Tommy and CA

So far it's stuck up there

4 (40%)

Really god damn far

4 (40%)

Pretty far

1 (10%)

Slightly far

0 (0%)

Not far, but he's still a brown nosing bitch

1 (10%)

Total Members Voted: 2

[Taors]

You decide?

[gandhi2]

God, what a couple of dildoes.  I've now deleted all my posts on that thread, so I don't get new replies notices, but they still can't leave it alone.  I thought I was obsessed...  I don't know how he thinks he can curry favor by massaging CA's ego, or why he wants it...maybe they are the same person.

I would like to start a new thread, or have another individual with brains start a new thread, that will encourage some reasonable debate to go on.  Maybe if we are all talking in a new thread, and keep it on topic, nobody will be compelled to add to his.

[Taors]

They're still going at it. Tommy said something like "Let's get back to the subjects of Christianity and anarchy...what the thread was supposed to be about, teehee!" (even though CA hasn't answered any legitimate questions in months). If they were in a comic book CA would be the superhero and Tommy would be the one-liner spouting sidekick.

[Brian Wolf]

[Brian Wolf]

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.

 

That is too fucking funny.

[Taors]

Hm. I never thought about that. What a loser...had to make a second account just to promote his one thread.

[Brian Wolf]

It's also pretty lame that CA keeps posting gandhi's personal messages.
When will they stop feeding the trolls I wonder?

[gandhi2]

What he hasn't mentioned is that I went on to write a sincere offer of peace, which he has thus far ignored.

I don't particularly care that he posted the PMs...if that is all he has to do with his time, he must really be a chump.  I suppose BW is right...there's no talking to a guy like that, just put him on ignore, and he will fade away into the mist.

[ChristianAnarchist]

What he hasn't mentioned is that I went on to write a sincere offer of peace, which he has thus far ignored.

Yeah, here's the "Sincere offer of peace"...

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.

Then, he posts ANOTHER pm claiming that I made posts on my blog that I have not made (all these quotes are from links on my site and are clearly NOT authored by me)...

Since you have illustrated your complete and utter lack of any form of maturity, I have included some quotes, taken from your own blogsite, which might have led me to the conclusion that you would use force if some non-aggressive act betrayed your sense of morality:

Many sinful practices have existed throughout history that were completely lawful including slavery, torture, discrimination, polygamy, kidnapping, rape, pillaging, and even murder. Obviously, a Christian should condemn these actions and even forcefully oppose them at times.

Neither polygamy nor discrimination are acts of aggression, and you would be an initiator if you forcefully opposed them.  In the case of polygamy, it is a mutual contract.  In the case of discrimination, all under an anarchy have freedom of trade and communication....anybody has total power to discriminate based on race, religion, age, hair color, and no man has the right to wrest that freedom away.  Since you seem to have different standards than the rest of the secular world, or even other anarchists, I made a conclusion that you would use force to create the ideal world for your religious views.  In the above paragraph, you have categorized some completely free acts with acts of aggression towards another...if you would treat a polygamist like a murderer, you would be an agent of force.

To the free-market anarchist, aggression or force may be defined as a violation of any of the above rights.

Agreed, but you would be wise to clarify whether you have some right to act aggressively without a call for assistance from the person to whom aggression occurs.  If yes, then prepare to eat your words...my family and I shall be living in secular anarchy, I will teach my child my own beliefs, which you may refer to as "oppression," and "slavery," and a gun at the ready for any missionary who crosses my gate to poison the mind of my children.  If not, live peacably, enjoying none of the benefits of trade with the rest of the world who is so opposed to Christianity that they will restrict trade and communication with them.  The prime reasons I reached a conclusion that you would inevitably use force is a) history of Christian religion...of religion in general, and b) you would inevitably have seperate standards of morality, which would drive your policy in dealing with others.  You seem to be far more of a rational anarchist than a Christian anarchist...nothing new there, and even this principle realizes that if you do use force, even defensive force, you have no agent to come to your aid.  Personal and subjective ideas of defensive force are not always absolute truth...the aggressor just usually has the bigger guns, and then re-writes morality when he wins.

When a man uses force to remove choices from another person, even for that person's supposed own good, the gift of free will that God has given to each of us is negated.

Well, then, why the fuck didn't you say so to begin with?  In this case, so long as you stay in your corner and leave me alone, then hurray!  You win!  Actually, I win, too, because this is a true anarchy.  I don't understand why an anarchist has to be Christian though...your response here is vital to refuting that you don't in fact advocate force.  In readings some other popular christian anarchists(Ellul, Tolstoy, Thoreau), all seemed to have some level of acceptable force to expedite what they considered as God's morality.  Whether by imposing standards of the Bible or standards of economic equality...it is still force, and still unjust.  What I wanted you to answer, and one way to avoid similar logical conclusions in the future, is this: "To what level of aggression would I impose my morality, for the good of others, onto the rest of the world?"

Christians should never take the stance that the ends justify the means. In fact, without Christ in control, the ends are never actually the ends anyway.

Good lad.  I knew you weren't a completely dense and idiotic old man.  You are in fact right.  So this is something that should just plain make your entire premise moot.  If the fact that its "the only sensible answer" is a completely subjective argument, and you can't use Machiavellian logic to justify acts of aggression to a more "sensible" end, then your persistance in debating it has gotten you nowhere.  Instead of focusing on the issues, you continuously waste lots of time bashing other individuals, being quite hypocritical, and refusing to answer the necessary questions.  You may be an old man, but you should realize that alternative viewpoints and reformulating ideas can only serve to strengthen what is more sensible.  Read up on Tolstoy, Thoreau, Greene, Kierkegaard...from all that I have read of their works, these were simply anarchists who happened to be Christians.  Nowhere that I have found did Tolstoy or Thoreau claim that in order to truly be an anarchist, one had to be Christian.  Show me where it is the case, I am always happy to be educated.

A non-sequitor here.  If your goal is to convert followers, you are not doing very well.  I started out the debate very concisely and tactful.  You initiated insults, mockery, and condescension.  It's not that I really have any issue with your ideas....I have an issue with you being a dick, acting like a baby, calling me names, etc., etc.  As I said, you gave some, and you got some back...we are even in that regard.  You jumped to some pretty radical logical conclusions(somewhere you accused people of having Nazi morality, another you accuse them of supporting cannibalism), and then I jumped to some of mine...the primary of which you seem to have taken immense offense to.  If you would like to be a man, a Christian, turn the other cheek, etc, and apologize for both being rude, unintelligible, and taking up huge amounts of time with no logical proof, then I'm fairly sure that my animal id will compel me to apologize to you.  While you maintain a stubborn persistance that you are void of moral fallacies, I am willing to just leave it be, and offer further logical proof, but not in your public thread...I don't feel like hearing more on it, especially as your buddy Tommy has illustrated a complete lack of rationality, instead wasting lots of time to just plain be annoying.  The postbacks are unnecessary...I wanted to just wipe away the slate, and by being additionally childish and putting them back on, you are crippling any credibility you may have in the future.  From your blog, you aren't as stupid as your posts here make you seem....in fact, the difference is so grand, that I almost doubt that you are responsible for http://thechristiananarchist.blogspot.com/

we still tend to do things that are self-destructive to ourselves and the people around us. We tend to often use our God-given free will to satisfy our own selfish desires instead of doing the right things that advance civilization and humanity.

I hope I won't repeat all the same mistakes my parents made, but I know I will repeat some of them, just as my children will do so after me.

True.  And given that the history of organized religion is ABOUND with such violations, is it any wonder why I might conclude that any government, or lack thereof, founded in religion, would inevitably use force?  By failing to qualify your religious stance, I and many others would assume, logically, that you are patterned after that history.  That I came to that conclusion is quite commonplace and routine.

So, now that that's said, what's to do?  Simple.  You and I will agree to stop the unnecessary and childish name-calling and ad hominems.  I will refrain from posting rebuttals in the public thread, or harrassing you through PMs, so long as you drop all mention of my posts and my character there.  We will call our exchange up to this point even: nobody needs to one-up the other, and for as much as we both played with the pigs, we got dirty.  If you so desire to spread your message, it would be best to start a clean thread, and for all to try to maintain a level of rational debate.  If this can be done, not only will your karma increase from others, but they will also lend more credibility to your words.  If I post, I will endeavour to avoid personal attacks or straw men, and if you are offering logical, rational ideas, I will endeavour to educate myself in the fashion necessary to discuss the matters with you.  In this fashion, if your goal is to gain support for your ideas and credibility on this forum, you are guaranteed to succeed.  I wish you luck in your mission.

He then follows that up with: 

If you want to avoid the issues, that's fine.  I have no additional reason to hate or harrass you, except when you continually act like a complete and utter asshole.

Perhaps you should post the PM I just sent you...no less than 2 minutes ago.  I was ready to offer some concessions and put some things behind.  If you want to be viewed as a Christian, it's about time that you acted like one:

Psalm 37:11: But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.

Leviticus 19:18: Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.

Matthew 5:39: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Now IF I were to respond to his repeated attempts to start bickering with him all over again (which is clearly his aim) THEN I would be a troll.  I have said enough on both this BBS and my blog site to make my positions clear (freedom).  Now if all you people want to do is promote BICKERING between lovers of freedom ("they" love the divide and conquer tactic) then bicker amoung yourselves.  I have to spend my time promoting freedom to those I meet...

[Brian Wolf]

Just so you know, the reason that they are called private messages, is because they are supposed to be private. If he had wanted to post that on the public forum, he would have.

What do you want?
You continually refused to engage anyone in a serious debate, until we finally got sick of it and gave up.
What is the point of keeping this going?
We are not getting anywhere.
 
I am sick of this whole petty thing. I'll admit, I haven't been the most mature about it either, but I really was trying to talk to you about your ideas and you refused, so I went away.
Keep bumping your thread all you want, if someone else wants to talk to you about it, let them try. Good luck to that person.

[aquabanianskakid]

Ummm they are the same person.

[gandhi2]

Then, he posts ANOTHER pm claiming that I made posts on my blog that I have not made (all these quotes are from links on my site and are clearly NOT authored by me)...

From your blog, you aren't as stupid as your posts here make you seem....in fact, the difference is so grand, that I almost doubt that you are responsible for http://thechristiananarchist.blogspot.com/

Now...shut up, kiddie.

[aquabanianskakid]

It really is pathetic that he feels the need to have two accounts. Obviously there isn't enough interest in his topic so he is manufacturing other "characters" for it.

[gandhi2]

It really is pathetic that he feels the need to have two accounts. Obviously there isn't enough interest in his topic so he is manufacturing other "characters" for it.

Yeah....I was annoyed before, now I feel pity.  I was under the impression that he had at least ONE follower...now that it's been revealed that even that is invented, I have to feel sorry for him a bit.  Even here, on an internet forum...no friends except whom he has invented.  What a lonely old man.

[aquabanianskakid]

I'm sure he isn't that lonely, the voices probably keep him company.