Messages

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1051

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« 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...

1052

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« 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.

1053

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« 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...

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?

-- 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...

1054

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« 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...

1055

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« 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

1056

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« 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.  Letﾃや�冱 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...

1057

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« on: August 23, 2005, 03:49:46 PM »

Ummm wrong yet again....

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.

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.ﾃつ  Your second "definition" is 90% in line with those I provided.ﾃつ  Anarchos may have described God as Ruler, but it certainly is not a word that can be translated to "god" or "God".ﾃつ  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.ﾃつ  You can sort the results of "god" either alphebetically or by common usage.ﾃつ  No such meaning can be found there.ﾃつ  Perhaps you have a better source.ﾃつ  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".ﾃつ  You can "describe" god as "powerful" but that doesn't mean that "powerful" can mean "god".

Thank you for your comments.ﾃつ  Keep them coming...

1058

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« 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.ﾃつ  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 ﾃや�彗rchosﾃや��, which means ﾃや�腕ulerﾃや��, ﾃや�彡hiefﾃや�� or ﾃや�彗uthorityﾃや�� and the prefix ﾃや�彗nﾃや�� meaning ﾃや�從otﾃや��. In essence, anarchy is ﾃや�從o rulerﾃや��, ﾃや�從o authorityﾃや��. It can be said ﾃや�彡ontrary to authorityﾃや�� as Peter Kroptokin defined it.

There is also another school of thought attributed to Benjamin Tucker, which defines anarchy as ﾃや�從ot necessarily absence of order, as is generally supposed, but an absence of rule.ﾃや�敕つ 

Merriam Webster Dictionary describes:ﾃつ 

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ﾃつ 

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ﾃつ 

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ﾃつ 

Anarchism as defined in Oxford Dictionary, is ﾃや�弋he theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished.ﾃや�敕つ 

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.ﾃつ 

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.

 

1059

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« 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.ﾃつ� The person uses latin and greek to come up with his definition.ﾃつ� Where do you get your definition of anarchy?ﾃつ� I do not use your definition.ﾃつ� Indeed, how can one define anarchy to include anything other than "peers" as not being their "rulers"?ﾃつ� 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?ﾃつ� 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

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.

1060

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« 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.

1061

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« 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.

1062

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« on: August 22, 2005, 10:25:48 AM »

Hardly running away, just thanking you for participating in my discussion.ﾃつ� 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.ﾃつ�

Think for yourself.ﾃつ� 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.

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.ﾃつ� 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.ﾃつ  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".ﾃつ  I have none and I acknowledge that.ﾃつ  I also challenge anyone to show me that they have any authority.ﾃつ  You don't have any that I can see.ﾃつ  "W" doesn't have any as far as I'm concerned.ﾃつ  Of course one must be careful and not confuse "force" and "authority".ﾃつ  There are other links on my blog site in the first posted message there if you are interested in "Christian Anarchy".ﾃつ  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!!ﾃつ  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...
 

1063

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« 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.

1064

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« 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.ﾃつ� Indeed, you are the one making claims here so I ask you to prove your statements.ﾃつ�

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

Don't waste time with this ping-pong.ﾃつ� You are the one with the statement that rights are moral principals.ﾃつ� 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.ﾃつ�

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

Also, what I have put forth by starting this thread is a discussion about what I believe.ﾃつ� 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.ﾃつ� I have shared what I believe.ﾃつ� I have made it quite clear what my points are.ﾃつ� If you are looking for "proof" you are wasting time in a discussion group.ﾃつ� 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.

1065

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« 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.ﾃつ� The point was that you stated rights are related to morality in some way.ﾃつ� I pointed out that it was moral in some society to kill babies.ﾃつ� I never stated nor do I believe that you think it is.ﾃつ� "Stay on target... stay on target !!!).

I only have to "prove" His existance to me since I am only taking the position that I recognize His authority.ﾃつ� 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.ﾃつ� I'm not trying to prove to you that God exists.ﾃつ� If you seek Him you will find Him.ﾃつ� I believe He does so that's my position.ﾃつ� I also believe that we are here on good old planet earth.ﾃつ� Existential thinking would deny both.

Again, I only have to make the decision for myself.ﾃつ� You get to make the decision for yourself.ﾃつ� That's anarchy as their is no earthly ruler, king, etc.ﾃつ� You live your life as you see fit, I live mine.ﾃつ� If you cross me in some way, I deal with it by whatever set of "rules" I see fit.ﾃつ� If I cross you in some way, you would deal with me by whatever set of "rules" you see fit.ﾃつ� Perfect anarchy.ﾃつ� This is reality anyway.ﾃつ� As I've pointed out in the past, everyone runs by their own set of rules anyway.ﾃつ� 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.ﾃつ� 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??ﾃつ� If so, why?ﾃつ� 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??ﾃつ� 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.ﾃつ� 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?ﾃつ�