Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[ChristianAnarchist]

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). 

[Johnson]

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.

[The ghost of a ghost of a ghost]

I couldn't get passed the "don't disagree with me, or I'll delete your post!"

[Rillion]

I couldn't get passed the "don't disagree with me, or I'll delete your post!"

That's Gene.

[ChristianAnarchist]

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???)

[anarchir]

Gene, Johnson shut you down. Your pathetic reply was nothing more than a "nuh uh."  

[The ghost of a ghost of a ghost]

The same self proclaimed "i'm a racist because we're all racists" gene?

[The ghost of a ghost of a ghost]

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.

[theCelestrian]

(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.

• Men can use violence to against other men
• Men can use that violence to force capitulation
• Men who believe in Government use violence against other men.
• Government is the idea of a group of people using violence to force capitulation

therefore

• Men who use violence to impose their will upon others is Government

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"

[anarchir]

[ChristianAnarchist]

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?

[Johnson]

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...

[theCelestrian]

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:

• Slavery
• Love
• Compassion
• Morality
• God
• Freedom
• Anarchy

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:

• Physical Objects
• The Actions of said objects

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.

[ChristianAnarchist]

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.

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. 

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

He deleted my post about Abraham and Moses being prophets who argued with God.