Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[sinceredagreat]

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.

[ChristianAnarchist]

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?

[NuroSlam]

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

[sinceredagreat]

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.

[Taors]

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.

[NuroSlam]

ever listen to "Hotel California" on ketamine?

[Taors]

ever listen to "Hotel California" on ketamine?

No, but it's now on my list.

[NuroSlam]

my wife and I did laying in bed on our wedding night, impossible to forget!

[Rillion]

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. 

[John Shaw]

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

[Taors]

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

Oh, I'm sure he took his fair share.

[Rillion]

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!

[ndp]

I gotta say, when I first heard that name "Christian Anarchist", I thought you were a total kook...

I still do.

[ChristianAnarchist]

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"?

[ChristianAnarchist]

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...