monarch" or "ruler".  I recognize none.  They are nothing more than MEN who use FORCE to STEAL and PILLAGE.  Eventually they succumb to a someone who overturns them (or their successor) by "FORCE".  The old saying "live by the sword..."

    To be an "anarchist" towards your own Creator would be foolish as well as "against nature"...

    This is a crucial point for me, Gene.

    If god was any more just than a human monarch, he wouldn't use FORCE to STEAL and PILLAGE, yet he very clearly sanctions those very things A LOT in the old testement.

    So, it begs the question of why you would place your trust in or worship a being whose behaviour is equal to/ worse than any human monrch thus far?

    A clear answer in plain english, please!  :D

    Sure.  I don't accept that God is behavior is equal or worse than any human monarch.  If I did, I sure wouldn't be looking up to Him...

    So, you just ignore all of the god-sanctioned baby-killing, raping and pillaging of the OT? From what I've read (and I've studied theology to degree level) bible-god makes any and every human monarch look like a rank amateur when it comes to FORCE, STEAL and PILLAGE.

    I'm afraid your logic, for me, doesn't stand up to critique, Gene. Not from a common sense point of view, nor an ideological point of view. At best, you worship god because you make some kind of theological sense out of the ragtag, second-rate horror epic that is the bible. At worst, you actually believe in god and, simply, will accept anything from him/her/it out of misguided loyalty or fear.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: YixilTesiphon on October 28, 2008, 03:11:00 PM
    Moderately self censored out of respect for Gene, because Gene offers people the same respect (highlight for censored words)
    (even though I think his overall world view is total crap, and destroys my opinion of him as a person)

    Well, I'm definitely done attempting to clean up the intentional hatred on the BBS. Ian's reversal of my shitheading of this asshole poster (who,  at the time I did so, had all of THREE posts before starting up with this bullshit) makes it clear that Ian wants a policy of "no poster left behind" on the BBS. I didn't delete the posts, I left that to Gene, since this IS an amper thread... I also don't have a problem with the content of either post - but I do have a problem with the intent, which is to intentionally be a fuckhead, and piss people off and ruin someone's day.
    I see the BBS as a potential to say - look here's a variety of choices for where you can post your shit... The Annoying assholes go over here, and rational over there... Everybody has a choice... I'm not gonna fuck with a thread where people are just having fun and telling jokes, or looking at lewd pictures of things they think are hot. I do feel the need to intervene when people are deliberately being rude and trying to fuck with other posters on the BBS.

    Ian is giving in to the fucks that want to take over the BBS and he's gonna treat it like a poverty level public school where the disruptive kids don't get booted the fuck out of class, or tossed in the corner with a dunce cap like they should. Instead, just like a public school, everyone is going to be forced together.
    I tried to take the middle ground between Error (boot everyone who is an asshole off the BBS entirely) and Julia (don't moderate anyone for anything) and make a place for the assholes to get drunk and have their party posts where they mutually masturbate one another over how clever they think they are at the virtual equivalent of slapping "kick me" signs on people's backs. (A place where being disrespectful is expected, regardless of what the content is)

    I guess the real message is that if you want a decent, respectful BBS, it's obvious that you should take a cue from Ian and go elsewhere. He's posted as many posts this month on another bbs (One that is less than 1/100th the size and activity level as this BBS) and when you take into account how many of the posts on this bbs were just about the business of the show... It's pretty clear... It's time to just give up on the FTL bbs. The FTL bbs is now the place to go if you want to see cock pics and read unoriginal racist jokes, without the benefit of the memes that 4chan provides.

    Why am I announcing this? I just want to warn people that having a rational conversation without being molested exactly like what has happened in this thread - it's probably unlikely going forward. Enough assholes have gathered that want to collectively take a dump on this BBS that they will do so until everyone they can mess with leaves, and obviously nothing is going to be allowed to be done to change that.

    I think it's a really stupid move... I think the point about what program directors will see is completely valid... What new listeners will see - even MORE valid... (who wants to try to join a new community only to be crapped on and disrespected?) but it must simply be that I just want to censor people and take away freedom of speech, so... I'm not going to do that anymore. Have fun destroying threads people... No one is going to stop you, unless they happen to be an amper and watching their threads at the time.

    If you are interested in porn pics, racism, and / or unoriginal formulaic humor - by all means, stick around. I know I won't be trying to act like a moderator anymore - it's a FREE FOR ALL on the FTL BBS... No respect for ANYONE. Wheeeeeeeee!!!!

    You're leaving? Break out the fucking champagne!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on October 28, 2008, 03:14:09 PM
    Moderately self censored out of respect for Gene, because Gene offers people the same respect (highlight for censored words)
    (even though I think his overall world view is total crap, and destroys my opinion of him as a person)

    Well, I'm definitely done attempting to clean up the intentional hatred on the BBS. Ian's reversal of my shitheading of this asshole poster (who,  at the time I did so, had all of THREE posts before starting up with this bullshit) makes it clear that Ian wants a policy of "no poster left behind" on the BBS. I didn't delete the posts, I left that to Gene, since this IS an amper thread... I also don't have a problem with the content of either post - but I do have a problem with the intent, which is to intentionally be a fuckhead, and piss people off and ruin someone's day.
    I see the BBS as a potential to say - look here's a variety of choices for where you can post your shit... The Annoying assholes go over here, and rational over there... Everybody has a choice... I'm not gonna fuck with a thread where people are just having fun and telling jokes, or looking at lewd pictures of things they think are hot. I do feel the need to intervene when people are deliberately being rude and trying to fuck with other posters on the BBS.

    Ian is giving in to the fucks that want to take over the BBS and he's gonna treat it like a poverty level public school where the disruptive kids don't get booted the fuck out of class, or tossed in the corner with a dunce cap like they should. Instead, just like a public school, everyone is going to be forced together.
    I tried to take the middle ground between Error (boot everyone who is an asshole off the BBS entirely) and Julia (don't moderate anyone for anything) and make a place for the assholes to get drunk and have their party posts where they mutually masturbate one another over how clever they think they are at the virtual equivalent of slapping "kick me" signs on people's backs. (A place where being disrespectful is expected, regardless of what the content is)

    I guess the real message is that if you want a decent, respectful BBS, it's obvious that you should take a cue from Ian and go elsewhere. He's posted as many posts this month on another bbs (One that is less than 1/100th the size and activity level as this BBS) and when you take into account how many of the posts on this bbs were just about the business of the show... It's pretty clear... It's time to just give up on the FTL bbs. The FTL bbs is now the place to go if you want to see cock pics and read unoriginal racist jokes, without the benefit of the memes that 4chan provides.

    Why am I announcing this? I just want to warn people that having a rational conversation without being molested exactly like what has happened in this thread - it's probably unlikely going forward. Enough assholes have gathered that want to collectively take a dump on this BBS that they will do so until everyone they can mess with leaves, and obviously nothing is going to be allowed to be done to change that.

    I think it's a really stupid move... I think the point about what program directors will see is completely valid... What new listeners will see - even MORE valid... (who wants to try to join a new community only to be crapped on and disrespected?) but it must simply be that I just want to censor people and take away freedom of speech, so... I'm not going to do that anymore. Have fun destroying threads people... No one is going to stop you, unless they happen to be an amper and watching their threads at the time.

    If you are interested in porn pics, racism, and / or unoriginal formulaic humor - by all means, stick around. I know I won't be trying to act like a moderator anymore - it's a FREE FOR ALL on the FTL BBS... No respect for ANYONE. Wheeeeeeeee!!!!

    You're leaving? Break out the fucking champagne!

    Way ahead of ya.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Russell Griswold on October 28, 2008, 03:17:07 PM
    You're leaving? Break out the fucking champagne!

    I don't think he's leaving. I think he just means he won't do anymore moderator activities. Which is fine with me, since we don't need 21398629876 moderators here. I think Johnson should just concentrate on design work. He seems to be pretty good at it.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on October 28, 2008, 04:43:05 PM
    I know I won't be trying to act like a moderator anymore - it's a FREE FOR ALL on the FTL BBS... No respect for ANYONE. Wheeeeeeeee!!!!

    Dude, modding is a thankless task. I gave it up for similar reasons over at another forum.

    Don't take it all to heart - bear in mind that t'internet is what t'internet does. It's very rare to find reality or sincerity online. I just enjoy it for what it is.

    Good luck and sorry you got burned out!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: hellbilly on October 28, 2008, 05:24:56 PM
    I know I won't be trying to act like a moderator anymore - it's a FREE FOR ALL on the FTL BBS... No respect for ANYONE. Wheeeeeeeee!!!!

    For better or worse, I was attacked when I first came here but I stuck around anyway.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on October 29, 2008, 12:46:42 AM
    I would feel very ashamed of myself if I was to subscribe to a god who raped and pillaged.
    Me too… evidence?

    Quote
    Even if god (or whatever name you wish to give to your chosen sky-deity) did exist (and the evidence against such is heavily weighted) I wouldn't worship him - what's written about him disgusts me.
    Heavily weighted? You’re really only responding to Christian books and Christian concepts… so I’m not totally sure what this has to do with God. I don’t accept the Bible as an inerrant document. The Quran is clear that atrocities were added to justify the wishes of men seeking power. Also... I don't believe Allah lives in the sky.

    Quote
    In fact, the very act of worship is against liberty, and personal responsibility, in my opinion. However, the act of respecting others' rights to worship is VERY MUCH what liberty is about.
    I don’t think this makes any sense… worship is a voluntary interaction… how can be antithetical to liberty?

    Al Baqara 2:256 “Let there be no compulsion in religion”

    Quote
    If god was any more just than a human monarch, he wouldn't use FORCE to STEAL and PILLAGE, yet he very clearly sanctions those very things A LOT in the old testement.
    I don’t accept the Torah as an inerrant document. It is, in part, the work of blood thirsty men seeking power. That’s all… Your concept of God is very human… You seem to want to hold Him morally responsible for things written in old books. My concept of God is that He is the agent of all events. Like the invisible hand of the market place. You don’t blame the Hand when a market correction puts you out of work… and if you do, it’s not morally responsible.

    Quote
    I've studied theology to degree level
    Where, and to what degree? No disrespect, but you don’t convey that expertise… unless perhaps you studied in a Christian seminary and not in a secular school.

    Again, Gene’s thesis, and certainly mine, is not predicated on anyone accepting the Biblical god. It’s predicated on the idea that mankind is not rightfully sovereign over one another… but that a Creator, by whatever conception people hold, is the only authority rightfully served, and even then, only voluntarily.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: hellbilly on October 29, 2008, 02:11:03 AM
    Again, Gene’s thesis, and certainly mine, is not predicated on anyone accepting the Biblical god. It’s predicated on the idea that mankind is not rightfully sovereign over one another… but that a Creator, by whatever conception people hold, is the only authority rightfully served, and even then, only voluntarily.

    ..precisely why these ideas are in question.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: hellbilly on October 29, 2008, 02:17:51 AM
     :D

    [youtube=425,350]eVMKBOANOc0[/youtube]

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on October 29, 2008, 06:42:21 AM
    I know I won't be trying to act like a moderator anymore - it's a FREE FOR ALL on the FTL BBS... No respect for ANYONE. Wheeeeeeeee!!!!

    Dude, modding is a thankless task. I gave it up for similar reasons over at another forum.

    Don't take it all to heart - bear in mind that t'internet is what t'internet does. It's very rare to find reality or sincerity online. I just enjoy it for what it is.

    Good luck and sorry you got burned out!

    I would have thanked him if he had been doing something actually worth thanking for.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on October 29, 2008, 09:50:38 AM
    Again, Gene’s thesis, and certainly mine, is not predicated on anyone accepting the Biblical god. It’s predicated on the idea that mankind is not rightfully sovereign over one another… but that a Creator, by whatever conception people hold, is the only authority rightfully served, and even then, only voluntarily.

    ..precisely why these ideas are in question.
    What's the question? To me it's exactly the same idea as the mission statement of the FSP. Saying that the maximum role of government is the protection of life liberty and property does not necessarily mean one thinks there should be any government at all. Similarly, saying a Creator is the only authority rightfully served does not necessarily mean one believes in their Creator.

    It really seems to me that the only people who have any problem with what Gene's talking about are the people who just can't tolerate anyone believing in God anywhere.

    Hey Gene... if you're running for president... want a running mate?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on October 29, 2008, 10:03:09 AM
    I would feel very ashamed of myself if I was to subscribe to a god who raped and pillaged.

    Quote
    Me too… evidence?


    Well, I can't speak for Allah as I've only studied judeo/ xian theology. However, from my limited understanding of Islam is that its branch-off from the older judeo-xian god came with Ishmael - right? Therefore, we're talking about the same deity, albeit diferent perceptions of such depending on one's faith.

    The bible is full of injustice, mostly at the hands of god and/or sanctioned by god - I've covered this in previous posts but could give further evidence of such if you require it?

    Here, take a look for yourself right here:

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

    As for the Quran - I've no personal knowledge of it, but some may find this of interest with regards to alleged cruelty and violence within its pages:

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html

    Quote
    Even if god (or whatever name you wish to give to your chosen sky-deity) did exist (and the evidence against such is heavily weighted) I wouldn't worship him - what's written about him disgusts me.

    Quote
    Heavily weighted? You’re really only responding to Christian books and Christian concepts… so I’m not totally sure what this has to do with God. I don’t accept the Bible as an inerrant document. The Quran is clear that atrocities were added to justify the wishes of men seeking power. Also... I don't believe Allah lives in the sky.

    As stated, beforehand, I can't speak about the Quran as I haven't read it. Nor do I intend to - I had my fill of religion from a childhood steeped in the stuff. I'm happily married to atheism  8)

    Also, the burden of proof is not really on me to prove 'xian/ islamic etc. anarchy is NOT the only sensible answer' but for you to prove it is, no? So, I guess in even having the conversation I'm being generous ;)

    Quote
    In fact, the very act of worship is against liberty, and personal responsibility, in my opinion. However, the act of respecting others' rights to worship is VERY MUCH what liberty is about.

    Quote
    I don’t think this makes any sense… worship is a voluntary interaction… how can be antithetical to liberty?

    Al Baqara 2:256 “Let there be no compulsion in religion”

    Sure, I agree with you there - however, worship seems to me to be against personal reponsibility. Much of xian theology speaks of sin as humankind's failure to ever measure up to god's supposed standard of excellence. A typical reaction, in fundamentalist circles, is to see anything a person does to better themselves as irrelevant in the grand scale of things, therefore, in lieu of christ's redemptive work. To worship christ, therfore, is to deny oneself, it seems from the evangelical perception of theology.

    I'm well aware that theological interpretations of biblical material (canonical and non-canonical - for the more pot-smoking version of the gospel, I'd highly recommend the gnostic gospel of thomas) are varied, however, I just can't see any way that the whole idea of worship of god can concur with liberty. Liberty is about individualism. Organised religion (and many smaller sects and cults) are about herd mentality - and often the metaphysical reasoning for practice/ doctrine is seen to puke all over common sense. Ironically, Gene often talks on FTL about the government cult-members when he is a member of one of the biggest and most successful cults the western world has ever seen - xianity.    

    Quote
    If god was any more just than a human monarch, he wouldn't use FORCE to STEAL and PILLAGE, yet he very clearly sanctions those very things A LOT in the old testement.

    Quote
    I don’t accept the Torah as an inerrant document. It is, in part, the work of blood thirsty men seeking power. That’s all… Your concept of God is very human… You seem to want to hold Him morally responsible for things written in old books. My concept of God is that He is the agent of all events. Like the invisible hand of the market place. You don’t blame the Hand when a market correction puts you out of work… and if you do, it’s not morally responsible.

    You're speaking like a deist, now - your comment here suggests you believe in a non-interventional god.

    Am I understanding you, correctly?

    Do you believe the quran is inerrant?

    Quote
    I've studied theology to degree level


    Quote
    Where, and to what degree? No disrespect, but you don’t convey that expertise… unless perhaps you studied in a Christian seminary and not in a secular school.

    I studied religion (mostly judeo/ xian) at a teaching college as part of my BEd. I'm arguing mostly from a common sense perspective on this thread, however, because most of what I studied in theology I found to be, ultimately, useless.

    The ultimate problem with theology, for me, is that it offers nothing concrete in terms of proof - copper-bottomed proof - in favour of what I would only describe, at best, as quasi-intellectual masturbation.

    Where does your 'expertise' come from?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 29, 2008, 07:50:14 PM

    Sure.  I don't accept that God is behavior is equal or worse than any human monarch.  If I did, I sure wouldn't be looking up to Him...

    So, you just ignore all of the god-sanctioned baby-killing, raping and pillaging of the OT? From what I've read (and I've studied theology to degree level) bible-god makes any and every human monarch look like a rank amateur when it comes to FORCE, STEAL and PILLAGE.

    I'm afraid your logic, for me, doesn't stand up to critique, Gene. Not from a common sense point of view, nor an ideological point of view. At best, you worship god because you make some kind of theological sense out of the ragtag, second-rate horror epic that is the bible. At worst, you actually believe in god and, simply, will accept anything from him/her/it out of misguided loyalty or fear.


    Wow!!  Since you're edumacated to the "degree" level and I can't even spell, I don't know why I need to talk to you.  It's quite obvious that you are on a much higher plane than I am.  I really should be just worshiping you instead of God (not).  One thing I've learned over my lifetime is that having a degree sure doesn't guarantee that one excels in "common sense".  At any rate, most of you here keep ragging on how the Bible is not accurate and that's all fine and dandy among you until I also state that I do not accept some areas of the Bible, then it's "inconsistent".  Funny how that works...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 29, 2008, 08:46:23 PM
    Again, Gene’s thesis, and certainly mine, is not predicated on anyone accepting the Biblical god. It’s predicated on the idea that mankind is not rightfully sovereign over one another… but that a Creator, by whatever conception people hold, is the only authority rightfully served, and even then, only voluntarily.

    ..precisely why these ideas are in question.
    What's the question? To me it's exactly the same idea as the mission statement of the FSP. Saying that the maximum role of government is the protection of life liberty and property does not necessarily mean one thinks there should be any government at all. Similarly, saying a Creator is the only authority rightfully served does not necessarily mean one believes in their Creator.

    It really seems to me that the only people who have any problem with what Gene's talking about are the people who just can't tolerate anyone believing in God anywhere.

    Hey Gene... if you're running for president... want a running mate?

    Maybe I should be yours...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on October 29, 2008, 08:48:20 PM
    Hey Gene... if you're running for president... want a running mate?

    Maybe I should be yours...
    [/quote]

    We could run against each other.... that'd be interesting.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BonerJoe on October 29, 2008, 08:53:12 PM
    Hey Gene... if you're running for president... want a running mate?

    Maybe I should be yours...

    We could run against each other.... that'd be interesting.
    [/quote]

    The radical muslims will put a bomb in your Rice Krispies.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 29, 2008, 09:03:55 PM

    ...lots of questions that can not really be answered except by himself...


    I do see where you are coming from and your doubt is extremely common.  My "belief" is based more on my experiences and my observations than on what others have written (although of course I could not claim to be a "Christian" if I had never read or heard about "Christ").  The words written by men preceding us are very helpful to try to understand what has happened in the past as it is mostly accurate.  Where it is inaccurate is the problem.  Having been translated several times and even the ancient scrolls are dated at 100 plus years after the time of Christ.  Then there was the "decision" to include certain writings in the collection and reject others.  Their reasons for doing so were probably good ones.  I've read some of the writings that were rejected and I did not find any unique information other than historical records.  Still, I have to always fall back on the question "were you there?"  I use it on myself as well as on others.  I was not there.  You were not there.  We have to use reason and personal understanding that is gained through living.  One thing I have absolutely NO doubt about is that we were indeed created by an intelligent Creator.  I have concluded that the man/God Jesus (not his actual name) really did die for our salvation.  While I don't fully understand this redemption process (don't think anyone does) I do believe it.  Why?  Reread the second sentence in this post...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 29, 2008, 09:05:41 PM
    Quote
    Hey Gene... if you're running for president... want a running mate?

    Maybe I should be yours...

    We could run against each other.... that'd be interesting.

    We would have virtually identical platforms so it would have to boil down to which one of us is the most handsome.  Sorry...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: hellbilly on October 29, 2008, 09:14:49 PM
    I'd love to back you up on this one HOO-HA.. but I've been through the wringer on it already. Maybe when I get a bit more caught up on work..

    I will say that the biggest reason all of this is nonsense, to me, is that the role of "Creator" is simply unnecessary in the grand scheme. Remove every indication and reference to all varieties of this folklore and we'd still be in the same spot, except without oddball mania's, hysterics and hangups on morality, etc. It's just another bit of fiction, but one with huge numbers of fans who have taken things too seriously.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on October 29, 2008, 09:51:34 PM
    This thread should be titled "Cosmic Monarchy is the only sensible answer." or perhaps it should be a cosmic dictatorship, right Gene? After all, there can only ONE all powerful creator being right? That creator having ultimate power over everything?

    I find it interesting that you don't mix your beliefs in anarchy with your beliefs in how the universe should be run.
    Vote Jesus in 2008!

    Actually you are correct that God is a Monarch.  "Democracy" is quite evil as we of the liberty movement can see.  The "creation" will never be able to unseat the "Creator" as that would be against nature.  I've made it clear from the start that I'm an "anarchist" as far as any human "monarch" or "ruler".  I recognize none.  They are nothing more than MEN who use FORCE to STEAL and PILLAGE.  Eventually they succumb to a someone who overturns them (or their successor) by "FORCE".  The old saying "live by the sword..."

    To be an "anarchist" towards your own Creator would be foolish as well as "against nature"...

    Ok, so, you answered the part about God being a tyrant and a dictator... but you didn't answer anything about the fact that there is only one "creator". My question would be... What happened to all the other creators? Did God kill them all so that God could be the lone tyrant of the universe? What about God's parents? Did God kill them too? Doesn't God get lonely... or worse... Horny?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Russell Griswold on October 29, 2008, 10:08:08 PM
    Silly Johnson... God works in mysterious ways and your feeble mind cannot possibly understand the intrinsic details of the magnificent power of God. God cannot possibly kill, because He is a holy being. Thus, this becomes a very paradoxical internet relay, where the winner is obviously God. I mean it's pretty simple to understand that there are 4 simultaneous corner 24 hour days and 4 Earth rotations occur within a single 24 hour rotation of Cubed Earth. THERE IS NO DAMN GOD -ONEism IS A DEATH TRAP for Mom and Dad Opposites. You're Educated ONE Nitwits, I possess Math & Science Proof. A Queer as God = Queer HIV. Every Creation is of Opposites, Not a human or planet is One. Seek Wisdom of Cubic Life Intelligence - or you die evil. It's so simple, Johnson...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on October 29, 2008, 10:20:57 PM
    So are you saying there are 4 gods... or one god with 4 corners?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Russell Griswold on October 29, 2008, 10:22:22 PM
    So are you saying there are 4 gods... or one god with 4 corners?

    In a cubic mindset there are 4 of each. 4.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on October 30, 2008, 04:43:43 AM
    From my limited understanding of Islam is that its branch-off from the older judeo-xian god came with Ishmael - right?
    Sort of… from a non Muslim perspective Islam is a split from the Judeo Christian tradition. From the Muslim perspective Islam is a transmission of the same message through a different prophet, which was changed by the previous nations. While it speaks of the same God, and the same prophets, there has very little intertextuality. Muslims have never accepted the Bible. Muhammad never read the Bible, and was actually illiterate.

    Ultimately it’s irrelevant. I’m not going to try to convince you that Islam is True. There’s circumstances were violence is justified in Islam, and you may find it distasteful. If all you’re reading is the skeptics annotated quran, I wouldn’t blame you. At the very least I find you intellectually honest.

    Quote
    Also, the burden of proof is not really on me to prove 'xian/ islamic etc. anarchy is NOT the only sensible answer' but for you to prove it is, no?
    I also don’t espouse “Islamic Anarchy” I espouse “Muslim Nonarchy (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=15103.msg272558#msg272558).” I haven’t defined “Muslim Agorism” yet… and I probably won’t. I’m not attempting to prove my perspective to you. I’m pointing out that the objections people have to Gene’s perspective are non secquiturs.

    Quote
    worship seems to me to be against personal reponsibility. Much of xian theology speaks of sin as humankind's failure to ever measure up to god's supposed standard of excellence. A typical reaction, in fundamentalist circles, is to see anything a person does to better themselves as irrelevant in the grand scale of things, therefore, in lieu of christ's redemptive work. To worship christ, therfore, is to deny oneself, it seems from the evangelical perception of theology.

    Islam completely disagrees. There is no original sin, nor redemption though sacrifice. The individual is only expected to perform according to his knowledge and capacity, not to achieve an impossible standard. And the afterlife is a place of justice, where we are held responsible for all our deeds, and the debts are balanced. Paradise and Hellfire are extremes in a spectrum. Again… irrelevant to the thesis, but I wanted to address what you said.

    I’m a fan of the Gospel of Thomas, and Barnabas, and the Apocalypse of Peter.

    Quote
    I just can't see any way that the whole idea of worship of god can concur with liberty. Liberty is about individualism.
    I disagree. Liberty is about voluntary interaction, and non coercion.

    Quote
    You're speaking like a deist, now - your comment here suggests you believe in a non-interventional god. Am I understanding you, correctly? 
    No. I believe in a Creator. Creation is intervention. The Islamic conception is like the deists in that the Creator is completely unique from His Creation, and like the people of the Book in that the Creator is an active consciousness with Will and Power. Too big a topic for a crash course.

    Quote
    Do you believe the quran is inerrant?
    Yup

    Quote
    The ultimate problem with theology, for me, is that it offers nothing concrete in terms of proof
    The Quran’s answer to this question is that the Quran itself is the proof. I find no other suitable explanation for the appearance of a book the size of the New Testament to appear in perfect rhyming verse from the mouth of an illiterate who memorized the book in its entirety in a desert wasteland in isolation of from the other scriptures… especially considering everything it says… and in the context it was revealed.

    Quote
    Where does your 'expertise' come from?
    I’m an amateur arm chair scholar. Not an expert. I’ve always been interested in religion in general. I have an eclectic family of many religious perspectives. In college I took a handful of comparative religion courses, and for almost 10 years I was pagan and for about 5 I operated as a kind of priest. I converted to Islam 3 years ago, and I’ve been studying it pretty seriously… but really I’ve just barely grasped the basics.

    I’m not particularly interested in trying to prove that Islam is or isn’t True. For me it’s enough that you separate your opinion of Islam from your opinion of Christianity and judge Islam on it’s own flaws and merits. Beyond that you’re on your own… I can only inform, not convince.

    I’m much more interested in talking about the “sensible answer.” And I think Gene is on to something, and if his perspective gained acceptance among Christians I think the world would be a little better for all of us. Atheism however I think would produce a more ruthless world if it gained wide acceptance. I could be wrong. What do you think is the “sensible answer?”
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on October 30, 2008, 04:12:36 PM

    Sure.  I don't accept that God is behavior is equal or worse than any human monarch.  If I did, I sure wouldn't be looking up to Him...

    So, you just ignore all of the god-sanctioned baby-killing, raping and pillaging of the OT? From what I've read (and I've studied theology to degree level) bible-god makes any and every human monarch look like a rank amateur when it comes to FORCE, STEAL and PILLAGE.

    I'm afraid your logic, for me, doesn't stand up to critique, Gene. Not from a common sense point of view, nor an ideological point of view. At best, you worship god because you make some kind of theological sense out of the ragtag, second-rate horror epic that is the bible. At worst, you actually believe in god and, simply, will accept anything from him/her/it out of misguided loyalty or fear.


    Wow!!  Since you're edumacated to the "degree" level and I can't even spell, I don't know why I need to talk to you.  It's quite obvious that you are on a much higher plane than I am.  I really should be just worshiping you instead of God (not). 

    Tut-tut, Gene. As you know, I've always started off any criticism of your standpoint with a shout-out of respect to you. Yet, this is such a cheap shot...  :(

    Quote
    One thing I've learned over my lifetime is that having a degree sure doesn't guarantee that one excels in "common sense".  At any rate, most of you here keep ragging on how the Bible is not accurate and that's all fine and dandy among you until I also state that I do not accept some areas of the Bible, then it's "inconsistent".  Funny how that works...

    As I've already stated to your muslim agosrist ally, I have seen little common sense in theology - it's pretty much the mirror opposite of common sense. Common sense appeals to that for which there is copper-bottomed evidence for. Theology deals with that for which there is no evidence for.

    Muslim Agorist, thanks for your generous crash course on Islam - I'm geuninely fascinated to see the differences (from your perspective) between islam and judeo/ xian theology.

    My statement:

    Quote
    The ultimate problem with theology, for me, is that it offers nothing concrete in terms of proof


    Your reply:

    Quote
    The Quran’s answer to this question is that the Quran itself is the proof. I find no other suitable explanation for the appearance of a book the size of the New Testament to appear in perfect rhyming verse from the mouth of an illiterate who memorized the book in its entirety in a desert wasteland in isolation of from the other scriptures… especially considering everything it says… and in the context it was revealed.


    Hmmm....  :?

    Quote
    I’m not particularly interested in trying to prove that Islam is or isn’t True. For me it’s enough that you separate your opinion of Islam from your opinion of Christianity and judge Islam on it’s own flaws and merits. Beyond that you’re on your own… I can only inform, not convince.


    Fair enough - I'm certainly a little wiser on what islam is about. The desert dogmas aren't blending together quite as much as they used to... yet, I'm very far from convinced that any of them are of any real value in the real world. Quite the opposite, really...

    Quote
    Atheism however I think would produce a more ruthless world if it gained wide acceptance. I could be wrong.

    ... you see, I'm still of the opinion that religion is much more dangerous than the atheism you seem to fear - we've seen wars aplenty based on/ attached to religion. Religious scripture is riddled with violence, sexism, inequality, homophobia, racism etc.

    Where's your evidence that atheism is as dangerous?

    Quote
    I’m much more interested in talking about the “sensible answer.” And I think Gene is on to something, and if his perspective gained acceptance among Christians I think the world would be a little better for all of us. 


    ... and I would applaud Gene for achieving such amongst the xian community and you for achieving such amongst the muslim community. I'd stand alongside you all, in solidarity, as we work in different ways, within different circles, towards creation of a more free world.

    I guess why I quiz Gene and your good self on your religious positions is because they seem to be central to your respective 'political' (for want of a better term) positions...

    Quote
    What do you think is the “sensible answer?”


    That's the rub - I don't think there is one sensible answer. The title of this thread suggests that there is.

    I believe more in working in as many different ways as possible. Working individually, or in small groups, as opposed to having to come together as a huge movement. Me? I'm lucky to be in a job that partly requires me to not only challenge the government within a specific context, but to train others to do such in a more effective way. So, I guess that's what the main thrust of my answer is - for now. That and a little bit of activism.

    Wish me well with it all, as I wish you well with your pursuits.  :D

     
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Porcupine_in_MA on October 30, 2008, 04:18:03 PM
    This must be the longest running thread on this message board. It's been going since - August 11, 2005, 01:13:45 AM.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on October 30, 2008, 04:20:42 PM
    This must be the longest running thread on this message board. It's been going since - August 11, 2005, 01:13:45 AM.

    God dammit, Matt. It was on page 2 before you had to go and bump it again.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Porcupine_in_MA on October 30, 2008, 04:21:54 PM
    Nah. It was on page 1 or I wouldn't have seen it.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 30, 2008, 07:09:26 PM

    Quote
    What do you think is the “sensible answer?”


    That's the rub - I don't think there is one sensible answer. The title of this thread suggests that there is.



    Well, I think I've been saying all along the "sensible answer" (and the natural state of order) is anarchy.  This is, I believe, the way God created us and the way we are supposed to live.  "Government" is the false god of this world which tries to substitute for our Creator.  I think many here agree that anarchy is the "sensible" answer to our problems on this spinning ball.  I further suggest that "Christianity" is the sensible part of a relationship with our Creator.  I realize that that is what causes most of the conflict (but it sure is fun, isn't it???)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on October 30, 2008, 07:31:46 PM
    Sure, the only rub in the argument is claiming that it's sensible to establish beliefs about a creator, or even that there is a creator at all.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on October 30, 2008, 07:36:42 PM
    Sure, the only rub in the argument is claiming that it's sensible to establish beliefs about a creator, or even that there is a creator at all.

    ... and so we're back to where all our heads clash.  :D

    Group hug, guys? I think I've come 360 with this.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on October 30, 2008, 07:49:39 PM
    I'm still waiting for someone to convince me that religion isn't the doorway to ignorance. It hasn't happened yet. Gene is pretty patient though. Let me tell you, my stomach turned when the dude I'm chilling with out here proceeded to explain to me how important it was to his religion (Catholic) and to Christians in general, that the California constitution needed to be amended to outlaw gay marriage, because marriage needs to be defined as between a man and a woman.... because. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on October 30, 2008, 10:01:42 PM
    Simply stating that something is a s"sensible belief" really doesn't quite do it. One must say why it is sensible.

    God (Christian or Muslim) cannot be detected with any of the senses. Therefore, the idea of God, in a very real way, is non-scenically.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on October 31, 2008, 01:01:36 AM
    outlaw gay marriage, because marriage needs to be defined as between a man and a woman. 
    This issue totally pisses me off because no one local gets where I'm coming from. I'm against gay marriage and people in CA act like this is some kind of blasphemy... but I'm just as against straight marriage. People keep sayings "it's about equal rights" but it's not. It's about homosexuals fighting to be issued the same marriage licenses as heterosexuals. No one should be issued marriage LICENSES! If you need a license it's a privilege not a right. They should be drafting and and signing private marriage CONTRACTS! All contracts, between whatever parties, should be binding like any other business contract. The way I see it voting to issue state marriage licenses to homosexuals does not liberate homosexual marriage, it merely binds it to the same state regulations the heterosexuals currently suffer from.

    And you know what really pisses me off about this issue... all these liberal soft heads gush about equal rights for everyone, and don't regulate morality... blah blah blah... but watch them turn coats when I say... Fine, you want gay marriage... I want polygamy. Their hypocrisy is immediately apparent. I don't know a lot of polygamists. I actually know a lot more polygamist pagans than Muslims. But in both cases the second spouse does not enjoy the same protection under the law as the first spouse. EVERY argument in favor of gay marriage can be used in favor of plural marriage... but these liberal pinkos turn tail and run as soon as I even suggest it. The solution is also the same... private contracts, not state licenses.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on October 31, 2008, 01:03:59 AM
    You shouldn't address gay marriage then. Just say: "I'm against all government marriage." And leave it at that. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on October 31, 2008, 01:08:59 AM
    While I agree with your views on marriage being shit - and licensing with the state and all that.

    Yeah, I'm still for equal rights. If they want to fuck themselves over by signing a contract with the state - they should be able to do that just the same as straight folk.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on October 31, 2008, 06:13:20 AM
    I'm still waiting for someone to convince me that religion isn't the doorway to ignorance. It hasn't happened yet.

    It's not going to happen, dude, for a very simple reason - there is no proof that god/ allah/ jaweh is any more real than Casper.

    There's also no way any of us atheists can prove beyond a doubt that there is *no way* god/ allah/ jaweh, or even Casper, absolutely don't exist.

    If you're looking at evidence alone, it's farily clear that the meaphysical elements of religion exist only in the heads of its respective followers. Any evidence I've EVER been presented with to prove religion is very, very shaky.

    My test is always as to whether I would accept that quality of evidence for proving anything else - if not, why would I accept it to prove god?

    It seems, when it comes to discussing religion, the rules change regarding proof for many people.

    However, I think that it's important that we are able to discuss these things as calmly as possible and thank both Gene and MA for doing such with me, on this thread.

    I've little more to add, at this point except to agree that this:

    Let me tell you, my stomach turned when the dude I'm chilling with out here proceeded to explain to me how important it was to his religion (Catholic) and to Christians in general, that the California constitution needed to be amended to outlaw gay marriage, because marriage needs to be defined as between a man and a woman.... because. 


    ... is the unfortunate reality of religion at its very darkest, yet seeminlgy (if you take into account what the scriptures say on the matter) purest form.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 31, 2008, 11:44:15 AM
    Proof, proof, proof...

    Here's a quote from the website "Answers In Genesis"...

    "Evidence

    Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

    The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events."

    In the past I have posted the "interpretation" of the evidence that I believe to be true.  There are many examples.  One I use over and over about my question about the age of the universe is the earth/moon system.  This is a simple question that has to do with the orbital decay of our moon over time and if you simply take the decay rate times the number of years this system is supposed to be in existence, you come up with a problem.  So if this earth/moon system could not have existed beyond a set number of years ago (see: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=204) then you need to come up with another way the system could have come into existence.  The three choices seem to be binary formation (seems impossible in light of the above), capture, or ejection.  Neither capture or ejection seem to be physically possible with a resulting orbital path which is almost circular.

    Now this is only one of the "evidences" I see that guarantee a Creator...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on October 31, 2008, 12:23:47 PM
    Gene, proof is important when you claim anything metaphysical to be true - surely you believe that?

    Now this is only one of the "evidences" I see that guarantee a Creator...

    The 'young earth' debate is one that is been raging for quite some time. I'm no scientist, so it's not always something I feel qualified to get involved in.

    However, many scientists make it their business to prvide counter-arguments against young earth theories. Here's one I plucked from the net (I believe your theory is countered under 'evidence 6'?)

    http://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html

    Here's another counter against your theory, Gene:

    Young-earth "proof" #5: The Moon is receding a few inches each year. Less than a million years ago the Moon would have been so close that the tides would have drowned everyone twice a day. Less than 2 or 3 million years ago the Moon would have been inside the Roche limit* and, thus, destroyed.
    (Dr. Hilpman vs. Dr. Hovind, June 15, 1992; the Royal Hall of the University of Missouri)
    Once again, Dr. Hovind's figures just boggle the mind! Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Moon is receding at 6 inches per year. If we go back a million years, then the Moon was 6 million inches closer to the earth. That comes to about 95 miles! Since the Moon is about 240,000 miles away, that doesn't amount to diddlysquat! Indeed, the Moon has a slightly elliptical orbit that varies more than 95 miles all by itself.

    A more accurate estimate, based on the present rate of lunar recession, puts the Moon within the Roche limit around 1 or 2 billion years ago. That is the argument most creationists use. (Since Dr. Hovind's notes match the figures he quoted in his debate with Dr. Hilpman, they are fair game and not a simple slip of the pen.)

    The tides, chiefly caused by the Moon's gravitational attraction and the orbiting of Earth and Moon about a common point, act as a brake to slow down the earth's rotation. The nearer tidal bulge, which carries the greater effect, runs slightly out of alignment of the Moon overhead; the gravitational interaction between it and the Moon serves to speed up the Moon in its orbit even as it slows down the earth's rotation. As it speeds up, the Moon moves to a higher orbit.

    The effectiveness of this tidal brake on the earth's rotation strongly depends on the configuration of the oceans. Thus, we should inquire as to whether the current arrangement is an average value or not.

    The present rate of tidal dissipation is anomalously high because the tidal force is close to a resonance in the response function of the oceans; a more realistic calculation shows that dissipation must have been much smaller in the past and that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was well outside the Roche limit, at a distance of at least thirtyeight earth radii (Hansen 1982; see also Finch 1982).
    (Brush, 1983, p.78)
    Thus, our moon was probably never closer than 151,000 miles. A modern astronomy text (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.173) gives an estimate of 250,000 kilometers (155,000 miles), which agrees very closely with Brush's figure. Thus, the "problem" disappears!

    It may surprise you to learn that Charles Darwin's second son, George Darwin, regarded by many as the father of geophysics, studied the Moon's tidal effects in great detail. He came up with the idea that the Moon broke away from the earth due to rapid rotation (the fission theory), and estimated that at least 56 million years would be required for the Moon to have reached its present distance. George Darwin regarded his view of the Moon's origin as nothing more than a good guess, and he considered his time estimate to be nothing more than a lower limit. In the nineteenth century such a calculation of the earth's age was a reasonable scientific exercise. Today, in the light of what we now know, it's an exercise in futility. Too bad "scientific" creationists don't keep up with these little details. For more insight into the problem, see Dalrymple (1991, pp. 48-52).


    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_recede.html

    Either way, I think you've made a classic theist mistake in presenting your argument, Gene - that of simply finding an alleged problem with scientific conclusions, then presenting it as evidence of god's existance.

    If a point in evolutionary science is wrong (and in any cases I've seen, there is always a rebuttal against the 'young earth' theory of choice) then that doesn't automatically prove god exists. No, it simply places a question over that one small slice of evidence for origin of species.

    To prove god exists, you would be best to provide positive evidence for god's existance, not disprove evidence of his lack of existance piece by piece.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on October 31, 2008, 02:03:26 PM
    Here's another counter against your theory, Gene:

    Either way, I think you've made a classic theist mistake in presenting your argument, Gene - that of simply finding an alleged problem with scientific conclusions, then presenting it as evidence of god's existance. If a point in evolutionary science is wrong (and in any cases I've seen, there is always a rebuttal against the 'young earth' theory of choice) then that doesn't automatically prove god exists. No, it simply places a question over that one small slice of evidence for origin of species.
    To prove god exists, you would be best to provide positive evidence for god's existance, not disprove evidence of his lack of existance piece by piece.

    Ok… so I didn’t read it… I find the Young Earth crowd kinda kooky… but I think I see your point. It seems to you’ve made the same mistake… If a point in one theological model is unacceptable to you (In this case the Biblical sanctions of violence) that doesn’t automatically prove god doesn’t exist. It simply places a question over that small piece of theological evidence. To prove God doesn’t exist, you would be best to provide evidence for God’s nonexistence, not disprove each theological model piece by piece.

    Personally I’m an evolution agnostic. I think the mutation of species has plenty of evidence worth analyzing and even accepting… but Darwinism does not address biogenesis. At the most it agrees with my theological model, that biological life came from some kind of water/clay/mud muck.

    Just as you can present one kooky theological perspective, I can present another kooky scientific perspective... This road is ultimately circular… which is why I insist that Atheism is itself a theological model. And proving a theological model to another person is exceptionally difficult because in the dichotomy of argumentation each party is incentivized not to accept the opponents evidence… The acceptance or rejection of any model has to come from the person’s own reasoning, not from someone else’s.

    Gene do you have a picture you could post... I'd like to make up some campaign signs.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on October 31, 2008, 02:44:29 PM
    You make a good point regarding atheism, of course, MA - but I'm not sure I ever stated that I can prove the non-existance of god.

    In fact, from an earlier post of mine:

    It's not going to happen, dude, for a very simple reason - there is no proof that god/ allah/ jaweh is any more real than Casper.

    There's also no way any of us atheists can prove beyond a doubt that there is *no way* god/ allah/ jaweh, or even Casper, absolutely don't exist.


    In earlier posts, I wasn't trying to prove as much that god doesn't exist - more than if he did exist, from the evidence we are left of his activities, he isn't/ wasn't a very nice god.

    What I have also said is that there is no copper-bottomed proof for the existance of god/ allah/ whatever-you-call-he/she/it and I'll stand by that very confidently.

    But, you guys should run for campaign. A muslim/ xian team would be refreshing in today's western culture of islamic paranoia :)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on October 31, 2008, 03:40:50 PM
    Personally I’m an evolution agnostic. I think the mutation of species has plenty of evidence worth analyzing and even accepting… but Darwinism does not address biogenesis. At the most it agrees with my theological model, that biological life came from some kind of water/clay/mud muck.

    Personally I'm a gravity agnostic.  I think the attraction of physical objects to objects with greater mass has plenty of evidence worth analyzing and even accepting....but Newtonism does not address cosmology.  At most it agrees with my theological model, that existence came into being through magic.

    If you can process how many things are wrong with my statement, then you will understand how many are wrong with yours. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The Muslim Agorist on October 31, 2008, 04:21:53 PM
    You make a good point regarding atheism, of course, MA - but I'm not sure I ever stated that I can prove the nonexistence of god.

    In fact, from an earlier post of mine:

    It's not going to happen, dude, for a very simple reason - there is no proof that god/ Allah/ jaweh is any more real than Casper.

    There's also no way any of us atheists can prove beyond a doubt that there is *no way* god/ Allah/ jaweh, or even Casper, absolutely don't exist.


    In earlier posts, I wasn't trying to prove as much that god doesn't exist - more than if he did exist, from the evidence we are left of his activities, he isn't/ wasn't a very nice god.

    What I have also said is that there is no copper-bottomed proof for the existance of god/ Allah/ whatever-you-call-he/she/it and I'll stand by that very confidently.

    But, you guys should run for campaign. A muslim/ xian team would be refreshing in today's western culture of islamic paranoia :)

    Well... than lets take another step back. I wasn't trying to prove that god does exist, which I've discussed in previous threads. In this thread my first point has been that proving God's existence or non existence is not relevant to Gene's thesis.

    If Gene's a FSPer and he's game I think that would be a blast once we're both out there... no delusions of having any change of winning though... I think it would be an excellent way to leverage publicity toward spreading the message.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Prometheus on October 31, 2008, 09:52:07 PM



     ...One I use over and over about my question about the age of the universe is the earth/moon system.  This is a simple question that has to do with the orbital decay of our moon over time and if you simply take the decay rate times the number of years this system is supposed to be in existence, you come up with a problem.  So if this earth/moon system could not have existed beyond a set number of years ago (see: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=204) then you need to come up with another way the system could have come into existence.  The three choices seem to be binary formation (seems impossible in light of the above), capture, or ejection.  Neither capture or ejection seem to be physically possible with a resulting orbital path which is almost circular....

    Now this is only one of the "evidences" I see that guarantee a Creator...


    The Moon is receding at a rate of 38 millimeters per year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#History_of_observations_and_measurements

    Over a period of 4.5 billion years it would recede 171,000 kilometers.
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=RQ5&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=(4.5+billion+times+38+millimeters)+in+kilometers&spell=1

    The distance from the earth to the moon is 384,400 km. So the moon was 213,400 km 4.5 billion years ago.

    So the moon has existed for the entire history of Earth. The "Answers in Genesis" site has the recession rate wrong. How convenient.

    Of course young Earth creationist never let the facts get in the way of a good argument. They never change their arguments in light of evidence. Instead of debating I'm just going to provide a link that debunks most of their claims.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Russell Griswold on October 31, 2008, 09:54:19 PM
    The "Answers in Genesis" site has the recession rate wrong. How convenient.

    Of course young Earth creationist never let the facts get in the way of a good argument. They never change their arguments in light of evidence. Instead of debating I'm just going to provide a link that debunks most of their claims.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

    Hahahahaha!  :lol:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 01, 2008, 09:08:29 PM



     ...One I use over and over about my question about the age of the universe is the earth/moon system.  This is a simple question that has to do with the orbital decay of our moon over time and if you simply take the decay rate times the number of years this system is supposed to be in existence, you come up with a problem.  So if this earth/moon system could not have existed beyond a set number of years ago (see: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=204) then you need to come up with another way the system could have come into existence.  The three choices seem to be binary formation (seems impossible in light of the above), capture, or ejection.  Neither capture or ejection seem to be physically possible with a resulting orbital path which is almost circular....

    Now this is only one of the "evidences" I see that guarantee a Creator...


    The Moon is receding at a rate of 38 millimeters per year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#History_of_observations_and_measurements

    Over a period of 4.5 billion years it would recede 171,000 kilometers.
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=RQ5&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=(4.5+billion+times+38+millimeters)+in+kilometers&spell=1

    The distance from the earth to the moon is 384,400 km. So the moon was 213,400 km 4.5 billion years ago.

    So the moon has existed for the entire history of Earth. The "Answers in Genesis" site has the recession rate wrong. How convenient.

    Of course young Earth creationist never let the facts get in the way of a good argument. They never change their arguments in light of evidence. Instead of debating I'm just going to provide a link that debunks most of their claims.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html


    You see I not only "question" the writings of the Bible and weigh what I read against my own experiences and knowledge, I "question" pretty much everything.  Now your  link above certainly seems to have an "answer" to the problem but then you see that certain questions remain.  The "scientist" of course has a presupposition that he uses to interpret his observations.  I question the "decay rates" for starters.  When NASA first measured the actual decay rates after the Apollo mission left a mirror on the moon's surface for laser reflection, they reported larger rates than they are currently using.  Why the change?  Did they discover that the "rates" were inconsistent with their "religion"?  Did they have to "recalibrate" their measuring equipment to help their measurements to agree with their presupposition??  Oh, no!!! Scientists would NEVER do that !!!   They are upright guys with pocket protectors and they don't have any idea on how to falsify data.  Well I personally know of a just such a case at UNR's physics department.  The "scientist" was asked to leave and he simply got another position at another university.  Yeah, the other university knew about his falsification of data but didn't care because he was a well-known scientist with several publications to his name...

    In checking some of the arguments against a shorter lifespan of the universe I came across the following:  "In 2001, scientists working with the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope in Chile applied the radioactive dating technique to an old star in our galaxy, the Milky Way. The researchers studied the isotope uranium 238, whose nucleus contains 92 protons and 146 neutrons. The scientists knew how much uranium the star must have had when it formed, and they measured how much it has now. They then applied their knowledge of decay rates to calculate the age of the star. The most likely age of the star is 12.5 billion years, so the universe is probably older than that. Measurements of the ages of many old stars using another element, thorium, gave similar results.

    Contributor: Joel R. Primack, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Cruz."

    If you note the one "telling" statement "The scientists knew how much uranium the star MUST have had when it formed...".   So you see what is so common in "science".  They state something as "fact" when it is not necessarily so.  If they have PROOF of the amount of uranium then there is no need for the qualifier "MUST".  Of course they can NEVER KNOW because they were not there to measure the amount when the star was "born".  They can SPECULATE what it should have been IF their THEORY regarding star genesis is CORRECT...

    This is exactly why I don't trust your "high priests" of the "science" cult as they are just as inaccurate or downright deceptive as others.  Since I cannot duplicate their "science" due to lack of resources as well as lack of schooling in some of these areas, I take everything they say with a grain of salt. 

    Not to mention my distrust of "science" with regard to "global warming".  I was told in high school that all the best "science" was indicating the perils of a coming "ice age" brought on by (you guessed it) our use of fossil fuels.  These same "scientists" are now trying the same old song with different lyrics.  They were also telling us how we were using petroleum products at a rate that would exhaust the worlds supply by the 1990's!  Well guess what?  It's 2008 and were swimming in crude.  There are more fields discovered every day and if we would drill on the north slope we would have enough for many years (but the "snail darter" wouldn't like it...)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on November 01, 2008, 09:27:48 PM
    Of course, "once" you start "denying" scientific premises, you can "deny" whatever you like. And, "randomly" inserting quotation marks does little to "bolster" the absurdity of your "claims."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Prometheus on November 01, 2008, 10:38:47 PM



    ...When NASA first measured the actual decay rates after the Apollo mission left a mirror on the moon's surface for laser reflection, they reported larger rates than they are currently using.  Why the change?  Did they discover that the "rates" were inconsistent with their "religion"?  Did they have to "recalibrate" their measuring equipment to help their measurements to agree with their presupposition??  Oh, no!!! Scientists would NEVER do that !!!   They are upright guys with pocket protectors and they don't have any idea on how to falsify data.  Well I personally know of a just such a case at UNR's physics department.  The "scientist" was asked to leave and he simply got another position at another university.  Yeah, the other university knew about his falsification of data but didn't care because he was a well-known scientist with several publications to his name...

    You seem to be upset that "scientists" (side note, your overuse of quotation marks is hilarious) change their minds. Unlike religion which gives black and white answers, the process of science is full of grey areas. Our knowledge changes and is refined over time. The following diagram should illustrate the difference.

    (http://splendidelles.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/science-vs-faith.png)

    With most young eathers they engage in a tactic when they just throw as many misconceptions at you as possible. It take just one sentence to make a false claim, but many paragraphs to debunk it. I don't want to expend much energy in deconstucing each claim, but I do want to quote Carl Sagan.

    "So if you want to really be able to predict the future -- not in everything, but in some areas -- there's only one regime of human scholarship, of human claims to knowledge, that really delivers the goods, and that's science. Religions would give their eyeteeth to be able to predict anything like that well. Think of how much mileage they would make if they ever could do predictions comparably unambiguous and precise.

    Now how does it work? Why is it so successful?

    Science has built-in error-correcting mechanisms -- because science recognizes that scientists, like everybody else, are fallible, that we make mistakes, that we're driven by the same prejudices as everybody else. There are no forbidden questions. Arguments from authority are worthless. Claims must be demonstrated. Ad hommem arguments -- arguments about the personality of somebody who disagrees with you -- are irrelevant; they can be sleazeballs and be right, and you can be a pillar of the community and be wrong."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Prometheus on November 01, 2008, 11:23:51 PM
    Grape or strawberry flavor?

    (http://www.knitwareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/nerds.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on November 02, 2008, 07:11:54 AM



    ...When NASA first measured the actual decay rates after the Apollo mission left a mirror on the moon's surface for laser reflection, they reported larger rates than they are currently using.  Why the change?  Did they discover that the "rates" were inconsistent with their "religion"?  Did they have to "recalibrate" their measuring equipment to help their measurements to agree with their presupposition??  Oh, no!!! Scientists would NEVER do that !!!   They are upright guys with pocket protectors and they don't have any idea on how to falsify data.  Well I personally know of a just such a case at UNR's physics department.  The "scientist" was asked to leave and he simply got another position at another university.  Yeah, the other university knew about his falsification of data but didn't care because he was a well-known scientist with several publications to his name...

    You seem to be upset that "scientists" (side note, your overuse of quotation marks is hilarious) change their minds. Unlike religion which gives black and white answers, the process of science is full of grey areas. Our knowledge changes and is refined over time. The following diagram should illustrate the difference.

    (http://splendidelles.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/science-vs-faith.png)

    With most young eathers they engage in a tactic when they just throw as many misconceptions at you as possible. It take just one sentence to make a false claim, but many paragraphs to debunk it. I don't want to expend much energy in deconstucing each claim, but I do want to quote Carl Sagan.

    "So if you want to really be able to predict the future -- not in everything, but in some areas -- there's only one regime of human scholarship, of human claims to knowledge, that really delivers the goods, and that's science. Religions would give their eyeteeth to be able to predict anything like that well. Think of how much mileage they would make if they ever could do predictions comparably unambiguous and precise.

    Now how does it work? Why is it so successful?

    Science has built-in error-correcting mechanisms -- because science recognizes that scientists, like everybody else, are fallible, that we make mistakes, that we're driven by the same prejudices as everybody else. There are no forbidden questions. Arguments from authority are worthless. Claims must be demonstrated. Ad hommem arguments -- arguments about the personality of somebody who disagrees with you -- are irrelevant; they can be sleazeballs and be right, and you can be a pillar of the community and be wrong."

    Solid post with a great use of flowchart!  :D
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on November 02, 2008, 09:55:23 AM
    Yes--I love the flowchart! Few devices illustrate something so completely as a well designed flowchart.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on November 02, 2008, 12:26:46 PM
    The "faith" flow chart doesn't flow.  It stops in one iteration.  If it were a real process, it would be continuous, repeating over and over, and, if I understand the mindset of its creator, the idea would be that no learning of objective facts takes place, so the cycle repeats without any actual learning.


    (This is not to say the mindset the creator intended to depict could not be depicted as an actual flow chart--it's just to say it's not accurate.  If I feel like it and have the time, I'll consider doing a better one, which still conveys the message the author wished.)

    Interesting point - although, with regards to many religiously minded folks (not all, of course), there is only one process with no repetition - as dictated by the flowchart, as it is. A repetition would suggest revision/ evaluation of current ideas, of which (for many religious folk) there is none.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on November 02, 2008, 12:36:13 PM
    The "faith" flow chart doesn't flow.  It stops in one iteration.  If it were a real process, it would be continuous, repeating over and over, and, if I understand the mindset of its creator, the idea would be that no learning of objective facts takes place, so the cycle repeats without any actual learning.

    Yes, that would be the point.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on November 02, 2008, 12:48:42 PM
    The "faith" flow chart doesn't flow.  It stops in one iteration.  If it were a real process, it would be continuous, repeating over and over, and, if I understand the mindset of its creator, the idea would be that no learning of objective facts takes place, so the cycle repeats without any actual learning.


    (This is not to say the mindset the creator intended to depict could not be depicted as an actual flow chart--it's just to say it's not accurate.  If I feel like it and have the time, I'll consider doing a better one, which still conveys the message the author wished.)

    Interesting point - although, with regards to many religiously minded folks (not all, of course), there is only one process with no repetition - as dictated by the flowchart, as it is. A repetition would suggest revision/ evaluation of current ideas, of which (for many religious folk) there is none.

    Actually, as the faithful understand it, the process repeats indefinitely, with the faith getting stronger and the knowledge of Christ increasing.

    Yes, but there would be no further revisitng of 'get an idea' in the flowcart. Once the one idea is 'revealed' a brick wall goes up and no further revision, never mind learning, takes place.

    Of course, I'm talking about the fundies - other more liberal religious folks would evaluate other ideas, but, often, only against their chosen idea. If it conflicted, their reasoning, then, would be 'how do I explain this new conflicting idea away in order to make my central idea (ie: god exists in the way my religion states) remain secure and steadfast?' 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on November 02, 2008, 01:35:07 PM
    The "faith" flow chart doesn't flow.  It stops in one iteration.  If it were a real process, it would be continuous, repeating over and over, and, if I understand the mindset of its creator, the idea would be that no learning of objective facts takes place, so the cycle repeats without any actual learning.


    (This is not to say the mindset the creator intended to depict could not be depicted as an actual flow chart--it's just to say it's not accurate.  If I feel like it and have the time, I'll consider doing a better one, which still conveys the message the author wished.)

    Interesting point - although, with regards to many religiously minded folks (not all, of course), there is only one process with no repetition - as dictated by the flowchart, as it is. A repetition would suggest revision/ evaluation of current ideas, of which (for many religious folk) there is none.

    Actually, as the faithful understand it, the process repeats indefinitely, with the faith getting stronger and the knowledge of Christ increasing.

    Yes, but there would be no further revisitng of 'get an idea' in the flowcart. Once the one idea is 'revealed' a brick wall goes up and no further revision, never mind learning, takes place.

    Of course, I'm talking about the fundies - other more liberal religious folks would evaluate other ideas, but, often, only against their chosen idea. If it conflicted, their reasoning, then, would be 'how do I explain this new conflicting idea away in order to make my central idea (ie: god exists in the way my religion states) remain secure and steadfast?' 

    Oh, certainly, the process would be different, but it would, be a repeating cycle, by definition, otherwise it would end.  Maybe I can work up something plausible later (perhaps two--one from the athiest's view of christianity, one from the Christian's.)

    It would be cool if you got the chance to do that - I'd be interested to see both flowcharts and (with your permission) post them where discussion on the matter results elsewhere online...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 03, 2008, 07:43:05 AM
    Wow. A "flow chart" (in quotes).  I guess you win.  I don't have a "flow chart" so I have to concede (not).  First of all, your flow chart doesn't even address my point that "scientists" are just regular guys who sometimes falsify data and that they do it more often than admitted.  With my "limited" experience in that area know of one personally.  Who knows how many others go unreported as that one did.  I have nothing against "scientists" in general and certainly nothing against SCIENCE.  Science can be used to find truth and it can be used for propaganda (global warming).  The cult (believers in government) can use "evidence" from their highly funded and completely un-verifiable billion dollar "experiments" to fool the populace into conforming to their whim.  I you can verify something with a table-top lab in your kitchen, those results I will accept.  I can see my surroundings and how nature works.  I can do simple experiments to verify how I believe things work.  I DO NOT trust you or anyone else to tell me what I know for myself to be be true (indeed we would be much better off if people quit taking others words as truth without evidence).  Basically you have simply removed God from your life and inserted "science" as your god and "scientists" as your high priests.  You cannot verify these high priests claims for yourself but because two or more of these high priests tell you they agree with each other you add their words to your "gospel".

    Real science is what you can observe and deduce yourself, false science is taking the words of others and believing them without verifying their results (and few of us have an extra billion to do so).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Militant on November 03, 2008, 07:54:22 AM
    First of all, your flow chart doesn't even address my point that "scientists" are just regular guys who sometimes falsify data and that they do it more often than admitted.  With my "limited" experience in that area know of one personally.  Who knows how many others go unreported as that one did.  I have nothing against "scientists" in general and certainly nothing against SCIENCE.  Science can be used to find truth and it can be used for propaganda (global warming).  The cult (believers in government) can use "evidence" from their highly funded and completely un-verifiable billion dollar "experiments" to fool the populace into conforming to their whim.  I you can verify something with a table-top lab in your kitchen, those results I will accept.  I can see my surroundings and how nature works.  I can do simple experiments to verify how I believe things work.  I DO NOT trust you or anyone else to tell me what I know for myself to be be true (indeed we would be much better off if people quit taking others words as truth without evidence).  Basically you have simply removed God from your life and inserted "science" as your god and "scientists" as your high priests.  You cannot verify these high priests claims for yourself but because two or more of these high priests tell you they agree with each other you add their words to your "gospel".

    Real science is what you can observe and deduce yourself, false science is taking the words of others and believing them without verifying their results (and few of us have an extra billion to do so).

    Says somebody taking the word of people who have been deceased for thousands of years to form his religious views.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 03, 2008, 07:59:20 AM
    I have clarified my position many times that I use my observation of things around me to come to my ultimate conclusion that the Creator exists...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on November 03, 2008, 08:37:05 AM
    I DO NOT trust you or anyone else to tell me what I know for myself to be be true (indeed we would be much better off if people quit taking others words as truth without evidence). 

    So, is discussion useless, in your opinion, Gene?

    I think it's more important to evaluate the proof offered, rather than insist on only believing things you can see/ hear/ feel for yourself. Your remit of belief is going to be very much limited, Gene, if it is confined to the things you can only experiment on by yourself.

    You've stated before that you accept the disciples' words on what they saw re: Jesus as you feel that they have no reason to lie...

    ... why do you think scientists would lie?

    NOTE: The non-canonical Nag Hammadi gospels do not, generally, identify Jesus as the son of god or as having resurrected AND some scholars believe that one of such - the gospel of thomas - may have been written prior to Mark, or formed one of Matthew/ Luke's primary sources - ie:Source 'Q'
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Russell Griswold on November 03, 2008, 09:33:53 AM
    I have clarified my position many times that I use my observation of things around me to come to my ultimate conclusion that the Creator exists...

    Give it time Gene... I once believed in a creator as well. It only takes one or two traumatizing events in life to change that.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 03, 2008, 10:59:11 AM

    ... why do you think scientists would lie?


    1. My own personal experience
    2. Gain funding
    3. Prestige
    4. Historical examples
    5. fill-in-the-blank
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 03, 2008, 11:01:53 AM
    I have clarified my position many times that I use my observation of things around me to come to my ultimate conclusion that the Creator exists...

    Give it time Gene... I once believed in a creator as well. It only takes one or two traumatizing events in life to change that.

    I have made the "transition" twice in my life.  I have had several "traumatizing events" in my life.  Perspective is what make the difference.  When you look at the big scheme of things, all our traumatizing events are minuscule when measured against the bigger picture.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on November 03, 2008, 11:18:53 AM

    ... why do you think scientists would lie?


    1. My own personal experience
    2. Gain funding
    3. Prestige
    4. Historical examples
    5. fill-in-the-blank


    Pretty much all of those could be used to describe why the disciples may have lied...

    Now, would anyone like to counter Gene with why scientists might want to tell the truth?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on November 03, 2008, 11:21:10 AM

    ... why do you think scientists would lie?


    1. My own personal experience
    2. Gain funding
    3. Prestige
    4. Historical examples
    5. fill-in-the-blank


    Pretty much all of those could be used to describe why the disciples may have lied...

    Now, would anyone like to counter Gene with why scientists might want to tell the truth?

    Primarily?

    1.  Getting drummed out of their profession for lying, and hence
    2.  Losing their primary source of income, and
    3.  Becoming an eternal source of mockery amongst colleagues and others
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on November 03, 2008, 04:14:37 PM
    Exactly, dude.

    Just another point, Gene:- I wonder as to what experiments you have carried out to prove the creator's existance?

    Sure, you may point to the world around you as 'natrual revelation' of a creator (ie: the evidence of 'creation' proves a 'creator') but I'm interested to know how you streamline that evidence to prove *your* specific brand of creator - ie: xianity?

    What experiments did you conduct to test evidence for a judeo/ xian brand of god against an islamic god or, indeed, some of the greek or roman deities?

    Is there some type of evidence that is particular to jesus/ xian ideology or - as I suspect - did you become an xian anarchist because, simply, you were born into a xian family or were first introduced to xianity, as opposed to any other religion? 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Prometheus on November 03, 2008, 06:08:06 PM
    Gene,

    I was going to write a typical message board "religion vs science" post in response. Even though we've never met, I respect your principled anti-government stance and want to engage in a more productive dialog.

    I've gone ahead and changed my avatar to show good faith.

    I believe you have some misunderstandings about science and the scientific method. That is not intended as an insult or a slight, I certainly have misunderstood many things in my life.

    One of the best commutators of science, especially evolutionary theory, is a man named Ken Miller. He is a religious man who also accepts evolution though natural selection. The following link is a talk he gave on how intelligent design is not science. Not because it's wrong, but because it's non-falsifiable.

    It is long, but it is very good.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg (If the link doesn't work, just google his name, its one of the first links.

    Please watch it, he also goes into how evolution could be proven wrong.

    I, like many people, did not remove God from my life and replace it with science. Flawed as it might be, I think it is our best tool for understanding nature. It's best attribute is it has a self correcting mechanism. Many people competing for the truth. Because in the end they have to show the evidence.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 03, 2008, 08:58:08 PM
    Of course you people are still not actually listening to my words.  You hear what you want to hear or what you think I would say rather than what I actually say.  I have not attacked SCIENCE.  I have attacked SCIENTISTS and the agenda that the majority of them have.  I have pointed out how the political machine has influenced real science with the dreaded dollar.  I have shown that there are examples of scientists falsifying data for monetary gain or status and no one has disputed this fact.  They only attack my message and attack me personally.  I point out that very little of the "science" that you all take for granted is not falsifiable by you due to lack of funding or understanding but you continue your faith in the cult and simply try to attack my faith.  Attack me all you want, you cannot justify your own faith in your own "high priests" of your own cult of "sciencizm" (I invented that term, do you like it?).

    Now you have to admit (and I want to hear you do so) that you cannot possibly duplicate even 1% of the "science" that you claim is truth.

    Admit it here and now...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Russell Griswold on November 03, 2008, 09:39:38 PM
    Now you have to admit (and I want to hear you do so) that you cannot possibly duplicate even 1% of the "science" that you claim is truth.

    Admit it here and now...

    I dropped a pen. Boom! Holy shit, I just proved gravity. Gene, thanks to those super evil scientists, you are able to post from your computer. You didn't have to hack in to the mainframe to post about Christian Anarchy, did you? Looks like the evil scientists let this one slide past their evil lab tools of doom...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 03, 2008, 09:46:18 PM
    Now you have to admit (and I want to hear you do so) that you cannot possibly duplicate even 1% of the "science" that you claim is truth.

    Admit it here and now...

    I dropped a pen. Boom! Holy shit, I just proved gravity. Gene, thanks to those super evil scientists, you are able to post from your computer. You didn't have to hack in to the mainframe to post about Christian Anarchy, did you? Looks like the evil scientists let this one slide past their evil lab tools of doom...

    Less than 1%.  Can you duplicate ANY of the nuclear science experiments?  How about DNA?  Can you do any space science at all?  You see what I mean?  Everything you take for granted is stuff you were told by someone else to be true.  You did not experience it yourself nor do you posses the ability to do so.  Now just admit that you cannot duplicate even 1% of what you claim is truth and then we can go on with the discussion...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Russell Griswold on November 03, 2008, 09:50:15 PM
    I don't know much about DNA. As for space science, what kind of experiment are we talking about?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 03, 2008, 10:02:44 PM
    I don't know much about DNA. As for space science, what kind of experiment are we talking about?

    Why don't we start with you telling me what kind of experiments you have done (or are within your ability to do)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Dylboz on November 03, 2008, 10:14:15 PM
    HA! My post got the deletion treatment. Oh well... maybe I can resurrect that post. Please people, KILL THIS THREAD!!!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Prometheus on November 03, 2008, 10:22:35 PM
    I have shown that there are examples of scientists falsifying data for monetary gain or status and no one has disputed this fact.  They only attack my message and attack me personally.  I point out that very little of the "science" that you all take for granted is not falsifiable by you due to lack of funding or understanding but you continue your faith in the cult and simply try to attack my faith.  Attack me all you want, you cannot justify your own faith in your own "high priests" of your own cult of "sciencizm" (I invented that term, do you like it?).

    Now you have to admit (and I want to hear you do so) that you cannot possibly duplicate even 1% of the "science" that you claim is truth.

    Admit it here and now...

    OK I admit it. I cannot possibly duplicate even 1% of our scientific knowledge. I don't have time.


    I want to understand your position 100%, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

    Are you suggesting that every single person needs to duplicate every single piece of scientific knowledge before they can claim it is true? No one has that kind of time, that's why we have a division of labor within science. Plus, it would be horribly inefficient. The same experiments we be done over and over again.

    But I can have confidence in the scientific method because it has worked so far. It delivers the goods.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: hellbilly on November 03, 2008, 10:34:18 PM
    I imagine Gene is speaking of something along the lines of old tobacco research that somehow resulted in a decision that it was harmless. The tobacco companies may have paid off the researchers to produce results favorable to their product, etc.

    Luckily the practice of skepticism is widely in place within the scientific community to test out theories in attempts to sort out what can be proven as fact, left as theory, or tossed out as false.

    I don't want Gene to think that I am attacking him, but I am certainly approaching his theory (nothing is "truth" until proven.. merely a theory) with a skeptical approach. Thus far, my findings are that since a Creator of any omnipotent origin is not supported by any factual evidence- then there is no truth here. Evidence leans to the opposite, that a Creator that comes by many names, is a man-made, and faulty, concept.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Russell Griswold on November 03, 2008, 10:34:46 PM
    I don't know much about DNA. As for space science, what kind of experiment are we talking about?

    Why don't we start with you telling me what kind of experiments you have done (or are within your ability to do)...

    Almost anything that involves electricity. Money is a problem when it comes to the expensive ones. Honestly Gene, if I had the money to recreate the Big-Bang temperature-signal experiment that was done in 1965, I would. http://www.bell-labs.com/project/feature/archives/cosmology/ (http://www.bell-labs.com/project/feature/archives/cosmology/)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Prometheus on November 03, 2008, 10:50:27 PM
    Now you have to admit (and I want to hear you do so) that you cannot possibly duplicate even 1% of the "science" that you claim is truth.

    Admit it here and now...

    I dropped a pen. Boom! Holy shit, I just proved gravity. Gene, thanks to those super evil scientists, you are able to post from your computer. You didn't have to hack in to the mainframe to post about Christian Anarchy, did you? Looks like the evil scientists let this one slide past their evil lab tools of doom...

    Less than 1%.  Can you duplicate ANY of the nuclear science experiments?  How about DNA?  Can you do any space science at all?  You see what I mean?  Everything you take for granted is stuff you were told by someone else to be true.  You did not experience it yourself nor do you posses the ability to do so.  Now just admit that you cannot duplicate even 1% of what you claim is truth and then we can go on with the discussion...

    Space science? Astronomy is not my biggest strength.

    I could tell you how far away a star is using trigonometric parallax. It would take about six months.
    http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm

    If the star is really far away, like over 6,000 light years, that would prove strongly suggest that the universe is over 6,000 years old.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: TimeLady Victorious on November 03, 2008, 11:23:47 PM
    ...

    wtf is this thread about, anyway?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: rabidfurby on November 03, 2008, 11:32:02 PM
    If the star is really far away, like over 6,000 light years, that would prove strongly suggest that the universe is over 6,000 years old.

    Or, that God created the light to look like it was coming from a star more than 6000 light-years away.

    That's the problem with trying to use rationality with someone who clings strongly to irrationality. They can weasel their way out of anything by claiming that the Great Invisible Cop-Out In The Sky did it that way on purpose.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Dylboz on November 03, 2008, 11:45:19 PM
    ...

    wtf is this thread about, anyway?

    Gene's feeeeeeliiiiiiing that there is a Jesus in the sky who knows and loves him. Nothing more. He's a crazy old coot who wants to believe that he'll get a a harp and a halo when he dies, and he's convinced himself that will actually happen, a total lack of evidence, and ample evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, he's not changing his mind, so why don't we all just leave him to it? Please?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Russell Griswold on November 03, 2008, 11:57:32 PM
    "The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

    --- H.P. Lovecraft
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 04, 2008, 08:02:47 AM
    HA! My post got the deletion treatment. Oh well... maybe I can resurrect that post. Please people, KILL THIS THREAD!!!

    You just need to "play nice" to not get deleted.  If you make remarks that I deem to be for no reason but to be inflamatory, vulgar, or disruptive, I will delete them.  Make any more remarks about my family and I'll delete everything you post.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 04, 2008, 08:04:17 AM
    I have shown that there are examples of scientists falsifying data for monetary gain or status and no one has disputed this fact.  They only attack my message and attack me personally.  I point out that very little of the "science" that you all take for granted is not falsifiable by you due to lack of funding or understanding but you continue your faith in the cult and simply try to attack my faith.  Attack me all you want, you cannot justify your own faith in your own "high priests" of your own cult of "sciencizm" (I invented that term, do you like it?).

    Now you have to admit (and I want to hear you do so) that you cannot possibly duplicate even 1% of the "science" that you claim is truth.

    Admit it here and now...

    OK I admit it. I cannot possibly duplicate even 1% of our scientific knowledge. I don't have time.


    Great.  My point is that most of your beliefs are "by faith" as are mine.  Now we are on the same ground...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on November 04, 2008, 08:17:33 AM
    I have shown that there are examples of scientists falsifying data for monetary gain or status and no one has disputed this fact.  They only attack my message and attack me personally.  I point out that very little of the "science" that you all take for granted is not falsifiable by you due to lack of funding or understanding but you continue your faith in the cult and simply try to attack my faith.  Attack me all you want, you cannot justify your own faith in your own "high priests" of your own cult of "sciencizm" (I invented that term, do you like it?).

    Now you have to admit (and I want to hear you do so) that you cannot possibly duplicate even 1% of the "science" that you claim is truth.

    Admit it here and now...

    OK I admit it. I cannot possibly duplicate even 1% of our scientific knowledge. I don't have time.


    Great.  My point is that most of your beliefs are "by faith" as are mine.  Now we are on the same ground...

    Ok, we know that scientists have been working on proving their various theories through a tried-and-tested process (see flowchart above). You, Gene, are choosing not to accept some of the results from such a process - not because you have a problem with the process, but because you do not trust the scientists involved in such.

    Is that a fair representation of where you stand? 

    If so, why don't you - instead of writing off the *science* presented by such scientists you disagree with - consider as to whether other scientists, who you might trust, agree with such?

    For example, Promotheus offered a xian scientist who believed in evolutionary science, which you seem to reject based on the 'young earth' theories - did you look at that gentleman's work?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Dylboz on November 04, 2008, 10:57:30 AM


    Great.  My point is that most of your beliefs are "by faith" as are mine.  Now we are on the same ground...

    Absolutely not. Those of us who are rationalists do not believe in science on faith, because it is not a religious construct. We accept the evidence for a theory or the results of a study or experiment, conditionally but approaching certainty as the results are repeatedly confirmed (or rejected and replaced with a new theory, if refuted) by further experimentation. This is very different from clinging to a story, regardless of evidence to the contrary, no matter what, on the basis of faith. One is a feeling, the other a reasoned conclusion. I have no idea why I'm bothering, except in hopes of getting these new people to realize they are wasting their time.

    Gene will not change his mind.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on November 04, 2008, 11:49:56 AM
    OK I admit it. I cannot possibly duplicate even 1% of our scientific knowledge. I don't have time.

    Great.  My point is that most of your beliefs are "by faith" as are mine.  Now we are on the same ground...

    Yes, the belief that the migratory patterns of blue whales entail that they winter near Baja and spend their summers around Alaska is just  like the belief that the son of God was crucified for our sins, rose from the dead, and will judge us in the afterlife. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Russell Griswold on November 04, 2008, 12:28:57 PM
    OK I admit it. I cannot possibly duplicate even 1% of our scientific knowledge. I don't have time.

    Great.  My point is that most of your beliefs are "by faith" as are mine.  Now we are on the same ground...

    Yes, the belief that the migratory patterns of blue whales entail that they winter near Baja and spend their summers around Alaska is just  like the belief that the son of God was crucified for our sins, rose from the dead, and will judge us in the afterlife. 

    Haha!  :lol:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on November 04, 2008, 12:51:50 PM
    Well, there is faith, and then there is blind faith. In the first case, belief is based on reasonable evidence, that is, it can be backed up with some sort of rational justification. I believe the sun is hot, because I can feel it's heat as it shines on my skin.

    God is based on blind faith, without regard to the evidence. This is summed up by one of the dumbest bumper stickers I have ever seen: "God said it, I believe it, and that's that!"

    Against that sort of narrow-minded sentiment there is no reasoning.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Prometheus on November 04, 2008, 05:40:24 PM
    I have shown that there are examples of scientists falsifying data for monetary gain or status and no one has disputed this fact.  They only attack my message and attack me personally.  I point out that very little of the "science" that you all take for granted is not falsifiable by you due to lack of funding or understanding but you continue your faith in the cult and simply try to attack my faith.  Attack me all you want, you cannot justify your own faith in your own "high priests" of your own cult of "sciencizm" (I invented that term, do you like it?).

    Now you have to admit (and I want to hear you do so) that you cannot possibly duplicate even 1% of the "science" that you claim is truth.

    Admit it here and now...

    OK I admit it. I cannot possibly duplicate even 1% of our scientific knowledge. I don't have time.


    Great.  My point is that most of your beliefs are "by faith" as are mine.  Now we are on the same ground...

    I'm done Gene.

    You picked out one line from my post where I agreed, to a point, with you. Then used it to set up a mischaracterization of my position. Without acknowlaging my other points.

    I tried to have a constructive dialog, but you apparently don't want one. I am finally going to listen to advice given earlier and not post in this thread.

    tl;dr
    don't feed the troll
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on November 04, 2008, 06:19:34 PM

    I'm done Gene.

    You picked out one line from my post where I agreed, to a point, with you. Then used it to set up a mischaracterization of my position. Without acknowlaging my other points.

    I tried to have a constructive dialog, but you apparently don't want one. I am finally going to listen to advice given earlier and not post in this thread.

    tl;dr
    don't feed the troll

    For what it's worth, dude, I enjoyed your dialogue.  :D
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: rabidfurby on November 04, 2008, 06:36:10 PM
    I tried to have a constructive dialog, but you apparently don't want one. I am finally going to listen to advice given earlier and not post in this thread.

    This thread is 159 pages of people slowly realizing that you can't argue with an irrational person.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 04, 2008, 07:50:41 PM
    I have shown that there are examples of scientists falsifying data for monetary gain or status and no one has disputed this fact.  They only attack my message and attack me personally.  I point out that very little of the "science" that you all take for granted is not falsifiable by you due to lack of funding or understanding but you continue your faith in the cult and simply try to attack my faith.  Attack me all you want, you cannot justify your own faith in your own "high priests" of your own cult of "sciencizm" (I invented that term, do you like it?).

    Now you have to admit (and I want to hear you do so) that you cannot possibly duplicate even 1% of the "science" that you claim is truth.

    Admit it here and now...

    OK I admit it. I cannot possibly duplicate even 1% of our scientific knowledge. I don't have time.


    Great.  My point is that most of your beliefs are "by faith" as are mine.  Now we are on the same ground...

    Ok, we know that scientists have been working on proving their various theories through a tried-and-tested process (see flowchart above). You, Gene, are choosing not to accept some of the results from such a process - not because you have a problem with the process, but because you do not trust the scientists involved in such.

    Is that a fair representation of where you stand? 

    If so, why don't you - instead of writing off the *science* presented by such scientists you disagree with - consider as to whether other scientists, who you might trust, agree with such?

    For example, Promotheus offered a xian scientist who believed in evolutionary science, which you seem to reject based on the 'young earth' theories - did you look at that gentleman's work?


    Yes, that is where I stand.  I do not trust these scientists 100%.  That is not to say that I have NO trust in what they say.  If you read the publications, they are riddled with "may" and "accepted" and "believed".  These terms show that most of them do not put 100% of their own trust in their work.

    I did not check the link above as I have literally maybe 10 minutes a day to check these posts so don't expect me to spend that kind of time doing "research" on what you provide.  I am mainly answering (or trying to with limited time) to explain WHY I believe what I do.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: rabidfurby on November 04, 2008, 08:36:54 PM
    These terms show that most of them do not put 100% of their own trust in their work.

    No one but you and other whackjobs put 100% trust into anything. The rest of us have open minds.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 04, 2008, 11:43:25 PM
    These terms show that most of them do not put 100% of their own trust in their work.

    No one but you and other whackjobs put 100% trust into anything. The rest of us have open minds.

    There you go showing your ignorance by expressing your view of what other people believe.  I've never said that I'm 100% sure of everything I believe... are you??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on November 05, 2008, 08:38:08 AM


    I did not check the link above as I have literally maybe 10 minutes a day to check these posts so don't expect me to spend that kind of time doing "research" on what you provide.  I am mainly answering (or trying to with limited time) to explain WHY I believe what I do.



    But, to believe what you do, you have to have rejected the ideas which you seem unwilling to even consider... no?

    I know why I don't believe in xianity/ the metaphysical. I've considered the evidence and consistently find it lacking. If you have anything else to offer, I will GLADLY look at it - in a heartbeat.

    I just can't get why you wouldn't be willing to do the same... especially when your standpoint comes from a mistrust of *people* who you feel have a particular agenda that is distatsteful to you/ xianity...

    When Promtheous offered you a xian-friendly scientist to consider, I thought you would be jumping at the chance to see what the guy had to say...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Russell Griswold on November 05, 2008, 10:27:02 AM
    I tried to have a constructive dialog, but you apparently don't want one. I am finally going to listen to advice given earlier and not post in this thread.

    This thread is 159 pages of people slowly realizing that you can't argue with an irrational person.

    My "Chaos is the Only Answer" thread died too quickly. This can only mean one thing, Christian Anarchy IS the Only Answer. I give up. You won, Gene!  :lol:
    (http://dailyscreenshots.de/screenshot/tom-jerry-in-mouse-attacks/gameboy-color-1979991)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 05, 2008, 10:56:32 PM


    I did not check the link above as I have literally maybe 10 minutes a day to check these posts so don't expect me to spend that kind of time doing "research" on what you provide.  I am mainly answering (or trying to with limited time) to explain WHY I believe what I do.



    But, to believe what you do, you have to have rejected the ideas which you seem unwilling to even consider... no?

    I know why I don't believe in xianity/ the metaphysical. I've considered the evidence and consistently find it lacking. If you have anything else to offer, I will GLADLY look at it - in a heartbeat.

    I just can't get why you wouldn't be willing to do the same... especially when your standpoint comes from a mistrust of *people* who you feel have a particular agenda that is distatsteful to you/ xianity...

    When Promtheous offered you a xian-friendly scientist to consider, I thought you would be jumping at the chance to see what the guy had to say...

    If I had the time I would like to watch the video but it is one hour long so I don't know when I would get around to it.  Between work and my car (installing a new engine) I have no time.

    As to why I believe, I have lots of personal experiences that show me there's something other than the physical.  So most of my belief is due to things I cannot show but only testify to.  I have seen the power of evil and of God.  I also use my own common sense to determine that what we see around us could not have happened by chance as the odds are just too great...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on November 09, 2008, 04:17:03 PM
    The "unexplained" is called the unexplainable because it simply cannot be explained, or else it could be, and then nothing would be left to explain, leaving you either enlightened or misguided. Either way, placing a name to that which we do not know comforts our fears and discontent, as it is natural and innate to fear that which you do not know. Some would dare to say that ignorance is bliss, and I say that those who know nothing are closer to the truth than he whose mind is already filled with falsehoods and errors.

    But, once again I digress.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 10, 2008, 06:56:21 PM
    Yes, you do...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on November 17, 2008, 05:06:41 PM
    I already said that.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on November 17, 2008, 05:13:17 PM
    I am so tired of this tumor of a thread I can't even put it into words that would do it justice.

    Everyone quit picking on Gene.

    Gene, get yourself a damned blog already.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on November 17, 2008, 05:22:57 PM
    I am just so happy that it actually stayed on topic (mostly) this long. I actually don't like the topic, however....perhaps I am not so much "happy" as I am just, uh, not sad.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: NHArticleTen on November 17, 2008, 05:23:52 PM
    I am so tired of this tumor of a thread I can't even put it into words that would do it justice.

    Everyone quit picking on Gene.

    Gene, get yourself a damned blog already.



    well...you know it would not have had 30,600 views if it would have just said "anarchy"...

    but I'll bet FTL got alot of "extra" hits...say thirty thousand or so...lol

    IMHO..."many" so-called "christians" support the mobocracy and it's aggression/force/fraud...and it's pure hell converting them to voluntaryism...

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on November 17, 2008, 05:25:16 PM
    It still makes me want to barf.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: NHArticleTen on November 17, 2008, 05:27:36 PM
    It still makes me want to barf.

    second the barfing

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on November 17, 2008, 05:30:28 PM
    fags.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 18, 2008, 09:46:03 AM
    I am so tired of this tumor of a thread I can't even put it into words that would do it justice.

    Everyone quit picking on Gene.

    Gene, get yourself a damned blog already.



    well...you know it would not have had 30,600 views if it would have just said "anarchy"...

    but I'll bet FTL got alot of "extra" hits...say thirty thousand or so...lol

    IMHO..."many" so-called "christians" support the mobocracy and it's aggression/force/fraud...and it's pure hell converting them to voluntaryism...



    I agree.  "Christians" are hard to convert to freedom, but I'm working on it...

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: NHArticleTen on November 18, 2008, 10:13:50 AM
    I am so tired of this tumor of a thread I can't even put it into words that would do it justice.

    Everyone quit picking on Gene.

    Gene, get yourself a damned blog already.



    well...you know it would not have had 30,600 views if it would have just said "anarchy"...

    but I'll bet FTL got alot of "extra" hits...say thirty thousand or so...lol

    IMHO..."many" so-called "christians" support the mobocracy and it's aggression/force/fraud...and it's pure hell converting them to voluntaryism...



    I agree.  "Christians" are hard to convert to freedom, but I'm working on it...



    devil worshipers are more easily convinced to leave everyone else alone...

    IMHO...if "christians" got "back" instantly...all the aggregated aggression/force/fraud they themselves have advocated and participated-in...they would all die immediately...

    and the rest would either leave everyone else alone...or be repelled, destroyed, and eliminated...


    onward christian mobocracy looter minions indeed...

    straight to hell...



    ask how I really feel...meh...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on November 18, 2008, 05:20:14 PM


    Everyone quit picking on Gene.



    He kinda asked for it!  :lol:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 19, 2008, 09:39:10 PM


    Everyone quit picking on Gene.



    He kinda asked for it!  :lol:

    Actually, I don't recall making such a request.  It does look like you might just have to put up with me for awhile longer since I "almost" got electrocuted but miraculously did not get any current...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: hellbilly on November 19, 2008, 09:46:48 PM
    Are you saying this was a miracle?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on November 19, 2008, 10:02:55 PM
    Are you saying this was a miracle?

    I'd say so.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on November 19, 2008, 11:10:17 PM
    A review of recent posts finds a concern that freewill cannot exist because God knows the future.  I hardly find this convincing.  Because someone has KNOWLEDGE of what you will do is not the same as MAKING you do it.  You have the freewill to make your decisions.  You were CREATED with freewill AND rights.  Your rights and your freewill follow you wherever you travel  in the universe.  When I'm in China, I have a right to keep and bear arms, for instance.  There are, however, armed CULT MEMBERS who feel (mistakenly) that they have authority to take my weapons or even kill me.  That does not mean that my rights do not exist, it means that a gang of thugs want to VIOLATE those rights.  If I were to carry a pistol in China (they are available on the black market) I would do so concealed.  Indeed, in China, it is less likely that I would be searched then here...



    Gene, I think you are making epic fail here because you are ascribing human characteristics to God which is blasphemous.  The reason we do not refer to God by his true name is because it is impossible for us to comprehend because God is so much more than human that it is fallacious to ascribe human characteristics to him.  Referring to "God's Knowledge" or "God's Intent" or "God's Love" are all blasphemous.  That is because it is blasphemy to reduce God to the level of a human, when he is so much more. 

    God is everywhere and everything.  Not some man in a chair high in the sky casting thunderbolts and dictating the lives of insignificant humans. 

    To defile God by supposing that he "feels" human characteristics like love and hate or knowledge or jealousy is blasphemy in all religious with Judaic roots.


    Oh yeah, and

    Humans have free will.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 19, 2008, 11:46:30 PM
    Are you saying this was a miracle?

    Absolutely.  I had one hand on ground and the other on a live current wire.  Didn't get any current at all.  I really should be dead right now.  I've seen a "safety video" where the showed actual footage of an 18 y/o kid washing his car and he had a vacuum cleaner and was standing in water.  The instant the kid's hand hit the ground, he dropped like a stone and could not be revived...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on November 19, 2008, 11:47:45 PM
    Are you saying this was a miracle?

    Absolutely.  I had one hand on ground and the other on a live current wire.  Didn't get any current at all.  I really should be dead right now.  I've seen a "safety video" where the showed actual footage of an 18 y/o kid washing his car and he had a vacuum cleaner and was standing in water.  The instant the kid's hand hit the ground, he dropped like a stone and could not be revived...
    There was something you probably just missed, like the circuit was still open somewhere and you just didn't realize it.  Perhaps that was miraculous.  I believe either everything is a miracle or nothing is.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 19, 2008, 11:54:32 PM
    A review of recent posts finds a concern that freewill cannot exist because God knows the future.  I hardly find this convincing.  Because someone has KNOWLEDGE of what you will do is not the same as MAKING you do it.  You have the freewill to make your decisions.  You were CREATED with freewill AND rights.  Your rights and your freewill follow you wherever you travel  in the universe.  When I'm in China, I have a right to keep and bear arms, for instance.  There are, however, armed CULT MEMBERS who feel (mistakenly) that they have authority to take my weapons or even kill me.  That does not mean that my rights do not exist, it means that a gang of thugs want to VIOLATE those rights.  If I were to carry a pistol in China (they are available on the black market) I would do so concealed.  Indeed, in China, it is less likely that I would be searched then here...



    Gene, I think you are making epic fail here because you are ascribing human characteristics to God which is blasphemous.  The reason we do not refer to God by his true name is because it is impossible for us to comprehend because God is so much more than human that it is fallacious to ascribe human characteristics to him.  Referring to "God's Knowledge" or "God's Intent" or "God's Love" are all blasphemous.  That is because it is blasphemy to reduce God to the level of a human, when he is so much more. 

    God is everywhere and everything.  Not some man in a chair high in the sky casting thunderbolts and dictating the lives of insignificant humans. 

    To defile God by supposing that he "feels" human characteristics like love and hate or knowledge or jealousy is blasphemy in all religious with Judaic roots.


    Oh yeah, and

    Humans have free will.

    I re-read what I posted and I can't see where I said anything about the nature of God other than to make a reference to Him knowing the future.  Still, I don't accept your claim that it is "blasphemy" to claim that God could have some similarities between His nature and ours.  You can claim that if you like and maybe you are right (but then again, maybe you are wrong).  I certainly don't see where God has indicated to me that I have somehow defiled Him with my words...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 19, 2008, 11:57:12 PM
    Are you saying this was a miracle?

    Absolutely.  I had one hand on ground and the other on a live current wire.  Didn't get any current at all.  I really should be dead right now.  I've seen a "safety video" where the showed actual footage of an 18 y/o kid washing his car and he had a vacuum cleaner and was standing in water.  The instant the kid's hand hit the ground, he dropped like a stone and could not be revived...
    There was something you probably just missed, like the circuit was still open somewhere and you just didn't realize it.  Perhaps that was miraculous.  I believe either everything is a miracle or nothing is.

    No, I had just plugged it in to check with my meter that the fuse was hot on one end and dead on the other.  There's no doubt that what I touched was hot.  Of course you can believe what ever you like as most everyone's beliefs differ.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on November 20, 2008, 12:00:04 AM
    A review of recent posts finds a concern that freewill cannot exist because God knows the future.  I hardly find this convincing.  Because someone has KNOWLEDGE of what you will do is not the same as MAKING you do it.  You have the freewill to make your decisions.  You were CREATED with freewill AND rights.  Your rights and your freewill follow you wherever you travel  in the universe.  When I'm in China, I have a right to keep and bear arms, for instance.  There are, however, armed CULT MEMBERS who feel (mistakenly) that they have authority to take my weapons or even kill me.  That does not mean that my rights do not exist, it means that a gang of thugs want to VIOLATE those rights.  If I were to carry a pistol in China (they are available on the black market) I would do so concealed.  Indeed, in China, it is less likely that I would be searched then here...



    Gene, I think you are making epic fail here because you are ascribing human characteristics to God which is blasphemous.  The reason we do not refer to God by his true name is because it is impossible for us to comprehend because God is so much more than human that it is fallacious to ascribe human characteristics to him.  Referring to "God's Knowledge" or "God's Intent" or "God's Love" are all blasphemous.  That is because it is blasphemy to reduce God to the level of a human, when he is so much more. 

    God is everywhere and everything.  Not some man in a chair high in the sky casting thunderbolts and dictating the lives of insignificant humans. 

    To defile God by supposing that he "feels" human characteristics like love and hate or knowledge or jealousy is blasphemy in all religious with Judaic roots.


    Oh yeah, and

    Humans have free will.

    I re-read what I posted and I can't see where I said anything about the nature of God other than to make a reference to Him knowing the future.  Still, I don't accept your claim that it is "blasphemy" to claim that God could have some similarities between His nature and ours.  You can claim that if you like and maybe you are right (but then again, maybe you are wrong).  I certainly don't see where God has indicated to me that I have somehow defiled Him with my words...
    Simply by ascribing human characteristics to God you are defiling him by bringing him down to the level of humans, when he is so much more, literally EVERYTHING more because of God's omnipotence.  You by likening yourself to God, not only are you risking violation of the 1st Commandment, but you are also degrading God to the comparatively extremely low level of humanity.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on November 20, 2008, 12:03:05 AM
    The real reason why you're not supposed to use God's name is that, in the Jewish mythology, doing so would summoned Him into your presence. If you call forth God, you'd better have a damn good reason! After all, He is a busy deity, what with the smiting and all.

    Actually, you CAN summon forth God, provided you actually have a good reason. Like, wanting to ask him to kill your enemies, for example.

    This is why the ancient Jews would never utter the name of--you know who. Even more sever was to (gasp) write it down. For this reason, they would leave some of the letters of his name out, just to be safe. To be even safer still, they would call Him by the general term, "God," rather than by his given (?) name.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on November 20, 2008, 12:05:16 AM
    The real reason why you're not supposed to use God's name is that, in the Jewish mythology, doing so would summoned Him into your presence. If you call forth God, you'd better have a damn good reason! After all, He is a busy deity, what with the smiting and all.

    Actually, you CAN summon forth God, provided you actually have a good reason. Like, wanting to ask him to kill your enemies, for example.

    This is why the ancient Jews would never utter the name of--you know who. Even more sever was to (gasp) write it down. For this reason, they would leave some of the letters of his name out, just to be safe. To be even safer still, they would call Him by the general term, "God," rather than by his given (?) name.
    Actually according to several of the rabbis I've spoken with, and my own interpretation, it's because of the reason I just listed above.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 20, 2008, 10:55:13 PM
    Simply by ascribing human characteristics to God you are defiling him by bringing him down to the level of humans, when he is so much more, literally EVERYTHING more because of God's omnipotence.  You by likening yourself to God, not only are you risking violation of the 1st Commandment, but you are also degrading God to the comparatively extremely low level of humanity.

    You can certainly make the claim that "God doesn't like X" but I certainly don't have to accept it.  I don't accept that I cannot say certain things about God as that will "defile" Him.  Perhaps he feels flattered when we try to ascribe "human" traits to Him.  After all, He is our "Father" according to my belief and fathers in general love to have their little offspring make cute motions toward being like "dada"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on November 20, 2008, 10:58:48 PM
    Simply by ascribing human characteristics to God you are defiling him by bringing him down to the level of humans, when he is so much more, literally EVERYTHING more because of God's omnipotence.  You by likening yourself to God, not only are you risking violation of the 1st Commandment, but you are also degrading God to the comparatively extremely low level of humanity.

    You can certainly make the claim that "God doesn't like X" but I certainly don't have to accept it.  I don't accept that I cannot say certain things about God as that will "defile" Him.  Perhaps he feels flattered when we try to ascribe "human" traits to Him.  After all, He is our "Father" according to my belief and fathers in general love to have their little offspring make cute motions toward being like "dada"...

    I didn't say that God likes this or that, I said that likening God to a human by ascribing human traits to him is degrading defilement, blasphemy, and a violation of the 1st Commandment.  Saying that God likes this or that would be ascribing human traits to him which would be a defilement of his name.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: NHArticleTen on November 21, 2008, 12:55:27 PM


    over 31K

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on November 21, 2008, 05:32:19 PM


    Everyone quit picking on Gene.



    He kinda asked for it!  :lol:

    Actually, I don't recall making such a request.  It does look like you might just have to put up with me for awhile longer since I "almost" got electrocuted but miraculously did not get any current...

    Well, praise be to jebus!  :D

    Seriously, though, look after yourself, Gene! You're a cool guy and I love your calls to FTL.

    But I STILL think you asked for all the criticism by posting a thread entitled 'Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer' - the word ONLY is particularly going to court critique.

    And on we roll...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on November 21, 2008, 06:32:59 PM
    The real reason why you're not supposed to use God's name is that, in the Jewish mythology, doing so would summoned Him into your presence. If you call forth God, you'd better have a damn good reason! After all, He is a busy deity, what with the smiting and all.

    Actually, you CAN summon forth God, provided you actually have a good reason. Like, wanting to ask him to kill your enemies, for example.

    This is why the ancient Jews would never utter the name of--you know who. Even more sever was to (gasp) write it down. For this reason, they would leave some of the letters of his name out, just to be safe. To be even safer still, they would call Him by the general term, "God," rather than by his given (?) name.

    This, because Judaism came from the same multi-deity religions of the region in which calling the names of gods was something powerful and required some decent rapport between the person the called the god. Otherwise, in their mythologies, one smoky hole is what is left of said person who called said god.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on November 21, 2008, 06:36:06 PM
    The real reason why you're not supposed to use God's name is that, in the Jewish mythology, doing so would summoned Him into your presence. If you call forth God, you'd better have a damn good reason! After all, He is a busy deity, what with the smiting and all.

    Actually, you CAN summon forth God, provided you actually have a good reason. Like, wanting to ask him to kill your enemies, for example.

    This is why the ancient Jews would never utter the name of--you know who. Even more sever was to (gasp) write it down. For this reason, they would leave some of the letters of his name out, just to be safe. To be even safer still, they would call Him by the general term, "God," rather than by his given (?) name.

    This, because Judaism came from the same multi-deity religions of the region in which calling the names of gods was something powerful and required some decent rapport between the person the called the god. Otherwise, in their mythologies, one smoky hole is what is left of said person who called said god.
    Nah, I think your explanation sucks.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on November 21, 2008, 06:38:25 PM
    The real reason why you're not supposed to use God's name is that, in the Jewish mythology, doing so would summoned Him into your presence. If you call forth God, you'd better have a damn good reason! After all, He is a busy deity, what with the smiting and all.

    Actually, you CAN summon forth God, provided you actually have a good reason. Like, wanting to ask him to kill your enemies, for example.

    This is why the ancient Jews would never utter the name of--you know who. Even more sever was to (gasp) write it down. For this reason, they would leave some of the letters of his name out, just to be safe. To be even safer still, they would call Him by the general term, "God," rather than by his given (?) name.

    This, because Judaism came from the same multi-deity religions of the region in which calling the names of gods was something powerful and required some decent rapport between the person the called the god. Otherwise, in their mythologies, one smoky hole is what is left of said person who called said god.
    Nah, I think your explanation sucks.

    Too bad, that's the basic form of what is believed among scholars in regards to ancient mideast religions. If you don't like it, too bad. It's got more evidence than what a bunch of rabbis looking at books (and never looking at any physical evidence or linguistic/literary comparisons of similar religions in the region of the time frame of its formation). Frankly, any religionist trying to justify faith based on what amounts to ancient slash fiction is fucking retarded.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on November 21, 2008, 06:40:30 PM
    The real reason why you're not supposed to use God's name is that, in the Jewish mythology, doing so would summoned Him into your presence. If you call forth God, you'd better have a damn good reason! After all, He is a busy deity, what with the smiting and all.

    Actually, you CAN summon forth God, provided you actually have a good reason. Like, wanting to ask him to kill your enemies, for example.

    This is why the ancient Jews would never utter the name of--you know who. Even more sever was to (gasp) write it down. For this reason, they would leave some of the letters of his name out, just to be safe. To be even safer still, they would call Him by the general term, "God," rather than by his given (?) name.

    This, because Judaism came from the same multi-deity religions of the region in which calling the names of gods was something powerful and required some decent rapport between the person the called the god. Otherwise, in their mythologies, one smoky hole is what is left of said person who called said god.
    Nah, I think your explanation sucks.

    Too bad, that's the basic form of what is believed among scholars in regards to ancient mideast religions. If you don't like it, too bad. It's got more evidence than what a bunch of rabbis looking at books (and never looking at any physical evidence or linguistic/literary comparisons of similar religions in the region of the time frame of its formation). Frankly, any religionist trying to justify faith based on what amounts to ancient slash fiction is fucking retarded.
    That Jews believe that calling God's name will bring him out of the sky to smite someone?   :shock: :?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on November 21, 2008, 06:42:18 PM
    The real reason why you're not supposed to use God's name is that, in the Jewish mythology, doing so would summoned Him into your presence. If you call forth God, you'd better have a damn good reason! After all, He is a busy deity, what with the smiting and all.

    Actually, you CAN summon forth God, provided you actually have a good reason. Like, wanting to ask him to kill your enemies, for example.

    This is why the ancient Jews would never utter the name of--you know who. Even more sever was to (gasp) write it down. For this reason, they would leave some of the letters of his name out, just to be safe. To be even safer still, they would call Him by the general term, "God," rather than by his given (?) name.

    This, because Judaism came from the same multi-deity religions of the region in which calling the names of gods was something powerful and required some decent rapport between the person the called the god. Otherwise, in their mythologies, one smoky hole is what is left of said person who called said god.
    Nah, I think your explanation sucks.

    Too bad, that's the basic form of what is believed among scholars in regards to ancient mideast religions. If you don't like it, too bad. It's got more evidence than what a bunch of rabbis looking at books (and never looking at any physical evidence or linguistic/literary comparisons of similar religions in the region of the time frame of its formation). Frankly, any religionist trying to justify faith based on what amounts to ancient slash fiction is fucking retarded.
    That Jews believe that calling God's name will bring him out of the sky to smite someone?   :shock: :?

    Calling God's true name in the Holy of Holies can get your ass killed if you're not purified according to the rituals. Then again, according to legend that name will never be spoken again until the messiah comes to lead his people back.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on November 21, 2008, 06:47:23 PM
    The real reason why you're not supposed to use God's name is that, in the Jewish mythology, doing so would summoned Him into your presence. If you call forth God, you'd better have a damn good reason! After all, He is a busy deity, what with the smiting and all.

    Actually, you CAN summon forth God, provided you actually have a good reason. Like, wanting to ask him to kill your enemies, for example.

    This is why the ancient Jews would never utter the name of--you know who. Even more sever was to (gasp) write it down. For this reason, they would leave some of the letters of his name out, just to be safe. To be even safer still, they would call Him by the general term, "God," rather than by his given (?) name.

    This, because Judaism came from the same multi-deity religions of the region in which calling the names of gods was something powerful and required some decent rapport between the person the called the god. Otherwise, in their mythologies, one smoky hole is what is left of said person who called said god.
    Nah, I think your explanation sucks.

    Too bad, that's the basic form of what is believed among scholars in regards to ancient mideast religions. If you don't like it, too bad. It's got more evidence than what a bunch of rabbis looking at books (and never looking at any physical evidence or linguistic/literary comparisons of similar religions in the region of the time frame of its formation). Frankly, any religionist trying to justify faith based on what amounts to ancient slash fiction is fucking retarded.
    That Jews believe that calling God's name will bring him out of the sky to smite someone?   :shock: :?

    Calling God's true name in the Holy of Holies can get your ass killed if you're not purified according to the rituals. Then again, according to legend that name will never be spoken again until the messiah comes to lead his people back.
    Yeah, and the blarney stone is located in south boston.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: WallyC33 on November 21, 2008, 06:48:00 PM
    I am so tired of this tumor of a thread I can't even put it into words that would do it justice.

    Everyone quit picking on Gene.

    Gene, get yourself a damned blog already.



    well...you know it would not have had 30,600 views if it would have just said "anarchy"...

    but I'll bet FTL got alot of "extra" hits...say thirty thousand or so...lol

    IMHO..."many" so-called "christians" support the mobocracy and it's aggression/force/fraud...and it's pure hell converting them to voluntaryism...



    I agree.  "Christians" are hard to convert to freedom, but I'm working on it...



    devil worshipers are more easily convinced to leave everyone else alone...

    IMHO...if "christians" got "back" instantly...all the aggregated aggression/force/fraud they themselves have advocated and participated-in...they would all die immediately...

    and the rest would either leave everyone else alone...or be repelled, destroyed, and eliminated...


    onward christian mobocracy looter minions indeed...

    straight to hell...



    ask how I really feel...meh...

    That's a very collectivist statement. I'm a Christian and I don't hurt any one.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on November 21, 2008, 06:49:45 PM
    I am so tired of this tumor of a thread I can't even put it into words that would do it justice.

    Everyone quit picking on Gene.

    Gene, get yourself a damned blog already.



    well...you know it would not have had 30,600 views if it would have just said "anarchy"...

    but I'll bet FTL got alot of "extra" hits...say thirty thousand or so...lol

    IMHO..."many" so-called "christians" support the mobocracy and it's aggression/force/fraud...and it's pure hell converting them to voluntaryism...



    I agree.  "Christians" are hard to convert to freedom, but I'm working on it...



    devil worshipers are more easily convinced to leave everyone else alone...

    IMHO...if "christians" got "back" instantly...all the aggregated aggression/force/fraud they themselves have advocated and participated-in...they would all die immediately...

    and the rest would either leave everyone else alone...or be repelled, destroyed, and eliminated...


    onward christian mobocracy looter minions indeed...

    straight to hell...



    ask how I really feel...meh...

    That's a very collectivist statement. I'm a Christian and I don't hurt any one.
    Well Rob is a nutjob.....

    Go figure.............................................................................................


    Enjoy! .....................................................
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: WallyC33 on November 21, 2008, 06:51:38 PM
    I am so tired of this tumor of a thread I can't even put it into words that would do it justice.

    Everyone quit picking on Gene.

    Gene, get yourself a damned blog already.



    well...you know it would not have had 30,600 views if it would have just said "anarchy"...

    but I'll bet FTL got alot of "extra" hits...say thirty thousand or so...lol

    IMHO..."many" so-called "christians" support the mobocracy and it's aggression/force/fraud...and it's pure hell converting them to voluntaryism...



    I agree.  "Christians" are hard to convert to freedom, but I'm working on it...



    devil worshipers are more easily convinced to leave everyone else alone...

    IMHO...if "christians" got "back" instantly...all the aggregated aggression/force/fraud they themselves have advocated and participated-in...they would all die immediately...

    and the rest would either leave everyone else alone...or be repelled, destroyed, and eliminated...


    onward christian mobocracy looter minions indeed...

    straight to hell...



    ask how I really feel...meh...

    That's a very collectivist statement. I'm a Christian and I don't hurt any one.
    Well Rob is a nutjob.....

    Go figure.............................................................................................


    Enjoy! .....................................................

    Nicely shaped post!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: YixilTesiphon on November 21, 2008, 06:52:33 PM
    I am so tired of this tumor of a thread I can't even put it into words that would do it justice.

    Everyone quit picking on Gene.

    Gene, get yourself a damned blog already.



    well...you know it would not have had 30,600 views if it would have just said "anarchy"...

    but I'll bet FTL got alot of "extra" hits...say thirty thousand or so...lol

    IMHO..."many" so-called "christians" support the mobocracy and it's aggression/force/fraud...and it's pure hell converting them to voluntaryism...



    I agree.  "Christians" are hard to convert to freedom, but I'm working on it...



    devil worshipers are more easily convinced to leave everyone else alone...

    IMHO...if "christians" got "back" instantly...all the aggregated aggression/force/fraud they themselves have advocated and participated-in...they would all die immediately...

    and the rest would either leave everyone else alone...or be repelled, destroyed, and eliminated...


    onward christian mobocracy looter minions indeed...

    straight to hell...



    ask how I really feel...meh...

    That's a very collectivist statement. I'm a Christian and I don't hurt any one.
    Well Rob is a nutjob.....

    Go figure.............................................................................................


    Enjoy! .....................................................

    Nicely shaped post!

    it "requires" something...

    a little more...

    a bit of a bump just below the "center"

    like "this"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: WallyC33 on November 21, 2008, 06:54:33 PM
    I you don't blah blah blah blah mobocrasy

    forthe blah blah blah blah blah

    it will blah blah blah

    so there!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on November 21, 2008, 06:56:02 PM
    BOB SAGET!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Cowcidile on November 21, 2008, 07:09:03 PM
    Gene used to be in the A team.

    [youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LJqW4q5-Bak&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LJqW4q5-Bak&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on November 21, 2008, 09:59:06 PM
    This will be my first time ever bumping this devil thread.

    (http://www.shackpics.com/download.x?file=golol5nc_i9069lar3l3iotryfsuw.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: NHArticleTen on November 22, 2008, 11:21:34 AM
    This will be my first time ever bumping this devil thread.

    (http://www.shackpics.com/download.x?file=golol5nc_i9069lar3l3iotryfsuw.jpg)


    wat


    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: NHArticleTen on November 22, 2008, 11:22:07 AM


    31235....


    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 30, 2008, 10:58:55 PM
    (posted in another thread)


    I'm trying to beat Gene and his evil Christian Anarchy thread.  :lol:


    You've got quite a way to go.  Keep trying though.

    There are some notable differences between your effort and mine.  I tried to make the discussion a serious one and keep it on topic.  Your thread is nothing more than trolls being trolls.  Nonsense on top of nonsense.

    I do consider it somewhat flattering however, that I have created such a legend on these boards with a thread I've abandoned several times over the years.  I chose to abandon it each time not because of the trolls or because of some perceived "victory" by those opposing me, but rather because I have made my best attempt to answer all serious inquiries into the subject.  I will continue to do so but now that I have full control over the trolls here, I will keep it civilized here (OH NO !!!).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on December 31, 2008, 07:59:28 AM
    Your thread is nothing more than trolls being trolls. 

    This is an unfair characterization.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on December 31, 2008, 09:36:49 AM
    I've already proven that Christian Anarchist is an oxymoron as a term anyway.

    All Christians are Monarchists in belief, even though their ruler is imaginary, they still believe in monarchy, rendering them NOT anarchists.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 01, 2009, 01:17:47 PM
    I've already proven that Christian Anarchist is an oxymoron as a term anyway.

    All Christians are Monarchists in belief, even though their ruler is imaginary, they still believe in monarchy, rendering them NOT anarchists.

    And I've already made the response that the "anarchy" is towards all earthly "rulers" and the "monarchy" is heavenly.  If you want to claim that you have somehow "won" this point, continue in your fantasy...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on January 01, 2009, 01:38:29 PM
    I've already proven that Christian Anarchist is an oxymoron as a term anyway.

    All Christians are Monarchists in belief, even though their ruler is imaginary, they still believe in monarchy, rendering them NOT anarchists.

    And I've already made the response that the "anarchy" is towards all earthly "rulers" and the "monarchy" is heavenly.  If you want to claim that you have somehow "won" this point, continue in your fantasy...


    Maybe you should call yourself Gene the Celestial Monarchist then.   :)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on January 01, 2009, 02:53:02 PM
    Thanks.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on January 01, 2009, 03:55:02 PM
    Thanks.

    So does that mean you're a person who thinks that heaven rules everything? 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on January 01, 2009, 03:58:16 PM
    No, I just like the word celestial.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on January 01, 2009, 09:12:27 PM
    No, I just like the word celestial.

    Me too.  Dig your avatar. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 02, 2009, 12:37:55 AM
    "Gene the Anarchist with a few exceptions."

    Gene the person against authority unless convinced otherwise by a book, written by "earthly rulers" exploiting the exceptions of people like Gene.

    It only seems like I'm trying to win Gene, because I'm pointing out what you've lost. Showing you the freedoms you are sacrificing is a win/win situation. Denying your mental cage makes us both lose out.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: WallyC33 on January 02, 2009, 02:23:26 AM
    "Gene the Anarchist with a few exceptions."

    Gene the person against authority unless convinced otherwise by a book, written by "earthly rulers" exploiting the exceptions of people like Gene.

    It only seems like I'm trying to win Gene, because I'm pointing out what you've lost. Showing you the freedoms you are sacrificing is a win/win situation. Denying your mental cage makes us both lose out.

    Your videos are horrible. drone, drone, drone................
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 02, 2009, 09:32:18 AM
    "Gene the Anarchist with a few exceptions."

    Gene the person against authority unless convinced otherwise by a book, written by "earthly rulers" exploiting the exceptions of people like Gene.

    It only seems like I'm trying to win Gene, because I'm pointing out what you've lost. Showing you the freedoms you are sacrificing is a win/win situation. Denying your mental cage makes us both lose out.

    You certainly could claim that you proved your point if your claim is that I somehow allow dominion over me by those "earthly rulers" you claim wrote a book, but no "rulers" wrote the book.  The book (or more accurately books) were written for the most part by prophets (akin to street people) and other rabble.  There is the exception being what was written (or claimed to have been written) by king Solomon, but most was written by the little people who can only make the claim to be "historians".  Now if your claim is that historians have some kind of "authority" or that I have granted these dead men "authority" over me, then hey, you won.  Congratulations.  If it were true that I have granted dead men authority over me, then I still am miles ahead of those of the religion of statism as my "authorities" are dead and cannot hurt me (unless you believe that ghosts are real...)

    Also, I've stated that I don't take my beliefs 100% from any books.  I take most of my belief in a Creator from my own personal experiences and observations...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 02, 2009, 01:42:10 PM
    I take most of my belief in a Creator from my own personal experiences and observations...

    GOD DONE BEEN TALKIN' TO GENE!!!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: rabidfurby on January 03, 2009, 03:00:53 AM
    (http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/9430/brick01xg7.gif)

    INSERT HEAD HERE
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 04, 2009, 06:00:58 AM
    I take most of my belief in a Creator from my own personal experiences and observations...

    GOD DONE BEEN TALKIN' TO GENE!!!

    I wish.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 04, 2009, 06:11:53 AM
    Gene, I read your first post on this thread and you really only make one point: that a Christian (creationist) perspective is necessary for true liberty because the human rights that secure individual freedom are unalienable only if they are God-given.  Or did I misunderstand?  In 160+ pages has it been suggested that a theory of "natural law" operates to the same effect?

    I suggest that your subject line is inaccurate. Christianity appears to be wholly unnecessary for true liberty.  Before you get carried away, I'm talking about here on Earth.  I need not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster nor any other God in order to believe that I have unalienable human rights to life, liberty and property.  What am I missing?  Keep it on this planet, please.


    You are correct in observing that my position is that understanding that rights come from God is the basis of the "Christian" part of the answer.  This is also (or so it seems) the exact same thing that you claim to be "missing" above when stating that God is unnecessary for liberty.  If we don't understand where our rights come from, we cannot understand how they become "unalienable".  If we claim that our rights are simply there because of our existence, then we have no "authority" behind the rights.  I can claim as easily that you don't have them and take your life away on a whim and have just as legitimate an argument for doing so (of course a Christian can still do it, but with an understanding of the Creator, that person would know that he runs some risk of doing so).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on January 04, 2009, 11:30:30 AM
    If we claim that our rights are simply there because of our existence, then we have no "authority" behind the rights.  I can claim as easily that you don't have them and take your life away on a whim and have just as legitimate an argument for doing so (of course a Christian can still do it, but with an understanding of the Creator, that person would know that he runs some risk of doing so).

    ...unless, of course, the Creator he understands doesn't think that "those people" have rights either.  You may call that understanding wrong, but one can just as easily call your  understanding wrong.  Therefore, the Creator is no authority either. 

    Deuteronomy 13:6-10
    Quote
    13:6  If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 
    13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
    13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
    13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
    13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on January 04, 2009, 07:59:36 PM
    My word... this thread has the longevity of George Bush.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 05, 2009, 10:46:52 AM
    You certainly could claim that you proved your point if your claim is that I somehow allow dominion over me by those "earthly rulers" you claim wrote a book, but no "rulers" wrote the book.  The book (or more accurately books) were written for the most part by prophets (akin to street people) and other rabble. 

    The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England. The Great Bible was the first "authorized version" issued by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII. In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England.

    So either you believe in the modern versions of the bible which have been bastardized by kings and royalty for self serving ends....

    OR

    you believe in the OLD TESTAMENT - kill babies, smash women, let your daughter be raped, we love INCEST! version of the bible, which was written by DIRECT servants of Kings... Like say... Ezra and Nehemiah who wrote the books from Judges to Job, and were essentially very close servants of a Persian king. (Basically Nehemiah was a akin to a butler)

    So... either A. You're just wrong.

    or

    B. You're an asshole who believes in extreme violence, force, and evil... AND you're wrong.


    Quote
    There is the exception being what was written (or claimed to have been written) by king Solomon, but most was written by the little people who can only make the claim to be "historians". 

    Well, there's the influence of THIS King too...

    and then there is also the theory that the entire bible was sanctioned and requested by the ruling authority of the day specifically to keep the rabble in line and create a form of 'higher' law to keep people scared and obedient as well as to help solve certain problems of disease and crime.


    Quote
    Now if your claim is that historians have some kind of "authority" or that I have granted these dead men "authority" over me, then hey, you won.  Congratulations.  If it were true that I have granted dead men authority over me, then I still am miles ahead of those of the religion of statism as my "authorities" are dead and cannot hurt me (unless you believe that ghosts are real...)
    You've used the metal from one cage to pick the lock of another. Unfortunately, you are still in a cage, at least you are admitting it now. That's a step.

    Quote
    Also, I've stated that I don't take my beliefs 100% from any books.  I take most of my belief in a Creator from my own personal experiences and observations...
    Inaccurate statement really. You have taken normal experiences and observations and attributed them to a creator, most likely because you were initially indoctrinated with religion. Chicken and Egg really.... and guess what... The egg came first, because the chicken isn't the first animal to lay eggs.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 05, 2009, 04:27:53 PM
    Wow.  So many words to simply say what I've said many times.  That a belief in a Creator requires faith.  The same point used on those of the "cult of science"  (as opposed to ACTUAL science) is lost on the blinded cult members.  No one responds to the valid claim (for instance) that all radiometric dating is based on certaiin unprovable assumptions.  Let's hear any of your cult members admit to this fact (silence...)

    Forgive me for not writing a lengthy responce (which is no more valid than a short one) but I'm typing this out on my treo keyboard waiting for someone...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 05, 2009, 05:07:58 PM
    so, in lieu of an answer that has any merit, you instead claim to be insane?
    Isn't that what faith is when it is shown to be totally unfounded? If you claimed that you could fly, or that you were in fact Elvis, come to roam the earth as a performing werewolf... Would it not be time to lock you away and treat your illness?

    The only difference is that for some reason polite society has deemed it acceptable to ignore that insanity of religious claims, and not question irrationality in the same way people address unicorns, or leprechauns, or fairies.

    I'll get to your points about the source and authority of morality without religion, and your inaccurate and misinformed claims about carbon dating shortly, as I am also on my phone... I hope you CAN actually address the points I made.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 05, 2009, 06:45:19 PM
    Ok, time to answer your first point...

    You are correct in observing that my position is that understanding that rights come from God is the basis of the "Christian" part of the answer.  This is also (or so it seems) the exact same thing that you claim to be "missing" above when stating that God is unnecessary for liberty.  If we don't understand where our rights come from, we cannot understand how they become "unalienable".  If we claim that our rights are simply there because of our existence, then we have no "authority" behind the rights.  I can claim as easily that you don't have them and take your life away on a whim and have just as legitimate an argument for doing so (of course a Christian can still do it, but with an understanding of the Creator, that person would know that he runs some risk of doing so).


    So, all morals and rights must come from God? Ok... Let's END that notion right here.


    [youtube=425,350]1XBTMFAch-I[/youtube]

    Quote from: Susan Neiman, Director of the Einstein Forum, and the author of 'Moral Clarity: A Guide for Grown-up Idealists.'
    Is morality driven by faith? Few things unite believers and atheists more firmly than the suggestion that moral judgments draw their strength from religion. To be sure, many a virtuous atheist has denied it, and with good reason. The old saw that we would have to invent God if He didn't exist implies a view of moral motivation that's suitable for four-year-olds. If you follow these commandments you'll go to heaven, and if you don't you'll burn in hell is just a spectacular version of the bribes and threats we use to raise our children: If you clean up your room you'll go to the playground and if not you'll stay inside. Few serious thinkers, secular or religious, view us as moral infants in need of sacred carrots and sticks. Still their remains a lurking suspicion that religion is what gives moral convictions their backbone. Just watch the difference between believers and atheists defending an ethical standpoint. When most atheists use words like evil, moral, or nobility, they incline to put some distance between themselves and their language with an air-quote. It's the ultimate post-modern gesture, wiggling fingers to express doubt and discomfort about making moral judgments at all. Most believers, by contrast, keep their hands in their laps.

    In a world where politicians invoke God's command to start a war in the absence of other reasons for doing so, we may wish more believers would express self-doubt. Here both sides would benefit from a closer look at the Bible. Consider Sodom and Gomorrah, traditional focus of a favorite fundamentalist message of the carrot and stick variety. Most people think the story is simple: the Sodomites sinned - through homosexual behavior, or sexual licentiousness in general - and God destroyed them, turning a thriving town into a pile of rubble and a wistful woman into a pillar of salt. But you needn't be a fundamentalist to abhor the sin that did in the Sodomites: it was in fact their attempt to gang-rape two strangers to death. The strangers turned out to be angels, which was the Sodomites' undoing, and their violation of ancient rules of hospitality turned moral law upside down. Concerned that total annihilation might be too severe a punishment even for gang-raping one"s guests, Jewish legends expand on the account in Genesis: the Sodomites made xenophobia a matter of principle, and punished those who helped strangers with death.
    But the most important part of the story is what happens before the cities are leveled. God reveals His destructive plans to Abraham, and Abraham speaks up. What if there are fifty righteous people among the sinners? Surely the God of justice would not judge the innocent and guilty alike? The God of justice agrees; for fifty righteous people He will leave the cities alone. But is the Lord a pedant? Surely He won't destroy the city for the want of just five? Abraham bargains God down to ten, and several things about his actions should serve as a model.

    First, they're universalistic. Abraham's interest is not confined to his tribe or his neighbors, but to the lives of innocents everywhere. Second, Abraham is clearly frightened. In a world where even ordinary sovereigns are ill-inclined to debate their actions with their subjects, he dares remind the King of Kings that He's about to violate moral law. Third, both parties acknowledge that morality is not a matter of absolute principles, but of paying attention to detail. (God might have answered: Save the town for the sake of fifty? Next he'll be wanting to let the' whole bunch go scot-free!) But despite a refusal to trade in absolutes, two moral judgments emerge perfectly clear: rape is a criminal action, and so is collateral damage.

    What's most important about this story, however, is what it says about the source of moral judgment. Whatever it is, it isn't divine authority. We have moral needs so strong they can override our instincts for self-preservation. Even those with a direct line to God cannot depend on it to yield moral certainty. Abraham was as true a man of faith as religion ever knew, yet he used his own moral reason - even at the risk of God's wrath.
    For conservative believers, the message is a warning: morality can be expressed through faith, but it cannot be based on it. Sometimes questioning religious authority can be a moral action, as the Bible itself reveals. This story of Abraham suggests that if God gave us reason, He meant us to use it - even if that means challenging the very highest commands.

    For secular citizens, the message should be welcome: among the many pieces of wisdom to be found in the Bible is the acknowledgment that no moral judgment is infallible - and all of us are required to do our best nonetheless. You can stand firm even without the belief that God's own voice is directing you - so long as you rely on principles of justice which have guided the better angels of our nature from ancient days to our own. There's much more to be said about those principles themselves, but finding common ground on which believers and secularists can stand is the first and crucial step.


    Ok, that was enough, but if you feel like being further entertained with this sort of debate... I present Al Sharpton vs Christopher Hitchens
    [youtube=425,350]bWt8a1aMkZ4[/youtube]


    So, the authority for our morality is based on human solidarity, and some variation of the golden rule and the categorical imperative. Rights cannot come from God, no matter what your belief, because belief in God is not only not universal, thereby making it impossible for him to be a universal standard for morality, but also because, as Susan Neiman so eloquently demonstrates, even the bible requires you to make an independent judgment of the very morality of 'God' himself.

    The authority of rights is not based in FEAR of a spooky father figure, but in VIRTUE and MORALITY. Not the FAKE virtue and MORALITY that comes from FEAR of punishment, but in the true virtue that comes from the honest desire to be a good person without regard to punishment or reward in some mystical afterlife.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 05, 2009, 07:12:52 PM
    This should smash your lame argument about radiometric dating to peices in a way that is pleasant for one such as yourself to swallow since it's from a Christian, and is totally pro-god.

    http://www.answersincreation.org/dating.htm
     
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 05, 2009, 08:04:12 PM

    Rights cannot come from God, no matter what your belief, because belief in God is
    ot only not universal, thereby making it impossible for him to be a universal standard for morality,


    This is why you are not able to get it.  You are confusing a "belief in God" with "God".  My points do not require any "belief".  My point is that YOUR CREATOR created you and created your rights.  Either that is correct or it is not.  No "belief" is required for this point.  If NO ONE on this little ball had a belief in God but God did indeed exist and create all those who DID NOT believe in him, this has no effect on His existence.  You mistake a universal "belief" as the basis of my position and I do not require it (neither does God).  It is His existence that generates His authority over us, not our "belief" in that existence. 

    Until you understand that this is my position, you are arguing from a fallicy. You are misrepresenting my position.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 05, 2009, 08:05:34 PM
    This should smash your lame argument about radiometric dating to peices in a way that is pleasant for one such as yourself to swallow since it's from a Christian, and is totally pro-god.

    http://www.answersincreation.org/dating.htm
     

    Wrong again.  My position is that certain ASSUMPTIONS have to be made in radiometric dating.  TRUE (  )  or  FALSE (  ) ???
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Militant on January 05, 2009, 08:42:20 PM
    Gene, you should really get that neurological disorder checked out.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 05, 2009, 09:06:48 PM

    Rights cannot come from God, no matter what your belief, because belief in God is
    ot only not universal, thereby making it impossible for him to be a universal standard for morality,


    This is why you are not able to get it.  You are confusing a "belief in God" with "God".  My points do not require any "belief".  My point is that YOUR CREATOR created you and created your rights.  Either that is correct or it is not.  No "belief" is required for this point.  If NO ONE on this little ball had a belief in God but God did indeed exist and create all those who DID NOT believe in him, this has no effect on His existence.  You mistake a universal "belief" as the basis of my position and I do not require it (neither does God).  It is His existence that generates His authority over us, not our "belief" in that existence. 

    Until you understand that this is my position, you are arguing from a fallicy. You are misrepresenting my position.



    Actually you specifically said - which is why I quoted you initially, and now, for some odd reason I am having to quote you again seemingly because you are trying to change your arguments post facto...

    Quote
    If we claim that our rights are simply there because of our existence, then we have no "authority" behind the rights.

    I very definitely understood what you were saying, and the "authority" is only valid with the combination of belief. The very claim of a "right" is a claim that is usually stated to affect a human behavior. IE: You cannot enslave them, because they have the RIGHT to be free. You cannot censor me, I have the right to free speech. You cannot search me, I have the right to privacy.

    If I don't believe in your concept of a deity - you telling me that rights come from "god" is not only meaningless... It's idiotic. Also, if I am a person of an opposing religion, and you tell me that you have certain rights endowed by your creator, and the rights granted by MY creator conflict with yours, then the only acceptable solution is to murder you, especially if my religion tells me that my creator has granted me the right to do so.

    So, your argument for the authority of God requires a BELIEF in God in order for it to have any effect.
    In fact, it requires a BELIEF not only in God, but in the JudeoChristian God and the particular rules and regulations that define the moral cage as specifically laid out by that particular system of belief.

    I know it's difficult to tolerate the rattling of your cage, but if you can free your mind, the inner peace is wonderful...Life is so much simpler without fear and worry over arbitrary rules. Logical and moral decisions are so much simpler when you understand that your morals are internal, rather than external, no matter what your beliefs are.

    So, instead of ignoring what was said because you glazed over and were merely thinking of what you were going to say next, maybe you could examine what was presented, and respond to it, rather than avoid it or attempt to circumnavigate it with dishonest evasions.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 05, 2009, 09:41:12 PM
    Wrong again.  My position is that certain ASSUMPTIONS have to be made in radiometric dating.  TRUE (  )  or  FALSE (  ) ???

    FALSE. That was not your position. You stated that radiometric dating required "unprovable assumptions". Your edit of your claim shows further dishonesty in the face of reasonable questioning.

    Radiometric dating requires REASONABLE assumptions.
    ALL scientific experiments require REASONABLE assumptions.

    If I drop a ball on the surface of the planet, and I am searching for a result, I need to assume based on reasonable evidence that the accelaration of gravity on the surface of the earth is -9.8m/s²

    It is REASONABLE to assume this is a constant.

    It is REASONABLE to assume that rate of radiological decay is constant, as it has been constant throughout recorded human history, and in ALL scientific experiments with relation to radiological decay to date. To assume it was different in past times, would be illogical and unreasonable. It would be akin to assuming that pixies and fairies, dragons and unicorns all existed and spread magic throughout the land at one point - simply because we cannot disprove it because the laws of the universe and physics MAY have worked differently in the past, and we weren't there so HOW could we possibly know? That's called "argument from stupidity".  It would be like going to a court case and a murderer saying that he didn't kill his wife, but that he actually have her candy, because for that split second of time, only in his house... a spatial anomaly made the universe work in such a fashion that stabbing someone with a knife was in fact harmless, and would create for them a sweet taste and an elevated blood sugar. It's nonsense.

    It is REASONABLE to assume an isolated system, considering samples that are radiometrically dated come from places that have been BURIED in DEEP layers of rock for ridiculous amounts of time with zero evidence of events that would indicate contamination, considering especially that the scientists doing the dating are specifically trying to seek out evidence of contamination that would corrupt the accuracy of their dates, and their GOAL is to find an ACCURATE date.

    It is REASONABLE to assume based on evidence and study what the GENERAL initial conditions were in the sample being dated, based on samples taken from a wide variety of locations and times, and through experimentation and testing....

    Why are all those things reasonable?  Mainly because radiometic dating is KNOWN to not be 100% accurate by the scientific community which is why it is RARELY the only form of dating done, and why a combination of dating methods are usually used...

    Another reason why it's REASONABLE to make these assumptions is because of all the OTHER forms of dating that show that the idea of an earth that is only 6000 years old is an idea held by people so ignorant that it is a wonder they can function in society.

    <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Age of the Earth[/url]
    Scientists claim that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old - but how do they know this? Read som lines of evidence for this age of the Earth.

    <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-age-of-earth.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Age of the Earth: Debate[/url]
    An attempted internet debate, with orderly turns between speakers, length limits, and a predetermined topic (the age of the earth).

    <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Changing Views of the History of the Earth[/url]
    How did we get from believing that Earth was young to the realization that it is ancient - about 4.5 billion years old?

    <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Creation Science &amp; the Earth's Magnetic Field[/url]
    Creationists argue that the earth's magnetic field proves that the earth cannot be more than 10000 years old. Read the details of this argument and how it is debunked

    <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Dating with Icecores[/url]
    Determining the ages of ancient ice cores, and thus also the earth. Ice cores from Antarctica date back 160,000 years, which is a real problem for young-earth creationists and catastrophists.

    <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Decay of c-decay[/url]
    Light from galaxies billions of light years away demonstrate that the universe is ancient, not young. But some young-earth creationists actually argue that the speed of light has changed over time. Does this argument have any validity?

    <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-geochronology.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Geochronology[/url]
    Is radiometric dating invalid? Many young earth creationists think so, but this essay raises questions about their methods.

    <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/timescale.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Geological Time Scale[/url]
    The standard time scale used by geologists is depicted and described - important for any discussion about the age of the earth when discussing issues with creationists.

    <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Isochron Dating Methods[/url]
    The isochron radiometric dating technique does not fall prey to common creationist criticisms of radiometric dating.Learn about what it is, how it is used, and why it is so reliable.

    <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Meteorite Dust &amp; the Age of the Earth[/url]
    Should both the Earth and Moon be covered with a great layer of space dust if the Earth were as old as the standard models imply? Creationists will argue this, but they base their argument on faulty data and unjustifiable extrapolations.

    <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/nri.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">&quot;New Redshift Interpretation&quot; Cosmology[/url]
    Young-earth creationist Robert Gentry wants to replace the Big Bang cosmological model of the universe. Find out how his model is flawed with a number of deficiencies, errors and inconsistencies.

    <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Recession of the Moon[/url]
    A common argument made by young-earth creationists is that the Earth-moon system could not be billions of years old. What are the physics of this system and why these creationists are wrong?

    <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Polonium Haloes[/url]
    Examination of the claim that creationist Robert Gentry's polonium haloes are evidence for a young earth. Find out why Gentry has misinterpreted the data.

    <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Radiometric Dating &amp; Geological Time[/url]
    Radiometric dating and stratigraphic principles are combined to establish the conventional geological time scale. Find out how scientists apply such principles to date rocks.

    <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Solar FAQ: Solar Neutrinos &amp; Other Oddities[/url]
    Nuclear fusion is the only process reasonably capable of powering the sun, and one product of this fusion is invisible particles called 'neutrinos'. But why don't we observe as many solar neutrinos as theory would predict?

    <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Various Interpretations of Genesis[/url]
    Can the book of Genesis can be interpreted so that it does not conflict with scientific fact? This article describes a few such attempts.




    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 05, 2009, 10:07:30 PM
    So... to add to the embarrassment of creationism...

    Let's just add that ... in order for THAT crap to be true...
    Radiological decay would have had to be different in the past...
    The speed of light would magically have had to be different...
    The way ice forms would have had to be different...
    Even the way tree rings form would have had to be different...

    Oh... and lets examine... Noah's Ark...With that theory - evolution is false.... So somehow, Noah would have had to load into his magical 'ark of holding'... somewhere between 10 and 100 million species of animal (ignoring flora) of which we only have scientific names for about 1.2 million animals (about 3 mil if you count flora as well)...

    So, if Noah were to be loading... say... 30 MILLION pairs of animals at the RIDICULOUS rate of a pair every 3 seconds....
    it would have taken him over 3 YEARS to do so, and I believe that quite possibly, based on the dimensions of the ark, the density of that many animals packed into that small of a space, would create a miniature black hole.

    Believing that sort of nonsense should be designated a condition that requires psychological treatment.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 05, 2009, 10:42:35 PM
    Wrong again.  My position is that certain ASSUMPTIONS have to be made in radiometric dating.  TRUE (  )  or  FALSE (  ) ???

    FALSE. That was not your position. You stated that radiometric dating required "unprovable assumptions". Your edit of your claim shows further dishonesty in the face of reasonable questioning.

    Radiometric dating requires REASONABLE assumptions.
    ALL scientific experiments require REASONABLE assumptions.


    That's fine.  I will ask you if it is "reasonable" to "assume" that the ratio of uranium/lead in a rock was x when the universe was "born"?

    Also:  A "REASONABLE" assumption is an "ASSUMPTION":  True (  )  or  False (  )??


    PS.  Don't expect me to spend hours combing through your propaganda links any more than I would expect you to comb through a bunch of Christian propaganda links...

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 05, 2009, 10:44:59 PM
    So... to add to the embarrassment of creationism...

    Let's just add that ... in order for THAT crap to be true...
    Radiological decay would have had to be different in the past...
    The speed of light would magically have had to be different...
    The way ice forms would have had to be different...
    Even the way tree rings form would have had to be different...

    Oh... and lets examine... Noah's Ark...With that theory - evolution is false.... So somehow, Noah would have had to load into his magical 'ark of holding'... somewhere between 10 and 100 million species of animal (ignoring flora) of which we only have scientific names for about 1.2 million animals (about 3 mil if you count flora as well)...

    So, if Noah were to be loading... say... 30 MILLION pairs of animals at the RIDICULOUS rate of a pair every 3 seconds....
    it would have taken him over 3 YEARS to do so, and I believe that quite possibly, based on the dimensions of the ark, the density of that many animals packed into that small of a space, would create a miniature black hole.

    Believing that sort of nonsense should be designated a condition that requires psychological treatment.

    Your shotgun approach to making strawmen arguments just shows how you will not answer the current question and can not...

    It's about ASSUMPTIONS...

    Check the wikipedia article on radiometric dating...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on January 05, 2009, 11:08:26 PM
    Too many wars fought for religion to much shit too much unjust shit in ppls life to even begin to belive theres a "just" god let alone a god period. I believe in humans who on a whole want the best for them and there kids. its the select few who rally ignorant fucks into government and other gay ass cults
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 05, 2009, 11:22:28 PM
    Too many wars fought for religion to much shit too much unjust shit in ppls life to even begin to belive theres a "just" god let alone a god period. I believe in humans who on a whole want the best for them and there kids. its the select few who rally ignorant fucks into government and other gay ass cults

    Wars come from men, not God.  It is difficult, I know to make the disconnect between what MEN do in their mistaken BELIEF about God, but you can't blame God for what men do.  His existence is not dependent on what we believe or not.  If it were, how could He claim to be God???
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: WallyC33 on January 05, 2009, 11:41:53 PM
    Ok, time to answer your first point...

    You are correct in observing that my position is that understanding that rights come from God is the basis of the "Christian" part of the answer.  This is also (or so it seems) the exact same thing that you claim to be "missing" above when stating that God is unnecessary for liberty.  If we don't understand where our rights come from, we cannot understand how they become "unalienable".  If we claim that our rights are simply there because of our existence, then we have no "authority" behind the rights.  I can claim as easily that you don't have them and take your life away on a whim and have just as legitimate an argument for doing so (of course a Christian can still do it, but with an understanding of the Creator, that person would know that he runs some risk of doing so).


    So, all morals and rights must come from God? Ok... Let's END that notion right here.


    [youtube=425,350]1XBTMFAch-I[/youtube]

    Quote from: Susan Neiman, Director of the Einstein Forum, and the author of 'Moral Clarity: A Guide for Grown-up Idealists.'
    Is morality driven by faith? Few things unite believers and atheists more firmly than the suggestion that moral judgments draw their strength from religion. To be sure, many a virtuous atheist has denied it, and with good reason. The old saw that we would have to invent God if He didn't exist implies a view of moral motivation that's suitable for four-year-olds. If you follow these commandments you'll go to heaven, and if you don't you'll burn in hell is just a spectacular version of the bribes and threats we use to raise our children: If you clean up your room you'll go to the playground and if not you'll stay inside. Few serious thinkers, secular or religious, view us as moral infants in need of sacred carrots and sticks. Still their remains a lurking suspicion that religion is what gives moral convictions their backbone. Just watch the difference between believers and atheists defending an ethical standpoint. When most atheists use words like evil, moral, or nobility, they incline to put some distance between themselves and their language with an air-quote. It's the ultimate post-modern gesture, wiggling fingers to express doubt and discomfort about making moral judgments at all. Most believers, by contrast, keep their hands in their laps.

    In a world where politicians invoke God's command to start a war in the absence of other reasons for doing so, we may wish more believers would express self-doubt. Here both sides would benefit from a closer look at the Bible. Consider Sodom and Gomorrah, traditional focus of a favorite fundamentalist message of the carrot and stick variety. Most people think the story is simple: the Sodomites sinned - through homosexual behavior, or sexual licentiousness in general - and God destroyed them, turning a thriving town into a pile of rubble and a wistful woman into a pillar of salt. But you needn't be a fundamentalist to abhor the sin that did in the Sodomites: it was in fact their attempt to gang-rape two strangers to death. The strangers turned out to be angels, which was the Sodomites' undoing, and their violation of ancient rules of hospitality turned moral law upside down. Concerned that total annihilation might be too severe a punishment even for gang-raping one"s guests, Jewish legends expand on the account in Genesis: the Sodomites made xenophobia a matter of principle, and punished those who helped strangers with death.
    But the most important part of the story is what happens before the cities are leveled. God reveals His destructive plans to Abraham, and Abraham speaks up. What if there are fifty righteous people among the sinners? Surely the God of justice would not judge the innocent and guilty alike? The God of justice agrees; for fifty righteous people He will leave the cities alone. But is the Lord a pedant? Surely He won't destroy the city for the want of just five? Abraham bargains God down to ten, and several things about his actions should serve as a model.

    First, they're universalistic. Abraham's interest is not confined to his tribe or his neighbors, but to the lives of innocents everywhere. Second, Abraham is clearly frightened. In a world where even ordinary sovereigns are ill-inclined to debate their actions with their subjects, he dares remind the King of Kings that He's about to violate moral law. Third, both parties acknowledge that morality is not a matter of absolute principles, but of paying attention to detail. (God might have answered: Save the town for the sake of fifty? Next he'll be wanting to let the' whole bunch go scot-free!) But despite a refusal to trade in absolutes, two moral judgments emerge perfectly clear: rape is a criminal action, and so is collateral damage.

    What's most important about this story, however, is what it says about the source of moral judgment. Whatever it is, it isn't divine authority. We have moral needs so strong they can override our instincts for self-preservation. Even those with a direct line to God cannot depend on it to yield moral certainty. Abraham was as true a man of faith as religion ever knew, yet he used his own moral reason - even at the risk of God's wrath.
    For conservative believers, the message is a warning: morality can be expressed through faith, but it cannot be based on it. Sometimes questioning religious authority can be a moral action, as the Bible itself reveals. This story of Abraham suggests that if God gave us reason, He meant us to use it - even if that means challenging the very highest commands.

    For secular citizens, the message should be welcome: among the many pieces of wisdom to be found in the Bible is the acknowledgment that no moral judgment is infallible - and all of us are required to do our best nonetheless. You can stand firm even without the belief that God's own voice is directing you - so long as you rely on principles of justice which have guided the better angels of our nature from ancient days to our own. There's much more to be said about those principles themselves, but finding common ground on which believers and secularists can stand is the first and crucial step.


    Ok, that was enough, but if you feel like being further entertained with this sort of debate... I present Al Sharpton vs Christopher Hitchens
    [youtube=425,350]bWt8a1aMkZ4[/youtube]


    So, the authority for our morality is based on human solidarity, and some variation of the golden rule and the categorical imperative. Rights cannot come from God, no matter what your belief, because belief in God is not only not universal, thereby making it impossible for him to be a universal standard for morality, but also because, as Susan Neiman so eloquently demonstrates, even the bible requires you to make an independent judgment of the very morality of 'God' himself.

    The authority of rights is not based in FEAR of a spooky father figure, but in VIRTUE and MORALITY. Not the FAKE virtue and MORALITY that comes from FEAR of punishment, but in the true virtue that comes from the honest desire to be a good person without regard to punishment or reward in some mystical afterlife.

    Do you have a version of the first video without the extremely annoying voice? That was torture! And, Al Sharpton? Really? that Shill?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 06, 2009, 12:07:51 AM
    Wrong again.  My position is that certain ASSUMPTIONS have to be made in radiometric dating.  TRUE (  )  or  FALSE (  ) ???

    FALSE. That was not your position. You stated that radiometric dating required "unprovable assumptions". Your edit of your claim shows further dishonesty in the face of reasonable questioning.

    Radiometric dating requires REASONABLE assumptions.
    ALL scientific experiments require REASONABLE assumptions.


    That's fine.  I will ask you if it is "reasonable" to "assume" that the ratio of uranium/lead in a rock was x when the universe was "born"?

    Also:  A "REASONABLE" assumption is an "ASSUMPTION":  True (  )  or  False (  )??


    PS.  Don't expect me to spend hours combing through your propaganda links any more than I would expect you to comb through a bunch of Christian propaganda links...



    A reasonable assumption is not an unprovable assumption. Avoiding your original wording is STILL dishonest. Calling something an unprovable assumption when you are speaking in scientific terms is as dishonest and asinine as attacking evolution as a theory using the non-scientific definition of the word theory. Gravity is also a theory. Evolution, and gravity, are equally facts of reality that each have similar mountains of evidence.

    Also dishonest - asking me - "Is it "reasonable" to "assume" that the ratio of uranium/lead in a rock was x when the universe was "born"?" as though there is a large portion of the scientific community making claims like this, when really, it's a talking point on some creationist website you haunt, and you probably aware of that fact.

    Also, I would look at links you posted if you made claims that they actually disproved a point or argument I made. You don't post clear, concise and well thought out articles though, not even information of the caliber I have which doesn't actually RAMBLE ON but are really only spans a page or two. The reason you don't do this, is because you, like every other person who claims to KNOW the existence of god, are a liar, and aware of the fact that you are lying. Engaging in logical argumentation, and thought out rational debate in a point by point fashion would ONLY serve to tear down your lies, and make it more difficult for you to proceed in spreading your fictional mind slavery.

    Lastly, all of the "propaganda" was in fact NOT posted as links, but was included in my posts.... The ONLY link that I have posted in this thread (at least recently) was in fact to a pro-god Christian website, wherein, even a bible thumping christfag thinks you are an idiot for rambling on about radiometric dating.
     
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 06, 2009, 01:01:24 AM
    Too many wars fought for religion to much shit too much unjust shit in ppls life to even begin to belive theres a "just" god let alone a god period. I believe in humans who on a whole want the best for them and there kids. its the select few who rally ignorant fucks into government and other gay ass cults

    Quote
    Wars come from men, not God.
    He didn't say wars came from God. He said he didn't believe in God, pay attention.

    Quote
    It is difficult, I know to make the disconnect between what MEN do in their mistaken BELIEF about God, but you can't blame God for what men do.

    Is God all powerful? Yes.
    Could God stop the wars. Yes.
    Did God create evil by creating the tree of knowledge, and then placing it in the garden of Eden? (or just creating it directly IN the garden... who knows how he likes to do his magic) Anyway, the answer is... Yes. *** Wait that was SATAN's FAULT! You say?***
    Ok then, is God omnipotent? Yes....
    Omniscient? Yes...
    Omnipresent? Yes....
    Omniprescient? Yes.
    So, god knew before satan even thought about tempting adam and eve...
    He knew during Satan tempting Adam and Eve... and he knew EVEN while Satan was lying...
    Could he have exposed the lie? Yes.

    Could he have told Adam and Eve that, while they have free will, that eating of the tree of knowledge would result in all the unspeakable horrors that would ever befall humanity and let them know that their choice would result in expulsion from Eden? Yes.

    Could God FORGIVE the sin of eating from the tree of knowledge. Yes.
    Could God stop all wars. Yes.
    Could God stop all crime, hunger, sickness, death, pain, suffering, and unhappiness. Yes. He's all powerful, he could even make it so that we don't need bad times to appreciate the good - that's what it MEANS to be all powerful.

    So can we blame God directly for wars? Absolutely.

    Can we blame belief in God for wars? Absolutely, since the reasons are clearly stated and on display in the various books that religious followers who follow those books claim are the words of god.

    Wars are not fought for LACK of belief in God... Some wars are fought to promote Statism and allegiance to a king or state power over a religious power (typically when the theocracy has been overthrown), but NO wars are fought in the name of nothing.


    Quote
      His existence is not dependent on what we believe or not.  If it were, how could He claim to be God???
    God doesn't make any claims. If there was a God that actually proved it's existence, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but there isn't, which is why your idea of a deity is as equally plausible as zeus, dionysis, xenu, vishnu, cthulhu, baal, apollo, and the flying spaghetti monster.


    Guts - if you want to see how they couldn't even remove all of the vileness from the old testament when they concocted the New Version, just check out Judges 11 in the KJV, and see how God digs it when Jephthah makes his daughter into a crispy critter.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2009, 10:10:50 AM

    FALSE. That was not your position. You stated that radiometric dating required "unprovable assumptions". Your edit of your claim shows further dishonesty in the face of reasonable questioning.


    Now I don't remember ever making the claim that the assumptions are "unprovable" but I've assumed that perhaps I did until now when I checked back several pages.  Where exactly did I make this claim?

    Even if I did make that claim, it is splitting hairs to make a distinction between "unprovable assumptions" and "reasonable assumptions" as both are "assumptions" by definition and both are also "unprovable".  Just taking an assumption (by definition "unprovable" with present technology) and claiming that it is "reasonable" does not remove the FACT that as an "assumption" it either HAS NOT been PROVEN or CAN NOT be PROVEN.

    So much for the "pile driver of reason"...

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 06, 2009, 10:12:15 AM
    Wow.  So many words to simply say what I've said many times.  That a belief in a Creator requires faith.  The same point used on those of the "cult of science"  (as opposed to ACTUAL science) is lost on the blinded cult members.  No one responds to the valid claim (for instance) that all radiometric dating is based on certaiin unprovable assumptions.  Let's hear any of your cult members admit to this fact (silence...)

    Forgive me for not writing a lengthy responce (which is no more valid than a short one) but I'm typing this out on my treo keyboard waiting for someone...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2009, 10:14:48 AM
    Wow.  So many words to simply say what I've said many times.  That a belief in a Creator requires faith.  The same point used on those of the "cult of science"  (as opposed to ACTUAL science) is lost on the blinded cult members.  No one responds to the valid claim (for instance) that all radiometric dating is based on certaiin unprovable assumptions.  Let's hear any of your cult members admit to this fact (silence...)

    Forgive me for not writing a lengthy responce (which is no more valid than a short one) but I'm typing this out on my treo keyboard waiting for someone...

    OK. You got me on that one.  It is still true though that the difference between "reasonable assumptions" and "unprovable assumptions" is minimal or none.

    An "assumption" is an "assumption" because it either can not or has not been "proven"...  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

    For any interested here's a great link on the problems with radiometric dating (includes isochrons).

    http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2009, 10:30:58 AM
    Can we blame belief in God for wars? Absolutely, since the reasons are clearly stated and on display in the various books that religious followers who follow those books claim are the words of god.


    No, your "reason" is lacking again.  Stating that God is guilty because He created men with FREE WILL and he obviously knew that men would abuse their freewill is not valid.  You would then have to say that God is also innocent as He created men with FREE WILL and he also knew that they would do good (instances abound)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on January 06, 2009, 10:35:47 AM
    Wow.  So many words to simply say what I've said many times.  That a belief in a Creator requires faith.  The same point used on those of the "cult of science"  (as opposed to ACTUAL science) is lost on the blinded cult members.  No one responds to the valid claim (for instance) that all radiometric dating is based on certaiin unprovable assumptions.  Let's hear any of your cult members admit to this fact (silence...)

    Forgive me for not writing a lengthy responce (which is no more valid than a short one) but I'm typing this out on my treo keyboard waiting for someone...

    OK. You got me on that one.  It is still true though that the difference between "reasonable assumptions" and "unprovable assumptions" is minimal or none.

    An "assumption" is an "assumption" because it either can not or has not been "proven"...  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

    For any interested here's a great link on the problems with radiometric dating (includes isochrons).

    http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

    Reasonable: agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical
    Unprovable: ummm not provable.....

    How is that minimal difference? One is not only more likely to be true but has a chance at being tested to be proven... Certainly anything could be brought down to either being true or false but I would rather be logical and not irrational.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2009, 10:47:00 AM
    Wow.  So many words to simply say what I've said many times.  That a belief in a Creator requires faith.  The same point used on those of the "cult of science"  (as opposed to ACTUAL science) is lost on the blinded cult members.  No one responds to the valid claim (for instance) that all radiometric dating is based on certaiin unprovable assumptions.  Let's hear any of your cult members admit to this fact (silence...)

    Forgive me for not writing a lengthy responce (which is no more valid than a short one) but I'm typing this out on my treo keyboard waiting for someone...

    OK. You got me on that one.  It is still true though that the difference between "reasonable assumptions" and "unprovable assumptions" is minimal or none.

    An "assumption" is an "assumption" because it either can not or has not been "proven"...  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

    For any interested here's a great link on the problems with radiometric dating (includes isochrons).

    http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

    Reasonable: agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical
    Unprovable: ummm not provable.....

    How is that minimal difference? One is not only more likely to be true but has a chance at being tested to be proven... Certainly anything could be brought down to either being true or false but I would rather be logical and not irrational.


    It's a minimal difference because "reason" is different depending on WHO is making that judgment.  Reason for one person will be unreason for another.  Who then determines "reason"?  Is it my majority vote?  Is it determined by certain "ordained" academics?   Maybe it's determined by our "elected" leaders?  Obama must be the most reasonable of all since so many people are fooled by his promises...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 06, 2009, 10:47:29 AM
    Can we blame belief in God for wars? Absolutely, since the reasons are clearly stated and on display in the various books that religious followers who follow those books claim are the words of god.

    No, your "reason" is lacking again.  Stating that God is guilty because He created men with FREE WILL and he obviously knew that men would abuse their freewill is not valid.  You would then have to say that God is also innocent as He created men with FREE WILL and he also knew that they would do good (instances abound)...

    Wrong again, free will doesn't excuse God's choice to not inform Adam and Eve of the decision they were making to bring about evil into the world. He had infinite opportunities to do so, before, during, and after Satan's attempt at tempting them to eat from the tree. If you believe that nonsense, then you also must acknowledge that God wants evil.

    Also, it doesn't excuse God's choice to ALLOW Satan to even TEMPT Adam and Eve in the first place... Satan isn't Human... hence... No free will, in fact, didn't God order Satan to BOW to man? If God is all powerful... why is he allowing Satan to tempt man into the horror of horrors?

    I mean, seriously... Can you send me a link to where the tree of knowledge is on google maps? You'd think that the tree of knowledge and the garden of Eden would be pretty big tourist attractions... I don't think it was supposed to be in Florida though...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 06, 2009, 10:49:13 AM
    It's a minimal difference because "reason" is different depending on WHO is making that judgment.  Reason for one person will be unreason for another.  Who then determines "reason"?  Is it my majority vote?  Is it determined by certain "ordained" academics?   Maybe it's determined by our "elected" leaders?  Obama must be the most reasonable of all since so many people are fooled by his promises...

    Um, no. Reason is an objective absolute.

    Quote
    Reason involves a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense ; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact. The meaning of the word "reason" overlaps to a large extent with "rationality" and the adjective of reason in philosophical contexts is normally "rational", not "reasonable".
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2009, 12:55:42 PM
    It's a minimal difference because "reason" is different depending on WHO is making that judgment.  Reason for one person will be unreason for another.  Who then determines "reason"?  Is it my majority vote?  Is it determined by certain "ordained" academics?   Maybe it's determined by our "elected" leaders?  Obama must be the most reasonable of all since so many people are fooled by his promises...

    Um, no. Reason is an objective absolute.

    Quote
    Reason involves a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense ; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact. The meaning of the word "reason" overlaps to a large extent with "rationality" and the adjective of reason in philosophical contexts is normally "rational", not "reasonable".

    Um, no.  Reason requires one to make a conclusion that is not based on fact.  It may be that "reason" may support a conclusion or explain a fact, but it will not be the only "explanation" that can support the same conclusion or explain the same fact...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2009, 12:58:02 PM
    Can we blame belief in God for wars? Absolutely, since the reasons are clearly stated and on display in the various books that religious followers who follow those books claim are the words of god.

    No, your "reason" is lacking again.  Stating that God is guilty because He created men with FREE WILL and he obviously knew that men would abuse their freewill is not valid.  You would then have to say that God is also innocent as He created men with FREE WILL and he also knew that they would do good (instances abound)...

    Wrong again, free will doesn't excuse God's choice to not inform Adam and Eve of the decision they were making to bring about evil into the world. He had infinite opportunities to do so, before, during, and after Satan's attempt at tempting them to eat from the tree. If you believe that nonsense, then you also must acknowledge that God wants evil.

    Also, it doesn't excuse God's choice to ALLOW Satan to even TEMPT Adam and Eve in the first place... Satan isn't Human... hence... No free will, in fact, didn't God order Satan to BOW to man? If God is all powerful... why is he allowing Satan to tempt man into the horror of horrors?

    I mean, seriously... Can you send me a link to where the tree of knowledge is on google maps? You'd think that the tree of knowledge and the garden of Eden would be pretty big tourist attractions... I don't think it was supposed to be in Florida though...

    More dramatization of the same point that is defeated by my prior argument.  You cannot blame God because He had knowledge that "Johnson" would gas Jews.  It's an un-"reasonable" position to take...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2009, 12:59:19 PM
    OK.  It seems that no one wants to answer this question, so I'll post it again...


    An "assumption" is an "assumption" because it either can not or has not been "proven"...  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

    For any interested here's a great link on the problems with radiometric dating (includes isochrons).

    http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 06, 2009, 01:01:11 PM
    It's a minimal difference because "reason" is different depending on WHO is making that judgment.  Reason for one person will be unreason for another.  Who then determines "reason"?  Is it my majority vote?  Is it determined by certain "ordained" academics?   Maybe it's determined by our "elected" leaders?  Obama must be the most reasonable of all since so many people are fooled by his promises...

    Um, no. Reason is an objective absolute.

    Quote
    Reason involves a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense ; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact. The meaning of the word "reason" overlaps to a large extent with "rationality" and the adjective of reason in philosophical contexts is normally "rational", not "reasonable".

    Um, no.  Reason requires one to make a conclusion that is not based on fact.  It may be that "reason" may support a conclusion or explain a fact, but it will not be the only "explanation" that can support the same conclusion or explain the same fact...

    Gene, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but you actually are arguing against a quote from the actual definition of reason, man.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sterlingnickle on January 06, 2009, 01:15:09 PM
    OK.  It seems that no one wants to answer this question, so I'll post it again...


    An "assumption" is an "assumption" because it either can not or has not been "proven"...  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

    For any interested here's a great link on the problems with radiometric dating (includes isochrons).

    http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
    Wrong, it only has to be "valid" or "invalid."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2009, 02:42:43 PM
    It's a minimal difference because "reason" is different depending on WHO is making that judgment.  Reason for one person will be unreason for another.  Who then determines "reason"?  Is it my majority vote?  Is it determined by certain "ordained" academics?   Maybe it's determined by our "elected" leaders?  Obama must be the most reasonable of all since so many people are fooled by his promises...

    Um, no. Reason is an objective absolute.

    Quote
    Reason involves a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense ; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact. The meaning of the word "reason" overlaps to a large extent with "rationality" and the adjective of reason in philosophical contexts is normally "rational", not "reasonable".

    Um, no.  Reason requires one to make a conclusion that is not based on fact.  It may be that "reason" may support a conclusion or explain a fact, but it will not be the only "explanation" that can support the same conclusion or explain the same fact...

    Gene, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but you actually are arguing against a quote from the actual definition of reason, man.

    Maybe that's because I'm disputing your definition... or rather pointing out an inconsistency in it.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2009, 02:44:18 PM
    OK.  It seems that no one wants to answer this question, so I'll post it again...


    An "assumption" is an "assumption" because it either can not or has not been "proven"...  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

    For any interested here's a great link on the problems with radiometric dating (includes isochrons).

    http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
    Wrong, it only has to be "valid" or "invalid."

    It's a simple True (  ) or False (  ) answer.  Which one do you choose?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sterlingnickle on January 06, 2009, 02:51:11 PM
    OK.  It seems that no one wants to answer this question, so I'll post it again...


    An "assumption" is an "assumption" because it either can not or has not been "proven"...  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

    For any interested here's a great link on the problems with radiometric dating (includes isochrons).

    http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
    Wrong, it only has to be "valid" or "invalid."

    It's a simple True (  ) or False (  ) answer.  Which one do you choose?

      Your hypothisis is Valid

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on January 06, 2009, 03:03:35 PM
    Please just stop.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on January 06, 2009, 03:29:12 PM
    I take most of my belief in a Creator from my own personal experiences and observations...

    GOD DONE BEEN TALKIN' TO GENE!!!
    Speaking of God talking to political types, that guy who was appointed Senator by Blagojevich claimed that Jesus reached down from heaven and touched Blago with his hands and told him to appoint him Jr Senator.  :lol:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 06, 2009, 03:42:31 PM
    Gene, please dance your lies around how informing the victim removes the free will of the agressor..seriously, how do you explain away god's evil there? Free will does not address the point I made. I know you are slightly illiterate, but it's right there a few times now.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 06, 2009, 03:45:18 PM
    god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews,

    True ( ) False ( ) ?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2009, 04:26:41 PM
    Gene, please dance your lies around how informing the victim removes the free will of the agressor..seriously, how do you explain away god's evil there? Free will does not address the point I made. I know you are slightly illiterate, but it's right there a few times now.

    Exactly what "victim" has been informed by what "agressor" (sic)?  It appears either you don't understand the principal of free will or you choose to ignore it in an attempt to make yourself look like some kind of scholar.  I'm terribly sorry that I don't live up to your level of ed-u-muh-ka-shun, but we can't all be brilliant like you... (P.S. the third button when posting is "Spell Check"...)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2009, 04:27:36 PM
    god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews,

    True ( ) False ( ) ?

    Still refuse to answer the question, huh?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 06, 2009, 06:40:17 PM
    Gene, please dance your lies around how informing the victim removes the free will of the agressor..seriously, how do you explain away god's evil there? Free will does not address the point I made. I know you are slightly illiterate, but it's right there a few times now.

    Exactly what "victim" has been informed by what "agressor" (sic)?  It appears either you don't understand the principal of free will or you choose to ignore it in an attempt to make yourself look like some kind of scholar.  I'm terribly sorry that I don't live up to your level of ed-u-muh-ka-shun, but we can't all be brilliant like you... (P.S. the third button when posting is "Spell Check"...)

    Firstly, I'm when I'm posting from my iPhone, which tends to crash while using the BBS, I'm not going to be concerned that I didn't get the second G in aggressor when talking to someone who makes so many spelling, logical, and grammatical errors in his regular posting regimen, that it makes George Bush look eloquent. It's the reason why I called you slightly illiterate... Which appeared to have had the right affect, you paid SUCH close attention, for once, that you were able to spot a spelling error. I think we should all make fun of your lack of thinking ability more often, maybe you will try harder to use that melon of yours.

    Anyway, what I am (and have been) referring to, is God's OMNISCIENCE. Now, I probably need to define that for you... It means that God is ALL KNOWING. Actually, he's OMNIPRESCIENT. He not only knows all, but he knows all without regard to the concept of TIME. Not only is his OMNIPRESCIENT, but he's OMNIPOTENT. Meaning, he's also all powerful... So, he knows all, and can control all of creation THROUGHOUT TIME. 

    When I refer to a victim of an atrocity... I could be referring to pretty much ANY victim, but I was specifically referring to the JEWS during world war II being gassed by the Nazis. It was your example, so I figured I'd run with it.

    Now, God gave people free will right? So, in order to not interfere with that free will, he would not be able to control the actions of the vile nazis. God COULD however, INFORM the JEWISH victims of what was about to happen to them!
    That would NOT affect free will, and the JEWS and NAZIS would still have the choice to kill and die respectively.

    However, I think this is MORE pertinent in my original example when the aggressor was in fact, not a human Nazi with free will, but Satan, a fallen angel whom had ALREADY been ordered to BOW before man.

    Informing Jews they are going to be killed by evil Nazis, or informing Adam and Eve that they are being taunted into committing a sin so egregious that it will create unspeakable horrors for all mankind for all of eternity, is NOT a violation of free will.... It is a MANDATORY piece of information that a GOOD omniscient being would provide immediately.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 06, 2009, 06:40:53 PM
    god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews,

    True ( ) False ( ) ?
    Still refuse to answer the question, huh?


    Look at the quote there, *I* wrote that question... Not you... Are you refusing to answer it?

    Psst. If you believe in an all powerful god, the answer is "True, God most certainly DOES have the power to have stopped the Nazis from having gassed hundreds of thousands of Jews"
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2009, 08:32:45 PM
    god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews,

    True ( ) False ( ) ?
    Still refuse to answer the question, huh?


    Look at the quote there, *I* wrote that question... Not you... Are you refusing to answer it?

    Psst. If you believe in an all powerful god, the answer is "True, God most certainly DOES have the power to have stopped the Nazis from having gassed hundreds of thousands of Jews"

    No, you are refusing to answer MY question which was posed first.  It's a common tactic of someone who has lost an argument, to deflect the point directed at them by posting an irrelevant counterpoint.  My question still stands, are you going to answer it? 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2009, 08:39:22 PM
    Gene, please dance your lies around how informing the victim removes the free will of the agressor..seriously, how do you explain away god's evil there? Free will does not address the point I made. I know you are slightly illiterate, but it's right there a few times now.

    Exactly what "victim" has been informed by what "agressor" (sic)?  It appears either you don't understand the principal of free will or you choose to ignore it in an attempt to make yourself look like some kind of scholar.  I'm terribly sorry that I don't live up to your level of ed-u-muh-ka-shun, but we can't all be brilliant like you... (P.S. the third button when posting is "Spell Check"...)

    Firstly, I'm when I'm posting from my iPhone, which tends to crash while using the BBS, I'm not going to be concerned that I didn't get the second G in aggressor when talking to someone who makes so many spelling, logical, and grammatical errors in his regular posting regimen, that it makes George Bush look eloquent. It's the reason why I called you slightly illiterate... Which appeared to have had the right affect, you paid SUCH close attention, for once, that you were able to spot a spelling error. I think we should all make fun of your lack of thinking ability more often, maybe you will try harder to use that melon of yours.


    I bow to your extreme intelligence.  NOW will you answer the question?

    Quote


    Anyway, what I am (and have been) referring to, is God's OMNISCIENCE. Now, I probably need to define that for you... It means that God is ALL KNOWING. Actually, he's OMNIPRESCIENT. He not only knows all, but he knows all without regard to the concept of TIME. Not only is his OMNIPRESCIENT, but he's OMNIPOTENT. Meaning, he's also all powerful... So, he knows all, and can control all of creation THROUGHOUT TIME. 

    When I refer to a victim of an atrocity... I could be referring to pretty much ANY victim, but I was specifically referring to the JEWS during world war II being gassed by the Nazis. It was your example, so I figured I'd run with it.

    Now, God gave people free will right? So, in order to not interfere with that free will, he would not be able to control the actions of the vile nazis. God COULD however, INFORM the JEWISH victims of what was about to happen to them!
    That would NOT affect free will, and the JEWS and NAZIS would still have the choice to kill and die respectively.

    However, I think this is MORE pertinent in my original example when the aggressor was in fact, not a human Nazi with free will, but Satan, a fallen angel whom had ALREADY been ordered to BOW before man.

    Informing Jews they are going to be killed by evil Nazis, or informing Adam and Eve that they are being taunted into committing a sin so egregious that it will create unspeakable horrors for all mankind for all of eternity, is NOT a violation of free will.... It is a MANDATORY piece of information that a GOOD omniscient being would provide immediately.

    Already answered the point about God's creating men with freewill and not being responsible for their actions.  If this confuses you, I really don't know how to help you.  Of course the point applies to "Satan" as well since he was also a created being...

    Also, according to the story, God did inform Adam and Eve that disobedience would have consequences (actual wording would be different, I'm sure).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 06, 2009, 09:55:56 PM


    No, you are refusing to answer MY question which was posed first.  It's a common tactic of someone who has lost an argument, to deflect the point directed at them by posting an irrelevant counterpoint.  My question still stands, are you going to answer it? 

    LOST an argument?  :shock:

    I hate to point it out to you, CA, but you have been seriously trounced. Now, you're just flailing around.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 06, 2009, 10:37:41 PM
    I bow to your extreme intelligence.  NOW will you answer the question?

    Perhaps in your illiterate ramblings and skimming rather than participating (which is why I am treating you like a piece of dogshit now by the way, because you are a rude fuck for not participating with equal effort and response time to those who are investing time into a discussion thread with you that you started) you MISSED the fact that I have answered all the questions you have asked me.

    Already answered the point about God's creating men with freewill and not being responsible for their actions.  If this confuses you, I really don't know how to help you. 

    I've spelled it out for you several times, and now I'm beginning to think that you are either mentally retarded, or that this is the psychological block for you... The WALL to your cage if you will. We haven't been TALKING about FREE WILL. I've been discussing specifically the difference between god using the FORCE of his power to remove free will of evil people to promote good... Which you have already 3 times now... like a retarded monkey pointed out that God doesn't combat evil by removing the free will, and that enslaving mankind to the whims of his power would be a greater evil, and thusly we cannot blame god for the actions of free men who choose evil... I got that Gene, I got it the first time you said it. I REPLIED by pointing out that God, if he were truly good, could circumvent that problem... (of removing the free will of a sovereign being) by INFORMING the victims of evil. God doesn't have to remove free will to participate in the reduction of evil, all he would need to do as a good and benevolent deity would be to share his infinite knowledge with the victims. I've explained this now... what... 5 times? At this point, I don't believe you are psychologically ready yet to handle this... It may be too much for your world view to absorb.

    Of course the point applies to "Satan" as well since he was also a created being...
    I'm beginning to think that you don't know your bible very well.... Satan is an ANGEL. ANGELs were NOT created with free will. In fact, God ORDERED Satan to bow to man (remember this is according to the bible) Satan, who craved power, refused God's order (which, doesn't make sense, since Angels were not created with free will, so satan should not have been ABLE to refuse the order) When Satan refused to bow to man, HE WAS CAST OUT. It was LATER that he returned as a serpent to the Garden of Eden (which is supposedly located somewhere on earth, which means that you should be able to find the tree of knowledge somewhere on google maps. Anyway, I see why you've been having trouble with all this, I assumed you knew the BASICS of biblical lore. Not a surprise that you don't really, MOST Christians are ignorant not only about the outside world, but even about the story and rules of their OWN little universe.

    Also, according to the story, God did inform Adam and Eve that disobedience would have consequences (actual wording would be different, I'm sure).

    Yeah, and that's what ALL good parents should do too right? "Hey Johnny, don't eat from that apple tree, or you will be punished." (The parent says... ONCE) and when Johnny breaks the rules... we.........

    CHOP OFF HIS HANDS! or.........
    PUT THE SCREWS TO HIM!!!!! or..........
    Tie a rope around his dick and then push him off a ladder...
    These are like... reasonable punishments right?

    No wait... I know... let's make it so that we punish not only Johnny... but all of his ancestors throughout all time with some of the most horrible things we can imagine... Yeaaaaah.... That sounds like a GOOD and BENEVOLENT thing to do.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2009, 10:48:17 PM


    No, you are refusing to answer MY question which was posed first.  It's a common tactic of someone who has lost an argument, to deflect the point directed at them by posting an irrelevant counterpoint.  My question still stands, are you going to answer it? 

    LOST an argument?  :shock:

    I hate to point it out to you, CA, but you have been seriously trounced. Now, you're just flailing around.

    No, I've won the argument as no one here will answer a simple true or false question.  They will not answer it as to do so exposes the fact that they have been duped by the "cult of science" (as opposed to REAL science)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 06, 2009, 10:52:50 PM
    Maybe that's because I'm disputing your definition... or rather pointing out an inconsistency in it.

    It wasn't "MY" definition. It was "The" definition.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 06, 2009, 10:58:21 PM


    No, you are refusing to answer MY question which was posed first.  It's a common tactic of someone who has lost an argument, to deflect the point directed at them by posting an irrelevant counterpoint.  My question still stands, are you going to answer it? 

    LOST an argument?  :shock:

    I hate to point it out to you, CA, but you have been seriously trounced. Now, you're just flailing around.

    No, I've won the argument as no one here will answer a simple true or false question.  They will not answer it as to do so exposes the fact that they have been duped by the "cult of science" (as opposed to REAL science)...

    The number of people here who think you have won anything is limited to just one: YOU.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: JWI on January 06, 2009, 11:01:02 PM
    Tannis root anyone?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 06, 2009, 11:01:23 PM
    The number of people here who think you have won anything is limited to just one: YOU.

    Which just "Proves his point" because Xians are supposed to be persecuted.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2009, 11:12:21 PM
    I bow to your extreme intelligence.  NOW will you answer the question?

    Perhaps in your illiterate ramblings and skimming rather than participating (which is why I am treating you like a piece of dogshit now by the way, because you are a rude fuck for not participating with equal effort and response time to those who are investing time into a discussion thread with you that you started) you MISSED the fact that I have answered all the questions you have asked me.


    No, you never answered the questions (there are two) so I guess I will have to post them again to refresh your memory:

    1. An "assumption" is an "assumption" because it either can not or has not been "proven":  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

    2. Radiometric dating requires "assumptions" to calculate age:  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

    For any interested here's a great link on the problems with radiometric dating (includes isochrons).

    http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

    Or you could just ignore them again (and again and again and again...)

    Quote


    Already answered the point about God's creating men with freewill and not being responsible for their actions.  If this confuses you, I really don't know how to help you. 

    I've spelled it out for you several times, and now I'm beginning to think that you are either mentally retarded, or that this is the psychological block for you... The WALL to your cage if you will. We haven't been TALKING about FREE WILL. I've been discussing specifically the difference between god using the FORCE of his power to remove free will of evil people to promote good... Which you have already 3 times now... like a retarded monkey pointed out that God doesn't combat evil by removing the free will, and that enslaving mankind to the whims of his power would be a greater evil, and thusly we cannot blame god for the actions of free men who choose evil... I got that Gene, I got it the first time you said it. I REPLIED by pointing out that God, if he were truly good, could circumvent that problem... (of removing the free will of a sovereign being) by INFORMING the victims of evil. God doesn't have to remove free will to participate in the reduction of evil, all he would need to do as a good and benevolent deity would be to share his infinite knowledge with the victims. I've explained this now... what... 5 times? At this point, I don't believe you are psychologically ready yet to handle this... It may be too much for your world view to absorb.


    I addressed the "warning" part by pointing out that God did warn Adam and Eve.  I did not address God specifically warning the Jews (or a billion other victims) as this is getting too close to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type of question.  I suppose God could go about warning everyone on the planet about every pitfall that they may come across, but it seems like that would make "free will" a bit less "free" since you would be "informed" about every pitfall in life.  You certainly can make that argument (if that's what you call it) and I will have to bow again to your infinite knowledge because I don't know why God does not do this but I disagree that this in some way proves God is evil.  For one thing, as the author of what "good" and "evil" are, we have no standing to make such a claim (I'm sure you feel that you do).

    Quote

    Of course the point applies to "Satan" as well since he was also a created being...
    I'm beginning to think that you don't know your bible very well.... Satan is an ANGEL. ANGELs were NOT created with free will. In fact, God ORDERED Satan to bow to man (remember this is according to the bible) Satan, who craved power, refused God's order (which, doesn't make sense, since Angels were not created with free will, so satan should not have been ABLE to refuse the order) When Satan refused to bow to man, HE WAS CAST OUT. It was LATER that he returned as a serpent to the Garden of Eden (which is supposedly located somewhere on earth, which means that you should be able to find the tree of knowledge somewhere on google maps. Anyway, I see why you've been having trouble with all this, I assumed you knew the BASICS of biblical lore. Not a surprise that you don't really, MOST Christians are ignorant not only about the outside world, but even about the story and rules of their OWN little universe.


    I guess you know more than me (again) since I believe that angels were created with free will.  Perhaps you can educate me on this point.  How do you make the claim that angels DO NOT have free will?  Certainly I have never made such a claim.

    Quote

    Also, according to the story, God did inform Adam and Eve that disobedience would have consequences (actual wording would be different, I'm sure).

    Yeah, and that's what ALL good parents should do too right? "Hey Johnny, don't eat from that apple tree, or you will be punished." (The parent says... ONCE) and when Johnny breaks the rules... we.........

    CHOP OFF HIS HANDS! or.........
    PUT THE SCREWS TO HIM!!!!! or..........
    Tie a rope around his dick and then push him off a ladder...
    These are like... reasonable punishments right?

    No wait... I know... let's make it so that we punish not only Johnny... but all of his ancestors throughout all time with some of the most horrible things we can imagine... Yeaaaaah.... That sounds like a GOOD and BENEVOLENT thing to do.

    It's great that you can place everything (even things that happened thousands of years ago) into such precise analogies.  I feel that your analogy is absurd, however.  I would say that God simply pointed out one of the laws of nature.  Like me telling my son that if he plays with fire he will get burned.  While I do what I can to make sure he doesn't get burned, he makes a mistake and burns his finger.  The pain is real but I do what I can to treat the "defect" in his cells by applying antibacterial cream and a bandage.  He heals and learns.  God did the same thing but the timescale is in thousands of years, not a few minutes.  You and I will no doubt disagree as to which analogy is closer to reality and we are simply going to have to "agree to disagree"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2009, 11:15:21 PM
    Maybe that's because I'm disputing your definition... or rather pointing out an inconsistency in it.

    It wasn't "MY" definition. It was "The" definition.

    It was a definition you choose to use among others therefore it was "yours"...

    I do not agree with it as it is inconstant with reality.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 06, 2009, 11:16:08 PM
    Time to point out again that no one is "brave" enough to answer the posed questions...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 06, 2009, 11:22:51 PM
    (http://www.shackpics.com/download.x?file=Moses_3l663cnz7c38hlohxnpw.jpg)



    Johnson Edit: Added a Width so it wouldn't scroll
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 06, 2009, 11:24:50 PM
    Ahhhhhhhh... I see the true false that was never appropriately answered...

    Quote from: Gene the Obstinate Mushmind
    An "assumption" is an "assumption" because it either can not or has not been "proven"...  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

    True. Science works by examining and reexamining evidence and requires a well researched premise. While the theory of gravitation has not been PROVEN, it is REASONABLE to make the ASSUMPTION that you, Gene, if you were to be thrown off a tall building, would not be able to suddenly fly, because of gravity. While the theory of gravitation has not been proven, I think we very clearly COULD prove that if you are thrown from a building - that gravity will have an effect... Therefore, while it is unproven, certain assumptions are reasoned, researched and based on OTHER pieces of information that HAVE been proven. These EDUCATED assumptions are called a HYPOTHESIS.
    This differs from the science of creationism... Which is called, in scientific terms... wild fucking speculation - AKA Fiction.  
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 06, 2009, 11:32:04 PM
    Question one: 1. An "assumption" is an "assumption" because it either can not or has not been "proven":  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

    Your question is misleading because of a false assumption on your part, namely that you omit the corollary.

    In logic, more specifically in the context of natural deduction systems, an assumption is made in the expectation that it will be discharged in due course via a separate argument.

    You omit the fact that a scientific assumption is a placeholder explanation until it is scrutinized more thoroughly or disproven with evidence.

    You make an assumption because the assumption makes sense.



    Question two: 2. Radiometric dating requires "assumptions" to calculate age:  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

    True. There is the assumption that isotopes degrade at a fairly consistent rate, based on measuring the current rate of degradation.




    Now, I have answered your questions.

    Please answer mine: Please provide demonstratable, reproducible evidence in favor of the existence of God, please.


    Anything else is a smokescreen obfuscating the only question that matters.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 07, 2009, 12:00:21 AM
    I'd still like an answer to my question

    Quote
    god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews,

    True ( ) False ( ) ?

    I'll add.

    god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews, without even removing anyone's free will.

    True ( ) False ( ) ?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 07, 2009, 12:10:34 AM
    For one thing, as the author of what "good" and "evil" are, we have no standing to make such a claim (I'm sure you feel that you do).

    I already addressed this, and now you are rehashing old arguments because you chose not to participate in the original discussion.

    http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=11164.msg498895#msg498895
    The bible REQUIRES that morality does not come from god, but in fact that you MUST judge god - (even though it says that you should not, it requires you to, which makes sense, since you have CHOSEN Christianity) You are going to have to READ the text of that post to see the explanation for how the bible expects you to judge the morality of your deity.

    I'll get to your question about Angels tomorrow I think.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 07, 2009, 12:17:11 AM
    Actually, I just skimmed this,

    http://www.learnthebible.org/q_a_free_will_of_angels.htm

    and apparently I was slightly mistaken about Angels not having free will... I guess they have an approximation thereof, where, if they EVER disobey... God will make them his BITCH, and kick them out of heaven, and generally carve a new oraface our of their Angelic little hides, because ANY misstep for an Angel... results in BURNING for eternity. There is NO respite.

    Again... just another example of how awesome and wonderfully benevolent God supposedly is. What a cool guy.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 12:19:57 AM
    Ahhhhhhhh... I see the true false that was never appropriately answered...

    Quote from: Gene the Obstinate Mushmind
    An "assumption" is an "assumption" because it either can not or has not been "proven"...  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

    True. Science works by examining and reexamining evidence and requires a well researched premise. While the theory of gravitation has not been PROVEN, it is REASONABLE to make the ASSUMPTION that you, Gene, if you were to be thrown off a tall building, would not be able to suddenly fly, because of gravity. While the theory of gravitation has not been proven, I think we very clearly COULD prove that if you are thrown from a building - that gravity will have an effect... Therefore, while it is unproven, certain assumptions are reasoned, researched and based on OTHER pieces of information that HAVE been proven. These EDUCATED assumptions are called a HYPOTHESIS.
    This differs from the science of creationism... Which is called, in scientific terms... wild *** speculation - AKA Fiction. 

    You say that the theory of gravitation has not been proven which is true but the "FACT" that objects drop is indisputable.  You confuse the theory explaining the fact with the fact.  No one disputes that things fall when dropped on the surface of this planet (well, no one I know of).  The mechanism is unknown to us but the fact is observable and repeatable and do not require any "assumptions".  It's nice that you can invent a new kind of assumption (and EDUCATED one).  I did not know that assumptions could be graduated (are they PhD's or just BA's)?

    Now something that certainly does fit (in scientific terms) into the category of wild speculation is radiometric dating.  It requires one to make several ASSUMPTIONS which indeed are UNPROVABLE.  Lets just list one since I know it's difficult to get you to answer any point responsively.  It requires that one ASSUME that the ratio of the rock is (x) when created.  This ASSUMPTION is UNPROVABLE since we cannot measure the ratio when created unless we gain the power of time travel and go back to check those ratios WHEN THE ROCK IS CREATED...

    The fact that so many sheep have been duped by the "cult of science" into believing such wild claims based on wild assumptions shows the power of cults.  The "believers" will march lock-step behind their high priests (certain - not all - scientists).   
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 07, 2009, 12:22:21 AM
    LOL at the xian talking about blind belief in others.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 12:24:57 AM
    Question one: 1. An "assumption" is an "assumption" because it either can not or has not been "proven":  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

    Your question is misleading because of a false assumption on your part, namely that you omit the corollary.


    So I then "assume" that your answer is "False" since a misleading question cannot be "True"?

    Quote

    Now, I have answered your questions.

    Please answer mine: Please provide demonstratable, reproducible evidence in favor of the existence of God, please.


    Anything else is a smokescreen obfuscating the only question that matters.


    Never claimed to have any.  Neither do you have demonstratable, reproducible evidence that: the big bang created our universe, that life arose from non-life, that global warming is man-induced (I could go on but you get the picture - well, maybe you don't)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 12:27:05 AM
    For one thing, as the author of what "good" and "evil" are, we have no standing to make such a claim (I'm sure you feel that you do).

    I already addressed this, and now you are rehashing old arguments because you chose not to participate in the original discussion.

    http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=11164.msg498895#msg498895
    The bible REQUIRES that morality does not come from god, but in fact that you MUST judge god - (even though it says that you should not, it requires you to, which makes sense, since you have CHOSEN Christianity) You are going to have to READ the text of that post to see the explanation for how the bible expects you to judge the morality of your deity.

    I'll get to your question about Angels tomorrow I think.

    Silly assumption on your part since I have stated numerous times that I do not accept all that the books assembled into what is called "the Bible" are all accurate...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 12:27:51 AM
    I'd still like an answer to my question

    Quote
    god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews,

    True ( ) False ( ) ?

    I'll add.

    god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews, without even removing anyone's free will.

    True ( ) False ( ) ?


    True
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 07, 2009, 12:28:31 AM
    Never claimed to have any. 

    Good. Then we agree that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

    Neither do you have demonstratable, reproducible evidence that: the big bang created our universe, that life arose from non-life, that global warming is man-induced (I could go on but you get the picture - well, maybe you don't)...

    I'm sorry, did I make any of those claims?


    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 12:31:18 AM
    Actually, I just skimmed this,

    http://www.learnthebible.org/q_a_free_will_of_angels.htm

    and apparently I was slightly mistaken about Angels not having free will... I guess they have an approximation thereof, where, if they EVER disobey... God will make them his BITCH, and kick them out of heaven, and generally carve a new oraface our of their Angelic little hides, because ANY misstep for an Angel... results in BURNING for eternity. There is NO respite.

    Again... just another example of how awesome and wonderfully benevolent God supposedly is. What a cool guy.

    Amazing how you read one article written by who-knows-who and make all those conclusions as if they are fact.  You are a "programmers" dream...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Dylboz on January 07, 2009, 12:32:52 AM
    The FACT that radiometric isotopes degrade at a steady and observable rate is as observable, reliable and repeatably demonstrable as the FACT that objects fall when dropped here on earth. So, Gene, what's up with the weird double standard?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 12:33:02 AM
    Never claimed to have any.

    Good. Then we agree that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

    Neither do you have demonstratable, reproducible evidence that: the big bang created our universe, that life arose from non-life, that global warming is man-induced (I could go on but you get the picture - well, maybe you don't)...

    I'm sorry, did I make any of those claims?


    Perhaps you did not, but it seems common among the "cult of science" worshipers to make such claims.  If you disagree with them, please state so.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 07, 2009, 12:33:19 AM
    So I then "assume" that your answer is "False" since a misleading question cannot be "True"?

    No, the answer was "True" - I just wasn't going to let you slip a modified version of the term "Assumption" in as valid. Too easy to draw incorrect conclusions from what I was saying after the fact.

    An assumption is not (Necessarily) unprovable. It is just unproven.

    I assume that if I sit down in a chair, it will not disappear, dropping me to the floor.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 12:34:31 AM
    The FACT that radiometric isotopes degrade at a steady and observable rate is as observable, reliable and repeatably demonstrable as the FACT that objects fall when dropped here on earth. So, Gene, what's up with the weird double standard?

    I have stated that the "rate of decay" is one of the more reliable of the assumptions regarding radiometric dating and not one of the assumptions I am disputing.

    No double standard here...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: WallyC33 on January 07, 2009, 12:34:44 AM
    I'd still like an answer to my question

    Quote
    god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews,

    True ( ) False ( ) ?

    I'll add.

    god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews, without even removing anyone's free will.

    True ( ) False ( ) ?


    True

    Actually, I'm going to have to throw in a false. He would have to remove the Nazis' free will. Or the Jew's free will to make them fight.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 12:36:30 AM
    I'd still like an answer to my question

    Quote
    god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews,

    True ( ) False ( ) ?

    I'll add.

    god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews, without even removing anyone's free will.

    True ( ) False ( ) ?


    True

    Actually, I'm going to have to throw in a false. He would have to remove the Nazis' free will. Or the Jew's free will to make them fight.

    No, God certainly could have created a situation where the Nazis wanted to gas Jews but were simply unable to do so.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: WallyC33 on January 07, 2009, 12:37:53 AM
    I'd still like an answer to my question

    Quote
    god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews,

    True ( ) False ( ) ?

    I'll add.

    god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews, without even removing anyone's free will.

    True ( ) False ( ) ?


    True

    Actually, I'm going to have to throw in a false. He would have to remove the Nazis' free will. Or the Jew's free will to make them fight.

    No, God certainly could have created a situation where the Nazis wanted to gas Jews but were simply unable to do so.

    OK to being specific about "gassing" them, but other methods?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on January 07, 2009, 12:39:32 AM
    religion requires blind faith...

    debating religion logically = pointlessness
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 12:39:56 AM
    So I then "assume" that your answer is "False" since a misleading question cannot be "True"?

    No, the answer was "True" - I just wasn't going to let you slip a modified version of the term "Assumption" in as valid. Too easy to draw incorrect conclusions from what I was saying after the fact.

    An assumption is not (Necessarily) unprovable. It is just unproven.

    I assume that if I sit down in a chair, it will not disappear, dropping me to the floor.


    Which can be backed up by repeated demonstrations to be true.  This is not the case with assumptions made in radiometric dating which cannot be backed up by repeated demonstrations to be true...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 12:40:38 AM
    I'd still like an answer to my question

    Quote
    god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews,

    True ( ) False ( ) ?

    I'll add.

    god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews, without even removing anyone's free will.

    True ( ) False ( ) ?


    True

    Actually, I'm going to have to throw in a false. He would have to remove the Nazis' free will. Or the Jew's free will to make them fight.

    No, God certainly could have created a situation where the Nazis wanted to gas Jews but were simply unable to do so.

    OK to being specific about "gassing" them, but other methods?

    Same...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 12:41:59 AM
    religion requires blind faith...

    debating religion logically = pointlessness

    Believing that a "big bang" created our universe logically = pointlessness
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 07, 2009, 12:42:09 AM
    Perhaps you did not, but it seems common among the "cult of science" worshipers to make such claims.  If you disagree with them, please state so.

    So, you made an assumption, huh? Yeah...

    I believe in reason and evidence as proof of a claim. I believe that the onus of truth lies upon he who claims that something is so.

    You make a claim, you supply repeatable, testable evidence, of I conclude that your claim is false. Period.

    If you want to call that "Science" or "The cult of science", well, you go right ahead.


    Q: Where did the universe come from?

    A: I'm not sure, but it is expanding in every direction at once. This is an observable fact. The Doppler effect is testable and repeatable. Does this mean that everything started at a single point in space? I can't prove that, but I can certainly make the assumption that if everything is moving away from everything else, you know, expanding? Well, then if you reverse the clock, the trajectories make everything move toward each other. How far back? Can't answer with certainty, but there is no evidence of anything else happening to intercede in this process of expansion. Therefore, it can be assumed that at some point, everything was all clumped together.

    Besides, if the "BIG BANG" doesn't sound like a cosmic being saying the words "LET THERE BE LIGHT."... Well, I don't know what does.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: WallyC33 on January 07, 2009, 12:42:13 AM
    I'd still like an answer to my question

    Quote
    god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews,

    True ( ) False ( ) ?

    I'll add.

    god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews, without even removing anyone's free will.

    True ( ) False ( ) ?


    True

    Actually, I'm going to have to throw in a false. He would have to remove the Nazis' free will. Or the Jew's free will to make them fight.

    No, God certainly could have created a situation where the Nazis wanted to gas Jews but were simply unable to do so.

    OK to being specific about "gassing" them, but other methods?

    Same...

    So, you mean like putting a force-field around the jews?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: WallyC33 on January 07, 2009, 12:42:50 AM
    religion requires blind faith...

    debating religion logically = pointlessness

    Believing that a "big bang" created our universe logically = pointlessness

    True dat
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 07, 2009, 12:43:38 AM
    Which can be backed up by repeated demonstrations to be true.  This is not the case with assumptions made in radiometric dating which cannot be backed up by repeated demonstrations to be true...

    How about in a thousand years?

    You see, you can keep testing.

    How much time will pass before there's enough evidence?

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: WallyC33 on January 07, 2009, 12:46:50 AM
    I am also a Christian, but I'm not gonna get all evangelistic on yo asses. It would be a waste of your time and mine.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 12:58:58 AM
    Perhaps you did not, but it seems common among the "cult of science" worshipers to make such claims.  If you disagree with them, please state so.

    So, you made an assumption, huh? Yeah...


    Yes, I do make assumptions and I make no attempt to disguise them as anything other than assumptions (unlike many others here)...

    Quote


    I believe in reason and evidence as proof of a claim. I believe that the onus of truth lies upon he who claims that something is so.

    You make a claim, you supply repeatable, testable evidence, of I conclude that your claim is false. Period.

    If you want to call that "Science" or "The cult of science", well, you go right ahead.


    Q: Where did the universe come from?

    A: I'm not sure, but it is expanding in every direction at once. This is an observable fact. The Doppler effect is testable and repeatable. Does this mean that everything started at a single point in space? I can't prove that, but I can certainly make the assumption that if everything is moving away from everything else, you know, expanding? Well, then if you reverse the clock, the trajectories make everything move toward each other. How far back? Can't answer with certainty, but there is no evidence of anything else happening to intercede in this process of expansion. Therefore, it can be assumed that at some point, everything was all clumped together.

    Besides, if the "BIG BANG" doesn't sound like a cosmic being saying the words "LET THERE BE LIGHT."... Well, I don't know what does.


    Good.  You at least have questions about the proposed "facts".  Most of these "facts" are not facts at all but assumptions presented as facts.  I call that a lie.  I call the people making those lies "liars"...

    All those cult members who "lied" to me when I was in the "public fools system" and presented all their "conclusions" based on "assumptions" as fact were indeed LIARS.  They may have been deceived themselves, but when one presents "assumptions" as "fact" then they are just common everyday liars...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on January 07, 2009, 01:01:44 AM
    religion requires blind faith...

    debating religion logically = pointlessness

    Believing that a "big bang" created our universe logically = pointlessness

    The "big bang" has reason and scientific logic to it although its mostly theory it would be a reasonable assumption.... god just has magical powers that creates crap from thin air and has all these wonderful powers while being able to prevent suffering and pain in this world sits back and watches like some redneck watching an episode of cops.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 01:03:13 AM
    Which can be backed up by repeated demonstrations to be true.  This is not the case with assumptions made in radiometric dating which cannot be backed up by repeated demonstrations to be true...

    How about in a thousand years?

    You see, you can keep testing.

    How much time will pass before there's enough evidence?


    It's not how much time has passed but the FACT that one cannot possibly know the ratio of isotopes in newly formed rocks.  Unless you can somehow prove this ratio, all dating methods fail.  The "FACT" that so many rock samples disagree with others in the same strata show how unreliable radiometric dating is.  Yet the "scientists" who take the samples will simply claim that "this sample" is "contaminated" and will keep taking more samples until they find one that reads the "correct" ratio according to their preconceived notion of what the age SHOULD be.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: rabidfurby on January 07, 2009, 01:05:22 AM
    See sig for why this thread is pointless.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 01:07:49 AM
    religion requires blind faith...

    debating religion logically = pointlessness

    Believing that a "big bang" created our universe logically = pointlessness

    The "big bang" has reason and scientific logic to it although its mostly theory it would be a reasonable assumption.... god just has magical powers that creates crap from thin air and has all these wonderful powers while being able to prevent suffering and pain in this world sits back and watches like some redneck watching an episode of cops.

    The "big bang" theory was promoted first by Steven Hawkings and he has since taken an opposing view claiming that it did not occur...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 07, 2009, 01:12:43 AM
    The "big bang" theory was promoted first by Steven Hawking

    Um, this is totally incorrect, Gene.

    George Gamow/Georges Lemaître proposed and started promoting the concept in 1946, when Hawking was FOUR YEARS OLD.

    EDIT: For clarity - Lemaître proposed in the late 1920's. Gamow started promoting the idea in 1946.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: rabidfurby on January 07, 2009, 01:38:21 AM
    Let's play everyone's favorite game, SPOT THAT LOGICAL FALLACY!

    "X used to believe that Y is true, but X changed his mind. Therefore, Y is false."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 08:09:57 AM
    Let's play everyone's favorite game, SPOT THAT LOGICAL FALLACY!

    "X used to believe that Y is true, but X changed his mind. Therefore, Y is false."

    It's merely a demonstration that the "high priests" you guys look up to keep changing their minds, so why do you keep believing them??

    Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling,

    etc...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 07, 2009, 09:52:13 AM
    Actually, I just skimmed this,

    http://www.learnthebible.org/q_a_free_will_of_angels.htm

    and apparently I was slightly mistaken about Angels not having free will... I guess they have an approximation thereof, where, if they EVER disobey... God will make them his BITCH, and kick them out of heaven, and generally carve a new oraface our of their Angelic little hides, because ANY misstep for an Angel... results in BURNING for eternity. There is NO respite.

    Again... just another example of how awesome and wonderfully benevolent God supposedly is. What a cool guy.

    Amazing how you read one article written by who-knows-who and make all those conclusions as if they are fact.  You are a "programmers" dream...

    Actually, it wasn't the article itself that I was concerned with, it was the relevant quotes from the bible, also this wasn't a lone article, there were MANY that said the exact same thing. I posted the link to this one because it was clearest and easiest to skim.

    As far as being programmed, I think you need to speak for yourself. You just made the assumption that I'm arguing that there is NO god. I'm not. I'm not an atheist, and hence not "programmed" by any atheist thought. I'm simply arguing that all the things you claim to know, are in fact lies, because you don't know them.

    The reason why I don't argue against the science side, is because scientists aren't all atheists, there is no CULT goal to disprove god among scientists. While atheists may use science to point out the ridiculous lunacy of religion, the goals of science have NOTHING to do with tearing down religion. Scientists are trying to figure out how the world works, and the truth of reality. They don't do so as a whole with respect to any religion. There are scientists of ALL the faiths of the world. If the TRUTH of reality was what the BIBLE says... We wouldn't be debating at all using ANY scientific claims, because SCIENCE, and general scientific consensus, would point to things like Noah's flood being true. Creation 'scientists' would be world renowned. However, this is not the case. Creationists use fiction to fill in gaps, start with preconceptions, are NOT in search of truth, and are known as JOKES in the scientific community.

    I think you need to look at the walls of the cage your mind is in, and the fact that you live by an EXTERNAL set of rules created by SOMEONE else, and realize who, in REALITY, was programmed. I'm not the one that chose someone else's CODE to live by.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 07, 2009, 09:59:12 AM
    I'm not an atheist, and hence not "programmed" by any atheist thought.

    Yeah, I'm kinda there too.

    Well, I just don't worry about the existence or non existence of god. If he's there, he's the clockmaker sort.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on January 07, 2009, 10:06:49 AM
    I see no evidence for God in the pattern of things. It seems to me more or less Nature as it is has no designer or governor. It's order without hierarchy. It's action without committee sanction.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 07, 2009, 10:08:13 AM
    I see no evidence for God in the pattern of things.

    I agree.

    If'n dey is a Gud, aye ain't seen him none.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 07, 2009, 10:10:18 AM
    The "big bang" theory was promoted first by Steven Hawkings and he has since taken an opposing view claiming that it did not occur...

    HAHAHAH Not only is this a logical fallacy as pointed out above... but it's also plain stupid and un-ed-juh-ma-kate-ed...

    Hawkings "refutation" of the big bang theory was only to say that he believed that there was not ONE but MANY big bangs.

    HAHAHA So, Gene, is this your way of telling us that you now believe in not ONE but MANY evolutions?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 10:16:48 AM
    Actually, I just skimmed this,

    http://www.learnthebible.org/q_a_free_will_of_angels.htm

    and apparently I was slightly mistaken about Angels not having free will... I guess they have an approximation thereof, where, if they EVER disobey... God will make them his BITCH, and kick them out of heaven, and generally carve a new oraface our of their Angelic little hides, because ANY misstep for an Angel... results in BURNING for eternity. There is NO respite.

    Again... just another example of how awesome and wonderfully benevolent God supposedly is. What a cool guy.

    Amazing how you read one article written by who-knows-who and make all those conclusions as if they are fact.  You are a "programmers" dream...

    Actually, it wasn't the article itself that I was concerned with, it was the relevant quotes from the bible, also this wasn't a lone article, there were MANY that said the exact same thing. I posted the link to this one because it was clearest and easiest to skim.


    No, actually you had a completely different position before reading that article.  You hardly had the time (check post history) to review volumes of additional references...

    Quote

    As far as being programmed, I think you need to speak for yourself. You just made the assumption that I'm arguing that there is NO god. I'm not. I'm not an atheist, and hence not "programmed" by any atheist thought. I'm simply arguing that all the things you claim to know, are in fact lies, because you don't know them.

    The reason why I don't argue against the science side, is because scientists aren't all atheists, there is no CULT goal to disprove god among scientists. While atheists may use science to point out the ridiculous lunacy of religion, the goals of science have NOTHING to do with tearing down religion. Scientists are trying to figure out how the world works, and the truth of reality. They don't do so as a whole with respect to any religion. There are scientists of ALL the faiths of the world. If the TRUTH of reality was what the BIBLE says... We wouldn't be debating at all using ANY scientific claims, because SCIENCE, and general scientific consensus, would point to things like Noah's flood being true. Creation 'scientists' would be world renowned. However, this is not the case. Creationists use fiction to fill in gaps, start with preconceptions, are NOT in search of truth, and are known as JOKES in the scientific community.

    I think you need to look at the walls of the cage your mind is in, and the fact that you live by an EXTERNAL set of rules created by SOMEONE else, and realize who, in REALITY, was programmed. I'm not the one that chose someone else's CODE to live by.

    Ah, but "programmed" you are.  You accept what some (I've made it very clear that I'm not talking about all) scientists are guilty of promoting what can only be described as a "cult of science" that is based upon suppositions, assumptions, and hot air.  These men promote their fantasies as fact and that is where I get riled.  Present your suppositions as suppositions all you want, but don't steal money from me and then use my money to promote those same suppositions as FACT (which is both a lie and theft)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 07, 2009, 10:21:18 AM
    For one thing, as the author of what "good" and "evil" are, we have no standing to make such a claim (I'm sure you feel that you do).

    I already addressed this, and now you are rehashing old arguments because you chose not to participate in the original discussion.

    http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=11164.msg498895#msg498895
    The bible REQUIRES that morality does not come from god, but in fact that you MUST judge god - (even though it says that you should not, it requires you to, which makes sense, since you have CHOSEN Christianity) You are going to have to READ the text of that post to see the explanation for how the bible expects you to judge the morality of your deity.

    I'll get to your question about Angels tomorrow I think.

    Silly assumption on your part since I have stated numerous times that I do not accept all that the books assembled into what is called "the Bible" are all accurate...

    I'm assuming then, to claim to be a Christian, that you at least believe in a past being that had magical powers and was supposedly the son of a deity?  (something akin to the EXACT same story as Dionysis, Osiris, Krishna, Mithra, and even to a large extent... Buddha)

    So, what special powers do YOU believe Jesus had?

    Could he fly? Did he shoot lasers from his eyes? Did he move things with his mind?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 07, 2009, 10:22:40 AM
    I've never made the claim that I support state funded science.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 07, 2009, 10:27:44 AM
    No, actually you had a completely different position before reading that article.  You hardly had the time (check post history) to review volumes of additional references...

    Hardly, I don't see much of a difference between being a slave with no free will at all, and being a slave that only has free will insofar as the ability to make the decision to disobey that will cause one to BURN for eternity. To my mind, there is not much of a difference. My position was SLIGHTLY different, not COMPLETELY different. Don't be melodramatic.

    Also, you'd be surprised at how fast I can find information with the assistance of Google. I had plenty of time to find multiple sources.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 10:31:57 AM
    I've never made the claim that I support state funded science.

    Good for you.  Now you might "make a stand" by only promoting the "science" that you can cite that has not been achieved by stealing my money and was not politically motivated (if you can find any)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Dylboz on January 07, 2009, 10:32:19 AM
    Let's play everyone's favorite game, SPOT THAT LOGICAL FALLACY!

    "X used to believe that Y is true, but X changed his mind. Therefore, Y is false."

    It's merely a demonstration that the "high priests" you guys look up to keep changing their minds, so why do you keep believing them??

    Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling,

    etc...

    Oh, is that your jag. You want the certainty that comes from a pre-packaged set of beliefs, unchanged in the face of mountains of contrary evidence, as opposed to the constantly refined and revised view of things that comes from the scientific method and its sometimes contentious debates at the margins. For most people, the mind changing thing is a net positive for science, because it continues to get closer and closer to the truth, while you stubbornly remain as far from the truth as you always have been, trying to pick at this little thing or that so you can try and discredit the work and conclusions of far smarter, far braver and far more honest men than yourself, because the truth about how little we know and how fast it keeps changing scares the crap out of you.

    And you can know exactly what the ratios are in newly formed rocks. Just go to Hawaii, hork off a chunk of freshly cooled basalt and measure it. Viola!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 10:33:30 AM
    I'm assuming then, to claim to be a Christian, that you at least believe in a past being that had magical powers and was supposedly the son of a deity?

    Not only can you assume such, but I have stated it many times here (check the last 170 pages of posts)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 10:35:30 AM
    No, actually you had a completely different position before reading that article.  You hardly had the time (check post history) to review volumes of additional references...

    Hardly, I don't see much of a difference between being a slave with no free will at all, and being a slave that only has free will insofar as the ability to make the decision to disobey that will cause one to BURN for eternity. To my mind, there is not much of a difference. My position was SLIGHTLY different, not COMPLETELY different. Don't be melodramatic.

    Also, you'd be surprised at how fast I can find information with the assistance of Google. I had plenty of time to find multiple sources.

    Strawman.  You do not portray what I believe at all...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 07, 2009, 10:41:51 AM
    I've never made the claim that I support state funded science.

    Good for you.  Now you might "make a stand" by only promoting the "science" that you can cite that has not been achieved by stealing my money and was not politically motivated (if you can find any)...

    Only if you attack scientific beliefs using nothing you gleaned from researchers who were religiously motivated.

    At any rate, I don't think I have been doing a lot of science citing.... I'm usually sticking to the realm of philosophy... I'm only tearing down your scientific nonsense when YOU bring it up. We are in the same morally ambiguous territory.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 07, 2009, 10:43:20 AM
    No, actually you had a completely different position before reading that article.  You hardly had the time (check post history) to review volumes of additional references...

    Hardly, I don't see much of a difference between being a slave with no free will at all, and being a slave that only has free will insofar as the ability to make the decision to disobey that will cause one to BURN for eternity. To my mind, there is not much of a difference. My position was SLIGHTLY different, not COMPLETELY different. Don't be melodramatic.

    Also, you'd be surprised at how fast I can find information with the assistance of Google. I had plenty of time to find multiple sources.

    Strawman.  You do not portray what I believe at all...

    What DO you believe then? Whatever it is, has nothing to do with the bible.  Angels are GODs bitches. According to basically every source. Maybe you know of something that says otherwise that I do not?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 10:44:02 AM
    Let's play everyone's favorite game, SPOT THAT LOGICAL FALLACY!

    "X used to believe that Y is true, but X changed his mind. Therefore, Y is false."

    It's merely a demonstration that the "high priests" you guys look up to keep changing their minds, so why do you keep believing them??

    Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling,

    etc...

    Oh, is that your jag. You want the certainty that comes from a pre-packaged set of beliefs, unchanged in the face of mountains of contrary evidence, as opposed to the constantly refined and revised view of things that comes from the scientific method and its sometimes contentious debates at the margins. For most people, the mind changing thing is a net positive for science, because it continues to get closer and closer to the truth, while you stubbornly remain as far from the truth as you always have been, trying to pick at this little thing or that so you can try and discredit the work and conclusions of far smarter, far braver and far more honest men than yourself, because the truth about how little we know and how fast it keeps changing scares the crap out of you.


    No, my "jag" is that these guys keep feeding us a line of bull and somehow people like you just keep sucking it up.  It's like all the financial gurus who have been telling us all along how great the economy is going just keep borrowing and spending...  The problem is people are still listening to the likes of Bernanke, Paulson etc just like people still keep putting their trust in these guys who steal your money to fight a non-existent "man-induced global climate change".  What a bunch of crap.  Yet the sheeple just keep on sucking it up and letting their money be extorted to pay $175 per cow "flatalentch tax" etc., etc., etc.


    [/quote]

    And you can know exactly what the ratios are in newly formed rocks. Just go to Hawaii, hork off a chunk of freshly cooled basalt and measure it. Viola!
    [/quote]

    That will only tell you what that sample's ratio is.  Try another geographical area and you will get another ratio.  Even another volcano on the same island will most likely give you different results...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 07, 2009, 10:48:45 AM
    I'm assuming then, to claim to be a Christian, that you at least believe in a past being that had magical powers and was supposedly the son of a deity?

    Not only can you assume such, but I have stated it many times here (check the last 170 pages of posts)...

    You missed the rest of that question, I would like clarity as to the list of special powers you believe Christ had.

    Was it more like... a mutant powers or more like magic fairytale powers? Was he more like old school comic books... or more like the new tv shows about people with superpowers? I'm curious.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 10:51:27 AM
    No, actually you had a completely different position before reading that article.  You hardly had the time (check post history) to review volumes of additional references...

    Hardly, I don't see much of a difference between being a slave with no free will at all, and being a slave that only has free will insofar as the ability to make the decision to disobey that will cause one to BURN for eternity. To my mind, there is not much of a difference. My position was SLIGHTLY different, not COMPLETELY different. Don't be melodramatic.

    Also, you'd be surprised at how fast I can find information with the assistance of Google. I had plenty of time to find multiple sources.

    Strawman.  You do not portray what I believe at all...

    What DO you believe then? Whatever it is, has nothing to do with the bible.  Angels are GODs bitches. According to basically every source. Maybe you know of something that says otherwise that I do not?

    Absolutely.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 07, 2009, 10:52:13 AM
    Just to lighten the mood - A sentiment that I think we can all agree on:

    (http://www.shackpics.com/download.x?file=Ezra_q5gl35dwv0ded8zq0j23.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 10:53:16 AM
    I'm assuming then, to claim to be a Christian, that you at least believe in a past being that had magical powers and was supposedly the son of a deity?

    Not only can you assume such, but I have stated it many times here (check the last 170 pages of posts)...

    You missed the rest of that question, I would like clarity as to the list of special powers you believe Christ had.

    Was it more like... a mutant powers or more like magic fairytale powers? Was he more like old school comic books... or more like the new tv shows about people with superpowers? I'm curious.

    Why are you so curious?  You seem to be doing a fine job of speculating.  The answer is He has whatever powers He wants...  (Think "omnipotent", "omnipresent"...)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Dylboz on January 07, 2009, 10:59:20 AM
    It isn't too hard to get beneath the media reporting on science and how the government uses it against the people to see the actual science, the stuff that matters and isn't part of some agenda. Those projects happen at the margins, I know, my ex-wife was (well, is, but I like to think of her in the past tense) a scientist working in a DARPA lab. The stuff like physics and cosmology and evolutionary biology and other primary sciences have made a great deal of contributions to our understanding of the universe, our earth and ourselves, and those conclusions are far less controversial than you make them out to be, and you are just throwing out the baby with the bathwater because of the cutting edge (hence unsettled) and/or controversial stuff that gets used to push careers and agendas these days. All you have to do is go to the sources and read them for yourself. You can do it!

    And if you think that scientists who align themselves with the state to push their agendas have a sorry record of pushing bullshit, I invite you to take a brief tour of history and look at the horrific record of awful bullshit and its terrible consequences pushed by the Church (in league with the state) over the years. Just that one, the Catholic Church (there are many others just as bad, hell, Pat Robertson even). So forgive me if I think YOU a stupid sheeple for buying that line of garbage when it has been exposed time and again for a fairytale and means of exploiting and extracting money from people. It doesn't even rest on any kind of reasonable assumption derived from testable FACTS about the world around us.

    If your argument is that you don't like what a few scientists do with your tax dollars, or you think global warming is a scam, and you Googled a couple of creationists who are picking at the edges of REAL scientists work with their "questions," and therefore ALL SCIENCE is suspect and you'll take Jesus and those parts of the Bible you like instead, thankyouverymuch... well, Gene, you don't look too convincing (or bright).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on January 07, 2009, 11:02:34 AM
    "Debating" with Gene is pointless.  Not because his beliefs are erroneous (and they are that, in spades), but because he deliberately lies.  You could say the sky is blue and two pages later he'll claim you said it was green.  You can quote yourself saying it was blue and he'll ignore it.  You can argue the hell out of something, and he will fail to respond and then say the exact opposite later in discussion.  Gene is dishonest.  Not all Christians are by far, and not all opponents of evolution or science are, but Gene is.  End of story.

    With that in mind, here's this:
    (http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g184/defile959/jesus-ghostbusters.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Dylboz on January 07, 2009, 11:03:31 AM
    And just as an aside, it is the conflicting agendas, competing labs and universities and the contentious debate among scientists each seeking new discoveries that keeps it honest and always more closely approximating the truth with it's theories, which ironically is precisely the reason you reject it, Gene. Are you just intellectually lazy? Wait, don't bother answering that...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 07, 2009, 11:15:43 AM
    Gene doesn't like potty mouth.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on January 07, 2009, 11:17:08 AM
    Gene doesn't like potty mouth.

    Of course! Its unchrist like
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 07, 2009, 11:52:07 AM
    I'm assuming then, to claim to be a Christian, that you at least believe in a past being that had magical powers and was supposedly the son of a deity?

    Not only can you assume such, but I have stated it many times here (check the last 170 pages of posts)...

    You missed the rest of that question, I would like clarity as to the list of special powers you believe Christ had.

    Was it more like... a mutant powers or more like magic fairytale powers? Was he more like old school comic books... or more like the new tv shows about people with superpowers? I'm curious.

    Why are you so curious?  You seem to be doing a fine job of speculating.  The answer is He has whatever powers He wants...  (Think "omnipotent", "omnipresent"...)

    But what powers do YOU specifically believe Jesus used...?

    Ya know... water into wine... loaves and fishes... walking on water.... healing the sick...?
     I mean... you you are saying he could have done ANYTHING at all, why the lame parlor tricks?

    If God is going to come down to the planet and be choosy about who he decides to actually physically help for such an infinitesimally small period of time... Why not keep doing it? Why come down to earth for a few years BC... and not come back for a few years in 1940. I mean, I think the Jews could have used it...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 04:41:15 PM
    It isn't too hard to get beneath the media reporting on science and how the government uses it against the people to see the actual science, the stuff that matters and isn't part of some agenda. Those projects happen at the margins, I know, my ex-wife was (well, is, but I like to think of her in the past tense) a scientist working in a DARPA lab. The stuff like physics and cosmology and evolutionary biology and other primary sciences have made a great deal of contributions to our understanding of the universe, our earth and ourselves, and those conclusions are far less controversial than you make them out to be, and you are just throwing out the baby with the bathwater because of the cutting edge (hence unsettled) and/or controversial stuff that gets used to push careers and agendas these days. All you have to do is go to the sources and read them for yourself. You can do it!

    And if you think that scientists who align themselves with the state to push their agendas have a sorry record of pushing bullshit,


    I'm glad to see that you agree with me on this point...

    Quote

    I invite you to take a brief tour of history and look at the horrific record of awful bullshit and its terrible consequences pushed by the Church (in league with the state) over the years. Just that one, the Catholic Church (there are many others just as bad, hell, Pat Robertson even). So forgive me if I think YOU a stupid sheeple for buying that line of garbage when it has been exposed time and again for a fairytale and means of exploiting and extracting money from people. It doesn't even rest on any kind of reasonable assumption derived from testable FACTS about the world around us.


    I'm getting quite tired of you cult members trying to align me with the likes of the above.  It's very clear to all who have heard ANYTHING I've said (excludes you apparently) that I have nothing to do with those people and THEIR cults.  Indeed, if you do it again I will simply delete your post.  I've tolerated as much as the "strawman" from you and yours as I am going to.

    Quote

    If your argument is that you don't like what a few scientists do with your tax dollars, or you think global warming is a scam, and you Googled a couple of creationists who are picking at the edges of REAL scientists work with their "questions," and therefore ALL SCIENCE is suspect and you'll take Jesus and those parts of the Bible you like instead, thankyouverymuch... well, Gene, you don't look too convincing (or bright).

    And you, who claim to be so intellectual, don't even realize the difference between SCIENCE and CULTISM.  All your "science" that is wholly or partly based on variables that are unknown, IS NOT SCIENCE !!  Science is repeatable.  NONE of these things are "repeatable" or measurable.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 04:47:35 PM
    I'm assuming then, to claim to be a Christian, that you at least believe in a past being that had magical powers and was supposedly the son of a deity?

    Not only can you assume such, but I have stated it many times here (check the last 170 pages of posts)...

    You missed the rest of that question, I would like clarity as to the list of special powers you believe Christ had.

    Was it more like... a mutant powers or more like magic fairytale powers? Was he more like old school comic books... or more like the new tv shows about people with superpowers? I'm curious.

    Why are you so curious?  You seem to be doing a fine job of speculating.  The answer is He has whatever powers He wants...  (Think "omnipotent", "omnipresent"...)

    But what powers do YOU specifically believe Jesus used...?

    Ya know... water into wine... loaves and fishes... walking on water.... healing the sick...?
     I mean... you you are saying he could have done ANYTHING at all, why the lame parlor tricks?

    If God is going to come down to the planet and be choosy about who he decides to actually physically help for such an infinitesimally small period of time... Why not keep doing it? Why come down to earth for a few years BC... and not come back for a few years in 1940. I mean, I think the Jews could have used it...

    I think that you know the standard "answer" for all of the above.  You seem to know what the Bible says and what all "Christians" believe, so why don't you just answer it yourself?  You are just wanting to hear yourself speak.  OK, here goes (as if you didn't already know the answers)  Because of the defects in man's character, God became flesh and dwelt among His creation in order to provide a way for man to return to the presence of God.  That's your answer and I believe you already knew it so now you can reveal to all of us your witty response (only witty to your cheering squad, I'm afraid)...

    P.S.  Yes, I deleted one of your posts as well as a couple of the others that I found to be inappropriate.  Sorry, BBS rules.  I get to "moderate" this thread...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: rabidfurby on January 07, 2009, 05:10:21 PM
    "Debating" with Gene is pointless.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 05:23:01 PM
    "Debating" with Gene is pointless.

    "Debating" with "science cult" members is pointless...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on January 07, 2009, 05:26:24 PM
    "Debating" with Gene is pointless.

    "Debating" with "science cult" members is pointless...

    Why do you say science cult? and really debating any belief religious or not is pointless. ppl will believe what they want to believe. A bureaucrat can't change his corrupt greed. Just like a zebra cant change its stripes and etc.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on January 07, 2009, 05:40:49 PM
    "Debating" with Gene is pointless.

    "Debating" with "science cult" members is pointless...

    Why do you say science cult? and really debating any belief religious or not is pointless. ppl will believe what they want to believe. A bureaucrat can't change greed. Just like a zebra cant change its stripes and etc.

    Science cult (noun): The collection of people who support scientific theories which Gene finds discomforting. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Dylboz on January 07, 2009, 07:39:30 PM
    Science cult (noun): The collection of people who support scientific theories which Gene finds discomforting. 

    Exactly. I'm tired of his thickheaded, willfully ignorant, goal-post moving bullshit. This thread should die (right after he deletes this post).

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 07:39:43 PM
    "Debating" with Gene is pointless.

    "Debating" with "science cult" members is pointless...

    Why do you say science cult? and really debating any belief religious or not is pointless. ppl will believe what they want to believe. A bureaucrat can't change greed. Just like a zebra cant change its stripes and etc.

    Science cult (noun): The collection of people who support scientific theories which Gene finds discomforting. 

    Actually it's those people who "believe" what certain men who wear the "science" armband say even though they have absolutely no proof for their claims but they do have "suppositions", "theories" and "assumptions"...

    Now before someone jumps all over the above, we are talking about "science cult" adherents as opposed to real science...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on January 07, 2009, 07:41:37 PM
    You've waded so far into your own bullshit that you're starting to drown in it.

    God have mercy on your soul, Gene.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 07:41:45 PM
    "Debating" with Gene is pointless.

    "Debating" with "science cult" members is pointless...

    Why do you say science cult? and really debating any belief religious or not is pointless. ppl will believe what they want to believe. A bureaucrat can't change his corrupt greed. Just like a zebra cant change its stripes and etc.

    Actually I do not post here to "convince" any of the science cult members here of their erroneous ways.  My purpose is to help the lurkers to get the other side of the story.  Most of you are never going to be convinced and I'm certainly not going to spend effort in that arena.  After all "God is a reality, YOU are a concept"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 07, 2009, 07:46:03 PM
    Science cult (noun): The collection of people who support scientific theories which Gene finds discomforting. 

    Exactly. I'm tired of his thickheaded, willfully ignorant, goal-post moving bullshit. This thread should die (right after he deletes this post).


    (Post not deleted) but you are welcome to leave any time you like.  Maybe some of the lurkers might want to join in here if the likes of you would get mad and "go home"...

    But of course that will not happen as you types are attracted to this thread like a moth to flame.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 08, 2009, 11:35:52 AM
    Amazing.  Just checked some of your "buddy" threads and saw all the talk about me and this thread.  The amount of objection to this thread simply validates to me the accuracy of my claims. 

    Only truth can have such an effect on others.  It's not possible that all this resistance to the message of our Creator is simply because all of you feel this is a "crazy" idea.  If that were the case, this idea would be treated like such crazy things as "planet X" and "cubism".  A few laughs and giggles and then simply ignore it as everyone can see that they are just nutty ideas.  The power of the message of our Creator and His redemption and plan for our fulfillment draws out "the devil" in those who have gone over to "the dark side" (I love Star Wars). 

    Ignore this thread and maybe it will just fade from memory but I suspect that someone will open this discussion from time to time.  When they do, the amount of pain it causes all of you is just more proof that this message is strong and true.  It brings out the screams and howls of conviction to those who know deep inside that they are lacking something in life but they don't know what it is.  Their "master" knows and he will try every trick in his arsenal to hide the truth from his foot soldiers. 

    There is hope, however.  I personally believe that all will realize the truth at some point in eternity but some of you will "get it" before you pass and that's why I post here.  There are many who don't post here but just read the discussion and ponder.  To them I say consider each side.  Make up your own mind.  Don't believe what anyone says, even me.  Discover and learn.  Look around you and open your eyes and your mind... (and spirit)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 08, 2009, 12:17:58 PM
    I think that you know the standard "answer" for all of the above.  You seem to know what the Bible says and what all "Christians" believe, so why don't you just answer it yourself?  You are just wanting to hear yourself speak.  OK, here goes (as if you didn't already know the answers)  Because of the defects in man's character, God became flesh and dwelt among His creation in order to provide a way for man to return to the presence of God.  That's your answer and I believe you already knew it so now you can reveal to all of us your witty response (only witty to your cheering squad, I'm afraid)...

    I'm glad to see you so uncomfortable about answering this question. You still haven't answered it. I asked you WHAT powers that YOU believed Jesus USED. I didn't ask you if Jesus was the fleshy embodiment of a deity. I asked you what powers and 'miracles' that YOU personally believe that jesus used. I'm not even asking what his powers supposedly WERE (I agree with you on the point that if there was in fact a flesh-embodiment of an all powerful deity, that the embodiment would be all powerful as well.) I'm also not asking you what the bible says, since that is useless because you aren't even a real Christian who believes in 'the word of god' (the bible).

    So, I'm STILL posing this question to you. WHAT powers do YOU believe jesus USED?

    P.S.  Yes, I deleted one of your posts as well as a couple of the others that I found to be inappropriate.  Sorry, BBS rules.  I get to "moderate" this thread...

    Yeah you can, and I have no problem with it, in fact, I specifically kept my language clean to see if you still would delete any of my posts. I'm glad you did, because it reveals how psychologically weak minded you are, and it shows that when it comes to your truthful and honest self, in reality you don't think your OWN arguments can stand up to criticism, so you delete opposing views.

    If you had wanted to, you could have "quoted" the deleted post and edited out any foul language, but the reason why you are deleting posts actually has very little to do with naughty language.... right Gene?

    It would be amusing as well, if the "anarchist"'s use of authority is what ended up homogenizing and killing his own little pet project thread.
     

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 08, 2009, 12:25:28 PM
    If God is going to come down to the planet and be choosy about who he decides to actually physically help for such an infinitesimally small period of time... Why not keep doing it? Why come down to earth for a few years BC... and not come back for a few years in 1940. I mean, I think the Jews could have used it...

    Gene, is like Mustafa... He lies or doesn't seem to answer until you ask him 3 times.

    [youtube=425,350]jxZQL_Is0mE[/youtube]
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 08, 2009, 02:26:30 PM
    Amazing.  Just checked some of your "buddy" threads and saw all the talk about me and this thread.  The amount of objection to this thread simply validates to me the accuracy of my claims.

    So, all the liberals that object to Bush means Bush is right, and all the conservatives who object to Obama, means Obama is right... So, the huge amount of objection there, which FAR outweighs the objections to this thread, must mean that big government is the answer right?. Your logic, as usual, is IMPECCABLE Gene. That bit of logic is about as impressive as claiming that a skydaddy is judging us all.

    Only truth can have such an effect on others.  It's not possible that all this resistance to the message of our Creator is simply because all of you feel this is a "crazy" idea.  If that were the case, this idea would be treated like such crazy things as "planet X" and "cubism".  A few laughs and giggles and then simply ignore it as everyone can see that they are just nutty ideas.  The power of the message of our Creator and His redemption and plan for our fulfillment draws out "the devil" in those who have gone over to "the dark side" (I love Star Wars). 
    Again, same argument... ONLY truth can have that effect... So, all the Libertarians, and Anarchists, and Voluntaryists, and Agorists and any other group that rail against the ideas of big government must be, in fact, proving collectivism to be the only true and righteous ideal. I guess you should give up your duel title of Christian Anarchist, and instead lock yourself in TWO cages whilst going by the moniker "Christian Collectivist".
    On another note, it's interesting that you love and quote Star Wars, when it is written and created by someone who has come to reject the notion of a deity, and instead claims to be a pantheist (like Ian) who has dubbed himself a "buddhist methodist".


    Ignore this thread and maybe it will just fade from memory but I suspect that someone will open this discussion from time to time.  When they do, the amount of pain it causes all of you is just more proof that this message is strong and true.  It brings out the screams and howls of conviction to those who know deep inside that they are lacking something in life but they don't know what it is.  Their "master" knows and he will try every trick in his arsenal to hide the truth from his foot soldiers. 

    Actually, I'm just calling you out because you are screaming (after all, you started the thread with the inflammatory title), about one of the biggest lies in the country next to Statism; Religion. (Especially that most popular Religion of this country - Christianity) As an iconoclast, I am aware that those who call for the power of religion are as wrong and dishonest as those who rally for the power of the state. I'm not treating you like a kook, because Christians aren't in that level of power... and I'm sure others here react the same way. You are instead being treated like a politician would be, because that is the level of power and influence Christians have over this country. A bit clearer for you now? 

    There is hope, however.  I personally believe that all will realize the truth at some point in eternity but some of you will "get it" before you pass and that's why I post here.  There are many who don't post here but just read the discussion and ponder.  To them I say consider each side.  Make up your own mind.  Don't believe what anyone says, even me.  Discover and learn.  Look around you and open your eyes and your mind... (and spirit)

    To all those lurking, I point to the contradictory statements following one another...
    "Make up your mind" and "open your mind". Spoken like a true politician.

    I will go with the latter. I say, keep your mind open, and admit that you don't KNOW anything, especially with regard to unanswerable questions, and be unlike those who claim to have all the answers, and have arrogant faith in their correctness. To anyone watching, I say that faith is a term to be used in conjunction with large amounts of evidence, and should never be used to answer questions for which you have no answer. Faith in the unfounded is what creates fools.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 08, 2009, 09:50:47 PM
    I think that you know the standard "answer" for all of the above.  You seem to know what the Bible says and what all "Christians" believe, so why don't you just answer it yourself?  You are just wanting to hear yourself speak.  OK, here goes (as if you didn't already know the answers)  Because of the defects in man's character, God became flesh and dwelt among His creation in order to provide a way for man to return to the presence of God.  That's your answer and I believe you already knew it so now you can reveal to all of us your witty response (only witty to your cheering squad, I'm afraid)...

    I'm glad to see you so uncomfortable about answering this question. You still haven't answered it. I asked you WHAT powers that YOU believed Jesus USED. I didn't ask you if Jesus was the fleshy embodiment of a deity. I asked you what powers and 'miracles' that YOU personally believe that jesus used. I'm not even asking what his powers supposedly WERE (I agree with you on the point that if there was in fact a flesh-embodiment of an all powerful deity, that the embodiment would be all powerful as well.) I'm also not asking you what the bible says, since that is useless because you aren't even a real Christian who believes in 'the word of god' (the bible).

    So, I'm STILL posing this question to you. WHAT powers do YOU believe jesus USED?


    I didn't realize you really wanted an answer since so many of these "questions" are nothing more than posturing for attention but sure, I can tell you.  I believe He created wine from water, He walked on water, He healed the sick and raised the dead (including Himself)

    Quote

    P.S.  Yes, I deleted one of your posts as well as a couple of the others that I found to be inappropriate.  Sorry, BBS rules.  I get to "moderate" this thread...

    Yeah you can, and I have no problem with it, in fact, I specifically kept my language clean to see if you still would delete any of my posts. I'm glad you did, because it reveals how psychologically weak minded you are, and it shows that when it comes to your truthful and honest self, in reality you don't think your OWN arguments can stand up to criticism, so you delete opposing views.

    If you had wanted to, you could have "quoted" the deleted post and edited out any foul language, but the reason why you are deleting posts actually has very little to do with naughty language.... right Gene?

    It would be amusing as well, if the "anarchist"'s use of authority is what ended up homogenizing and killing his own little pet project thread.
     

    No, the only post of yours I deleted (and will delete similar ones) was because you deliberately misrepresented my position when you knew what my position was (or at least you had no excuse for not knowing).  Do it again, and I'll delete it again.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 08, 2009, 09:58:56 PM
    Amazing.  Just checked some of your "buddy" threads and saw all the talk about me and this thread.  The amount of objection to this thread simply validates to me the accuracy of my claims.

    So, all the liberals that object to Bush means Bush is right, and all the conservatives who object to Obama, means Obama is right... So, the huge amount of objection there, which FAR outweighs the objections to this thread, must mean that big government is the answer right?. Your logic, as usual, is IMPECCABLE Gene. That bit of logic is about as impressive as claiming that a skydaddy is judging us all.

    Only truth can have such an effect on others.  It's not possible that all this resistance to the message of our Creator is simply because all of you feel this is a "crazy" idea.  If that were the case, this idea would be treated like such crazy things as "planet X" and "cubism".  A few laughs and giggles and then simply ignore it as everyone can see that they are just nutty ideas.  The power of the message of our Creator and His redemption and plan for our fulfillment draws out "the devil" in those who have gone over to "the dark side" (I love Star Wars). 
    Again, same argument... ONLY truth can have that effect... So, all the Libertarians, and Anarchists, and Voluntaryists, and Agorists and any other group that rail against the ideas of big government must be, in fact, proving collectivism to be the only true and righteous ideal. I guess you should give up your duel title of Christian Anarchist, and instead lock yourself in TWO cages whilst going by the moniker "Christian Collectivist".
    On another note, it's interesting that you love and quote Star Wars, when it is written and created by someone who has come to reject the notion of a deity, and instead claims to be a pantheist (like Ian) who has dubbed himself a "buddhist methodist".


    Ignore this thread and maybe it will just fade from memory but I suspect that someone will open this discussion from time to time.  When they do, the amount of pain it causes all of you is just more proof that this message is strong and true.  It brings out the screams and howls of conviction to those who know deep inside that they are lacking something in life but they don't know what it is.  Their "master" knows and he will try every trick in his arsenal to hide the truth from his foot soldiers. 

    Actually, I'm just calling you out because you are screaming (after all, you started the thread with the inflammatory title), about one of the biggest lies in the country next to Statism; Religion. (Especially that most popular Religion of this country - Christianity) As an iconoclast, I am aware that those who call for the power of religion are as wrong and dishonest as those who rally for the power of the state. I'm not treating you like a kook, because Christians aren't in that level of power... and I'm sure others here react the same way. You are instead being treated like a politician would be, because that is the level of power and influence Christians have over this country. A bit clearer for you now? 

    There is hope, however.  I personally believe that all will realize the truth at some point in eternity but some of you will "get it" before you pass and that's why I post here.  There are many who don't post here but just read the discussion and ponder.  To them I say consider each side.  Make up your own mind.  Don't believe what anyone says, even me.  Discover and learn.  Look around you and open your eyes and your mind... (and spirit)

    To all those lurking, I point to the contradictory statements following one another...
    "Make up your mind" and "open your mind". Spoken like a true politician.

    I will go with the latter. I say, keep your mind open, and admit that you don't KNOW anything, especially with regard to unanswerable questions, and be unlike those who claim to have all the answers, and have arrogant faith in their correctness. To anyone watching, I say that faith is a term to be used in conjunction with large amounts of evidence, and should never be used to answer questions for which you have no answer. Faith in the unfounded is what creates fools.

    All of what you state above does not apply as I have been one biggest critics of "religion".  Religion is a political body and therefore it is rightly associated with "statists".  Belief in your Creator is not a "religion" as such but a position.  One can certainly make a religion out of a position, but one cannot claim that having a position is in itself a religion.  I know that this is the biggest hurdle for most to get past when I present arguments in favor of a belief in our Creator, and the human form He occupied commonly referred to as "Christ"...

    I am glad to see that you are going to keep your mind open.  Just don't believe what all those of the "Cult of Science" tell you.  Much of it is true, some of it is crap...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 08, 2009, 10:12:30 PM
    I would agree with everything you said before you started in with the religion. You are so brainwashed into your cage, that you can't even see the difference between personal beliefs and the garbage you were force fed as a child. You don't fight religion, you don't even know HOW. You are a Christian, and push the indoctrination of Christian beliefs.

    Someone who truly questions religion, and searches for their OWN answers, does not accept God as a crusty, angry, old white dude in the clouds, nor do they accept the primitive story of Jesus, that was ripped from older religions. They question EVERY possibility: Does the creator have  a gender? Why would there be only one creator? Who created the creator? Why would the creator care to judge every life - isn't that arrogant? Etc. Etc. Etc. You cannot believe in Jesus and not be part of a religion. Jesus is an external idea you were taught, it is not an internal concept.



    edited to please Gene's keen 'English Teacher' sensibilities.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 08, 2009, 11:26:50 PM
    I would agree with everything you said before you started with the religion. You are so brainwashed into your cage, that you can't even see the difference between personal beleifs and the garbage you were forcefed as a child. You don't fight religion, you don't even know HOW. You are a Christian, and push the indrination of Christian beleifs.

    Someone who truly questions religion, and searches for their OWN answers does not accept God as a crusty angry old white dude in the clouds, nor do they accept the primitive stroy of Jesus ripped from older religions. They question EVERY possibilty - does the creator have gender? Why would there be only one creator? Who created the creator? Why would the creator care to judge every life - isn't that arrogant? Etc etc etc you cannot believe in Jesus and not be part of a religion. Jesus is an external idea, not an internal concept.

    I see it quite differently (surprise!).  I see you as the brainwashed one.  Impressed by mere men who have a "title" (as the serfs of old were impressed by the "king").  You accept what they tell you at face value.  I know you do since almost no one has the funding to "replicate" the fairy tales they hand out to the unwashed masses.  If they publish a work of fiction and have it "blessed" by their "peers" well it must be true...

    As far as my "past", you know nothing about me.  I have not always been a Christian and although in my youth I went a couple of times a year to a "Lutheran" church, they really taught me nothing.  I learned what I know as an adult.  I'd be willing to bet that your "beliefs" are those you were brainwashed into as a good little student in the government brainwashing centers.  I may be wrong here (and I'm sure you will correct me if I am)...

    P.S. You sure could use the spell checker on your post above... (when you see the little red line under a word, it means it's not right).  There's also the old saw "...i before e, except after c" which is a good place to start.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 09, 2009, 12:28:56 AM
    no little red line on an iPhone - it should be clear by now when I am posting from my phone, and when I am not...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on January 09, 2009, 12:47:59 AM
    I would agree with everything you said before you started with the religion. You are so brainwashed into your cage, that you can't even see the difference between personal beleifs and the garbage you were forcefed as a child. You don't fight religion, you don't even know HOW. You are a Christian, and push the indrination of Christian beleifs.

    Someone who truly questions religion, and searches for their OWN answers does not accept God as a crusty angry old white dude in the clouds, nor do they accept the primitive stroy of Jesus ripped from older religions. They question EVERY possibilty - does the creator have gender? Why would there be only one creator? Who created the creator? Why would the creator care to judge every life - isn't that arrogant? Etc etc etc you cannot believe in Jesus and not be part of a religion. Jesus is an external idea, not an internal concept.

    I see it quite differently (surprise!).  I see you as the brainwashed one.  Impressed by mere men who have a "title" (as the serfs of old were impressed by the "king").  You accept what they tell you at face value.  I know you do since almost no one has the funding to "replicate" the fairy tales they hand out to the unwashed masses.  If they publish a work of fiction and have it "blessed" by their "peers" well it must be true...

    As far as my "past", you know nothing about me.  I have not always been a Christian and although in my youth I went a couple of times a year to a "Lutheran" church, they really taught me nothing.  I learned what I know as an adult.  I'd be willing to bet that your "beliefs" are those you were brainwashed into as a good little student in the government brainwashing centers.  I may be wrong here (and I'm sure you will correct me if I am)...

    P.S. You sure could use the spell checker on your post above... (when you see the little red line under a word, it means it's not right).  There's also the old saw "...i before e, except after c" which is a good place to start.

    Wow, so instead of answering the points he brought up, you just post a shitload of ad hominem attacks. Your post is full of fail.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 09, 2009, 09:42:36 AM
    Especially since I went to private school and was, for a very short time, an altar boy at an episcopalian church... He couldn't have failed any harder really...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2009, 12:17:42 PM
    I would agree with everything you said before you started with the religion. You are so brainwashed into your cage, that you can't even see the difference between personal beleifs and the garbage you were forcefed as a child. You don't fight religion, you don't even know HOW. You are a Christian, and push the indrination of Christian beleifs.

    Someone who truly questions religion, and searches for their OWN answers does not accept God as a crusty angry old white dude in the clouds, nor do they accept the primitive stroy of Jesus ripped from older religions. They question EVERY possibilty - does the creator have gender? Why would there be only one creator? Who created the creator? Why would the creator care to judge every life - isn't that arrogant? Etc etc etc you cannot believe in Jesus and not be part of a religion. Jesus is an external idea, not an internal concept.

    I see it quite differently (surprise!).  I see you as the brainwashed one.  Impressed by mere men who have a "title" (as the serfs of old were impressed by the "king").  You accept what they tell you at face value.  I know you do since almost no one has the funding to "replicate" the fairy tales they hand out to the unwashed masses.  If they publish a work of fiction and have it "blessed" by their "peers" well it must be true...

    As far as my "past", you know nothing about me.  I have not always been a Christian and although in my youth I went a couple of times a year to a "Lutheran" church, they really taught me nothing.  I learned what I know as an adult.  I'd be willing to bet that your "beliefs" are those you were brainwashed into as a good little student in the government brainwashing centers.  I may be wrong here (and I'm sure you will correct me if I am)...

    P.S. You sure could use the spell checker on your post above... (when you see the little red line under a word, it means it's not right).  There's also the old saw "...i before e, except after c" which is a good place to start.

    Wow, so instead of answering the points he brought up, you just post a shitload of ad hominem attacks. Your post is full of fail.

    I see no "points" in what he posted.  He attacked me for being "brainwashed" and "forcefed" (sic) (which I answered in a subsequent post).  He then proceeded on a rant about how someone should question things (he listed several).  It seemed that his "point" in that paragraph was not the "things" listed as they were listed to support his dual points that one needs to question (I do that all the time) and that a "belief" in Jesus was a "religion" (which I also addressed in a prior post.

    So please tell me what "points" I did not address...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2009, 12:20:52 PM
    no little red line on an iPhone - it should be clear by now when I am posting from my phone, and when I am not...

    Lame argument.  You should still have the three little buttons below your post box that have "post" "preview" and "spell check".  I have them when I post on my Treo.  The only problem I have posting on my phone is being able to see that little print clearly.  Also, you mis-spelled "beleif" twice in that post and you should know that i goes before e except after c (at least that was a basic rule when I was in school - even in the "public fools system"...)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on January 09, 2009, 12:25:01 PM
    I would agree with everything you said before you started with the religion. You are so brainwashed into your cage, that you can't even see the difference between personal beleifs and the garbage you were forcefed as a child. You don't fight religion, you don't even know HOW. You are a Christian, and push the indrination of Christian beleifs.

    Someone who truly questions religion, and searches for their OWN answers does not accept God as a crusty angry old white dude in the clouds, nor do they accept the primitive stroy of Jesus ripped from older religions. They question EVERY possibilty - does the creator have gender? Why would there be only one creator? Who created the creator? Why would the creator care to judge every life - isn't that arrogant? Etc etc etc you cannot believe in Jesus and not be part of a religion. Jesus is an external idea, not an internal concept.

    I see it quite differently (surprise!).  I see you as the brainwashed one.  Impressed by mere men who have a "title" (as the serfs of old were impressed by the "king").  You accept what they tell you at face value.  I know you do since almost no one has the funding to "replicate" the fairy tales they hand out to the unwashed masses.  If they publish a work of fiction and have it "blessed" by their "peers" well it must be true...

    As far as my "past", you know nothing about me.  I have not always been a Christian and although in my youth I went a couple of times a year to a "Lutheran" church, they really taught me nothing.  I learned what I know as an adult.  I'd be willing to bet that your "beliefs" are those you were brainwashed into as a good little student in the government brainwashing centers.  I may be wrong here (and I'm sure you will correct me if I am)...

    P.S. You sure could use the spell checker on your post above... (when you see the little red line under a word, it means it's not right).  There's also the old saw "...i before e, except after c" which is a good place to start.

    Wow, so instead of answering the points he brought up, you just post a shitload of ad hominem attacks. Your post is full of fail.

    I see no "points" in what he posted.  He attacked me for being "brainwashed" and "forcefed" (sic) (which I answered in a subsequent post).  He then proceeded on a rant about how someone should question things (he listed several).  It seemed that his "point" in that paragraph was not the "things" listed as they were listed to support his dual points that one needs to question (I do that all the time) and that a "belief" in Jesus was a "religion" (which I also addressed in a prior post.

    So please tell me what "points" I did not address...

    I would say the one about the story of Jesus looking like the stories of Mithra, Dionysus, Kristna and VERY close to Horus, all written before Jesus.

    Also about the fact that the original texts mention nothing of a virgin birth. Matter of fact, I love how you Christians like to say that Mary was a married virgin...how ridiculous is that. What married couple is NOT going to have sex. And don't give me that "well, maybe they didn't have sex at the time he was conceived," which is a bullshit argument, because it assumes they didn't have sex at all that month, which more than likely is crap. Matter of fact, that whole withholding sex thing would NOT have went down then, so yeah, I am pretty sure they were fucking.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 09, 2009, 02:41:54 PM
    no little red line on an iPhone - it should be clear by now when I am posting from my phone, and when I am not...

    Lame argument.  You should still have the three little buttons below your post box that have "post" "preview" and "spell check".  I have them when I post on my Treo.  The only problem I have posting on my phone is being able to see that little print clearly.  Also, you mis-spelled "beleif" twice in that post and you should know that i goes before e except after c (at least that was a basic rule when I was in school - even in the "public fools system"...)

    You'd think that if you were going to weigh in on grammar rules to me, that you'd at least be a good neighbor and cite them correctly... :)

    It's fun making you look like an asshole Gene, it really is, you just RUN head first into these opportunities.
    (What do you think guys, will he pick up on the subtlety of the joke, or should I have figured a way to make little red underlines?)

    Also amazing... Misspelling the word misspelled. Who puts a hyphen before the prefix mis? Were you on your Treo when you decided to insert a hyphen there? I could be mis-taken, or I might be mis-understanding your intentions, I don't want to mis-quote you, or mis-judge you unfairly on this.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2009, 03:09:39 PM
    no little red line on an iPhone - it should be clear by now when I am posting from my phone, and when I am not...

    Lame argument.  You should still have the three little buttons below your post box that have "post" "preview" and "spell check".  I have them when I post on my Treo.  The only problem I have posting on my phone is being able to see that little print clearly.  Also, you mis-spelled "beleif" twice in that post and you should know that i goes before e except after c (at least that was a basic rule when I was in school - even in the "public fools system"...)

    You'd think that if you were going to weigh in on grammar rules to me, that you'd at least be a good neighbor and cite them correctly... :)

    It's fun making you look like an asshole Gene, it really is, you just RUN head first into these opportunities.
    (What do you think guys, will he pick up on the subtlety of the joke, or should I have figured a way to make little red underlines?)

    Also amazing... Misspelling the word misspelled. Who puts a hyphen before the prefix mis? Were you on your Treo when you decided to insert a hyphen there? I could be mis-taken, or I might be mis-understanding your intentions, I don't want to mis-quote you, or mis-judge you unfairly on this.


    Yeah, you got me on the hyphen all right (hey, I at lease admit it when I see that I'm wrong).  You, on the other hand just keep making excuses (three times so far).  I don't understand how you could not understand why I misspelled the word that you misspelled (two times).  You might look at those little marks before and after the word.  They are called "quotes".  They indicate that I am quoting from another source (in this case, your original post).  Now are we going to make this a duel (which wouldn't be fair since you are unarmed) or shall we go on to the issue at hand? 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2009, 03:18:10 PM
    I would agree with everything you said before you started with the religion. You are so brainwashed into your cage, that you can't even see the difference between personal beleifs and the garbage you were forcefed as a child. You don't fight religion, you don't even know HOW. You are a Christian, and push the indrination of Christian beleifs.

    Someone who truly questions religion, and searches for their OWN answers does not accept God as a crusty angry old white dude in the clouds, nor do they accept the primitive stroy of Jesus ripped from older religions. They question EVERY possibilty - does the creator have gender? Why would there be only one creator? Who created the creator? Why would the creator care to judge every life - isn't that arrogant? Etc etc etc you cannot believe in Jesus and not be part of a religion. Jesus is an external idea, not an internal concept.

    I see it quite differently (surprise!).  I see you as the brainwashed one.  Impressed by mere men who have a "title" (as the serfs of old were impressed by the "king").  You accept what they tell you at face value.  I know you do since almost no one has the funding to "replicate" the fairy tales they hand out to the unwashed masses.  If they publish a work of fiction and have it "blessed" by their "peers" well it must be true...

    As far as my "past", you know nothing about me.  I have not always been a Christian and although in my youth I went a couple of times a year to a "Lutheran" church, they really taught me nothing.  I learned what I know as an adult.  I'd be willing to bet that your "beliefs" are those you were brainwashed into as a good little student in the government brainwashing centers.  I may be wrong here (and I'm sure you will correct me if I am)...

    P.S. You sure could use the spell checker on your post above... (when you see the little red line under a word, it means it's not right).  There's also the old saw "...i before e, except after c" which is a good place to start.

    Wow, so instead of answering the points he brought up, you just post a shitload of ad hominem attacks. Your post is full of fail.

    I see no "points" in what he posted.  He attacked me for being "brainwashed" and "forcefed" (sic) (which I answered in a subsequent post).  He then proceeded on a rant about how someone should question things (he listed several).  It seemed that his "point" in that paragraph was not the "things" listed as they were listed to support his dual points that one needs to question (I do that all the time) and that a "belief" in Jesus was a "religion" (which I also addressed in a prior post.

    So please tell me what "points" I did not address...

    I would say the one about the story of Jesus looking like the stories of Mithra, Dionysus, Kristna and VERY close to Horus, all written before Jesus.



    None of these names were mentioned and I could not address these without doing research first.

    Quote


    Also about the fact that the original texts mention nothing of a virgin birth. Matter of fact, I love how you Christians like to say that Mary was a married virgin...how ridiculous is that. What married couple is NOT going to have sex. And don't give me that "well, maybe they didn't have sex at the time he was conceived," which is a bullshit argument, because it assumes they didn't have sex at all that month, which more than likely is crap.


    I guess you are reading from a different "original" text than I am (of course "original" texts do not exist and all we have are texts dating from somewhere in the first century I believe).  Looking at the Greek and Aramaic words used (which I have not done for many years) I do believe that "virgin" is the correct translation.  Also looking at those texts it states that they were "betrothed" which in that culture was almost as binding as a marriage but sex was supposed to be saved for the actual marriage date.  Of course you can question any and all of this as none of us were there.  You are welcome to speculate and believe what ever you want.  Just don't expect that everyone is going to accept your speculation as "gospel"...

    P.S. I deleted one of your posts as you were simply rude and vulgar without making any kind of point.  Almost deleted this one as well, but I wanted to respond to it.  I still can...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on January 09, 2009, 03:27:15 PM
    I would agree with everything you said before you started with the religion. You are so brainwashed into your cage, that you can't even see the difference between personal beleifs and the garbage you were forcefed as a child. You don't fight religion, you don't even know HOW. You are a Christian, and push the indrination of Christian beleifs.

    Someone who truly questions religion, and searches for their OWN answers does not accept God as a crusty angry old white dude in the clouds, nor do they accept the primitive stroy of Jesus ripped from older religions. They question EVERY possibilty - does the creator have gender? Why would there be only one creator? Who created the creator? Why would the creator care to judge every life - isn't that arrogant? Etc etc etc you cannot believe in Jesus and not be part of a religion. Jesus is an external idea, not an internal concept.

    I see it quite differently (surprise!).  I see you as the brainwashed one.  Impressed by mere men who have a "title" (as the serfs of old were impressed by the "king").  You accept what they tell you at face value.  I know you do since almost no one has the funding to "replicate" the fairy tales they hand out to the unwashed masses.  If they publish a work of fiction and have it "blessed" by their "peers" well it must be true...

    As far as my "past", you know nothing about me.  I have not always been a Christian and although in my youth I went a couple of times a year to a "Lutheran" church, they really taught me nothing.  I learned what I know as an adult.  I'd be willing to bet that your "beliefs" are those you were brainwashed into as a good little student in the government brainwashing centers.  I may be wrong here (and I'm sure you will correct me if I am)...

    P.S. You sure could use the spell checker on your post above... (when you see the little red line under a word, it means it's not right).  There's also the old saw "...i before e, except after c" which is a good place to start.

    Wow, so instead of answering the points he brought up, you just post a shitload of ad hominem attacks. Your post is full of fail.

    I see no "points" in what he posted.  He attacked me for being "brainwashed" and "forcefed" (sic) (which I answered in a subsequent post).  He then proceeded on a rant about how someone should question things (he listed several).  It seemed that his "point" in that paragraph was not the "things" listed as they were listed to support his dual points that one needs to question (I do that all the time) and that a "belief" in Jesus was a "religion" (which I also addressed in a prior post.

    So please tell me what "points" I did not address...

    I would say the one about the story of Jesus looking like the stories of Mithra, Dionysus, Kristna and VERY close to Horus, all written before Jesus.



    None of these names were mentioned and I could not address these without doing research first.

    Quote


    Also about the fact that the original texts mention nothing of a virgin birth. Matter of fact, I love how you Christians like to say that Mary was a married virgin...how ridiculous is that. What married couple is NOT going to have sex. And don't give me that "well, maybe they didn't have sex at the time he was conceived," which is a bullshit argument, because it assumes they didn't have sex at all that month, which more than likely is crap.


    I guess you are reading from a different "original" text than I am (of course "original" texts do not exist and all we have are texts dating from somewhere in the first century I believe).  Looking at the Greek and Aramaic words used (which I have not done for many years) I do believe that "virgin" is the correct translation.  Also looking at those texts it states that they were "betrothed" which in that culture was almost as binding as a marriage but sex was supposed to be saved for the actual marriage date.  Of course you can question any and all of this as none of us were there.  You are welcome to speculate and believe what ever you want.  Just don't expect that everyone is going to accept your speculation as "gospel"...

    P.S. I deleted one of your posts as you were simply rude and vulgar without making any kind of point.  Almost deleted this one as well, but I wanted to respond to it.  I still can...

    look up the hebrew words almah and bethulah. almah is virgin, bethulah is young woman. They used bethulah when referring to Mary. If they wanted to almah, they had a word for it. It was time and the fact that every important person throughout history up to that time was attributed to a virgin birth, so a little change here, a erase there and poof! Jesus was born of a married virgin, which is retarded.

    Plus your god is an asshole. He is too moody and petty for my tastes.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 09, 2009, 03:30:36 PM
    I don't understand how you could not understand why I misspelled the word that you misspelled (two times).  You might look at those little marks before and after the word.  They are called "quotes".  They indicate that I am quoting from another source (in this case, your original post).  Now are we going to make this a duel (which wouldn't be fair since you are unarmed) or shall we go on to the issue at hand? 

    LOL! You really DIDN'T get the subtle joke!... OMG... CLASSIC... Here, let me spell it out for you...

    Also, you mis-spelled "beleif" twice in that post and you should know that i goes before e except after c (at least that was a basic rule when I was in school - even in the "public fools system"...)

    You'd think that if you were going to weigh in on grammar rules to me, that you'd at least be a good neighbor and cite them correctly... :)

    HAHAH I've added the underlines you are so fond of so you can understand, and be in on the joke, considering it's on you.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 09, 2009, 08:50:44 PM
    I just noticed Gene unnecessarily changed the colors in the anarchist flag from gold to red in order to make his little logo. Is it becuase Judeo-Christian beliefs make people more of a red commie, or is it to symbolize the blood spilt by the crusaders following Jesus's example of coming to "bring a sword"?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on January 09, 2009, 09:19:54 PM
    I just noticed Gene unnecessarily changed the colors in the anarchist flag from gold to red in order to make his little logo. Is it becuase Judeo-Christian beliefs make people more of a red commie, or is it to symbolize the blood spilt by the crusaders following Jesus's example of coming to "bring a sword"?

    There's more than one anarchist flag, dude.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: JWI on January 09, 2009, 09:21:36 PM
    I just noticed Gene unnecessarily changed the colors in the anarchist flag from gold to red in order to make his little logo. Is it becuase Judeo-Christian beliefs make people more of a red commie, or is it to symbolize the blood spilt by the crusaders following Jesus's example of coming to "bring a sword"?

    There's more than one anarchist flag, dude.

    shhhhh.  Flags make Taors angry.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on January 09, 2009, 09:25:18 PM
    Is this the longest thread in the history of ftl forums???
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on January 09, 2009, 09:31:18 PM
    I just noticed Gene unnecessarily changed the colors in the anarchist flag from gold to red in order to make his little logo. Is it becuase Judeo-Christian beliefs make people more of a red commie, or is it to symbolize the blood spilt by the crusaders following Jesus's example of coming to "bring a sword"?

    There's more than one anarchist flag, dude.

    shhhhh.  Flags make Taors angry.

    About as much as they make you angry.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: JWI on January 09, 2009, 09:32:47 PM
    I just noticed Gene unnecessarily changed the colors in the anarchist flag from gold to red in order to make his little logo. Is it becuase Judeo-Christian beliefs make people more of a red commie, or is it to symbolize the blood spilt by the crusaders following Jesus's example of coming to "bring a sword"?

    There's more than one anarchist flag, dude.

    shhhhh.  Flags make Taors angry.

    About as much as they make you angry.

    Flags don't like it when I'm angry.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on January 09, 2009, 09:33:32 PM
    I just noticed Gene unnecessarily changed the colors in the anarchist flag from gold to red in order to make his little logo. Is it becuase Judeo-Christian beliefs make people more of a red commie, or is it to symbolize the blood spilt by the crusaders following Jesus's example of coming to "bring a sword"?

    There's more than one anarchist flag, dude.

    shhhhh.  Flags make Taors angry.

    About as much as they make you angry.

    Flags don't like it when I'm angry.

    I SMASH FLAGS LIKE THE FIST OF AN ANGRY GOD*!


    *Gene's God
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: JWI on January 09, 2009, 09:34:38 PM
    I just noticed Gene unnecessarily changed the colors in the anarchist flag from gold to red in order to make his little logo. Is it becuase Judeo-Christian beliefs make people more of a red commie, or is it to symbolize the blood spilt by the crusaders following Jesus's example of coming to "bring a sword"?

    There's more than one anarchist flag, dude.

    shhhhh.  Flags make Taors angry.

    About as much as they make you angry.

    Flags don't like it when I'm angry.

    I SMASH FLAGS LIKE THE FIST OF AN ANGRY GOD*!


    *Gene's God

    I wrap babies in 'em and then eat a baby-filled flag sandwich.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on January 09, 2009, 09:39:39 PM
    I wonder if Gene would have enough faith to face the thing in my avatar?

    Would you, Gene? Would you have enough faith to quell the Undead? Do you think your faith in Jesus Christ is insurmountable to the faith of the Dark Legion? He who reigns from the Lava Pits of Gehenna? Hmm? Think you could handle that by yourself Gene? Because I don't think that you could. I think you'd piss your pants and then run to save your own miserable little life. Your trust broken, your faith shattered into a million shards of glass.

    Like dust blowing in the wind, Gene. Just like dust blowing in the wind...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on January 09, 2009, 09:44:55 PM
    man u guys are mean. whats the point in attacking somebody on the internet?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on January 09, 2009, 09:53:15 PM
    man u guys are mean. whats the point in attacking somebody on the internet?

    Read the previous 172 pages, and you might get an idea. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on January 09, 2009, 09:55:46 PM
    man u guys are mean. whats the point in attacking somebody on the internet?

    Guts, since you're (fairly) new around here, and since you're a libertarian in training...I'm gonna let this one slide.

    But if it happens again. If it fucking happens again so help me GOD.

    Now start taking cues so you can throw peanuts at Gene with the rest of us.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: JWI on January 09, 2009, 10:14:02 PM
    man u guys are mean. whats the point in attacking somebody on the internet?

    Guts, since you're (fairly) new around here, and since you're a libertarian in training...I'm gonna let this one slide.

    But if it happens again. If it fucking happens again so help me GOD.

    Now start taking cues so you can throw peanuts at Gene with the rest of us.

    Just don't mention flags...shhhhh.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2009, 01:14:35 AM

    look up the hebrew words almah and bethulah. almah is virgin, bethulah is young woman. They used bethulah when referring to Mary. If they wanted to almah, they had a word for it. It was time and the fact that every important person throughout history up to that time was attributed to a virgin birth, so a little change here, a erase there and poof! Jesus was born of a married virgin, which is retarded.


    Very interesting.  And all this time I thought that the new testament books were written in Greek and Aramaic.  Silly me.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2009, 01:24:13 AM
    man u guys are mean. whats the point in attacking somebody on the internet?

    Don't let them get a rise out of you (or even acknowledge them).  This is what they live for.  They feel that attacking someone over an anonymous forum shows their superiority.  They don't realize that it is impossible to "attack" someone who is not in their presence.  They think their words carry some sort of weight and can do some harm to another.  There was a saying when I was young (lost on most here):  "Sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me". 

    Most of these people would be as offensive as milk toast in person...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2009, 01:25:27 AM
    I wonder if Gene would have enough faith to face the thing in my avatar?

    I'm sure we will never know...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Dylboz on January 10, 2009, 01:29:12 AM
    All of us are (ostensibly) libertarians who eschew violence, so what, exactly, are you "criticizing" by saying any or all of us would be "as offensive as milquetoast" in person? Would you rather we took a swing at you? That ain't how this deal works. Fact is, you have taken a logic and reason drubbing over and over and over again in this thread. You constantly come up looking like an ass, but hey, it IS you thread.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 10, 2009, 04:56:30 AM
    sticks and stones will break my bones, but words make angsty myspace teens suicidal...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on January 10, 2009, 04:57:16 AM
    sticks and stones will break your bones, but names might make you kill yourself like that girl on myspace...

    exactly why I said what he said was freakin retarded, among other reasons.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on January 10, 2009, 05:41:09 AM
    Wow...this Christian Anarchist guy...

    The question should be to him:

    ME: Why don't you believe in unicorns?

    CA: Because I don't believe they exist.

    ME: Why not, can you prove they don't exist? Have you been everywhere in the entire universe to show me they don't exist anywhere?

    CA: I don't have to prove that to you. Since you claim they do exist, it is much rationally easier to show me one proof of a unicorn instead of me traveling the universe looking for one.

    ME: Exactly, so now give me that one proof that God exists that is objective and not subjective and open to interpretation.

    CA: *cries as he is pwned by his own logic, then has a cop-out idea* Well, you just have to have faith, I can't find god for you, you have to find god for yourself.

    ME: Oh so the god i fnd is different from the god you find?

    CA: No. Same god.

    ME: Then show me yours. Why drive all the way to a car lot to see a car that you supposedly have in the driveway, unless the car doesn't exist.

    CA: My god does exist. You just have to believe it exists.

    ME: So if I believe that my friend isn't dead, is he magically back alive? Just because you believe something doesn't make it so.

    CA: Well God created you and your rights, and you just have to take it on faith *Now he thinks he wins through faith cop-out*

    ME: But if you are an anarchist, which means no ruler, but yet you believe in a god as your ruler, aren't those antithetical to each other? And since you don't want a ruler, you can't possibly accept the rights given to you by said ruler. I mean, I can't go around saying there is no bank on the corner of Lake Cook and Waukegan Road, but then turn around and make a withdrawal from it. That's retarded.

    CA: *Sees his out by presupposing his morals on me* If you can't respond without calling me retarded, then you most not have a logical response and your intelligence is lower than mines, and if that is the case, you must be wrong and I must be right. *now thinks he changed the subject and I was just going to ignore the fact that he didn't issue a rebuttal to my previous statement*

    ME: I didn't call you retarded, I said that line of thinking was.

    CA:Yes you did.

    ME: Whatever. What about the fact the the myth of Jesus is an exact copy of the myth of Horus from the Egyptian people 3000 years before Jesus?

    CA: Well, I do don't know anything about that and didn't research that.

    ME: So you mean to tell me that you believed in the Bible and Jesus without doing any research OUTSIDE the Bible?

    CA: *knows a "yes" will make him look like an ass, changes his yes into a weird convoluted religious statement* Well, I believe what the Bible says, so there is no need to read books written by man when my book was inspired by god.

    ME: But written by men, just like anything else. Your logic is extremely flawed and I am thinking you might be a little stupid.

    CA: *sees his grand exit* You called me a name and that's wrong by my standards so every argument you have made to me is now completely invalidated and I am right because God has my back!

    ME: Whatever *exits stage right*


    I have just summed up this LOOOONG ass thread up in one post. Now let it die and let it be known that Gene (or Jean, whatever) has been pwned.

    That way maybe he can go pray on it or some shit.



    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2009, 10:19:28 AM
    All of us are (ostensibly) libertarians who eschew violence, so what, exactly, are you "criticizing" by saying any or all of us would be "as offensive as milquetoast" in person? Would you rather we took a swing at you? That ain't how this deal works. Fact is, you have taken a logic and reason drubbing over and over and over again in this thread. You constantly come up looking like an ass, but hey, it IS you thread.

    Yeah, except for doing all they can to "hurt" with words which they justify.  I have made it clear that I cannot be hurt with words which just makes them more angry and brings out the worst of them.  Just check out "asshole"'s post (his term not mine - although it seems accurate).  I considered deleting it since it's such a total misrepresentation of my positions, but I figure it's better to leave it simply as a demonstration of his ignorance and hatred...

    I think it needs to be repeated since this new generation seems to put so much stock in "feelings"...

    "Sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on January 10, 2009, 10:23:55 AM
    All of us are (ostensibly) libertarians who eschew violence, so what, exactly, are you "criticizing" by saying any or all of us would be "as offensive as milquetoast" in person? Would you rather we took a swing at you? That ain't how this deal works. Fact is, you have taken a logic and reason drubbing over and over and over again in this thread. You constantly come up looking like an ass, but hey, it IS you thread.

    Yeah, except for doing all they can to "hurt" with words which they justify.  I have made it clear that I cannot be hurt with words which just makes them more angry and brings out the worst of them.  Just check out "asshole"'s post (his term not mine - although it seems accurate).  I considered deleting it since it's such a total misrepresentation of my positions, but I figure it's better to leave it simply as a demonstration of his ignorance and hatred...

    I think it needs to be repeated since this new generation seems to put so much stock in "feelings"...

    "Sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me"...

    Really? Debate any of my points. I dare you. Words can't hurt you because you can't formulate ones to defend yourself, and you are a hypocrite.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 10, 2009, 10:50:27 AM
    sticks and and stones will make a fort and words I learn at special school! Yaaaay! I made a song too! Let's hug...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on January 10, 2009, 10:51:30 AM
    sticks and and stones will make a fort and words I learn at special school! Yaaaay! I made a song too! Let's hug...

    You are hilarious.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2009, 11:02:18 AM
    All of us are (ostensibly) libertarians who eschew violence, so what, exactly, are you "criticizing" by saying any or all of us would be "as offensive as milquetoast" in person? Would you rather we took a swing at you? That ain't how this deal works. Fact is, you have taken a logic and reason drubbing over and over and over again in this thread. You constantly come up looking like an ass, but hey, it IS you thread.

    Yeah, except for doing all they can to "hurt" with words which they justify.  I have made it clear that I cannot be hurt with words which just makes them more angry and brings out the worst of them.  Just check out "asshole"'s post (his term not mine - although it seems accurate).  I considered deleting it since it's such a total misrepresentation of my positions, but I figure it's better to leave it simply as a demonstration of his ignorance and hatred...

    I think it needs to be repeated since this new generation seems to put so much stock in "feelings"...

    "Sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me"...

    Really? Debate any of my points. I dare you. Words can't hurt you because you can't formulate ones to defend yourself, and you are a hypocrite.

    You made no points.  You wrote a fictitious dialog between yourself and a grossly misrepresented "Christian Anarchist"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on January 10, 2009, 11:03:35 AM
    All of us are (ostensibly) libertarians who eschew violence, so what, exactly, are you "criticizing" by saying any or all of us would be "as offensive as milquetoast" in person? Would you rather we took a swing at you? That ain't how this deal works. Fact is, you have taken a logic and reason drubbing over and over and over again in this thread. You constantly come up looking like an ass, but hey, it IS you thread.

    Yeah, except for doing all they can to "hurt" with words which they justify.  I have made it clear that I cannot be hurt with words which just makes them more angry and brings out the worst of them.  Just check out "asshole"'s post (his term not mine - although it seems accurate).  I considered deleting it since it's such a total misrepresentation of my positions, but I figure it's better to leave it simply as a demonstration of his ignorance and hatred...

    I think it needs to be repeated since this new generation seems to put so much stock in "feelings"...

    "Sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me"...

    Really? Debate any of my points. I dare you. Words can't hurt you because you can't formulate ones to defend yourself, and you are a hypocrite.

    You made no points.  You wrote a fictitious dialog between yourself and a grossly misrepresented "Christian Anarchist"...

    Actually I summarized every argument that you never gave a definitive response to over all these pages.

    My job is very boring, and I like to take notes.

    SO since you feel I am wrong, please show me where.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: AntonLee on January 10, 2009, 11:05:22 AM
    If you're calling it a ficticious argument Mr. Christian Anarchist. . .then I wonder if you would like to answer those same questions.  Inquiring minds would like to know.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on January 10, 2009, 11:09:37 AM
    If you're calling it a ficticious argument Mr. Christian Anarchist. . .then I wonder if you would like to answer those same questions.  Inquiring minds would like to know.

    The funny thing is I can find EVERY post where his responses were exactly that to statements people made to him. I pretty much took the arguments people presented to him and shortened them to make them concise (took out all the filler), and took the main point of his rebuttal, and most of them are pretty much word-for-word at that.

    If he wants to play this game, we can. I got a notebook FULL of notes. I have been planning out that post for a couple days now. I was going to turn into a play, but most of yall wouldn't have read it.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2009, 11:10:13 AM
    All of us are (ostensibly) libertarians who eschew violence, so what, exactly, are you "criticizing" by saying any or all of us would be "as offensive as milquetoast" in person? Would you rather we took a swing at you? That ain't how this deal works. Fact is, you have taken a logic and reason drubbing over and over and over again in this thread. You constantly come up looking like an ass, but hey, it IS you thread.

    Yeah, except for doing all they can to "hurt" with words which they justify.  I have made it clear that I cannot be hurt with words which just makes them more angry and brings out the worst of them.  Just check out "asshole"'s post (his term not mine - although it seems accurate).  I considered deleting it since it's such a total misrepresentation of my positions, but I figure it's better to leave it simply as a demonstration of his ignorance and hatred...

    I think it needs to be repeated since this new generation seems to put so much stock in "feelings"...

    "Sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me"...

    Really? Debate any of my points. I dare you. Words can't hurt you because you can't formulate ones to defend yourself, and you are a hypocrite.

    You made no points.  You wrote a fictitious dialog between yourself and a grossly misrepresented "Christian Anarchist"...

    Actually I summarized every argument that you never gave a definitive response to over all these pages.

    My job is very boring, and I like to take notes.

    SO since you feel I am wrong, please show me where.

    Actually you misrepresented my positions.  If you want to take one, I can respond.  I don't intend to write a book responding to nonsense.  Of course they have all been addressed in the last 174 pages, but hey, who reads these days?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: NuroSlam on January 10, 2009, 11:10:58 AM
    Dilemma,

    One believes in the teachings embodied in the words of jesus the chirst as stated in the new testament but does not believe in jesus the christ or his god

    what are you
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on January 10, 2009, 11:15:00 AM
    All of us are (ostensibly) libertarians who eschew violence, so what, exactly, are you "criticizing" by saying any or all of us would be "as offensive as milquetoast" in person? Would you rather we took a swing at you? That ain't how this deal works. Fact is, you have taken a logic and reason drubbing over and over and over again in this thread. You constantly come up looking like an ass, but hey, it IS you thread.

    Yeah, except for doing all they can to "hurt" with words which they justify.  I have made it clear that I cannot be hurt with words which just makes them more angry and brings out the worst of them.  Just check out "asshole"'s post (his term not mine - although it seems accurate).  I considered deleting it since it's such a total misrepresentation of my positions, but I figure it's better to leave it simply as a demonstration of his ignorance and hatred...

    I think it needs to be repeated since this new generation seems to put so much stock in "feelings"...

    "Sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me"...

    Really? Debate any of my points. I dare you. Words can't hurt you because you can't formulate ones to defend yourself, and you are a hypocrite.

    You made no points.  You wrote a fictitious dialog between yourself and a grossly misrepresented "Christian Anarchist"...

    Actually I summarized every argument that you never gave a definitive response to over all these pages.

    My job is very boring, and I like to take notes.

    SO since you feel I am wrong, please show me where.

    Actually you misrepresented my positions.  If you want to take one, I can respond.  I don't intend to write a book responding to nonsense.  Of course they have all been addressed in the last 174 pages, but hey, who reads these days?

    Actually you dodged most of them or gave subjective reasons like "faith" that can't be proven or scientifically tested. So no, you didn't answer shit.

    I read all 174 pages.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on January 10, 2009, 03:25:13 PM
    Dilemma,

    One believes in the teachings embodied in the words of jesus the chirst as stated in the new testament but does not believe in jesus the christ or his god

    what are you

    Someone who admires religious thought (but thinks that modern day versions of these religions misses the point), like me.

    Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu, Mohammad...I like all of these mother fuckers. I just don't think they're THE God, or the direct link to divinity on Earth. You can eat a quarter bag of psilocybin mushrooms and have the same kind of experiences described in ancient religious texts.

    Have you ever read The Book of Ezekiel fried out of your mind? Oh, it's crazy. That shit is fucking crazy.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: NuroSlam on January 10, 2009, 03:29:56 PM
    ever listen to "Hotel California" on ketamine?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on January 10, 2009, 03:35:13 PM
    ever listen to "Hotel California" on ketamine?

    No, but it's now on my list. 8)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: NuroSlam on January 10, 2009, 03:39:12 PM
    my wife and I did laying in bed on our wedding night, impossible to forget!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on January 10, 2009, 03:39:51 PM
    Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu, Mohammad...I like all of these mother fuckers. I just don't think they're THE God, or the direct link to divinity on Earth. You can eat a quarter bag of psilocybin mushrooms and have the same kind of experiences described in ancient religious texts.

    I guess that's why I don't  particularly like them.  I mean, the Buddha hit on something interesting when he suggested that desire is at the root of suffering, but then he took it way too far by trying to eliminate desire altogether for himself and his followers.  Most people don't really want to eliminate their desires-- they want them to be fulfilled.  And working to fulfill your desires is not generally a bad thing.  Sure, you'll fail sometimes and always want things you can't have, but that's life.  Learning to accept the ups and downs is a different thing from trying to get rid of them so it's all even. 

    For timeless eloquent thinking, give me the Greeks any day.  You couldn't derive the things they came up with just by scarfing some mushrooms. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 10, 2009, 03:47:42 PM
    For timeless eloquent thinking, give me the Greeks any day.  You couldn't derive the things they came up with just by scarfing some mushrooms. 

    ARISTOTLE'D

    (http://www.empirecontact.com/magicstar/Aristotle.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Taors on January 10, 2009, 03:48:21 PM
    Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu, Mohammad...I like all of these mother fuckers. I just don't think they're THE God, or the direct link to divinity on Earth. You can eat a quarter bag of psilocybin mushrooms and have the same kind of experiences described in ancient religious texts.

    I guess that's why I don't  particularly like them.  I mean, the Buddha hit on something interesting when he suggested that desire is at the root of suffering, but then he took it way too far by trying to eliminate desire altogether for himself and his followers.  Most people don't really want to eliminate their desires-- they want them to be fulfilled.  And working to fulfill your desires is not generally a bad thing.  Sure, you'll fail sometimes and always want things you can't have, but that's life.  Learning to accept the ups and downs is a different thing from trying to get rid of them so it's all even. 

    For timeless eloquent thinking, give me the Greeks any day.  You couldn't derive the things they came up with just by scarfing some mushrooms. 

    Yeah, and that's why I like them in a general way. I take the ideas that I think are good, and leave the ones I think are bad (like not giving in to your desires, unless it's for a very specific purpose). You can do that when you don't subscribe to any particular dogma.

    And I agree with you about the Greeks. The Greeks influenced the Hermetic Qabalah (my favorite mystical model of the universe) more than anybody. Timeless is a very good word for it.

    For timeless eloquent thinking, give me the Greeks any day.  You couldn't derive the things they came up with just by scarfing some mushrooms. 

    ARISTOTLE'D

    (http://www.empirecontact.com/magicstar/Aristotle.jpg)

    Oh, I'm sure he took his fair share.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on January 10, 2009, 03:53:42 PM
    Yeah, and that's why I like them in a general way. I take the ideas that I think are good, and leave the ones I think are bad (like not giving in to your desires, unless it's for a very specific purpose). You can do that when you don't subscribe to any particular dogma.

    Yep, it's a beautiful thing.  The beauty increases as more people learn to do it!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ndp on January 10, 2009, 04:49:25 PM
    I gotta say, when I first heard that name "Christian Anarchist", I thought you were a total kook...

    I still do.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2009, 09:20:50 PM
    I gotta say, when I first heard that name "Christian Anarchist", I thought you were a total kook...

    I still do.

    Did you used to post as "Grey"?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2009, 09:29:30 PM
    All of us are (ostensibly) libertarians who eschew violence, so what, exactly, are you "criticizing" by saying any or all of us would be "as offensive as milquetoast" in person? Would you rather we took a swing at you? That ain't how this deal works. Fact is, you have taken a logic and reason drubbing over and over and over again in this thread. You constantly come up looking like an ass, but hey, it IS you thread.

    Yeah, except for doing all they can to "hurt" with words which they justify.  I have made it clear that I cannot be hurt with words which just makes them more angry and brings out the worst of them.  Just check out "asshole"'s post (his term not mine - although it seems accurate).  I considered deleting it since it's such a total misrepresentation of my positions, but I figure it's better to leave it simply as a demonstration of his ignorance and hatred...

    I think it needs to be repeated since this new generation seems to put so much stock in "feelings"...

    "Sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me"...

    Really? Debate any of my points. I dare you. Words can't hurt you because you can't formulate ones to defend yourself, and you are a hypocrite.

    You made no points.  You wrote a fictitious dialog between yourself and a grossly misrepresented "Christian Anarchist"...

    Actually I summarized every argument that you never gave a definitive response to over all these pages.

    My job is very boring, and I like to take notes.

    SO since you feel I am wrong, please show me where.

    Actually you misrepresented my positions.  If you want to take one, I can respond.  I don't intend to write a book responding to nonsense.  Of course they have all been addressed in the last 174 pages, but hey, who reads these days?

    Actually you dodged most of them or gave subjective reasons like "faith" that can't be proven or scientifically tested. So no, you didn't answer shit.

    I read all 174 pages.

    All of my "reasons" are subjective and I've never represented them as anything else.  I've never claimed to be able to "prove" that our Creator exists other than looking at the "creation" which testifies of Him.  I can see the hand of a Creator in the order of the Universe.  I can see a bunch of nonsense in what "man" in his "wisdom" comes up with to explain our surroundings.  "Man" can't even get "global warming" (or is it cooling?) correct.  How can we expect "men" who can't figure out that steeling $7 bil. from the working man and giving it to the ultra-rich is a BAD thing to be able to figure out anything else?  I certainly can't put my trust in men who keep "projecting" crap that is almost never right.  Oh, there was also the prediction during the 1970's that by the 1990's we would be out of oil at our rate of consumption (which has increased at a much larger rate than predicted).  Of course we know that in 2009 we are swimming in the crap...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: fatcat on January 10, 2009, 09:31:42 PM

     I can see the hand of a Creator in the order of the Universe.  I can see a bunch of nonsense in what "man" in his "wisdom" comes up with to explain our surroundings.  "Man" can't even get "global warming" (or is it cooling?) correct.  How can we expect "men" who can't figure out that steeling $7 bil. from the working man and giving it to the ultra-rich is a BAD thing to be able to figure out anything else?

    I guess when you put it like that blindly following the contradictory ramblings of a co-authored 2000+ year old book is a much more reliable way to get your information than any of that "figuring out" bullshit.

    anyone else want to point out the glaring flaw in this argument or should i take it?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on January 10, 2009, 09:40:49 PM

     I can see the hand of a Creator in the order of the Universe.  I can see a bunch of nonsense in what "man" in his "wisdom" comes up with to explain our surroundings.  "Man" can't even get "global warming" (or is it cooling?) correct.  How can we expect "men" who can't figure out that steeling $7 bil. from the working man and giving it to the ultra-rich is a BAD thing to be able to figure out anything else?

    anyone else want to point out the glaring flaw in this argument or should i take it?

    Fallacy of personal incredulity? 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: fatcat on January 10, 2009, 09:43:44 PM

     I can see the hand of a Creator in the order of the Universe.  I can see a bunch of nonsense in what "man" in his "wisdom" comes up with to explain our surroundings.  "Man" can't even get "global warming" (or is it cooling?) correct.  How can we expect "men" who can't figure out that steeling $7 bil. from the working man and giving it to the ultra-rich is a BAD thing to be able to figure out anything else?

    anyone else want to point out the glaring flaw in this argument or should i take it?

    Fallacy of personal incredulity? 

    Theres that, but I think the more glaring fallacy is the "how can you expect men to figure things out" contradiction. If I had my where withall about me I'm pretty sure theres an apt Atlas Shrugged quotation for this exact fallacy.

    Gene, assuming you are a human of some sorts, how did you figure out not to trust mans ability to figure out?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 10, 2009, 11:06:25 PM

     I can see the hand of a Creator in the order of the Universe.  I can see a bunch of nonsense in what "man" in his "wisdom" comes up with to explain our surroundings.  "Man" can't even get "global warming" (or is it cooling?) correct.  How can we expect "men" who can't figure out that steeling $7 bil. from the working man and giving it to the ultra-rich is a BAD thing to be able to figure out anything else?

    I guess when you put it like that blindly following the contradictory ramblings of a co-authored 2000+ year old book is a much more reliable way to get your information than any of that "figuring out" bullshit.

    anyone else want to point out the glaring flaw in this argument or should i take it?

    Of course if you take out some of what I wrote, it changes the meaning.  Wow.  Talk about integrity.  The meaning is quite clear.  That you should not trust "men" who have a poor record of "accuracy" to tell you how to think.  I have always stated that every man should make his own decisions using his own knowledge and experience.  If you use what others have said (as we all do to some extent) you must realize that you need to be aware that they may not be on the level.  I certainly apply this to my reading of the letters and scrolls complied into what is commonly known as "the Bible".  I only hope that someday you people will realize that you need to do the same when reading your "scriptures" from your "holy men" of the "cult of science"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on January 10, 2009, 11:37:05 PM

     I can see the hand of a Creator in the order of the Universe.  I can see a bunch of nonsense in what "man" in his "wisdom" comes up with to explain our surroundings.  "Man" can't even get "global warming" (or is it cooling?) correct.  How can we expect "men" who can't figure out that steeling $7 bil. from the working man and giving it to the ultra-rich is a BAD thing to be able to figure out anything else?

    I guess when you put it like that blindly following the contradictory ramblings of a co-authored 2000+ year old book is a much more reliable way to get your information than any of that "figuring out" bullshit.

    anyone else want to point out the glaring flaw in this argument or should i take it?

    Of course if you take out some of what I wrote, it changes the meaning.  Wow.  Talk about integrity.  The meaning is quite clear.  That you should not trust "men" who have a poor record of "accuracy" to tell you how to think.  I have always stated that every man should make his own decisions using his own knowledge and experience.  If you use what others have said (as we all do to some extent) you must realize that you need to be aware that they may not be on the level.  I certainly apply this to my reading of the letters and scrolls complied into what is commonly known as "the Bible".  I only hope that someday you people will realize that you need to do the same when reading your "scriptures" from your "holy men" of the "cult of science"...

    Einstien was a man.

    He came up with the theory of relativity

    I shouldn't believe it because he is a man and hence has a poor record of accuracy.

    You just gave yourself every reason why you should be an atheist. Plus you refuse to do any research into your religion and how it basically copied every religion and myth before it.

    There is this thing called empirical method, that scientists use, it ensures accuracy by having a crapload of people do the same experiments to produce the same results, therefore ensuring accuracy.

    You claim men are inaccurate, but then you put your faith into a whole bunch of shit written by men. Highly inaccurate, racist, bigoted shit used to control the populace written by men. You don't question anything, because I guarantee you still haven't looked up the similarities between Jesus and Horus. You are just a blind follower to the State, just not the government.

    You are an idiot.

    Now let this thread die.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: fatcat on January 10, 2009, 11:43:27 PM
    Of course if you take out some of what I wrote, it changes the meaning.  Wow.  Talk about integrity.  The meaning is quite clear.  That you should not trust "men" who have a poor record of "accuracy" to tell you how to think.  I have always stated that every man should make his own decisions using his own knowledge and experience.  If you use what others have said (as we all do to some extent) you must realize that you need to be aware that they may not be on the level.  I certainly apply this to my reading of the letters and scrolls complied into what is commonly known as "the Bible".  I only hope that someday you people will realize that you need to do the same when reading your "scriptures" from your "holy men" of the "cult of science"...

    Wait, let me get this straight,


    so, peer review process with mountains of empirical evidence, the have been repeated hundreds of times in hundreds of ways = less reliable than a 2000 year old book with no empirical evidence and that can be shown to have vastly contradictory claims to the nature of the universe

    It was you who suggested that "men" (im assuming you meant "science") is unreliable. no one hear claimed to believe everything global warming believers believe in, I can only assume that the talk about not being able to trust man was a veiled attempt at discrediting the scientific method through some really poor arguments of authority.

    Why would you assume that anyone else here didn't think for themselves? Since when did it become a choice between believe in the bible and believing everything some guys who believe global warming to be true believe? Don't I get another choice?

    Quote
    That you should not trust "men" who have a poor record of "accuracy" to tell you how to think

    I don't. I don't "trust" anyone record to tell me how to think. I look at how the evidence, I apply reason.

    and please, if we're going to go on about records of accuracy, how about the book that claims the earth was made in less than a week (even though geological and atomic evidence all points to the earth being millions of yearas old), all life on earth was created at the same time(even though the fossil record shows there is life from hundreds of millions of years ago whereas the oldest human fossil is around 100,000 years), that the stars and suns are different entities (erm no), and that light was made before anything that could produce light.

    they hold up well? It doesn't even matter if those claims where accurate, it still wouldn't do anything to prove completely baseless assumptions like

    1. God exists somewhere but he doesn't have any measurable effects or properties, at least not any repeatable or falsifiable ones

    2. Theres life after death.

    3. Any miricales have ever happened (except ones that can actually be explained by science)

    Arguments from authority are bullshit. Theres no reason for me to have to "trust" anyones record. If what they are saying it can stand up to rational intrigue without my trust.

    Also if you're going to claim the above 3 claims cannot be proved or disproved, then I have some religious claims of my own.

    1. Two gods exist one made everything bad in the universe, one made everything good in the universe, but they can't be measured in any way.

    2. there are 2 afterlifes, when you die all your bad aspects go to the bad afterlife, and all your good ones go to the good afterlife
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on January 10, 2009, 11:48:24 PM

    Now let this thread die.


    Thats not gonna happen if everyone keeps posting on here man... You guys argue and insult him of course he's gonna respond... Thats human nature...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on January 11, 2009, 08:29:34 AM
    Of course if you take out some of what I wrote, it changes the meaning.  Wow.  Talk about integrity.  The meaning is quite clear.  That you should not trust "men" who have a poor record of "accuracy" to tell you how to think.  I have always stated that every man should make his own decisions using his own knowledge and experience.  If you use what others have said (as we all do to some extent) you must realize that you need to be aware that they may not be on the level.  I certainly apply this to my reading of the letters and scrolls complied into what is commonly known as "the Bible".  I only hope that someday you people will realize that you need to do the same when reading your "scriptures" from your "holy men" of the "cult of science"...

    Wait, let me get this straight,


    so, peer review process with mountains of empirical evidence, the have been repeated hundreds of times in hundreds of ways = less reliable than a 2000 year old book with no empirical evidence and that can be shown to have vastly contradictory claims to the nature of the universe

    It was you who suggested that "men" (im assuming you meant "science") is unreliable. no one hear claimed to believe everything global warming believers believe in, I can only assume that the talk about not being able to trust man was a veiled attempt at discrediting the scientific method through some really poor arguments of authority.

    Why would you assume that anyone else here didn't think for themselves? Since when did it become a choice between believe in the bible and believing everything some guys who believe global warming to be true believe? Don't I get another choice?

    Quote
    That you should not trust "men" who have a poor record of "accuracy" to tell you how to think

    I don't. I don't "trust" anyone record to tell me how to think. I look at how the evidence, I apply reason.

    and please, if we're going to go on about records of accuracy, how about the book that claims the earth was made in less than a week (even though geological and atomic evidence all points to the earth being millions of yearas old), all life on earth was created at the same time(even though the fossil record shows there is life from hundreds of millions of years ago whereas the oldest human fossil is around 100,000 years), that the stars and suns are different entities (erm no), and that light was made before anything that could produce light.

    they hold up well? It doesn't even matter if those claims where accurate, it still wouldn't do anything to prove completely baseless assumptions like

    1. God exists somewhere but he doesn't have any measurable effects or properties, at least not any repeatable or falsifiable ones

    2. Theres life after death.

    3. Any miricales have ever happened (except ones that can actually be explained by science)

    Arguments from authority are bullshit. Theres no reason for me to have to "trust" anyones record. If what they are saying it can stand up to rational intrigue without my trust.

    Also if you're going to claim the above 3 claims cannot be proved or disproved, then I have some religious claims of my own.

    1. Two gods exist one made everything bad in the universe, one made everything good in the universe, but they can't be measured in any way.

    2. there are 2 afterlifes, when you die all your bad aspects go to the bad afterlife, and all your good ones go to the good afterlife


    Thank you for repeating everything I said in a much more intelligent answer.
    You have a lot more patience for stupid people than I do.

    You rock.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: NuroSlam on January 11, 2009, 11:26:47 AM
    Just use force to make him stop believing - better yet send the jackboots to confiscate his bible
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 11, 2009, 11:31:21 PM

     I can see the hand of a Creator in the order of the Universe.  I can see a bunch of nonsense in what "man" in his "wisdom" comes up with to explain our surroundings.  "Man" can't even get "global warming" (or is it cooling?) correct.  How can we expect "men" who can't figure out that steeling $7 bil. from the working man and giving it to the ultra-rich is a BAD thing to be able to figure out anything else?

    I guess when you put it like that blindly following the contradictory ramblings of a co-authored 2000+ year old book is a much more reliable way to get your information than any of that "figuring out" bullshit.

    anyone else want to point out the glaring flaw in this argument or should i take it?

    Of course if you take out some of what I wrote, it changes the meaning.  Wow.  Talk about integrity.  The meaning is quite clear.  That you should not trust "men" who have a poor record of "accuracy" to tell you how to think.  I have always stated that every man should make his own decisions using his own knowledge and experience.  If you use what others have said (as we all do to some extent) you must realize that you need to be aware that they may not be on the level.  I certainly apply this to my reading of the letters and scrolls complied into what is commonly known as "the Bible".  I only hope that someday you people will realize that you need to do the same when reading your "scriptures" from your "holy men" of the "cult of science"...

    Einstien was a man.

    He came up with the theory of relativity

    I shouldn't believe it because he is a man and hence has a poor record of accuracy.


    You continue to miss the point (or you are just trying to be difficult).  Did Einstein have a poor record of accuracy?  If he did then you should take other things he said with some caution.  If he had a record that was impeccable, then you should take his words more seriously.  Now if Einstein were alive today and was spouting some of the nonsense we hear from his peers, then his accuracy would have to be questioned.

    Do you get it now??

    No??

    Then there's not much help for you I'm afraid.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 11, 2009, 11:42:26 PM
    Of course if you take out some of what I wrote, it changes the meaning.  Wow.  Talk about integrity.  The meaning is quite clear.  That you should not trust "men" who have a poor record of "accuracy" to tell you how to think.  I have always stated that every man should make his own decisions using his own knowledge and experience.  If you use what others have said (as we all do to some extent) you must realize that you need to be aware that they may not be on the level.  I certainly apply this to my reading of the letters and scrolls complied into what is commonly known as "the Bible".  I only hope that someday you people will realize that you need to do the same when reading your "scriptures" from your "holy men" of the "cult of science"...

    Wait, let me get this straight,


    so, peer review process with mountains of empirical evidence, the have been repeated hundreds of times in hundreds of ways = less reliable than a 2000 year old book with no empirical evidence and that can be shown to have vastly contradictory claims to the nature of the universe

    It was you who suggested that "men" (im assuming you meant "science") is unreliable. no one hear claimed to believe everything global warming believers believe in, I can only assume that the talk about not being able to trust man was a veiled attempt at discrediting the scientific method through some really poor arguments of authority.

    Why would you assume that anyone else here didn't think for themselves? Since when did it become a choice between believe in the bible and believing everything some guys who believe global warming to be true believe? Don't I get another choice?

    Quote
    That you should not trust "men" who have a poor record of "accuracy" to tell you how to think

    I don't. I don't "trust" anyone record to tell me how to think. I look at how the evidence, I apply reason.

    and please, if we're going to go on about records of accuracy, how about the book that claims the earth was made in less than a week (even though geological and atomic evidence all points to the earth being millions of yearas old), all life on earth was created at the same time(even though the fossil record shows there is life from hundreds of millions of years ago whereas the oldest human fossil is around 100,000 years), that the stars and suns are different entities (erm no), and that light was made before anything that could produce light.

    they hold up well? It doesn't even matter if those claims where accurate, it still wouldn't do anything to prove completely baseless assumptions like

    1. God exists somewhere but he doesn't have any measurable effects or properties, at least not any repeatable or falsifiable ones

    2. Theres life after death.

    3. Any miricales have ever happened (except ones that can actually be explained by science)

    Arguments from authority are bullshit. Theres no reason for me to have to "trust" anyones record. If what they are saying it can stand up to rational intrigue without my trust.

    Also if you're going to claim the above 3 claims cannot be proved or disproved, then I have some religious claims of my own.

    1. Two gods exist one made everything bad in the universe, one made everything good in the universe, but they can't be measured in any way.

    2. there are 2 afterlifes, when you die all your bad aspects go to the bad afterlife, and all your good ones go to the good afterlife


    I can make all the same arguments against your "long history" claims.  We have already discussed the radiometric dating (perhaps you missed it some pages back) in which I pointed out the "assumptions" made in order to come up with ANY number whether it's a million or a billion (I do believe that your own cult members claim the Earth is "billions" of years old, not "millions" as you claim above - I could be wrong but you should know as it's your position).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Dylboz on January 11, 2009, 11:46:34 PM
    Based on you argument, Gene, no one, and I mean NO ONE, should take any claim made by a priest, pastor or reverend seriously. Their record of accuracy is far, far, FAR worse than any modern scientist's.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2009, 12:18:05 AM
    Based on you argument, Gene, no one, and I mean NO ONE, should take any claim made by a priest, pastor or reverend seriously. Their record of accuracy is far, far, FAR worse than any modern scientist's.

    You have to look at each man's "record".  If you find that their record is unreliable, by all means, DO NOT listen to them (or do so at your own risk)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Dylboz on January 12, 2009, 12:32:59 AM
    Right off the bat, their means of determining truth from falsehood and their methodology for understanding the world around them is absurd, so really, it's a non-starter. I don't need to evaluate each man on his merits, because they've all already impeached themselves.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2009, 11:27:10 AM
    Right off the bat, their means of determining truth from falsehood and their methodology for understanding the world around them is absurd, so really, it's a non-starter. I don't need to evaluate each man on his merits, because they've all already impeached themselves.

    Not really.  Their "means" is direct observation and testimony regarding what they saw.  You then have to determine if that testimony or observation is reliable.  Because what they claim to have witnesses is "absurd" by your definition doesn't mean that it did not happen.  If someone says they saw something and insists that it is true to the extent that they will die rather than recant, that's strong testimony.  It can be said that a crazy person might die rather than change their story, it is still unlikely that 12 (actually 10 I believe) unrelated persons would die for what they believed and NONE of them recant if they were not themselves convinced.  Most of the "history" we take for fact is nothing more than testimony written down by men who were there.  We seldom question the "history" about Rome even though there may only be one record from a given section of that timeline.  Some periods have many written records but some have only one.  Here we have several written records of the life of Christ and these "historians" put their lives on the line to record and transmit that record to us.  I guess that is pretty "absurd"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on January 12, 2009, 11:32:33 AM
    Right off the bat, their means of determining truth from falsehood and their methodology for understanding the world around them is absurd, so really, it's a non-starter. I don't need to evaluate each man on his merits, because they've all already impeached themselves.

    Not really.  Their "means" is direct observation and testimony regarding what they saw.  You then have to determine if that testimony or observation is reliable.  Because what they claim to have witnesses is "absurd" by your definition doesn't mean that it did not happen.  If someone says they saw something and insists that it is true to the extent that they will die rather than recant, that's strong testimony.  It can be said that a crazy person might die rather than change their story, it is still unlikely that 12 (actually 10 I believe) unrelated persons would die for what they believed and NONE of them recant if they were not themselves convinced.  Most of the "history" we take for fact is nothing more than testimony written down by men who were there.  We seldom question the "history" about Rome even though there may only be one record from a given section of that timeline.  Some periods have many written records but some have only one.  Here we have several written records of the life of Christ and these "historians" put their lives on the line to record and transmit that record to us.  I guess that is pretty "absurd"...

    except for none of those accounts were written until at least 70 years after Jesus' death, and the original people who supposedly witnessed it had long since passed away. Also the fact that those accounts were rewritten numerous times to fit what the re-writer believed, not what was necessarily accurate. So there goes THAT argument out the window.

    NEXT!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: hellbilly on January 12, 2009, 07:39:32 PM
    *Intermission*

    [youtube=425,350]3khTntOxX-k[/youtube]
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2009, 07:39:59 PM
    Right off the bat, their means of determining truth from falsehood and their methodology for understanding the world around them is absurd, so really, it's a non-starter. I don't need to evaluate each man on his merits, because they've all already impeached themselves.

    Not really.  Their "means" is direct observation and testimony regarding what they saw.  You then have to determine if that testimony or observation is reliable.  Because what they claim to have witnesses is "absurd" by your definition doesn't mean that it did not happen.  If someone says they saw something and insists that it is true to the extent that they will die rather than recant, that's strong testimony.  It can be said that a crazy person might die rather than change their story, it is still unlikely that 12 (actually 10 I believe) unrelated persons would die for what they believed and NONE of them recant if they were not themselves convinced.  Most of the "history" we take for fact is nothing more than testimony written down by men who were there.  We seldom question the "history" about Rome even though there may only be one record from a given section of that timeline.  Some periods have many written records but some have only one.  Here we have several written records of the life of Christ and these "historians" put their lives on the line to record and transmit that record to us.  I guess that is pretty "absurd"...

    except for none of those accounts were written until at least 70 years after Jesus' death, and the original people who supposedly witnessed it had long since passed away. Also the fact that those accounts were rewritten numerous times to fit what the re-writer believed, not what was necessarily accurate. So there goes THAT argument out the window.

    NEXT!


    Your presentation of the facts is not accurate.  It is true that the "copies" of the writings we have date to that period but that is not to say that they are inaccurate.  Keep in mind there were no printing presses back then and everything had to be copied by "scribes".  The scribes were careful to copy with much more care than we could today (with our 10 second average attention span).  So these 70 year old documents were most likely accurate copies of the originals which were written by the "eyewitnesses".  Now if you claim that this is still not as accurate as you like, most documents that we rely on for our understanding of "history" were written hundreds of years after the events they tell us of.  For us to have an "original" document from history is very rare.  So if you are claiming that the bible documents are unreliable, you have to pretty much throw out ALL of our known "history"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on January 12, 2009, 07:48:21 PM
    Right off the bat, their means of determining truth from falsehood and their methodology for understanding the world around them is absurd, so really, it's a non-starter. I don't need to evaluate each man on his merits, because they've all already impeached themselves.

    Not really.  Their "means" is direct observation and testimony regarding what they saw.  You then have to determine if that testimony or observation is reliable.  Because what they claim to have witnesses is "absurd" by your definition doesn't mean that it did not happen.  If someone says they saw something and insists that it is true to the extent that they will die rather than recant, that's strong testimony.  It can be said that a crazy person might die rather than change their story, it is still unlikely that 12 (actually 10 I believe) unrelated persons would die for what they believed and NONE of them recant if they were not themselves convinced.  Most of the "history" we take for fact is nothing more than testimony written down by men who were there.  We seldom question the "history" about Rome even though there may only be one record from a given section of that timeline.  Some periods have many written records but some have only one.  Here we have several written records of the life of Christ and these "historians" put their lives on the line to record and transmit that record to us.  I guess that is pretty "absurd"...

    except for none of those accounts were written until at least 70 years after Jesus' death, and the original people who supposedly witnessed it had long since passed away. Also the fact that those accounts were rewritten numerous times to fit what the re-writer believed, not what was necessarily accurate. So there goes THAT argument out the window.

    NEXT!


    Your presentation of the facts is not accurate.  It is true that the "copies" of the writings we have date to that period but that is not to say that they are inaccurate.  Keep in mind there were no printing presses back then and everything had to be copied by "scribes".  The scribes were careful to copy with much more care than we could today (with our 10 second average attention span).  So these 70 year old documents were most likely accurate copies of the originals which were written by the "eyewitnesses".  Now if you claim that this is still not as accurate as you like, most documents that we rely on for our understanding of "history" were written hundreds of years after the events they tell us of.  For us to have an "original" document from history is very rare.  So if you are claiming that the bible documents are unreliable, you have to pretty much throw out ALL of our know "history"...

    You really aren't making any sense now. It is known that the 4 gospels were NOT written by who they are named after. Period. Someone wrote down an oral tradition of had been passed down ORALLY.

    Ever heard of the telephone game? Not everyone can remember a story exactly for what is accurate. And the King James version, was NOT meant to be accurate. It was meant to preserve to poetic flow of the Bible more than anything else. I'm sorry, I can't believe in a book of blatant ripoffs that contradicts itself, and the fact that you refuse to do any research about anything that speaks contrary to the Bible, speaks volumes about the fact that this is like talking to a brick wall. It's like trying to explain gravity to a donkey. Just because the donkey can't get the theory, doesn't mean the theory is wrong.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2009, 08:02:56 PM

    You really aren't making any sense now. It is known that the 4 gospels were NOT written by who they are named after. Period. Someone wrote down an oral tradition of had been passed down ORALLY.


    Where do you get your information?  Bible historians agree that both Mathew and John were written by two apostles of the same names.  Mark was a relative of Barnabas who accompanied Paul and Luke was a physician who also was one of Paul's disciples.  These were men of education who knew about recording the events of the time and putting pen to paper.  Paul was educated to the highest degree during that period of history and would also have made great pains to record the events of the time.  Indeed, most of the New Testament was written under his supervision. 

    Now if you have information that the gospels were written by someone else, let's hear it...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on January 12, 2009, 08:18:03 PM

    You really aren't making any sense now. It is known that the 4 gospels were NOT written by who they are named after. Period. Someone wrote down an oral tradition of had been passed down ORALLY.


    Where do you get your information?  Bible historians agree that both Mathew and John were written by two apostles of the same names.  Mark was a relative of Barnabas who accompanied Paul and Luke was a physician who also was one of Paul's disciples.  These were men of education who knew about recording the events of the time and putting pen to paper.  Paul was educated to the highest degree during that period of history and would also have made great pains to record the events of the time.  Indeed, most of the New Testament was written under his supervision. 

    Now if you have information that the gospels were written by someone else, let's hear it...

    NONE OF THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE STORY IS A BLATANT RIPOFF OF HORUS FROM 3000 YEARS BEFORE JESUS.

    Get it?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on January 12, 2009, 08:19:01 PM
    Now let this thread die.

    I forgot who said this....
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on January 12, 2009, 08:22:25 PM
    Now let this thread die.

    I forgot who said this....

    Me.

    Geez.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 12, 2009, 08:23:32 PM
    Now let this thread die.

    I forgot who said this....

    Me.

    Geez.

    This we can agree on wholeheartedly.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on January 12, 2009, 08:28:01 PM
    Now let this thread die.

    I forgot who said this....

    Me.

    Geez.

    This we can agree on wholeheartedly.

    Agreed. You can't teach someone that already thinks they know everything, that's for sure.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: vonu on January 12, 2009, 08:29:48 PM
    If anarchy is the absence of government, then what is the point in a particular kind of nothing?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2009, 09:16:58 PM

    You really aren't making any sense now. It is known that the 4 gospels were NOT written by who they are named after. Period. Someone wrote down an oral tradition of had been passed down ORALLY.


    Where do you get your information?  Bible historians agree that both Mathew and John were written by two apostles of the same names.  Mark was a relative of Barnabas who accompanied Paul and Luke was a physician who also was one of Paul's disciples.  These were men of education who knew about recording the events of the time and putting pen to paper.  Paul was educated to the highest degree during that period of history and would also have made great pains to record the events of the time.  Indeed, most of the New Testament was written under his supervision. 

    Now if you have information that the gospels were written by someone else, let's hear it...

    NONE OF THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE STORY IS A BLATANT RIPOFF OF HORUS FROM 3000 YEARS BEFORE JESUS.

    Get it?

    Since I'm not well versed in "horus" I found this link http://www.egypt-tehuti.org/articles/egypt-bible-similarities.html.

    After reading what was there, it seems like quite a stretch to say that this is similar to the Christ story.  Of course life itself has some underlying truths between all cultures and to simply refer to them as "proof" of anything is absurd.  I did note that there was a reference to how the Jews worshiped the golden calf in the desert being similar to the way the Egyptians worshiped which makes sense sing the whole golden calf thing was "Egyptian" in nature and against what God wanted from them...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on January 12, 2009, 09:19:19 PM

    You really aren't making any sense now. It is known that the 4 gospels were NOT written by who they are named after. Period. Someone wrote down an oral tradition of had been passed down ORALLY.


    Where do you get your information?  Bible historians agree that both Mathew and John were written by two apostles of the same names.  Mark was a relative of Barnabas who accompanied Paul and Luke was a physician who also was one of Paul's disciples.  These were men of education who knew about recording the events of the time and putting pen to paper.  Paul was educated to the highest degree during that period of history and would also have made great pains to record the events of the time.  Indeed, most of the New Testament was written under his supervision. 

    Now if you have information that the gospels were written by someone else, let's hear it...

    NONE OF THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE STORY IS A BLATANT RIPOFF OF HORUS FROM 3000 YEARS BEFORE JESUS.

    Get it?

    Since I'm not well versed in "horus" I found this link http://www.egypt-tehuti.org/articles/egypt-bible-similarities.html.

    After reading what was there, it seems like quite a stretch to say that this is similar to the Christ story.  Of course life itself has some underlying truths between all cultures and to simply refer to them as "proof" of anything is absurd.  I did note that there was a reference to how the Jews worshiped the golden calf in the desert being similar to the way the Egyptians worshiped which makes sense sing the whole golden calf thing was "Egyptian" in nature and against what God wanted from them...

    try this.

    http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BJesusandHorus74.htm
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2009, 09:43:16 PM
    http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BJesusandHorus74.htm

    That link has nothing more than a bunch of claims as to what Horus said and did.  There are NO references as to where this stuff came from and certainly no "official" translations from the original.  Not to mention how hard it is to understand all those little pictures anyway...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on January 12, 2009, 09:45:04 PM
    http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BJesusandHorus74.htm

    That link has nothing more than a bunch of claims as to what Horus said and did.  There are NO references as to where this stuff came from and certainly no "official" translations from the original.  Not to mention how hard it is to understand all those little pictures anyway...

    Pyramids. Duh. How else did they keep track of stuff. Everyone knows about hieroglyphics. Don't play stupid.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: AntonLee on January 12, 2009, 09:48:50 PM
    as if the Bible is some sort of document that hasn't been altered thousands of times before it's reached your hands.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2009, 09:50:05 PM
    http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BJesusandHorus74.htm

    That link has nothing more than a bunch of claims as to what Horus said and did.  There are NO references as to where this stuff came from and certainly no "official" translations from the original.  Not to mention how hard it is to understand all those little pictures anyway...

    Pyramids. Duh. How else did they keep track of stuff. Everyone knows about hieroglyphics. Don't play stupid.

    "Little pictures" = "hieroglyphics".  I know that the translations of these are difficult and not always accurate.  I certainly don't have the knowledge to translate them.  Where are the links to "translations" from the original?  I don't see them.  If you expect me to take the word of whoever wrote that web page, I have to say that I "lack faith"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 12, 2009, 09:52:09 PM
    as if the Bible is some sort of document that hasn't been altered thousands of times before it's reached your hands.

    I've addressed and acknowledged that "The Bible" has inaccuracies.  I don't know about the "thousands of times" claim you make, but there are definite discrepancies between what I see there and what I believe.  Have you read any of my positions?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: AntonLee on January 12, 2009, 09:54:48 PM
    of course I have Gene. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on January 12, 2009, 09:59:20 PM
    of course I have Gene. 

    That statement had "condescending" dripping off of it.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 12, 2009, 11:56:39 PM
    You know, this thread makes me sad, but not for the reasons that it makes everyone else sad.

    It makes me sad for Christians. Seriously.

    Look, this thread has gone for 178 pages. How many people have been converted to Xian Anarchy as a result? My guess would be zero.

    Yet Gene doesn't change his methods or argumentation.

    It isn't working, Gene. Even if your message is correct, your pitch doesn't work. I say this in all sincerity - You need a new pitch.

    The only thing your method has done so far is stir up a bunch of arguments where you are at odds with just about everyone else here. Which is fine, whatever, if that's your goal. You're one of the few people who keeps their personal crap confined to a single thread. Good on you, even though I still think you should just get a frigging blog.

    But what is your goal? If your goal is to convert people, you are failing miserably.

    Gene, for the children, change your pitch already.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on January 12, 2009, 11:58:09 PM
    It isn't working, Gene. Even if your message is correct, your pitch doesn't work. I say this in al sincerity - You need a new pitch.

    c'mon now... Its working. I can tell its the only sensible answer. Just read the title dude.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 12, 2009, 11:59:06 PM
    It isn't working, Gene. Even if your message is correct, your pitch doesn't work. I say this in al sincerity - You need a new pitch.

    c'mon now... Its working. I can tell its the only sensible answer. Just read the title dude.

    (http://www.shackpics.com/download.x?file=Ezra_q5gl35dwv0ded8zq0j23.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 13, 2009, 07:58:30 AM
    You know, this thread makes me sad, but not for the reasons that it makes everyone else sad.

    It makes me sad for Christians. Seriously.

    Look, this thread has gone for 178 pages. How many people have been converted to Xian Anarchy as a result? My guess would be zero.

    Yet Gene doesn't change his methods or argumentation.

    It isn't working, Gene. Even if your message is correct, your pitch doesn't work. I say this in all sincerity - You need a new pitch.

    The only thing your method has done so far is stir up a bunch of arguments where you are at odds with just about everyone else here. Which is fine, whatever, if that's your goal. You're one of the few people who keeps their personal crap confined to a single thread. Good on you, even though I still think you should just get a frigging blog.

    But what is your goal? If your goal is to convert people, you are failing miserably.

    Gene, for the children, change your pitch already.


    Nope.  You used that politically charged crap line "for the children"...  THIS MEANS WAR !!!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 13, 2009, 08:58:07 AM
    Nope.  You used that politically charged crap line "for the children"...  THIS MEANS WAR !!!

    Gene, you should know a joke when you see one. Everything else was for serious, though.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 13, 2009, 09:24:16 AM
    Nope.  You used that politically charged crap line "for the children"...  THIS MEANS WAR !!!

    Gene, you should know a joke when you see one. Everything else was for serious, though.

    Um, I think he got the joke, and was joking back with "this means war". His sig is now a link to his site, which has links to his blog...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 13, 2009, 09:35:49 AM
    Um, I think he got the joke, and was joking back with "this means war". His sig is now a link to his site, which has links to his blog...

    WAT
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 13, 2009, 10:25:47 AM
    http://www.freewebs.com/christiananarchist/

    ^this

    and... this

    http://thechristiananarchist.blogspot.com/

    Apparently, he decided to start a blog. Good job with THAT suggestion... SIGH
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 13, 2009, 10:27:41 AM
    Apparently, he decided to start a blog. Good job with THAT suggestion... SIGH

    <<< Not responsible for the actions of others.

    You should know this.  8)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 13, 2009, 10:35:17 AM
    oh... and...

    Not really.  Their "means" is direct observation and testimony regarding what they saw.  You then have to determine if that testimony or observation is reliable.  Because what they claim to have witnesses is "absurd" by your definition doesn't mean that it did not happen.  If someone says they saw something and insists that it is true to the extent that they will die rather than recant, that's strong testimony.  It can be said that a crazy person might die rather than change their story, it is still unlikely that 12 (actually 10 I believe) unrelated persons would die for what they believed and NONE of them recant if they were not themselves convinced.  Most of the "history" we take for fact is nothing more than testimony written down by men who were there.  We seldom question the "history" about Rome even though there may only be one record from a given section of that timeline.  Some periods have many written records but some have only one.  Here we have several written records of the life of Christ and these "historians" put their lives on the line to record and transmit that record to us.  I guess that is pretty "absurd"...

    I think we could pretty easily find 10 people who are willing to die for their belief in Aliens, Bigfoot, their belief in their personal psychic powers, homeopathy, Scientology....

    Also, I think we can VERY easily find 10 people from religions that AREN'T Christianity willing to die for their beliefs. In fact, I think we could get ten Muslims who would blow themselves up over what they think is Christian misinterpretation of holy events. (Not that they ALL think that way, but I'm sure we could find 10)


    Apparently, he decided to start a blog. Good job with THAT suggestion... SIGH

    <<< Not responsible for the actions of others.

    You should know this.  8)

    YOU suggesting that Gene make a blog, was not his action. Gene didn't SUGGEST it to himself.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 13, 2009, 10:45:51 AM
    YOU suggesting that Gene make a blog, was not his action. Gene didn't SUGGEST it to himself.

    And how does Gene making a blog effect you if you don't go there?

    Uh huh.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on January 13, 2009, 10:47:08 AM
    YOU suggesting that Gene make a blog, was not his action. Gene didn't SUGGEST it to himself.

    And how does Gene making a blog effect you if you don't go there?

    Uh huh.

    Think we could get this to 180 pages? Gene is one popular guy on the boards apparently.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 13, 2009, 10:56:14 AM
    Think we could get this to 180 pages? Gene is one popular infamous guy on the boards apparently.

    FTFY
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on January 13, 2009, 10:58:04 AM
    Think we could get this to 180 pages? Gene is one popular infamous guy on the boards apparently.

    FTFY

    Damned keyboard doesnt seem to want to work sometimes
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 13, 2009, 11:21:00 AM
    YOU suggesting that Gene make a blog, was not his action. Gene didn't SUGGEST it to himself.

    And how does Gene making a blog effect you if you don't go there?

    Uh huh.

    What if it becomes REALLY famous like some bloggers, and then, I am harmlessly watching the news some day, and they flip over... and the news guy says in a really smarmy voice...

    "... and now Diane... let's check in with the BLOGosphere... Here's an op-ed from... GENE the Christian ANARCHIST...  HA HA Uh oh Diane... Let's hear what the kooky anarchist had to say about this one" (and of course she chimes in with an redundant "ooooh boy". ) and then they read from Gene's blog....

    WHAT THEN... HUH? WHAT THEN?
    A perfectly good evening will be ruined. 

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Dylboz on January 13, 2009, 11:25:06 AM
    Nope.  You used that politically charged crap line "for the children"...  THIS MEANS WAR !!!

    Gene, you should know a joke when you see one. Everything else was for serious, though.

    Gene can't distinguish truth from falsehood, form a syllogism wherein the conclusions actually follow from the premises, craft an intelligible and convincing argument, or even respond logically to questions asked out of genuine curiosity. I think you're really giving him far too much credit when you say he should know a joke when he sees one.

    It isn't a reasonable assumption to make, John. :P
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on January 13, 2009, 11:29:41 AM
    Bah.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on January 13, 2009, 11:34:14 AM
    Baka wa shinanakya naoranai.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 13, 2009, 08:40:00 PM
    http://www.freewebs.com/christiananarchist/

    ^this

    and... this

    http://thechristiananarchist.blogspot.com/

    Apparently, he decided to start a blog. Good job with THAT suggestion... SIGH

    The blog was started years ago...  Nice of you to notice though.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 13, 2009, 08:43:11 PM
    YOU suggesting that Gene make a blog, was not his action. Gene didn't SUGGEST it to himself.

    And how does Gene making a blog effect you if you don't go there?

    Uh huh.

    What if it becomes REALLY famous like some bloggers, and then, I am harmlessly watching the news some day, and they flip over... and the news guy says in a really smarmy voice...

    "... and now Diane... let's check in with the BLOGosphere... Here's an op-ed from... GENE the Christian ANARCHIST...  HA HA Uh oh Diane... Let's hear what the kooky anarchist had to say about this one" (and of course she chimes in with an redundant "ooooh boy". ) and then they read from Gene's blog....

    WHAT THEN... HUH? WHAT THEN?
    A perfectly good evening will be ruined. 


    You shouldn't be wasting your time listening to the controlled media...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on January 13, 2009, 08:43:59 PM
    YOU suggesting that Gene make a blog, was not his action. Gene didn't SUGGEST it to himself.

    And how does Gene making a blog effect you if you don't go there?

    Uh huh.

    What if it becomes REALLY famous like some bloggers, and then, I am harmlessly watching the news some day, and they flip over... and the news guy says in a really smarmy voice...

    "... and now Diane... let's check in with the BLOGosphere... Here's an op-ed from... GENE the Christian ANARCHIST...  HA HA Uh oh Diane... Let's hear what the kooky anarchist had to say about this one" (and of course she chimes in with an redundant "ooooh boy". ) and then they read from Gene's blog....

    WHAT THEN... HUH? WHAT THEN?
    A perfectly good evening will be ruined. 


    You shouldn't be wasting your time listening to the controlled media...

    Or reading it either Gene, so please throw out your Bible.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 13, 2009, 08:46:12 PM
    Nope.  You used that politically charged crap line "for the children"...  THIS MEANS WAR !!!

    Gene, you should know a joke when you see one. Everything else was for serious, though.

    Gene can't distinguish truth from falsehood, form a syllogism wherein the conclusions actually follow from the premises, craft an intelligible and convincing argument, or even respond logically to questions asked out of genuine curiosity. I think you're really giving him far too much credit when you say he should know a joke when he sees one.

    It isn't a reasonable assumption to make, John. :P

    Of course I was taking the ball and running with it.  I have a sense of humor too you know.  You should have heard the episode of Freetalklive where I called in with my "personal" problem.  I complained to Ian and "Manwich" that I had ugly keritin debris under my toenails and was Sooooooo embarrassed when at the beach...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: JWI on January 13, 2009, 09:04:41 PM
    YOU suggesting that Gene make a blog, was not his action. Gene didn't SUGGEST it to himself.

    And how does Gene making a blog effect you if you don't go there?

    Uh huh.

    What if it becomes REALLY famous like some bloggers, and then, I am harmlessly watching the news some day, and they flip over... and the news guy says in a really smarmy voice...

    "... and now Diane... let's check in with the BLOGosphere... Here's an op-ed from... GENE the Christian ANARCHIST...  HA HA Uh oh Diane... Let's hear what the kooky anarchist had to say about this one" (and of course she chimes in with an redundant "ooooh boy". ) and then they read from Gene's blog....

    WHAT THEN... HUH? WHAT THEN?
    A perfectly good evening will be ruined. 


    You shouldn't be wasting your time listening to the controlled media...

    Or reading it either Gene, so please throw out your Bible.

     :lol:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 14, 2009, 12:23:59 AM
    Nope.  You used that politically charged crap line "for the children"...  THIS MEANS WAR !!!

    Gene, you should know a joke when you see one. Everything else was for serious, though.

    Gene can't distinguish truth from falsehood, form a syllogism wherein the conclusions actually follow from the premises, craft an intelligible and convincing argument, or even respond logically to questions asked out of genuine curiosity. I think you're really giving him far too much credit when you say he should know a joke when he sees one.

    It isn't a reasonable assumption to make, John. :P

    Of course I was taking the ball and running with it.  I have a sense of humor too you know.  You should have heard the episode of Freetalklive where I called in with my "personal" problem.  I complained to Ian and "Manwich" that I had ugly keritin debris under my toenails and was Sooooooo embarrassed when at the beach...

    Fastest way to kill all the humor in a joke: Explaining how funny it was.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 14, 2009, 12:24:38 AM
    [youtube=425,295]kAIpRRZvnJg[/youtube].
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 14, 2009, 10:34:50 PM
    [youtube=425,295]kAIpRRZvnJg[/youtube].

    [youtube=425,350]MVa_LB3hKCM[/youtube]

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVa_LB3hKCM
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on January 14, 2009, 10:49:24 PM
    Our dailey bread radio???? I liked johnsons video better.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 15, 2009, 02:57:17 PM
    Our dailey bread radio???? I liked johnsons video better.

    Try this one.  It may be more to your liking...

    [youtube=425,350]0OwyEFKYJZk[/youtube]

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OwyEFKYJZk
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on January 21, 2009, 02:40:03 PM
    *shiver*
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on January 21, 2009, 03:08:27 PM
    Our dailey bread radio???? I liked johnsons video better.

    Try this one.  It may be more to your liking...

    [youtube=425,350]0OwyEFKYJZk[/youtube]

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OwyEFKYJZk

    1) It's assumptions about the capacity of a photon is wrong both in classical and quantum information theories.
    2) It assumes things not validated by any physical theory so far.
    3) The music sucks.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 21, 2009, 10:10:26 PM
    Our dailey bread radio???? I liked johnsons video better.

    Try this one.  It may be more to your liking...

    [youtube=425,350]0OwyEFKYJZk[/youtube]

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OwyEFKYJZk

    1) It's assumptions about the capacity of a photon is wrong both in classical and quantum information theories.
    2) It assumes things not validated by any physical theory so far.
    3) The music sucks.

    1) I'm sure you feel that way...
    2) So does "evolution"...
    3) I'm sure you feel that way...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on January 22, 2009, 12:41:22 AM
    1) It's not a matter of feeling, it's a matter of facts.
    2) Evolution is just another word for Spontaneous Order. Get use to it.
    3) Chicken and waffles!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on January 22, 2009, 12:48:42 AM
    I'm gonna follow the yellow brick road to the magical voice booming in the distance.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 22, 2009, 07:08:54 AM
    1) It's not a matter of feeling, it's a matter of facts.
    2) Evolution is just another word for Spontaneous Order. Get use to it.
    3) Chicken and waffles!

    I'm sure you feel that way...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 22, 2009, 08:16:03 AM
    Ian made the mistake of entering an "agreement" with the beast.

    Please explain by reciting the facts that support a statement like this.  Is it a written agreement? Who or what is the beast?  At what point did Ian and "the beast" form an agreement?

    Ian made an "agreement" to get out of jail.  I don't know if it was a written one, but it probably was and it really doesn't matter because the men who preach "the beast" will treat this agreement as the tool to beat him over the head with.

    "The beast" is the term I use for this fiction we call the USA.  It would also apply to other fictions such as the ones called "PRC", "EU", "France", "Italy", etc...  It applies to all "fictions" that were created by real men in order to cause other real men to bow down to them.  Oh, and it also includes such fictions as "The Catholic Church", "Southern Baptist", "First Church of Satan", ad infinitum...



    Oh, you mean like the fiction about Jesus and the Bible and all that jazz too? Yeah, I especially hate that fiction. The one wehre real men created it in order to cause other real men to bow to a fictional one. I think this one is worse.


    No, one is history that you choose to dispute, the other is what is known in law as a "legal fiction".  You can dispute the history if you wish but the legal fiction status of those listed is a fact...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: hellbilly on January 22, 2009, 07:58:03 PM
    1) It's not a matter of feeling, it's a matter of facts.
    2) Evolution is just another word for Spontaneous Order. Get use to it.
    3) Chicken and waffles!

    I'm sure you feel that way...

    What happened to Brede's replies?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on January 22, 2009, 08:33:10 PM
    1) It's not a matter of feeling, it's a matter of facts.
    2) Evolution is just another word for Spontaneous Order. Get use to it.
    3) Chicken and waffles!

    I'm sure you feel that way...

    What happened to Brede's replies?

    It his thread. Dont like it then gtfo.  =/
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: hellbilly on January 22, 2009, 08:48:32 PM
    1) It's not a matter of feeling, it's a matter of facts.
    2) Evolution is just another word for Spontaneous Order. Get use to it.
    3) Chicken and waffles!

    I'm sure you feel that way...

    What happened to Brede's replies?

    It his thread. Dont like it then gtfo.  =/

     :P
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 23, 2009, 10:31:21 PM
    OK.  I know most of you don't care, but for the few who really want to see what "Christian Anarchy" is all about, Eller is pretty much the "resident expert" on what Christian Anarchy is all about.  I don't agree 100% with what he says, but pretty close.  Of course I don't agree 100% with anyone (do you?).  Answers to most any question regarding this topic can be found in the following Christian Anarchy: Jesus' Primacy Over the Powers.

    http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/index.html

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 23, 2009, 10:39:06 PM
    Here is a sample of Eller in chapter three "CHURCHLY ARKYDOM It's Unreal" in which he takes the "organized" church to task...

    "Where the line is crossed into arkydom is the point at which it is assumed that a grouping of individuals can be given the quantitative value of their sum and then treated as a collective solidarity represented by a corporate head."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: rabidfurby on January 23, 2009, 10:53:02 PM
    OK.  I know most of you don't care, but for the few who really want to see what "Christian Anarchy" is all about, Eller is pretty much the "resident expert" on what Christian Anarchy is all about.  I don't agree 100% with what he says, but pretty close.  Of course I don't agree 100% with anyone (do you?).  Answers to most any question regarding this topic can be found in the following Christian Anarchy: Jesus' Primacy Over the Powers.

    http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/index.html

    Excellent. I was thinking just the other day that I really didn't have enough information about Christian Anarchy. Thank you.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 24, 2009, 12:06:41 PM
    It's my fault.  I've been letting the naysayers get me off track and chasing vapor when I should have been informing the readers.  I've always had a link in my sig to my blog which has links to great information, but I seldom point that out...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on March 28, 2009, 05:37:24 AM
    OK.  I know most of you don't care, but for the few who really want to see what "Christian Anarchy" is all about, Eller is pretty much the "resident expert" on what Christian Anarchy is all about.  I don't agree 100% with what he says, but pretty close.  Of course I don't agree 100% with anyone (do you?).  Answers to most any question regarding this topic can be found in the following Christian Anarchy: Jesus' Primacy Over the Powers.

    http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/index.html

    Excellent. I was thinking just the other day that I really didn't have enough information about Christian Anarchy. Thank you.
    /me rolls on the floor fucking laughing his ass off.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 31, 2009, 05:20:25 PM
    You boys need to play nice in this neighborhood or the Christian Anarchist will take you out behind the woodshed with a switch and you don't want that to happen...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on March 31, 2009, 05:21:57 PM
    You boys need to play nice in this neighborhood or the Christian Anarchist will take you out behind the woodshed with a switch and you don't want that to happen...

    You threatening force?

    Say it ain't so!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on March 31, 2009, 06:58:09 PM
    Christian Anarchist: Question Authority, but dont listen to your own answers.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: coyote on March 31, 2009, 08:31:47 PM
    Scary avatar anarchir  :shock:

    Which god are you refering to? If you were a god, would you hate winners too?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on March 31, 2009, 11:46:29 PM
    Scary avatar anarchir  :shock:

    Which god are you refering to? If you were a god, would you hate winners too?

    I am my own god, and I command myself and myself only.
    I hate no winners, for they must be gods too.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on March 31, 2009, 11:46:45 PM
    /bullshitting
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: coyote on April 01, 2009, 12:13:55 AM
    /bullshitting

    Were you refering to the post you made above?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on April 01, 2009, 04:06:14 PM
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on April 01, 2009, 04:23:44 PM
    /bullshitting

    Were you refering to the post you made above?

    Yep. Like I would write a stupid paper for english class in high school. My comment was total BS and not actual deep thought was put into it; the words merely seemed to fit together.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 01, 2009, 04:44:52 PM
    Just a reminder of the topic at hand...

    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: Njal on April 01, 2009, 06:29:46 PM
    My momma and daddy created me.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: TimeLady Victorious on April 01, 2009, 11:00:34 PM
    My momma and daddy created me.

    This.

    I take my rights because one must take and invoke rights in order to have them. Rights do not come from law; they come from within yourself.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 02, 2009, 09:45:54 AM
    My momma and daddy created me.

    Technically not true.  Your momma was an incubator (and your daddy just did what men do).  You might check the biology books on this one...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Njal on April 02, 2009, 09:48:23 AM
    My momma and daddy created me.

    Technically not true.  Your momma was an incubator (and your daddy just did what men do).  You might check the biology books on this one...

    That's why I said Momma AND Daddy. It takes two to make a baby. Or did I make myself?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: NHArticleTen on April 02, 2009, 01:15:58 PM
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......

    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    This is the thread that never ends! Yes It goes on and on my friend! People started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because......
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 02, 2009, 02:05:53 PM
    My momma and daddy created me.

    Technically not true.  Your momma was an incubator (and your daddy just did what men do).  You might check the biology books on this one...

    That's why I said Momma AND Daddy. It takes two to make a baby. Or did I make myself?

    No, you still don't understand.  All they did was provide for two cells to come together and do what is natural.

    They did not "create" you.  They made no effort to design a cell with the ability to form other cells, they did not sequence your DNA in a machine to instruct each cell on it's proper function.  They did not "create" at all.  Just copulate...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Njal on April 02, 2009, 02:09:12 PM
    My momma and daddy created me.

    Technically not true.  Your momma was an incubator (and your daddy just did what men do).  You might check the biology books on this one...

    That's why I said Momma AND Daddy. It takes two to make a baby. Or did I make myself?

    No, you still don't understand.  All they did was provide for two cells to come together and do what is natural.

    They did not "create" you.  They made no effort to design a cell with the ability to form other cells, they did not sequence your DNA in a machine to instruct each cell on it's proper function.  They did not "create" at all.  Just copulate...


    So, my momma did not provide the raw materials for my DNA to organize my cells into a multicellular form? Did I create myself?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on April 02, 2009, 02:15:42 PM
    My momma and daddy created me.

    Technically not true.  Your momma was an incubator (and your daddy just did what men do).  You might check the biology books on this one...

    That's why I said Momma AND Daddy. It takes two to make a baby. Or did I make myself?

    No, you still don't understand.  All they did was provide for two cells to come together and do what is natural.

    They did not "create" you.  They made no effort to design a cell with the ability to form other cells, they did not sequence your DNA in a machine to instruct each cell on it's proper function.  They did not "create" at all.  Just copulate...


    So we were created by god. Did he put his hand in my moms womb to mold me into flesh? or was his only molding left with adam and eve that reproduced incestuous children? Maybe he used his magical powers. Abra kadabra alakazam. I am the almighty entity created by humans to give life some reason and purpose for existing when in reality there is none. Its ok my children I'll watch as rapists get away, murderers kill, and innocent people are killed by disease, war, and criminals. I'll make everything you find pleasurable to be wrong in my eyes. I'm a dick who doesnt give a shit and watches you like a fat guy watching cops.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Njal on April 02, 2009, 02:17:33 PM
    There is absolutely no way Adam and Eve ever existed. Fail on that one.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Njal on April 02, 2009, 02:20:55 PM
    There is absolutely no way Adam and STEve ever existed. Fail on that one.

    FTFY.

    I mean....that makes as much sense.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on April 02, 2009, 02:24:34 PM
    I think gene is god. He created me so anyone who deosnt believe me is wrong and should be killed or exiled off this thread. You will respect him or burn in troll hell forever!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 02, 2009, 04:02:03 PM
    Is it so hard to understand the simple fact that "reproduction" is not "creation"?  I know you guys cannot be serious on not understanding this point so I have to assume that you are just posting this nonsense in order to hear yourselves talk.  At any rate don't get too carried away as I will delete posts that become excessively "trollish"...

    Beware the "Christian Anarchist" censor for he does not wield the sword in vain...

     :roll:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Njal on April 02, 2009, 04:07:28 PM
    Is it so hard to understand the simple fact that "reproduction" is not "creation"?  I know you guys cannot be serious on not understanding this point so I have to assume that you are just posting this nonsense in order to hear yourselves talk.  At any rate don't get too carried away as I will delete posts that become excessively "trollish"...

    Beware the "Christian Anarchist" censor for he does not wield the sword in vain...

     :roll:

    Then educate me. How is reproduction not creation? I am inviting you to use that devastating Christian logic.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Keels on April 02, 2009, 04:15:39 PM
    [youtube=425,350]mCAdFQsGkp0[/youtube]

    .

    The orange fucking the apple made me laugh... kinda how I feel when I fuck a really skinny dude.  :)

    And I dislike people who make it a point to use their religious beliefs as a way to fallaciously judge other human beings.

    Or use it like it's all that makes them who they are. It's just really sad that it's what they want people to focus on and not who they are as a person. Like an extremely flamboyant gay...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 03, 2009, 11:34:52 AM
    Now they are listening...  :D
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Njal on April 03, 2009, 11:47:01 AM
    Why did you delete my post?

    Is it because I asked you to explain how I was born?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on April 03, 2009, 12:16:10 PM
    Why did you delete my post?

    Is it because I asked you to explain how I was born?

    its cuz ur a rodent
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 03, 2009, 01:47:31 PM
    Why did you delete my post?

    Is it because I asked you to explain how I was born?

    No, it contained BJ's post and since I can't edit it, I deleted it...

    I don't mind questions and even some comments that I would consider "inappropriate" for this thread, but if I feel it crosses the line, it's gone.  Now I'm very tolerant so it has to be pretty bad before I will delete it.  Like I have said in the past, play nice or go to another neighborhood to play...

    P.S. Having not been there when you were born, I can only take the word of someone who was there as to how you were born...  (can't even take your word as I doubt that you remember it)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 23, 2009, 10:40:29 AM
    http://christiananarchy.com/

    Just found out about this site (not mine) and at first I did not accept some of what they were saying but as read more of their explanation they made sense.  I still have some reservations about the "non-violent" aspect of their viewpoints, but I too, shun violence in most situations.  I simply do not rule out violence as every situation requires it's own evaluation.  Sometimes violence is called for.  Most situations can be defused and handled with non-violence. 

    If you give this site a chance to make their point, I think they do so very well and they use logic as well as the known (or accepted) teachings Christ as they relate to this fiction called "government" (which I believe to be the greatest EVIL in the universe...)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Ghost of Alex Libman on April 27, 2009, 07:52:03 PM
    So, this thread is behind the "Excellent Breasts (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=25507)" thread by 42 posts...  :lol:



    Oh, and ...

    ... here's what you append to all your forum posts if you want every person viewing them to hammer maqs.com for ~8MB of bandwidth: 

    (http://www.maqs.com/images/about_questions.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/about_vision.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/favicon.ico)(http://www.maqs.com/images/flags/Denmark.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/flags/Estonia.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/flags/Sweden.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/maqs_logo.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/menu_separator.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/office/denmark_outside.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/office/poland_outside.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/office/rotermanni_021.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/office/sweden_gothenburg_outside.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/office/sweden_malmoe_outside.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/office/sweden_stockholm_outside.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/103_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/105_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/106_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/107_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/109_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/110_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/111_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/113_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/114_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/115_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/116_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/117_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/118_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/119_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/11_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/121_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/122_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/123_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/127_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/128_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/129_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/12_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/132_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/133_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/13_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/14_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/150_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/153_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/156_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/159_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/163_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/164_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/167_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/172_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/175_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/176_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/183_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/18_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/195_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/197_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/205_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/206_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/207_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/20_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/212_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/213_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/21_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/223_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/225_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/226_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/233_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/235_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/23_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/246_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/249_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/24_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/256_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/257_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/258_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/25_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/264_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/267_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/268_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/269_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/26_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/270_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/271_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/277_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/279_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/27_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/280_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/281_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/284_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/285_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/28_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/291_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/292_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/293_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/295_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/297_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/298_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/304_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/305_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/30_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/311_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/312_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/314_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/315_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/316_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/31_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/322_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/323_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/325_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/327_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/328_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/329_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/330_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/333_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/343_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/348_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/349_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/34_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/350_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/351_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/352_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/353_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/354_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/355_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/356_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/36_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/375_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/376_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/37_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/384_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/386_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/388_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/389_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/391_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/393_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/395_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/396_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/397_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/401_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/403_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/413_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/414_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/415_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/416_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/419_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/421_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/422_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/423_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/424_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/425_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/42_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/430_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/432_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/434_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/436_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/437_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/44_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/45_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/46_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/48_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/49_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/54_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/55_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/56_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/57_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/58_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/59_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/60_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/61_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/62_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/64_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/65_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/67_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/69_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/70_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/73_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/74_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/76_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/77_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/78_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/79_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/80_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/81_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/82_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/83_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/84_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/85_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/87_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/88_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/90_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/91_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/95_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/96_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/98_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/redfade_left.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/startpage_enter.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/startpage_person.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/startpage_text.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/subpage_menutop.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/about_maqs_denmark.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/about_maqs_estonia.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/about_maqs_poland.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/about_maqs_sweden.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/archive.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/breaking_the_laws_styled.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/business_sectors.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/contact.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/Copenhagen.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/disclaimer.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/events.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/events_estonia.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/events_local.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/Gothenburg.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/legal_areas.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/local_news_denmark.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/local_news_estonia.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/local_news_sweden.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/Malmoe.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/maqs_denmark.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/maqs_estonia.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/maqs_poland.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/maqs_sverige.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/news.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/pictures_logos.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/press_service.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/publications.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/Stockholm.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/Tallinn.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/warsaw.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/what_differentiates.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/work_at_maqs.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/work_at_maqs_associates.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/work_at_maqs_students.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/work_at_maqs_support_staff.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/topimage1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/topimage_business_sectors.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/topimage_different.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/topimage_downloads.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/topimage_legal_areas.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/topimage_news.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/topimage_questions.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/topimage_vision.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/topimage_work_at_maqs.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/what_differentiates_1.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/what_differentiates_2.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/what_differentiates_3.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/what_differentiates_4.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/what_differentiates_5.gif)


    :twisted:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on April 27, 2009, 07:59:57 PM
    So, this thread is behind the "Excellent Breasts (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=25507)" thread by 42 posts...  :lol:

    shhhhhhh........ let the thread die quietly
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Ghost of Alex Libman on April 27, 2009, 08:00:41 PM
    Christian threads don't die.  They get resurrected after 3 days...

    :roll:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 28, 2009, 10:32:58 AM
    Has it been three days yet??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Ghost of Alex Libman on April 28, 2009, 10:38:27 AM
    *He's Risen'd*

    :roll:



    Oh, and ...

    ... here's what you append to all your forum posts if you want every person viewing them to hammer maqs.com for ~8MB of bandwidth: 

    (http://www.maqs.com/images/about_questions.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/about_vision.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/favicon.ico)(http://www.maqs.com/images/flags/Denmark.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/flags/Estonia.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/flags/Sweden.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/maqs_logo.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/menu_separator.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/office/denmark_outside.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/office/poland_outside.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/office/rotermanni_021.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/office/sweden_gothenburg_outside.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/office/sweden_malmoe_outside.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/office/sweden_stockholm_outside.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/103_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/105_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/106_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/107_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/109_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/110_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/111_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/113_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/114_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/115_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/116_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/117_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/118_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/119_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/11_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/121_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/122_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/123_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/127_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/128_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/129_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/12_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/132_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/133_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/13_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/14_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/150_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/153_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/156_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/159_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/163_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/164_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/167_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/172_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/175_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/176_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/183_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/18_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/195_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/197_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/205_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/206_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/207_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/20_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/212_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/213_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/21_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/223_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/225_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/226_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/233_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/235_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/23_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/246_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/249_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/24_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/256_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/257_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/258_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/25_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/264_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/267_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/268_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/269_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/26_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/270_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/271_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/277_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/279_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/27_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/280_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/281_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/284_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/285_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/28_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/291_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/292_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/293_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/295_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/297_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/298_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/304_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/305_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/30_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/311_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/312_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/314_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/315_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/316_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/31_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/322_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/323_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/325_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/327_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/328_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/329_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/330_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/333_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/343_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/348_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/349_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/34_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/350_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/351_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/352_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/353_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/354_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/355_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/356_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/36_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/375_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/376_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/37_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/384_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/386_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/388_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/389_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/391_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/393_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/395_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/396_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/397_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/401_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/403_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/413_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/414_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/415_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/416_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/419_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/421_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/422_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/423_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/424_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/425_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/42_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/430_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/432_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/434_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/436_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/437_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/44_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/45_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/46_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/48_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/49_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/54_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/55_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/56_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/57_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/58_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/59_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/60_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/61_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/62_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/64_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/65_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/67_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/69_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/70_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/73_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/74_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/76_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/77_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/78_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/79_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/80_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/81_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/82_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/83_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/84_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/85_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/87_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/88_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/90_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/91_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/95_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/96_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/persons/98_1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/redfade_left.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/startpage_enter.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/startpage_person.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/startpage_text.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/subpage_menutop.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/about_maqs_denmark.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/about_maqs_estonia.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/about_maqs_poland.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/about_maqs_sweden.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/archive.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/breaking_the_laws_styled.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/business_sectors.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/contact.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/Copenhagen.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/disclaimer.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/events.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/events_estonia.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/events_local.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/Gothenburg.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/legal_areas.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/local_news_denmark.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/local_news_estonia.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/local_news_sweden.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/Malmoe.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/maqs_denmark.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/maqs_estonia.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/maqs_poland.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/maqs_sverige.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/news.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/pictures_logos.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/press_service.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/publications.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/Stockholm.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/Tallinn.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/warsaw.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/what_differentiates.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/work_at_maqs.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/work_at_maqs_associates.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/work_at_maqs_students.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/titles/work_at_maqs_support_staff.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/topimage1.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/topimage_business_sectors.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/topimage_different.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/topimage_downloads.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/topimage_legal_areas.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/topimage_news.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/topimage_questions.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/topimage_vision.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/topimage_work_at_maqs.jpg)(http://www.maqs.com/images/what_differentiates_1.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/what_differentiates_2.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/what_differentiates_3.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/what_differentiates_4.gif)(http://www.maqs.com/images/what_differentiates_5.gif)


    :twisted:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on April 28, 2009, 11:59:14 AM

    NOOOOOOOO WHY ME JEBUS!!!!!


    Wait.... does that mean he can cure me genital herpes???? 

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 28, 2009, 06:33:35 PM
    I know you think it is "cute" to restate the common term for "Jeshua" which is "Jesus" as "Jebus" (everyone still following?) but it really is just as accurate as "Jesus" so you cuteness is really not that "cute"...

    As stated, the name really should be "Jeshua" or a variant close to that (really, who was there to tell us the exact pronunciation).  So stated any way you want, it is clear that the person (real historical person) you are referring to is the "Messiah", the "Chosen One".  The very fact that you are calling attention to Him validates His existence.  So in that regard even in your attempt to be demeaning, you have achieved the opposite...

    Thanks.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on April 28, 2009, 06:36:10 PM
    ugh yea sure and btw i was just quoting homer... oh wait who care? jebus, jesus, god, w/e and how does calling attention to something validate its existence? are the simpsons real cuz i mentioned homer?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 28, 2009, 06:40:10 PM
    New Heaven, New Earth: Anarchism and Christianity Beyond Empire

    Oh wow, I found this under a search on "Christian Anarchism"... In Memphis no less ... Maybe I will have to attend...


    http://www.jesusradicals.com/

    Posted on March 23rd, 2009 by by admin

    August 14 & 15, 2009

    Location
    Caritas Village
    2509 Harvard Avenue,
    Memphis, TN 38112

    The 2009 Jesus Radicals Anarchism and Christianity conference will look squarely at the various crises facing the globe—especially the financial and ecological crisis. An economic system based on unregulated, exponential, constant growth and that depends on wanton consumption is simply unsustainable. Similarly, destroying the irreplaceable gifts of creation as if our actions do not have consequences is surely a sign of madness. The question we face at this pivotal time of global turmoil is not if our human empires will fall apart, but when they will fall. And the question is how will we face it?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Ghost of Alex Libman on April 28, 2009, 06:44:26 PM
    I'm not speaking to you until you get the red out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visine) of your avatar flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism#Bisected_flags_and_stars).  Commie.  :roll:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 28, 2009, 06:48:06 PM
    I'm not speaking to you until you get the red out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visine) of your avatar flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism#Bisected_flags_and_stars).  Commie.  :roll:


    Bigot !!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on April 28, 2009, 06:58:25 PM
    The very fact that you are calling attention to Him validates His existence. 

    By that rationale, Mickey Mouse super-duper exists!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Ghost of Alex Libman on April 28, 2009, 07:10:46 PM
    Bugs Bunny exists more so.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 29, 2009, 10:39:15 PM
    The very fact that you are calling attention to Him validates His existence. 

    By that rationale, Mickey Mouse super-duper exists!

    No, Mickey Mouse has not been around for 2000 years and still "followed" (if you can even say that he is followed today).  The "validation" comes from the FACT that all of you keep trying to INVALIDATE the belief in Christ.  If Christ was truly a non-entity as so many of you claim, then certainly after 2000 years, he would have come to be no longer "in style" and he would be only mentioned in passing in some ancient religions class.  No, He is discussed daily throughout the world 2000 years after His death and resurrection.  THIS is what validates His existence.  Even the effort put in to trying to debunk Him does exactly the opposite.  How many ancient beliefs can claim a 2000 year lifespan?  I don't think the Egyptians or the Vulcans (not Spock) can claim to have a strong following after such time.  Confucianism is not really a belief in God but rather a very useful discipline that carries over to many belief systems.  Judaism is certainly able to make the claim to have such a long life, but then Christianity is related to it.  The only other one that can claim some length is Islam but it only numbers in the hundreds of years, not thousands.  And even with that, Muhammad is not discussed as frequently as Christ.  Islam is certainly growing, but the question is will it be around in another 500 or so years?  Who can say.

    THE POINT IS - The very fact that we are having this debate 2000 years hence shows that SOMETHING happened and SOMEONE did exist at that time that changed history forever...

    And each of you helps to continue the discussion....  Thank you...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Ghost of Alex Libman on April 29, 2009, 10:59:34 PM
    Leave chronological snobbery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery) to Jews and Hindus, Gene.

    And rocks.  Especially zircon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_rock), hallowed be its name.  :roll:

    And more prayer-minutes have been directed toward Allah.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rodeen on April 30, 2009, 12:19:38 AM
    The very fact that you are calling attention to Him validates His existence. 

    By that rationale, Mickey Mouse super-duper exists!

    No, Mickey Mouse has not been around for 2000 years and still "followed" (if you can even say that he is followed today).  The "validation" comes from the FACT that all of you keep trying to INVALIDATE the belief in Christ.  If Christ was truly a non-entity as so many of you claim, then certainly after 2000 years, he would have come to be no longer "in style" and he would be only mentioned in passing in some ancient religions class.  No, He is discussed daily throughout the world 2000 years after His death and resurrection.  THIS is what validates His existence.  Even the effort put in to trying to debunk Him does exactly the opposite.  How many ancient beliefs can claim a 2000 year lifespan?  I don't think the Egyptians or the Vulcans (not Spock) can claim to have a strong following after such time.  Confucianism is not really a belief in God but rather a very useful discipline that carries over to many belief systems.  Judaism is certainly able to make the claim to have such a long life, but then Christianity is related to it.  The only other one that can claim some length is Islam but it only numbers in the hundreds of years, not thousands.  And even with that, Muhammad is not discussed as frequently as Christ.  Islam is certainly growing, but the question is will it be around in another 500 or so years?  Who can say.

    THE POINT IS - The very fact that we are having this debate 2000 years hence shows that SOMETHING happened and SOMEONE did exist at that time that changed history forever...

    And each of you helps to continue the discussion....  Thank you...


    So, if I debated with you that 2+2 doesnt equal 5, you say the fact that I am debating this fact means that I am wrong.  That's fucked up son.....   Thank you....
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on April 30, 2009, 02:47:42 AM
    I know you think it is "cute" to restate the common term for "Jeshua" which is "Jesus" as "Jebus" (everyone still following?) but it really is just as accurate as "Jesus" so you cuteness is really not that "cute"...

    As stated, the name really should be "Jeshua" or a variant close to that (really, who was there to tell us the exact pronunciation).  So stated any way you want, it is clear that the person (real historical person) you are referring to is the "Messiah", the "Chosen One".  The very fact that you are calling attention to Him validates His existence.  So in that regard even in your attempt to be demeaning, you have achieved the opposite...

    Thanks.


    what about my genital herpes???????????????????????  he can cure all right???
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Russell Griswold on April 30, 2009, 05:24:58 PM
    The very fact that you are calling attention to Him validates His existence. 

    By that rationale, Mickey Mouse super-duper exists!

    No, Mickey Mouse has not been around for 2000 years and still "followed" (if you can even say that he is followed today).  The "validation" comes from the FACT that all of you keep trying to INVALIDATE the belief in Christ.  If Christ was truly a non-entity as so many of you claim, then certainly after 2000 years, he would have come to be no longer "in style" and he would be only mentioned in passing in some ancient religions class.  No, He is discussed daily throughout the world 2000 years after His death and resurrection.  THIS is what validates His existence.  Even the effort put in to trying to debunk Him does exactly the opposite.  How many ancient beliefs can claim a 2000 year lifespan?  I don't think the Egyptians or the Vulcans (not Spock) can claim to have a strong following after such time.  Confucianism is not really a belief in God but rather a very useful discipline that carries over to many belief systems.  Judaism is certainly able to make the claim to have such a long life, but then Christianity is related to it.  The only other one that can claim some length is Islam but it only numbers in the hundreds of years, not thousands.  And even with that, Muhammad is not discussed as frequently as Christ.  Islam is certainly growing, but the question is will it be around in another 500 or so years?  Who can say.

    THE POINT IS - The very fact that we are having this debate 2000 years hence shows that SOMETHING happened and SOMEONE did exist at that time that changed history forever...

    And each of you helps to continue the discussion....  Thank you...


    So, if I debated with you that 2+2 doesnt equal 5, you say the fact that I am debating this fact means that I am wrong.  That's fucked up son.....   Thank you....
    He's using some kind of an Armenian trickery there...

    In all seriousness... A while ago I came to a realization that Gene doesn't really want a debate, but instead just expects unquestionable agreement. He obviously believes all the crap that was fed to him over the years and that seems to make him happy. I honestly don't see any problems with this and I don't even care to argue with him anymore.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on April 30, 2009, 05:40:46 PM
    i find this thread humorous
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: JWI on April 30, 2009, 08:54:19 PM
    (http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/8088/protest.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: jeffersonish on April 30, 2009, 11:48:10 PM
    (http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/8088/protest.jpg)

    Just for grins, change the text to read, "FTL Rocks" and submit it as a Shriner.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 01, 2009, 06:21:16 PM
    The very fact that you are calling attention to Him validates His existence. 

    By that rationale, Mickey Mouse super-duper exists!

    No, Mickey Mouse has not been around for 2000 years and still "followed" (if you can even say that he is followed today).  The "validation" comes from the FACT that all of you keep trying to INVALIDATE the belief in Christ.  If Christ was truly a non-entity as so many of you claim, then certainly after 2000 years, he would have come to be no longer "in style" and he would be only mentioned in passing in some ancient religions class.  No, He is discussed daily throughout the world 2000 years after His death and resurrection.  THIS is what validates His existence.  Even the effort put in to trying to debunk Him does exactly the opposite.  How many ancient beliefs can claim a 2000 year lifespan?  I don't think the Egyptians or the Vulcans (not Spock) can claim to have a strong following after such time.  Confucianism is not really a belief in God but rather a very useful discipline that carries over to many belief systems.  Judaism is certainly able to make the claim to have such a long life, but then Christianity is related to it.  The only other one that can claim some length is Islam but it only numbers in the hundreds of years, not thousands.  And even with that, Muhammad is not discussed as frequently as Christ.  Islam is certainly growing, but the question is will it be around in another 500 or so years?  Who can say.

    THE POINT IS - The very fact that we are having this debate 2000 years hence shows that SOMETHING happened and SOMEONE did exist at that time that changed history forever...

    And each of you helps to continue the discussion....  Thank you...


    So, if I debated with you that 2+2 doesnt equal 5, you say the fact that I am debating this fact means that I am wrong. 

    No, we are talking about historical evidence and not mathematical.  The two are dealt with differently.  You cannot "observe" history nor "prove" it with repeatability.  You can only go by interpretation of what little evidence remains.  One of the "evidences" of past events is the impact on cultural norms.  Even this, is not absolute but merely shows a tendency to be true or false.  There are really no absolutes when discussing history unless you were a part of it and can explain what actually happened...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: HOO-HAA on May 04, 2009, 05:00:19 PM
    LOL! Good to see this thread rolling along!  :lol:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on May 04, 2009, 05:01:47 PM
    LOL! Good to see this thread rolling along!  :lol:

    Dude your avatar is hella disturding... its too ungodly for this thread.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rodeen on May 04, 2009, 06:44:55 PM
    The very fact that you are calling attention to Him validates His existence. 

    By that rationale, Mickey Mouse super-duper exists!

    No, Mickey Mouse has not been around for 2000 years and still "followed" (if you can even say that he is followed today).  The "validation" comes from the FACT that all of you keep trying to INVALIDATE the belief in Christ.  If Christ was truly a non-entity as so many of you claim, then certainly after 2000 years, he would have come to be no longer "in style" and he would be only mentioned in passing in some ancient religions class.  No, He is discussed daily throughout the world 2000 years after His death and resurrection.  THIS is what validates His existence.  Even the effort put in to trying to debunk Him does exactly the opposite.  How many ancient beliefs can claim a 2000 year lifespan?  I don't think the Egyptians or the Vulcans (not Spock) can claim to have a strong following after such time.  Confucianism is not really a belief in God but rather a very useful discipline that carries over to many belief systems.  Judaism is certainly able to make the claim to have such a long life, but then Christianity is related to it.  The only other one that can claim some length is Islam but it only numbers in the hundreds of years, not thousands.  And even with that, Muhammad is not discussed as frequently as Christ.  Islam is certainly growing, but the question is will it be around in another 500 or so years?  Who can say.

    THE POINT IS - The very fact that we are having this debate 2000 years hence shows that SOMETHING happened and SOMEONE did exist at that time that changed history forever...

    And each of you helps to continue the discussion....  Thank you...


    So, if I debated with you that 2+2 doesnt equal 5, you say the fact that I am debating this fact means that I am wrong. 

    No, we are talking about historical evidence and not mathematical.  The two are dealt with differently.  You cannot "observe" history nor "prove" it with repeatability.  You can only go by interpretation of what little evidence remains.  One of the "evidences" of past events is the impact on cultural norms.  Even this, is not absolute but merely shows a tendency to be true or false.  There are really no absolutes when discussing history unless you were a part of it and can explain what actually happened...


    Man, what do you think video is?   There is some serious cognitive dissidence issues at work here Gene.  There is no doG, there is no proof, there is only you.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 04, 2009, 10:16:32 PM
    The very fact that you are calling attention to Him validates His existence. 

    By that rationale, Mickey Mouse super-duper exists!

    No, Mickey Mouse has not been around for 2000 years and still "followed" (if you can even say that he is followed today).  The "validation" comes from the FACT that all of you keep trying to INVALIDATE the belief in Christ.  If Christ was truly a non-entity as so many of you claim, then certainly after 2000 years, he would have come to be no longer "in style" and he would be only mentioned in passing in some ancient religions class.  No, He is discussed daily throughout the world 2000 years after His death and resurrection.  THIS is what validates His existence.  Even the effort put in to trying to debunk Him does exactly the opposite.  How many ancient beliefs can claim a 2000 year lifespan?  I don't think the Egyptians or the Vulcans (not Spock) can claim to have a strong following after such time.  Confucianism is not really a belief in God but rather a very useful discipline that carries over to many belief systems.  Judaism is certainly able to make the claim to have such a long life, but then Christianity is related to it.  The only other one that can claim some length is Islam but it only numbers in the hundreds of years, not thousands.  And even with that, Muhammad is not discussed as frequently as Christ.  Islam is certainly growing, but the question is will it be around in another 500 or so years?  Who can say.

    THE POINT IS - The very fact that we are having this debate 2000 years hence shows that SOMETHING happened and SOMEONE did exist at that time that changed history forever...

    And each of you helps to continue the discussion....  Thank you...


    So, if I debated with you that 2+2 doesnt equal 5, you say the fact that I am debating this fact means that I am wrong. 

    No, we are talking about historical evidence and not mathematical.  The two are dealt with differently.  You cannot "observe" history nor "prove" it with repeatability.  You can only go by interpretation of what little evidence remains.  One of the "evidences" of past events is the impact on cultural norms.  Even this, is not absolute but merely shows a tendency to be true or false.  There are really no absolutes when discussing history unless you were a part of it and can explain what actually happened...


    Man, what do you think video is?   There is some serious cognitive dissidence issues at work here Gene.  There is no doG, there is no proof, there is only you.

    Even video is not absolute.  There are problems with camera angles, sound distortion, or even tampering with the images or audio.  It is pretty convincing, but it is still not 100%.  "History" is the interpretation of past events using the best method to determine those events.  The most common "evidence" used for determining past events is written testimony.  Less common is archaeological "evidence" which is also not 100%.  A shard of pottery could have come from a plate, or perhaps it was from a stool.  The "art work" on the pottery may be badly deteriorated and needs educational guesses as to how it properly fills in.  These are the variables that are inherent in the problem of figuring out what has happened in the past...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: rabidfurby on May 04, 2009, 11:01:36 PM
    Even video is not absolute.  There are problems with camera angles, sound distortion, or even tampering with the images or audio.  It is pretty convincing, but it is still not 100%.  "History" is the interpretation of past events using the best method to determine those events.  The most common "evidence" used for determining past events is written testimony.  Less common is archaeological "evidence" which is also not 100%.  A shard of pottery could have come from a plate, or perhaps it was from a stool.  The "art work" on the pottery may be badly deteriorated and needs educational guesses as to how it properly fills in.  These are the variables that are inherent in the problem of figuring out what has happened in the past...

    I think I see your point, Gene. The truth of a statement really depends only on how long ago the person who wrote it died. I don't understand why people are having such a hard time grasping that.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 05, 2009, 07:44:47 AM
    Even video is not absolute.  There are problems with camera angles, sound distortion, or even tampering with the images or audio.  It is pretty convincing, but it is still not 100%.  "History" is the interpretation of past events using the best method to determine those events.  The most common "evidence" used for determining past events is written testimony.  Less common is archaeological "evidence" which is also not 100%.  A shard of pottery could have come from a plate, or perhaps it was from a stool.  The "art work" on the pottery may be badly deteriorated and needs educational guesses as to how it properly fills in.  These are the variables that are inherent in the problem of figuring out what has happened in the past...

    I think I see your point, Gene. The truth of a statement really depends only on how long ago the person who wrote it died. I don't understand why people are having such a hard time grasping that.

    Oh yeah.  Since I just wrote this, it's true.  500 years from now it will not be true because it is old...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: hellbilly on May 06, 2009, 01:45:34 AM
    Oh yeah.  Since I just wrote this, it's true.  500 years from now it will not be true because it is old...

    This thread, and your weird logic explained in such half-assed ways in it, increases the stupidity level in this forum about a hundred fold.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rodeen on May 06, 2009, 11:14:27 AM
    Well this book isn't true cause it's old.   :D  Checkmate.

    (http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n287/xDragon_Ladyx/religious/Bible.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Cowcidile on May 06, 2009, 02:11:38 PM
    Why does the warning label mention undermining authority figures?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on May 06, 2009, 05:05:09 PM
    doesnt jesus undermine authority?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 06, 2009, 08:05:32 PM
    Oh yeah.  Since I just wrote this, it's true.  500 years from now it will not be true because it is old...

    This thread, and your weird logic explained in such half-assed ways in it, increases the stupidity level in this forum about a hundred fold.

    It's pretty obvious that you fail to detect the sarcasm...

    You will gain more wisdom as you age my son.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 06, 2009, 08:06:22 PM
    doesnt jesus undermine authority?

    Bingo !!  You win the prize...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 06, 2009, 08:07:57 PM
    Well this book isn't true cause it's old.   :D  Checkmate.


    Another one who can't detect sarcasm...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Cowcidile on May 06, 2009, 09:35:26 PM
    Well this book isn't true cause it's old.   :D  Checkmate.


    Another one who can't detect sarcasm...



    Are you saying the bible is bullshit?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 07, 2009, 08:15:09 AM
    No, I'm saying you are missing the point.  But then I think that is your purpose here.  You are not trying to make a point, you are just trying to be obnoxious...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Cowcidile on May 07, 2009, 10:08:36 AM
    No, I'm saying you are missing the point.  But then I think that is your purpose here.  You are not trying to make a point, you are just trying to be obnoxious...


    You have successfully confused me.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 07, 2009, 06:32:04 PM
    No, I'm saying you are missing the point.  But then I think that is your purpose here.  You are not trying to make a point, you are just trying to be obnoxious...


    You have successfully confused me.

    OK. In the event that you are truly confused, I will explain...

    First I had explained that "evidence" regarding historical events is mostly in the form of written testimony... 

    Rapidfurby then responds sarcastically that he "sees" my point (which was not my point) that the truth of a statement depends "only" on how long ago it was written (pay attention to the sarcasm here)...

    Then I respond to his sarcasm with my own sarcasm stating that what I had just written was true today but 500 years from now it will not be...

    Then you pick up the ball dropping all the sarcasm and try to use those statements to "checkmate" me with saying that the Bible cannot be true because it is old (which of course was RabidFurby's claim, not mine)...

    Your inference that I feel the Bible is not accurate simply because it is old is based on statements that were made with sarcasm towards the point made by another poster.   Now are you getting it or was I correct in my belief that you are not really interested in the points and are just posting to be "obnoxious"?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ziggy_encaoua on May 07, 2009, 06:47:29 PM
    I give it to you straight dude I think religion & religious dogma iis utter bollocks

    But if enslaving yourself to hokus pokus dogma gives you comfort fair enought hatever gives you comfort
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on May 07, 2009, 06:49:44 PM
    I give it to you straight dude I think religion & religious dogma iis utter bollocks

    But if enslaving yourself to hokus pokus dogma gives you comfort fair enought hatever gives you comfort

    BLASPHEMY!!!!!!!!! You are a sinner! and You will burn for eternity in hell!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ziggy_encaoua on May 07, 2009, 07:02:19 PM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DixnDjsEta0&feature=related
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Cowcidile on May 07, 2009, 11:17:42 PM
    No, I'm saying you are missing the point.  But then I think that is your purpose here.  You are not trying to make a point, you are just trying to be obnoxious...


    You have successfully confused me.

    OK. In the event that you are truly confused, I will explain...

    First I had explained that "evidence" regarding historical events is mostly in the form of written testimony... 

    Rapidfurby then responds sarcastically that he "sees" my point (which was not my point) that the truth of a statement depends "only" on how long ago it was written (pay attention to the sarcasm here)...

    Then I respond to his sarcasm with my own sarcasm stating that what I had just written was true today but 500 years from now it will not be...

    Then you pick up the ball dropping all the sarcasm and try to use those statements to "checkmate" me with saying that the Bible cannot be true because it is old (which of course was RabidFurby's claim, not mine)...

    Your inference that I feel the Bible is not accurate simply because it is old is based on statements that were made with sarcasm towards the point made by another poster.   Now are you getting it or was I correct in my belief that you are not really interested in the points and are just posting to be "obnoxious"?



    Right oh. I guess I am bad at reading sarcasm. It tends to work better when you can hear it.


    EXAMPLE


    [youtube=425,350]<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MjMYQyhjiYA&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0xcc2550&color2=0xe87a9f"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MjMYQyhjiYA&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0xcc2550&color2=0xe87a9f" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>[/youtube]



    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 08, 2009, 02:37:51 PM
    Sarcasm is a reality, you are a concept...   :D
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Cowcidile on May 08, 2009, 08:45:45 PM
    You are a concept I am a reality. I think therefore I am.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on May 08, 2009, 10:31:21 PM
    my perception is my reality.... gene doesnt exist he is just a government program made of 0's and 1's. Programmed to infiltrate the heart of libertarian society and corrupt all that is just and right.

    ps...

    Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker! w00t.

    Even though I dont agree with him or really care i think he's cool
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 11, 2009, 01:41:00 PM
    my perception is my reality.... gene doesnt exist he is just a government program made of 0's and 1's. Programmed to infiltrate the heart of libertarian society and corrupt all that is just and right.

    ps...

    Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker! w00t.

    Even though I dont agree with him or really care i think he's cool

     8)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on May 30, 2009, 02:48:23 PM
    Well this book isn't true cause it's old.   :D  Checkmate.

    (http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n287/xDragon_Ladyx/religious/Bible.jpg)

    WOW, I want that sticker as the kind you can't peel off anything... just to have a stack when I travel and stay in hotels. It would make my stay much more pleasant knowing I made an equal contribution to the room that the Gideons have.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 30, 2009, 06:46:11 PM
    Well this book isn't true cause it's old.   :D  Checkmate.

    (http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n287/xDragon_Ladyx/religious/Bible.jpg)

    WOW, I want that sticker as the kind you can't peel off anything... just to have a stack when I travel and stay in hotels. It would make my stay much more pleasant knowing I made an equal contribution to the room that the Gideons have.

    The sticker isn't completely objectionable.  I find some of it to be inaccurate but other parts of it I can agree with.  Certainly the part of verses "advocating" certain behavior is misleading.  In most instances, the verses simply reference such behavior and not "advocate" it so this is somewhat misleading.  As far as being "fiction", this is also not completely true.  I'm sure one can say that parts are but most of it is historical reference and has been proven to be quite accurate.

    With a little modification, I can certainly see how this sticker would be an excellent one to be placed on most "science" books of today.  Most of what passes as "science" is without a doubt fiction and is deceiving our young and leading to outright theft and murder.  I can cite numerous examples, if you like...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on May 30, 2009, 10:37:47 PM
    Religion being sensible? Anything that involves that much faith and hope and "just needing to believe" cannot possibly be the sensible answer. It could turn out to be the best one but surely it is not a sensible one.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: thersites on May 30, 2009, 10:40:49 PM
    Gene,

    I think I get where you're coming from. A few years ago, when I first came across FTL, I really wasn't interested in this thread-but looking at the History of states, and particularly "empires", I keep coming back to the Bible as a place for hope in challenging sectarian force. Especially the "render unto Caesar" statement about the Denarius-it don't mean pay yer taxes.

    I'm agnostic upon the whole concept of any supernatural entity(indeed, I think supernatural is impossible, since as soon as it is known, it will be natural), but it does seem certain that there was some big big mojo going on against Rome at the time of Christ, and indeed for several hundred years afterwords(til Constantine "saw" the Chi-Rho, and bought his army), and no matter if it was Jeshua ben Pantera,  or an amalgam of several people, they deserve respect-they were then on the side of freedom. No matter what happened afterwords. Don't blame Jesus for the profligracy of Constantine and the Church in later years. It is like blaming Jefferson for the federal government. Wrong guy.

    Rome was much more fearsome than Britain, so it is illogical to revere the "founding fathers" and reject Jesus and the Apostles, no matter whether you take them as secular rebels or supernatural beings-it was still heroic. It's too bad you get hit so hard, there is a compelling story there, that too many "open minded" folks seem willing to reject.

    By the way, are you familiar with the work of Morton Smith?  I've been caught up in his writings lately.

    Mike
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 31, 2009, 09:24:03 AM
    Gene,

    I think I get where you're coming from. A few years ago, when I first came across FTL, I really wasn't interested in this thread-but looking at the History of states, and particularly "empires", I keep coming back to the Bible as a place for hope in challenging sectarian force. Especially the "render unto Caesar" statement about the Denarius-it don't mean pay yer taxes.

    I'm agnostic upon the whole concept of any supernatural entity(indeed, I think supernatural is impossible, since as soon as it is known, it will be natural), but it does seem certain that there was some big big mojo going on against Rome at the time of Christ, and indeed for several hundred years afterwords(til Constantine "saw" the Chi-Rho, and bought his army), and no matter if it was Jeshua ben Pantera,  or an amalgam of several people, they deserve respect-they were then on the side of freedom. No matter what happened afterwords. Don't blame Jesus for the profligracy of Constantine and the Church in later years. It is like blaming Jefferson for the federal government. Wrong guy.

    Rome was much more fearsome than Britain, so it is illogical to revere the "founding fathers" and reject Jesus and the Apostles, no matter whether you take them as secular rebels or supernatural beings-it was still heroic. It's too bad you get hit so hard, there is a compelling story there, that too many "open minded" folks seem willing to reject.

    By the way, are you familiar with the work of Morton Smith?  I've been caught up in his writings lately.

    Mike

    An interesting viewpoint.  I had never thought of an example like your "blaming Jeffersion" one, but I may  steal it from you.  It's very good. 

    I do believe that Jesus as radical is accurate and certainly is something I agree with.  Paul was also quite radical and wound up in Roman jails more than once, beaten half to death, stood up to the phony "authorities" in defiance of the false "government" of the day.  All the freedom minded individuals should take some lessons from these people.  They stood their ground.  They claimed that the "authorities" had no authority.  They put their lives on the line and lost their lives for a greater cause.

    Of course the "render unto Caesar" quote is so misunderstood today that it is pathetic.  If the meaning of that statement was that you should pay taxes, then why not just say "hey, pay taxes"??  No, it was a way of defiance to the phony authorities that they were just too plain stupid to realize that they had just been had.

    Looked Morton Smith up on wiki.  Hadn't heard of him before now....
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 31, 2009, 09:28:17 AM
    Religion being sensible? Anything that involves that much faith and hope and "just needing to believe" cannot possibly be the sensible answer. It could turn out to be the best one but surely it is not a sensible one.

    I agree that "religion" is not usually "sensible".  I do not propose a religion but rather a seeking of truth in regard to our Creator.  I believe that this "truth" includes Christ as savior, but you can make up your own mind.  There is only ONE truth, we are just in disagreement as to what it is.  It is certain that all of us are wrong about most of what is true, but we hope that we are right about some of what is true...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on May 31, 2009, 01:52:26 PM
    well, at least Gene isn't using the anarchosyndicalist flag in his logo anymore.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rodeen on May 31, 2009, 02:11:27 PM
    Religion being sensible? Anything that involves that much faith and hope and "just needing to believe" cannot possibly be the sensible answer. It could turn out to be the best one but surely it is not a sensible one.

    I agree that "religion" is not usually "sensible".  I do not propose a religion but rather a seeking of truth in regard to our Creator.  I believe that this "truth" includes Christ as savior, but you can make up your own mind.  There is only ONE truth, we are just in disagreement as to what it is.  It is certain that all of us are wrong about most of what is true, but we hope that we are right about some of what is true...

    You claim there is a "creator". I would like you to prove your theory with the scientific method.  I doubt you can.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on May 31, 2009, 03:03:42 PM
    You can't prove something that is outside the laws of science. The creator is just that amazing.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rodeen on May 31, 2009, 03:06:46 PM
    You can't prove something that is outside the laws of science. The creator is just that amazing.

    Epic fail. 

    Oh, wait. Are you being sarcastic?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on May 31, 2009, 03:07:35 PM
    yea it's sarcasm
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on June 01, 2009, 03:39:27 PM
    well, at least Gene isn't using the anarchosyndicalist flag in his logo anymore.

    See, I evaluate every position of mine on a continual basis...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on June 01, 2009, 03:46:07 PM
    Religion being sensible? Anything that involves that much faith and hope and "just needing to believe" cannot possibly be the sensible answer. It could turn out to be the best one but surely it is not a sensible one.

    I agree that "religion" is not usually "sensible".  I do not propose a religion but rather a seeking of truth in regard to our Creator.  I believe that this "truth" includes Christ as savior, but you can make up your own mind.  There is only ONE truth, we are just in disagreement as to what it is.  It is certain that all of us are wrong about most of what is true, but we hope that we are right about some of what is true...

    You claim there is a "creator". I would like you to prove your theory with the scientific method.  I doubt you can.

    No, I've stated that I cannot.  I do not expect everyone to review the last 185 pages of this thread to see what has been stated but I have addressed this.  I have contrasted my position to the opposing position that "there is no God" and they are equal in credence.  Whatever your position, you have to make your decision based on your own observations and experience.  You can, however, evaluate the positions of others and see if they make sense to you.  This is the reason I share my viewpoint, to get others to think about their origins and the origin of this universe.  My claim that there is a Creator is based on my observation of nature and my understanding of the past.  We can certainly go into detail here on what my observation are that have convinced me there is a Creator...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: thersites on June 06, 2009, 02:00:20 PM
    "Looked Morton Smith up on wiki.  Hadn't heard of him before now...."

    I came across him while reading The Betrayal by Kathlen O'neal, and W. Michael Gear. Though fiction, they use footnote-fascinating story.

    Might be total BS of course, but still interesting.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on June 06, 2009, 02:14:53 PM
    well, at least Gene isn't using the anarchosyndicalist flag in his logo anymore.

    See, I evaluate every position of mine on a continual basis...

    ...or your use of it to begin with was just ANOTHER example of your ignorance...

    ...and the claim that your changing it was due to a REevaluation of ideology - just ANOTHER example of your dishonesty...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on June 07, 2009, 12:25:07 PM
    well, at least Gene isn't using the anarchosyndicalist flag in his logo anymore.

    See, I evaluate every position of mine on a continual basis...

    ...or your use of it to begin with was just ANOTHER example of your ignorance...

    ...and the claim that your changing it was due to a REevaluation of ideology - just ANOTHER example of your dishonesty...

    I've never claimed to have absolute knowledge of everything.  In fact, I will admit to ignorance on many subjects.  The history of "anarchist flags" is certainly one I'm not well-versed in and I was basing my decision 3 years ago when I made that first logo on wikipedia info that was perhaps not real accurate.  I have decided to change it because I have more information and I had the time to mess with it.  It was not a real high priority for me but I did finally get around to it. 

    So call me dishonest or call me whatever you want - just don't call me late to dinner...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Cowcidile on June 09, 2009, 01:53:06 AM
    ^ Late for dinner
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on June 09, 2009, 11:52:48 AM
    Christians: A group of people who think that finally grasping something after acquiring a new piece knowledge constitutes a reevaluation of a position... Even though ignorance prevented them from having a "position" in the first place.  

    Isn't that awesome...? Christians have positions on EVERYTHING. Even things they know nothing about and haven't even thought about...

    Garglesnorflat vs Tarkleshanks? Gene ALREADY decided which side he stood on for that issue years ago. Even though he's never really thought about garglesnorflats, and never heard of a tarkleshank... He's got a position - and when he learns about those tarkleshanks... well you can damn well bet he's continually evaluating his positions.


    In fact, he spends so much time evaluating his positions, it often makes poor Gene late to dinner.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on June 09, 2009, 06:02:21 PM
    ^ Late for dinner

    I SAID DON'T CALL ME THAT !!!   :!:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on June 09, 2009, 06:04:29 PM
    Christians: A group of people who think that finally grasping something after acquiring a new piece knowledge constitutes a reevaluation of a position... Even though ignorance prevented them from having a "position" in the first place. 

    Isn't that awesome...? Christians have positions on EVERYTHING. Even things they know nothing about and haven't even thought about...

    Garglesnorflat vs Tarkleshanks? Gene ALREADY decided which side he stood on for that issue years ago. Even though he's never really thought about garglesnorflats, and never heard of a tarkleshank... He's got a position - and when he learns about those tarkleshanks... well you can damn well bet he's continually evaluating his positions.


    In fact, he spends so much time evaluating his positions, it often makes poor Gene late to dinner.

    I am NEVER late for dinner and I have no ideal what Tarkelshanks or Garglesnorflats are so you win this round...   :lol:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on June 09, 2009, 06:25:19 PM
    Oh but I'm sure if you had somehow accidentally made a logo based on a Garglesnorflat, and then learned about Tarkleshanks... you'd have to demonstrate how open minded you are by reevaluating your "position" right?

    If Gene had been on time for dinner, he would have known that they were serving tarkleshanks with a garglesnorflat sauce last night... They announced it when the food was served...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on June 09, 2009, 06:37:54 PM
    Oh but I'm sure if you had somehow accidentally made a logo based on a Garglesnorflat, and then learned about Tarkleshanks... you'd have to demonstrate how open minded you are by reevaluating your "position" right?

    If Gene had been on time for dinner, he would have known that they were serving tarkleshanks with a garglesnorflat sauce last night... They announced it when the food was served...

    Johnson (piledriver of reason), you have a desire to be right on everything, don't you?  Hey guess what?  YOU ARE RIGHT !!!

    Now what?  pound your chest like a gorilla?

    I can't even determine what it is you are trying to prove here...  That I demonstrate my positions by my actions?  Don't we all?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on June 09, 2009, 06:51:55 PM
    endless thread never ends....
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on June 09, 2009, 07:20:54 PM
    Oh but I'm sure if you had somehow accidentally made a logo based on a Garglesnorflat, and then learned about Tarkleshanks... you'd have to demonstrate how open minded you are by reevaluating your "position" right?

    If Gene had been on time for dinner, he would have known that they were serving tarkleshanks with a garglesnorflat sauce last night... They announced it when the food was served...

    Johnson (piledriver of reason), you have a desire to be right on everything, don't you?  Hey guess what?  YOU ARE RIGHT !!!

    Now what?  pound your chest like a gorilla?

    I can't even determine what it is you are trying to prove here...  That I demonstrate my positions by my actions?  Don't we all?

    Just pointing out your little linguistic dishonesties. Since basically all religion (including strong atheism) is an act of fraud, it's not surprising that religious people tend to lie in many ways.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on June 09, 2009, 07:22:56 PM
    endless thread never ends....

    Yep, it's still going strong - http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=25507.msg546473;topicseen#new
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Jetfire on June 09, 2009, 08:35:52 PM
    at least excellent breasts are ahead... I would be sad if breasts lost to fairy tales.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on June 10, 2009, 06:41:03 PM
    Oh but I'm sure if you had somehow accidentally made a logo based on a Garglesnorflat, and then learned about Tarkleshanks... you'd have to demonstrate how open minded you are by reevaluating your "position" right?

    If Gene had been on time for dinner, he would have known that they were serving tarkleshanks with a garglesnorflat sauce last night... They announced it when the food was served...

    Johnson (piledriver of reason), you have a desire to be right on everything, don't you?  Hey guess what?  YOU ARE RIGHT !!!

    Now what?  pound your chest like a gorilla?

    I can't even determine what it is you are trying to prove here...  That I demonstrate my positions by my actions?  Don't we all?

    Just pointing out your little linguistic dishonesties. Since basically all religion (including strong atheism) is an act of fraud, it's not surprising that religious people tend to lie in many ways.

    I've never been a strong supporter of "religion".  Organized religion is another fiction, just like government.  It is truth regarding the Creator I seek.  I only present my findings along that journey.  Most "religions" would condemn me as a "heretic".  Perhaps not the Quakers though, so maybe I will have to try to find a Quaker meeting around here...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on June 10, 2009, 06:42:33 PM
    endless thread never ends....

    Yep, it's still going strong - http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=25507.msg546473;topicseen#new

    Hey, the Christian Anarchist has nothing against breasts... In fact, we would have far less problems if everyone just walked around nude...  (like we were created)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 15, 2009, 06:25:53 PM
    In my travels around the internet, I find this to be interesting as pertaining to Christian Anarchy.  Of course Eller is one of the modern reformers and teachers in this area so I wanted to provide this link for any who wish to do some study into the idea of "Christian Anarchy" (and yes, I know that many here do not wish to, this is not addressed to those).

    http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/

    I do not agree with the way the writer addresses the term "government" as I have pointed out that there is no such thing.  I would have used the term "fiction called government", but that's just me I guess...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Russell Griswold on July 15, 2009, 08:34:38 PM
    endless thread never ends....

    Yep, it's still going strong - http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=25507.msg546473;topicseen#new

    Hey, the Christian Anarchist has nothing against breasts... In fact, we would have far less problems if everyone just walked around nude...  (like we were created)...

    Are we referring to ourselves in third person now?  :lol:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Terror Australis on July 15, 2009, 11:30:30 PM
     Jesus taught and lived by principles diametrically opposed to government and taxes. If that is true, then those who would live their lives according to the principles Jesus taught will neither collect, receive, nor voluntarily pay taxes, nor be involved with the state in any way that can possibly be avoided.
    Although Jesus died of his own volition in compliance with his Father's will in order to save mankind from sin, which may be the most important fact to know about Jesus,  it is likely and eminently logical to believe that Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus for teaching his disciples that taxation is condemned by God's commandment, Thou shalt not steal. Pilate obviously didn't kill Jesus to save mankind from sin, although Jesus died for that purpose. Did he die to save us from taxes? If taxes are sinful because they violate God's Commandment, it follows as night follows day that indeed he did.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on July 16, 2009, 06:18:38 AM
    Oh but I'm sure if you had somehow accidentally made a logo based on a Garglesnorflat, and then learned about Tarkleshanks... you'd have to demonstrate how open minded you are by reevaluating your "position" right?

    If Gene had been on time for dinner, he would have known that they were serving tarkleshanks with a garglesnorflat sauce last night... They announced it when the food was served...

    Johnson (piledriver of reason), you have a desire to be right on everything, don't you?  Hey guess what?  YOU ARE RIGHT !!!

    Now what?  pound your chest like a gorilla?

    I can't even determine what it is you are trying to prove here...  That I demonstrate my positions by my actions?  Don't we all?

    Just pointing out your little linguistic dishonesties. Since basically all religion (including strong atheism) is an act of fraud, it's not surprising that religious people tend to lie in many ways.

    As an atheist, I resent that! Yes; Atheism is one of my religions.

    A person who has no religion is a cynic and probably a nihilist; not the type of person I would be inclined to trust.

    Just because there are dogmatic, fraudulent or sincere, but misguided, religions, that doesn't mean that religion can't also be a devotion to some ideal, moral principle or philosophy that's non-dogmatic, i.e., falsifiable.

    You have fallen victim to the theological premise, (that theology is the only possible kind of religion), in the same way that libertarians have fallen victim to the statist premise, (that the state is the only possible form of government).

    These premises have empowered both theology and the state for too long. They must die!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on July 16, 2009, 08:14:59 AM
    Sometimes people, especially theologists, like to claim that atheism is a religion, out of a mistaken notion that a religion is defined as ANY belief whatsoever. But, that is incorrect--at least, according to my dictionary. My dictionary defines "religion" as "A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny." Second definition: "An institution to express belief in a divine power."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on July 16, 2009, 08:57:36 AM
    Sometimes people, especially theologists, like to claim that atheism is a religion, out of a mistaken notion that a religion is defined as ANY belief whatsoever. But, that is incorrect--at least, according to my dictionary. My dictionary defines "religion" as "A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny." Second definition: "An institution to express belief in a divine power."

    All dictionary definitions are not the truth. They are a listing of meanings that people rightly or wrongly ascribe to words. The examples that you quote are religions, but they aren't the general definition. The general definition is the only one that can be logically correct. The other ones, even if they're more popular are still incorrect, because they exclude the other possibilities. Only the general definition includes all religions.

    If, in some future time, the number one definition of religion became Islam, would that mean all other theologies were no longer religions?

    The dictionary also gives the first definition of "cat" as the domestic cat or house cat. This is false. If this was the most truthful definition, then you should "correct" me, as you did above, if I claim that a tiger is a cat.

    Saying that a cat is a house cat, a cat is a tiger, religion is theological or that religion is atheism are all false statements, regardless of how popular these definitions may be.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 16, 2009, 09:43:18 PM
    Sometimes people, especially theologists, like to claim that atheism is a religion, out of a mistaken notion that a religion is defined as ANY belief whatsoever. But, that is incorrect--at least, according to my dictionary. My dictionary defines "religion" as "A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny." Second definition: "An institution to express belief in a divine power."

    Which is why "government" fits the definition of "religion".  People "salute" the flag which is a representation of the "power" that is "believed" to exist for the "benefit" of the "members" (citizens)...

    Of course many see that there just a little man behind the curtain.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on July 16, 2009, 09:58:25 PM
    Sometimes people, especially theologists, like to claim that atheism is a religion, out of a mistaken notion that a religion is defined as ANY belief whatsoever. But, that is incorrect--at least, according to my dictionary. My dictionary defines "religion" as "A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny." Second definition: "An institution to express belief in a divine power."

    All dictionary definitions are not the truth. They are a listing of meanings that people rightly or wrongly ascribe to words. The examples that you quote are religions, but they aren't the general definition. The general definition is the only one that can be logically correct. The other ones, even if they're more popular are still incorrect, because they exclude the other possibilities. Only the general definition includes all religions.

    The whole idea of a dictionary is to describe the general use of words. In any case, when I use words, I try to stick to the dictionary definition. Otherwise, the meaning becomes whatever someone with an agenda SAYS it is.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Terror Australis on July 16, 2009, 11:55:53 PM
    If you believe that the law actually cares about you is this considered a "religion".
    Sometimes the right word to use is "delusion"

     8)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Terror Australis on July 17, 2009, 12:00:58 AM
    de⋅lu⋅sion
      /dɪˈluʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-loo-zhuhn] Show IPA
    Use delusion in a Sentence
    –noun
    1.    an act or instance of deluding.
    2.    the state of being deluded.
    3.    a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
    4.    Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
    Origin:
    1375–1425; late ME < L dēlūsiōn- (s. of dēlūsiō), equiv. to dēlūs(us) (ptp. of dēlūdere; see delude ) + -iōn- -ion

    Related forms:
    de⋅lu⋅sion⋅al, de⋅lu⋅sion⋅ar⋅y, adjective

    Synonyms:
    1. deception. See illusion.


    People have a belief that the state has power thus the state is a delusion.......religion is just another organised delusion.

    Cats cannot be religious and dont form states thus they are more intelligent than humans lol
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on July 17, 2009, 02:22:44 AM
    Sometimes people, especially theologists, like to claim that atheism is a religion, out of a mistaken notion that a religion is defined as ANY belief whatsoever. But, that is incorrect--at least, according to my dictionary. My dictionary defines "religion" as "A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny." Second definition: "An institution to express belief in a divine power."

    All dictionary definitions are not the truth. They are a listing of meanings that people rightly or wrongly ascribe to words. The examples that you quote are religions, but they aren't the general definition. The general definition is the only one that can be logically correct. The other ones, even if they're more popular are still incorrect, because they exclude the other possibilities. Only the general definition includes all religions.

    The whole idea of a dictionary is to describe the general use of words. In any case, when I use words, I try to stick to the dictionary definition. Otherwise, the meaning becomes whatever someone with an agenda SAYS it is.

    In effect, you are claiming that logic and reality are subject to the winner of an opinion poll.

    The order in which definitions are listed is only a reflection of popularity in usage. The definition that I use is the correct one because it encompasses all the other definitions. In logic, a concept is not defined by its particulars. It's that which all the particulars have in common that defines the concept.

    If you define a car as a 1955 Chevy convertible, then you have committed the same fallacy as your claim that theology is religion.

    If enough people commit a logical fallacy in their usage of a word, then it becomes definition #1, but educated people are still allowed to avoid these common misconceptions. That's why the proper definition is still listed.

    When you allow the corruption of words to corrupt the way you think, then you mentally become enslaved to the misconceptions and delusions of the masses.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on July 17, 2009, 02:32:43 AM
    I posted this on another thread. One of the implications is that anarchism is more compatible with primitive theology than the Christian religion.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To the primitive mind the universe seemed inexplicably chaotic. To explain this Man invented capricious spirits, demons and gods. This was a fiat universe, where reality was subject to the decree of the deities that were imagined to exist.

    As early philosophy and science began to develop, men began to discover underlying principles to how the world worked, or the beginnings of universal law. Theology, too, began to evolve along with this new perspective. Now the gods were replaced with one God and his universal law( God's Law) to which even God, claims of his omnipotence to the contrary, was subject. God became the anthropomorphization of universal law. Now the world as seen by both the scientist and the theist is one of rich infinitely complex beauty and order, that is governed by the underlying principles of universal law.

    So Man's perception of the universe evolved from that of an anarchic chaos subject to the caprice of deities, to the modern view of the universe as ordered complexity through the government of immutable universal law.

    Government versus anarchy is not merely a political issue, but, more broadly, it's an ontological one.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 18, 2009, 10:35:24 AM
    I posted this on another thread. One of the implications is that anarchism is more compatible with primitive theology than the Christian religion.


    It seems to me that anarchy is very compatible with Christianity and may even be basic to it (it is with me anyway).  Christ, Paul, John the baptist, etc. were all pretty much "anarchist" as pertains to earthly "governments".  Even the few places where (primarily Paul) wrote that seem to indicate some kind of acceptance of this concept of "government", can be easily taken in a different light which I feel is the correct understanding - that the "powers" spoken of are Godly powers and not those of "government".  I have shown many times where this thing called "government" is nothing more than a cult with all the trimmings of a cult and indeed is the worst of all cults resulting in the deaths and imprisonment of billions of people (not to mention all the fortunes stolen)...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on July 19, 2009, 03:15:15 AM
    I posted this on another thread. One of the implications is that anarchism is more compatible with primitive theology than the Christian religion.


    It seems to me that anarchy is very compatible with Christianity and may even be basic to it (it is with me anyway).  Christ, Paul, John the baptist, etc. were all pretty much "anarchist" as pertains to earthly "governments".  Even the few places where (primarily Paul) wrote that seem to indicate some kind of acceptance of this concept of "government", can be easily taken in a different light which I feel is the correct understanding - that the "powers" spoken of are Godly powers and not those of "government".  I have shown many times where this thing called "government" is nothing more than a cult with all the trimmings of a cult and indeed is the worst of all cults resulting in the deaths and imprisonment of billions of people (not to mention all the fortunes stolen)...

    You are confusing "government" with "the state".

    Do you govern your own life? Does that make you a state?

    Isn't your voluntary participation in groups that govern the action of its members also an act of self government? Do these groups have to be states?

    If you enter into a voluntary agreement with other people to govern some aspect of your actions regarding some purpose, be it a business enterprise or a civil organization of mutual defense, then aren't you a principle or client of a governmental agency that is not necessarily a state?

    A state is simply a form of civil government that institutionalizes aggression. Why would you believe that aggression is the only way to govern? The free market is just voluntary government in action. Why couldn't non-monopolistic free enterprise serve as a model for civil governmental agencies that judge disputes and provide for defense and protective services in the competitive marketplace?

    It's to the great advantage of the statists that so many people, including the enemies of the state, believe that the state is the only possible form of civil governance. This mindset is responsible for the fact that most supporters of liberty regard the state as a necessary evil. There is no such thing as a necessary evil. It's only a fallacy that's based upon a misconception that causes people to conclude that since government is a requirement of civilized society, then institutionalized aggression is too. This ignores the fact that the concept of government contains nothing that's inherently evil, but that only certain forms of government do.

    If you understood this, then you would change your name to "ChristianVoluntaryist" or something along those lines.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 19, 2009, 01:39:27 PM
    I see "state" and "government" as one.  Sure the root word is "govern" and the definitions apply to our everyday lives but when refering to "government" you are talking about a noun.   This fictional thing called "government" is the same as the fictional thing called "state".  Neither have any real authority.  The "cult members" who believe in them however, will harm you if you question their imagined authority.

    It may surprise you that I reject the "non-aggression principal".  Although I am a peace-loving child of God, I do believe there are times when you are justified with using the sword offencively.  Of course I believe that one always has the right to self-defence (even though it may not always be the wisest choice).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on July 20, 2009, 01:43:51 AM
    Quote
    I see "state" and "government" as one. 

    That's how the statists wish you to see them, ("as one") even though it's irrational to do so.

    Quote
    Sure the root word is "govern" and the definitions apply to our everyday lives but when referring to "government" you are talking about a noun. 
     

    Whether as a noun or a verb, there are different varieties of government. The state may be a monopolistic form of government, but it doesn't have a monopoly over the concept of government.

    Quote
    This fictional thing called "government" is the same as the fictional thing called "state".  Neither have any real authority.
     

    The moral authority of legitimate government is based upon the consent of the governed. The "moral authority" of the state is based upon an irrational, anti-human morality that is supported by dogmatic beliefs.

    Quote
    The "cult members" who believe in them however, will harm you if you question their imagined authority.

    If you question my authority to rule my own life within the limits of the nonaggression principle, I won't try to harm you, but you'll get a scolding. If you try to actually interfere with my legitimate authority, I will try to defend myself with coercion and/or force.

    Quote
    I do believe there are times when you are justified with using the sword offencively.

    Then you are not even a voluntaryist. You should call yourself either "ChristianStatist" or "ChristianMinarchist".
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 20, 2009, 09:40:46 AM
    1.  Saying there are "different varieties of government" is saying there are different varieties of fiction...

    2.  If you claim that "government" has "moral authority" based on the "consent of the governed" --  I DO NOT CONSENT !!

    3.  You have absolute "authority" over your life and I certainly would not interfer with it...

    4.  I have never applied the term "voluntaryist" to my life..  you stated in a prior post that I should call myself that, I do not accept that label.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on July 21, 2009, 07:00:39 AM
    Quote
    1.  Saying there are "different varieties of government" is saying there are different varieties of fiction...

    The general meaning of "government" is control. Are all forms of control the same? If government is a fiction, then why do you care if it exists or not? It's anarchy that is a fiction. Even in the case of the anarchy that results from the failure of the state, you still have individuals and small groups who govern their actions amid the chaos.

    Quote
    2.  If you claim that "government" has "moral authority" based on the "consent of the governed"

    No. I didn't say that! Not all government is based upon the consent of the governed, but in order for for a government to be legitimate, it's a requirement.
    Quote

     --  I DO NOT CONSENT !!

    In a voluntaryist society you are not required to consent to any kind of contract or organization. You can live as a hermit if you wish, but you will have to defend your rights against people or organizations that can easily overwhelm you in a dispute.

    Quote
    3.  You have absolute "authority" over your life and I certainly would not interfere with it...

    Wrong! I don't have the moral authority to commit aggression.

    Quote
    4.  I have never applied the term "voluntaryist" to my life..  you stated in a prior post that I should call myself that, I do not accept that label.

    I already said that since you believe in limited aggression, that makes you a limited statist or a minarchist. If you have a better term to describe yourself, then be my guest, but if you insist on "anarchist", then you're not being honest. Statism only causes an increase in anarchy, but is not identical to it.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 21, 2009, 12:21:26 PM
    Statism only causes an increase in anarchy, but is not identical to it.


    You are just trying to pull my chain now aren't you?  You can't be serious...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 21, 2009, 03:21:05 PM
    A good link to reading material on Christian Anarchy... (although I don't agree with all of it)

    http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/

    Now to continue responding-

    Quote
    1.  Saying there are "different varieties of government" is saying there are different varieties of fiction...

    The general meaning of "government" is control. Are all forms of control the same? If government is a fiction, then why do you care if it exists or not? It's anarchy that is a fiction. Even in the case of the anarchy that results from the failure of the state, you still have individuals and small groups who govern their actions amid the chaos.
    Govern certainly does mean "control" but again, "government" is a different animal and total fiction.  Sure, I can "govern" myself.  Together I can associate with a like-minded group to accomplish a stated task (contract).  If this is what you are calling "government" then certainly one can freely make contract with others to the benefit of all involved.  This is not what I am referring to as the fiction and I think you know that.  The "fiction" is this pie-in-the-sky idea that some "thing" called the "USA" (or insert your favorite fiction here) has a LEGITIMATE authority to force me into anything.  I did not contract for any benefit nor obligation to this fiction and neither did you.  There are certainly a bunch of men with guns who BELIEVE that there is some obligation for me to perform some function (like pay taxes) and they are willing to hurt me if I don't, but that does not make them legitimate, it only makes them thugs...

    Quote
    Quote
    2.  If you claim that "government" has "moral authority" based on the "consent of the governed"

    No. I didn't say that! Not all government is based upon the consent of the governed, but in order for for a government to be legitimate, it's a requirement.

    If it's a requirement for them to be legitimate that I consent, then I DO NOT CONSENT !!!   There.  Now they are illegitimate...
    Quote
    Quote
    --  I DO NOT CONSENT !!
    Quote
    In a voluntaryist society you are not required to consent to any kind of contract or organization. You can live as a hermit if you wish, but you will have to defend your rights against people or organizations that can easily overwhelm you in a dispute.

    Which is why I can contract with like minded individuals to provide a means of protection.
    Quote

    Quote
    3.  You have absolute "authority" over your life and I certainly would not interfere with it...

    Wrong! I don't have the moral authority to commit aggression.

    No argument here...
    Quote

    Quote
    4.  I have never applied the term "voluntaryist" to my life..  you stated in a prior post that I should call myself that, I do not accept that label.

    I already said that since you believe in limited aggression, that makes you a limited statist or a minarchist. If you have a better term to describe yourself, then be my guest, but if you insist on "anarchist", then you're not being honest.


    Sorry, no.  I do not fit into the "statist" or "minarchist" category (but I'm sure you feel that I do)...
    Anarchist is the correct term as I reject all forms of "government".  I don't know how I can be any more clear.  I do, however, address this "easter bunny" idea to those who are not ready to believe the truth as if it really exists in order to bring them closer to the truth.  For instance, I will tell people (easter bunny believers) that we must "audit the fed" (and I love Dr. Ron Paul) for the simple reason that they will (if successful in passing their bill) find that through smoke and mirrors, certain powerful MEN have stolen very real property from billions of very real people through manipulation of numbers on a page...

    Once people see these nasty men for what they really are, they will come closer to the realization that there IS NO AUTHORITY CALLED "GOVERNMENT".  There are only little men hiding behind curtains pulling levers trying to scare everyone into giving up some of their hard earned property...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on July 22, 2009, 12:22:42 AM
    Statism only causes an increase in anarchy, but is not identical to it.


    You are just trying to pull my chain now aren't you?  You can't be serious...


    Read my signature.

    Quote
    As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

    Do you think I put it there just to pull your chain?

    The free market, to whatever extent it exists, is nothing more than voluntary self government. Even when large organizations of individuals are formed, if they are voluntary in nature, then, by definition, they require the voluntary consent of every client or principle that involves himself. This involvement is an act of self government for every individual who does so.

    It is the free market or voluntary governmental organizations that the state limits or destroys and, in so doing, the state destroys the peaceful order of civilized life, bringing uncertainty, fear and the destruction of good will engendered by the opportunity for mutual profit though voluntary cooperation in the marketplace.

    The arbitrary decrees of the state amount to the rule of disorder. One time friends, neighbors and associates become envious rivals that fight over the scraps leftover from what the state has plundered and rivals over monopoly privileges granted by a divisive state as patronage to its supporters.

    The fiat laws of fiat government act as the catalyst for the destruction of legitimate government and , eventually, as the state increases the level of anarchy though destruction of the civilized order upon which it parasitically feeds, the failure of the state itself as it implodes into chaos or what is commonly known as a state of anarchy.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on July 22, 2009, 06:25:47 AM
    A good link to reading material on Christian Anarchy... (although I don't agree with all of it)

    http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/

    I took a peek at the begining where I presumed Vernard Eller would define his terms. I was pleasantly surprised to see this:

    Quote
    For us, then, "arky" identifies any principle of governance claiming to be of primal value for society. "Government" (that which is determined to govern  human action and events) is a good synonym--as long as we are clear, that political arkys are far from being the only "governments" around. Not at all; churches, schools, philosophies, social standards, peer pressures, fads and fashions, advertising, planning techniques, psychological and sociological theories--all are arkys out to govern us.

    But then he makes the fatal mistake of swallowing whole, a variation of the statist premise that poisons our language to favor statism and discredit the free market. This premise is that the only possible form of government is the state.

    Since it's clear from the quote above that he understands this to be false, a reasonable person would think that he would then reject the state in favor these other forms of government, with the proviso that they govern strictly in accordance with voluntary consent. But no! Instead he insists that voluntary consent is impossible; that all businesses and organizations in the market, even philosophies and theories, gain their influence through imposition. This sounds all too much like the communists and socialists claim that people are slaves to the free market, or that freedom is slavery.

    Quote
    Obviously, the idea of "power" goes hand in hand with "arky"; the two are inseparable. Indeed, every time Paul uses "arky" in the sense of "principalities," he couples it with one of the Greek "power" words. Yet regarding both "power" and "arky" we must make a crucial specification: we are always supposing a power or a government that is imposed upon its constituency. It is, of course, proper to speak of, say, "the power of love." Yet this is power in an entirely different sense of the word in that it carries no hint of imposition at all. Looking only at the phrase itself; "the kingdom of God" would appear to be an "arky" no different from the others. Yet we will come to see that this is not so. When Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world," he was saying that, although all worldly arkys have to be impositional, his is radically different in that it does not have to be--and in fact is not.

    And the following is the most damning of all:

    Quote
    Consequently, for secular anarchists the solution is "autonomy"--the self being a law unto itself (which is what we customarily have understood "anarchy" to be). However, Christianity contends that autonomy is simply another form of heteronomy, that to use my own self-image as the arky governing myself is actually to impose a heteronomous arky upon me. The assumption that I am the one who best knows myself and knows what is best for myself is to forget that I am a creature (a sinful creature, even) and that there is a Creator who, being my Creator (and also being somewhat smarter than I am), knows me much better than I ever can know myself.

    Amazingly, he is truly an anarchist, even by my understanding of the word "anarchy", with which he clearly agrees. To do so, though, he rejects self ownership as the tyranny of the self over the "virtue" of unthinking, abject submission to God's rules, as set forth, I presume, in a book.

     
    Quote
    Sure, I can "govern" myself.  Together I can associate with a like-minded group to accomplish a stated task (contract).  If this is what you are calling "government" then certainly one can freely make contract with others to the benefit of all involved.  This is not what I am referring to as the fiction and I think you know that.
     

    Actually; my understanding of "government" is identical to that of Vernard Eller. There are all kinds of government. What may have you confused is the idea of civil government, as opposed to the government of a manufacturing company or the government of a sports league. What you fail to grasp is that there is no reason that an agency of civil government cannot be operated as any other enterprise that competes for clients and employees with other similar enterprises in a free market.

    Quote
    The "fiction" is this pie-in-the-sky idea that some "thing" called the "USA" (or insert your favorite fiction here) has a LEGITIMATE authority to force me into anything.  I did not contract for any benefit nor obligation to this fiction and neither did you.  There are certainly a bunch of men with guns who BELIEVE that there is some obligation for me to perform some function (like pay taxes) and they are willing to hurt me if I don't, but that does not make them legitimate, it only makes them thugs...

    Yes. One fiction is that the state is legitimate, by any standard other than the state's own arbitrary decree.

    The bigger fiction is that the state is the only possible model for government and, hence, a necessary evil. There is no such thing as a necessary evil.

    Quote
    In a voluntaryist society you are not required to consent to any kind of contract or organization. You can live as a hermit if you wish, but you will have to defend your rights against people or organizations that can easily overwhelm you in a dispute.

    Quote
    Which is why I can contract with like minded individuals to provide a means of protection.

    If you have agreed for your involvement with this organization to be governed by the rules of this contract, assuming the contract forbids the use of aggressive force or coercion, then you are involved with voluntary civil government.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 24, 2009, 09:11:20 PM
    Statism only causes an increase in anarchy, but is not identical to it.


    You are just trying to pull my chain now aren't you?  You can't be serious...


    Read my signature.

    Quote
    As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

    Do you think I put it there just to pull your chain?

    The free market, to whatever extent it exists, is nothing more than voluntary self government. Even when large organizations of individuals are formed, if they are voluntary in nature, then, by definition, they require the voluntary consent of every client or principle that involves himself. This involvement is an act of self government for every individual who does so.


    You are talking about contract now and certainly one has the right to enter into contract with others.  If you want to call your contract "government", be my guest.  Just don't expect me to accept that term for myself.  I recognize these as contracts and any obligation under these contracts are the business of the parties who have entered into the contract.  I will address any contract that I have signed onto as a party thereto.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 24, 2009, 09:27:48 PM
    If you have agreed for your involvement with this organization to be governed by the rules of this contract, assuming the contract forbids the use of aggressive force or coercion, then you are involved with voluntary civil government.


    Again, I do not "forbid" any such thing.  If I did, then I would be accepting your "values" over mine and that would be a form of arky.  I will not accept your restriction on my life and I don't expect you to accept any restriction from me. 

    I do not intend to quote all of your argument above as I can address all of it by pointing out one area where I disagree with your premise.  I disagree that there ever can be or ever has been anything called "government" and indeed, we all do live in "anarchy" at all times.  You see everyone already lives by only their own rules.  I can show this by simply asking you two questions (and presuppose your answer to the first one). 

    1.  Who's rules do you live by?  Your own or someone else's?

    (If you answer your own rules, then you are an anarchist and you live in anarchy - if you answer "someone else" then you need to address the following)

    2.  Who made the decision for you to follow this other entity's rules?

    So you see we all decide to follow our own "rules" even if the "rules" that are "ours" were stolen or adopted from another source...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: rabidfurby on July 24, 2009, 09:31:32 PM
    This could go on for years.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on July 25, 2009, 04:19:12 AM
    Statism only causes an increase in anarchy, but is not identical to it.


    You are just trying to pull my chain now aren't you?  You can't be serious...


    Read my signature.

    Quote
    As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

    Do you think I put it there just to pull your chain?

    The free market, to whatever extent it exists, is nothing more than voluntary self government. Even when large organizations of individuals are formed, if they are voluntary in nature, then, by definition, they require the voluntary consent of every client or principle that involves himself. This involvement is an act of self government for every individual who does so.


    You are talking about contract now and certainly one has the right to enter into contract with others.  If you want to call your contract "government", be my guest.  Just don't expect me to accept that term for myself.  I recognize these as contracts and any obligation under these contracts are the business of the parties who have entered into the contract.  I will address any contract that I have signed onto as a party thereto.


    Your argument amounts to: "Since I hate the word government, then I will use synonyms and euphemisms for the word government if it refers to any of its legitimate forms".
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on July 25, 2009, 04:42:20 AM
    If you have agreed for your involvement with this organization to be governed by the rules of this contract, assuming the contract forbids the use of aggressive force or coercion, then you are involved with voluntary civil government.


    Quote
    Again, I do not "forbid" any such thing.  If I did, then I would be accepting your "values" over mine and that would be a form of arky.  I will not accept your restriction on my life and I don't expect you to accept any restriction from me. 

    If you are involved in such an organization, then you are, indeed, involved in an "arky".

    Quote
    I do not intend to quote all of your argument above as I can address all of it by pointing out one area where I disagree with your premise.  I disagree that there ever can be or ever has been anything called "government" and indeed, we all do live in "anarchy" at all times.  You see everyone already lives by only their own rules.  I can show this by simply asking you two questions (and presuppose your answer to the first one). 

    1.  Who's rules do you live by?  Your own or someone else's?

    (If you answer your own rules, then you are an anarchist and you live in anarchy - if you answer "someone else" then you need to address the following)

    2.  Who made the decision for you to follow this other entity's rules?

    So you see we all decide to follow our own "rules" even if the "rules" that are "ours" were stolen or adopted from another source...

    You have the right to agree to abide by the rules of a voluntary (non-aggressive) organization. Your right to do so comes from your right to self government.

    Even if you live as a hermit, never entering into any contracts with other people, you are still governing your own actions. "Christian anarchy" concurs with me on this issue, labeling self government as tyranny, because for them, any control by Man, even if it's non-aggressive and only over his own actions, is government/tyranny.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 25, 2009, 09:16:49 AM
    Your argument amounts to: "Since I hate the word government, then I will use synonyms and euphemisms for the word government if it refers to any of its legitimate forms".

    Well, no, actually my argument is that there are no LEGITIMATE forms of a fiction called "government"...
    (and "self-government" does not count here as it is a totally different animal than the accepted idea of "government"...)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on July 25, 2009, 09:38:53 AM
    Your argument amounts to: "Since I hate the word government, then I will use synonyms and euphemisms for the word government if it refers to any of its legitimate forms".

    Well, no, actually my argument is that there are no LEGITIMATE forms of a fiction called "government"...
    (and "self-government" does not count here as it is a totally different animal than the accepted idea of "government"...)

    Repeating yourself is non-responsive and only serves to confirm what I wrote.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 25, 2009, 08:08:59 PM
    Your argument amounts to: "Since I hate the word government, then I will use synonyms and euphemisms for the word government if it refers to any of its legitimate forms".

    Well, no, actually my argument is that there are no LEGITIMATE forms of a fiction called "government"...
    (and "self-government" does not count here as it is a totally different animal than the accepted idea of "government"...)

    Repeating yourself is non-responsive and only serves to confirm what I wrote.

    Well then let me reiterate...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on July 27, 2009, 11:35:12 AM
    Oh, and by the way, how can I get a "sticky" on the first page like the breasts thread?  Everyone wants to compare my thread to that one and make some sort of "competition" to see who can make a greater "splash" on this bbs, but it's not an even match since they have the advantage of being stuck to the first page where most of the traffic is.  I could just be a jerk and bump this thread every day, but I do not have the time nor the inclination to do so...

    I'm not really interested in the competition, but I would like for more people to be "exposed" (pun intended) to the idea of Christian Anarchy...

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 03, 2009, 07:31:39 PM
    Christian Anarchy is gaining in popularity...

    http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2363474/
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on August 03, 2009, 07:45:58 PM
    History of, by an actor.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 05, 2009, 04:59:27 PM
    History of, by an actor.

    Not sure I understand your meaning ...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Libertarianssuck on August 05, 2009, 05:06:28 PM
    History of, by an actor.

    Not sure I understand your meaning ...

    Not sure I understand your blind faith...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 06, 2009, 11:08:00 PM
    History of, by an actor.

    Not sure I understand your meaning ...

    Not sure I understand your blind faith...

    Funny you should bring up "blind faith" because that is not what I practice (as I've stated before).  My belief in a Creator is based on my personal observations of the world I live in.  These are the same senses I use to determine for myself (without the need of any "scientists") that there is no man-made global warming.  When I travel at 40,000 ft and look at this beautiful globe we live on and then put into perspective those little tiny tiny tiny smokestacks on the surface and the little tiny tiny tiny amount of carbon we put into this huge atmosphere surrounding this globe, I realize that we are not even a drop in the bucket as far as the amount of air, water and dirt on this planet.  In my mind I try to analyze the amount of "stuff" we put into the ecosystem (of course most of that "stuff" came from the ecosystem to begin with) and I realize that we couldn't affect the climate even if we put our minds to do so. 

    Using the same ability to "observe" my surroundings, I came to the conclusion that there's way too much complexity in this universe (from atoms to galaxies - not to mention life forces) to have just occurred by random chance.  Then there's the question as to how the universe came about and of course there are no satisfactory answers.  One can say (and I know you will) that there's also no satisfactory answer to the question of where did God come from either and I will grant you that one in exchange for you granting me the point I just made.  So as we stand here I see myself at a higher "score" than any who believe in "chance".  Our score is even regarding the mechanism responsible for the creation of the universe, but my logic regarding creation over "natural causes" is supported by my observations of the complex nature of the creation leading to the conclusion that SOMEONE had to be the engineer of it...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Libertarianssuck on August 06, 2009, 11:52:13 PM
    Quote
    My belief in a Creator is based on my personal observations of the world I live in.  These are the same senses I use to determine for myself (without the need of any "scientists")

    Belief in a creator is blind faith. Even though you made a "logical" assumption based on YOUR senses and YOUR observations it's really just one of millions that could be made.  Everything in this world is too complex for our tiny minds to comprehend. As comforting/scary as it would be to believe that there is some entity with the knowledge to understand and create all that we know is a silly conclusion to make just like assuming the big bang is fact. You can't possibly know one way or the other. Even your own senses can lie to you. It's nice to BELIEVE we have the answer though.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on August 07, 2009, 05:33:06 AM
    Quote
    My belief in a Creator is based on my personal observations of the world I live in.  These are the same senses I use to determine for myself (without the need of any "scientists")

    Belief in a creator is blind faith. Even though you made a "logical" assumption based on YOUR senses and YOUR observations it's really just one of millions that could be made.  Everything in this world is too complex for our tiny minds to comprehend. As comforting/scary as it would be to believe that there is some entity with the knowledge to understand and create all that we know is a silly conclusion to make just like assuming the big bang is fact. You can't possibly know one way or the other. Even your own senses can lie to you. It's nice to BELIEVE we have the answer though.

    Not all faith, even faith in God, is necessarily blind faith. One may think that he has powerful reasons to believe in God and, therefore, have strong confidence (faith) in God's existence.

    What makes faith blind, meaning dogmatic, is the closing of one's mind to all evidence, logic and reason that may falsify the religion ( A devotion to a principle, philosophy, or any set of beliefs.) in which one has faith. ( Gene's evasiveness is clear evidence that he has no interest in anything that might cause him to examine his faith; hence he's a dogmatist.)

    You make it sound as if nothing is really knowable to our "tiny minds" and if by "knowable", you mean beyond dispute by any possible evidence or logic, that would be true, but wouldn't that kind of dogmatic knowing be evidence of a tiny mind at work? Isn't true knowledge that which we have good evidence and reason to believe and even have faith in, with the proviso that it is subject to the expected refinement, modification or outright falsification that will come with further evidence or subtler interpretation?

    Before we can have true knowledge or understanding, we must have faith in ourselves as individuals and as humans; in our ability to grow in skills, understanding and wisdom.

    I believe that with faith, almost anything, even achievements unimaginable to us today, are possible.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Libertarianssuck on August 07, 2009, 11:29:21 AM
    What evidence, logic and reason is there to religion?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 07, 2009, 11:29:43 AM
    Quote
    My belief in a Creator is based on my personal observations of the world I live in.  These are the same senses I use to determine for myself (without the need of any "scientists")

    Belief in a creator is blind faith. Even though you made a "logical" assumption based on YOUR senses and YOUR observations it's really just one of millions that could be made.  Everything in this world is too complex for our tiny minds to comprehend. As comforting/scary as it would be to believe that there is some entity with the knowledge to understand and create all that we know is a silly conclusion to make just like assuming the big bang is fact. You can't possibly know one way or the other. Even your own senses can lie to you. It's nice to BELIEVE we have the answer though.

    I already gave up the point that as far as the creation fo the universe both points are unprovable and equal in the need for "faith" to believe in.  My point was that the complexity of the creation is what has convinced me of a creator.  That complexity cannot be disputed.  To explain complexity arising out of chaos takes true "blind faith".  To explain complexity as a result of an engineer requires no "blind faith"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Libertarianssuck on August 07, 2009, 11:40:15 AM
    Quote
    To explain complexity arising out of chaos takes true "blind faith".



    What is life but chaos? The world around you is chaotic.


    Quote
    To explain complexity as a result of an engineer requires no "blind faith"...


    Believing in some all mighty entity who created this chaotic world doesn't take blind faith? When there are plenty of religions that say they are right or this is how things are. It makes less sense then being created out of chaos. Even if there was an "engineer" as you put it then "it" really doesn't give a shit for you or anyone else.




    Just saw this for the first time. I thought it was kinda funny.


    [youtube=425,350]pPdFrW076R0[/youtube]
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on August 07, 2009, 06:42:48 PM
    What evidence, logic and reason is there to religion?

    Which religion? Not all religions are concerned with the concept of God. Even a theological (God based) religion may be based upon evidence and reason. That doesn't mean that the evidence isn't misinterpreted and that the reasoning process isn't faulty.

    A sincere adherent to a theology, if he's not dogmatic, is open to a change in his beliefs. I'm sure you've met people who once believed in God, but no longer do.

    While many adherents to both theological and non-theological religions may be, to a greater or lesser extent, irrationally dogmatic, there is no rule that requires religions to demand this foolishness.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on August 07, 2009, 07:04:41 PM

    Quote
    What is life but chaos? The world around you is chaotic.

    The world may seem chaotic, but is, in fact, governed by universal laws.

    Life is a process that creates its own order amid this seeming chaos.

    The human mind, through the process of reason, discovers the nature of these laws, so as to bring about a higher level of self governing order, thereby increasing the quality of life and the chances of survival.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Libertarianssuck on August 07, 2009, 08:26:01 PM
    If there is current evidence available for some creator then by all means I'd love to see it presented. Just because the world around us is governed by univeral laws doesnt mean life isn't chaotic. You can always have a different result outside of the norm with any event. In society, with our egocentric predicament and our fickle nature life is far from orderly. Seeing other countries and the worst that life has to offer I can't believe there is any creator. If there was, "it" abandoned us a long time ago or just didn't give a shit. Either way I couldn't worship them.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: rabidfurby on August 07, 2009, 09:57:21 PM
    This could go on for years.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on August 07, 2009, 10:15:34 PM
    Quote
    If there is current evidence available for some creator then by all means I'd love to see it presented.

    There is evidence that some people may, within the context of their limited knowledge and upbringing, believe to support the idea of God. I believe that they are mistaken. That's why I'm an atheist.

    I have more respect for an open minded theist, whose belief I reject, than a dogmatist whose beliefs coincide more closely with mine.

    Quote
    Just because the world around us is governed by univeral laws doesnt mean life isn't chaotic. You can always have a different result outside of the norm with any event. In society, with our egocentric predicament and our fickle nature life is far from orderly.


    Most animal's behaviors are governed primarily by inherited instinct. Man's behavior is governed by his beliefs, his values and his morality.

    While this gives Mankind his greater adaptability and allows Mankind to become the dominant animal on earth, it also means that Mankind, like a child, must learn from his mistakes; we have no built in instinct for what's good or bad for our well being and happiness, except for those instincts that we acquire though our acquired beliefs and values; hence there is unavoidable confusion and chaos that comes with the liberty to make choices.

    Quote
    Seeing other countries and the worst that life has to offer I can't believe there is any creator. If there was, "it" abandoned us a long time ago or just didn't give a shit. Either way I couldn't worship them.

    This is what's known as the problem of evil. The problem of evil is a very popular, but fallacious argument against the existence of God.

    Without the struggle for survival life would have no value or meaning. A world without evil would be a world without life. If God made Man to be a being with perfect instinctual knowledge and immune to pain or death, then what challenges would there be? Man would be just be God's puppet; barely even a robot. What obstacles could he overcome? There would be no pain, but pleasure, if it even existed, would be one dimensional like sweetness without the contrasting notes of sourness and bitterness. Happiness, without the memory of sadness, loneliness and loss, would have no poignancy, but be a vague vegetative stupor. How could one even feel satisfaction or pride in any achievement that required no effort or pain? Could it even be called an achievement?

    God, if he really loved Man, would leave him free to make his own mistakes; find his own values, create his own morality. He would not give commandments nor create miracles or interfere in any way. A loving God wouldn't protect us from ourselves.  If there is a God, then he did a perfect job.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Libertarianssuck on August 07, 2009, 11:19:05 PM
    Quote
    I have more respect for an open minded theist, whose belief I reject, than a dogmatist whose beliefs coincide more closely with mine.

    I try to be open minded and i'm always willing to listen to evidence. Hence why I asked. Perception and feelings don't count as evidence.


    Quote
    While this gives Mankind his greater adaptability and allows Mankind to become the dominant animal on earth, it also means that Mankind, like a child, must learn from his mistakes; we have no built in instinct for what's good or bad for our well being and happiness, except for those instincts that we acquire though our acquired beliefs and values; hence there is unavoidable confusion and chaos that comes with the liberty to make choices.

    Of course that's why we strive to create order and learn whats best but that doesn't mean there isn't chaos.



    Quote
    This is what's known as the problem of evil. The problem of evil is a very popular, but fallacious argument against the existence of God.
    Without the struggle for survival life would have no value or meaning. A world without evil would be a world without life. If God made Man to be a being with perfect instinctual knowledge and immune to pain or death, then what challenges would there be? Man would be just be God's puppet; barely even a robot. What obstacles could he overcome? There would be no pain, but pleasure, if it even existed, would be one dimensional like sweetness without the contrasting notes of sourness and bitterness. Happiness, without the memory of sadness, loneliness and loss, would have no poignancy, but be a vague vegetative stupor. How could one even feel satisfaction or pride in any achievement that required no effort or pain? Could it even be called an achievement?
    God, if he really loved Man, would leave him free to make his own mistakes; find his own values, create his own morality. He would not give commandments nor create miracles or interfere in any way. A loving God wouldn't protect us from ourselves.  If there is a God, then he did a perfect job.

    What I meant is IF there is a god I wouldn't worship someone like that. I understand the idea of struggling to achieve great things in life and working towards something to be proud of. There are so many people who are just a victim of circumstance though. Who have no choice and control over there situation. It's nice to say you can do this or that with your life but you're only capable of doing so much with the tools and opportunities presented to you. I've dealt with plenty of shit in my own life but that pales in comparison to those across the globe.  In a world that's full of unfairness, pain, and suffering it is far from perfect. Of course if I had no emotions maybe I'd believe otherwise.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 08, 2009, 12:12:08 AM
    This could go on for years.

    Already has...   8)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 08, 2009, 12:29:19 AM
    If there is current evidence available for some creator then by all means I'd love to see it presented.


    Gladly.  My favorite is the Earth/Moon system...

    The "evidence" is that this system is a created (read not natural) system.  Why would I say that?  Because the three "scientific" explanations are not possible given the facts relating to the orbit of the moon, the ratios of the bodies, and the decay rate of the orbit.  The three proposed methods of how this system came to be is capture, ejection, or formation.  Lets take them in that order.  There is no way that two bodies passing in space can be captured into a circular (or nearly so) orbit.  I have tried many times myself with an orbit simulator (wherein one can change the angle, speed of the bodies, mass of the bodies, etc.  There are three outcomes that I can determine.  In one instance, the bodies merely deflect their paths and pass each other.  Another outcome is they collide, and in the best case outcome, a very elliptical and unstable orbit can be obtained.  The second, ejection, also cannot be simulated to my knowledge (you may try to prove me wrong here).  The third is defeated by the decay rate of the system.  If they "formed" in place, it would have had to be so long ago that the rate of decay would have caused the moon to break up long ago.

    Now before you say that I have not really submitted any "evidence" for creation but only shown that the "evidence" for the other proposals is lacking, I say that since there are only four (count them) possible scenarios for how this system came to be, disproving all but one, is evidence for the last...



    This is only one of the "evidences" for creation that I can cite, but I just bet that you won't "accept" it (but it's good enough for me)...

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Libertarianssuck on August 08, 2009, 12:32:59 AM
    I'm sure the orbit simulater works perfectly right?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Terror Australis on August 08, 2009, 01:01:35 AM
    What evidence is there that god loves you?

    It is one thing to believe in intelligent design but those who think god loves them are silly.God is nothing but an absent father.Probably the worst example of a parent in history.That I would believe in  :)

    It is also silly to think a perfect being who is so called infallible could create an imperfect human.The only explanation I can see is that the god who created the earth is an imposter who tried to create perfection by blending matter and spirit but made an error.The god of the old testament is a jealous angry being who is not the real creator.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on August 08, 2009, 01:52:27 AM
    Quote
    I have more respect for an open minded theist, whose belief I reject, than a dogmatist whose beliefs coincide more closely with mine.

    Quote
    I try to be open minded and i'm always willing to listen to evidence. Hence why I asked. Perception and feelings don't count as evidence.

    That was an opinion about types of people in general that I was sharing with you, not an implication of anything negative about you at all. I'm sorry if you got that impression.


    Quote
    While this gives Mankind his greater adaptability and allows Mankind to become the dominant animal on earth, it also means that Mankind, like a child, must learn from his mistakes; we have no built in instinct for what's good or bad for our well being and happiness, except for those instincts that we acquire though our acquired beliefs and values; hence there is unavoidable confusion and chaos that comes with the liberty to make choices.

    Quote
    Of course that's why we strive to create order and learn whats best but that doesn't mean there isn't chaos.

    If you re-read the quote, you'll see that I agreed that there is chaos, but that its cause is the inherent human characteristic of having the liberty to make mistakes on a scale that is denied to other animals.


    Quote
    This is what's known as the problem of evil. The problem of evil is a very popular, but fallacious argument against the existence of God.
    Without the struggle for survival life would have no value or meaning. A world without evil would be a world without life. If God made Man to be a being with perfect instinctual knowledge and immune to pain or death, then what challenges would there be? Man would be just be God's puppet; barely even a robot. What obstacles could he overcome? There would be no pain, but pleasure, if it even existed, would be one dimensional like sweetness without the contrasting notes of sourness and bitterness. Happiness, without the memory of sadness, loneliness and loss, would have no poignancy, but be a vague vegetative stupor. How could one even feel satisfaction or pride in any achievement that required no effort or pain? Could it even be called an achievement?
    God, if he really loved Man, would leave him free to make his own mistakes; find his own values, create his own morality. He would not give commandments nor create miracles or interfere in any way. A loving God wouldn't protect us from ourselves.  If there is a God, then he did a perfect job.

    Quote
    What I meant is IF there is a god I wouldn't worship someone like that. I understand the idea of struggling to achieve great things in life and working towards something to be proud of. There are so many people who are just a victim of circumstance though. Who have no choice and control over there situation. It's nice to say you can do this or that with your life but you're only capable of doing so much with the tools and opportunities presented to you. I've dealt with plenty of shit in my own life but that pales in comparison to those across the globe.  In a world that's full of unfairness, pain, and suffering it is far from perfect. Of course if I had no emotions maybe I'd believe otherwise.

    The risk of tragedy, suffering and pain is the price we pay for the opportunity of being living, intelligent beings and while there are many natural evils that may overtake us, by far, the greatest and most numerous of these evils are the one that men inflict upon themselves and one-another. Still, there is great joy in the life of even the shortest lived and most unfortunate among us in the exercise and development of our physical and cognitive faculties that are required for our proper survival as human beings.

    If you were God, then how would you improve the human condition, through the reduction or elimination of evils, in such a way as not to destroy the value of what it means to be human? I posit that there is no way for God to do such a thing without destroying the value of human life itself. Only Man himself, through the use of his God or nature given faculties, not God, can improve the quality of human existence. If it were my turn to be God, I wouldn't dare touch a thing.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Libertarianssuck on August 08, 2009, 02:20:35 AM
    Quote
    I try to be open minded and i'm always willing to listen to evidence. Hence why I asked. Perception and feelings don't count as evidence.

    Quote
    That was an opinion about types of people in general that I was sharing with you, not an implication of anything negative about you at all. I'm sorry if you got that impression.

    Oh no you didn't but thanks for the apology. I was just saying I was reading everything gene said with an open mind but I didn't agree with his conclusion.



    Quote
    If you were God, then how would you improve the human condition, through the reduction or elimination of evils, in such a way as not to destroy the value of what it means to be human? I posit that there is no way for God to do such a thing without destroying the value of human life itself. Only Man himself, through the use of his God or nature given faculties, not God, can improve the quality of human existence. If it were my turn to be God, I wouldn't dare touch a thing.

    I think that it's possible to create better conditions for life without taking away from the value and enjoyment. What it is I dont know since there are an infinite number of possibilities that could be dreamt of. After all the vastness of existence is incomprehensible.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 08, 2009, 09:53:59 AM
    What evidence is there that god loves you?

    It is one thing to believe in intelligent design but those who think god loves them are silly.God is nothing but an absent father.Probably the worst example of a parent in history.That I would believe in  :)

    It is also silly to think a perfect being who is so called infallible could create an imperfect human.The only explanation I can see is that the god who created the earth is an imposter who tried to create perfection by blending matter and spirit but made an error.The god of the old testament is a jealous angry being who is not the real creator.

    I'm sure you feel that way...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on August 09, 2009, 06:48:30 AM

    Quote
    If you were God, then how would you improve the human condition, through the reduction or elimination of evils, in such a way as not to destroy the value of what it means to be human? I posit that there is no way for God to do such a thing without destroying the value of human life itself. Only Man himself, through the use of his God or nature given faculties, not God, can improve the quality of human existence. If it were my turn to be God, I wouldn't dare touch a thing.

    I think that it's possible to create better conditions for life without taking away from the value and enjoyment. What it is I dont know since there are an infinite number of possibilities that could be dreamt of. After all the vastness of existence is incomprehensible.

    You are proposing the possibility of a kind of "life" whose fundamental values and pleasurable rewards for seeking and attaining them, are not based upon survival. There would be no need to eat, procreate, clean, cloth or shelter our bodies; and no need to think of ways to do these things and how to cooperate with others in finding better ways to do them without hurting one-another in the process.

    You also seem to be saying that if there was a loving God, he would wipe out life as we know it and replace it with this new kind of life. What could this new life be?  Would it even have any purpose or goals in its existence? On what basis would it merit or even need pleasure or happiness? Could you even call it life? Do you find the prospect of such a life in any way desirable or preferable to your life?

    Any ideas? If there's an infinite number of possibilities, surely you can think of one.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Libertarianssuck on August 09, 2009, 07:26:44 AM

    Quote
    If you were God, then how would you improve the human condition, through the reduction or elimination of evils, in such a way as not to destroy the value of what it means to be human? I posit that there is no way for God to do such a thing without destroying the value of human life itself. Only Man himself, through the use of his God or nature given faculties, not God, can improve the quality of human existence. If it were my turn to be God, I wouldn't dare touch a thing.

    I think that it's possible to create better conditions for life without taking away from the value and enjoyment. What it is I dont know since there are an infinite number of possibilities that could be dreamt of. After all the vastness of existence is incomprehensible.

    You are proposing the possibility of a kind of "life" whose fundamental values and pleasurable rewards for seeking and attaining them, are not based upon survival. There would be no need to eat, procreate, clean, cloth or shelter our bodies; and no need to think of ways to do these things and how to cooperate with others in finding better ways to do them without hurting one-another in the process.

    You also seem to be saying that if there was a loving God, he would wipe out life as we know it and replace it with this new kind of life. What could this new life be?  Would it even have any purpose or goals in its existence? On what basis would it merit or even need pleasure or happiness? Could you even call it life? Do you find the prospect of such a life in any way desirable or preferable to your life?

    Any ideas? If there's an infinite number of possibilities, surely you can think of one.


    I don't really know and I'm not trying to propose that it would be that way. I just meant that we can't possibly comprehend the vastness of space and reality. This is the only life we know and the only existence we experience. Not like we can stray from one existence to another. Can you understand how your cells communicate and why they do? Can we truly understand it's existence? We only know what we've tested around us which doesn't always prove to be right. How could we know that there couldn't be any better existence that might be more preferable to ours?


    Quote
    Would it even have any purpose or goals in its existence?

    Does life have any purpose at all? What do we really effect? 100 years? 120? The concept of time has no end.  All our memories whether it be full of happiness, sadness, or a mixture of both.... Who remembers them? If you die are you reborn? Do you roam as a spirit for eternity? Do you become recycled into the atmosphere once again? What about those hardships and goals you work so hard to achieve? How could any of it matter or have purpose? Would you effect existence around you 700 years later? What about 2000? If you die and have no memories... no thoughts.... just ceasing to exist... it doesnt really mean anything.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 09, 2009, 10:09:47 AM
    You two are doing really good.  I'm enjoying your discussion.  I believe that God is the reason for our existence and that is WHY everything else is so pointless - to contrast with the true meaning of life, communion with God...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on August 10, 2009, 01:44:58 AM
    I don't really know and I'm not trying to propose that it would be that way. I just meant that we can't possibly comprehend the vastness of space and reality. This is the only life we know and the only existence we experience.

    Then you have no reason to suppose that a hypothetical God could have created a more perfect human existence.

    Quote
    Not like we can stray from one existence to another. Can you understand how your cells communicate and why they do? Can we truly understand it's existence? We only know what we've tested around us which doesn't always prove to be right. How could we know that there couldn't be any better existence that might be more preferable to ours?

    Of course I can imagine a more intelligent, longer lived, animal than Man as well as one with greater and more numerous types of perception, but who's to say that that isn't Man's evolutionary destiny and that this isn't a hypothetical God's plan?

    A perfect and loving God would no doubt, not only create the kind of Man whose pleasure and happiness derives from the exercise of his mental and physical faculties for survival, procreation as well as discovering the form of morality that is proper to his nature, but create a Man that could become his own perfecter, becoming the master of his own evolution.

    Man is a work in progress and as Man becomes seemingly Godlike in his own right, the "problem of evil" will persist. The day that this problem is "solved", if it ever came, would be the end of everything worth living for. That is the day that Man would truly be one with God in all his safe and boring drabness and if he had any love for his remembrance of the once noble spirit his progenitors, he might set the conditions for a new cycle of evolution to begin. God could then watch and have a vicarious  life through his new creations.


    Quote
    Does life have any purpose at all? What do we really effect? 100 years? 120? The concept of time has no end.  All our memories whether it be full of happiness, sadness, or a mixture of both.... Who remembers them? If you die are you reborn? Do you roam as a spirit for eternity? Do you become recycled into the atmosphere once again? What about those hardships and goals you work so hard to achieve? How could any of it matter or have purpose? Would you effect existence around you 700 years later? What about 2000? If you die and have no memories... no thoughts.... just ceasing to exist... it doesnt really mean anything.

    Life is an end in itself. The purpose and reward of life is in the process of living itself.  You may plan for the future, but never forget to live in the moment.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Libertarianssuck on August 10, 2009, 02:33:25 AM


    Quote
    Then you have no reason to suppose that a hypothetical God could have created a more perfect human existence.

    Why couldn't I? I said if there was some all knowing god it wouldn't mean they couldn't. Does god have to be good? Does he have to be neutral? Evil? Does he care or is he selfish? Is he like a child wielding the power we envision god having? Does god even exist? I'm saying there is so much we dont know we really can't say either way. We are compromised do only understanding the connection of synapses that tell us the reality around us. Even that could be misleading.

    Quote
    Of course I can imagine a more intelligent, longer lived, animal than Man as well as one with greater and more numerous types of perception, but who's to say that that isn't Man's evolutionary destiny and that this isn't a hypothetical God's plan?

    Thats not it I'm saying you can't possibly understand the existence outside of yours. It doesnt mean you have to be an animal with a long life span or better qualities to survival. It means you can't comprehend what it would be like to be in the shoes of some other existence. A plant? A cell? What is existence and life really? What is reality? Think outside the box and consider that you really know nothing. Our whole life could be a facade.


    Quote
    Man is a work in progress

    Really? You know this how? Life as we know is just existence in progress yet it always recedes into nothing. Maybe god just views us as cable tv. Who the fuck knows really?

    Quote
    A perfect and loving God would no doubt, not only create the kind of Man whose pleasure and happiness derives from the exercise of his mental and physical faculties for survival, procreation as well as discovering the form of morality that is proper to his nature, but create a Man that could become his own perfecter, becoming the master of his own evolution.

    Are you talking about a perfect species? Whats the perfect existence? We thrive off of the happy chemical releases from our brain. Synapses telling us what we see and feel. Everything from the cellular level to the possibilities of the unknown. Saying without a doubt that god, the big bang or anything else created life is ignorant imo. as well as saying that this existence is the best that could be experienced.


    Quote
    Life is an end in itself. The purpose and reward of life is in the process of living itself.  You may plan for the future, but never forget to live in the moment.


    Yea you live in the moment but this moment is insignificant like the ant in your backyard. Can you imagine ceasing to exist? those memories and moments don't matter cuz they dont exist anymore... You are nothing. Nowhere with no memories. Like it never happened. Never effecting the reality around you. No remniscing. No emotions. Nothingness as time continues never ending.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: markuzick on August 11, 2009, 05:22:11 AM


    Quote
    Then you have no reason to suppose that a hypothetical God could have created a more perfect human existence.

    Quote
    Why couldn't I? I said if there was some all knowing god it wouldn't mean they couldn't. Does god have to be good? Does he have to be neutral? Evil? Does he care or is he selfish? Is he like a child wielding the power we envision god having? Does god even exist? I'm saying there is so much we dont know we really can't say either way. We are compromised do only understanding the connection of synapses that tell us the reality around us. Even that could be misleading.

    There is no evidence that convinces me that God exists. Even he does, then he cannot be supernatural, but merely the creator of life as we know it and maybe portions of the world we live in. If God is wise and loving, then it wouldn't really matter; he would set life or its preconditions in motion and then allow it to act according to its nature, without interference.

    You have only one possible rational standard of value: Life; specifically: your life. There is no other mode of conscious existence that could have any meaningful value to you. If, somehow, you could trade what you are for some other existence where you could be conscious, but without any needs or dangers, you would be cheated. You would cease to exit as a person and all the things that you value would lose their meaning. It would be like living an eternity in total depression; not something you would expect from a worthy God.

    Quote
    Of course I can imagine a more intelligent, longer lived, animal than Man as well as one with greater and more numerous types of perception, but who's to say that that isn't Man's evolutionary destiny and that this isn't a hypothetical God's plan?

    Quote
    Thats not it I'm saying you can't possibly understand the existence outside of yours. It doesnt mean you have to be an animal with a long life span or better qualities to survival. It means you can't comprehend what it would be like to be in the shoes of some other existence. A plant? A cell? What is existence and life really? What is reality? Think outside the box and consider that you really know nothing. Our whole life could be a facade.

    It's not, but if it were, then it's a truly great one, if you take the effort to both live it and appreciate it.


    Quote
    Man is a work in progress

    Quote
    Really? You know this how? Life as we know is just existence in progress yet it always recedes into nothing. Maybe god just views us as cable tv. Who the fuck knows really?

    The record of evolution of life and, more recently, of human progress and civilization is nothing less than staggering in its beauty and greatness. Who cares if there's a creator watching. Whatever existence is and however long it lasts, just enjoy it, while you can.

    Quote
    A perfect and loving God would no doubt, not only create the kind of Man whose pleasure and happiness derives from the exercise of his mental and physical faculties for survival, procreation as well as discovering the form of morality that is proper to his nature, but create a Man that could become his own perfecter, becoming the master of his own evolution.

    Quote
    Are you talking about a perfect species? Whats the perfect existence? We thrive off of the happy chemical releases from our brain. Synapses telling us what we see and feel. Everything from the cellular level to the possibilities of the unknown. Saying without a doubt that god, the big bang or anything else created life is ignorant imo. as well as saying that this existence is the best that could be experienced.

    I judge what I see by my own values. If these values are proper, then they are inherent to my nature. It is impossible for someone to rationally hold any other values than what his nature requires. By my standard of value, this is the best possible universe. No other standard can have meaning for me.


    Quote
    Life is an end in itself. The purpose and reward of life is in the process of living itself.  You may plan for the future, but never forget to live in the moment.


    Quote
    Yea you live in the moment but this moment is insignificant like the ant in your backyard. Can you imagine ceasing to exist? those memories and moments don't matter cuz they dont exist anymore... You are nothing. Nowhere with no memories. Like it never happened. Never effecting the reality around you. No remniscing. No emotions. Nothingness as time continues never ending.

    While still living, we can care about what happens to others after we die, but, yes, once we die, nothing matters to us anymore. That's why there's no reason to worry about it and all the more reason to savor life while we still have it.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Libertarianssuck on August 11, 2009, 12:27:41 PM
    Quote
    There is no other mode of conscious existence that could have any meaningful value to you. If, somehow, you could trade what you are for some other existence where you could be conscious, but without any needs or dangers, you would be cheated.


    I just propose its impossible to know that existence is that linear and that there is a possibility of some better existence. There could be other modes of conscious existence but you're right. Even if there was it holds no meaningful value to us since we can't experience it.


    Quote
    I judge what I see by my own values. If these values are proper, then they are inherent to my nature. It is impossible for someone to rationally hold any other values than what his nature requires. By my standard of value, this is the best possible universe. No other standard can have meaning for me.

    Quote
    While still living, we can care about what happens to others after we die, but, yes, once we die, nothing matters to us anymore. That's why there's no reason to worry about it and all the more reason to savor life while we still have it.


    Exactly
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: hellbilly on August 11, 2009, 05:24:59 PM
    Anyone else think that Gene is using some kind of abstract language when he's typing all this stuff?

    ..maybe it's called "Eugeneics" or something like that :)


    *in reference to Gene's call to the show regarding Ebonics heh heh
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 11, 2009, 08:42:25 PM

    A perfect and loving God would no doubt, not only create the kind of Man whose pleasure and happiness derives from the exercise of his mental and physical faculties for survival, procreation as well as discovering the form of morality that is proper to his nature, but create a Man that could become his own perfecter, becoming the master of his own evolution.

    Man is a work in progress and as Man becomes seemingly Godlike in his own right, the "problem of evil" will persist. The day that this problem is "solved", if it ever came, would be the end of everything worth living for. That is the day that Man would truly be one with God in all his safe and boring drabness and if he had any love for his remembrance of the once noble spirit his progenitors, he might set the conditions for a new cycle of evolution to begin. God could then watch and have a vicarious  life through his new creations.



    You and I see eye-to-eye on more things than not.  Of course I believe in God and you do not but our thinking is similar in coming to our conclusions.  I've said that God does not need us to believe in Him and His existence is certainly not dependent on whether we believe in Him or not.  His existence (or nonexistence as the case may be) cannot depend on His "creation" or that alone would undermine His magnificence. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Libertarianssuck on August 12, 2009, 03:40:21 AM

    A perfect and loving God would no doubt, not only create the kind of Man whose pleasure and happiness derives from the exercise of his mental and physical faculties for survival, procreation as well as discovering the form of morality that is proper to his nature, but create a Man that could become his own perfecter, becoming the master of his own evolution.

    Man is a work in progress and as Man becomes seemingly Godlike in his own right, the "problem of evil" will persist. The day that this problem is "solved", if it ever came, would be the end of everything worth living for. That is the day that Man would truly be one with God in all his safe and boring drabness and if he had any love for his remembrance of the once noble spirit his progenitors, he might set the conditions for a new cycle of evolution to begin. God could then watch and have a vicarious  life through his new creations.



    You and I see eye-to-eye on more things than not.  Of course I believe in God and you do not but our thinking is similar in coming to our conclusions.  I've said that God does not need us to believe in Him and His existence is certainly not dependent on whether we believe in Him or not.  His existence (or nonexistence as the case may be) cannot depend on His "creation" or that alone would undermine His magnificence. 


    Well we weren't arguing the existence of god. Rather the possibility of a better and more preferable existence to that of mankind. Even if god did exist and created us of course he wouldn't need us to believe in him or his existence. You may think you two have a lot in common but I bet there are probably some huge variations in order for one to be religious and the other not. As far as gods creation who says there couldn't be? Maybe there is some entity that holds even more power then the god we believe to exist.  Maybe they created god. Assuming god is even real. Even so did the creators creator have a creator? Was it necessary? Could you imagine something or someone exist throughout all time without ever having something creating it? When we die it really doesnt matter though. W/e we learned or understood is lost. Even the concept of god is gone. It all comes down to it all doesnt matter. Unless there is existence after death.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 12, 2009, 09:52:56 PM
    It all comes down to it all doesnt matter. Unless there is existence after death.


    Yup...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 17, 2009, 09:55:07 PM
    Count Leo Tolstoy, (sometimes identified as a "Christian anarchist)

        "Where force is set up as law, there will slavery be ... as long as there shall be tyranny supported by the bayonet there will be no distribution of wealth among men, but all the wealth will go to the tyrants. A striking illustration of the truth of this position is afforded by Henry George's project of nationalizing land. George proposed to declare all land government property, and to substitute a rent-tax for all direct and indirect taxes. That is, everyone using land should pay the government its rental value. What would be the outcome? Land would belong to the government: to the English the land of England, to the Americans the land of that country, and so forth; that is, there would be slavery, determined by the quantity of land in use. Perhaps the condition of some laborers (such as agricultural) would be improved; but since there would remain the forcible collection of the tax of the rental values, there would also remain slavery. The land cultivator, in a bad year, not being able to pay the rent exacted from him by force, would have to enslave himself to the man with money in order to keep his land and not lose everything."

    It seems that the more I look into it, the ideas of freedom are not new at all but simply lost in our memory banks.  It's like we have been living in a fog for so long, we don't know what the scenery looks like anymore...

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BKO on August 21, 2009, 04:45:26 AM
    That Tolstoy dude was a pessimist.



    Hey did you know that the Catholic Church transformed Jesus the man into the widely recognizable Jesus the Saviour overnight?



    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 22, 2009, 09:42:59 AM
    That Tolstoy dude was a pessimist.


    Interesting to note his understanding of the word "slavery" to include what he is describing as "indentured servitude".  So many claim that since we are not in chattel slavery it's not really slavery.  Tolstoy certainly did not buy into that definition.

    Quote

    Hey did you know that the Catholic Church transformed Jesus the man into the widely recognizable Jesus the Saviour overnight?


    Not sure what you are referring to here.  Do you have specifics or are you simply making your own claim as to what they did?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on August 22, 2009, 10:00:26 AM
    Not sure what you are referring to here.  Do you have specifics or are you simply making your own claim as to what they did?


    In 325,  Roman Emperor Constantine ordered a meeting of all (which is what catholic means) church leaders in order to settle whether Jesus was god or man. After much squabbling over the matter, a decision was made. "Yep," they decided. "Totally God."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Russell Griswold on August 22, 2009, 10:23:48 AM
    (http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/6083/bart.png)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Andy on August 22, 2009, 11:19:44 AM
    (http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/6083/bart.png)


    AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 23, 2009, 08:57:07 AM
    Not sure what you are referring to here.  Do you have specifics or are you simply making your own claim as to what they did?


    In 325,  Roman Emperor Constantine ordered a meeting of all (which is what catholic means) church leaders in order to settle whether Jesus was god or man. After much squabbling over the matter, a decision was made. "Yep," they decided. "Totally God."

    In your reference to the "Council of Nicaea", they did not "transform" Jesus overnight into "the Savior" but rather "The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus" (Wikipedia).  Jesus was always viewed by believers as the Savior, but many years of disagreement by men had resulted in many different views.  The counsel made a determination of what they perceived to be the correct view from several common views held at that time.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on August 23, 2009, 10:12:22 AM
    It could be that the average word on the street was that Jesus was God. But, it took a vote to make the deal official. A bunch of guys got together in a room, had a vote, and promoted a man into a god. But, it's okay. It happened all the time in the Roman world. Most of the Caesars were promoted to gods in much the same manner. .
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 28, 2009, 07:51:27 PM
    It could be that the average word on the street was that Jesus was God. But, it took a vote to make the deal official. A bunch of guys got together in a room, had a vote, and promoted a man into a god. But, it's okay. It happened all the time in the Roman world. Most of the Caesars were promoted to gods in much the same manner. .

    The writings of Paul and others made it the deity of Jesus pretty clear.  I don't see how the re-affirmation of that point by a "fiction" called a "church" can be anything but a historical turning point for that fiction.  Of course that point had existed prior to that date and it still existed after that date...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on August 28, 2009, 11:02:31 PM
    Yeah, okay--so it was Paul and his buddies that promoted Jesus to deity status. What difference does it make WHO did it? It's all just their fantasy, anyway. There is no reason for accepting their claim than to believe Joe Smith about the divine origin of his "Book of Mormon," or Mohammad's Koran.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on August 30, 2009, 05:59:31 PM
    My whole thing is...since NONE of us existed and were around when ANY of these so-called deities were around, you pretty much have to take it on the faith of the respective holy book and those who took it on that faith and developed a religious system and institution around it. Why believe in one religion over another when there is just as much proof that one guy actually was a god or talked to god as another (except for Muslims, their "religion" was founded by a psychopath and is based upon murder and carnage) but why believe any of this crap when NO ONE on this planet can prove any of it?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freeAgent on August 30, 2009, 10:37:30 PM
    I'm not sure what makes all the people in the Bible so special that they got all this direct communication with God and Jesus, etc.  Maybe it's all just a bunch of bullshit stories made up by people who didn't have television or the internet.  Yeah, I'm going to go with that.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on August 31, 2009, 06:39:02 AM
    Yeah, okay--so it was Paul and his buddies that promoted Jesus to deity status. What difference does it make WHO did it? 

    I certainly makes a difference if GOD did it (with the additional controversy of how if Jesus IS God, can he promote himself etc.).  Or if He simply was already God from the beginning of what we humans call "time" (this is my choice).  One thing is sure, a true "deity" does not need any man to "promote" him...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 01, 2009, 12:04:02 PM
    :P
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on September 01, 2009, 05:34:07 PM
    I certainly makes a difference if GOD did it (with the additional controversy of how if Jesus IS God, can he promote himself etc.).  Or if He simply was already God from the beginning of what we humans call "time" (this is my choice).  One thing is sure, a true "deity" does not need any man to "promote" him...


    Saying Jesus became a god because God make him one is like saying Rudolf became head reindeer because Santa appointed him to the position.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 02, 2009, 07:33:35 AM
    I certainly makes a difference if GOD did it (with the additional controversy of how if Jesus IS God, can he promote himself etc.).  Or if He simply was already God from the beginning of what we humans call "time" (this is my choice).  One thing is sure, a true "deity" does not need any man to "promote" him...


    Saying Jesus became a god because God make him one is like saying Rudolf became head reindeer because Santa appointed him to the position.

    Yes, noted above before you even responded...  As it states, I believe the second case to be the correct one: Jesus was already God from the beginning of what we (in our limited understanding) call "time".  It remains that Jesus is or is not God independent of any of us trying to promote or demote Him...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: fields2grand on September 10, 2009, 12:39:28 PM
    figured I'd bump this thread for fun.

    I went to a southern Mississippi funeral for my wife's grandfather over the weekend.  Amazing how the churches try to sculpt children to "respect" their elders etc by threatening that "shebears" will slap them around if they don't (not joking).  After the funeral a man who had no connection to the family or church tried to tell me I shouldn't have chewing gun during the military burial service.  I found it ironic thinking the man in the casket (wife's grandpa) would probably appreciate the "right" to chew chewing gun whenever you felt like it.  I didn't raise a ruckus with him but felt dirty for not.  Apparently military people are only taught how to point and shoot and not given social skills to grieving families.  For we all know that chewing gum would disgrace the American flag.  Isn't it sad that the fucker was more concerned about chewing gum than the departed and his family?  Sick fuck. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 12, 2009, 08:18:41 PM
    You deleted my rant about faith in God being a psychological misdirection of repressed sexual urges.

    You lose.


    I'm sure you feel that way...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 12, 2009, 08:22:21 PM
    figured I'd bump this thread for fun.

    I went to a southern Mississippi funeral for my wife's grandfather over the weekend.  Amazing how the churches try to sculpt children to "respect" their elders etc by threatening that "shebears" will slap them around if they don't (not joking).  After the funeral a man who had no connection to the family or church tried to tell me I shouldn't have chewing gun during the military burial service.  I found it ironic thinking the man in the casket (wife's grandpa) would probably appreciate the "right" to chew chewing gun whenever you felt like it.  I didn't raise a ruckus with him but felt dirty for not.  Apparently military people are only taught how to point and shoot and not given social skills to grieving families.  For we all know that chewing gum would disgrace the American flag.  Isn't it sad that the fucker was more concerned about chewing gum than the departed and his family?   

    This is why I have stated that "government" and "cult" are the same thing.  Most "churches" are really nothing more than "cults" where you must do x y or z to show you are part of the "club".  I do believe that meeting in a church is beneficial for fellowship and group prayer (or "meditation" if you prefer that term).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on September 15, 2009, 05:34:40 PM
    You should give me a little elevator pitch I can give to my girlfriend. She's Christian but not anarchist.  Shes actually not really that into political philosophy much but I am. This is something she could perhaps like.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 16, 2009, 11:41:35 AM
    You should give me a little elevator pitch I can give to my girlfriend. She's Christian but not anarchist.  Shes actually not really that into political philosophy much but I am. This is something she could perhaps like.

    I think the best way to approach a Christian is to address the "gun in the room" avenue.  If you show most Christians how "government" is nothing more than a false cult (perhaps not the first point you should make) and stressing how stealing money from Peter to pay Paul is not moral.  This can be followed up with an example of how each person has the same rights and same standing before God.  No one is over another.  If this is accepted by them, it's a small step from there to show how "representatives" are also illigitimate as they cannot morally do that which I cannot do myself.  So taxation is nothing more than theft and "legislation" is nothing more than morality enforced by violence...

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 22, 2009, 10:57:28 AM
    Here's some new banners I've been working on...

    (http://i316.photobucket.com/albums/mm356/ChristianAnarchist/Political/ChristianAnarchistYel-Blk400.gif)

    (http://i316.photobucket.com/albums/mm356/ChristianAnarchist/Political/DontTreadAnarchistSm-1.jpg)

    (http://i316.photobucket.com/albums/mm356/ChristianAnarchist/Political/DontTreadChristianAnarchistSm-1.jpg)

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Harry Tuttle on September 22, 2009, 01:54:15 PM
    You should give me a little elevator pitch I can give to my girlfriend. She's Christian but not anarchist.  Shes actually not really that into political philosophy much but I am. This is something she could perhaps like.

    Try the simple suggestion that the message of Jesus was a personal message, not a political message. If we could just get Christians to accept that proposition, it would eliminate much of the political harm being done by Christians.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on September 23, 2009, 07:49:33 PM
    I see a good deal of "politics" in the messages of Jesus.  They were without exception a message of freedom and against any man being placed above any other.  I think the "political harm" being done by SOME Christians is because they don't understand the essence of Jesus' political messages...

    Of course most of His messages were indeed of a personal nature.  The more we hear the words of Jesus (as recorded-with or without some errors) the more messages we see concealed within the words.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 07, 2009, 08:14:45 AM
    Here are my "views" on race as I see them relating to our Creator.  I do believe the "creation story" is reasonably accurate as presented in the Bible (I'm sure that some details are unclear).  Even if one believes in the cult of "evolution" it is believed by those cult high priests that all of us come from a single woman way back when.  Using either world view, you still have a single source of DNA for the entire human race.  The children of this "Eve" would by necessity have to breed among themselves.  This will result in DNA defects.  These "defects" will then define the "races" resulting from different groups settling together and interbreeding.  I believe the Bible is pretty accurate in describing the settling of these early families into different areas of the middle-east.  From there, the families or "clans" migrate farther with time.  Each clan begins to take on different characteristics that eventually become known to us as "race"....

    Of course this is the tool used by animal breeders to generate a "breed".  The breeders are wrong though when they call these "pure" breeds.  They are actually genetic defects.  Sure, they can selectively breed for a given trait such as speed, but they do so at the cost of losing other important genetic information.  Some of the "lost" information could be ability to fight a certain disease or perhaps ability to concentrate is reduced. 

    According to this example, ALL races are actually genetic "defects".  All have lost some information that was in the original pool.  To have a "pure" example of the way we were created, you would need to have a new "clan" of mixed races and after several generations of offspring a closer example of how we were created would result.

    Now I believe that "God created all men equal".  I do not believe that one "race" is superior to another "race".  But it is silly to DENY that the differences in the races.  That is the very definition of "race" - DIFFERENCES!  If all "races" were the same, there would be no word to describe "race" (duh)!

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: davann on October 07, 2009, 07:02:18 PM

    According to this example, ALL races are actually genetic "defects".  All have lost some information that was in the original pool.  To have a "pure" example of the way we were created, you would need to have a new "clan" of mixed races and after several generations of offspring a closer example of how we were created would result.


    You nearly hit the nail on the head here. The only issue I see the idea that ALL races are defects. There is one race that is pure, so to speak. And no it ain't the whites. Nor is it the still common held falsehood of the original race of man, blacks. Both of these races are defects or hybrids depending on one wants to look at it. The one pure race from which we all sprang is the Asian race. Or they are as pure as we are gonna get. Look to the amount of genetic diseases across the races. Asians will have far fewer then the others in actual numbers (per % of population of course) and types.

    What blows my mind as it has been confirmed with genetic markings in DNA testing that life began in Asia but everyone still claims it was Africa. I suspect this is more of that white guilt shit.

    The inland Chinese are to the Fox as the Scandinavians are to the terrier as the coastal Chinese are to the Wolf as the Africans are to the hounds.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 09, 2009, 07:40:21 AM
    Gene is cool because now he's supposed to be a "racist", even though his wife is chinese and his kid is a mix-breed....yet he is supposed to be a "racist", now...LOL.

    Ian and Mark are radically inclined, and I reckon they enjoyed that segment of the show, but they just try to make it like they are super against it and shit.

    The fact of the matter is that the "Black Community" recognizes that their own community is all fucked up. They don't know what to do with themselves. If they were to start taking responsibility for their own shit, then they would have to stop blaming everything on white people.


    (from other thread)

    Yes, just the mention of "Black Community" gets Ian's panties in a wad.  Of course you can address the problems inherent in a subset of the human race that groups together in one geographical area or cultural area.  The subject of the them "Black Community" does not include ALL BLACKS and this is what trips up both Ian and Mark (and whatever other host they have on that night) as they all have a problem with referring to a "collective" of people.  Yet they use the "collective" term themselves every few minutes (ever hear of the "freestaters"?).  Of course you can make VALID observations about the group called "freestaters" as they have a common belief system.  Of course they are not a "race" but it is collective thought none the less.

    As far as the "Black Community" group, it's not all about race either.  The "Black Community" as a whole even excludes some who are of the "Negro" race, most notably African immigrants (who do surprising well in "white" society by the way). 

    Some protest that these are all my own observations and don't have any "scientific" data to fall back on, but I'm sure there's plenty of studies out there if they really want to find them.  I myself don't put much stock in "studies" as they usually have a predetermined outcome that the group putting on the study is looking for.  There's an old saying: "There's lies, Damn lies, and Statistics".  I've found this to be so true.  Lately the hosts have been arguing over a ridiculous study that claims that spanking causes a decrease in intelligence.  I can't believe that Ian can get so excited by ONE silly study that is so obviously looking for an agenda just because it supports Ian's pre-conceived notion that spanking is a no-no...

    Back to the "Black Community".  Most of the so-called "Black leaders" seem to recognize that there's some issues with this grouping of people.  Most of society recognizes that there's some issues here.  Most of the "blacks" themselves recognize that there's some issues - but Ian and Mark stick their heads in the sand and say "na-na naaaa na-na... I can't hear you..."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 14, 2009, 05:34:19 PM
    Dr. Samuel Johnson - “I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am.”

    Dr. Samuel Johnson - “Dictionaries are like watches; the worst is better than none, and the best cannot be expected to go quite true.”

    Dr. Samuel Johnson - “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

    http://www.famousquotes.com/search.php?search=1&FirstName=Samuel&LastName=Johnson&field=FullName
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on October 15, 2009, 05:20:39 AM
    Race in terms of the definition you choose, is a social construct that you buy into as much as your silly religion. It was created by oppressors to validate their oppression of the indigenous people that they oppressed. They also called them primitive. You consistently prove yourself to be an open racist. I see why you call yourself Christian but Christ-like you are not. I know you are gonna delete this post. No matter, doesn't change the fact that you were raised by some hick sister/cousin/aunt of yours and gre up burning crosses for fun.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 15, 2009, 01:22:27 PM
    Race in terms of the definition you choose, is a social construct that you buy into as much as your silly religion. It was created by oppressors to validate their oppression of the indigenous people that they oppressed. They also called them primitive. You consistently prove yourself to be an open racist. I see why you call yourself Christian but Christ-like you are not. I know you are gonna delete this post. No matter, doesn't change the fact that you were raised by some hick sister/cousin/aunt of yours and gre up burning crosses for fun.

    My, the hate and violence pent up inside.  Surely you don't see that I have no "problem" with anyone of any race.  I am simply not ignorant enough to close my eyes to the fact that races are indeed different.  In order to meet the dictionary definition of "racist" that I looked up one has to "hate" people because of their race or feel that another race is "inferior" to theirs.  I do not fit in either category.  I have made it clear that ALL races are defective (a position based on the FACT :accepted by Christians and evolutionists: that we all come from a common mother).  Since all of us came from one mother, it stands to reason that her offspring had to breed together.  This will result in defective genes in those offspring and through generations, these defects have become manifest as "races".  So if you understand my position; it is, simply put, that we are ALL "defective".  Whatever "race" you label yourself it is "inferior" to what we were in the past and what we were created to be.  Now if it hurts your feelings to think that someone believes that, I cannot do much to make you feel better.  If you think that inflicting violence on me will make you feel better, I assure you, it will not...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on October 15, 2009, 02:43:46 PM
    Christians, and religious people in general, love to believe that we are all defective in some way, be it due to original sin, evolution, what have you. First off, you may be defective, but I sir, am not. And I have no anger or hatred towards you, you are just a bigoted ignorant child that needs to be corrected, just like a parent would spank their child for misbehaving. It may not be the most correct option, but the most direct one. You just need some sense knocked into you, literally.

    I myself, am the pinnacle of human evolution, as are most normal functioning people, as you still haven't explained why we are clearly smarter than neanderthals, or how they fit into God's "grand creation" ridiculousness.

    You are a racist and you are a bigot.

    Perfect example. You don't think blacks are as intelligent as asians, so if you had to hire a mathematician, you are going to look for an asian first, which is fucking stupid, because now you aren't giving a black person a chance, which is inherently racist. And black people put big rims and gaudy paint jobs on their car? If that isnt the most ignorant and racist statement I've seen on here so far lately...

    Like in the good book of ass-whipping says in 6:3, "What a dirty mouth you have, I think I'll wash it out with fist."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: CaL DaVe on October 15, 2009, 03:16:39 PM
    Christians, and religious people in general, love to believe that we are all defective in some way, be it due to original sin, evolution, what have you. First off, you may be defective, but I sir, am not. And I have no anger or hatred towards you, you are just a bigoted ignorant child that needs to be corrected, just like a parent would spank their child for misbehaving. It may not be the most correct option, but the most direct one. You just need some sense knocked into you, literally.

    I myself, am the pinnacle of human evolution, as are most normal functioning people, as you still haven't explained why we are clearly smarter than neanderthals, or how they fit into God's "grand creation" ridiculousness.

    You are a racist and you are a bigot.

    Perfect example. You don't think blacks are as intelligent as asians, so if you had to hire a mathematician, you are going to look for an asian first, which is fucking stupid, because now you aren't giving a black person a chance, which is inherently racist. And black people put big rims and gaudy paint jobs on their car? If that isnt the most ignorant and racist statement I've seen on here so far lately...

    Like in the good book of ass-whipping says in 6:3, "What a dirty mouth you have, I think I'll wash it out with fist."

    Your threats of violence are worse than someone subscribing to racist thoughts. Racist thoughts are completely different than violence based on racism. As long as Gene does not hurt anyone, he can think whatever he wants. You on the other hand think your thoughts are superior to his, and so feel justified in using violence. I see no difference in someone hitting someone because they are of a certain race, and hitting someone because of what they think. They are both based on what one person believes.

    I would say that you are more dangerous than he is.  Gene may hire whoever he wants regardless of what he thinks. But you are going to "whoop his ass" because of what he thinks. You escalate the situation to another level. Thoughts are thoughts. Millions of people have thoughts every day, a lot of them ignorant.  If you were to attack Gene because of his thoughts, I would have no problem with him or anyone else planting a bullet through your skull in DEFENSE.

    Regardless, violent threats are cheep on the internet. You look to be about a buck fifty, if that is you in your avatar.  :lol:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on October 15, 2009, 03:26:25 PM
    And my weight has to do with what exactly? So because I weigh a buck fifty I can't kill someone with my bare hands? There's a dead Iraqi that weighed about 210 and was 6' 1" that you should have a talk with.

    Oh wait, you can't, because I killed him.

    With my bare fucking hands.

    So, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he became the leader of Germany and prevent the Holocaust, you wouldn't because his ideas were just ideas at the time and he hadn't hurt anyone yet?

    Dude, read history. All big ignorant shit in history stems from little ignorant shit like Gene thinks. It all started with a fucking bad idea, and you got to nip that shit in the bud immediately.

    Hindsight is always 20/20, and unlike you, I learned from history, so if someone coming talking about Christianity but also says I'm inferior in some way, I know the inevitable road this can lead down, and I'm not having it, so in essence, it is defense.

    You're right though, I am a dangerous person, and my violence serves a purpose, because I realize that its bigger than me, and I'm sorry that you are such a pussy dave that you haven't found anything in your life worth fighting for, but some of us have. Grow a pair.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: CaL DaVe on October 15, 2009, 03:58:36 PM
    And my weight has to do with what exactly? So because I weigh a buck fifty I can't kill someone with my bare hands? There's a dead Iraqi that weighed about 210 and was 6' 1" that you should have a talk with.

    Oh wait, you can't, because I killed him.

    With my bare fucking hands.

    So, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he became the leader of Germany and prevent the Holocaust, you wouldn't because his ideas were just ideas at the time and he hadn't hurt anyone yet?

    Dude, read history. All big ignorant shit in history stems from little ignorant shit like Gene thinks. It all started with a fucking bad idea, and you got to nip that shit in the bud immediately.

    Hindsight is always 20/20, and unlike you, I learned from history, so if someone coming talking about Christianity but also says I'm inferior in some way, I know the inevitable road this can lead down, and I'm not having it, so in essence, it is defense.

    You're right though, I am a dangerous person, and my violence serves a purpose, because I realize that its bigger than me, and I'm sorry that you are such a pussy dave that you haven't found anything in your life worth fighting for, but some of us have. Grow a pair.


    Glorious Victorious Murderer Huh?

    Do you have a case of Little man syndrome Sincere? Did you get teased for being the smallest guy at basic? Did your DI call you Squirt?

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=little+man+syndrome&defid=1021730

    Is that why you feel like you have to act tough on here?

    FYI, I have read history and it is riddled with people who employ the same tactics that you do. It is the exact reason that I have come to the conclusions I have. Initiated violence is the enemy, not thoughts.

    In response to me not having a pair, I think people of the likes of Dr. MLK and Gandhi have way bigger balls than it seems you will ever have. And I am not a little scrawny untrained wimp either. But I do give the other guy a chance to tap before I break a bone or hold a choke.




    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on October 15, 2009, 04:13:00 PM
    And my weight has to do with what exactly? So because I weigh a buck fifty I can't kill someone with my bare hands? There's a dead Iraqi that weighed about 210 and was 6' 1" that you should have a talk with.

    Oh wait, you can't, because I killed him.

    With my bare fucking hands.

    So, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he became the leader of Germany and prevent the Holocaust, you wouldn't because his ideas were just ideas at the time and he hadn't hurt anyone yet?

    Dude, read history. All big ignorant shit in history stems from little ignorant shit like Gene thinks. It all started with a fucking bad idea, and you got to nip that shit in the bud immediately.

    Hindsight is always 20/20, and unlike you, I learned from history, so if someone coming talking about Christianity but also says I'm inferior in some way, I know the inevitable road this can lead down, and I'm not having it, so in essence, it is defense.

    You're right though, I am a dangerous person, and my violence serves a purpose, because I realize that its bigger than me, and I'm sorry that you are such a pussy dave that you haven't found anything in your life worth fighting for, but some of us have. Grow a pair.


    Glorious Victorious Murderer Huh?

    Do you have a case of Little man syndrome Sincere? Did you get teased for being the smallest guy at basic? Did your DI call you Squirt?

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=little+man+syndrome&defid=1021730

    Is that why you feel like you have to act tough on here?

    FYI, I have read history and it is riddled with people who employ the same tactics that you do. It is the exact reason that I have come to the conclusions I have. Initiated violence is the enemy, not thoughts.

    In response to me not having a pair, I think people of the likes of Dr. MLK and Gandhi have way bigger balls than it seems you will ever have. And I am not a little scrawny untrained wimp either. But I do give the other guy a chance to tap before I break a bone or hold a choke.




    First off, in a warzone, you don't give the other guy a chance to tap. This isn't UFC. He's gonna come back with a rocket launcher and/or blow you to bits. Period.

    Never said killing was glorious, just that I was more than capable.

    You interpret it as acting tough. I was just giving a warning.

    MLK was a government sell-out, read Malcolm X my dude, seriously.

    Ghandi was cool, because he exposed how Britain claimed to be fighting tyranny in Germany, while at the same time imposing it on brown people, which is how we need to expose this government, personally.

    I was FAR from the smallest guy at basic, but I was definitely the skinniest, but pound for pound 4th strongest in my series when I got there and dropped to 9th by the end because I put on 72 pounds.

    History isn't riddled with people like me, its riddled with people like you, who give inches and then let people TAKE miles. You can't rationalize and reason with everyone, especially the willingly ignorant and unreasonable. You have to put things in a language they can clearly and ultimately understand, and everyone understands a fist to the fucking face.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: hellbilly on October 15, 2009, 06:50:17 PM
    Hey look.. the angry black guy again.. making threats and talking about how much of an educated crazy killah he is. Not quite "Da Bomb" any longer now that this personality niche is becoming more common each day.

    CalDave is trying to provide some insight for ya.. might take a break and actually listen to what he has to say.

    I don't agree with Gene's viewpoints on religion/common mother/defects but he hasn't said anything racist, and has already explained this clearly.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on October 15, 2009, 06:59:02 PM
    Hey look.. the angry black guy again.. making threats and talking about how much of an educated crazy killah he is. Not quite "Da Bomb" any longer now that this personality niche is becoming more common each day.

    CalDave is trying to provide some insight for ya.. might take a break and actually listen to what he has to say.

    I don't agree with Gene's viewpoints on religion/common mother/defects but he hasn't said anything racist, and has already explained this clearly.

    Ummm....to say that one race isn't as smart as another race is inherently racist because people don't just think these things and not act on them in some kind of way, whether its passing someone up for promotion, or locking your door if a black guy walks past your car or dumb shit like that. Yes, it is racist and its completely ignorant.

    And you guys really don't understand anger....why do yall think I'm angry I will never understand, especially when I have said REPEATEDLY I'm not angry, and I laugh at his ignorance and stupidity.

    I don't know if any of you have ever wrestled or boxed, or anything of that nature, but are you angry EVERY time you do it? Fuck no, at least I hope not. It's a game. And my game would be washing his mouth out with fist, thats all.

    I know the educated, hostile, "by any means necessary" archetype has been done, since Malcolm X beat me to it, like 40 years ago. Doesn't mean it wasn't effective or right.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 15, 2009, 09:40:13 PM
    First off, in a warzone, you don't give the other guy a chance to tap. This isn't UFC. He's gonna come back with a rocket launcher and/or blow you to bits. Period.

    Never said killing was glorious, just that I was more than capable.

    You interpret it as acting tough. I was just giving a warning.


    Hmmm.  First, you don't give the other guy a chance (in a "warzone").  Then you say you were giving a "warning"....

    If you truly believe that these "ideas" are so dangerous and the expression of them is an "attack" on you and yours (but then there can really be no "yours" can there since all races are the same) then you have contradicted yourself.  If this is your little "warzone" on these "ideas", then you should not be giving a "warning" should you?  You should indeed just hunt me down and keep your mouth shut about what you will or will not do...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on October 15, 2009, 09:50:28 PM
    First off, in a warzone, you don't give the other guy a chance to tap. This isn't UFC. He's gonna come back with a rocket launcher and/or blow you to bits. Period.

    Never said killing was glorious, just that I was more than capable.

    You interpret it as acting tough. I was just giving a warning.


    Hmmm.  First, you don't give the other guy a chance (in a "warzone").  Then you say you were giving a "warning"....

    If you truly believe that these "ideas" are so dangerous and the expression of them is an "attack" on you and yours (but then there can really be no "yours" can there since all races are the same) then you have contradicted yourself.  If this is your little "warzone" on these "ideas", then you should not be giving a "warning" should you?  You should indeed just hunt me down and keep your mouth shut about what you will or will not do...


    No contradiction.

    That Iraqi knew FARRR before he ran up to me with an AK-47 what were the likely consequences of his actions.

    You're an ignorant redneck, and though this is 2009 and you clearly have access to the internet, some people just have that stupid cognitive block that needs to be knocked around a bit in order for things to click for them, that "I should drop these beliefs as its increasingly dangerous to my well-being to have them" sorta thing.

    Some education comes verbally, some come physically. As long as you know when it should be applied, then its all good. Obviously verbal and written does not work for you in this situation.

    And here's proof on how stupid ass beliefs like his cause others pain and anguish, even when they calim they aren't racist or it wasn't "intentional":

    http://www.kttc.com/Global/story.asp?S=11321956

    See how stupid beliefs like this guy's and Gene's DOES carry over into actions, and that shit must be nipped in the fucking bud. I guarantee if an interracial gay dude couple whipped his ass about this shit, that would turn his silly ass beliefs around, since I'm fucking sure quite a few people have spoken to him about this issue and he still hasn't budged.

    I say this: First, appeal to a person's intellect, but if all else fails, appeal to their fear.

    God you are dumb.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 15, 2009, 10:08:46 PM
    If you consider yourself "the pinnacle of human evolution", I'm afraid we don't have much to look forward to...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on October 15, 2009, 11:27:16 PM
    Well for one, the fact that you look forward to me, means that you see yourself as a lesser form of human than I, which I won't disagree with you on that.

    And by pinnicle, I mean those of us who have evolved the ability to think critically and question things and not take things on blind faith such as people like yourself.

    People who have evoked enough to use Occam's Razor and the scientific method to understand the environment around them are obviously more far along than you, and you just admitted that.

    I win. ;)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 16, 2009, 07:26:44 AM
    Well for one, the fact that you look forward to me, means that you see yourself as a lesser form of human than I, which I won't disagree with you on that.

    And by pinnicle, I mean those of us who have evolved the ability to think critically and question things and not take things on blind faith such as people like yourself.

    People who have evoked enough to use Occam's Razor and the scientific method to understand the environment around them are obviously more far along than you, and you just admitted that.

    I win. ;)

    Yes, you did win.  You are a winner.  I acknowledge your highly evolved and vastly superior intelligence as well as your superior killing ability.  I bow humbly to your magnificence...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: CaL DaVe on October 16, 2009, 01:29:19 PM
    I win. ;)

    You are like a child.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: CaL DaVe on October 16, 2009, 01:36:06 PM

    You're an ignorant redneck, and though this is 2009 and you clearly have access to the internet, some people just have that stupid cognitive block that needs to be knocked around a bit in order for things to click for them, that "I should drop these beliefs as its increasingly dangerous to my well-being to have them" sorta thing.


    Redneck is a white racial slur. But I'm sure that does not matter to you in your quest for black equality now does it? Your mind is so messed up that I'm sure you can't see that you are what you are attempting to speak out against.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on October 16, 2009, 02:12:52 PM
    All anyone with an uneducated religious/psuedo-scientific slant a redneck, both whites and blacks, and even an Asain. Hell I know this Asian dude that if he was white would be a grand wizard of the KKK or something, seriously, he's that misinformed. People from the south usually are, save some specific places, but even they are messed up in a different way. So if me saying redneck is racist, then so is riddler/lord humungous or whatever he goes by now, but we all know he isn't, that he is just an extremely satricial person.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: CaL DaVe on October 16, 2009, 03:11:41 PM
    All anyone with an uneducated religious/psuedo-scientific slant a redneck, both whites and blacks, and even an Asain.

    Back peddle much? I have never heard that definition redneck in my life. Did you just make that up right now as you were typing?  But I really don't give a crap if you are racist or not. I'm pointing out that you classify Blacks Asians and Whites, and group people just like Gene was doing. Then you go and say that anyone who believes in religion, is uneducated, or believes in psuedo-science, is a threat to you, and inferior enough for you to hit them in the face for thinking.

    I'll give you a hint, some people think that blacks are uneducated, some people think that black churches are racist, some people even think that black people are inferior!!! OH LAWD!!!! This all sounds too familiar! Take a look in the mirror sincere, you sound exactly the same as they do and you have no right to initiate violence on them, and the y have no right to initiate violence on you.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on October 16, 2009, 03:26:51 PM
    I don't think "redneck" is necessarily a racial slur.  Rednecks are usually white, yes, but it's not a word that people use just because they want to insult someone who is white.  Jeff Foxworthy devoted his entire career to establishing what makes a redneck, and includes himself in that category. 

    When I think "redneck," I think "proudly uncultured."  A redneck will drink Natural Light out of a can while watching pro wrestling and wearing a trucker's cap, then put on some camouflage and go shoot a deer.  Might be white, might be provincial, might be racist....doesn't have to be. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: CaL DaVe on October 16, 2009, 03:31:26 PM
    I don't think "redneck" is necessarily a racial slur.  Rednecks are usually white, yes, but it's not a word that people use just because they want to insult someone who is white.  Jeff Foxworthy devoted his entire career to establishing what makes a redneck, and includes himself in that category. 

    When I think "redneck," I think "proudly uncultured."  A redneck will drink Natural Light out of a can while watching pro wrestling and wearing a trucker's cap, then put on some camouflage and go shoot a deer.  Might be white, might be provincial, might be racist....doesn't have to be. 

    Yeah but that is spoken out of the mouth of a white person. Kind of like when blacks call each other nigger, or mexican's call each other beaners within their own race. It is a different thing if I (mexican) were to call a white person a redneck. Maybe you all (whites) don't care so much about being called a slur so it does not bother you. But if I were to make a list of general white racial slurs. Redneck would be one of them.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on October 16, 2009, 06:57:23 PM
    Yeah because black people used to yell redneck all the time as they enslaved white people and told them they were less than human and kept all their basic human rights from them.

    You obviously fail to understand WHY exactly "nigger" is a racial slur and why it bothers black people so much to hear any other race say it, regardless whether it's in jest or being serious.

    Oh wait, that never happened. And redneck wasn't created by black people, it was created by white people.

    Dave, just shut the fuck up, seriously. You talk the silliest shit and trying to do defend a racist has brought what little respect I did have for you to nothing at all.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: hellbilly on October 16, 2009, 07:08:32 PM
    Learn your brain on some slavery factactics!

    http://www.viceland.com/int/v12n5/htdocs/hey.php
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: sinceredagreat on October 16, 2009, 07:17:41 PM
    Didn't tell me anything I didn't know, and LITERALLY had no bearing on my last statement...but actually proved it, so...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 18, 2009, 08:21:39 AM
    Learn your brain on some slavery factactics!

    http://www.viceland.com/int/v12n5/htdocs/hey.php

    I leave you kids alone for a couple of days and you just can't behave... 

    Anyway, there are things I did not know in those slavery facts.  Thanks for sharing.  One thing is for sure, I'm sick and tired of hearing people (white or black) trying to put any form of guilt trip on me for slavery.  I've never had anything to do with it, my ancestors never had anything to do with it, and I'm sick and tired of having myself taxed to death to pay for it...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: DontTreadOnMike on October 18, 2009, 12:11:02 PM
    Learn your brain on some slavery factactics!

    http://www.viceland.com/int/v12n5/htdocs/hey.php

    I leave you kids alone for a couple of days and you just can't behave...  

    Anyway, there are things I did not know in those slavery facts.  Thanks for sharing.  One thing is for sure, I'm sick and tired of hearing people (white or black) trying to put any form of guilt trip on me for slavery.  I've never had anything to do with it, my ancestors never had anything to do with it, and I'm sick and tired of having myself taxed to death to pay for it...


    Agreed. My family came over here from switzerland in the 1930's so we had nothing to do with slavery....although we probably did bring along a healthy portion of stolen nazi jew-gold   :lol:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 19, 2009, 02:19:18 PM
    Not only have I had nothing to do with enslaving anyone but I'm being extorted by the IRS (men with guns) every day.  They take what they don't even need just because they can.  It's no wonder those cult members in the cult of "government" keep trying to spend more and more each day.  That's how the keep the "rabble" like us slaving away to be able to have something left over to eat with after their extortion...

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 21, 2009, 08:51:55 PM
    The new "jews" in society will be those pesky "freedom" advocates.  Just a short time ago on the GCN news at the top of the hour they stated that some guy they have arrested (read framed) for "terrorism" would not stand for the judge initially.  So here it comes you "freedom advocates".  You are now the new "jew" ready to be loaded into cattle cars and sent to concentration camps for not standing for the judges.  Of course you must be a "terrorist"....  This guy is a "terrorist" and he won't stand for the judge...

    LET HANG ALL THOSE DAMN TER-RISTS WHO DARE TO NOT STAND FOR OUR HIGH-PRIESTS IN BLACK ROBES  !!!!!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cavalier973 on October 26, 2009, 04:19:02 PM
    "You don't think blacks are as intelligent as asians, so if you had to hire a mathematician, you are going to look for an asian first, which is fucking stupid, because now you aren't giving a black person a chance, which is inherently racist."

    According to Malcom Gladwell in his book Outliers, the reason asians are so good at math is that their language facilitates mental calculation.  Their words for numbers are shorter than English equivalents, and follow along the lines of "3 tens 4, plus 4 tens 5, equals 7 tens 9", instead of our "Thirty-four plus forty-five equals seventy-nine."  With asians having this advantage in the language of numbers, it makes sense to hire them for jobs requiring strong mathematical skills.

    On the concept of anarchy in general, I would like to say that I leaned toward Mark (the show's host) and his ideas about anarcho-capitalism rather than Ian's.  I would think that an-cap is a great idea--in theory--but practically unworkable.  "Show me any examples of an-cap working" I would mentally argue with Ian.  Now, I have purchased a book that almost makes Ian's argument for him.  In "33 Questions You're Not Supposed to Ask about American History", by Tom Woods, it discusses the "Wild" West days, and how relatively tame those days were.  Apparently, there are more crimes committed in a single year in a modern American city than there were in the whole Wild West Days, in the whole Wild West.  What's further, many of the individuals who lived in that time and place did so without government supervision.  They dealt with each other on a voluntary basis, setting up more-or-less private institutions to deal with establishing property boundries and for adjudicating crimes.  As one scholar was quoted as saying, "When everyone has a gun, people tend to avoid confrontations."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cavalier973 on October 26, 2009, 04:39:47 PM
    You should give me a little elevator pitch I can give to my girlfriend. She's Christian but not anarchist.  Shes actually not really that into political philosophy much but I am. This is something she could perhaps like.

    Some arguments may work better than others, depending on her denomination. You could argue from the Book of Judges and 1st Samuel that the entire era of the Judges is described as one in which "everyone did what was right in his own eyes", because there was no king in Israel.  The phrase is one of opprobrium, and yet, when the people of Israel finally gather together to demand Samuel to appoint a king, God gets angry.  He gives Samuel a list of horrible things that the children of Israel will bring on themselves by demanding a king.  He tells Samuel that the demand for a king is a rejection of Himself.  In short, He much prefers to deal with us as individuals, even with all our failings and foibles, than have a situation where people are pushed around by a strong central government.


    Also, you could point out that, though Jesus never compromised Truth, He also never forced it on those unwilling to accept it.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on October 26, 2009, 05:00:22 PM
    Stick around cavalier, you're cool. There is another pdf out there on the wild west I havent gotten around to reading yet but it looks interesting:

    http://invisiblemolotov.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/an-american-experiment-in-anarcho-capitalism/

    And my personal favourite:
    http://invisiblemolotov.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/laws-of-the-jungle/
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on October 27, 2009, 01:11:18 AM
    Bump for my above post. But to provide some content, check out the following bible verses:

    Stupidity:
    Leviticus 19:23-31
    In sum: DONT cross breed cattle, eat fruit from a tree younger than 5, eat rare meat, plant 2 types of seeds, wear clothing that has been mixed with wool and cotton, read horoscopes, see a psychic, listen to a fortune teller, cut your beard, get a tattoo, etc.
    Leviticus 20:6-21
    In sum: Various forms of sleeping around result in ostracism and death.

    A note for some christians:
    Leviticus 19:34.  About loving illegal aliens. :)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cavalier973 on October 27, 2009, 03:22:51 AM
    There are certainly parts of the Bible that are inscrutable to me; part of it is that I haven't grown up in the culture where the Law was given.  The Law which forms the basis for the Old Covenant had a specific purpose; while theoretically by following the Law one could get into a right relationship with God, we learn from Paul that it is impossible for anyone to please God by keeping the Law, because it is our nature to fail in the attempt.  The Law's purpose, therefore, was to instruct us in how incapable we are in living up to God's standards.  (an aside: it's not that God is some white shoe prude that averts His eyes at even the mention of evil.  His nature is such that evil is automatically banished from his presence.  That makes it hard for Him to have a relationship with the creature he loves (man).  So He had to develop a way to reach man without man being destroyed in the process.  His solution was to become a man  and, as man's new Representative, pay the fine, so to speak, that He Himself levied against man for irreparably marring the universe God created.)

    So the Old Testament Law, and especially the rituals, does not apply to the Church Age believer.  The rituals were for making one physically and psychologically clean in preparation for worship in the temple.  Because of Christ's sacrifice, the Christian's body is the temple of God, and he can worship at anytime.  Bringing this rather rambling post around to the original thread question by Christian Anarchist, it is this direct access to God that should make all Christians prefer anarchism (absence of government, not chaos), because they no longer have to prove themselves faithful to God.  There is no mandate for Christians to take over a government and run it according to "Biblical principles"; the only mandate we have is to share the gospel and make disciples (and I may be splitting hairs, here, but I notice that it does not command us to make converts, just to disciple those who come to belief).

    I like that last verse about illegal aliens; I could never really get worked up, angry, about illegal immigration, mostly because every immigrant I have ever met seems to work three times harder than natural-born Americans.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on October 27, 2009, 04:14:35 AM
    If the 5 Books of Moses don't apply to Moses, then why the big deal about the 10 commandments?  I guess they only apply to Jews if that's the case.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cavalier973 on October 27, 2009, 04:48:49 AM
    If the 5 Books of Moses don't apply to Moses, then why the big deal about the 10 commandments?  I guess they only apply to Jews if that's the case.

    The Ten Commandments are popular with conservative Christians, I think, because of the cultural aspect rather than any sort of theological reason.  There's an idea, due to the work of David Barton, et al, that the Constitution is somehow related to the 10 Commandments, and that the Constitution is given legitimacy because of that supposed link.  There is also a sense of loss that accompanies the removal of old symbols and institutions once taken for granted.  If I could quote T.H. White from Once and Future King: "...few people can hate so bitterly and so self-righteously as the members of a ruling caste which is being dispossessed."  Of course, it's silly for Christians to think of themselves as being dispossessed, since our possession is Christ Himself.  Everything else is temporal, including America.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on October 27, 2009, 10:37:32 AM
    And my personal favourite:
    http://invisiblemolotov.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/laws-of-the-jungle/

    I too, love that one.  Never seen it before though. 

    As to the laws of the old testament, I don't put much stock in them other than to show us how hard it is for us to follow "laws"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 04, 2009, 08:54:56 PM
    I mentioned Romans 13 on the show the other night so I thought that it would be a good idea to look into the meaning behind these verses (as I understand them).  I certainly do not think that "the authorities" referred to in this chapter has anything to do with the "Roman authorities" or any other civil "authority" before or since...

    "In Verse 1, the Interlinear text reads, "Let every soul be subject to authorities above him." The word translated authorities, or powers in the King James version, is the Greek word exousia. (Strong's #1849) The most crucial question in this study is, "Who are the exousia or authorities that Paul was referring to in this verse?""

    Link: http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/spiritualauthority.htm

    My belief is that these "authorities" are those who are spiritually an "elder" to you.  Someone you look to as your teacher in the way.  Someone who has more wisdom than you.  This is certainly the impression that I get when later on Paul states (verse 4) that this "authority" is a servant of God.  That pretty much rules out any people in power that I can think of.  It would be hard to present Bush, Cheney, Nero, or Hitler as a "servant of God". 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on November 05, 2009, 10:55:07 AM
    So is God still mad at queers for being fashionable and shit?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cavalier973 on November 05, 2009, 01:35:39 PM
    If God is mad at "queers", it's not because of their fashion sense, or even their homosexuality.  It would be because of their unbelief.  The sacrificial death of Christ can cover any sin, but the propitiatory effect of that sacrifice is denied to those who will not believe.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 05, 2009, 04:31:21 PM
    If God is mad at "queers", it's not because of their fashion sense, or even their homosexuality.  It would be because of their unbelief.  The sacrificial death of Christ can cover any sin, but the propitiatory effect of that sacrifice is denied to those who will not believe.

    Actually my view of "grace" includes those who do not presently accept the sacrifice.  I believe that Christ's sacrifice is the be-all and end-all for sin.  All sin has been crucified on that cross, past, present, and future.  I do not accept a literal "hell" - at least not for humans.  I think that all such references to an "eternal damnation" can be legitimately explained away as either complete errors in the text, or misinterpretations of a "torment" that we bear when things happen to us in this life...

    I feel that people will be able to re-evaluate their positions after death (and some scripture does support this view at least for those who were living before Christ) and what rational being would not accept such a wonderful gift as eternal life if presented to them after death?

    And yes, this means that Hitler, Stalin, and every other "bad guy" you can think of would be given the opportunity to accept the gift of redemption... 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on November 05, 2009, 10:35:46 PM
    I feel that people will be able to re-evaluate their positions after death (and some scripture does support this view at least for those who were living before Christ) and what rational being would not accept such a wonderful gift as eternal life if presented to them after death?

    I guess it depends on the terms. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 06, 2009, 07:40:57 AM
    I feel that people will be able to re-evaluate their positions after death (and some scripture does support this view at least for those who were living before Christ) and what rational being would not accept such a wonderful gift as eternal life if presented to them after death?

    I guess it depends on the terms. 

    I said rational being....  You may except yourself if you desire...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on November 06, 2009, 11:07:09 AM
    I feel that people will be able to re-evaluate their positions after death (and some scripture does support this view at least for those who were living before Christ) and what rational being would not accept such a wonderful gift as eternal life if presented to them after death?

    I guess it depends on the terms. 

    I said rational being....  You may except yourself if you desire...

    Every rational being agrees with me on everything.  You may except yourself if you desire.   :P
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 07, 2009, 07:32:47 PM
    I feel that people will be able to re-evaluate their positions after death (and some scripture does support this view at least for those who were living before Christ) and what rational being would not accept such a wonderful gift as eternal life if presented to them after death?

    I guess it depends on the terms. 

    I said rational being....  You may except yourself if you desire...

    Every rational being agrees with me on everything.  You may except yourself if you desire.   :P

    Yes, if you are so delusional to believe the above, I do indeed except myself...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 10, 2009, 05:54:00 PM
    Last night on the show I discussed with Ian and Mark (and the other guy-sorry my memory isn't what it used to be) my belief in "universal salvation".  I did not have at my fingertips the information on this doctrine throughout Christian history, so here is a primer in the belief with footnotes, of course...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on November 10, 2009, 06:02:23 PM
    Sorry, but if there's a deity that accepts the vile acts of a man like Hitler by having said man say some sort of cosmic version of Sorry, then fuck that deity. There's some things you can never take back, there's some things which do deserve no absolution and no return to friendship and love. Time is ever precious, whether one is immortal or not as each step is one that one hopes is a new one rather than a retread of old territory.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on November 10, 2009, 06:21:47 PM
    Universal salvation makes about as much sense to me as universal damnation.  It's a lot nicer, granted, and I sure know which I'd prefer, but neither one seems very likely at all. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cavalier973 on November 11, 2009, 12:02:38 AM
    Sorry, but if there's a deity that accepts the vile acts of a man like Hitler by having said man say some sort of cosmic version of Sorry, then fuck that deity. There's some things you can never take back, there's some things which do deserve no absolution and no return to friendship and love. Time is ever precious, whether one is immortal or not as each step is one that one hopes is a new one rather than a retread of old territory.

    This is my belief: God is not satisfied by people simply saying they're sorry.  The evil they have done must still be dealt with.  God, as creator of the universe, is also owner of the universe.  Man, the creature that  God (apparently) appointed to be caretaker of the world, and by extension, the universe, decided instead to violate God's property rights by disregarding God's rules.  Thus, Man became indebted to God; he must pay damages for the destruction he caused to God's universe.  The damage done is metaphysical as well as physical, and cannot be paid by the efforts of ordinary man.  God chose to remedy the problem by becoming a man Himself (in the person of His Son, Jesus). Jesus then, Who was sinless, and Whom God regarded as the new legitimate representative of the human race, allowed Himself to bear the sin (pay the debt) of mankind to God.  But God works with us as individuals, not as a group.  Each person must decide if he wants Christ's sacrifice to pay his part of the debt owed.  God does not force you to accept Christ's substitutionary sacrifice; He will allow you the opportunity to try to pay the debt yourself.

    I disagree with Christian Anarchist, then, about the universality of salvation.  The nature of Salvation involves a close relationship with God, which normally people don't want.  If God spent every day of eternity descending to Hell to try to coax people into Heaven, He would be refused, because most people don't like Him, and never will.  And being in the presence of Someone you hate for eternity would be worse than Hell.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on November 11, 2009, 12:09:55 AM
    I disagree with Christian Anarchist, then, about the universality of salvation.  The nature of Salvation involves a close relationship with God, which normally people don't want.  If God spent every day of eternity descending to Hell to try to coax people into Heaven, He would be refused, because most people don't like Him, and never will.  And being in the presence of Someone you hate for eternity would be worse than Hell.

    You must have a very, very different idea of Hell from mine.  As much as spending every day for an eternity with Anne Coulter might suck, I'm pretty sure having your eyes gouged out with pokers repeatedly over that amount of time would be worse. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: thersites on November 11, 2009, 12:28:47 AM
    Sorry, but if there's a deity that accepts the vile acts of a man like Hitler by having said man say some sort of cosmic version of Sorry, then fuck that deity. There's some things you can never take back, there's some things which do deserve no absolution and no return to friendship and love. Time is ever precious, whether one is immortal or not as each step is one that one hopes is a new one rather than a retread of old territory.

    This is my belief: God is not satisfied by people simply saying they're sorry.  The evil they have done must still be dealt with.  God, as creator of the universe

    God then is also the creator of evil, don't you see-has to be. If you accept the notion of a monotheistic creator being, like the Judeao-Christian God (or even a amalgamation such as the trinity), that being must also be a duality-good and evil. Therefore, the idea of universal salvation is totally rational, and indeed is in keeping with the old testament version of a non-life afterlife, Sheol, though there there is no salvation, simply non-ness. Hell, I actually accept that concept, and I'm agnostic.

    It's when you start trying to add subjective moral judgments onto what should be an internal attempt to understand life, that religion gets all nasty. You have control of you, try to do what you think is right...it's all you can do. Why bother about the eternal soul of somebody else...there are plenty of mortal folks who could use that same concern.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on November 11, 2009, 12:31:34 AM
    Sorry, but if there's a deity that accepts the vile acts of a man like Hitler by having said man say some sort of cosmic version of Sorry, then fuck that deity. There's some things you can never take back, there's some things which do deserve no absolution and no return to friendship and love. Time is ever precious, whether one is immortal or not as each step is one that one hopes is a new one rather than a retread of old territory.

    This is my belief: God is not satisfied by people simply saying they're sorry.  The evil they have done must still be dealt with.  God, as creator of the universe

    God then is also the creator of evil, don't you see-has to be. If you accept the notion of a monotheistic creator being, like the Judeao-Christian God (or even a amalgamation such as the trinity), that being must also be a duality-good and evil. Therefore, the idea of universal salvation is totally rational, and indeed is in keeping with the old testament version of a non-life afterlife, Sheol, though there there is no salvation, simply non-ness. Hell, I actually accept that concept, and I'm agnostic.

    It's when you start trying to add subjective moral judgments onto what should be an internal attempt to understand life, that religion gets all nasty. You have control of you, try to do what you think is right...it's all you can do. Why bother about the eternal soul of somebody else...there are plenty of mortal folks who could use that same concern.
    Where does the old testament talk about afterlife?  That's news to me.

    I agree with the last statement though.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cavalier973 on November 11, 2009, 12:48:10 AM
    Quote
    You must have a very, very different idea of Hell from mine.  As much as spending every day for an eternity with Anne Coulter might suck, I'm pretty sure having your eyes gouged out with pokers repeatedly over that amount of time would be worse. 

    Hell is separation from God.  It's the state of unredeemed man.  The phrase "Believe in Jesus or you'll go to hell" is incorrect.  The correct phrasing is "If you do not believe in Jesus, you are already in hell."

    For an interesting portrayal of hell, read The Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis...

    Heaven, on the other hand, is the close relationship that a believer has with God.  And God, despite the propaganda, is nothing like Ann Coulter.  Since He is an infinite Being, He has Infinite attributes, which the believer will spend eternity future learning about.  To put it another way, if a believer were thrown into fiery torment, and an unbeliever were given an eternity of unrelenting pleasure, the believer would still have a better afterlife than the unbeliever, because he would be developing his relationship with his Creator, while the unbeliever would only have himself for company, which would get tiresome fairly soon.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Harry Tuttle on November 11, 2009, 12:51:48 AM
    ...The correct phrasing is "If you do not believe in Jesus, you are already in hell."

    For an interesting portrayal of hell, read The Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis...

    ... if a believer were thrown into fiery torment, and an unbeliever were given an eternity of unrelenting pleasure, the believer would still have a better afterlife than the unbeliever, because he would be developing his relationship with his Creator, while the unbeliever would only have himself for company, which would get tiresome fairly soon.

    If what I'm in now is hell, then I must admit I find it fairly tolerable. If I need only  to wait for a few assholes to get sent to heaven for eternity, I'm sure I could enjoy this hell for several centuries at least before bemoaning my existence.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on November 11, 2009, 01:06:39 AM
    [quote ] an unbeliever were given an eternity of unrelenting pleasure, the believer would still have a better afterlife than the unbeliever, because he would be developing his relationship with his Creator, while the unbeliever would only have himself for company, which would get tiresome fairly soon.
    [/quote]

    That was a twilight zone episode.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cavalier973 on November 11, 2009, 01:09:55 AM
    Quote
    God then is also the creator of evil, don't you see-has to be. If you accept the notion of a monotheistic creator being, like the Judeao-Christian God (or even a amalgamation such as the trinity), that being must also be a duality-good and evil. Therefore, the idea of universal salvation is totally rational, and indeed is in keeping with the old testament version of a non-life afterlife, Sheol, though there there is no salvation, simply non-ness. Hell, I actually accept that concept, and I'm agnostic.

    It's when you start trying to add subjective moral judgments onto what should be an internal attempt to understand life, that religion gets all nasty. You have control of you, try to do what you think is right...it's all you can do. Why bother about the eternal soul of somebody else...there are plenty of mortal folks who could use that same concern.

    I do not believe that Evil is a thing in itself; it is not a created "thing", but merely the state of being opposed to God.  Evil actions are the result of evil motives.  So say I.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cavalier973 on November 11, 2009, 01:11:36 AM
    Quote
    If what I'm in now is hell, then I must admit I find it fairly tolerable. If I need only  to wait for a few assholes to get sent to heaven for eternity, I'm sure I could enjoy this hell for several centuries at least before bemoaning my existence.

    Exactly so.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on November 11, 2009, 01:16:25 AM
    ...The correct phrasing is "If you do not believe in Jesus, you are already in hell."

    For an interesting portrayal of hell, read The Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis...

    ... if a believer were thrown into fiery torment, and an unbeliever were given an eternity of unrelenting pleasure, the believer would still have a better afterlife than the unbeliever, because he would be developing his relationship with his Creator, while the unbeliever would only have himself for company, which would get tiresome fairly soon.

    If what I'm in now is hell, then I must admit I find it fairly tolerable. If I need only  to wait for a few assholes to get sent to heaven for eternity, I'm sure I could enjoy this hell for several centuries at least before bemoaning my existence.
    I agree completely.  And I also don't believe in Hell.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cavalier973 on November 11, 2009, 01:21:11 AM
    an unbeliever were given an eternity of unrelenting pleasure, the believer would still have a better afterlife than the unbeliever, because he would be developing his relationship with his Creator, while the unbeliever would only have himself for company, which would get tiresome fairly soon.

    That was a twilight zone episode.

    It was also a "Got Milk" commercial, with a jerk boss who winds up in a place with plates piled with cookies, but empty milk cartons.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on November 11, 2009, 09:21:46 AM
    Hell is separation from God.

    I hear this sometimes from believers. If all "hell" is is seperation from god, then I'm fine with that. After all, I am seperated now, and have not noticed it any.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cavalier973 on November 11, 2009, 12:04:41 PM
    Quote
    I hear this sometimes from believers. If all "hell" is is seperation from god, then I'm fine with that. After all, I am seperated now, and have not noticed it any.

    The idea that hell is a place of torment comes primarily from Jesus' parable of Dives and Lazarus, and from Revelation.  As thersin said, the Old Testament Scriptures described the afterlife (for both believers and non-believers) as "Sheol", which means, more or less, "Shadowlands", a shadowy place.

    But getting back to Jesus' parable, I notice some interesting things about Dives in hell:  he's conscious, aware of his torment.  He asks Father Abraham to send Lazarus to provide relief by sprinkling water on the tip of his tongue.  When he is denied that, he asks Abe to send Lazarus to his brothers to somehow persuade them to do whatever it takes to avoid his own fate.  That request, too, is denied.  What's interesting to me is that Dives never asks to be released.  He doesn't ask for help escaping ("let me come get some water"; "let me go talk to my brothers").  He doesn't even ask for that much relief (how can one drop of cool water on the tongue do anything but make one's torment worse?).  The only thing I can conclude is that Dives wants to be there, for all that he is annoyed by the torment.

    As for the torment itself, it's stated to result from Dives being in flames, but I wonder if that's not a metaphor Christ uses to describe Dives' realization that a condition of absolute fulfillment was available to him that he is now eternally denied.  That is, Dives never considered a relationship with God to be anything other than a burden ("What, I've got to sit on a cloud playing a harp?  Even Hell sounds like a lot more fun."  Or, even better, "I read the Bible, and God seems to be a petty, arbitrary, and emotionally unstable tyrant; who would want to be anywhere near Him for ten minutes, much less eternity?" ).  But then, having met God in His Infinite glory, he realizes that, being a created being, his only path for ultimate fulfilment is developing a relationship with his Creator Who loves him, but now knows that he can never have that.  Even if there were literal flames, I think that being denied access to God, once one meets Him, would be the worse torture.

    I have no illusions that I will persuade anyone to the Gospel by my little rants here.  Anyone so persuaded could just as easily unpersuade themselves, anyway.  And most of what I declare to be true is unfalsifiable flapdoodle to those who read.  But I am not commanded to convince, persuade, or force anyone into belief; I am merely to share the Gospel, and let those who hear decide for themselves.

    Going back to the original post of this thread, the primary reason I dislike the government so much is that it interferes with the preaching of the Gospel like no other institution can, even when the government is structured to promote the Gospel--especially when the government  is so structured.  As a corollary, since I believe that only belief in Christ can bring true morality, it is useless for me to try to force anyone else to be a moral person (according to my belief system).

    For anyone curious as to my path to an-cap; I was a Huckabee supporter, and considered myself a true-blue (or is it "true-red" now?) conservative.  When NRO, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and the rest went nuclear on Huckabee, I started searching for alternative news sources, and found mises.org and lewrockwell.com.  While some of what I read there made me angry, most of it made sense.  So I started declaring myself to be a libertarian, or a "classical liberal".  I read the information about anarcho-capitalism; at first, I was extremely skeptical whether an-cap would even be desirable.  Then, after some more study, I came to the postion that an-cap would be the unattainable ideal.  Then, I read Tom Wood's book 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask, and then the paper referenced in that book (http://jim.com/wild_west.htm), and realized that the ideal of an-cap was almost achieved for a short time.  In a roundabout way, it really brought home to me that argument that Jesus never forced his message on anyone, but was content to allow people to choose for themselves whether to believe or not.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on November 11, 2009, 12:27:45 PM
    As for the torment itself, it's stated to result from Dives being in flames, but I wonder if that's not a metaphor Christ uses to describe Dives' realization that a condition of absolute fulfillment was available to him that he is now eternally denied.  That is, Dives never considered a relationship with God to be anything other than a burden ("What, I've got to sit on a cloud playing a harp?  Even Hell sounds like a lot more fun."  Or, even better, "I read the Bible, and God seems to be a petty, arbitrary, and emotionally unstable tyrant; who would want to be anywhere near Him for ten minutes, much less eternity?" ).  But then, having met God in His Infinite glory, he realizes that, being a created being, his only path for ultimate fulfilment is developing a relationship with his Creator Who loves him, but now knows that he can never have that.  Even if there were literal flames, I think that being denied access to God, once one meets Him, would be the worse torture.

    If being immersed in flames is better than not getting to hang out with God after having met him, and there are people who don't get to do such, then God is a petty, arbitrary, and emotionally unstable tyrant.  With mind control powers, apparently. 

    But it's interesting to see what mental gymnastics people put themselves through to pretend otherwise, instead of just saying "The god I worship is better than that" or even just "I have no idea if there's a god or what he's like," which are respectively more moral and rational conclusions. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: fatcat on November 11, 2009, 12:43:58 PM
     Even if there were literal flames, I think that being denied access to God, once one meets Him, would be the worse torture.

    L
    O
    L

    Yeah, I'd much rather be set on fire FOREVER than to not get to hang out with a vain (obsessed about people worshipping him), evil (thinks gay people should be murdererd), homphobic (thinks gay people should be murdered) ASSHOLE.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BobRobertson on November 11, 2009, 12:52:23 PM
    Interesting snipping.

    Anyone else see the documentary "The God That Wasn't There"? I got it through NetFlix.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cavalier973 on November 11, 2009, 12:57:44 PM
    Quote

    If being immersed in flames is better than not getting to hang out with God after having met him, and there are people who don't get to do such, then God is a petty, arbitrary, and emotionally unstable tyrant.  With mind control powers, apparently. 

    But it's interesting to see what mental gymnastics people put themselves through to pretend otherwise, instead of just saying "The god I worship is better than that" or even just "I have no idea if there's a god or what he's like," which are respectively more moral and rational conclusions. 

    Not at all, God doesn't force anyone to spend eternity apart from Himself; nor does He force people to choose Him (I believe this despite what the Calvinists say).  If He did, there would be no such thing as free will.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, supposing God went to hell every day of eternity to offer salvation to the unredeemed, He would be rejected each time, because people prefer their rebellion to reconciliation with God.  To take a cue from Professor von Mises, I cannot say that their decision is irrational (even if it is not what I choose), because I do not know their reasons for preferring damnation to salvation.

    It clearly states (in both the Old and New Testaments) that God does not delight in the death of the wicked (which, by His definition, is all of us), but wants everyone to come to repentance.  But his nature is such that evil of any sort is automatically banished from His presence.  He has to do a supernatural cleansing of sorts on anyone wanting to spend eternity with Him, otherwise standing in His presence would be a torment itself.  He has chosen to do this by becoming a man Himself, punishing Himself on our behalf, and applying the benefits to anyone who believes.  I do not know why He has chosen this path for redemption over other possible choices.  Again, I cannot assume that God is acting irrationally simply because I do not share His preferences.  My guess is that this particular plan of redemption saves the most people without violating their free will to choose and act.  But that's just a guess.

    Something else I thought of about evil generally.  Every evil act is felt by God personally; similar to an artist who works years to create a masterpiece, and then sees others vandalize it would feel, I think.  So when one man violates the rightst of another, God feels it.  When a woman is raped and beaten, that's an offense God takes personally.  Any theft, any cruelty, is felt personally by God, and is considered an affront to Himself.  Jesus went around forgiving people that hadn't apparently wronged Him in any way.  What right has Jesus to forgive a thief?  Shouldn't that be the prerogative of those stolen from?  It makes sense (to me) that Jesus has that right if one considers that the theft was committed against God as well as the temporal victim.  And when I remember that Jesus was given a sham trial, and even though found innocent by the authority (Pilate), was still put to death, I see God knows in a real sense what it is like to be murdered.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cavalier973 on November 11, 2009, 01:13:50 PM
    Interesting snipping.

    Anyone else see the documentary "The God That Wasn't There"? I got it through NetFlix.

    I doubt I ever see it; but I looked it up on Wikipedia, and found some errors in Flemming's assertions (if the wikipedia article is accurately reporting his claims).
     *"The Epistles of Paul, which were written before the Gospels, show no awareness on the part of the author that Jesus was supposed to have been a human being who recently lived. Paul mentions only the crucifixion, the resurrection and the ascension and presents them as having occurred in a mythic realm rather than an earthly one"
    -->Paul clearly writes that Jesus was seen by Simon Peter, the apostles generally, 500 people at the same time, and Jesus' half-brother James.  Only Paul's interaction with Jesus was something that could be construed as a vision of sorts.
     *"Flemming sees God's demand that people believe in him or be damned as essentially mind control. He interprets Mark 3:29 and similar passages as damning anyone who doubts the existence of the Holy Spirit. He is appalled by the notion that Jesus will forgive murder, theft, and any other sin but not this type of disbelief. "
    -->As I have been writing, God hates unbelief because it is the only sin that keeps a man separate from Himself.  Unless a man, of his own free will, believes, God cannot cleanse him, and fit him for heaven.
     *"Flemming sees God's demand that people believe in him or be damned as essentially mind control. He interprets Mark 3:29 and similar passages as damning anyone who doubts the existence of the Holy Spirit. He is appalled by the notion that Jesus will forgive murder, theft, and any other sin but not this type of disbelief."
    -->The whole "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" was directed toward the religious leaders of Jesus' day; they knew the scriptures, and knew that the scriptures pointed to Jesus having fulfilled the requirements to be the Messiah, but they attributed Jesus' ministry to Satanic origins.
    *"Because Jesus knows people's innermost thoughts, and that therefore one must police one's thoughts to avoid any doubt, Flemming summarizes this idea with the statement that the greatest sin in Christianity is 'to think.'"
    -->As above, the greatest sin is to not believe.  And Jesus knew generally what was in man's thoughts; but I don't think he had the ability to read people's minds.  Doubt is different from unbelief.  Doubt is a form of questioning, which can lead to greater faith  (see both Peter and Thomas).  Unbelief is the willful rejection of Christ, and is determined by the will of the person, regardless of outside circumstances.
     *"The film references poll results indicating that 40% of Americans believe, to some degree, that Jesus will come back to Earth in their lifetime, and that this sort of thinking is not conducive to long-term governmental policies."
    --> Amen, brother.  Amen.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on November 11, 2009, 01:19:53 PM
    Not at all, God doesn't force anyone to spend eternity apart from Himself; nor does He force people to choose Him (I believe this despite what the Calvinists say).  If He did, there would be no such thing as free will.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, supposing God went to hell every day of eternity to offer salvation to the unredeemed, He would be rejected each time, because people prefer their rebellion to reconciliation with God.  To take a cue from Professor von Mises, I cannot say that their decision is irrational (even if it is not what I choose), because I do not know their reasons for preferring damnation to salvation.

    If somebody's preferences sound utterly incomprehensible to you, it's probably because you've got those preferences wrong.  What you're saying is that we have free will now and the conclusions we make about God will determine what happens beyond death, when apparently we will stop having free will when we've actually been confronted with the truth about whether God exists and what he's like.  Yet because the decision has been made during life when this whole thing sounded ridiculous, we will either be powerless to change our fates, or somehow affected by mind control which makes us prefer damnation to God's presence.  

    I'm sorry, but that's both morally corrupt and utterly stupid.  There's no nice way to put it.  

    Also, I don't recall Jesus telling any parable about a guy named Dives who goes to hell.  Where did you read that, anyway?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cavalier973 on November 11, 2009, 01:51:58 PM
    If somebody's preferences sound utterly incomprehensible to you, it's probably because you've got those preferences wrong.  What you're saying is that we have free will now and the conclusions we make about God will determine what happens beyond death, when apparently we will stop having free will when we've actually been confronted with the truth about whether God exists and what he's like.  Yet because the decision has been made during life when this whole thing sounded ridiculous, we will either be powerless to change our fates, or somehow affected by mind control which makes us prefer damnation to God's presence.  

    I'm sorry, but that's both morally corrupt and utterly stupid.  There's no nice way to put it.  

    You have a knack for getting right to the point, and I salute you for it.  I disagree that we have not been "confronted with the truth about whether God exists and what He's like."  If one is willing to humor me and take the Scriptural narrative to be true, the whole history of the Old Testament details a people (Israel) who are continually confronted with the reality of God, and still continually reject Him. The Ten Commandments were spoken aloud by God to the people; they became frightened, and asked God to only speak to them through Moses afterward.  Moses went up onto the mountain to get further instruction.  Now, remember, the people of Israel saw the 10 plagues of Egypt (and experienced some of them), whereby God "defeated" 10 major Egyptian deities.  They saw the parting of the Red Sea, and through their journies up to that point, God displayed a physical manifestation (pillar of cloud by day, pillar of fire by night) that demonstrated his presence among them.  Yet, when they got bored during Moses' absence, they started a big, religious sex orgy--while God was sitting over there as a pillar of cloud/fire.  The Religious Leaders didn't start plotting Jesus' murder until after He raised Lazarus from the dead--arguably an air-tight argument that Jesus' ministry came from God Himself, as no one else had power to raise the dead.  Unassailable proof of God's existence is insufficient for faith in Him.

    Quote
    Also, I don't recall Jesus telling any parable about a guy named Dives who goes to hell.  Where did you read that, anyway?

    I'm merely following convention by calling the rich man "Dives" (Latin for "rich man", or something like that); he is unnamed in the parable.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2016:19-16:31&version=KJV

    Luke 16:19-31 (King James Version)

     19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

     20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

     21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

     22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

     23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

     24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

     25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

     26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

     27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

     28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

     29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

     30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

     31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BobRobertson on November 11, 2009, 01:56:34 PM
    --> Amen, brother.  Amen.

    Oookay.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cavalier973 on November 11, 2009, 02:06:24 PM
    Quote
    What you're saying is that we have free will now and the conclusions we make about God will determine what happens beyond death, when apparently we will stop having free will when we've actually been confronted with the truth about whether God exists and what he's like.

    It is a conundrum, I admit.  The apostle Paul speaks of "mysteries", which meant a spiritual truth that was previously unknown, but since the advent of Christ was revealed.  The salvation of the Gentile nations is an example of such a mystery.  Perhaps there is a mystery for this age, that those who die will be allowed to recant their unbelief, and accept the salvation graciously offered while they were on earth.  Perhaps Christian Anarchist will be proven right, after all, and everyone becomes redeemed.  I wouldn't kick, if that becomes the case.

    On the other hand, God, though He doesn't force salvation on anyone, actively works to bring the unbeliever to belief; He does this primarily through the witness (words and lifestyle) of those who are saved.  It seems a poor sort of witness (looking only at my own life), but from my reading of the Scripture, it is more effective to use broken humanity than to send angels dealing out signs and wonders.

    God isn't required to offer salvation to anyone, I think.  He was perfectly within His rights to destroy man once man damaged the universe.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on November 11, 2009, 03:03:25 PM
    Thanks for citing the passage, cavalier.  I was really thrown off by the name you used. 

    You have a knack for getting right to the point, and I salute you for it.  I disagree that we have not been "confronted with the truth about whether God exists and what He's like."  If one is willing to humor me and take the Scriptural narrative to be true, the whole history of the Old Testament details a people (Israel) who are continually confronted with the reality of God, and still continually reject Him. The Ten Commandments were spoken aloud by God to the people; they became frightened, and asked God to only speak to them through Moses afterward. 

    Okay, first of all I am not able to take the scriptural narrative to be true.  I am not able to take any narrative first recorded thousands of years ago to be true, especially if it involves miraculous events, and what's more I shouldn't be expected to do so on pain of eternal torment. 

    However-- even if I accepted that story to be true, why should it prove God to me?  Why should God have been willing to speak down from the heavens thousands of years ago, and yet not extend the same courtesy to every human being who has ever lived, considering that presumably every human being is subject to his judgment?  Why is the evidence of God's existence that he is willing to demonstrate to humankind so variable? 

    And even if God spoke down from the heavens, how in the hell am I supposed to recognize him as God?  I could be insane.  It could be aliens.  It could be a practical joke.  Any of those possibilities are more likely than that Yahweh has a special message to me, to demonstrate his existence.   

    Finite beings cannot recognize infinity, full stop.  Arthur C. Clarke's third law states that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, and it is equally true that any sufficiently advanced being is indistinguishable from deity.  You just can't know. 

    Now, if I got my brain checked out and it seemed that everything was working properly and nobody was playing a joke on me, could I acknowledge that the being speaking from the heavens to me is real?  Sure.  But I wouldn't know if it was God, and more importantly I couldn't  know.  And neither could the people of Israel.  If God's not happy with that, then I have to say it's his own fault for not creating beings who were omniscient like him. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cavalier973 on November 11, 2009, 03:31:27 PM
    Excellent questions.  I have no answer but to believe; if God is real, an appeal to Him will produce results; He seems to respond to those who seek Him.  If He does not exist, then belief will only produce a sense of relief from the pain and confusion of life--and at that, it will not work for everyone who tries to believe.

    Quote
    Why should God have been willing to speak down from the heavens thousands of years ago, and yet not extend the same courtesy to every human being who has ever lived, considering that presumably every human being is subject to his judgment?  Why is the evidence of God's existence that he is willing to demonstrate to humankind so variable?

    One of the main points of the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is that supernatural activity is insufficient to produce faith.  The reading of Scripture is all that is necessary for a person to believe.  If God were to rip open the sky, shake his fist at us, and declare in a booming voice "Worship Me!"; we would rationalize the occurence away.  If He did it every day, we would try to shoot him out of the sky with nuclear missiles.  The problem of faith, or its lack, is not one of insufficient facts; it is a heart problem tied to the Fall of Man.

    As I said before, I consider it a fruitless activity to try to persuade you to belief; that's not my department ("It's higher than my pay grade", to borrow a phrase).  I merely present the Gospel message (sin separates one from God; belief in Christ's substitutionary sacrifice allows God to negate sin and eliminate the separation) as best I can.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: thersites on November 12, 2009, 01:55:14 AM
    Quote
    God then is also the creator of evil, don't you see-has to be. If you accept the notion of a monotheistic creator being, like the Judeao-Christian God (or even a amalgamation such as the trinity), that being must also be a duality-good and evil. Therefore, the idea of universal salvation is totally rational, and indeed is in keeping with the old testament version of a non-life afterlife, Sheol, though there there is no salvation, simply non-ness. Hell, I actually accept that concept, and I'm agnostic.

    It's when you start trying to add subjective moral judgments onto what should be an internal attempt to understand life, that religion gets all nasty. You have control of you, try to do what you think is right...it's all you can do. Why bother about the eternal soul of somebody else...there are plenty of mortal folks who could use that same concern.

    I do not believe that Evil is a thing in itself; it is not a created "thing", but merely the state of being opposed to God.  Evil actions are the result of evil motives.  So say I.

    For fuck's sake...motives created by who? Who planted that seed in humanity? C'mon, you can do it. Go watch "Searching for Bobby Fischer", where the teacher tosses all the pieces off the board...do that-look at life without the bullshit, all human bullshit.

    And accept, like Gene does, that the Bible was written, and perverted, by people..not God. If God is anywhere, it's within you. Otherwise you serve man's interests, not God's.

    I say this not believing in God, or man, but rather just as a thinker. Do your work Cavalier, but think as you do it!
    Title: ( Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer... )
    Post by: cavalier973 on November 12, 2009, 06:23:48 AM
    Quote
    For fuck's sake...motives created by who? Who planted that seed in humanity? C'mon, you can do it. Go watch "Searching for Bobby Fischer", where the teacher tosses all the pieces off the board...do that-look at life without the bullshit, all human bullshit.

    And accept, like Gene does, that the Bible was written, and perverted, by people..not God. If God is anywhere, it's within you. Otherwise you serve man's interests, not God's.

    I say this not believing in God, or man, but rather just as a thinker. Do your work Cavalier, but think as you do it!

    God created man with free will.  That means that man can oppose God's will.  I do not believe that God implanted into the heart of man the will to rebel, though.

    For all of Gene's excellent qualities, it seems to me that if I merely follow his lead, then I am clearly not thinking for myself.  Of course the Scriptures were written by humans, but the writers did so at God's direction.  I accept the Scriptures not because I have any scientific data that shows they were written by God, but because I have the presupposition that God exists; that He desires to communicate with us, and that He uses humans to do so.  Since I believe that He can speak reality into existence, then I certainly can believe He can keep His scriptures free from false data inserted by fallible humans (that is, the Scriptures are inerrant in their original autographs; any errors found in today's texts would be due to things like copying errors).  I understand that the Bible is a book of faith; that it was written for the purpose of eliciting belief in the reader.  But at the same time, it looks to me as if the writers did their best to relate what really happened, rather than put a bunch of nice fairy stories together. The Gospel accounts each seem to differ in details about what was going on.  One says that Jesus cursed a fig tree and it immediately withered, another account says that it didn't wither until the next day.  One account has several women visiting the tomb on Sunday morning, another has only one woman, or different women, and differing amounts of angels appearing to the women.  One account has Jesus accosted by a blind man as he is entering Jericho, another has it as He left Jericho.  All these are not obstacles for me to believe.  The point for me is that Jesus cursed a fig tree and it withered; that the first people to visit the tomb were women, who experienced a supernatural visitation; that he healed a blind man around Jericho.  For me, this only makes the Gospels more believable; as if each writer was trying to get down what he remembered (traditionally, Matthew and John were apostles who wrote the gospels bearing their names; Mark was written by John Mark, but was either dictated by the apostle Peter, or was John Mark's recollection of some of Peter's sermons; Luke was a doctor who went around interviewing people to find out what happened and provide a chronology of the history of the Christian church's emergence to someone named "Theophilus"; he wrote the companion volume, "The Acts of the Apostles" detailing the church's history after Christ's ascension).  There is a phrase, "The Harmony of the Gospels"; I find it apt.  "Harmony" involves people singing different notes that blend into music.  If they all sang the same notes, then it would be "melody" not "harmony".  Besides, if each Gospel said exactly the same thing, it would be a barrier to faith, on the presumption that the writers colluded to "get the story straight."

    As an aside, some of the problems that occur with understanding Scriptures are due not to how they were written, but how they were translated into other languages.
    This is an interesting discussion of the problem of Luke's dating Jesus' advent and birth using the census that occured under Quirinius (the historian Josephus places Quirinius' census at a time when Jesus would have been around 10 years old, if one used Matthew's dating): http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/11/01/Once-More-Quiriniuss-Census.aspx

    If you do not believe in God, then I am not inclined to accept your assertions of where God is and what His interests are.
    Title: Re: ( Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer... )
    Post by: mikehz on November 12, 2009, 08:15:29 AM
    If you do not believe in God, then I am not inclined to accept your assertions of where God is and what His interests are.

    Yes. It's like arguing what breed of rabbit the Easter bunny is.
    Title: Re: ( Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer... )
    Post by: Rillion on November 12, 2009, 12:01:20 PM
    If you do not believe in God, then I am not inclined to accept your assertions of where God is and what His interests are.

    Yes. It's like arguing what breed of rabbit the Easter bunny is.

    That's theology in a nutshell....regardless of who is doing it. 
    Title: Re: ( Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer... )
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 12, 2009, 01:52:54 PM

    For all of Gene's excellent qualities, it seems to me that if I merely follow his lead, then I am clearly not thinking for myself.  Of course the Scriptures were written by humans, but the writers did so at God's direction.  I accept the Scriptures not because I have any scientific data that shows they were written by God, but because I have the presupposition that God exists; that He desires to communicate with us, and that He uses humans to do so.  Since I believe that He can speak reality into existence, then I certainly can believe He can keep His scriptures free from false data inserted by fallible humans (that is, the Scriptures are inerrant in their original autographs; any errors found in today's texts would be due to things like copying errors).  I understand that the Bible is a book of faith; that it was written for the purpose of eliciting belief in the reader.  But at the same time, it looks to me as if the writers did their best to relate what really happened, rather than put a bunch of nice fairy stories together. The Gospel accounts each seem to differ in details about what was going on.  One says that Jesus cursed a fig tree and it immediately withered, another account says that it didn't wither until the next day.  One account has several women visiting the tomb on Sunday morning, another has only one woman, or different women, and differing amounts of angels appearing to the women.  One account has Jesus accosted by a blind man as he is entering Jericho, another has it as He left Jericho.  All these are not obstacles for me to believe.  The point for me is that Jesus cursed a fig tree and it withered; that the first people to visit the tomb were women, who experienced a supernatural visitation; that he healed a blind man around Jericho.  For me, this only makes the Gospels more believable; as if each writer was trying to get down what he remembered (traditionally, Matthew and John were apostles who wrote the gospels bearing their names; Mark was written by John Mark, but was either dictated by the apostle Peter, or was John Mark's recollection of some of Peter's sermons; Luke was a doctor who went around interviewing people to find out what happened and provide a chronology of the history of the Christian church's emergence to someone named "Theophilus"; he wrote the companion volume, "The Acts of the Apostles" detailing the church's history after Christ's ascension).  There is a phrase, "The Harmony of the Gospels"; I find it apt.  "Harmony" involves people singing different notes that blend into music.  If they all sang the same notes, then it would be "melody" not "harmony".  Besides, if each Gospel said exactly the same thing, it would be a barrier to faith, on the presumption that the writers colluded to "get the story straight."


    Amen


    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 16, 2009, 07:28:47 PM
    I disagree that we have not been "confronted with the truth about whether God exists and what He's like."  If one is willing to humor me and take the Scriptural narrative to be true, the whole history of the Old Testament details a people (Israel) who are continually confronted with the reality of God, and still continually reject Him. The Ten Commandments were spoken aloud by God to the people; they became frightened, and asked God to only speak to them through Moses afterward.  Moses went up onto the mountain to get further instruction.  Now, remember, the people of Israel saw the 10 plagues of Egypt (and experienced some of them), whereby God "defeated" 10 major Egyptian deities.  They saw the parting of the Red Sea, and through their journies up to that point, God displayed a physical manifestation (pillar of cloud by day, pillar of fire by night) that demonstrated his presence among them.  Yet, when they got bored during Moses' absence, they started a big, religious sex orgy--while God was sitting over there as a pillar of cloud/fire.  The Religious Leaders didn't start plotting Jesus' murder until after He raised Lazarus from the dead--arguably an air-tight argument that Jesus' ministry came from God Himself, as no one else had power to raise the dead.  Unassailable proof of God's existence is insufficient for faith in Him.


    This is one area that I try to present to people, that the creation itself is the greatest "testimony" for the existence of the Creator.  I marvel at the precision of our own solar system.  The orbit of the moon around our planet (unique beyond belief), the structure of the atoms, the complexity of life...  All of this and more screams "CREATOR" to me daily.  If there were no "bible" there is still the creation, and that's all I need to believe in Him...

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: CaL DaVe on November 16, 2009, 07:58:56 PM
    [youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_j6ZEOXoNvw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_j6ZEOXoNvw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j6ZEOXoNvw

    Lyrics:
    I hear this old story before
    Where the people keep killing for the metaphors
    Don't leave much up to the imagination,
    So I, wanna give this imagery back
    But I know it just ain't so easy like that
    So, I turn the page and read the story again
    And again and again
    It sure seems the same, with a diff. name
    We're breaking and rebuilding
    And we're growing
    Always guessing

    Never knowing
    Shocking but we're nothing
    We're just moments
    We're Clever but we're clueless
    We're just human
    Amusing but confusing
    Were trying but where is this all leading
    Never Know

    It all happened so much faster
    Than you could say disaster
    Wanna take a time lapse
    And look at it backwards
    From the last one
    And maybe thats just the answer
    That we're after
    But after all
    We're just a bubble in a boiling pot
    Just one breath in a chain of thought
    The moments just combusting
    Feel certain but we'll never never know
    Just seems the same
    Give it a diff. name
    We're beggin and we're needing
    And we're trying and we're breathing

    Never knowing
    Shocking but we're nothing
    We're just moments
    We're Clever but we're clueless
    We're just human
    Amusing but confusing
    Helping, we're building
    And we're growing
    Never Know

    Knock knock on the door to door
    Tell ya that the metaphor is better than yours
    And you can either sink or swim
    Things are looking pretty grim
    If you don't believe in what this one feeding
    Its got no feeling
    So I read it again
    And again and again
    Just seems the same
    Too many different names
    Our hearts are strong our heads are weak
    We'll always be competing never knowing

    Never knowing
    Shocking but we're nothing
    We're just moments
    We're Clever but we're clueless
    We're just human
    Amusing but confusing
    But the truth is
    All we got is questions
    We'll Never Know
    Never Know
    Never Know
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 17, 2009, 09:35:15 PM

    Never knowing
    Shocking but we're nothing
    We're just moments
    We're Clever but we're clueless
    We're just human
    Amusing but confusing
    Were trying but where is this all leading
    Never Know


    I like this song.  I can apply this thinking to the current religion of "science".  These clueless guys who claim that somehow these little tiny microbes on this big planet (humans) could have an influence on the planet.  It would be absolutely hilarious if it weren't for the fact that they are trying to tax us into the ground paying to "clean up" a problem that doesn't even exist...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on November 17, 2009, 11:14:43 PM
    Aw geeze. Sorry Gene, that honestly wasn't meant for this thread. Was for the "Chaos" thread.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 18, 2009, 07:09:08 AM
    Hey, we all make mistakes...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on November 19, 2009, 12:02:28 AM
    I like this song.  I can apply this thinking to the current religion of "science". 

    [youtube=425,350]V0W7Jbc_Vhw&[/youtube]
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 19, 2009, 03:25:11 PM
    Cute on that...

    I have to say I disagree with both positions held in this little play.  The "realist" is nothing more than a snob worshiping himself as being soooooooo far above the rest of the rabble who are not able to comprehend the (self-perceived) wisdom that he possesses.  And the poor little waif is driven by her "feelings" to believe every claim made no matter how preposterous as long as it fits her little agenda....

    I propose a better way to look at things.  How about we acknowledge that what men tell us is usually slanted by some bias they hold.  The scientist has a bias towards getting that funding grant he needs to keep in business, the floozy has a bias towards getting the pleasure and attention she seeks, the "snob" has a bias toward reading and remembering as much "knowledge" as he can get (usually published with grants) to impress his friends, and so on.  Yes, even I have a "bias" I hold and I look at things that support my bias.  So the "reality" then is somewhere in the middle with BS on both sides. 

    Yes, science gets some things right and maybe, just maybe, after having a sufficient amount of evidence showing that the current holy grail is not correct (like "global warming") they might swing their new-found "knowledge" towards a different (although imperfect) conclusion with an equal amount of zeal (remember the coming ice-age of the 60's?) they will still be wrong.  And those who look for a "spiritual" answer to all life's questions will try another "religion" (let's try zen this time) in hopes that all life's answers lie therein.  The real truth (I believe) lies in the middle.  There's much to learn from the spiritual teachings of men past and present, and there's much to learn from the sciences. 

    I've never claimed to "hate" science.  I find science very interesting.  I do not, however put my faith blindly in the hands of those men any more than I would blindly put my faith in the words of "W" (or fill in your favorite Nemesis).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on November 19, 2009, 04:47:43 PM
    What you do that drives me crazy, Gene, is that you speak of science as some kind of monolithic entity with its own views on things.  You're aware-- or should be aware-- that science is a tool for learning about the universe.  Scientists are people who use science toward that end, and being people they have disagreements.  Not all of them receive public money; not all of them want grants, but even those who do are not necessarily wrong in their conclusions. 

    Yes, there are people who will trust anything any scientist says.  Those people are idiots, just like people who will trust anything a preacher says.  That in itself has no bearing on the validity of science or religion, and it does not make science a religion any more than the fact that some people think critically in their theology makes theology a science. 

    It's perfectly possible  to be suspicious of theories about global warming-- or any other theory whatsoever-- without speaking as though the problems with those theories have anything to do with the validity of science itself.  Yet you refuse to do so, for some reason. 

    There is no "middle" between science and religion.  They're not opposite ends of some spectrum.  Religion encompasses both beliefs about existence and beliefs about how we're supposed to behave in that existence.  In the former sense it competes with science (and loses, in my opinion), but in the latter it does not.  Likewise, not all beliefs about how we're supposed to behave are religious. 

    I'm not saying it's bad to be skeptical-- skepticism is great.  But you really tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  You don't have to disparage the tool to disagree with a person using it. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 20, 2009, 08:03:48 PM
    I will guesstimate (prove me wrong here) that 95% plus of all "science" depends on some sort of grant in order to continue.  If this is not the case (and from what I see it is) then all my criticisms of science are unfounded.  If "scientists" are all a bunch of golly-gee-wiz good guys just interested in the truth of their observations and to hell with what the men with the dollars want, then I would have to admit that I'm wrong.  You are going to have a pretty tough time proving it though.  So many instances of perverted "science" is out there proving me right.  I love the "global warming" (oh-excuse me, now it's "global climate change" - snicker) example because it is such a fantastic example of what I'm presenting.  It just so happens that those pushing this so strongly of course have a "solution" in the form of "carbon credits" that they, of course, have complete control of the "trade" in which they will become even more wealthy than they are (at the expense of all us "little people" of course).

    And if you happen to be one of the scientists who are in the 5% NOT funded by these grants and you just happen to conclude from your humble research that there IS NO man-induced influence on the planet's climate, well you will be labeled a "crackpot" by the 95% (at the urging of their peers) and your research will never be published in any "reputable" (read controlled) scientific journal. 

    Certainly there is a call for wisdom in areas that are not defined by physical science.  There are things that cannot be measured or explained by these disciplines (try to measure "love" with your physical sciences).  It only makes LOGICAL sense that the existence of a Creator would be outside of the "creation" and could not be measured by physical science.  This fact would not make it untrue that there is or is not a "Creator", it only makes it unmeasurable.  In this you are correct that there is no "middle" between science and religion.  One is the study of the creation, and the other is an attempt (although an imperfect one) to understand the "Creator"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on November 20, 2009, 08:12:29 PM
    I will guesstimate (prove me wrong here) that 95% plus of all "science" depends on some sort of grant in order to continue.  If this is not the case (and from what I see it is) then all my criticisms of science are unfounded.

    Gene, science began for all intents and purposes with Aristotle, whom I am pretty sure was not attempting to get a grant.  Your criticisms are not of science; they are of scientists.  And while it is important to consider where a scientist's funding comes from when considering his/her conclusions, that does not in itself invalidate any conclusion that a scientist reaches.  You need to acknowledge that. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 20, 2009, 10:32:09 PM
    Perhaps Aristotle was the last one to practice "real science" (ok, so that's an obvious exaggeration).  Today "science" is for the most part nothing more than a tool of the agenda masters.  If you want to follow these agendas, be my guest.  For my part, I will continue to warn those who will listen that (for the most part) they are full of BS pushing an agenda on the masses to follow a program.

    And you are right, I have no argument with true science, but with this propagenda today that passes as science...

    (I don't even need to address all the fraud that is hitting the wires right now about the "global warming" agenda - do I?)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on November 20, 2009, 10:48:16 PM
    Science has done a hell of a lot more for humanity than has superstitious religion, which has opposed virtually every advance in medicine.

    Who are you going to call next time you get some life-threatening illness--your soothsayer, or your doctor (a scientist.)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 21, 2009, 08:35:17 AM
    Science has done a hell of a lot more for humanity than has superstitious religion, which has opposed virtually every advance in medicine.

    Who are you going to call next time you get some life-threatening illness--your soothsayer, or your doctor (a scientist.)

    Yes, "superstitious" religion as, you put it has caused problems.  I prefer to call it "ignorant" religion.  A true "religion" (and I really don't like that word either) is one that tries to perceive the truth about spiritual things.

    As far as an illness, it depends on what you are talking about.  For pneumonia I will go to a doctor and antibiotics will usually knock it out (if you are in reasonable health) in a day or two.  If, on the other hand, I have a terminal cancer with only a 1% chance of favorable treatment at great pain and expense, I will take the spiritual route in hopes of at least getting some comfort as I prepare for that final journey...  A "scientist" will do me no good in that situation.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: thersites on November 21, 2009, 01:26:16 PM
    Science has done a hell of a lot more for humanity than has superstitious religion, which has opposed virtually every advance in medicine.

    Who are you going to call next time you get some life-threatening illness--your soothsayer, or your doctor (a scientist.)

    Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, predator drones, nerve gas, bio-weapons, landmines, logistics to support max. security prisons, drug testing, high fructose corn syrup.....Disco.....

    Forgive me if I'm underwhelmed by the "contribution" of science to "humanity". What religion(other than primitivist sects like the Amish or wack jobs like witnesses) opposes medicine? I don't follow unless you mean moral issues with certain areas of research, and I have those, and I'm agnostic.

    Gene's critique of science as its currently composed is fully just, it is an instrument of the state controlled by money-it shouldn't be, but I doubt very much one can be a "scientist" of any repute these days without entering the official priesthood-and avoiding sacrilege. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on November 21, 2009, 03:23:33 PM
    Gene's critique of science as its currently composed is fully just, it is an instrument of the state controlled by money-it shouldn't be, but I doubt very much one can be a "scientist" of any repute these days without entering the official priesthood-and avoiding sacrilege. 

    So if a government-funded scientist discovers a cure for cancer, that's bad?  The scientists who are currently working on that should quit their jobs? 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on November 21, 2009, 07:30:04 PM
    Ah, the old "fallacy of accident, in which the misuse of something is confused with it's essence. Vastly more people have been saved by science than harmed by it. Chances are, you're alive due to science--not to mention well-fed and housed, and not laboring all waking hours to stay alive. (It is ironic that you are using a computer to communicate your disdain for science.)

    I'll grant you that religions do eventually accept most findings of science--but only after kicking and screaming, and opposing them at every turn. At one time, studying cadavers was forbidden by the Church. Then, it was anesthesiology, under the theory that God intended humans to suffer on earth. Brain surgery was opposed. Then birth control, since it might lead to people having (and--gasp--enjoying) more sex. This last one is still opposed by many millions of Christians.

    I imagine that if a cure were found for cancer, some organized religion would oppose it.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 22, 2009, 08:18:24 PM
    Since I have stated in the past that we already live in anarchy as we can show that "government" is a fiction (therefore nonexistent) and the authority of the "men with guns" is illegitimate, I have changed my title to "Christian Realist"...

    I have done this because I do not "promote" anarchy, but I realize that we always live under anarchy.  The "realist" in me recognizes this fact as I realize the fact of gravity.  I do not "promote" gravity, I acknowledge it.  Similarly, I don't "promote" anarchy, I simply acknowledge that we live under it and try to help others open their eyes to that simple fact.

    I would not, however change the title of this thread ...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on November 23, 2009, 10:25:10 AM
    I see nothing particularly "fictional" about government. If the men with guns come for you, I don't think you're going to get very far by saying, "You are merely a fiction. Be off with you!" No--make no mistake about it, government is most certainly non-fictional, in the same way a book about war atrocities is non-fictional.

    This is the fallacy of equivocation, in which two things that are similar in some ways are taken to be exactly the same in all ways. Government may be based on false premises, but it still exists, in a manner that fiction does not.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 23, 2009, 12:59:25 PM
    I see nothing particularly "fictional" about government. If the men with guns come for you, I don't think you're going to get very far by saying, "You are merely a fiction. Be off with you!" No--make no mistake about it, government is most certainly non-fictional, in the same way a book about war atrocities is non-fictional.


    You're confusing your terms.  You say "government" and then you try to back it up by "men with guns".  No one here is trying to deny the existance of "men with guns" (a true sign of "anarchy" if I ever heard of one).  What can be demonstrated beyond ANY doubt, is that any form of "government" is a total fiction.  This only exists in the minds of the men who believe in them.  As soon as the majority of people STOP believing in them, the men with guns find another fictional source of "authority" to grab on to (until people wake up to that nonsense and then that fiction is shown to also be nothing more than a wisp of smoke).

    Quote

    This is the fallacy of equivocation, in which two things that are similar in some ways are taken to be exactly the same in all ways. Government may be based on false premises, but it still exists, in a manner that fiction does not.

    Ya, sure "governments" exist...  Have you seen any USSR lately?  How about Babylon?  No, these things are ideas that only "exist" in the minds of men.  As soon as people realize that there is no real substance to these "ideas", they vanish from consciousness (USSR).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on November 23, 2009, 01:29:14 PM
    A "fiction" refers to something made up that does not exist in real life, and therefore cannot hurt you. "Gilligan's Island" is a fiction. So is "Little Women." Neither can hurt me.

    Government is an organization. So is the Mafia. Both are very much real, and can certainly hurt me. But, it's silly to say that either is in any manner fictional.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on November 23, 2009, 02:45:08 PM
    If "legitimate" were part of the definition of "government," then Gene might have a point.  But it isn't.  A government is simply an organization which regulates the behavior of a body of people via threat of force.  A gang is a kind of government. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 23, 2009, 03:12:11 PM
    If "legitimate" were part of the definition of "government," then Gene might have a point.  But it isn't.  A government is simply an organization which regulates the behavior of a body of people via threat of force.  A gang is a kind of government. 

    So you then seem to be making the claim that our "government" can be "illegitimate". 

    il⋅le⋅git⋅i⋅mate
      /adj., n. ˌɪlɪˈdʒɪtəmɪt; v. ˌɪlɪˈdʒɪtəˌmeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [adj., n. il-i-jit-uh-mit; v. il-i-jit-uh-meyt] Show IPA adjective, noun, verb, -mat⋅ed, -mat⋅ing.
    Use illegitimate in a Sentence
    See web results for illegitimate
    See images of illegitimate
    –adjective
    1.    born of parents who are not married to each other; born out of wedlock: an illegitimate child.
    2.    not legitimate; not sanctioned by law or custom.
    3.    unlawful; illegal: an illegitimate action.
    4.    irregular; not in good usage.
    5.    Logic. not in accordance with the principles of valid inference.
    6.    Obsolete. (formerly, in London)
    a.    of or pertaining to stage plays in which musical numbers were inserted because of laws that gave only a few theaters the exclusive right to produce straight dramas.
    b.    acting in or producing such productions.

    So then our "government" is now "illegal" or "not sanctioned by law"...  And from whence comes this "law" that this "government" has violated?  Why from "government" of course !!  Talk about round robin.  It seem quite silly to make a claim that this fiction called "government" can be "legitimate" or "illegitimate".  For if it is the former, then it must have a "source" that IS "legitimate" and if the later, then it cannot even BE a "government" because it is "unlawful"...


    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on November 23, 2009, 03:41:27 PM
    So you then seem to be making the claim that our "government" can be "illegitimate". 

    Umm, yeah.  As in, not morally sanctionable.  In fact, one could argue that government is not legitimate by definition.  That would make a great deal more sense than arguing the opposite, as you seem to be doing.   
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 23, 2009, 04:03:58 PM
    So you then seem to be making the claim that our "government" can be "illegitimate". 

    Umm, yeah.  As in, not morally sanctionable.  In fact, one could argue that government is not legitimate by definition.  That would make a great deal more sense than arguing the opposite, as you seem to be doing.   

    I'm arguing that "government" is "illegitimate" by the fact that it is a fiction, by the fact that it has no "authority" and cannot be demonstrated to have either "authority" or "substance"...

    You are the one who brought up government having a distinction between "legitimate" or "illegitimate".  In past posts, I have pointed out that there is NO legitimate authority for one person to exercise force over another without consent.  (Look in my tagline for the "Question Authority" reference).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on November 23, 2009, 04:10:58 PM
    I'm arguing that "government" is "illegitimate" by the fact that it is a fiction

    "Legitimate" does not mean "existent" or "true."  It means "justified."   If things had to be legitimate in order to be true, then gang wars, rape, and suicide bombers wouldn't exist.   That would be a lovely world to live in, but unfortunately we don't. 

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 23, 2009, 09:11:21 PM
    I'm arguing that "government" is "illegitimate" by the fact that it is a fiction

    "Legitimate" does not mean "existent" or "true."  It means "justified."   If things had to be legitimate in order to be true, then gang wars, rape, and suicide bombers wouldn't exist.   That would be a lovely world to live in, but unfortunately we don't. 


    Are you really having such difficulty understanding this or are you just trying to be difficult?  If you analyze the sentence, you will see that "gov" is "illegit" BECAUSE it IS a FICTION...  As a FICTION, it can NEVER be "legit"...  This has absolutely nothing to do with crimes committed by MEN.  The crimes that are committed are indeed "legit" as they are actions which most people call "crimes".  As such, those actions are LEGITIMATE CRIMES !!  Of course the word does not mean "justified" and had never been presented here with that meaning.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on November 23, 2009, 09:22:02 PM
    I'm arguing that "government" is "illegitimate" by the fact that it is a fiction

    "Legitimate" does not mean "existent" or "true."  It means "justified."   If things had to be legitimate in order to be true, then gang wars, rape, and suicide bombers wouldn't exist.   That would be a lovely world to live in, but unfortunately we don't. 


    Are you really having such difficulty understanding this or are you just trying to be difficult?  If you analyze the sentence, you will see that "gov" is "illegit" BECAUSE it IS a FICTION...  As a FICTION, it can NEVER be "legit"...  This has absolutely nothing to do with crimes committed by MEN.  The crimes that are committed are indeed "legit" as they are actions which most people call "crimes".  As such, those actions are LEGITIMATE CRIMES !!  Of course the word does not mean "justified" and had never been presented here with that meaning.

    What the hell do you define "fiction" as, anyway?   For the rest of us in the rational world, it refers to something nonexistent, untrue.  And the fact remains that there are loads of things which are illegitimate.  Illegitimate things exist.  Deal with it.  You can't define government out of existence.  It's still there, whether you like it or not.  Once you learn the actual purpose of scare quotes, you might get around to recognizing that. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 23, 2009, 09:48:42 PM
    This is how I define fiction:

    fic⋅tion
      /ˈfɪkʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fik-shuhn] Show IPA
    Use fiction in a Sentence
    See web results for fiction
    See images of fiction
    –noun
    1.    the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, esp. in prose form.
    2.    works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.
    3.    something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
    4.    the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
    5.    an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.
    6.    Law. an allegation that a fact exists that is known not to exist, made by authority of law to bring a case within the operation of a rule of law.

    I guess the rest of the "rational" world uses a different meaning...

    And I don't have to define government out of existence.  It does not exist.  Men with guns who believe in some "authority" called "government" do exist.  You confuse the existence of cult members as the existence of their god...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: thersites on November 23, 2009, 10:15:43 PM
    I'm arguing that "government" is "illegitimate" by the fact that it is a fiction

    "Legitimate" does not mean "existent" or "true."  It means "justified."   If things had to be legitimate in order to be true, then gang wars, rape, and suicide bombers wouldn't exist.   That would be a lovely world to live in, but unfortunately we don't.  


    Are you really having such difficulty understanding this or are you just trying to be difficult?  If you analyze the sentence, you will see that "gov" is "illegit" BECAUSE it IS a FICTION...  As a FICTION, it can NEVER be "legit"...  This has absolutely nothing to do with crimes committed by MEN.  The crimes that are committed are indeed "legit" as they are actions which most people call "crimes".  As such, those actions are LEGITIMATE CRIMES !!  Of course the word does not mean "justified" and had never been presented here with that meaning.

    What the hell do you define "fiction" as, anyway?   For the rest of us in the rational world, it refers to something nonexistent, untrue.  And the fact remains that there are loads of things which are illegitimate.  Illegitimate things exist.  Deal with it.  You can't define government out of existence.  It's still there, whether you like it or not.  Once you learn the actual purpose of scare quotes, you might get around to recognizing that.  

    Rillion, the State, just like a corporation, is a legal fiction-this is a real term for something that does not actually exist-like Wal-Mart as an entity that can be sued-rather than its managers and owners, or as your "state" charging you with murder. The State, like a corporation, is an artificial construct that offers selective moral(and legal) cover to the individuals who compose it. You cannot shake hands with Wal-Mart, or with Georgia or the US, because both of those things are simply ideas. People act, not ideas.

    This is the core of individualism, the realization that only individuals act-anything else is mysticism. and worse, usually it is mysticism used to defend all of those horrible acts that are done by individuals.  

    Perhaps to better clarify this-the "United States" did not atom bomb Hiroshima, Thomas Ferebee, the bombardier of the Enola Gay looked through a bomb sight and incinerated a city, because he believed it was his duty to....an organization. And people say religion is dangerous.  
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on November 23, 2009, 10:19:34 PM
    If somebody could explain what the meaningful distinction is in describing government as a fiction, I would eternally grateful.  As it stands, it sounds like the stupidest argument ever in favor of anarchy.  Re-arranging the definitions of terms does not re-arrange the world. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on November 24, 2009, 07:31:47 AM
    If somebody could explain what the meaningful distinction is in describing government as a fiction, I would eternally grateful.  As it stands, it sounds like the stupidest argument ever in favor of anarchy.  Re-arranging the definitions of terms does not re-arrange the world. 

    You're right, the world does not get re-arranged by clarifying the terms and exposing the reality of the fiction, but knowledge sets the people free.  Throughout history, the people have acted when the people woke up to the knowledge that those who claimed to be "rulers" were nothing more than criminals usurping authority they do not possess...

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 08, 2009, 03:38:29 PM

    This is the core of individualism, the realization that only individuals act-anything else is mysticism. and worse, usually it is mysticism used to defend all of those horrible acts that are done by individuals.  


    Great way of putting it.  I found this rather dry definition of "Legal Fiction" on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction) and maybe you can take the time to edit it somewhat.  I think you can improve on it...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 16, 2009, 08:45:07 PM
    I feel like the unwanted stepchild...  :cry:

    Everytime I call the show lately, Ian puts me on hold for at least an hour...  This is Wednesday, a slow day for talk shows and now I've been on hold for 1:06 on the amp line.  I've heard Ian go through about 7 callers (yeah, I know, two were women so they go first).  If I had any feelings, they would be hurt (good thing for me I'm thick skinned - hahahahahahaha)

    I SHALL HOLD FOREVER !!!!

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 17, 2009, 08:02:53 AM
    "Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of "The Declaration of Independence" were orthodox, deeply committed, Christians? The other three all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal intervention.  It is the same Congress that formed the American Bible Society, immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of Scripture for the people of this nation."

    http://www.errantskeptics.org/FoundingFathers.htm
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Harry Tuttle on December 17, 2009, 01:03:19 PM
    "Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of "The Declaration of Independence" were orthodox, deeply committed, Christians? The other three all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal intervention.  It is the same Congress that formed the American Bible Society, immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of Scripture for the people of this nation."

    http://www.errantskeptics.org/FoundingFathers.htm


    Therefore, what? That makes this a christian nation and we should adopt the bible as our governing law book?

    How about stick to the separation of church and state. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's, and stay out of my life.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 19, 2009, 06:23:22 PM
    "Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of "The Declaration of Independence" were orthodox, deeply committed, Christians? The other three all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal intervention.  It is the same Congress that formed the American Bible Society, immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of Scripture for the people of this nation."

    http://www.errantskeptics.org/FoundingFathers.htm


    Therefore, what? That makes this a christian nation and we should adopt the bible as our governing law book?

    How about stick to the separation of church and state. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's, and stay out of my life.

    No, I did not point this out to claim "Christian Nation" status but rather to show the mindset of the men who conceived this fiction USA.  They also understood the "fact" (as I claim it is) that our rights exist because they were "created" by our "Creator".  This is a sticking point for many but one that I believe really needs to be understood in order to understand liberty.  Without "rights" liberty really has no meaning.  And if "rights" come from the consensus of the minds of men, then they can be easily changed and mutilated...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 25, 2009, 08:45:48 AM
    MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL - AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR !!!

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: BobRobertson on December 25, 2009, 09:35:30 AM
    Happy Zagmuk.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 31, 2009, 07:42:25 PM
    As we get ready to celebrate the passing of this year, I thought I would reflect on it's passing.  I have to admit, we are in better shape than I had thought we would be.  I had figured that the dollar would be trash by now and that people would be rioting in the streets.  I still believe that is what is going to happen and I  believe it will be soon, but no one can predict the exact timing.  I know that the dollar is worth maybe 70% of what it was a year ago and it's going down fast.  The Euro is also heading down and it's decline is a little faster (currently) than the dollar so it appears that the dollar has risen in value, but it hasn't.  Compare the cost of everything that you actually need to survive against the cost one year ago.  Food, and energy have risen the most and these are things consumed each day and are essential to living.  Things that are not needed (like consumer electronics) have gone down due to a couple of market related reasons and these are sometimes used to falsify the true inflation (devaluation) rate.

    But anyway ...  HAPPY NEW YEAR !!!

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cavalier973 on January 06, 2010, 03:32:31 AM
    I'm hoping to see at least one state either secede, or seriously move toward secession this year.  I imagine that such a move would come as a result of the health care bill's passage....
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: CaL DaVe on January 08, 2010, 12:44:32 AM
    At least radical Muslims blow shit up.  Christians just say stupid things.   :P

    ROFL!  :lol:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on January 08, 2010, 05:44:12 PM
    My girlfriend says her "Intro to Islam" class is chock full of people from her "Campus Christian Crusade" group.

    LOL
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on January 08, 2010, 05:45:52 PM
    My girlfriend says her "Intro to Islam" class is chock full of people from her "Campus Christian Crusade" group.

    LOL

    That must be interesting....was it a course requirement, or are they trying to understand the enemy, or what?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2010, 05:35:48 PM
    I think Christians in general are trying to "understand" Muslims due to the current state of propaganda which attempts to paint all of them as bomb-throwing (or wearing) nutcases.  Of course, whenever you detect a sign of "propaganda" you can pretty much throw out everything the propagandist says as BS.  One thing I possess is a very good "BS detector" which is why I never bought into the "Global Warming" scam or the "Buildings fell just because" scam or the "Government exists" scam...

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on January 09, 2010, 05:44:01 PM
    My girlfriend says her "Intro to Islam" class is chock full of people from her "Campus Christian Crusade" group.

    LOL

    That must be interesting....was it a course requirement, or are they trying to understand the enemy, or what?

    Pretty much a course requirement. We both found it amusing since I explained previously to her what the crusades were.(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Saladin_the_Victorious.jpg/463px-Saladin_the_Victorious.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 09, 2010, 08:23:04 PM
    OK what changed?  My avatar pic has disappeared and I cannot upload a new one.  Some new requirement for avatar pics??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 13, 2010, 09:53:22 PM
    OK so do you think I should quit calling Freetalklive?  About 2 months ago I noticed my "hold" time increasing when I called the show.  I would routinely spend 45 min. to and hour plus on hold while I hear Ian go though 5 to 8 other callers.  In many cases I hear 2 other "amp" callers go on ahead of me (I use the amp line).  I know that in the past, the amp line can only hold two callers so it's clear to me that Ian is trying to put me off.  Several times I was on hold right up until the end of the show.  One day I was on hold over 2 hours!!!

    Let me make this clear, it's Ian's show.  He can do whatever he wants with his show.  Saturday I was on hold for over an hour and I hung up and called back.  When Ian answered I told him that if he doesn't want me on the show to just say so.  He said (rather sheepishly) "no, it's hard to get you on Saturday".  Lame excuse.  I hear Scott the bigot (and other regular callers) on the Saturday show all the time and I really doubt that he is waiting for 1.5 to 2 hours (is Scott on the bbs?). 

    Now if Ian doesn't want me to call his show, I wish he would just grow a pair and tell me not to call...

    Oh, I thought about pulling my amp dollars but I won't do that because I really want to see the show do well whatever Ian thinks of my views.  I think the message of liberty is too important to play games with the amp $$$.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: hellbilly on January 13, 2010, 10:03:14 PM
    Sounds like you've been put in the same queue as Jeremy.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 14, 2010, 08:53:56 PM
    Sounds like you've been put in the same queue as Jeremy.

    Yeah, I think you're right.  I really don't understand it though.  Ian and I see pretty much eye-to-eye on everything except for my belief in the Creator.  I don't see why that should get me on the "avoid" list though.  Sometimes people just grate on you the wrong way and you don't want to hear their voice.  Maybe I just get on his nerve with my tone of voice or tempo.  I know I really don't like hearing my own voice, so maybe he doesn't like it either...  :lol:

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 16, 2010, 06:53:43 PM
    I was listening to the latest episode of Freetalklive and did notice one other area of contention between me and Ian.  He loves to refer to the cult called "government" as a real entity.  Of course I remind him from time to time that "government" only exists in the minds of the cult members who believe in it.  In every instance throughout history these "cults" disband and the cult members continue living in confusion after the bulk of people lose confidence in the fiction and thereby open their eyes to the realization that there is no "Rome" or "Babylon" or "Fill-In-The-Blank"... there are only people and things.  Some of these people tend to trick others into believing that they have some sort of "authority" over other people.  As my favorite movie character V says, "beneath this mask is more than flesh and blood, beneath this mask is an idea, and ideas are bulletproof"...  Freedom and Liberty are ideas that are bulletproof.  The "idea" that men can have authority over other men is a competing idea that is based on fear.  The fear that somehow these men really DO have authority (they don't) and that they will hurt us if we question that authority (they will at first, but if the greater part of men realize their authority is bogus, the idea of freedom prevails).

    Now Mark, he's another story.  He really does believe in the tooth-fairy called government...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on January 17, 2010, 01:27:07 AM
    Quote
    The "idea" that men can have authority over other men is a competing idea that is based on fear.

    Moses was an authoritarian.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 18, 2010, 06:23:05 PM
    Quote
    The "idea" that men can have authority over other men is a competing idea that is based on fear.

    Moses was an authoritarian.

    Never really thought about it but you may be right.  Moses was just a man after all and his contact with God may have made him think he was special.  God did not think so (I presume) since he would not allow Moses to cross over into the promised land...

    Other than this alledged "personal" problem, I see no problem with him leading the children of Israel through the desert.  They were part of a "private" verbal contract (from what I can determine) and any of the people who wanted to could leave. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on January 18, 2010, 06:51:57 PM
    So do you think it was wrong for God to issues orders to his people through Moses?  After all, for all they knew Moses could have just been an authoritarian using God as a cover. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 21, 2010, 07:30:50 AM
    So do you think it was wrong for God to issues orders to his people through Moses?  After all, for all they knew Moses could have just been an authoritarian using God as a cover. 

    A bit of a loaded question, isn't it?  Of course God cannot do "wrong" so one has to look at other elements of the question and the pre-conceived conclusions within.  Did the people know Moses could have just been and authoritarian and could Moses have been using God as a cover?  There is yet another big and very common pre-conceived conclusion that God issued orders to Moses.  So here's my take on it...   

    I do believe that God spoke to Moses and I believe that Moses tried to carry out what he understood to be the will of God.  Moses, however, is a man and men are imperfect.  Since I know that Moses was just an imperfect man such as myself I have to conclude that he made mistakes in both his understanding of what God was asking him to do and in the execution of those orders.  I do not know what his "error" rate was and can only guess.  My guess would be that Moses had an error rate of maybe 5% on both his understanding of his orders AND his execution of those orders...

    Of course within all of this, what the people believed is not relevant.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on January 21, 2010, 07:38:42 AM
    Of course God can do wrong.  How many prophets argued with him?  Do you remember which prophet argued for God to not destroy a whole city of sin?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on January 21, 2010, 10:12:19 AM
    A bit of a loaded question, isn't it?  Of course God cannot do "wrong" so one has to look at other elements of the question and the pre-conceived conclusions within.  

    Forgive me, what I should've said was "How do you reconcile your belief that men can't have authority over others with the idea that Moses wielded authority over others by order of God?"

    If you don't, in fact, believe that God ordered Moses to do so, that's an easy resolution.  But if you do, then you're faced with the problem that if you were one of the people Moses was trying to order around, you would have had to reject his orders on principle since he was a man asserting authority over you. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on January 21, 2010, 12:42:09 PM
    Wow.  This thread still keeps on keepin' on.  Though this looks this has turned from 'Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer' into the 'FTL debate thread of any and all things religious.' Not that that's a necessarily a bad thing I guess.

    However:

    I do believe that God spoke to Moses and I believe that Moses tried to carry out what he understood to be the will of God.  Moses, however, is a man and men are imperfect.  Since I know that Moses was just an imperfect man such as myself I have to conclude that he made mistakes in both his understanding of what God was asking him to do and in the execution of those orders.  I do not know what his "error" rate was and can only guess.  My guess would be that Moses had an error rate of maybe 5% on both his understanding of his orders AND his execution of those orders...

    This is interesting, Gene.  Couple things:

    At the end of the day - I'm sure to the devout it won't matter, as again it's a matter of faith.  What caught my attention, however, was your self-admission of human inaccuracy, and I was merely curious on your thoughts of how willing you were to follow that logic train to the station.


    but don't use my post as a mean to dodge this  ;)

    Forgive me, what I should've said was "How do you reconcile your belief that men can't have authority over others with the idea that Moses wielded authority over others by order of God?"

    If you don't, in fact, believe that God ordered Moses to do so, that's an easy resolution.  But if you do, then you're faced with the problem that if you were one of the people Moses was trying to order around, you would have had to reject his orders on principle since he was a man asserting authority over you. 





    edit: cleanup grammatically of one of my questions.
    edit: changed "let's" to "lest," which was the word intended.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 23, 2010, 05:58:57 PM
    Of course God can do wrong.  How many prophets argued with him?  Do you remember which prophet argued for God to not destroy a whole city of sin?

    Sorry but no.  If you are writing the "rules" as to what is right and wrong, you can hardly "do" wrong.  God writes the rules and we can only look at Him and either obey or disobey.  Most of the time we disobey.  If this "argument" happens as you claim it did, then I propose that God was acting a part to make a point.  Of course He knew whether he was going to destroy a city or not and that would have nothing to do with what some man said to Him.  Personally, I don't believe this conversation ever occurred.  Perhaps you do.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 23, 2010, 06:08:07 PM
    Wow.  This thread still keeps on keepin' on.  Though this looks this has turned from 'Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer' into the 'FTL debate thread of any and all things religious.' Not that that's a necessarily a bad thing I guess.

    However:

    I do believe that God spoke to Moses and I believe that Moses tried to carry out what he understood to be the will of God.  Moses, however, is a man and men are imperfect.  Since I know that Moses was just an imperfect man such as myself I have to conclude that he made mistakes in both his understanding of what God was asking him to do and in the execution of those orders.  I do not know what his "error" rate was and can only guess.  My guess would be that Moses had an error rate of maybe 5% on both his understanding of his orders AND his execution of those orders...

    This is interesting, Gene.  Couple things:

    • Why "5%" - I understand this is your guess, but where did this number come from other than what you're "feel good" percentage was, which my guess resulted from an internal question that went something like, "Self, what do I think would be highest % allowable that would not significantly undermine my core beliefs?"

      ...and that's the tricky thing about arbitrary assumptions. While this supposition may be valid and meaningful to you, I think barring some kind of compelling evidence this "percentage" will be met with extreme skepticism (if not outright derision) amongst those whom you are trying to make your case to.

    • Your paragraph here has some profound implications for all of Judeo-Christianity.  If it's possible that all men (let's exclude Jesus lest we go down the man/divinity made flesh debate), including moses are capable of misunderstanding the word of God even when He speaks DIRECTLY to them, then this would mean that:

      • All Holy Books are suspect: Meaning all of the recorded actions of both Biblical figures and indeed God Him/Her/Itself may or may not be true.

      • Therefore, the Ten Commandments are equally suspect: In regards to Moses, the 10 Commandments are immediately cast into doubt regarding their validity.  Who's to say it wasn't the One Commandment - "Thou Shalt Not Kill," and Moses decided that God wasn't taking a hard enough line in requiring the Hebrews behave and worship him properly?  Going even a step further, couldn't that also means it's possible because Men misinterpret God's words/directives then, that He/She/It is for the most part, disinterested in ensuring that human beings worship Him/Her/It as envisioned as the elderly, beneficent Shepherd?

      • The actions of Jesus as written may be false: What happens, if indeed x% of the Bible is a result of "misunderstanding/misinterpretation" - actually is represented by entire books being pure fabrications?  Some very interesting consequences depending on which would be fabricated - especially if those happen to be books of the New Testament.

      • Omnipotence/Omniscience? - How can an all knowing, all powerful being communicate in such a way that he would be misunderstood, or not be aware that his impending discussion would result in a "mis-fire?"

    At the end of the day - I'm sure to the devout it won't matter, as again it's a matter of faith.  What caught my attention, however, was your self-admission of human inaccuracy, and I was merely curious on your thoughts of how willing you were to follow that logic train to the station.


    but don't use my post as a mean to dodge this  ;)

    Forgive me, what I should've said was "How do you reconcile your belief that men can't have authority over others with the idea that Moses wielded authority over others by order of God?"

    If you don't, in fact, believe that God ordered Moses to do so, that's an easy resolution.  But if you do, then you're faced with the problem that if you were one of the people Moses was trying to order around, you would have had to reject his orders on principle since he was a man asserting authority over you. 





    edit: cleanup grammatically of one of my questions.
    edit: changed "let's" to "lest," which was the word intended.

    I don't disagree with most of what you said.  I take all "history" as suspect, even the collection of writings we call "The Bible".  I do, however believe that it is quite accurate (maybe 95%).  So I have to determine for myself what writings I believe to be true.  Many will call this "cherry picking" but I call it reality.  Anything written in a different language and time and then translated to current language will have inaccuracies.  This is where I use my own life experiences and understanding of the creation come to play.  Ultimately we all interpret the creation from our own perspective.  For this reason, I tolerate all belief systems even those I find abhorrent to me since their perspective has led them to where they are.  I can try to change their perspective by sharing my own, but that has only a minor affect on their lives...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on January 23, 2010, 06:08:54 PM
    Of course God can do wrong.  How many prophets argued with him?  Do you remember which prophet argued for God to not destroy a whole city of sin?

    Sorry but no.  If you are writing the "rules" as to what is right and wrong, you can hardly "do" wrong.  God writes the rules and we can only look at Him and either obey or disobey.  Most of the time we disobey.  If this "argument" happens as you claim it did, then I propose that God was acting a part to make a point.  Of course He knew whether he was going to destroy a city or not and that would have nothing to do with what some man said to Him.  Personally, I don't believe this conversation ever occurred.  Perhaps you do.

    Have you ever read the bible?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 23, 2010, 07:04:49 PM
    Of course God can do wrong.  How many prophets argued with him?  Do you remember which prophet argued for God to not destroy a whole city of sin?

    Sorry but no.  If you are writing the "rules" as to what is right and wrong, you can hardly "do" wrong.  God writes the rules and we can only look at Him and either obey or disobey.  Most of the time we disobey.  If this "argument" happens as you claim it did, then I propose that God was acting a part to make a point.  Of course He knew whether he was going to destroy a city or not and that would have nothing to do with what some man said to Him.  Personally, I don't believe this conversation ever occurred.  Perhaps you do.

    Have you ever read the bible?

    Hey, I don't have to actually read anything to be an expert on it.   :lol:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 24, 2010, 02:29:10 PM
    Sounds like you've been put in the same queue as Jeremy.

    I see that yesterday "Alex in NJ" also called the amp line and spent 2 hours on hold (113 minutes into the amp version of the podcast) and you can hear Ian very sheepishly trying to say that it's tough to get on Saturdays.  Mark was a bit more honest and it sound like he was trying to say "It's tough being a chronic idiot"?  Hard to understand as Ian was talking over Mark.  So that's at least 3 of us in this "queue for quirky quacks"??  How many more of us are on Ian's "special list"? 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on January 24, 2010, 03:02:43 PM
    I don't disagree with most of what you said.  I take all "history" as suspect, even the collection of writings we call "The Bible".

    A fair position.

    I do, however believe that it is quite accurate (maybe 95%). 

    Again, I think this a dangerous position to take when discussing/debating/peruading the benefits of Christian Anarchy as the only sensible answer, because it's again premised on an arbitrary declaration, and because of that it opens the argument up to being called out as fallacious.

    So I have to determine for myself what writings I believe to be true.  Many will call this "cherry picking" but I call it reality. 

    ...but then you say this and I'm almost inclined to "forgive" the potential pitfall of your previous statement for a simple reason:  At least you're being honest about it .  You acknowledge that some fundamental underpinnings of your argument rely on acceptance of arbitrary and unprovable statements.

    Fair enough - at that point Individuals will either accept, reject or question the positions further.


    Anything written in a different language and time and then translated to current language will have inaccuracies.

    Absolutely.

    This is where I use my own life experiences and understanding of the creation come to play.  Ultimately we all interpret the creation from our own perspective. 

    Also fair, but I would encourage you to be ever wary of the Fallacy of Personal Experience.

    For this reason, I tolerate all belief systems even those I find abhorrent to me since their perspective has led them to where they are.  I can try to change their perspective by sharing my own, but that has only a minor affect on their lives...

    You know what, Gene?  This is by far the smartest and most insightful thing I've ever seen you write.



    edit: removed a redundant word, "be" because it repeated itself - thus being redundant.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on January 25, 2010, 02:18:49 AM
    Ok ok their data gathering methods suck but...
    http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/30/churchgoers-more-likely-to-back-torture-survey-finds/
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 25, 2010, 03:04:39 PM
    Quote from: theCelestrian link=topic=11164.msg585690#msg585690
    This is where I use my own life experiences and understanding of the creation come to play.  Ultimately we all interpret the creation from our own perspective. 


    Also fair, but I would encourage you to be ever wary of the Fallacy of Personal Experience.


    And I don't believe in this "Fallacy of Personal Experience" since this is all we have on this planet.  We have our own "personal experiences".  Even if I rely on the "experiences" of others, I ultimately have to rely on my own judgment as to whether to believe those other people (which judgment is a direct result of my past experiences of whether people are trustworthy)...

    Quote
    For this reason, I tolerate all belief systems even those I find abhorrent to me since their perspective has led them to where they are.  I can try to change their perspective by sharing my own, but that has only a minor affect on their lives...

    You know what, Gene?  This is by far the smartest and most insightful thing I've ever seen you write.


    That's because I'm a smart and insightful guy...  :lol:
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on January 25, 2010, 06:39:19 PM
    Just to nitpick:

    And I don't believe in this "Fallacy of Personal Experience" since this is all we have on this planet. 

    So are you saying that you believe that is both logically consistent and correct to make general declarative statements of fact based upon your personal experience?

    example:


    therefore:

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 26, 2010, 06:51:30 AM
    Just to nitpick:

    And I don't believe in this "Fallacy of Personal Experience" since this is all we have on this planet.

    So are you saying that you believe that is both logically consistent and correct to make general declarative statements of fact based upon your personal experience?

    example:

    • It has rained every time I have been in Chicago on a Sunday.

    therefore:

    • It rains in Chicago every Sunday.


    Partially true.  I believe it is logically consistent to conclude that it "rains in Chicago every Sunday" given those circumstances, however that conclusion would be incorrect...

    Just like it was "logically consistent" for the majority of "scientists" of the world to conclude that there was a thing called "man made global warming" (something my life experiences proved to me to be false) given the manipulated data they were examining...

    One thing my "life's experiences" have taught me is that men called "scientists" are no more dependable than anyone else...

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 26, 2010, 10:38:54 AM
    You don't to have to be a scientist to say "magical powers aren't real". You just need common sense.

    It doesn't take a degree to say, "hey, it's pretty obvious that almost everything the bible says is a lie, and Christians can't agree on anything about it, and yet all claim to know the will of a deity that is obviously a work of fiction." It doesn't take special scientific equipment to realize that ALL religions are works of fiction - lacking any sort of basis in reality, not becuase the possibility doesn't exist that there MIGHT be some kind of deity... But because the things Christians claim to know about the will and nature of their deity are so blindly simplistic and backwards and contradictory, that they are obviously being fabricated based on personal desires. It's a fairytale, not a study of reality. It's obvious becuase most Christian depictions of thier god or savior read like a comic book or roleplaying game. It's fantasy.

    If your life experience has taught you that all science is "no more dependendable than anyone else" becuase of the actions of a FEW liars who KNEW they were lying - then you are simply an old fool. A doddering idiot who deserves nothing but a mocking. A dummy who should get sick and die without the medical benefits of those who are "no more dependable than anyone else". In fact, throw your COMPUTER right out the window or the science demons might get you.

    If you want to compare your religion to SCIENCE Gene, why don't you run your religious beliefs through the scientific method a few times (if you've ever actually seen or read the BASIS for all science)

    Also, if I had to choose Christianity vs say....

    Computers, microwaves, cell phones, cameras, x-rays, CT scans, RADIO shows, electricity and any thing else I enjoy so much....

     Well, let's just say that your "scientists are no more dependable than anyone else" argument is dead like Galileo.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The ghost of a ghost of a ghost on January 26, 2010, 10:54:50 AM
    ZZZZZZZZZZing!  Ouch
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on January 26, 2010, 11:13:41 AM
    Partially true.  I believe it is logically consistent to conclude that it "rains in Chicago every Sunday" given those circumstances, however that conclusion would be incorrect...

    Unfortunately, Gene, I can't agree with this assertion.  The whole point of logical fallacies is that they show that conclusions are incorrect or that the logical argument is inconsistent, meaning all cannot be true at the same time.  A good, and often used example of this, is Reductio Ad Absurdum - whereby a superficially consistent argument produces absurd results.  Alarmist arguments of Climate change that I think you're referencing later (we don't call it "global warming" anymore because heat may actually not be the result, remember?) could fall under this category.

    More distubingly, your supposition would then mean that it's possible for:


    ...all to be logically consistent if the fallacy of Personal Experience is indeed not a fallacy; a supposition you often contradict by (correctly) claiming that forced government is indeed logically backwards.  In fact, the title of this thread makes that very same assertion be claiming (a form) of Anarchy is the only sensible (read: rational) answer - thus making all other forms of government nonsense (read: irrational).

    Don't believe me?



    therefore:



    If you honestly believe these kind of arguments are logically consistent - with or without quotations, then I'm not sure if we'll have really have a point of departure to discuss anything relevant. :|  . . .and that's extremely unfortunate.

    Just like it was "logically consistent" for the majority of "scientists" of the world to conclude that there was a thing called "man made global warming" (something my life experiences proved to me to be false) given the manipulated data they were examining...

    One thing my "life's experiences" have taught me is that men called "scientists" are no more dependable than anyone else...

    When I start seeing a lot of quotations around commonly understood words, that tends to raise a red flag for me. This is because it tends to indicate that the "meaning" of the "word" being "used" is not something "others" typically associate with the "word." If indeed the scientists willfully manipulated the data - then their argument is in fact not logically consistent because at least one of their assumptions (the data) is objectively and verifiably false. End of Story.  Fallacious assumptions produce fallacious conclusions.



    I have to imagine, Gene, that after listening to you call the show numerous times, that this cannot be a correct reflection of your intellectual and personal predilections.  So how can we adjust the position as you've written it to make it maintain the core sentiment of your argument (it's never smart to take anything anyone says at face value), but to get rid of all the nasty hangers-on that end up muddying the moral and logical worthiness of your position?

    (edit prior to posting): I see Johnson took the hard line in answering your position. His sentiments and the points he makes when you get past the third paragraph is why I would consider this a very dangerous position for you to hold as you've expressed; the risks of having the good things you have to say being summarily dismissed as crack-pottery is significant and profound.




    edit: added missing word "position"
    edit: changed "results" to "conclusions" to more accurately reflect the point.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 26, 2010, 10:14:18 PM
    I certainly don't have time to write a book to respond to all of the above but I would like to point out Johnson's preconceived error regarding the Bible.  It is, in fact, been shown to be extremely accurate in most regards.  His claim that it's not accurate just shows that he is discussing something he knows nothing about.  His tone and tendency toward ridicule rather than discussion borders on tempting me to delete him (next time Johnson take a more civil tone or I will delete you). 

    It appears that both of you put a lot of confidence in the high priests of science and that's your choice.  I have determined from my own experience that those involved in the theoretical sciences are pretty unreliable.  Of course I depend on REAL science.  The physical sciences are quite sound and when I can duplicate the results in my garage with simple experiments then I have no problem believing the published results.  Where I have a "problem" is when someone tells me they've "discovered" an invisible, unmeasurable mass called "dark matter" that they can "demonstrate" is there because all the formula regarding the mass of the universe are katy-wompus (a technical term you may not be familiar with) unless this matter exists - therefore it exists (give me a break).

    Of course any of the "science" regarding cosmology or evolution is so convoluted with this kind of thinking it's laughable to any who have not become converted into the "cult", but don't try to tell that to the glassy-eyed cult members because they will immediately label you a "heretic" and call you names to belittle you in front of the masses (a tried and true tactic to keep the sheeple in line)...

    Celestrian, you misunderstand my position on government and anarchy (and God).  Although the title of this thread is slightly erroneous (I've discussed this in the past) you can read in my first couple of posts in 2005 that my position that "government" does not exist has not changed.  A fiction can not be forced on anyone.  A fiction is nothing more than an "idea" that causes REAL men to act and commit violence against other REAL men.  My position is that "anarchy" is not to be strived for, but this is the state we currently (and always) are in.  There is no "government", never has been and never will be.  I add to this "Christianity" as a voluntary association with He who created us (I perfer to call Him simply "The Creator" to avoid doctine (interpretations of men). 

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 26, 2010, 10:46:51 PM
    I don't give a shit if you delete me; I expect it, and it's all I can do to refrain from swearing in my posts in order to not be immediately deleted... I figure you'll delete my posts out of the thread eventually anyway, because I rapidly point out, using your own words and idiocy, what a fucking ass clown you are.

    You're a peice of shit liar Gene, you've been busted over and over in your lying lies. You deserve no repect. I mock you becuase I see no reason support you when all you want is to preach about your exception to freedom, and do so through the use of fraud.  So, I feel no remorse in being nasty and derisive to a doddering egomaniacal lying retard. This entire bullshit thread is an egotistical exercise in cognitive dissonance for you.

    You basically created this thread becuase "Christian Anarchy" is an oxymoron, and you know it or you wouldn't have needed to create the thread.
     Congratulations, plenty of people have come in here and pointed out the flaws in your ridiculous, pathetic, half assed attempt at logic.
    You've gotten people to walk you all over your cognitive dissonance circle, but while you are lying Gene, there is no way out of it for you, you're doomed to continually repeating the same lies, while feeling that awful feeling of knowing that you are being dishonest to both yourself and others. Your arguments are like a closet full of clown shoes.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The ghost of a ghost of a ghost on January 26, 2010, 10:59:28 PM
    I couldn't get passed the "don't disagree with me, or I'll delete your post!"
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on January 26, 2010, 11:04:30 PM
    I couldn't get passed the "don't disagree with me, or I'll delete your post!"

    That's Gene.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 26, 2010, 11:07:30 PM
    I couldn't get passed the "don't disagree with me, or I'll delete your post!"

    How extremely inaccurate of you...  You know that I stated he needs to keep a civil tone (maybe you would understand if I used simpler English???)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on January 26, 2010, 11:08:01 PM
    Gene, Johnson shut you down. Your pathetic reply was nothing more than a "nuh uh."  
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The ghost of a ghost of a ghost on January 26, 2010, 11:09:07 PM
    The same self proclaimed "i'm a racist because we're all racists" gene?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The ghost of a ghost of a ghost on January 26, 2010, 11:12:27 PM

    How extremely inaccurate of you...  You know that I stated he needs to keep a civil tone (maybe you would understand if I used simpler English???)

    [/quote]

    I couldn't get passed the "don't disagree with me, or I'll delete your post!"




    i read johnsons post, he didn't call you those names, he said if you aren't going to accept science as anything other than faith then you'll be a XYZ.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on January 26, 2010, 11:51:40 PM
    :| (sigh)  Let's see if we can steer this back in a more positive direction.



    I certainly don't have time to write a book to respond to all of the above but I would like to point out Johnson's preconceived error regarding the Bible.

    Take your time, Gene.  If my posts (both present and past) have shown anything, it's that I'm patient; I'll be more than willing to continue down this path of intellectual discourse as far and as long as you have stamina to take it.  Take the time you need to fully articulate what you need to say if you feel it's beneficial or necessary.

    It appears that both of you put a lot of confidence in the high priests of science and that's your choice.

    I made no claims about the [in]validity of science - merely that I disagree with your rejection of the Fallacy of Personal Experience for the reasons I outlined in my previous post.  One does not need to be a scientist or have a command of scientific theory or higher mathematics to show that making generalizations about a broad group or concept based upon the limited experience of a single person is very often sketchy at best - and a commonly used tool to attempt the rationalization for some of Humanity's most atrocious acts at worst.

    I will be frank with you, Gene:  I'm a little less than impressed with the attempt at condescension you levy in my general direction with the "high priests of science" bit - I have niether explicitly nor implicitly laid Ad Hominems on your doorstep, and while you're tone may be more civil than Johnsons, the jist (in my opinion) is no less pernicious - further complicated by the fact that in your previous paragraph you had doled out the chastisement for leaning more towards ridicule rather than discussion.

    I'm hopeful that this is merely a misinterpretation on my part.

    I have determined from my own experience that those involved in the theoretical sciences are pretty unreliable.

    Fine - though I will remind you again that I never made this accusation.

    Of course I depend on REAL science.  The physical sciences are quite sound and when I can duplicate the results in my garage with simple experiments then I have no problem believing the published results.  Where I have a "problem" is when someone tells me they've "discovered" an invisible, unmeasurable mass called "dark matter" that they can "demonstrate" is there because all the formula regarding the mass of the universe are katy-wompus (a technical term you may not be familiar with) unless this matter exists - therefore it exists (give me a break).

    I would encourage you to check out the thread WideSpreadPanic posted in General talking about the Universe coming from Nothing - there are some interesting claims that this "dark matter/energy" has been measured.  I am niether endorsing nor dismissing the claim as fact - merely that it might be something to look at and see if there is some other material that could confirm/deny the supposition.

    Of course any of the "science" regarding cosmology or evolution is so convoluted with this kind of thinking it's laughable to any who have not become converted into the "cult", but don't try to tell that to the glassy-eyed cult members because they will immediately label you a "heretic" and call you names to belittle you in front of the masses (a tried and true tactic to keep the sheeple in line)...

    Again, Gene - disappointing.  I'm not quite sure taking a position lambasting the (a label that summarizes what I think you seek to describe) Dogmatic Petitioners of Science while at the same time doing the very same thing (belittling them for their alleged quasi-religious behavior), is beneficial to make your case. :| This again has nothing to do with my response to your assertions, however, because you engaged in the Fallacy of Association - I feel that unfortunately I need to address any position that you have not explicitly qualified for Johnson.


    Celestrian, you misunderstand my position on government and anarchy (and God).  Although the title of this thread is slightly erroneous (I've discussed this in the past) you can read in my first couple of posts in 2005 that my position that "government" does not exist has not changed.

    I'll address this in a second.

    A fiction can not be forced on anyone.  A fiction is nothing more than an "idea" that causes REAL men to act and commit violence against other REAL men.  My position is that "anarchy" is not to be strived for, but this is the state we currently (and always) are in.  There is no "government", never has been and never will be.  

    Yet amazingly - this concept of Government is forced upon us - and what's more ironic is you laid out the argument perfectly with your own words.


    therefore


    It's amazing - I can see and measure the effects of this fiction and it's impact on my life.  How can something that doesn't exist have objectively observable and verifiable effects?  The funny thing: other individuals, not just myself, can observe those effects upon my life - physically, socially and economically.  More to the point, what if Johnson or someone else used the exact same argument on you, but replaced the word "Government" with "God?"  Would you then acquiesce to him/her that they make such a compelling and consistent argument, that you would have no choice but to acknowledge this irrefutable truth and renounce your faith?

    Allow me to demonstrate:

    A fiction can not be forced on anyone.  A fiction is nothing more than an "idea" that causes REAL men to act and commit violence against other REAL men.  My position is that "anarchy" an atheistic model of the Universe is not to be strived for, but this is the state we currently (and always) are in.  There is no "government" God, never has been and never will be.  



    I add to this "Christianity" as a voluntary association with He who created us (I perfer to call Him simply "The Creator" to avoid doctine (interpretations of men).  

    Fair.  Your reasons are your own - and I know that the question, "Then shouldn't it just say 'Anarchy is the only sensible answer,'" has also been raised in the past.  If you honestly believe Christianity is not the interpretations of men on the will/motivations/nature/existence of The Creator, then that's fine too; nothing I could possibly ever say, ask or demonstrate would change your belief in this.

    ...and that's okay.  I am no more qualified to prove or disprove the existence of God than you or anyone else, nor have I ever made or attempted to make such an allegation.



    edit: cleaned up some typos and expounded on the Government as Fiction point
    edit: fixed "you're" -> "your"
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on January 27, 2010, 02:20:31 AM
    (http://www.marriedtothesea.com/101309/revolutionary-shot.gif)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 27, 2010, 03:05:33 PM
    I apologize to you Celestion if you take my "crude" comments to be directed towards you.  Those who have read my posts over the years know that I give back what people dish out to me and all my cutting comments are to those who use such towards me (Johnson in this case)...

    Also, I don't do the long drawn-out quote thingy as I find it very uninteresting and I know I don't bother to read all that stuff when others do it in various threads, so I avoid doing the same.  I will address what I believe to be the bulk of your objections...

    No 1.  If "dark matter" is so hard to measure or understand that only a few "gifted" and "educated" individuals can comprehend it, then I already reject it as being too "exclusive".  I've found that (certain individuals calling themselves scientists) will use this fact that no one can understand them to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses.  This is not to say that they may not indeed be correct, but if no one can understand their "correctness" then I reject it as most likely being a bunch of smoke from certain people who want to feel elevated above the others.  AGAIN - THEY MAY BE RIGHT... but I doubt it (according to my past "experiences")...

    As far as "anarchy" I know the concept that these fictions do not exist and that we have always lived in anarchy is a difficult one to comprehend.  Let's try bringing it down a notch.  A more insignificant "fiction" is called "NIKE"...  This fiction exists because some men (real people) got together and wrote some words on a piece of paper and brought it before some other men (real people) who call themselves "Secretaries Of State" and asked them to put a pretty stamp on their papers.  This was done and within the minds of these men a new entity called "NIKE" was born.  Now if I ask you to go and grab this "NIKE" and put it in jail, what will you do??  Will you grab the warehouses and put barbed wire fences around them?  Will you grab some man who calls himself "Chairman Of The Board" and put him in jail?  His name is not "NIKE".  There are, of course shoes with "NIKE" on them.  Will you round up all the shoes and put them in jail?

    So it's easy to point out that NIKE only exists in the minds of men and has no physical or spiritual existence (well, I guess we really can't prove the spiritual part).  In law, they are even admitted to being fiction as the correct term for them is "Legal Fiction".  But what about the "USA"?  All the same reasoning applies.  There is no physical (and we assume spiritual) existence of "USA".  It is a fiction that exists in the minds of men only.  When did "Babylon" cease to exist?  (It's a trick question).  Babylon never did exist but most men alive many many years ago believed it did and so they acted accordingly.  When they became enlightened to the FACT that Babylon was a fiction it ceased to exist in their minds.  The buildings, people and roads existed for many years after the belief in "Babylon" ended (I believe some of these still exist today - but don't quote me on that).

    Now the "effect" you see in your life (taxes, jail, fines, etc) that everyone attributes to "government" is not proof of "government".  It is only proof of the existence of the IDEA of government in the minds of men.  It's MEN who put you in jail, take your money from you and tell you to salute, not "government".  Sure, these men BELIEVE they are acting on behalf of this "government", but that belief is no more valid than them believing they are acting on behalf of the Easter Bunny (hey, I like the Easter Bunny better anyway...)

    If you still believe in government, can you please grab the "USA" for me and give me back some of the green pieces of paper some men stole from me??

    As far as "Christianity" you are right.  I cannot prove the existence of The Creator and have admitted as much many times.  But His existence is either a fact or it's not.  If it's a fact, then us men denying it will not make His existence cease.  I use Christianity as a means to acknowledge my belief in The Creator and to hopefully gain some direction to how I should live my life.

    As far as your fallacy, do you think I should rely on the experiences of other men above my own experiences?  Or am I just to consider their experiences as ancillary to my own perceptions?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 27, 2010, 03:54:13 PM
    When you are as stupid as you are Gene, you should DEFINITELY rely on the experiences of others over your own... The real problem for you is that you haven't figured out yet how to determine who to rely on becuase you haven't learned to value honesty or intelligence over creative fiction writing...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on January 27, 2010, 04:00:50 PM
    I apologize to you Celestion if you take my "crude" comments to be directed towards you.  Those who have read my posts over the years know that I give back what people dish out to me and all my cutting comments are to those who use such towards me (Johnson in this case)...

    Accepted.

    Also, I don't do the long drawn-out quote thingy as I find it very uninteresting and I know I don't bother to read all that stuff when others do it in various threads, so I avoid doing the same.  I will address what I believe to be the bulk of your objections...

    Fair enough.  As someone who used to be a teacher and coach, I use this method because it provides a sense of structure and gives the reader a "reminder" of the point I'm discussing without having to search back potentially 2 to n number of posts/pages back.  I understand for many it's annoying, but I would rather be accused of that than either deliberately not addressing their points or (worse) being intellectually dishonest by either taking their points out of context, or by summarizing them in a way their hurts their position and benefits mine.

    No 1.  If "dark matter" is so hard to measure or understand that only a few "gifted" and "educated" individuals can comprehend it, then I already reject it as being too "exclusive".  I've found that (certain individuals calling themselves scientists) will use this fact that no one can understand them to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses.  This is not to say that they may not indeed be correct, but if no one can understand their "correctness" then I reject it as most likely being a bunch of smoke from certain people who want to feel elevated above the others.  AGAIN - THEY MAY BE RIGHT... but I doubt it (according to my past "experiences")...

    This was not a major point I was trying to make, only that would be interesting for you to take a look at WSP's video he posted in the BBS.

    As far as "anarchy" I know the concept that these fictions do not exist and that we have always lived in anarchy is a difficult one to comprehend.  Let's try bringing it down a notch.  A more insignificant "fiction" is called "NIKE"...  This fiction exists because some men (real people) got together and wrote some words on a piece of paper and brought it before some other men (real people) who call themselves "Secretaries Of State" and asked them to put a pretty stamp on their papers.  This was done and within the minds of these men a new entity called "NIKE" was born.  Now if I ask you to go and grab this "NIKE" and put it in jail, what will you do??  Will you grab the warehouses and put barbed wire fences around them?  Will you grab some man who calls himself "Chairman Of The Board" and put him in jail?  His name is not "NIKE".  There are, of course shoes with "NIKE" on them.  Will you round up all the shoes and put them in jail?

    So it's easy to point out that NIKE only exists in the minds of men and has no physical or spiritual existence (well, I guess we really can't prove the spiritual part).  In law, they are even admitted to being fiction as the correct term for them is "Legal Fiction".  But what about the "USA"?  All the same reasoning applies.  There is no physical (and we assume spiritual) existence of "USA".  It is a fiction that exists in the minds of men only.  When did "Babylon" cease to exist?  (It's a trick question).  Babylon never did exist but most men alive many many years ago believed it did and so they acted accordingly.  When they became enlightened to the FACT that Babylon was a fiction it ceased to exist in their minds.  The buildings, people and roads existed for many years after the belief in "Babylon" ended (I believe some of these still exist today - but don't quote me on that).

    Fair enough.  However, this exact argument can be used to simply replace "government" with the any and all nouns for which we ascribe attributes to that are not physical objects. Things like:


    You'll notice I put Anarchy in this list - the very thing you say is the natural state of things - but this also just a concept.  Taking your argument to it's logical conclusion - the only things that are not fiction are:


    everything else is superfluous, and anarchy simply becomes a term, an "idea" in which some men will use actions to attempt to attain (which based on this argument can't happen) and which other men will use actions to attempt to prevent the acquisition thereof

    So this then becomes the argument that applies to everything, and therefore for all practical purposes with the exception of the philosophical or metaphysical, applies to nothing.  This is because this argument is so broad, so general, so universally applicable that it's rendered beyond usefulness for the purposes of distinction or differentiation.


    Now the "effect" you see in your life (taxes, jail, fines, etc) that everyone attributes to "government" is not proof of "government".  It is only proof of the existence of the IDEA of government in the minds of men.  It's MEN who put you in jail, take your money from you and tell you to salute, not "government".  Sure, these men BELIEVE they are acting on behalf of this "government", but that belief is no more valid than them believing they are acting on behalf of the Easter Bunny (hey, I like the Easter Bunny better anyway...)

    If you still believe in government, can you please grab the "USA" for me and give me back some of the green pieces of paper some men stole from me??

    Cute.  Tell you what - as soon as you can come back with the guy/thing named "Anarchy" - or even just a handful of it - then I'll see what I can do about your "USA."

    As far as "Christianity" you are right.  I cannot prove the existence of The Creator and have admitted as much many times.

    Fair.

    But His existence is either a fact or it's not.

    Agreed.

    If it's a fact, then us men denying it will not make His existence cease. 

    Nor would continually affirming His existence cause Him to exist if it is indeed not a fact.

    I use Christianity as a means to acknowledge my belief in The Creator and to hopefully gain some direction to how I should live my life.

    Fair and 100% valid.


    As far as your fallacy, do you think I should rely on the experiences of other men above my own experiences?  Or am I just to consider their experiences as ancillary to my own perceptions?

    I would not presume to tell you how to live your life; I merely disagreed with your denial of the Fallacy of Personal Experience

    For my own life, I have to constantly remind myself that in many ways, I am in fact, ignorant; simply because I do not know, see, or have the intelligence to verify x does not necessarily mean it's false or worthy of summary dismissal.  Understanding this, I try to do my best to apply a modicum of balance.  Verifying what I can, when I can - and if necessary, acknowledging that I am not qualified or am in a position to either dismiss or "jump on board" with an idea.  It is because of this that I have to admit that I am not qualified, nor probably ever will be to either dismiss or factually claim the existence of God,  and therefore, I am incapable of "believing" or "disbelieving."

    I can Hope God exists, but even this is a significant distinction; I am acknowledging that any feelings I have regarding God(s) would be completely and 100% internally driven and personally motivated.


    edit: removed a portion of the post that was accidentally copied twice.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 28, 2010, 08:42:24 PM
    I certainly agree with your reference to one being "ignorant".  I consider what I know to be a very tiny part of actual knowledge and I consider myself to be very ignorant but I'm trying to learn as much as I can before I pass from this existence.

    Quote from: theCelestrian link=topic=11164.msg586234#msg586234

    Fair enough.  However, this exact argument can be used to simply replace "government" with the any and all nouns for which we ascribe attributes to that are not physical objects. Things like:

    • Slavery
    • Love
    • Compassion
    • Morality
    • God
    • Freedom
    • Anarchy


    Here I have to disagree.  All the things in this list do not carry an implied "authority" (except for God of course and he hasn't told me just exactly what he wants from me) which "government" always or nearly always is believed to have.  When one realizes that "government" is a fiction, one also realizes that they (the cult members who promote that belief) cannot possible have "authority" for any action.  Even "slavery" does not depend on "authority" but rather violence. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on January 28, 2010, 09:04:59 PM
    He deleted my post about Abraham and Moses being prophets who argued with God.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 28, 2010, 09:28:14 PM
    He deleted my post about Abraham and Moses being prophets who argued with God.

    I haven't deleted anything this week.  I did delete one post last week (I don't remember who's post it was - may have been yours) but it was not because of any "argument" that I could not address, it was because the poster was not being very civil.  If you cannot play nice, go to another thread.  I do not delete posts where someone has a point to make even if it's a point I don't like.  If I decide that the "point" is simply to be vulgar or offensive, I will also exercise my "discretion" as "lord of the thread"   :)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on January 28, 2010, 09:55:29 PM
    Here I have to disagree.  All the things in this list do not carry an implied "authority" (except for God of course and he hasn't told me just exactly what he wants from me) which "government" always or nearly always is believed to have.  When one realizes that "government" is a fiction, one also realizes that they (the cult members who promote that belief) cannot possible have "authority" for any action.  Even "slavery" does not depend on "authority" but rather violence. 

    I think we're at an impasse, and we'll probably have to settle to agree to disagree.  I will however, provide why despite your slight change in your argument - I still disagree.

    Irrelevant; your argument (prior to your addendum) had nothing to do with 'authority' - merely the inherent 'reality' of the term.  This position is inconsistent; Abstract terms that denote potentials of authority are fictions, but abstract terms that do not have such an interpretive potential are in fact, less a fiction (or 'real').

    You need to explain to me how 'compassion' is more real of a thing than 'government.'  Your previous litmus test for government was, "find me the person who is 'government.'"  I would encourage you to again apply your own test to that list above.


    You made the claim 'government' is a fiction because there is no person named 'government;' only physical Men and their physical actions.  As support, you referred to the fact that all the effects people attribute to 'government' is actually a result of the men, not the fiction. 

    You also offered Nike as an allegorical; Nike's building's and infrastructure would still be there long after "Nike" the company was gone.  All of these conditions in your previous argument can be applied to that list above, as well as any noun that is used to describe concepts that are inherantly intangible.  The fact that you acknowledge "God" as a hole in this new condition raises an interesting question, particularly given your position on personal experience:

    How can someone/thing that is 'not a fiction' but never communicates His/Her desires directly have any real authority over others?  Would the perceived authority simply be an idea, a concept because you have zero methods of personally verifying that any and all claims of authority are in fact, true?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 29, 2010, 01:07:15 AM
    Queue interchangable concepts in a quote time....
    Quote
    Here I have to disagree.  All the things in this list do not carry an implied "authority" (except for Government of course and it hasn't told me just exactly what it wants from me) which "God" always or nearly always is believed to have.  When one realizes that "God" is a fiction, one also realizes that they (the cult members who promote that belief) cannot possibly have "authority" for any action.  Even "slavery" does not depend on "authority" but rather violence. 

    See, totally interchangable. Christian Anarchy is just another oxymoronic answer...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on January 29, 2010, 01:19:17 AM
    Queue interchangable concepts in a quote time....
    Quote
    Here I have to disagree.  All the things in this list do not carry an implied "authority" (except for Government of course and it hasn't told me just exactly what it wants from me) which "God" always or nearly always is believed to have.  When one realizes that "God" is a fiction, one also realizes that they (the cult members who promote that belief) cannot possibly have "authority" for any action.  Even "slavery" does not depend on "authority" but rather violence. 

    See, totally interchangable. Christian Anarchy is just another oxymoronic answer...

    Johnson you are on a roll!
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 29, 2010, 01:44:29 AM
    (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_c7o5Da_3GKQ/R-xz18vQzlI/AAAAAAAAAHs/NG5N4KhwLeU/s200/MythFish.jpg) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd-MpXCMcIs&feature=youtube_gdata)

    edit:linked to video of some folks that aren't any more dependable than anyone else... :)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on January 29, 2010, 01:57:37 AM
    Haha you are a classy guy. I'm glad you're in the liberty movement dude, we need more (productive and smart) people like you.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 29, 2010, 10:37:32 AM
    I don't know about classy.... Hell, I don't even know about smart or productive.... But - classy? I'm kinda callous, tactless, and short fused with  those whom I disagree... I think that negates me being able to be called classy.... I think Branden deserves the classy award for always keeping it cool.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on January 29, 2010, 11:34:26 AM
    I think Branden deserves the classy award for always keeping it cool.

    Meh.  It's a BBS, and interestingly enough the big 3 (sex, religion, politics) don't tend to grip me emotionally as strongly as most of the people I know.  Perhaps that's because I've been talking/arguing/asking about them since I was a young child.  The FTL is also mainly a recreational place for me - and a chance for me ask some interesting questions, and potentially get some interesting answers.  Nothing more.  This thread is a perfect exemplary; even with the most eloquent, well-reasoned and potentially air-tight argument I could provide about why the Fallacy of Personal Experience is in fact a fallacy, or any of the other points I made in this thread - odds are nil that Gene (or anyone else) is suddenly going have an epiphany and embrace agnostic anarchy.

    ...and if it appears I never get "hot" - if you knew me in real life, you would find that I am in fact a very simple kind of guy; I say what I mean, mean what I say and generally never have a problem calling a spade as such, and can in fact get very... impassioned, particularly when I am forced to deal with incompetence at the workplace.  Kinda like this guy:

    (http://images.wikia.com/farscape/images/3/35/Scorpius250.jpg)

    I do, however, in all things make every endeavor to try to treat individuals in a manner that I would wish to be treated.

    Johnson just has a different tac - and in all honesty; it seems it is often significantly more effective than my method. 


    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 29, 2010, 01:28:59 PM
    My tactic is really only driven by two main principles; impatience and frustration. Impatience firstly to save time, but secondly my impatience tactic is dependent upon audience. You seem to be communicating with Gene directly and trying to address every little argument Gene makes. I see that as a fairly pointless exercise, since Gene is a liar, and his only purpose in reading what you say at all, will be to pull one or two points from it to manipulate and intentionally misinterpret them. Then he has manipulated you into continuing on a separate branch down this long ridiculous "debate" path. You see, while you or I might actually listen to what Gene has to say about his religion and his viewpoint, Gene is only looking for a way to manipulate and misinterpret what we have to say, so that he can keep this thread going.

    I think he somehow feels that if this thread continues that he is somehow "winning". As though this thread will somehow be responsible for the spread of Christian anarchy.

    The other principle behind my tactic is frustration. I have an endless wellspring of frustration that I can direct towards religion without any problem. I think the reasons for that are fairly clearly outlined in this blog. http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html

    While I am neither an atheist, a liberal, or a gay, I feel like many if not most of the points that Greta makes about atheistic anger are extremely well put together. Of course, that's why I decided to badly read that blog entry on my YouTube channel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJG51lqExAY&feature=youtube_gdata
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on January 29, 2010, 01:48:38 PM
    My tactic is really only driven by two main principles; impatience and frustration. Impatience firstly to save time, but secondly my impatience tactic is dependent upon audience.

    Agreed. I understand I get a bit...verbose, however I make no apologies for being so. :)

    You seem to be communicating with Gene directly and trying to address every little argument Gene makes. I see that as a fairly pointless exercise, since Gene is a liar, and his only purpose in reading what you say at all, will be to pull one or two points from it to manipulate and intentionally misinterpret them.

    I would like to hope that is not the case, but I imagine I'll find that out for myself soon enough.

    Then he has manipulated you into continuing on a separate branch down this long ridiculous "debate" path.

    I'd like to think I've kept my tac fairly focused; the denial of the Fallacy of Personal Experience being primary, and questioning the relevance of the argument that applies to everything, and therefore applies to nothing, and it's implications to "Christian Anarchy" being secondary.

    You see, while you or I might actually listen to what Gene has to say about his religion and his viewpoint, Gene is only looking for a way to manipulate and misinterpret what we have to say, so that he can keep this thread going.

    I understand your position here.

    I think he somehow feels that if this thread continues that he is somehow "winning". As though this thread will somehow be responsible for the spread of Christian anarchy.

    Fair enough, though I don't know if I share the sentiment. If all of your aforementioned allegations are true - then I would posit that having individuals read (and apparently see) the behavior would result in a net loss for Gene's particular cause. ::shrugs:: However, again I think most people have pretty much made up their minds in a lot of these regards; the faithful will continue to be thus, the Statists shall continue to attempt to rationalize aggressive, coercive violence.

    The other principle behind my tactic is frustration. I have an endless wellspring of frustration that I can direct towards religion without any problem. I think the reasons for that are fairly clearly outlined in this blog. http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html

    While I am neither an atheist, a liberal, or a gay, I feel like many if not most of the points that Greta makes about atheistic anger are extremely well put together. Of course, that's why I decided to badly read that blog entry on my YouTube channel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJG51lqExAY&feature=youtube_gdata

    Also completely fair, nor I would I ever try to tell you how you should/should not verbally respond to those you feel have enabled the continuing perpetration of violence against other individuals who do not share the aggressor's moral/religious value set.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on January 29, 2010, 01:53:10 PM
    I think spending enough time in this thread would cause anyone who started out Celestrian-like to morph into being Johnson-like. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on January 29, 2010, 01:54:54 PM
    I think spending enough time in this thread would cause anyone who started out Celestrian-like to morph into being Johnson-like. 

    Potentially. :)  Though I have been here before during my last tenure at the BBS. ;)

    edit: It was like back on page 100-ish I think.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 29, 2010, 07:18:55 PM
    Queue interchangable concepts in a quote time....
    Quote
    Here I have to disagree.  All the things in this list do not carry an implied "authority" (except for Government of course and it hasn't told me just exactly what it wants from me) which "God" always or nearly always is believed to have.  When one realizes that "God" is a fiction, one also realizes that they (the cult members who promote that belief) cannot possibly have "authority" for any action.  Even "slavery" does not depend on "authority" but rather violence. 

    See, totally interchangable. Christian Anarchy is just another oxymoronic answer...

    Because you have yet to realize that you are already in anarchy.  Someday I hope you will realize your error.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 29, 2010, 07:39:33 PM
    Here I have to disagree.  All the things in this list do not carry an implied "authority" (except for God of course and he hasn't told me just exactly what he wants from me) which "government" always or nearly always is believed to have.  When one realizes that "government" is a fiction, one also realizes that they (the cult members who promote that belief) cannot possible have "authority" for any action.  Even "slavery" does not depend on "authority" but rather violence. 

    I think we're at an impasse, and we'll probably have to settle to agree to disagree.  I will however, provide why despite your slight change in your argument - I still disagree.

    Irrelevant; your argument (prior to your addendum) had nothing to do with 'authority' - merely the inherent 'reality' of the term.  This position is inconsistent; Abstract terms that denote potentials of authority are fictions, but abstract terms that do not have such an interpretive potential are in fact, less a fiction (or 'real').

    You need to explain to me how 'compassion' is more real of a thing than 'government.'  Your previous litmus test for government was, "find me the person who is 'government.'"  I would encourage you to again apply your own test to that list above.


    You made the claim 'government' is a fiction because there is no person named 'government;' only physical Men and their physical actions.  As support, you referred to the fact that all the effects people attribute to 'government' is actually a result of the men, not the fiction. 

    You also offered Nike as an allegorical; Nike's building's and infrastructure would still be there long after "Nike" the company was gone.  All of these conditions in your previous argument can be applied to that list above, as well as any noun that is used to describe concepts that are inherantly intangible.  The fact that you acknowledge "God" as a hole in this new condition raises an interesting question, particularly given your position on personal experience:

    How can someone/thing that is 'not a fiction' but never communicates His/Her desires directly have any real authority over others?  Would the perceived authority simply be an idea, a concept because you have zero methods of personally verifying that any and all claims of authority are in fact, true?

    I'm sorry if I made the assumption that you knew my stance on "authority".  I have had the same point of view since the first post in this thread.  I see "government" and "authority" as being dependent upon each other.  Showing that "government" is a fiction also shows that there is no "authority".  A government without authority is no government. 

    The existence of God has been proven to me and I have stated so in the past (so I do not accept His authority as "fiction").  I've also stated that I cannot PROVE His existence to anyone else.  This is something you can only "prove" to yourself by seeking Him.  Briefly, I have had personal experiences that I can only attribute to a supernatural being (which is outside the realm of the scientific method).  I further use my personal observations of the universe to show an intelligent designer.  We can go down this road again if you wish, but I have many examples of WHY I believe God to exist, but this is something that each of us has to determine from their own perspective.  In my youth, I believed there was no God and  believed in evolution.  My journey on this ball has change my perspective a great deal. 

    I think the existence of a feeling or emotion (which has no form) but is believed to exist cannot be compared to an imagined authority over others called "government".  These emotions exist in the minds of the person experiencing them.  As such, we can only take their word that they have "compassion".  There are some people who don't have compassion, and for them, compassion is truly a fiction. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 29, 2010, 10:44:37 PM
    I think that Gene's beating this dead horse actually tends to backfire on him. His evasion of reason, use of circular logic, and tendency to use highly fallacious arguments are obvious to even a casual reader.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 30, 2010, 09:51:48 AM
    Like if you ask him "how was god proven to you Gene?" his answer is akin to "well, certain events in my life have proven that God exists because God created everything and it's obvious in how glorious things are because god created them, which proves that God exists"
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on January 30, 2010, 12:48:03 PM
    I'm sorry if I made the assumption that you knew my stance on "authority".  I have had the same point of view since the first post in this thread.  I see "government" and "authority" as being dependent upon each other.  Showing that "government" is a fiction also shows that there is no "authority".  A government without authority is no government.

    This is all fine; but it doesn't address the fact that the argument is so over-general that it can be applied to any kind of abstract concept.  This again was not the primary purpose of my original line of questioning, but the fact that you believe it is logically consistent that you make broad sweeping statements of fact solely based upon your personal experience.

    I have demonstrated why I feel that's dangerous, and how this kind of thinking is used to rationalize some of Humanities most egregious and atrocious acts of barbarism.  You do not seem to either feel or think this is the case, and therefore we are at an impasse here.

    This will be my final comment on this particular matter.

    The existence of God has been proven to me and I have stated so in the past (so I do not accept His authority as "fiction").  I've also stated that I cannot PROVE His existence to anyone else.  This is something you can only "prove" to yourself by seeking Him.  Briefly, I have had personal experiences that I can only attribute to a supernatural being (which is outside the realm of the scientific method).  I further use my personal observations of the universe to show an intelligent designer.  We can go down this road again if you wish, but I have many examples of WHY I believe God to exist, but this is something that each of us has to determine from their own perspective.  In my youth, I believed there was no God and  believed in evolution.  My journey on this ball has change my perspective a great deal.

    Arguments that basically boil down to "trust me, x is true," is not an argument that has any functional use when trying to convince, persuade or otherwise reason with individuals other than yourself.


    ...again, I think we're at an impasse, if for no other reason that we seem to be using the same words, but have fundamentally different meanings associated with them.  My guess is that you will take issue with my definition of "observation," and broaden it to include that which is emotional and or intangible, but this is of course, just a guess.

    Feel free to respond if you like, but I think at this point the constructive potential of our discourse has past the point of diminishing returns.

     
    I think the existence of a feeling or emotion (which has no form) but is believed to exist cannot be compared to an imagined authority over others called "government". 

    Wrong.  Abstract concepts can very easily be compared to other abstract concepts when discussing the validity of their reality using tangibility as the frame of reference, as you did originally when you thought you had me in a "gotcha."  Let me see if I can jog your memory a bit with a re-purposed truth statement:

    Government Compassion is a fiction, only the men and their actions are real.

    Remember that? 

    These emotions exist in the minds of the person experiencing them. 

    Oh!  ....so:

    These emotions Government exist in the minds of the person experiencing them. 

    See, the English language allows me to do some pretty cool things.  I can take your noun, replace it with another noun, and see if the statement could still be true.  I think it's very interesting that you deny Government as a fiction, but you'll qualify emotions as less a fiction because it exists in the minds of the person experiencing them.

    With this one sentence, Gene, you have completely undermined your entire argument.

    Because everything can now, "exist in the minds of the person experiencing them."  The validity of Government, according to this, is now just as valid as the validity of emotions.  "Authority" is no longer a requisite, only that the person believes that what they are experiencing in their mind is "Government."

    :::claps::: I don't think I could have made a more compelling point in that one single sentence as you did. So as far as this point in your discussion, I'm officially satisfied.  No further definition tweaks or non-universal qualifiers are necessary.  You and I will probably need to part ways on this point as well.

    As such, we can only take their word that they have "compassion".  There are some people who don't have compassion, and for them, compassion is truly a fiction. 

    So you'll take someone's word about emotions, which can be incredibly nuanced and "beyond understanding," and incapable of being objectively observed/measured except by those experiencing the emotion, but you'll summarily dismiss scientific data because "they [the scientists] can't be trusted" and the data "is overly complicated for common understanding."

    :|



    edit: fixed personal -> person, and not -> no
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: mikehz on January 30, 2010, 01:28:09 PM
    It's very telling that such personal revelations always tend to confirm bias already present in the one getting the revelation. Catholics get messages from Mary, Protestants from Jesus, and Jews from Abraham.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on January 30, 2010, 02:07:02 PM
    It's very telling that such personal revelations always tend to confirm bias already present in the one getting the revelation. Catholics get messages from Mary, Protestants from Jesus, and Jews from Abraham.

    Jews get messages from Abraham?  Really?

    Kind of reminds me of how when religious people experience paradolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia), it's always the religious figures with whom they're familiar.  Never heard yet of a Catholic woman seeing the face of Ganesh in a grilled cheese sandwich. 
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 30, 2010, 03:51:24 PM
    I'm sorry if I made the assumption that you knew my stance on "authority".  I have had the same point of view since the first post in this thread.  I see "government" and "authority" as being dependent upon each other.  Showing that "government" is a fiction also shows that there is no "authority".  A government without authority is no government.

    This is all fine; but it doesn't address the fact that the argument is so over-general that it can be applied to any kind of abstract concept.  This again was not the primary purpose of my original line of questioning, but the fact that you believe it is logically consistent that you make broad sweeping statements of fact solely based upon your personal experience.

    I have demonstrated why I feel that's dangerous, and how this kind of thinking is used to rationalize some of Humanities most egregious and atrocious acts of barbarism.  You do not seem to either feel or think this is the case, and therefore we are at an impasse here.


    I absolutely agree that this is the exact "thinking" that leads to egregious acts.  EVERY act of murderous war was done in the name of some "government" (a fiction - I like to call a "cult").  It's the cult mentality of this fiction granting some authority that it does not have that leads men to believe they have justification in aggression against others.  But just because this "thinking" can and often does lead to a bad outcome does not mean that this exact thinking (when tempered with the belief in an all-loving authority) cannot lead to good outcomes.  Especially when I believe that this "authority of God" only pertains to my own relationship with him and does not grant ME authority over others..


    Quote

    This will be my final comment on this particular matter.

    The existence of God has been proven to me and I have stated so in the past (so I do not accept His authority as "fiction").  I've also stated that I cannot PROVE His existence to anyone else.  This is something you can only "prove" to yourself by seeking Him.  Briefly, I have had personal experiences that I can only attribute to a supernatural being (which is outside the realm of the scientific method).  I further use my personal observations of the universe to show an intelligent designer.  We can go down this road again if you wish, but I have many examples of WHY I believe God to exist, but this is something that each of us has to determine from their own perspective.  In my youth, I believed there was no God and  believed in evolution.  My journey on this ball has change my perspective a great deal.

    Arguments that basically boil down to "trust me, x is true," is not an argument that has any functional use when trying to convince, persuade or otherwise reason with individuals other than yourself.


    Sorry, but as I stated, unless I can perform the experiment in my garage to prove what any "scientist" tells me, I'm ultimately left with the same choice... "trust me, it's true".  And I have a good many examples where men within this group called "scientists" have defrauded the people (global warming, global cooling, Peking man, exhaustion of crude oil by 1990, and multitudes of others).  I am not talking about simple mistakes in the "scientists" conclusions, I'm talking about out and out fraud...

    Quote


    • "This is something you can only "prove" to yourself by seeking Him." - Well, all my experiences have neither proved nor disproved God, so this is out the window...

    • "I further use my personal observations of the universe to show an intelligent designer." - I'm amazed you haven't taken these observations and have them published in the Scientific community - because if you can show there's an intelligent designer, then you can show, in fact, that a creator must exist.

      ...but that would then contradict the first bullet item, wouldn't it?

    • "We can go down this road again if you wish, but I have many examples of WHY I believe God to exist, but this is something that each of us has to determine from their own perspective." - What happened to those personal observations that show Intelligent Design?  Wouldn't the observations, which by definition are quantifiable, and repeatable, help determine objective fact (read: perspective) for me?


    ...again, I think we're at an impasse, if for no other reason that we seem to be using the same words, but have fundamentally different meanings associated with them.  My guess is that you will take issue with my definition of "observation," and broaden it to include that which is emotional and or intangible, but this is of course, just a guess.

    Feel free to respond if you like, but I think at this point the constructive potential of our discourse has past the point of diminishing returns.


    I think the existence of a feeling or emotion (which has no form) but is believed to exist cannot be compared to an imagined authority over others called "government". 

    Wrong.  Abstract concepts can very easily be compared to other abstract concepts when discussing the validity of their reality using tangibility as the frame of reference, as you did originally when you thought you had me in a "gotcha."  Let me see if I can jog your memory a bit with a re-purposed truth statement:

    Government Compassion is a fiction, only the men and their actions are real.

    Remember that? 

    These emotions exist in the minds of the person experiencing them. 

    Oh!  ....so:

    These emotions Government exist in the minds of the person experiencing them. 

    See, the English language allows me to do some pretty cool things.  I can take your noun, replace it with another noun, and see if the statement could still be true.  I think it's very interesting that you deny Government as a fiction, but you'll qualify emotions as less a fiction because it exists in the minds of the person experiencing them.

    With this one sentence, Gene, you have completely undermined your entire argument.

    Because everything can now, "exist in the minds of the person experiencing them."  The validity of Government, according to this, is now just as valid as the validity of emotions.  "Authority" is no longer a requisite, only that the person believes that what they are experiencing in their mind is "Government."

    :::claps::: I don't think I could have made a more compelling point in that one single sentence as you did. So as far as this point in your discussion, I'm officially satisfied.  No further definition tweaks or non-universal qualifiers are necessary.  You and I will probably need to part ways on this point as well.

    As such, we can only take their word that they have "compassion".  There are some people who don't have compassion, and for them, compassion is truly a fiction. 

    So you'll take someone's word about emotions, which can be incredibly nuanced and "beyond understanding," and incapable of being objectively observed/measured except by those experiencing the emotion, but you'll summarily dismiss scientific data because "they [the scientists] can't be trusted" and the data "is overly complicated for common understanding."



    [/quote]

    I really don't disagree with your point here that both of these things (compassion and government) can only exist in the mind.  In fact, that is the exact point I am making.  HOWEVER, because you feel that "government" exists in your mind and maybe 99.99% of the people agree with you, please tell me how this "belief" in the fiction government grants ANYONE any REAL authority??  "Compassion" exists in the minds of men, but "compassion" does not pretend to have authority over people external to the one feeling the compassion.

    I agree with you in this regard, if you can't see the difference in what I am saying and what you are saying, then we truly are at an impasse...

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on January 30, 2010, 04:22:51 PM
    What about those groups of people all having religious experiences together...while staring into the sun?

    Lets delve into that...

    A post critical of staring into the sun:
    Quote
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/12/02/knock-visions-lead-to-eye-damage/
    Last month, I wrote about thousands of people at the Knock shrine in Ireland who stared at the Sun because they thought they were seeing visions of the Virgin Mary. I specifically said, "That’s a bad idea: it can cause temporary blindness, and permanent damage to the retina…"

    Guess what?

    Yup. A doctor in Ireland says he is seeing an unprecedented rise in the number of cases of solar retinopathy, damage to the eye from staring at the Sun. Moreover, those cases are directly linked to the Knock "visions":

    A post in favor of:
    Quote
    http://sungazing.vpinf.com/
    Solar Yoga, Native American Traditions, Aztec, Mayan and Inca Traditions, Sun Staring: The Ahmadiyah Sect of Islam, Sungazing in the Early Days of Hinduism, Jainism and Yoga, ...
    “SURYA Yoga is above religion. Many Christians and Muslims are practising it,” says Acharya Jowell K Gopinath, popularly known as Surya Swami, a spiritual leader who teaches the technique of tapping the radiant energy of the Sun. Surya Yoga is said to revitalise energy and negate illnesses of the mind and body.
    Surya yoga is a blend of yoga, nada (sound), rishi gyan and Buddha stage (silence). It is an advanced form of yoga that helps an individual merge with nature. The best time to practice Surya yoga is at sunrise or sunset when the harmful ultra-violet rays are not present (OMG!). Ten minutes of daily sun-gazing is sufficient for a beginner.

    Sungazing will solve world hunger (towards the bottom), and OMG the stupidity:
    http://www.sungazing.com/652.html (http://www.sungazing.com/652.html)
    Quote
    Some of the information I read about the effects of sungazing included: a decrease in irritability, anger and frustration; an increase in memory and immunity; not to mention bold claims of complete awareness and relief from all disease.   Hey now, where do I sign up?  I was open to anything that could potentially decrease my frustrations regarding taxes and increase my ability to remember my neighbors name.  Apparently (according to HRM) the brain is able to store solar energy, therefore creating the capability to access a larger percentage of our mind. I am told we use about 6-12% of our brain's capacity (Einstein used about 20%), through the practice of sungazing imagine utilizing over 50% of your brain.   With that kind of power I might be able to balance my check book and discuss a recent film at the same time.
    Sungazing will not cause relief from disease, your brain can not store "solar energy" and it is a complete myth that we use only 6-12% of our brains. We use it ALL.

    And a "scientific" sungazing survey:
    Quote
    Have you regularly noticed, as a result of sungazing, any of the following? (okay to pick more than one, up to 6)

    And finally these guys:
    Quote
    http://solarhealing.com/
    If one continues to apply the proper sungazing practice for 6 months, they will be free from physical illnesses.  Furthermore, after 9 months, one can eventually win a victory over hunger, which disappears by itself thereafter.
     
    (http://solarhealing.com/Images/header.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 30, 2010, 05:19:54 PM
    Quote
    I really don't disagree with your point here that both of these things (compassion and government) can only exist in the mind.  In fact, that is the exact point I am making.  HOWEVER, because you feel that "government" exists in your mind and maybe 99.99% of the people agree with you, please tell me how this "belief" in the fiction government grants ANYONE any REAL authority??  "Compassion" exists in the minds of men, but "compassion" does not pretend to have authority over people external to the one feeling the compassion.


    Along with the concepts of compassion and government, the concept of authority also exists only in the minds of those being affected by it. Even if you're holding a gun to my head, you still have only the authority over me which I grant to you. Even with a direct threat against my life, I can still choose to ignore any orders given to me and forfeit that life. Therefore a belief in the concept of government, which inherently includes the concept of authority, is as real as authority is ever going to get.
    It's the same way with emotions, even though the concepts of those emotions exist solely in the minds of the people who bear those emotions, they still have an external effect on anyone around who bears any sense of empathy, and isn't a complete sociopath.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on January 30, 2010, 10:55:48 PM
    long with the concepts of compassion and government, the concept of authority also exists only in the minds of those being affected by it. Even if you're holding a gun to my head, you still have only the authority over me which I grant to you. Even with a direct threat against my life, I can still choose to ignore any orders given to me and forfeit that life. Therefore a belief in the concept of government, which inherently includes the concept of authority, is as real as authority is ever going to get.
    It's the same way with emotions, even though the concepts of those emotions exist solely in the minds of the people who bear those emotions, they still have an external effect on anyone around who bears any sense of empathy, and isn't a complete sociopath.

    Johnson, thank you for taking my initial point to it's logical end; all abstract concepts, including authority are fictions when we use physicality and the actions of physical objects that litmus test.

    As I said before, I'm completely satisfied with the results of this conversation, as it was most educational. I would be interested to hear, however, how Authority how this then reconciles with all of Gene's previous statements (outlined in previous posts) - and moreover, once again How an argument that applies to everything is useful for anything when seeking to use that argument for the sake of distinction and/or differentiation.

    For myself, however, I will quietly find a chair in the back and listen.  Should another (completely unrelated) sub-topic of this thread surface tha's of interest to me, I shall make it known.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on January 30, 2010, 10:58:49 PM
    It's very telling that such personal revelations always tend to confirm bias already present in the one getting the revelation. Catholics get messages from Mary, Protestants from Jesus, and Jews from Abraham.

    Jews get messages from Abraham?  Really?

    Kind of reminds me of how when religious people experience paradolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia), it's always the religious figures with whom they're familiar.  Never heard yet of a Catholic woman seeing the face of Ganesh in a grilled cheese sandwich. 
    Unfortunately no, I don't think that anyone gets messages from Abraham...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 30, 2010, 11:28:05 PM
    Quote
    I really don't disagree with your point here that both of these things (compassion and government) can only exist in the mind.  In fact, that is the exact point I am making.  HOWEVER, because you feel that "government" exists in your mind and maybe 99.99% of the people agree with you, please tell me how this "belief" in the fiction government grants ANYONE any REAL authority??  "Compassion" exists in the minds of men, but "compassion" does not pretend to have authority over people external to the one feeling the compassion.


    Along with the concepts of compassion and government, the concept of authority also exists only in the minds of those being affected by it. Even if you're holding a gun to my head, you still have only the authority over me which I grant to you. Even with a direct threat against my life, I can still choose to ignore any orders given to me and forfeit that life. Therefore a belief in the concept of government, which inherently includes the concept of authority, is as real as authority is ever going to get.
    It's the same way with emotions, even though the concepts of those emotions exist solely in the minds of the people who bear those emotions, they still have an external effect on anyone around who bears any sense of empathy, and isn't a complete sociopath.

    The problem is you confuse the terms "force" and "authority".  It's a common misconception and the hardest one to get people to break away from.  Sure, someone can use "force" against me and ultimately take my life.  That does not grant them any form of "authority" over me.  It simply makes them a criminal and me a victim.  Their force violates my rights which were granted (created) by our Creator.  

     
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 31, 2010, 08:38:35 AM
    Actually, I think you just proved you're the one who is confused about it...
    "Authority" created through the circular logic of religion is no different from authority created using the circular logic of Government...

    Authority is in both cases conceptual and granted by the subject of the authority...

    I grant no more authority to you when you claim you've been granted it by God than you would to an IRS agent claiming authority granted by Government. The reason is that we don't beleive in that authority. You can claim that the authority of the authority creates the authority of that authority... But circular logic makes you look like an idiot.

    And since you've been using this as this principle for most of your arguments... I think this thread may finally be dead... You kinda just showed yourself to be a full on tardburger.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 31, 2010, 11:53:12 AM
    Johnson you love to twist my meanings like taffy.  You are claiming that I say there is "authority" somewhere but I have always stated the opposite - that no "authority" exists for men to exert their will over others.  I do state that "THE CREATOR" (who ever that is and whatever form He takes) CAN CLAIM to have authority over us being as we would be His creation.  I've also stated that I ACCEPT that He has created us and I ACKNOWLEDGE His authority over us (yes, I accept that He has authority over you and He will have to deal with you, not me because I don't have any authority over you - remember?)

    I've never stated that ANY authority comes from some other authority...

    P.S. can you explain to me how you can be on the "FTL Creative Team" and also be a troll?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 31, 2010, 12:54:55 PM
    Gene, the dishonesty is getting very tiring, you really should stop. These are your words.
     
    Quote
    I have had the same point of view since the first post in this thread.  I see "government" and "authority" as being dependent upon each other.  Showing that "government" is a fiction also shows that there is no "authority".  A government without authority is no government.  


    The point that was just made Gene, was that the argument stated above goes both ways. Authority is only real if one believes in it. If one believes that government is a fiction, then the authority of government is also a fiction. If one believes that your concept of God is a fiction, then the authority of God is also a fiction.

    You seem to already understand this gene, as you prove so with your next quote.

     
    Quote
    The existence of God has been proven to me and I have stated so in the past (so I do not accept His authority as "fiction").  I've also stated that I cannot PROVE His existence to anyone else.  This is something you can only "prove" to yourself by seeking Him.  Briefly, I have had personal experiences that I can only attribute to a supernatural being (which is outside the realm of the scientific method).




    Belief and faith are all that are required for something or someone to have authority, and belief and faith are all that are required in order for a government to exist. Therefore as is clearly evidenced by your initial argument quoted clearly above, all that is required for government actually have authority is for someone to simply believe that this is not a fiction.

    This is most clearly exemplified by your self, in your own beliefs in a deity whom you believe to have authority over you and others.

    What is also interesting is that, while on one hand, you will expect the highest standards of evidence for anyone claiming anything is scientific... in which case you would need to be able to test anything that they say in your own personal garage laboratory... however, if someone claims something is supernatural, you will accept the word of any idiot with a book, and have absolutely no standards for testing that evidence whatsoever.
    If I tell you that something is supernatural, and can then trick your five senses (because why bother using scientific equipment to try and measure anything if it's supernatural) then you will believe it. That pretty much makes you your average everyday basic sucker.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on January 31, 2010, 01:09:28 PM
    <explication of one aspect of the argument>

    The only other thing I will add in regards to this particular aspect of the conversation, because I think Johnson has the religious front covered, is that because the "door swings both ways," and the fact this argument can be applied to any and all things non-physical, this is the argument that applies to everything, and therefore nothing.  My point was that while we can all agree on the factual aspect of 'authority,' 'government,' 'compassion,' 'slavery,' ad inifitum being ficticious, particularly when using physicality (observability) as the benchmark - the argument is so universal as outlined in the last couple pages of our discourse that it is rendered completely worthless for the purposes of distinction, differentiation (because 'Anarchy' is also a fiction by our agreed upon standards) and persuasion.

    Summation - If one honestly wishes to convince others that Anarchy is a better answer of governance than 'Government,' a fundamentally different argument is required.


    ...I honestly don't know if I can make this point (which has been avoided repeatedly) any simpler.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 31, 2010, 01:43:12 PM
    Celestrian, I do not try to convince anyone that "anarchy" is better than "government".  What I try to convince people of is that anarchy is the natural state of things and that we do now and always have lived in anarchy (therefore anarchy is indeed "REAL").  I attempt to make this point by showing that "government" and it's "authority" are indeed fiction.  Lack of government is anarchy.  Once someone sees this point, they are no longer fooled by the "false cult religion" called statism.

    Johnson, you do not make the distinction between a fiction that is a fiction, and a reality that people believe to be a fiction.  For example, instead of "God the Creator" lets make believe we are living in "The Matrix".  The "fiction" that EVERYONE (almost) believe in is that they have a job, pay taxes, make babies, etc.  The REALITY that NO ONE (almost) believe in is the truth (there is no "government" or "authority" only force being applied to them 24-7 in abject slavery).  Now THE FACT that no one believes in the reality does not make the reality go away.  The Matrix could at any moment wipe out all human life in a matter of seconds.  Now this example is not perfect as "The Matrix" did not create the humans or then I would have to conclude that "The Matrix" would have legitimate authority by being the Creator.  Since it is not the creator, it is just a machine that is violating the rights of the people.  JUST BECAUSE NO ONE BELIEVES THAT THE MATRIX EXISTS, does not change THE FACT that it does (of course I'm using this as alegory so please don't misquote me here and claim that I believe in the matrix).
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on January 31, 2010, 03:00:00 PM
    I attempt to make this point by showing that "government" and it's "authority" are indeed fiction.  Lack of government is anarchy.  Once someone sees this point, they are no longer fooled by the "false cult religion" called statism.

    How do you expect to achieve this when your arguments and "illustrations" will be dismissed (correctly) as logically superfluous?

    Oh, and by the way - once you have a community of more than one individual who agrees/believes in a "Lack of government" (Anarchy) - you have in fact created an agreed upon system of governance (i.e. "the rule is there are no rules") and thus making Anarchy once again - an abstract concept as there have now been accepted and agreed upon "limits."

    Limits that I assume would require authority, thus requiring those subscribing to Anarchy to accept that authority.

    Circular.  Superfluous. and therefore, irrelevant for the means of "illustration."

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 31, 2010, 05:40:55 PM
    Why not just go with the original argument as posited by Descartes over the version put out there by Hollywood? . It seems like it would be more up your alley anyway Gene, as it is in reference to demons confusing a brain, versus being a brain in a jar.
    The argument you are talking about is a confused version of an attack on skepticism.

    The term "skeptic" is commonly applied to people who are inclined to doubt accepted beliefs or who habitually mistrust people or ideas in general. In this sense skepticism can be characterized as a healthy and open-minded tendency to test and probe popularly held beliefs. Such a state of mind is usually a useful safeguard against credulity but may sometimes tip over into a tendency to doubt everything, regardless of the justification for doing so. But whether good or bad, being skeptical in this popular sense is quite different from its philosophical usage.

    The philosophical skeptic doesn't claim that we know nothing -- not least because to do so would be obviously self-defeating (one thing we could not know is that we know nothing ). Rather, the skeptics position us to challenge our rights to make claims to knowledge. We think we know lots of things, but how can we defend those claims? What grounds can be produced to justify any particular claim to knowledge? Our supposed knowledge of the world is based on perceptions gained by our senses, usually mediated by our use of reason. But are not such perceptions always open to error? Can we ever be sure we're not hallucinating or dreaming, or that our memory isn't playing tricks? If the experience of dreaming. Is indistinguishable from our waking experience, we can never be certain that something we think to be the case is in fact the case -- that what we take to be the true is in fact true. Such concerns, taken to an extreme, lead to evil demons and brains in jars...

    Epistemology is the area of philosophy concerned with knowledge: determining what we know and how we know it in identifying the conditions to be met for something to count as knowledge. Conceived as such, it can be seen as a response to the skeptics challenge; its history as a series of attempts to deceive skepticism. Many feel the subsequent philosophers have been no more successful than Descartes in vanquishing skepticism. The concern that in the end there is no sure escape from the jar continues to cast a big shadow over philosophy. In fact there is a modern version of this argument called the simulation argument. Nick Bostrom suggests that it is highly probable that we are already living in a computer simulation. Just consider...

    In the future is likely that our civilization will reach a level of technology such that we can create an incredibly sophisticated computer simulation of human minds and worlds for those minds to inhabit. Relatively tiny resources will be needed to sustain such simulated worlds -- a single laptop of the future could be home to thousands or millions of simulated minds -- so in all probability simulated minds will vastly outnumber biological ones. The experiences of both biological and simulated minds will be indistinguishable and both will of course think that they are not stimulated, but the latter (who will make up the vast majority of minds) will in fact be mistaken. We naturally couch this argument in terms of hypotheticals about the future, but who's to say that this "future" hasn't already happened -- that such computer expertise has not already been obtained and such minds already simulated? We of course suppose that we are nota computer simulated mind living in a simulated world, but that may be a tribute to the quality of the programming. Following the logic of Bostrum's argument, it is very likely that our supposition is wrong!

    This is also why that argument is irrelevant... The only frame of reality that matters is the one we can percieve.

    I wish Gene that beleiving in a deity could make it real, or that believing in magical powers could grant them to me... Unfortunately, as much as a little kid tries to will away the truth, once they find out Santa isn't real....
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on January 31, 2010, 05:48:18 PM
    <another very well laid out counter-argument>

    Very nice, Johnson - a very well put counter-synopsis.

    ...I notice you got a new signature, by the way.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 31, 2010, 05:50:00 PM
    Haha I've had this sig since he made that post... I laughed for a solid minute....


    I laughed like this guy... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggB33d0BLcY&feature=youtube_gdata
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on January 31, 2010, 10:05:59 PM
    I attempt to make this point by showing that "government" and it's "authority" are indeed fiction.  Lack of government is anarchy.  Once someone sees this point, they are no longer fooled by the "false cult religion" called statism.

    How do you expect to achieve this when your arguments and "illustrations" will be dismissed (correctly) as logically superfluous?

    Oh, and by the way - once you have a community of more than one individual who agrees/believes in a "Lack of government" (Anarchy) - you have in fact created an agreed upon system of governance (i.e. "the rule is there are no rules") and thus making Anarchy once again - an abstract concept as there have now been accepted and agreed upon "limits."

    Limits that I assume would require authority, thus requiring those subscribing to Anarchy to accept that authority.

    Circular.  Superfluous. and therefore, irrelevant for the means of "illustration."


    If you check dictionary.com and see the first meaning of "anarchy" I think you will find that your statement is in error. 

    1.    a state of society without government or law.

    Two people agreeing that there is no "authority" (or "government") does not create a "government" nor create a "law".  I maintain that we are currently in a state of society without "law".  If you don't believe me, try to have some of these "politicians" prosecuted for the "violations" of their written (fictitious) laws.  They are quite immune because they are "in" on the secret that there really is no law, no "authority".  Only force by those who want to take against those whom they can violate.  The past criminal in chief "W" was immune and the current criminal in chief "O" are aware of this fact.  They will continue to cooperate with each other in order to keep the charade going.  "Anarchy" can never be a "government" because those who acknowledge anarchy, by their acknowledgment of it, accept that there can be no "authority" over others...  And then we're back to the fact that fiction "government" and fiction "authority" are symbiotic.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 31, 2010, 10:19:45 PM
    See what I said about him being a lying jerkoff who would intentionally misinterpret what you are saying so the he can keep the thread going???

    If he believes in the tenets of Christianity, he is so gonna fucking burn.... A sorts of sins of pride, and lying, dishonesty, etc.

    It's really funny to watch Gene pretend to be functionally retarded when the truth really isn't that far off... He thinks he's so clever... That's part of what keeps me coming back to this thread... Laughing at Gene thinking he's clever...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on January 31, 2010, 10:28:47 PM
    Nope, politicians never get prosecuted by their own laws, or get punished by their own systems, nope, never happens. Never, ever... http://politicalgraveyard.com/special/trouble-disgrace.html

     Nope, this list isn't huge or anything, not at all...

    Of course... Now I'm just contradicting Gene for fun and because it's easy... Because it's great to dish out a little taste of "I'm going to intentionally misinterpret what you just said..."
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on February 01, 2010, 12:20:53 AM
    So Gene, didn't even want to try and touch Johnson's post which more formally expounded some of the arguments I was also making, eh?

    Your cherry-picking is beginning to lead me to believe that you are, in fact, not discussing in good-faith nor making every attempt to:


    If you check dictionary.com and see the first meaning of "anarchy" I think you will find that your statement is in error. 

    1.    a state of society without government or law.

    Ooo ooo... let's see what else the dictionary says about 'anarchy':

    Quote from: dictionary.reference.com
    2.    political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.

    3.    a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

    4.    confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

    So - You have been found guilty of selective interpretation to suit your argument in bad faith, as I am fairly sure in my readings of your posts throughout this BBS is that you will interpret Anarchy as #3 when it suits your needs ("Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer, et al), but have apparently decided to use interpretation #1 because it doesn't open your argument up for the rebuttal I'm about to make.

    Classy.

    Two people agreeing that there is no "authority" (or "government") does not create a "government" nor create a "law". 

    Fail, Gene:  "The law is there is no law."

    Notice:


    I maintain that we are currently in a state of society without "law".

    I want you to make note that you said this, because I'm going to step you through how this is going lead undermining some of your points and assertations regarding "authority" in a bit.


    If you don't believe me, try to have some of these "politicians" prosecuted for the "violations" of their written (fictitious) laws.  They are quite immune because they are "in" on the secret that there really is no law, no "authority".  Only force by those who want to take against those whom they can violate.  The past criminal in chief "W" was immune and the current criminal in chief "O" are aware of this fact.  They will continue to cooperate with each other in order to keep the charade going.

    Fail; strawman. You have been found guilty of intentionally (once again) side-stepping my entire point, attempting to change the context of point and mis-interpreting to suit your purposes as well as playing the game of 'bad analogy.'

    Let's look at what I said again:

    Oh, and by the way - once you have a community of more than one individual who agrees/believes in a "Lack of government" (Anarchy) - you have in fact created an agreed upon system of governance (i.e. "the rule is there are no rules") and thus making Anarchy once again - an abstract concept as there have now been accepted and agreed upon "limits."

    So.


    "Anarchy" can never be a "government" because those who acknowledge anarchy, by their acknowledgment of it, accept that there can be no "authority" over others...  And then we're back to the fact that fiction "government" and fiction "authority" are symbiotic.

    edit:I'll assume my color coding is a result of improper reading - and thus retract my first portion of this section's response to give you be benefit of the doubt.

    My points above cover this already.  Circular, Superfluous and therefore irrelevant unless to illustrate that the Law of the Jungle is reality and that one should oppress others as it is the only objectively proven way - through you numerous unsolicited examples of "today's government" - to ensure the maximum benefit of the individual and those he/she cares about.




    I respectfully "clap out" of this thread - 2 violations of arguing in Bad Faith are enough for me, and therefore I exercise my right to abstention.

    This will be my final post on any matters in this thread dealing with Abstract concepts as fiction.  I will of course read and consider any response you may have, but I will not indulge in a discussion I no longer believe is being conducted in good faith.


    この授業はすごく興味深かったです。あなたは私に喋ったありがとうございました。


    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on February 01, 2010, 11:43:55 AM
    Nope, politicians never get prosecuted by their own laws, or get punished by their own systems, nope, never happens. Never, ever... http://politicalgraveyard.com/special/trouble-disgrace.html

     Nope, this list isn't huge or anything, not at all...

    Of course... Now I'm just contradicting Gene for fun and because it's easy... Because it's great to dish out a little taste of "I'm going to intentionally misinterpret what you just said..."

    It seems you are the one doing the twisting (but of course you will deny it).  I said to try to prosecute these criminals for what they are doing and that you would not be able to do so.  I did not say that the criminals will not, from time to time, turn on one of their own and fry them because they crossed some line (that we will never be informed of).

    You will note PLEASE that there are exceptions to every "rule".  Of course sometimes you can find an example of a politician being "caught" and punished for their misdeeds, but it's very rare.  Most of the time they will get away with everything they do.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on February 01, 2010, 12:04:36 PM
    If you check dictionary.com and see the first meaning of "anarchy" I think you will find that your statement is in error.  

    1.    a state of society without government or law.

    Ooo ooo... let's see what else the dictionary says about 'anarchy':

    Quote from: dictionary.reference.com
    2.    political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.

    3.    a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

    4.    confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

    So - You have been found guilty of selective interpretation to suit your argument in bad faith, as I am fairly sure in my readings of your posts throughout this BBS is that you will interpret Anarchy as #3 when it suits your needs ("Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer, et al), but have apparently decided to use interpretation #1 because it doesn't open your argument up for the rebuttal I'm about to make.

    Classy.


    No, I made it quite clear that I was using the "FIRST" definition.  Nowhere did I claim that there were not additional ones.  I even listed my source so you could (and did) read all of them.

    Quote


    Two people agreeing that there is no "authority" (or "government") does not create a "government" nor create a "law".  

    Fail, Gene:  "The law is there is no law."


    Ya, I know that you feel that declaring there is no law makes a law, I disagree...

    Quote

    Notice:


    and then you go into a big long tirade on how not have any laws is a law and inserting examples of "self-law" and "natural-law" (which are not "governmental" law)...

    So we have a lack of communication.  I have never stated that there are no "personal laws" that people live by.  Indeed, these are the only ones that people really follow.  The ones they personally agree are good behavior.  

    If you really want to use a good "gotcha" against me, you can even find times when I "work within the system" to pass legislation (Ron Paul ring any bells?) get people elected etc.  Why would I bother to participate in a "fiction"?  It's very simple and I've explained it in the past.  The "false cult" of government is practiced by most of the people on this ball.  I cannot reach everyone with the truth of the anarchy they live under as everyone is not in the correct stage of their life's journey to accept it.  Therefore I have to agree (with them) that the Easter Bunny is really going to paint them some eggs and leave them hidden so they can find them.  Sometimes I tell them that I will help them place their tooth under the pillow so the "Tooth Fairy" will leave them some money.  This does not make me a hypocrite or dishonest.  It makes me a realist for having to deal with people on their own level at that time in their life.

    If you fault me for this, fine, I do not answer to any man.  Believe as you will - "IT'S A FREE COUNTRY" hahahahaha...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: theCelestrian on February 01, 2010, 12:33:24 PM
    http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=11164.msg587143#msg587143 (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=11164.msg587143#msg587143)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on February 01, 2010, 07:21:13 PM
    http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=11164.msg587143#msg587143
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on February 01, 2010, 09:15:34 PM
    Terribly sorry that you feel that I have not responded to every nuance of an idea in your lengthy posts.  I may have missed your meanings or perhaps you were simply trying to be confusing.  I have stated that I will try to answer individual points, but when you post 30 lines of text, don't expect me to respond to every point (you certainly feel fine about ignoring some of my points).

    At any rate, I am not bound to answer your "points" and I certainly do not try to hold you to respond to mine...

    P.S. Celestrian, I thought you "clapped your hands" and were not going to post any more?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on February 01, 2010, 09:21:14 PM
    http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=11164.msg587143#msg587143
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on February 01, 2010, 09:22:29 PM
    http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=11164.msg36595#msg36595
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on February 02, 2010, 10:33:09 AM
    All posts just spewing vulgarities and insults will be deleted...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on February 03, 2010, 12:23:55 AM
    No vulgarities I swear: http://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/12/04/a-progressive-view/
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on February 03, 2010, 07:17:04 AM
    No vulgarities I swear: http://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/12/04/a-progressive-view/

    Actually a very good point to show that something we think we know the meaning of could indeed mean something else...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: blackie on February 03, 2010, 04:10:14 PM
    Can someone ban Johnson. I have evidence that he is a spammer.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on February 10, 2010, 07:35:54 AM
    Can someone ban Johnson. I have evidence that he is a spammer.

    It's OK now.  Johnson had a fit for a while but now he's curred.  The problem with the cult belief in "government" is that when a cult member is confronted with the truth that there is no "wizard", at first they will deny the fact, then they will demonize the bearer of truth, and then the attack.  If the attacks do not succeed, they then go into a state of denial. 

    Any lawyer can tell you that a corporation is a "legal fiction".  A "creation" of the "state".  However, the state itself is a legal fiction.  Supposedly a creation of the people.  Yet the people who created the "state" have long since passed from this world.  Even if those people were still alive, who gave them any "authority" to create a fiction state to rule over anyone but themselves???
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Major Jizz on February 10, 2010, 08:30:53 PM
    Can someone ban Johnson. I have evidence that he is a spammer.
    The problem with WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAHWAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAHWAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAHWAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAHWAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAHWAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAHWAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAHWAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAHWAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAHWAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAHWAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAHWAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAHWAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAHWAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAHWAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAHWAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH.

    (http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/images/2008_10_27_avian/photo4.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on February 13, 2010, 12:36:57 PM
    Sorry, I don't get the significance of all the ducks...  I guess you are trying to say that I have all my ducks in a row??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on February 19, 2010, 10:12:54 AM
    Wow!!  The freetalklive forum is officially declared "deceased" by me...

    It took 6 days for my thread to get pushed back to the third page.  This forum used to be so active that a thread could be pushed back to the second page in hours if not posted in, now the first page has threads that haven't been posted in for days.

    The reason the forum is dead is all the trolls here who have commandeered the forum as their own.  They "rule" by using bullying tactics to get people to tire of responding to endless vulgar and pointless comments .  Even the forums pride and joy, the breasts thread will go days without a post and if it weren't for the fact that the moderators have "stickyed" it to the front page, it might have received maybe half the attention it has. 

    Congratulations trolls, you may pat yourselves on your backs...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: The ghost of a ghost of a ghost on February 19, 2010, 10:22:13 AM
    It's the boom-bust cycle gene.  Everybody knows that.

    Give it some stimulus.  Watch it grow.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on February 19, 2010, 01:51:01 PM
    Wow!!  The freetalklive forum is officially declared "deceased" by me...

    It took 6 days for my thread to get pushed back to the third page.  This forum used to be so active that a thread could be pushed back to the second page in hours if not posted in, now the first page has threads that haven't been posted in for days.

    The reason the forum is dead is all the trolls here who have commandeered the forum as their own.  They "rule" by using bullying tactics to get people to tire of responding to endless vulgar and pointless comments .  Even the forums pride and joy, the breasts thread will go days without a post and if it weren't for the fact that the moderators have "stickyed" it to the front page, it might have received maybe half the attention it has. 

    Congratulations trolls, you may pat yourselves on your backs...


    Come to the Mises Institute, dude, there's some Hoppean Conservatards you can knock around. :)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on February 21, 2010, 06:20:36 PM
    Wow!!  The freetalklive forum is officially declared "deceased" by me...

    It took 6 days for my thread to get pushed back to the third page.  This forum used to be so active that a thread could be pushed back to the second page in hours if not posted in, now the first page has threads that haven't been posted in for days.

    The reason the forum is dead is all the trolls here who have commandeered the forum as their own.  They "rule" by using bullying tactics to get people to tire of responding to endless vulgar and pointless comments .  Even the forums pride and joy, the breasts thread will go days without a post and if it weren't for the fact that the moderators have "stickyed" it to the front page, it might have received maybe half the attention it has. 

    Congratulations trolls, you may pat yourselves on your backs...


    Come to the Mises Institute, dude, there's some Hoppean Conservatards you can knock around. :)

    I have been to the Mises forums and I visit the mises main page regularly for excellent articles, but the forums seem to be too one-sided.  Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but are there some serious disagreements there?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: freeAgent on February 21, 2010, 10:52:30 PM
    Wow!!  The freetalklive forum is officially declared "deceased" by me...

    It took 6 days for my thread to get pushed back to the third page.  This forum used to be so active that a thread could be pushed back to the second page in hours if not posted in, now the first page has threads that haven't been posted in for days.

    The reason the forum is dead is all the trolls here who have commandeered the forum as their own.  They "rule" by using bullying tactics to get people to tire of responding to endless vulgar and pointless comments .  Even the forums pride and joy, the breasts thread will go days without a post and if it weren't for the fact that the moderators have "stickyed" it to the front page, it might have received maybe half the attention it has. 

    Congratulations trolls, you may pat yourselves on your backs...


    Come to the Mises Institute, dude, there's some Hoppean Conservatards you can knock around. :)

    Hobbesian? :P
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on February 21, 2010, 11:18:23 PM
    Wow!!  The freetalklive forum is officially declared "deceased" by me...

    It took 6 days for my thread to get pushed back to the third page.  This forum used to be so active that a thread could be pushed back to the second page in hours if not posted in, now the first page has threads that haven't been posted in for days.

    The reason the forum is dead is all the trolls here who have commandeered the forum as their own.  They "rule" by using bullying tactics to get people to tire of responding to endless vulgar and pointless comments .  Even the forums pride and joy, the breasts thread will go days without a post and if it weren't for the fact that the moderators have "stickyed" it to the front page, it might have received maybe half the attention it has. 

    Congratulations trolls, you may pat yourselves on your backs...


    Come to the Mises Institute, dude, there's some Hoppean Conservatards you can knock around. :)

    I have been to the Mises forums and I visit the mises main page regularly for excellent articles, but the forums seem to be too one-sided.  Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but are there some serious disagreements there?


    Between Rothtards and Hoppeans (Think rich conservatives for Feudalism) there sure is a bit of a cat fight going on. But as of late it's been a debate between natural rights versus moral nihilists there.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on February 23, 2010, 11:45:15 AM

    Between Rothtards and Hoppeans (Think rich conservatives for Feudalism) there sure is a bit of a cat fight going on. But as of late it's been a debate between natural rights versus moral nihilists there.

    The belief I have is that rights are "created".  As such, one requires a "Creator".  The "Creator" I speak of is not man's idea of the "Creator", but the actual Creator (whoever He is).  We have argued for thousands of years about the name and form of this Creator, but most cultures have had an understanding that He exists.  There is only ONE correct definition of this Creator and I do believe that He is very close to the "Christian consensus" (arguably tough to define). 

    Now if our rights ARE created, then they cannot be altered or abolished except by the Creator.  They can, and often are VIOLATED and the person doing the violation is committing a crime against the Creator and the person who's rights have been violated...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Johnson on February 27, 2010, 12:57:30 AM
    I love that Trucker's delight video shaw posted... that's my favorite one. Gene's censorship is silly...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on February 27, 2010, 08:03:02 PM
    I love that Trucker's delight video shaw posted... that's my favorite one. Gene's censorship is silly...

    My "censorship" is silly??  Perhaps I need to start posting all those death pictures in some of these other pet threads here.  Then we can see if you guys "censor"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on February 27, 2010, 10:30:43 PM
    Wow!!  The freetalklive forum is officially declared "deceased" by me...

    It took 6 days for my thread to get pushed back to the third page.  This forum used to be so active that a thread could be pushed back to the second page in hours if not posted in, now the first page has threads that haven't been posted in for days.

    The reason the forum is dead is all the trolls here who have commandeered the forum as their own.  They "rule" by using bullying tactics to get people to tire of responding to endless vulgar and pointless comments .  Even the forums pride and joy, the breasts thread will go days without a post and if it weren't for the fact that the moderators have "stickyed" it to the front page, it might have received maybe half the attention it has. 

    Congratulations trolls, you may pat yourselves on your backs...


    Come to the Mises Institute, dude, there's some Hoppean Conservatards you can knock around. :)

    Hobbesian? :P

    No Hoppean as in someone who agrees with Hans Hermann Hoppe.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 02, 2010, 10:29:38 AM
    Wow!!  The freetalklive forum is officially declared "deceased" by me...

    It took 6 days for my thread to get pushed back to the third page.  This forum used to be so active that a thread could be pushed back to the second page in hours if not posted in, now the first page has threads that haven't been posted in for days.

    The reason the forum is dead is all the trolls here who have commandeered the forum as their own.  They "rule" by using bullying tactics to get people to tire of responding to endless vulgar and pointless comments .  Even the forums pride and joy, the breasts thread will go days without a post and if it weren't for the fact that the moderators have "stickyed" it to the front page, it might have received maybe half the attention it has. 

    Congratulations trolls, you may pat yourselves on your backs...


    Come to the Mises Institute, dude, there's some Hoppean Conservatards you can knock around. :)

    Hobbesian? :P

    No Hoppean as in someone who agrees with Hans Hermann Hoppe.

    Thanks, I really like what I read about him on Wikipedia. 

    "Following in the tradition of Murray Rothbard, Hoppe has analyzed the behavior of government using the tools of Austrian-economic theory. Defining a government as "a territorial monopolist of jurisdiction and taxation" and assuming no more than self-interest on the part of government officials, he predicts that these government officials will use their monopoly privileges to maximize their own wealth and power. Hoppe argues that there is a high degree of correlation between these theoretical predictions and historical data."

    I'd like to shake this guys hand.  And to think that he was at Las Vegas when I was in Reno.  Too bad I didn't know then what I know now.  I must have read some of his articles on Mises but never paid much attention to the article writer...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 12, 2010, 02:46:45 PM
    Ok, this is not about "Christian Anarchy" but I find this old "Mad" Magazine cover to be more fitting now than ever...    :lol:

    (http://www.melissaclouthier.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/obamamad-magazine-cover.jpg)


    I grew up reading "Mad" and find many of their satires to be right on target...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 24, 2010, 07:50:05 PM
    My "predictions" for the future of the "USA"...

    My new tagline should be "U.S.A. - R.I.P." since it's clear now that this fiction has expired.  The "idea" that we could have a "limited government" has been shown to be false.  The new bill for healthcare is not the problem, but rather a symptom of the failure of the people to believe in liberty.  Due to a failure of "the people" to teach their children what liberty means, we have seen a complete reversal in the meaning of the word to the average man.  "Liberty" now means "Servant of the state" and personal responsibility is a distant memory.  We see the "gang" in Washington have thrown out all the supposed "rules" and now is so lawless that every person I know has realized that there's no hope that these criminals can be restrained. 

    But as to predictions:  Unrest will continue to grow, inflation is going to continue it's climb at a logarithmic scale, joblessness with continue it's climb.  The gap between those who have and those who have not is going to widen.  Even those who have managed to gain "millionaire" status will see their wealth eroded.  Those wealthy enough to create and run the businesses that keep others employed will be leaving this country for others with more economic freedom.  What will be left will be mostly those with their hands out looking for mommy government to take care of them.  Of course that will not happen as the resources will be gone and those employed to provide the assistance will become ever more disconnected from their duties and the bread lines will grow.  The natural result of these conditions will be the increase in violent crime and the deterioration of the inferstructure.

    Look to South Africa or Mexico and you will see where we are heading...

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 07, 2010, 09:37:09 PM
    The cult strikes again.  This video of the photo journalists getting massacred by the cobra gunship (I'm sure everyone knows what I'm talking about) is a study in cult behavior.  The "cult" I'm talking of is the "belief" that some fiction called the U S of A gives men with guns and fancy killing equipment the "authority" to use them against fellow men (neutral gender term girls).  Sure, we all have the right to defend ourselves against agression, but we cannot defend ourselves against someone we THINK may agress against us SOME day.  There is no "pre-crime" ability yet. 

    There is no greater evil in this world and no other source of destruction to the lives of men than the cult belief in "government".  Whether you are talking of the cult of Rome that hung men to die on crosses or our modern version of Cobra gunships blowing people into pieces, NONE of these cults have legitimate authority to kill anyone.  All such killing is murder being committed by the MEN who do the killing (and conspiracy to commit murder by all the commanders). 

    How can anyone condone this behavior??  Whom would Jesus bomb??
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 18, 2010, 06:36:36 PM
    When I called in yesterday about man's inability to affect the atmosphere of the planet, Mark countered (after I was off the air) that man definitely can and he used nuclear weapons as his "proof" that man can change our planetary environment.

    Now while I will concede that the only way we can currently have any chance of modifying our environment would be with nuclear or biological means, I would like to make the point that even with those two methods, our ability to "destroy" our planet is less than what we have been led to believe.  Yes, nuclear bombs going off all over would indeed to some serious damage to life on this planet, however, even that great destruction is survivable and life would continue after such an event. 

    http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm

    Here I have to cite some infallible logic I heard from a caller on The Power Hour who simply brought up the point that if nuclear weapons render and area to be totally uninhabitable then why are there people living at "ground zero" in Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

    There is no doubt that a nuclear war would really really really really (is that enough "really's"?) mess up the planet, we have (again) been lied to about the aftermath of a war using nuclear weapons...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: FTL_Mark on April 18, 2010, 06:54:20 PM
    Hey! Ian goaded me and I just said that enough nuclear bombs going off to cover the planet 5 times over would effect the weather.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on April 18, 2010, 06:54:23 PM
    The most important issue isn't whether the planet is warming or not, but whether the local pollution that mucks up fresh water sources and other such issues are a problem. The acidification of the fresh waters in North America is oddly one of those news pieces the media rarely covers even on the weekend edition and I have to wonder why. Maybe it's not sexy enough, but knowing that the water is becoming acidic enough to kill fish and trees should be more of a concern than a hypothetical disaster due to global warming as acidification is real and happening at present and not like global warming which seems to be always on the horizon of the future rather than occuring now.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: hellbilly on April 18, 2010, 08:42:12 PM
    The most important issue isn't whether the planet is warming or not, but whether the local pollution that mucks up fresh water sources and other such issues are a problem. The acidification of the fresh waters in North America is oddly one of those news pieces the media rarely covers even on the weekend edition and I have to wonder why. Maybe it's not sexy enough, but knowing that the water is becoming acidic enough to kill fish and trees should be more of a concern than a hypothetical disaster due to global warming as acidification is real and happening at present and not like global warming which seems to be always on the horizon of the future rather than occuring now.

    Amen, and you have a witness.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 18, 2010, 09:31:09 PM
    The most important issue isn't whether the planet is warming or not, but whether the local pollution that mucks up fresh water sources and other such issues are a problem. The acidification of the fresh waters in North America is oddly one of those news pieces the media rarely covers even on the weekend edition and I have to wonder why. Maybe it's not sexy enough, but knowing that the water is becoming acidic enough to kill fish and trees should be more of a concern than a hypothetical disaster due to global warming as acidification is real and happening at present and not like global warming which seems to be always on the horizon of the future rather than occuring now.

    Yes, localized pollution is a very real problem and no one can reasonably deny it.  There are more instances than can be listed of areas polluted to an extent that life in that area becomes difficult.  Mercury is a big problem (but then don't forget that mercury came from the ground in the first place) as is oil and chemical concentrations.  These, in time, are naturally reduced to levels where normal life can resume.  For her master's degree, my wife worked on "Bio-Remediation of Oil" in Alaska.  Some of her samples of oil came from Prudhoe Bay.  That bay was contaminated to the point of wiping out most of the fishing in that area, but now some 20 years later, nature is pretty much back to normal.  A great deal of the oil spill could not be cleaned up and had to be left to nature to "reclaim" the bay.  It's absolutely amazing how this planet "takes a licking, and keeps on ticking"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on April 18, 2010, 10:44:12 PM
    Off subject - but has anyone ever been to the creationist museum?

    I'm wondering specifically if the dinosaurs are realistic. I know they have a "vegitarian t-rex" in the garden of eden ( LOL :D ) but I don't know if the dinos actually look like they should or if they are softened down or what.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 19, 2010, 08:12:31 AM
    Off subject - but has anyone ever been to the creationist museum?

    I'm wondering specifically if the dinosaurs are realistic. I know they have a "vegitarian t-rex" in the garden of eden ( LOL :D ) but I don't know if the dinos actually look like they should or if they are softened down or what.

    I love to talk about the "adult fairy-tale" called evolution.  Although I have not been to the creationist museum, I am certain you will find things biased and some inaccuracies there.  Just like you will find the opposite point of view biased and inaccurate at any museum in the country...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 27, 2010, 07:49:06 AM
    I found this great article on Lew Rockwell about Christians and Anarchy.  It makes the point that Christians of all people should be anarchists.  The writer points out the similarities between the early Mosaic law and anarcho-capitalism. 

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/carson2.html
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: cavalier973 on April 29, 2010, 12:24:45 PM
    Off subject - but has anyone ever been to the creationist museum?

    I'm wondering specifically if the dinosaurs are realistic. I know they have a "vegitarian t-rex" in the garden of eden ( LOL :D ) but I don't know if the dinos actually look like they should or if they are softened down or what.

    http://creationmuseum.org/

    There are pictures on the website.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 02, 2010, 10:27:50 PM
    I just had to share this link as I have not heard this info anywhere (not even on Alex's site) regarding the possible involvement of North Korean guys blowing up that oil rig...

    http://dailypaul.com/node/133339

    Read it and see if you think this is likely.  It could be a set-up to get us into another war - or not...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on May 02, 2010, 10:46:53 PM
    Dunno. I dont know much about the oil explosion at all. I just heard on the radio a few times about cracks underwater in the pipes.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 10, 2010, 09:32:42 PM
    To continue what I said on the show, it is wrong to expect that in "anarchy" we will find the answers to all mankind's troubles because we certainly will not.  Individual instances of violence and injustice will occur as they do under the false religion called "government".  There will not be any ONE way of handling these injustices.  Each case of injustice will find it's own answer.  In many instances (just like today) there will be no solution.  Someone will have suffered an injustice at the hands of someone else and that person will get away with his dirty deed (just like today).  In some instances, the person who has suffered the injustice will find and punish the person who committed the injustice.  In some instances, someone other than the person who suffered the injustice will find and punish the guilty party (like if the victim were murdered).  How each of these actions take place will be wide open.  There would be no "rules" of engagement other than the "avenger" being aware that the same "justice" will come his way if he gets far out of line.

    Since the above situation does not appeal to everyone, many will claim that it's better now, but what we have now is a belief in a fiction called "government" that allows the gang of thugs to do any sort of violence they choose without any form of accountability.  It is this ability of large numbers of violent men to band together that creates the greatest injustice in the world.  Millions die in wars, millions more are kidnapped and locked away in little rooms separated from those they love.  No amount of violence in an "anarchistic" society could ever compare to the violence committed in the "name" of the cult called "government"...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Rillion on May 23, 2010, 08:05:56 PM
    (http://www.irreligion.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/60120695.jpg)
    (http://www.irreligion.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/60135965.jpg)
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on May 23, 2010, 08:21:41 PM
    Cute picture...

    Not so sure that the "Sunday" edition of Freetalklive is going to be much of a hit if it continues in it's current mode of "gay cheer radio show"...

    Nothing against homosexuals, but if the "freestate project" is going to become a "homosexual" event, you lose your popularity.  It's not because of homophobia either.  It's because freedom is not about sex any more than it's about race.  If you focus on those issues, you do so at the risk of turning others off.  Lets face it, if I start promoting a move to get more "heterosexuals" to move to NH, the homosexuals will instantly be turned off and fight my "agenda".  Yet this is what I just heard on this "Sunday" show --  how they want to promote more homosexuals to move to NH.  Not talk about "liberty-minded" people (which will by definition, include people from all walks) but rather "gays and lesbians".  What if these homosexuals are statists?  No talk about that... the only prerequisite was to be homosexual.

    Not a good start for the Sunday show... maybe this "experiment" in putting the co-hosts on their own turf was a mistake...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on May 23, 2010, 11:08:04 PM
    Totally saw that dino magnet on a car yesterday. Awesome.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on April 01, 2011, 08:57:05 AM
    Thread restored but posts since last may were not in the backup.  I'm locking this thread again due to objections regarding it's length.  Also because this forum is completely trashed now.  At one time, this forum was THE place to be for liberty issues...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on December 29, 2012, 01:36:08 AM
    Ok all...  I'm sure there will be many protests, but I'm going to reopen this thread for discussion on liberty, anarchy and religion.  I think maybe people have had a chance to grow up in the last couple of years (hey, I might be wrong...) and I know that some people like to discuss spiritual matters as well as physical. 

    If there's no real discussion to be had, I will again lock this thread so lets give it a try.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: John Shaw on December 29, 2012, 09:44:40 AM
    Oh Gene.

    I wish ya the best mang.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Bill Brasky on January 04, 2013, 06:55:09 AM
    He'll mind his manners.

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on February 13, 2013, 12:23:33 PM
    In November I was diagnosed with prostate cancer and wanted to know if there are any stories here about treatment.  I was actually scheduled for surgery today but I chickened out and I'm going to monitor my PSA levels a bit longer.  This is in it's early stages and people have been known to live for many years with prostate cancer before going terminal. 

    I've looked into radiation and the "Davinci Robot" surgery and I like the robot best so far.  It seems either way you run about a 30% chance of impotence and/or incontinence.  Of course I don't want either of those which is one reason I'm holding off for a few more tests. 

    Being in the field of medicine, we know of many people who have tried different things but I was just wondering if anyone here have stories of people you know with prostate cancer and what the outcome was...
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: dalebert on February 13, 2013, 12:49:03 PM
    I don't know of any but I wish you the best, Gene.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on February 13, 2013, 01:34:38 PM
    I don't know of any but I wish you the best, Gene.

    Thanks.  I don't want anyone to get the idea that I'm about to keel over or anything...  It's early detection and the progression is usually slow.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: anarchir on February 13, 2013, 03:44:44 PM
    I don't know of any but I wish you the best, Gene.

    Thanks.  I don't want anyone to get the idea that I'm about to keel over or anything...  It's early detection and the progression is usually slow.

    I'm rooting for you Gene! Feel free to keep us updated, and say something if you need anything.
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: Looking from outside on February 13, 2013, 08:04:48 PM
    Wonderful, an other "invisible friend justifies my rights". Thumbs down. Next?
    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on February 23, 2013, 08:48:33 PM
    Wonderful, an other "invisible friend justifies my rights". Thumbs down. Next?

    Actually, I was hoping for some discussion.  I see you are interested in dismissing the belief's of your fellow journeymen.  I can respect your decision to believe what you want, but why do you feel it's necessary to make comments that serve no purpose?

    I believe I've thought my position through very well and I'm not looking down on people who have different views than me.  My belief is that "our Creator" cares for us all and will welcome us all when we pass from this dimension to the next.  Does this belief rate a "thumbs down"?

    Title: Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
    Post by: ChristianAnarchist on March 29, 2013, 04:20:10 AM
    In November I was diagnosed with prostate cancer and wanted to know if there are any stories here about treatment.  I was actually scheduled for surgery today but I chickened out and I'm going to monitor my PSA levels a bit longer.  This is in it's early stages and people have been known to live for many years with prostate cancer before going terminal. 

    I've looked into radiation and the "Davinci Robot" surgery and I like the robot best so far.  It seems either way you run about a 30% chance of impotence and/or incontinence.  Of course I don't want either of those which is one reason I'm holding off for a few more tests. 

    Being in the field of medicine, we know of many people who have tried different things but I was just wondering if anyone here have stories of people you know with prostate cancer and what the outcome was...


    Update:
    I had the operation two days ago and come home yesterday.  Only one day stay but I'm sore, of course.  Have to wear a catheter for a week.  I can freely move about but not do any heavy lifting, etc.  The surgery should guarantee that the cancer is completely gone unless it has spread to the bones.  In a month or so we will get another scan to make sure it has not spread.