The Mental Militia Forums

General Interest => Freedom's Spirit => Topic started by: padre29 on October 30, 2009, 11:39:17 pm

Title: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: padre29 on October 30, 2009, 11:39:17 pm

Well, I've noticed a bit of a subtext in a couple of threads that involve Religion one way or another, as well as two camps forming that include A)Religion enslaves or B) Anti Religious Screed


To me the two go hand in hand, a Creator endows Individuals Rights far more than any sort of enumerated ones, and whether the Individual chooses to recognize a Creator or not.

Which sort of dovetails nicely into a question about why Atheists make their views known far more than the most fervent Evangelical ever would...

A digression, however what makes Faith and Freedom either hostile to one another, or indeed, partners?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: gaurdduck on October 31, 2009, 01:41:44 am
Without a creator we wouldn't be having such a conversation.

  The way I see it is; Religions aren't anti-freedom, but there are
those who would pretend to be priests, preachers and prophets
for their own gain. Such people are tyrant wannabes. Usually they
are the dreksachs that claim that obedience is key to _________
(insert pleasant outcome here). Usually they claim that obedience
is owed to themselves, the religious organization to wich they
belong, and (for the purpose of keeping from becoming another
Koresh) the government.

~GD
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: securitysix on October 31, 2009, 02:36:40 am
I've come to the conclusion that Religion sucks.  Faith, however, is not the same thing as Religion.

I don't believe that Faith and Freedom are mutually exclusive.  I do believe that Religion and Freedom are, though.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Rarick on October 31, 2009, 05:25:02 am
I will agree with that, faith does not require any sort of Priest, Church or other structure.  Faith is strictly between your self and your Faith.  Religion always seems to have a certain amount of judgement, which requires rules to break, which requires someone to decide the rules, which requires........

Too many religions look like a guiilt trip manipulation scheme for me to like.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: padre29 on October 31, 2009, 07:20:43 am
Without a creator we wouldn't be having such a conversation.

  The way I see it is; Religions aren't anti-freedom, but there are
those who would pretend to be priests, preachers and prophets
for their own gain. Such people are tyrant wannabes. Usually they
are the dreksachs that claim that obedience is key to _________
(insert pleasant outcome here). Usually they claim that obedience
is owed to themselves, the religious organization to wich they
belong, and (for the purpose of keeping from becoming another
Koresh) the government.

~GD

Well, in Christianity, in classical Christianity, a separate culture existed outside of "Govt" of course mankind is addicted to even self destructive Order and it grew into Hierarchies.

(http://www.flagofarms.com/flagimages/battleflag1776.jpg)


A faith, or indeed, non Faith, that recognizes and supports the concept of Natural Rights would be a boon to freedom.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: canadian on October 31, 2009, 09:04:25 am
I've come to the conclusion that Religion sucks.  Faith, however, is not the same thing as Religion.

I don't believe that Faith and Freedom are mutually exclusive.  I do believe that Religion and Freedom are, though.

This. Any time you allow someone else to tell you what God is, you are surrendering your free will.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Claire on October 31, 2009, 09:34:47 am
I will agree with that, faith does not require any sort of Priest, Church or other structure.  Faith is strictly between your self and your Faith.  Religion always seems to have a certain amount of judgement, which requires rules to break, which requires someone to decide the rules, which requires........

Too many religions look like a guiilt trip manipulation scheme for me to like.

Yeah. What Rarick said. Spirituality, which is inner-driven, can (though obviously doesn't always) lead to individual freedom.

Religion -- which is always a set of beliefs imposed by other humans -- merely teaches that morality comes from outside and that one needs only to be "good" because those outside forces can punish.

Sorry, my Christian friends, but I've always perceived Christianity to be among the most authoritarian religions (next, perhaps, to Islam). I know some people say that by worshipping G*d, they resist worshipping the state. But to me, once you've learned to bow the knee to one outside authority figure, you've learned to bow the knee to authority figures, period. IMHO it's a bad habit of mind, no matter where you place your unquestioning loyalties.

I'm not opposed to G*d, though if the Christian G*d exists, he appears opposed to freedom. I'm only opposed to the concept that honor and truth, ethics and morality, can be dictated from outside. And the concept that threats and punishments are the only things that can get people to "behave." Those are the two concepts on which every state is built.

I've been told, more than once, by Christians that I can't possibly believe in freedom if I don't believe in their god. That's so mind-bogglingly offensive and authoritarian and so utterly opposite of my personal experience that I can't wrap my mind around it.

I know that more open-minded Christians (of whom there are many on these forums) will say that every outrage committed in the name of Christ is just an outrage committed by flawed or bigoted human beings using Christ as an excuse. But that's the very point: religion has always, and will always, give people an excuse for doing evil, both big and small.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Claire on October 31, 2009, 09:43:22 am
Which sort of dovetails nicely into a question about why Atheists make their views known far more than the most fervent Evangelical ever would...

There certainly are noisy & obnoxious atheists. No doubt about it.

But making their views known far more than the most fervent Evangelist???

I've never had an atheist come to my door bearing pamphlets.

I've never been stopped on the street by an atheist peddling his non-religion.

I've never had an atheist threaten me with eternal punishment for not believing him.

I've never had atheist neighbors constantly invite me to events that will "change my life," even after I've said repeatedly that I'm not interested.

I've never had a complete stranger atheist grab me at the door of a public building, first to speak of love, then to threaten me when I didn't agree.

I've never had an atheist insist on giving me atheist lessons simply because I accepted a dinner invitation to his house.

When I've written on spirituality, I've never had 200 atheists send emails to argue with me.

I've never seen an atheist preaching on TV and conning people into sending him millions of dollars.

Goes without saying that I've had every one of these experiences (sometimes multiple times) with Evangelicals.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: padre29 on October 31, 2009, 09:57:17 am
Which sort of dovetails nicely into a question about why Atheists make their views known far more than the most fervent Evangelical ever would...

There certainly are noisy & obnoxious atheists. No doubt about it.

But making their views known far more than the most fervent Evangelist???

I've never had an atheist come to my door bearing pamphlets.

I've never been stopped on the street by an atheist peddling his non-religion.

I've never had an atheist threaten me with eternal punishment for not believing him.

I've never had atheist neighbors constantly invite me to events that will "change my life," even after I've said repeatedly that I'm not interested.

I've never had a complete stranger atheist grab me at the door of a public building, first to speak of love, then to threaten me when I didn't agree.

I've never had an atheist insist on giving me atheist lessons simply because I accepted a dinner invitation to his house.

When I've written on spirituality, I've never had 200 atheists send emails to argue with me.

I've never seen an atheist preaching on TV and conning people into sending him millions of dollars.

Goes without saying that I've had every one of these experiences (sometimes multiple times) with Evangelicals.

They never miss a chance to share with the world their Atheism, from bumper stickers to internet forums you know pretty quickly were they stand and how they approach any topic that at all may involved Christianity.

Which is odd, but for whatever reason, Christianity seems to be their bugaboo, Islam or Hinduism or whatever, always receives a pass. Which is fine by me.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: padre29 on October 31, 2009, 10:00:02 am
I will agree with that, faith does not require any sort of Priest, Church or other structure.  Faith is strictly between your self and your Faith.  Religion always seems to have a certain amount of judgement, which requires rules to break, which requires someone to decide the rules, which requires........

Too many religions look like a guiilt trip manipulation scheme for me to like.

Yeah. What Rarick said. Spirituality, which is inner-driven, can (though obviously doesn't always) lead to individual freedom.

Religion -- which is always a set of beliefs imposed by other humans -- merely teaches that morality comes from outside and that one needs only to be "good" because those outside forces can punish.

Sorry, my Christian friends, but I've always perceived Christianity to be among the most authoritarian religions (next, perhaps, to Islam). I know some people say that by worshipping G*d, they resist worshipping the state. But to me, once you've learned to bow the knee to one outside authority figure, you've learned to bow the knee to authority figures, period. IMHO it's a bad habit of mind, no matter where you place your unquestioning loyalties.

I'm not opposed to G*d, though if the Christian G*d exists, he appears opposed to freedom. I'm only opposed to the concept that honor and truth, ethics and morality, can be dictated from outside. And the concept that threats and punishments are the only things that can get people to "behave." Those are the two concepts on which every state is built.

I've been told, more than once, by Christians that I can't possibly believe in freedom if I don't believe in their god. That's so mind-bogglingly offensive and authoritarian and so utterly opposite of my personal experience that I can't wrap my mind around it.

I know that more open-minded Christians (of whom there are many on these forums) will say that every outrage committed in the name of Christ is just an outrage committed by flawed or bigoted human beings using Christ as an excuse. But that's the very point: religion has always, and will always, give people an excuse for doing evil, both big and small.

"I've been told by Christians that I cannot believe in freedom if I do not believe in God"

And I've been told lots of different things by some Atheists, there is a danger in making collective statements about a group of people, has every Christian you come across said that? Do you have some sort of percentage meter that keeps tabs on such things?

Let me add a bit to this, I'd love to hear some sort of spiritual basis for a freedom lovers point of view about "why" mankind is meant to be free, the concept of Natural Rights without a Creator is a bit like a meatless hamburger, but I'd truly like to hear "why" without a spiritual dimension that mankind is designed to be let alone.

For example, suppose Darwinisic Evolution is the actual mechanism that has brought us to where mankind is today, were the proto humans singular beings wandering a particularly savage environment? Or is it far more likely that even "back then" mankind traveled in groups with Hierarchies and Leaders and Followers?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Claire on October 31, 2009, 11:47:33 am
They never miss a chance to share with the world their Atheism, from bumper stickers to internet forums you know pretty quickly were they stand and how they approach any topic that at all may involved Christianity.

Which is odd, but for whatever reason, Christianity seems to be their bugaboo, Islam or Hinduism or whatever, always receives a pass. Which is fine by me.

Well, I think you're making very broad statements about atheists. But I'll assume you mean only the vocal minority of atheists.

But I can see why, in the western world, Christianity would be an atheist's bugaboo. It's because Christianity in western culture is omnipresent and often pushed very, very hard (ala the actions I mentioned above). If those same atheists lived in Saudi Arabia ... well, they'd be quiet about it because it's a theocratic culture, but the target of their anti-theist rebellion would be islam. If those same atheists lived in India, they might well crusade against Shiva and Ganesh, who knows?

But my bet is that, wherever you find a proselytizing religion, you'll find atheists who especially target that religion. Here, it just happens to be Christianity.

I don't speak for atheists, though. I'm not one. This is just my assumption.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Claire on October 31, 2009, 11:58:12 am
"I've been told by Christians that I cannot believe in freedom if I do not believe in God"

And I've been told lots of different things by some Atheists, there is a danger in making collective statements about a group of people, has every Christian you come across said that? Do you have some sort of percentage meter that keeps tabs on such things?

No. But I can say that while I know many, many, many kind, decent, open-hearted Christians (including many here), I've personally experienced more bigotry coming from people who call themselves Christians than from any other group.

I mean no judgment on all Christians. I'm not counting number of percentages. I'm just saying what I've personally observed.

OTOH, while I've heard plenty of dogmatism from atheists, I've never had one try to convert me or threaten me. Again, just my personal experience.

Quote
Let me add a bit to this, I'd love to hear some sort of spiritual basis for a freedom lovers point of view about "why" mankind is meant to be free, the concept of Natural Rights without a Creator is a bit like a meatless hamburger, but I'd truly like to hear "why" without a spiritual dimension that mankind is designed to be let alone.

Well, I don't know that we're "meant" to be free. But I do know that, with or without a creator (and on this subject, I simply don't know), humans need freedom in order to grow as individuals and progress as a group.

Quote
For example, suppose Darwinisic Evolution is the actual mechanism that has brought us to where mankind is today, were the proto humans singular beings wandering a particularly savage environment? Or is it far more likely that even "back then" mankind traveled in groups with Hierarchies and Leaders and Followers?

Oh, I expect it's true that humans have always had hierarchies, leaders, and followers. I believe that comes first from the family structure, where the infant must look up to seemingly all-powerful parents. Then that extends into the need of groups, tribes, etc.

I didn't blame Christianity for creating hierarchies or submissiveness to authority. I just said (and say) that I believe Christianity is one of the most authoritarian religions in the world, and that its authorities (both written and human) encourage the belief that morality comes from outside and that people only behave well under threat of punishment -- which is also the basis of the state.

But again, I know plenty of individual Christians for whom that's simply not their experience or their viewpoint. I speak only of the dogma, the organizations, the commands, the threats. But then, since I believe all human organizations that become institutionalized also become corrupt and authoritarian, that's no special slam against Christianity.

Christianity is just organized religion and organized religion bears all the flaws of humans. That's all.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: somedude on October 31, 2009, 11:59:23 am
Let me add a bit to this, I'd love to hear some sort of spiritual basis for a freedom lovers point of view about "why" mankind is meant to be free, the concept of Natural Rights without a Creator is a bit like a meatless hamburger, but I'd truly like to hear "why" without a spiritual dimension that mankind is designed to be let alone.

Freedom is a natural state of mankind's existence whether due to God, evolution, or both. We are obviously free to do good or evil. So I'm assuming you mean why be ethical or moral if no metaphysical overlord exists which can punish you for transgression. I can only respond that ethical consistency is a prerequisite to my own internal happiness. I lack sufficient data to know whether God or nature designed me that way, and his/her theoretical existence plays absolutely no part in my choice to treat others as I would like to be treated. I have very little respect for those who only behave honestly and decently out of some quest to curry the favor of a deity, or out of fear of his/her wrath. I also can't conceive of a God who doesn't feel the same way about such bootlicks (although I can conceive of superhuman despots that would want such devotion).

So to directly answer your query, men are thinking beings whose extistence is dependent on transforming thought into action and those non-violent creators (men not gods) need to be free from others that wish to control their actions (otherwise a very real hell is created on earth).
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: suijurisfreeman on October 31, 2009, 01:41:06 pm
The problem that I have with 'christians' is when they dogmatically state that that the bible is 'the word of god' or that god this or god that.  If they wish to state this is their opinion that's one thing, but to state it as if it is an absolute fact that's where I have a problem.
As I've posted many times on this forum, I made the 'mistake' of doing extensive research into the history of christianity and how we came to have the bible.  Based on that research I am absolutely convinced that the Jesus movement was high-jacked by the person known as Paul, the man Jesus was crucified for the crime of insurrection against Rome, that the Jewish man Jesus never considered himself divine, the new testament (actually the whole bible) is neither written by nor inspired by a being called god.
I personally don't care what others believe when it comes to religion, it's only when they try to make their beliefs into facts.  Believe what you want but don't try to cram it down my throat.
In my opinion christianity is a religion for slaves, it does not promote true freedom.  Religion (including christianity) has skipped hand in hand with 'government' down the road of tyranny throughout recorded history.  Religion seeks to control your mind just like government seeks to control your body.
If people would only do the research it would become obvious as to the historical facts concerning the origins of christianity and the bible.  It's the same with the historical facts as to how this country came to have the Constitution of 1787, if one actually does the research why in the world would they support said document?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on October 31, 2009, 01:43:33 pm

They never miss a chance to share with the world their Atheism, from bumper stickers to internet forums you know pretty quickly were they stand and how they approach any topic that at all may involved Christianity.

Which is odd, but for whatever reason, Christianity seems to be their bugaboo, Islam or Hinduism or whatever, always receives a pass. Which is fine by me.

Padre29

I would think that you may not be paying much attention to the religious/political debates, currently atheists in Europe and Canada are risking their freedom against "religious hate speech laws" by protesting Islam and what is often mistakenly referred to as "Sharia law" but in practice is limiting free speech to the point that no person can "offend" another person via their religion... (using "Sharia law" as a political tool).

Our invasion in the US by outside forces that want their host country to chance (to a lessor version of itself) is similar to the invasion of Europe but the religious nature of that invasion of Europe adds a particular character to that invasion, both are parasitic in practice and in legal intent.

Christians should be happy for the freedom that atheist are currently risking jail for in Europe, or they can expect all hell to break loose with the implementation of "religious hate laws".

This is extremely dangerous and is an offshoot of all "hate speech laws" and the inevitable consequence.

I also would point out that you may also be falling into the trap of current political propaganda where the "religious right" in the US is used as a tool by the current crop of neocons and their complicit MSM whores (Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly) who know that dragging the "Jesus card" into the political arena they can bludgeon their competition with nonsense and "win by overwhelming volume and popular thinking" rather than logic.

Christianity as an organized religious system is capable of just as much pressure against freedom as any other religion, and in the past has proven quite adept at manipulation and even some of the most evil things men of power are capable over others.

Currently religion is used to again burn "witches" in Africa - a horrible practice that I would have no hesitation to provide copper coated lead for any I would find acting in that practice.

In less than a year after a major collapse I can guarantee that the burning of "witches" would become common even here in the US if the grip of logic is removed from religion.

Religion is inherently anti-freedom and in many ways far more dangerous than most understand, history backs this up with a clarity I cannot overstate.

Religion is a frighting and dangerous master, it is and should stay on the fringes, in fact it should be forced out of politics altogether - but as it is a powerful tool I expect it to continue to be used to control, manipulate and then bludgeon the public.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Winston on October 31, 2009, 02:06:53 pm
Meh, somewhere along the line I got kind of tired of going over all the reasons why I am opposed to judeo-Christian religion. (Opposed to the thing itself, not necessarily the people following it, as long as they are willing to live and let live) My main reason is that religion [like an opressive government] makes it it's business to try to "save" humankind from itself. If I don't like it when the state tells me how to live (but calls it freedom), why would I go home and bow down to a deity that does the same(but, again, calls it "free will")? On that same note, I also don't like how most religions (like government) claim that without it's laws, we would all rape and slaughter eachother. When a follower of a religion does a bad thing, it's all their fault. When the do a good thing, it's because their god helped them do it. I just don't like how religion seems to want to undermine mankind by claiming that we are all born sinners, who will continue to be sinners no matter how far we go, etc. I don't like how it seems to want nothing more than to create conflict, with all the same silly dualist dogma as usual: "us" vs. "them", "good" vs. "evil". And I'm not going into the messy contradictions in the bible...

That said, most atheists get on my nerves, too. While they are mostly harmless, people who won't accept anything without the Richard Dawkins seal of approval really grind my gears. I'm talking about the kind of people who festoon their cars with anti-religious stickers but think that Christians just don't have the right to wear their Jesus t-shirts out in public. But I guess that's just liberalism...

And besides, believing absolutely nothing that can't be proven by a guy in a lab coat would be a pretty lame existence  ^_^
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on October 31, 2009, 02:49:11 pm
That said, most atheists get on my nerves, too. While they are mostly harmless, people who won't accept anything without the Richard Dawkins seal of approval really grind my gears. I'm talking about the kind of people who festoon their cars with anti-religious stickers but think that Christians just don't have the right to wear their Jesus t-shirts out in public. But I guess that's just liberalism...

This may also be the crux of the issue - the "extremes" of the political and religious debates can always be used as a cartoonish "boogie-man" by the other side. Average intelligence indicates that 1/2 is under that average, one of the things that make manipulation easy.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: macman2k on October 31, 2009, 08:27:09 pm
I am a former "evangelical", have worn the T-shirts, traveled over seas to "spread the word".   Then I started learning about freedom and the morality of do unto others.   It became clear to me that you cannot support government w/out breaking the 2nd greatest commandment.  Then I learned about how governments manipulate people, change "history", and "embrace and extend".   All of a sudden, it became painfully clear that no book, such as the bible, could possibly survive in tact *unless* it had already be "sanitized" by government.  It doesn't take much to "sanitize" the bible, only one or two verses like Romans 13.  In an era before printing presses, when the reproduction of books was in control of an elite few, you can bet your life that those elite would not hesitate to change it to their end.

The result of this realization is that I can no longer take the "bible" as the "word of God".   Ask a christian to defend their faith without saying "the bible says, Jesus says, etc" and they will likely confess that without the bible, they know nothing of God.    Or they will say that "the holy spirit tells me to trust the bible".   

Well, how do you have a "personal relationship" with someone if you need a book to tell you about them?  How personal is your relationship if you need a pastor to "teach you" every sunday?  If you relationship is so personal, then why are you so deceived by so much in our society?  Clearly, God would have guided you away from scams and revealed countless sins where you actively violate the 2nd greatest commandment?   

Christianity is opposed to a freedomista point of view because to be against government, against taxes, and to claim the organization is "evil" is to claim that the bible is fallible, that God didn't "establish governments", that governments do not get "authority" from God.  Every christian always gets hung up on "someone needs to enforce the laws".  That very mindset implies that they do not trust God to "enforce the laws" without resorting to "government".  Christians (and other religions) are unwilling to let go of government, because government is the fiction by which people hope to one day "play God" and enforce their "immorality" on others.     

My conclusion is that God is pro-freedom (or else there would have been quick and swift judgment already) and that "religion" is anti-God and fundamentally incompatible with freedom.  If God isn't ready to strike people dead for their sins, then far be it from me to start defining sins and punishing people for them. 

I no longer go to church, though my wife still does.  She claims my "freedom views" are hypocritical when it comes to "family structure" where I exercise "authority".  I always remind her that she consented, and recently added that she has the "freedom" to leave if she feels I am not loving her or providing for her in the way I said I would.   Her belief in the bible appears to be the only thing holding her together these days as she is overwhelmed being a stay-at-home mom.  If she were to adopt my world view, she says she would likely "lose it" not be able to live our current life together.  I have yet to figure out how to deal with that.  Religion appears to be a useful crutch for people... tragically, crutches weaken people if relied upon for too long.  Today we have an entire society that does not realize that religion is a crutch for the mentally lazy or that government is a crutch for the economically lazy.     
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on October 31, 2009, 10:31:05 pm
What pushed be away from Christianity was the rampant move to biblioidolatry and some of the more restrictive and repugnant sects like Calvinism and the deep seated "prosperity doctrine" so common in the South.

I always see the Christian fundamentalists supporting freedom when the Government is "against them" like under Clinton but willing to "put their testicles under trust" and become apologists for the anti-freedom types like GW Bush...

Just to reflect a great point by macman2k...

Quote
Christians (and other religions) are unwilling to let go of government, because government is the fiction by which people hope to one day "play God" and enforce their "immorality" on others.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: gaurdduck on October 31, 2009, 11:18:33 pm
I think that the followers of a religion, and the religion itself ought to be judged separately.
Followers make mistakes. The vast majority of people are very very stupid. Just my  :twocents:.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: socalserf on November 01, 2009, 03:58:05 am
ZAP
That's the operative principle.
All people, regardless of their professed religion, spirituality, or politics are judged by whether or not they will leave me in peace.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Canadian Mamma on November 01, 2009, 06:32:42 am
I am sorry but I whole heartedly disagree with Claire's Idea that believing in God and having a religion makes you more pliable and comfortable bowing to a government.

It has never worked for me that way that is for sure.  My belief in GOD as I know GOD has made me very free to disregard TPTB, they are but gnats to be ignored or worked around, why the heck would I gave a rat's behind what mere mortals have to say about my behavior? They got nothing compared to GOD. But that is just me.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: freewoman on November 01, 2009, 07:37:26 am
Quote
But that is just me.

Congrats, Canadian Mama.  However, that's the problem--there are few like you (and some of the others on this board) in Christendom.  Christianity is a proselytizing religion; it grows by gaining converts, not by birth or culture.  (The old "if you live in a garage, are you a car?  So if you merely attend church, are you a Christian?" argument applies here.)  Therefore, many evangelical Christians face a major problem with ZAP because they can't just leave people alone; it's literally against their religion.  Likewise, many Christians are trained to depend upon their pastors and other authorities.  It's built into the structure.  And I know whereof I speak here--I was raised in a moderate-to-liberal denomination, and then spent over 20 years in evangelical and charismatic churches (including 3 years as a missionary).  I am now in the "spiritual but not religious" camp, and happy to be there.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: socalserf on November 01, 2009, 01:01:03 pm
The problem is not religion.
Most people can't leave other people alone. Period.
I don't consider proselytizing religion a violation of ZAP anymore than a gay making a pass at me.
If they can take a polite NO everything is fine.

Some of the finest freedomista who walk this earth are Christians, MamaLiberty and notable others here come to mind.
And some of the worst tyrants who ever lived were godless.

It all comes back to ZAP.
We do a disservice to ourselves to divide over religion.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Klapton Isgod on November 01, 2009, 01:21:55 pm
I just want to say that "preaching the Gospel" - i.e. saying words about Jesus, etc. - does NOT violate ZAP.  Persuasion != Coercion.  "Proseletizing" that does not include convert or die type stuff, while perhaps annoying to some foks, is NOT coercion.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on November 01, 2009, 01:35:42 pm
The problem is not religion.
Most people can't leave other people alone. Period.
I don't consider proselytizing religion a violation of ZAP anymore than a gay making a pass at me.
If they can take a polite NO everything is fine.

Some of the finest freedomista who walk this earth are Christians, MamaLiberty and notable others here come to mind.
And some of the worst tyrants who ever lived were godless.

It all comes back to ZAP.
We do a disservice to ourselves to divide over religion.

Well to some extent, yes, but we have a problem - most religions demand that you violate ZAP and to follow the written rules you must violate ZAP to be a "true" follower.

Most religions stress Submission and Obedience to "authority" particularly the Abrahamic religions, in this country Christianity is a large part of the population and most don't know squat about their own holy book, they depend on the "religious authority" to "interpret" the rules for them. I tend to think that those who say that the "word of god" is infallible and 100% accurate down to the last comma and period are the most dangerous.

I can list more than 100 demands made by the "holy book" of the Christians that demand aggression against others (slavery and witches only two well known examples) ... Do we not recognize that a dangerous?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on November 01, 2009, 04:27:01 pm
Do we not recognize that a dangerous?

Can be, of course. Like most anything else can be dangerous.

But who decides? Do you expect preemptive "laws" to somehow prevent this danger?

If individuals are led around by the nose in their various religions, why is that any concern of yours unless they attempt to force you to go along? Then you defend yourself. Otherwise, you leave others alone to be as foolish, enslaved and robbed as they wish to be. So far, it is still voluntary...

All I ask is that they leave me alone. One good "no thanks" to the various evangelists is usually sufficient.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Claire on November 01, 2009, 04:33:03 pm
But who decides? Do you expect preemptive "laws" to somehow prevent this danger?

I don't think RadioFlyer said or even implied that, MamaLiberty. I believe he was addressing the thread topic of why (or if) religions oppose freedom.

He's certainly correct that, if taken literally, the bible is full of commandments that instruct followers to agress against others -- and that to the extent that people follow those particular orders, they're opponents of freedom.

If they don't follow those commands, then of course we shouldn't consider them aggressors. But it's still creepy to live among people you know would like to stone you to death, if only society would give them permission to.

Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on November 01, 2009, 04:40:50 pm
But who decides? Do you expect preemptive "laws" to somehow prevent this danger?

I don't think RadioFlyer said or even implied that, MamaLiberty. I believe he was addressing the thread topic of why (or if) religions oppose freedom.

He's certainly correct that, if taken literally, the bible is full of commandments that instruct followers to agress against others -- and that to the extent that people follow those particular orders, they're opponents of freedom.

If they don't follow those commands, then of course we shouldn't consider them aggressors. But it's still creepy to live among people you know would like to stone you to death, if only society would give them permission to.

This is true, I have to admit I watch what you and ML post, I like to be challenged and I also have learned quite a bit on the boards here.

I was just pointing out that when you have "holy books" that say "you must follow this to be a good follower" and the contents have requirements that would force adherents to step over ZAP or even other codes of personal freedom we have a ticking time bomb...

That has turned into literal bombs in the last 20 years from domestic bombings to "suicide bombings" all over the world. I also do not think that any of the Abrahamic religions are exempt from this - remove the controls here in the US and within months we would have burning witches (as is now happening in Africa).
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on November 01, 2009, 04:47:19 pm
I don't think RadioFlyer said or even implied that, MamaLiberty. I believe he was addressing the thread topic of why (or if) religions oppose freedom.

Sorry, that's what I read in it.

Quote
He's certainly correct that, if taken literally, the bible is full of commandments that instruct followers to agress against others -- and that to the extent that people follow those particular orders, they're opponents of freedom.

Yes, but only for themselves, which is nobody else's business. As I said, if they try to force it on others, THEN it becomes a problem for the rest of us and we defend ourselves. I can feel sorry for such people, but I'm certainly not going to worry about them, or their choices.

Quote
If they don't follow those commands, then of course we shouldn't consider them aggressors. But it's still creepy to live among people you know would like to stone you to death, if only society would give them permission to.

Well, I've never met a Christian with those tendencies myself. How many of that kind do you really think are lurking, just waiting for a chance? And, if any do decide to carry it out, the prudent among us will be ready to defend ourselves. Does what motivates the aggressor have anything to do with our defense?

Otherwise, I don't know what anyone should or CAN do about it?

Was this just a rhetorical question? I guess I should have stayed out of it. :)
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Clip Johnson on November 01, 2009, 05:30:17 pm

He's certainly correct that, if taken literally, the bible is full of commandments that instruct followers to agress against others -- and that to the extent that people follow those particular orders, they're opponents of freedom.

If they don't follow those commands, then of course we shouldn't consider them aggressors. But it's still creepy to live among people you know would like to stone you to death, if only society would give them permission to.


I really wasn't going to respond to this thread, as it can easily lead to misinterpretation, or getting someone else riled up. Which is something I personally don't much enjoy doing. For all political and religious ideals we all hold to are personal choices we each have made, or must eventually make, in regards to our own lives and futures.

Anyway, Claire, I'm not aware of a single Christian who holds this view (doesn't mean there aren't those who do, just my personal experience), but the fact remains (as I am certain that you are already abundantly aware of) that there will always be folks who seek to impose their will on others regardless of religious or political affiliation. But more importantly I would like to point out that God does not give, and has not given, such commandments, as you have referred to, that relates to our current time and/or society. The commandments given in the Bible regarding aggression towards others were historical facts and stories given to indicate God's justice during various ancient times.  They cannot , and should not be, construed to validate anyone's aggression towards any other living being.

According to God, the most important commandments given in the Bible are found in Matthew 22: 37-40; "Jesus replied: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Now I ask is it prudent to assume this is a bad thing for world to have folks in it who hold to this?


Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Clip Johnson on November 01, 2009, 05:36:01 pm
And the following I am posting in response to many others here whom have indicated that Christians are, or can be, dangerous, stupid, misguided, wrong, or whatever else. These are my personal findings and experiences, which I know for a fact that there are many, many Christians who have similar experiences and testimonials.

To understand the reason why Christians worship Jesus, one must first come to terms with who exactly Jesus is and who He claimed Himself to be. But please forgive me if you feel this is a bunch of nonsense or whatever, but I sincerely believe this is something that many folks need to hear, for what's at stake here is more than whether or not you merely believe Christians through out the world are involved with a heresy, but what you feel to be true in regards to Jesus and the biblical doctrine concerning your personal salvation and where you will spend eternity. For if you are right and I am wrong about Him, then in the end you will have nothing to gain and I (and all other Christians) really will have nothing to lose, but if You are wrong and I am right about Jesus and where we will spend eternity, well, you will unfortunately have everything to lose and I will stand to gain everything. Furthermore, without a shadow of a doubt, God Himself wants you to hear this and learn as much as you can about Him and His promises. So here goes.

You see God does not want us to simply come to Him in a blind leap of faith. The fact is God created each and every one of us with a mind and we were created in His image. That image is not only represented within our spirit, but also represented within our body, within our thoughts, within our emotions within each and every one of us. And this image is to be used when seeking God. He wants us to check Him out and verify His truths. If this were not so He would not have told Moses at the burning bush various ways to prove to the Israelites that God did in fact send Moses to lead His people out from Egypt. God expected the Israelites to ask the intelligent question "How do we know that God sent you". Or in the book of Isaiah (40-48), God challenges the Israelites to examine every other God and then challenges these Gods to do what He does. And when Christ died, He stuck around for forty days in order to show Himself to others and prove to them what had taken place so as they would believe. God wants us to test and check out all the signs and all the evidence. Our Christian faith is faith that is real and is rational. And it is a faith that can be believed in, trusted in, and can be tested.

At this point I feel the need to make a case for the very existence of God. I suppose to start with, I should tell you my basis for all Scriptural truth is found in the Bible as well as many other resources available to all.

The simple fact is I once was agnostic and firmly believed that someone must prove to me God did in fact exist. I needed empirical, scientific proof of such, for all I considered His existence to be was merely nothing more than a fairy tale. My subsequent conclusion was that I must look further than my mere belief in science, and the information contained the Scriptures. So I began to explore with an open mind, I repeat, an open mind. Some of the things I soon discovered were that one could not empirically prove through scientific evidence that Abraham Lincoln was shot and killed at Ford Theater. One must rely on historical evidence and upon doing so; based upon the overwhelming support, there is no disputing that this incidence with President Lincoln actually happened. Most certainly, it is the very same concerning a search for the truth about Jesus and the Holy Scriptures.

When one objectively looks at the overwhelming amount of evidence to support the authenticity of the Bible, an individual can only come to the conclusion that the Bible is from God and Him alone. And that evidence for me lies in the fact that the Bible is shown to be reliable in five major ways: (1) textural transmission (the accuracy of the copying process down through history), (2) the conformation of the Old and New Testament by hard evidence uncovered through archaeology, (3) documentary evidence also uncovered through archaeology, (4) the internal evidence test of the New Testament, and (5) the external evidence test of the New Testament. Here are some facts that cannot be disputed, and not merely in my humble opinion. There are a multitude of reliable sources of antiquity other than the Bible for information concerning Jesus, i.e., Josephus, Polycarp, Roman Government archives, archeological evidence and many others. All of which I would implore you to find these sources on your own behalf and not simply take my word for it.

Some of the more compelling evidence in the Scriptures themselves can be found by looking at the prophetic fulfillment of the future Messiah mentioned over 300 times in various verses throughout the Old Testament, which were written hundreds of years before Christ. Given the study of statistics involving the theory and laws of mathematical probability, the fulfillment of these prophecies by any one person is astronomical. The combined probability against just 17 of these predictions occurring is equal to: 1 chance in 480 billion x 1 billion x 1 trillion or, 1 chance in 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Some Bible critics have suggested that Jesus of Nazareth, as a rabbi, naturally knew about these predictions and simply arranged the events of His life to fulfill these specific prophecies. But how would you arrange to be born in Bethlehem? How would you manage to be born into the tribe of Judah? How would you make sure that the price of your betrayal would be precisely thirty pieces of silver? How would you arrange to be crucified with thieves? How would a crucified man arrange to have his enemies gamble for his garments? The truth is that, if you could arrange all these details, you would have to be the Son of God.

Yes, I know some peoples rebuttal would suggest that men have written the Scriptures to conform to whatever they believed in and thus are propagating a lie. Once again, I would implore you to look at the vast amounts of copies of the writings of Moses, King David, Solomon, Ezra, Samuel, etc, etc, etc, that were pasted down from generation to generation through out Jewish culture. There are literally were thousands and thousands of these documents stored on whatever means were available such as papyrus. The fact is there are no books of antiquity that can be confirmed for their validity other that the Bible. The only other work remotely close would be that of Homer, and there aren't copies dating back far enough in time to substantiate whether or not it had been faithfully copied from original text. The Holy Scriptures are not so, check it out for yourself.

Second, look at First Corinthians 15. The thing to bear in mind is Paul didn’t initially write this as being Holy Scripture; it was a letter to the church at Corinth just about thirty years after Jesus’ death and ascension. And stated in it was that Jesus died and was buried then rose after three days then was seen by many. He included Peter and other disciples, 500 people and even some people in the crowd he was talking to knew of these things that took place. The fact is if anyone could attest to anything other than what Paul was saying, they would have certainly spoken up. There is no evidence of anyone ever doing so.

Furthermore, each and every one of the disciples of Jesus proclaimed through out the land what had happened and whom Jesus was, never once denying Him. All of this was after they had been emotionally crushed after Jesus was killed, After all how could the Messiah allow Himself to suffer a horrible death at the hands of men, yet they were rejuvenated after seeing Jesus risen from the grave. Had this been a lie these men would not have went to their deaths and not admitted it as such. The fact once again is that every one of these disciples, with the exception of the Apostle John, died horrible deaths and never once denied Jesus was who He said He was. These things are recorded in various Roman archives, and other historians of the time.

Speaking of historians, Luke, who wrote Luke and Acts, was a physician and a historian. If you read his work you will find many historical references, of which there is a tremendous amount of archeological evidence to support what he wrote. As a matter of fact, there is absolutely nothing that has ever been discovered that disproves anything written in the Bible. The simple truth is there is archeological support, prophetic support, and historical support for what is written in the bible. I don’t mean this a derogatory statement against all other religions, but the same cannot be said for any other religion, period. If there is other supporting archeological, or prophetic, or historical evidence for any other religion, would someone please be so kind and point me towards it.

Now back to what I previously mentioned regarding Lincoln and him being shot. Yes there is this obvious evidence existing concerning Lincoln (i.e., a body in the grave with a bullet hole in the skull, DNA evidence, as well as eyewitness accounts), and even given such strong evidence for the event, which is for me by far enough evidence to say without a shadow of a doubt that this event actually happened. But demonstrative scientific evidence cannot be offered to prove that Lincoln was shot. The problem we face is that demonstrative scientific evidence requires a hypothesis capable of being tested repeatedly in a laboratory by other scientists to verify the results. What I was trying to emphasize was, the very nature of historical events is that they cannot be repeated and, therefore, cannot be tested by scientific methods. The great error of skeptics is that they demand scientific proof about historical accounts about Jesus in the Gospels when such absolute proof about any historical event is impossible to obtain. However, the question about the historicity of the Gospels’ claims about Jesus is a question of fact and precisely the type of question that has been considered and judged by courts of justice every day for thousands of years.

Courts judge the truthfulness of witnesses and questions of fact according to a fundamental rule briefly summarized as such: In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true. Unfortunately, many arguments against the genuineness of the Gospel account are based on a cavalier approach that quickly rejects the historical record about Christ whenever the slightest doubt is raised by anyone about any detail in the Gospel account. Unwilling to acknowledge that the evangelists’ accounts are probably true; they contemptuously reject the Gospels’ statements because they believe that it is possible that they might be false. If this unreasonable basis for judging the truth were applied to the records of the event of the assassination of Lincoln, we would have to throw out as unreliable virtually all the statements of actual witnesses that allow us to understand what happened during that tragic event.

Now I could go on a bit more, but for the sake of not getting into a novel, I will conclude with this: I would like to point out that the claims of the Gospel are so momentous that it is vital that we as individuals examine the evidence to determine whether the Gospel record is true or not. Nothing less that our soul’s eternal destiny is at stake. Personally, with me previously being a hardcore agnostic, it was once presented to me by someone who loved the Lord Jesus, to at the very least, consider the evidence. And for many of us, myself included, this was the most difficult part of the whole process of accepting Christ and His message. For God makes it all too easy to have eternal salvation, as it's a gift freely given to all whom genuinely seek.

Please, if anyone will kindly do so, point out where this is dangerous thinking, wrong, stupid, unacceptable, or whatever else, and show me the errors of my ways.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: suijurisfreeman on November 01, 2009, 06:29:04 pm
"Courts judge the truthfulness of witnesses and questions of fact according to a fundamental rule briefly summarized as such: In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true."

ROTFLMAO!!!!  Yep, and Santa Claus will be stopping by on December 24th again this year!  And exactly what's the point of cross-examination?  Ever hear of a witness's testimony being impeached?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Clip Johnson on November 01, 2009, 06:33:13 pm
Thanks for kindly pointing that out. Yes I do see the humor in that as well; however, my point, I thought, was clearly made. That is in fact the basis of how our current court systems (not only in this country) are supposed to operate, is it not?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: dubber308 on November 01, 2009, 08:00:22 pm
Thanks for kindly pointing that out. Yes I do see the humor in that as well; however, my point, I thought, was clearly made. That is in fact the basis of how our current court systems (not only in this country) are supposed to operate, is it not?
That is how it's supposed to work. Throw in the human factor (greed, lust, control) and the "safeguards" and "laws" and "rules" and "regs" get bent, broken, ignored or thrown out. The system is broke.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: suijurisfreeman on November 01, 2009, 08:27:45 pm
"When one objectively looks at the overwhelming amount of evidence to support the authenticity of the Bible, an individual can only come to the conclusion that the Bible is from God and Him alone."

That statement simply isn't true!  During my extensive four year study of christianity and how we came to have the bible I came to the exact opposite conclusion.  My questions to you would be:
(1) when were the books of the new testament actually written?
(2) who actually wrote said books?
(3) at what date was it decided which books were to be included in the bible?
(4) who made said decision?
(5) by whose authority were said decisions made?
(6) what criteria was used to make said decision?

It would probably be better to start another thread rather than high-jacking this thread any further.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Claire on November 01, 2009, 08:29:03 pm
Please, if anyone will kindly do so, point out where this is dangerous thinking, wrong, stupid, unacceptable, or whatever else, and show me the errors of my ways.

Well, here's one (of about 50) possible errors of your ways: The topic of the thread is why (or whether) Christianity or any other religion is anti-freedom.

Although it's common for threads to drift off the original topic, your post wasn't a "drift." It was a sharp turn in a different direction. You weren't even trying to discuss the topic; you were proselytizing.

And you know what, Clip Johnson? Although you seem like an extremely nice, sincere person, proselytizing is blanking tiresome. And I for one am sick of people coming to my door, sick of people stopping me on the streets, sick of people telling me I better believe in their god OR ELSE. And I'd really rather not have to deal with it here, thank you very much.




Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Clip Johnson on November 01, 2009, 08:34:57 pm
Yes, this is so true Dubber308, this has been well documented through out the ages, and that is how well-twisted and contorted mankind is able to get anything that begins as being good, reasonable, and true, he so sets his mind upon to do. However, my main emphasis was about the question regarding the historicity of the Gospels' claims about Jesus is a question of fact - precisely the type of question that has been considered and judged by courts of justice every day for thousands of years.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: suijurisfreeman on November 01, 2009, 08:43:43 pm
Thanks for kindly pointing that out. Yes I do see the humor in that as well; however, my point, I thought, was clearly made. That is in fact the basis of how our current court systems (not only in this country) are supposed to operate, is it not?

My point was that it's delusional to actually believe truth or justice have anything to do with the bs that goes on in the courtroom today.  Let's take my little excursion in legal la-la land,  with the exception of myself all the other witnesses swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them god.  I informed the judge that I couldn't take such an oath as I have no first-hand knowledge of a being called god and that it would therefore be hypocritical of me to take such an oath.  Virtually each and everyone of these fine upstanding 'christians' who swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them god lied, lied, lied.  I was one of the few witnesses involved in that case who actually told the truth.  I was actually stupid enough to believe that since I knew what the truth was regarding my 22 days of remonstrance in front of the Monroe County courthouse and that if I told the truth in court I wouldn't be convicted of their sham charges.  How you think it's supposed to work and what actually goes on are two different things -- been there, done that!
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on November 01, 2009, 08:56:56 pm
Well, I have to agree with you Clip Johnson that I would prefer not to get into this argument as it is all too often fruitless.

I am glad that you are able to justify your own faith and that you find whatever comfort in it you do.

I should bow out because I have no intention of angering someone over this subject at this point, Thomas Jefferson stated that there should be a "wall of separation" from religion and politics I cannot agree more.

I am politically against special treatment for any person religion or not - the exemption of Churches, Mosques, and Temples along with any "holy" persons is repugnant.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Clip Johnson on November 01, 2009, 08:58:44 pm
Please, if anyone will kindly do so, point out where this is dangerous thinking, wrong, stupid, unacceptable, or whatever else, and show me the errors of my ways.

Well, here's one (of about 50) possible errors of your ways: The topic of the thread is why (or whether) Christianity or any other religion is anti-freedom.

Although it's common for threads to drift off the original topic, your post wasn't a "drift." It was a sharp turn in a different direction. You weren't even trying to discuss the topic; you were proselytizing.

And you know what, Clip Johnson? Although you seem like an extremely nice, sincere person, proselytizing is blanking tiresome. And I for one am sick of people coming to my door, sick of people stopping me on the streets, sick of people telling me I better believe in their god OR ELSE. And I'd really rather not have to deal with it here, thank you very much.






I'm very sorry that you feel that way Claire. And I sincerely apologize for offending you, or upsetting you. As I previously said here in this thread, i really hate to get involved in things of this matter. Things that are left up to each and every one of us to come to our own conclusions based upon the information, evidence, etc, that we have at hand to go by. I'm really and truly not trying to push my point of view based upon my experiences on you or anyone else.

My very reason for posting is closely akin to the emotions you have expressed to me. With the exception that my dismay is caused by the fact that a few posters within this thread have made disparaging statements about Christians and/or Christianity, and there is not one soul here that has made stand for Christians and/or Christianity. Hence me speaking up in an attempt to show that there is some validity to there being some semblance of rationality and prudence that goes into making such a decision as I have shared.

It is abundantly clear this is neither the time nor the place to argue these points with you or anyone else. As in all honesty, it was not my intent to preach to you or anyone else here for that matter. My main objective when I first signed up to this site was to learn more about issues that were very important to me. Issues that weren't being talked much about elsewhere I might add.  As I said, I do apologize for stepping over the line here, and will do my best to refrain from any similar future postings here.    
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Clip Johnson on November 01, 2009, 09:12:12 pm
Well, I have to agree with you Clip Johnson that I would prefer not to get into this argument as it is all too often fruitless.

I should bow out because I have no intention of angering someone over this subject at this point, Thomas Jefferson stated that there should be a "wall of separation" from religion and politics I cannot agree more.


I whole-heartedly agree with you Radio Flyer. I too wish not to anger anyone as I apparently have done. I too will bow out of this subject.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Who...me? on November 01, 2009, 11:22:12 pm
I will only state that I consider myself a Christian and I don't try to shove my belief's down anyone's throat.  I personally don't care if someone else has the same belief's as I do and so do not stop folks or knock on their doors.  I feel the same way as many here that when someone knocks on my door and gives me what ever their standard line is and I say no thank you...they should leave...politely.

As to the original question...I think that everyone should be responsible for what ever they do.  My reading of the Bible supports this.  God won't MAKE you do anything.  And there are and should be penalties for harming someone. So I see no problem believing in freedom and the Bible at the same time.  I also believe in ZAP.  If some one assaults me or mine I will respond in, what I consider to be, an appropriate manner. 
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: gaurdduck on November 02, 2009, 03:09:02 am

He's certainly correct that, if taken literally, the bible is full of commandments that instruct followers to agress against others -- and that to the extent that people follow those particular orders, they're opponents of freedom.

If they don't follow those commands, then of course we shouldn't consider them aggressors. But it's still creepy to live among people you know would like to stone you to death, if only society would give them permission to.


I really wasn't going to respond to this thread, as it can easily lead to misinterpretation, or getting someone else riled up. Which is something I personally don't much enjoy doing. For all political and religious ideals we all hold to are personal choices we each have made, or must eventually make, in regards to our own lives and futures.

Anyway, Claire, I'm not aware of a single Christian who holds this view (doesn't mean there aren't those who do, just my personal experience), but the fact remains (as I am certain that you are already abundantly aware of) that there will always be folks who seek to impose their will on others regardless of religious or political affiliation. But more importantly I would like to point out that God does not give, and has not given, such commandments, as you have referred to, that relates to our current time and/or society. The commandments given in the Bible regarding aggression towards others were historical facts and stories given to indicate God's justice during various ancient times.  They cannot , and should not be, construed to validate anyone's aggression towards any other living being.

According to God, the most important commandments given in the Bible are found in Matthew 22: 37-40; "Jesus replied: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Now I ask is it prudent to assume this is a bad thing for world to have folks in it who hold to this?

I will only state that I consider myself a Christian and I don't try to shove my belief's down anyone's throat.  I personally don't care if someone else has the same belief's as I do and so do not stop folks or knock on their doors.  I feel the same way as many here that when someone knocks on my door and gives me what ever their standard line is and I say no thank you...they should leave...politely.

As to the original question...I think that everyone should be responsible for what ever they do.  My reading of the Bible supports this.  God won't MAKE you do anything.  And there are and should be penalties for harming someone. So I see no problem believing in freedom and the Bible at the same time.  I also believe in ZAP.  If some one assaults me or mine I will respond in, what I consider to be, an appropriate manner. 


You both hit the nail on its head.

PS:
Claire,
The only people who deserve to be stoned (with rocks, not Maryjane) are rapists and mass murderers.
You, are in no danger of that fate.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Canadian Mamma on November 02, 2009, 05:43:39 am


I whole-heartedly agree with you Radio Flyer. I too wish not to anger anyone as I apparently have done. I too will bow out of this subject.

I am SO sorry to see you make this statement Chip.

I can understand that we have found a kinship here that is comforting, there are not many places where we can talk so openly about our "Radical" thinking. I can also understand not wanting to taint that feeling of family with dissent.  But, Isn't that how the masses are kept in line? Fear of being different or worse yet your opinions and ideas should offend or anger someone else?

Bad form for someone to have a hissy because you happen to not conform to their thinking and wants on a specific topic. This forum, as do many, affords a user many many many options on how THEY could deal with THEIR issue with out resorting to telling you , no matter how sweetly,  they prefer you to shut the F up thank you very much.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Scarmiglione' on November 02, 2009, 06:11:07 am
As an atheist I'll just drop a couple of things I've learned here.

1.  Every group has it's share of assholes.  It's a requirement.  While it is necessary to understand that any group cannot be wholly regarded by the nature of its assholes, there is value to be found in how that group deals with its assholes.   

2.  I'd rather live in a truly libertarian Christian society than a communistic atheist one.  But note that this would directly reflect on point 1.  Libertarian-minded Christians need to be able to manage their assholes.

3.  Many atheists I've encountered replace the role religion used to play in their lives with government.  They still want an external power structure on people, but they wanted created by men with guns.  Ergo, many of the atheists are no better than many Christians with regards to individual liberty.

4.  Atheists are vocal because they are one of the last minorities that it is okay to openly discriminate against in this country.  They are vocal because they are waging a war for an open place in the cultural landscape.  Atheists, at less than 10% of the population, are blamed for the state of the schools, the sexuality on TV, the use of drugs by kids, the degradation of basic morality, and any number of social ills and problems people want to blame someone for.  Atheists speak out because we are just people.  Some good, some bad, mostly average.  Just folk with a different belief.  And we're sick of being blamed for others' failings.

5.  All philosophies are tainted by personal bias and priority.  Christian philosophy can be bent toward theocratic totalitarianism, or anarchist rebellion.  Same with atheist viewpoints.  I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with any Christian who believes in individual liberty.  But that means they would have to stand shoulder to shoulder with me and fight the other Christians and atheists who don't.  So question is really, what is each individual's higher priority?  Is it the people they share belief with?  Or the belief in individual liberty.  Because for both sides liberty may mean standing up against your own.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: macman2k on November 02, 2009, 08:34:26 am
scarmig brings up some excellent points. 

I am not an atheist nor would I associate myself with any particular religion, but the question of the thread is "why/or is any *religion* opposed to the freedom pov". 

An atheist "religion" can be used to establish all manner of "moral relativism", "survival of the fittest", etc.  The result is that a significant subset of atheists worship government as the solution to mans problems.  The atheist view point itself does not necessarily imply anti-liberty, but individuals could adopt an anti-liberty world view without violating the atheist creed "there is no god".

Other major religions universally support "government enforced justice".  If it were not so, then there would be an active civil war between people of such a religion and their government.  Maybe you could claim that they preach "no not resist an evil man when he asks for your coat"...

Unless you are willing to disregard the bible and the old/new testaments, then you must accept that:
A) God chooses to put his people under despotic rule (Egypt, Babylon, etc)
B) It is God's will for his people to remain under despotic rule (and a sin for them to fight back, see when they were captives of Babylon).
C) God delegates his authority to be exercised by "kings" (David, Saul, etc)
D) David was a man after "God's own heart", yet was a king who placed heavy taxes and had no moral issue with "being a king". 
E) God gave King Solomon supernatural wisdom, yet King Solomon did not establish free-market anarch-o-capitalism or even work toward that end. 

I could go on and on, but it appears that one must reject christianity, Judaism, or islam in order to adopt a pro-liberty point of view.  For a long time I could use bible verses to conclude the ZAP rule, prove that governments are under the authority of the devil, that God did not approve of the idea of a king (warned the Jews against it), etc.   But a couple of verses, like Romans 13, completely contradict EVERYTHING ELSE.   Thus, the bible must be fallible or tainted by pro-authoritarian influences such as the emperor of Rome. 

Further proof regarding christianity being anti-freedom is the fact that almost ALL followers and pastors, after studying it their whole life, remain firm in their belief that the powers that be are a legitimate authority created by God and to be obeyed as if they were God, "unless they ask you to worship another god or forbid you from worshiping Jesus". 

Regarding Johnson's post in defense of Christianity... it reads as something I would have written a few years ago.   Some points to consider:

1) The great majority of people today are greatly deceived by all manner of lies and manipulation
2) A great number of these people hold their painfully false beliefs so strongly they would likely die for them
3) An event like 9-11 will likely go down in the history books according to the "official story", people die for that story every day.
4) The character of good people is often abused to give legitimacy to bad ideas. 

Regarding prophecies, all it requires is a little bit of "legend" and everyone believes that they "gambled for his clothing" or any other prophecy was fulfilled.  Thus, Jesus did not have to "arrange for it to happen".  People desperate for hope will believe and embellish any such story.  It would not even be very hard to get all of those "independent" testimonies to "agree".  People are sheep and always have been.  Besides, hand selecting a subset of books that agree from a super-set of books that do not agree and then claiming that "divine intervention" would be necessary to get the remaining subset to agree is foolish and would be like only allowing testimony from people whom agree with you and calling everyone else a liar.   Then claiming that the remaining "democratically selected testimony" is the "word of God" is a nice touch.  I never trust anything "democratically selected" by a bunch of sheep! 

All of that said, I cannot disprove the testimony. I have concluded that if "all are liable" including those on a remote island who have never heard the "gospel", then the bible and gospel are completely irrelevant.  Considering the dangers of blindly following a book that others likely manipulated to support their "power structures", I would much rather trust my salvation to my own observations of God, my conscience, and natures testimony than trust anyone else to tell me "what God says".   God can speak to me directly, or not at all.

For all of your faith, you still risk losing everything because not all who call "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven.  We all risk believing the wrong thing and facing eternity in hell.  Believing you are right and others are wrong may help you sleep better at night, but it does not change the reality that you may still be wrong.  I doubt God would even honor "believing just in case" as a real belief anyway so arguing with an atheist that "if I'm right you are screwed, and if you are right then we are both dust" is totally missing the nature and point of faith.  I use to argue that way, but not any more.         
 



Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Who...me? on November 02, 2009, 09:09:44 am
Quote
1.  Every group has it's share of assholes.  It's a requirement.  While it is necessary to understand that any group cannot be wholly regarded by the nature of its assholes, there is value to be found in how that group deals with its assholes.

A very true statement.  If whatever group you belong to does not have any assholes then most very likely you are, in fact, that asshole. 



Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Claire on November 02, 2009, 10:50:06 am
Quote
1.  Every group has it's share of assholes.  It's a requirement.  While it is necessary to understand that any group cannot be wholly regarded by the nature of its assholes, there is value to be found in how that group deals with its assholes.

A very true statement.  If whatever group you belong to does not have any asshole the most very likely you are, in fact, that asshole. 

 :laugh: Very good, Who...me?! I thought scarmig's post was pretty much spot on, but I hope he'll consider adding this as a corollary to "Scarmig's Law."

Reminds me of an old poem (origin unknown) that I sometimes use to keep myself humble:

See the happy moron.
He doesn't give a damn.
I wish I were a moron.
By god, perhaps I am!
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Clip Johnson on November 02, 2009, 05:35:22 pm
I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with any Christian who believes in individual liberty.  But that means they would have to stand shoulder to shoulder with me and fight the other Christians and atheists who don't.  So question is really, what is each individual's higher priority?  Is it the people they share belief with?  Or the belief in individual liberty.  Because for both sides liberty may mean standing up against your own.

Absolutely Scarmig, I agree with you. There is an indisputable need for folks to stand together in the pursuit of liberty regardless of each of our own frailties, belief systems, political or religious allegiances, or whatever other differences there may be between each and everyone here. But when a certain subject, like this thread has exposed, comes up, unfortunately is abundantly clear that it serves to divide and enrage more than it seems to enlighten. Hence, as Radio Flyer well put it, "it's fruitless". And I agree, particularly within the framework of a thread such as this one, where as it has gotten so far off the original posters initial inquiry (admittedly so, it is largely due to me). But there are so many falsehoods, misrepresentations, misunderstandings and the like given in regards to God and the Christian faith within this thread, that it can only serve to enrage anyone who holds to these beliefs. Beliefs not based upon shear, unadulterated, blind faith, but based upon actual years upon years of honest research and study. A good healthy debate is one thing, but seeing them made a mockery of with such disdain as has been exhibited here, particularly by someone who simply may be misinformed or misguided about the topic, and then misstates facts (and is unwilling to even remotely listen to anyone else’s findings and/or opinions) about God/Christianity, is another.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: dogsledder54 on November 02, 2009, 05:42:40 pm
There is NOTHING in my religion that is opposed to freedom. BTW, my religion is completely VOLUNTARY. As are my associations.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Who...me? on November 02, 2009, 07:24:16 pm
I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with any Christian who believes in individual liberty.  But that means they would have to stand shoulder to shoulder with me and fight the other Christians and atheists who don't.  So question is really, what is each individual's higher priority?  Is it the people they share belief with?  Or the belief in individual liberty.  Because for both sides liberty may mean standing up against your own.

Absolutely Scarmig, I agree with you. There is an indisputable need for folks to stand together in the pursuit of liberty regardless of each of our own frailties, belief systems, political or religious allegiances, or whatever other differences there may be between each and everyone here. But when a certain subject, like this thread has exposed, comes up, unfortunately is abundantly clear that it serves to divide and enrage more than it seems to enlighten. Hence, as Radio Flyer well put it, "it's fruitless". And I agree, particularly within the framework of a thread such as this one, where as it has gotten so far off the original posters initial inquiry (admittedly so, it is largely due to me). But there are so many falsehoods, misrepresentations, misunderstandings and the like given in regards to God and the Christian faith within this thread, that it can only serve to enrage anyone who holds to these beliefs. Beliefs not based upon shear, unadulterated, blind faith, but based upon actual years upon years of honest research and study. A good healthy debate is one thing, but seeing them made a mockery of with such disdain as has been exhibited here, particularly by someone who simply may be misinformed or misguided about the topic, and then misstates facts (and is unwilling to even remotely listen to anyone else’s findings and/or opinions) about God/Christianity, is another.


Seems to me that the broad brush  we talk about a lot here is being used quite liberally in regards to this subject.  I see many statements that say Christians are this or Christians are that.  When in reality no one, especially here, fits any single mold or classification.  I would hope that we all can see that and realize most of us have much in common regardless of our individual beliefs.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: socalserf on November 02, 2009, 09:23:35 pm


I whole-heartedly agree with you Radio Flyer. I too wish not to anger anyone as I apparently have done. I too will bow out of this subject.

I am SO sorry to see you make this statement Chip.

I can understand that we have found a kinship here that is comforting, there are not many places where we can talk so openly about our "Radical" thinking. I can also understand not wanting to taint that feeling of family with dissent.  But, Isn't that how the masses are kept in line? Fear of being different or worse yet your opinions and ideas should offend or anger someone else?

Bad form for someone to have a hissy because you happen to not conform to their thinking and wants on a specific topic. This forum, as do many, affords a user many many many options on how THEY could deal with THEIR issue with out resorting to telling you , no matter how sweetly,  they prefer you to shut the F up thank you very much.

Very well expressed CM.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Scarmiglione' on November 02, 2009, 10:22:04 pm
Beliefs not based upon shear, unadulterated, blind faith, but based upon actual years upon years of honest research and study. A good healthy debate is one thing, but seeing them made a mockery of with such disdain as has been exhibited here, particularly by someone who simply may be misinformed or misguided about the topic, and then misstates facts (and is unwilling to even remotely listen to anyone else’s findings and/or opinions) about God/Christianity, is another.

Knowing that we agree on the priority of individual liberty, I would like to ask you to consider something regarding this particular line of thought.

Here in America, 85% of people profess to be Christian.  That belies at least a cursory knowledge of the religion, exposure to traditions, beliefs, and basic tenants.  If you do any research into atheism in American, it should come as no surprise that most atheists are ex-believers.  Seems pretty obvious given the saturation level of Christianity in the culture.   And I hear this charge often, that people who criticize or disdain Christianity are misinformed, misguided, mistaken, and somehow have just managed to miss the truth.  But consider what it means to stand up in our culture and say, "I don't believe."   It is, for many people, worse than coming out as gay.  Do you think non-believers would make such socially hazardous claims without consideration, research, and seeking out different opinions and beliefs?  I suppose a rebellious thirteen-year-old might.

My point here is not that "atheists are right and Christians are wrong", but that the path of the non-believer is simply different.  What we see as truth is not the same.  The very foundation of "truth" and what that word means is different.  It's been a long time, but back when I first deconverted, I could quote scripture toe-to-toe with every pastor I debated with.  My lack of belief had nothing to do with ignorance of Christianity, but rather the opposite.  In studying the book that was supposed to save me, I was lost (in Christian terms).

And that is part of the reaction that you see.  You see non-believers reacting against this idea that they are ignorant, misinformed, too lazy to research, or openly falsifying what is true to you when they have made very hard decisions, risked social and emotional abandonment (try to find other atheists to date sometime!), and stood up to face a life of scorn and derision by their fellow countrymen simply because they reached a different conclusion.  Can you see where a reaction less than embracing of evangelism is understandable?  I've been an atheist for over twenty-five years now.  So when a group of evangelists surrounds me and they starts telling me on how misinformed I am about God and Jesus and Christianity... well... I tear into them.  It is grossly disrespectful to my journey, my tribulations, and my triumphs to assume that I arrived here by simple rebellion and not research and introspection.  But that's what happens.  Often.

I know that Christians mean well.  I've seen tears in their eyes when I say that if they are right they will not see me in Heaven.  It would be really nice if Christians would try more often to understand our point of view and the significance of it in our daily lives.  Then maybe we could put a lot of this churn behind us and work on those damn politicians.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: suijurisfreeman on November 03, 2009, 06:34:32 am
I was a 'christian' back in 1987 when I started doing my research, research intended to answer an individuals question about the bible.  I wasn't looking for the answers that I found, I wasn't expecting the answers that I found, I had a very difficult time accepting the answers that I found -- it nearly destroyed me!  It literally turned my world upside down, for several years I could barely function as I tried to come to terms with this 'new truth'.
First I was mad at all the adults in my life that had lied to me about the bible and christianity and finally I was really pissed off at my own ignorance and failure to thourghly examine my deepest religious beliefs.  Finally after four years I came to terms with what I had found.  I've been more a peace with myself since then (knowing that I don't have a clue as to what 'life's answers' are) than when I was a 'christian' believing that I had all the answers.
My 'problem' was that I asked too many questions, my problem was that I did too much research, my problem was that I started thinking for myself!  I even had one 'minister' tell me that god hates a christian that thinks for themselves!
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Claire on November 03, 2009, 08:50:14 am
Well said, suijuris and scarmig. Thank you.

I'm not an atheist, but I am a non-believer. I'm a seeker, and the more I seek, the less I find.

I was raised in a home that wasn't particularly religious but used the threat of hell and the presence of God's every-watching, ever-judging eye as a means of child-control. So I spent years -- years -- years -- years reading the bible, attending various Christian churches, and studying with different denominations. Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, Foresquare Pentacostals, Catholics ... you name it. All in an effort to find the secret to getting on the right side of the Deity and avoiding eternal punishment.

But the more I read, especially of biblical history and archeology, the more convinced I became that every religion (with the possible exceptions of the purest, non-theological forms of Taoism and Theravada Buddhism) was nothing but a combination of sincere human guesswork and conniving human power-mongering. I felt (and still feel) betrayed that something as grand as spirituality gets twisted into something as base as threats that "the all-loving God of mercy will send you to hell to be tortured for all eternity if you don't agree with me."

I don't say this of all Christians, but I do find it true of evangelicals in general: When a non-believer continues to non-believe, or continues to ask hard questions, they dismiss that person not as a sincere person seeking truth, but as a stubborn, possibly even diabolical person who is coldly "rejecting" God -- and who therefore deserves whatever punishment God chooses to dish out.

Clip Johnson, I can understand your pain at feeling that your religion is being misrepresented and scorned by some people here. Yet in your long message, I saw very clearly that implication that any "good" person who studied the bible would come to the same conclusions you did, and that anybody who disagrees with you must be ignorant or ill-willed -- and they'll be punished if they don't shape up. And you don't question the morality of punishing people simply because their thoughts, experiences, and studies lead them in a different direction than yours.

You feel insulted, it seems. Yet in your polite way, you deliver an insult that goes beyond anything anybody has aimed at your beliefs. Not a single non-believer here thinks you deserve eternal punishment simply because your studies have led you to conclusions different from theirs.



Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Silver on November 03, 2009, 09:28:24 am
I was born and raised Catholic, with 12 years of Catholic school education.  No government schooling, ever.

It left a mark.  I know right from wrong.  I can think for myself.

I used to be an altar boy.  In college I led the choir, literally, and occasionally gave sermons.

But like others, I kept asking questions.  Unlike most Catholics, I read the Bible cover-to-cover.  I read it as an adult, carefully and critically.  I came to rather different conclusions about its message and meaning than any Christian sect I have visited or read.

I investigated and attended many different varieties of Christian congregations, from Baptist and Methodist to Pentacostal and Latter-Day Saints. 

And like many here, when I looked carefully at organized Christianity I found it wanting.  I have many reservations and criticisms, but the most fundamental one was summarized far more eloquently than I could ever hope to match:

Quote
For the first three centuries, the three centuries closest to Christ, the Church was a pacifist Church. With Constantine the church accepted the pagan Roman ethic of a just war and slowly began to involve its membership in mass slaughter, first for the state and later for the faith.
...
The mainline Christian Churches still teach something that Christ never taught or even hinted at, namely the Just War Theory, a theory that to me has been completely discredited theologically, historically, and psychologically.

So as I see it, until the various churches within Christianity repent and begin to proclaim by word and deed what Jesus proclaimed in relation to violence and enemies, there is no hope for anything other than ever-escalating violence and destruction.

Until membership in the Church means that a Christian chooses not to engage in violence for any reason and instead chooses to love, pray for, help, and forgive all enemies; until membership in the Church means that Christians may not be members of any military, American, Polish, Russian, English, Irish, et al.; until membership in the Church means that the Christian cannot pay taxes for others to kill others; and until the Church says these things in a fashion which the simplest soul could understand – until that time humanity can only look forward to more dark nights of slaughter on a scale unknown in history. Unless the Church unswervingly and unambiguously teaches what Jesus teaches on this matter it will not be the divine leaven in the human dough that it was meant to be.

"The choice is between nonviolence or nonexistence," as Martin Luther King, Jr. said, and he was not, and I am not, speaking figuratively. It is about time for the Church and its leadership in all denominations to get down on its knees and repent of this misrepresentation of Christ’s words.

Communion with Christ cannot be established on disobedience to His clearest teachings. Jesus authorized none of His followers to substitute violence for love; not me, not you, not Jimmy Carter, not the pope, not a Vatican council, nor even an ecumenical council.
- Father George B. Zabelka, Catholic Chaplain charged with caring for the men bombing Japan, including dropping the atomic bomb.   A Military Chaplain Repents (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/mccarthy5.html)

If some day in my travels I happen upon a Christian congregation whose every member wears bandages on their heads, to staunch the bleeding from their ears after listening to yet another blistering sermon on the evil of killing a million innocent people (http://thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?topic=24377.0) who never harmed us or posed any realistic threat of any kind, maybe on that day I will stop and listen.  But I'm not counting on it.

Instead the former ArchBishop of Boston hides in Vatican City, knowing that should he return to the US he will be arrested, tried, and very likely convicted for aiding and abetting the sexual molestation of scores, perhaps hundreds of innocent children.  Religious leaders who cackle about the persecution of Roman Polanski, whose single victim has publicly forgiven him, ignore the rape, murder, and theft conducted by members of their own congregation, every day. 

I hold no particular animosity for Christians.  I wish them well.  But I do hold a strong distaste for servants and enablers of the state.  Being a Christian and a soldier killing innocent people is not only a contradiction, it is profoundly immoral and destructive of liberty.  Being part of a congregation that celebrates and supports that behavior is little better.

Peace,

Silver
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on November 03, 2009, 05:02:14 pm
Well................from my point of view.............narrow as it is..............there's a big difference between Christians and christians.
Just like there's a big difference between Libertarians and libertarians...............

Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Clip Johnson on November 03, 2009, 05:09:54 pm
I felt (and still feel) betrayed that something as grand as spirituality gets twisted into something as base as threats that "the all-loving God of mercy will send you to hell to be tortured for all eternity if you don't agree with me."


Please understand that hell could very well be comprised of separation from God and Heaven, and NOT what is so commonly understood of it being a multitude of sinners that are thrown into a lake of fire and brimstone to suffer and be tortured for all of eternity? It is not all about Him doling out punishment or torture as you have referred to so many times now. Once again, from my standpoint (based upon what is written in the Scriptures) it is thus; God knows every thought that goes through our minds. He knows all the bad things we are capable of doing, as nothing whatsoever is hidden from Him. He knows the very worst about us, yet loves us anyway, even far beyond what our ability to comprehend will allow. He does not want anyone to suffer and it grieves Him deeply to see such.

Yet in your long message, I saw very clearly that implication that any "good" person who studied the bible would come to the same conclusions you did, and that anybody who disagrees with you must be ignorant or ill-willed -- and they'll be punished if they don't shape up. And you don't question the morality of punishing people simply because their thoughts, experiences, and studies lead them in a different direction than yours.


In all due respect, I certainly didn't mean to imply that "any good person who studied the Bible would come to the same conclusions as I". However, I must admit that I am definitely not as articulate as the vast majority of folks here, and I suppose things have the tendency to come out like that and be misconstrued. But what I did say was precisely what I was meaning to get across, which was there are a multitude of sources (I've only listed a few of them) other than the Holy Bible to gather vital information from regarding the validity of the Holy Scriptures, God, and Jesus. If only one looks with a truly opened mind, and isn't looking with any bias or prejudice for or against (which can be terribly difficult to do for many of us).


You feel insulted, it seems. Yet in your polite way, you deliver an insult that goes beyond anything anybody has aimed at your beliefs. Not a single non-believer here thinks you deserve eternal punishment simply because your studies have led you to conclusions different from theirs.



Once again Claire, please understand that when folks begin to talk of Christians being "stupid", "dangerous", "a religion for sheep", and I happen to be Christian, then yes, how is it not reasonable to assume that practically anyone else would also feel a bit of an insult as well. Do you think that is wrong of me to feel this way? After all, I am only human.

But more importantly, please tell me what I said that was so insulting. If I did, I truly didn't mean to do that, and I sincerely apologize for doing so. But if you will, please point out what it was that I said or did that was out of line to cause you to feel that way.

In all  honesty, there is so much more I wish to reply to everyone that has posted here. Perhaps I should just start another thread, as I have certainly derailed this thread more than enough.
 
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: penguinsscareme on November 03, 2009, 05:47:51 pm
*Sigh.*
With deep sadness, I have to agree with the anti-Christian sentiment.
I was raised in a Christian home and have had a relationship with God since before I can remember.  But Christians have done some horrible things to me and people around me.  That's just my personal experience, to say nothing of the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.  Most Christians, if pushed, reveal themselves to be hypocrites.
That said, most Christians that I know personally are decent people who want to make the world around them a better place.  Unfortunately they think that one of the ways they have to do that is to support things like the drug war, anti-immigration laws and practices, and honor the veterans that are "fighting for our freedoms."

A great lie was perpetrated, and the people bought into it.  Lack of courage, lack of thought, lack of integrity...I don't know.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: gaurdduck on November 03, 2009, 06:26:05 pm
*Sigh.*
With deep sadness, I have to agree with the anti-Christian sentiment.
I was raised in a Christian home and have had a relationship with God since before I can remember.  But Christians have done some horrible things to me and people around me.  That's just my personal experience, to say nothing of the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.  Most Christians, if pushed, reveal themselves to be hypocrites.
That said, most Christians that I know personally are decent people who want to make the world around them a better place.  Unfortunately they think that one of the ways they have to do that is to support things like the drug war, anti-immigration laws and practices, and honor the veterans that are "fighting for our freedoms."

A great lie was perpetrated, and the people bought into it.  Lack of courage, lack of thought, lack of integrity...I don't know.

Agreed.

I'm getting out of Dodge City while the gittin's good. Adios amigos y burros.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Claire on November 03, 2009, 06:57:52 pm
In all due respect, I certainly didn't mean to imply that "any good person who studied the Bible would come to the same conclusions as I"

Ah, but you not only implied it. You came right out and said it, in slightly different words. (Below)

Quote

You feel insulted, it seems. Yet in your polite way, you deliver an insult that goes beyond anything anybody has aimed at your beliefs. Not a single non-believer here thinks you deserve eternal punishment simply because your studies have led you to conclusions different from theirs.

Once again Claire, please understand that when folks begin to talk of Christians being "stupid", "dangerous", "a religion for sheep", and I happen to be Christian, then yes, how is it not reasonable to assume that practically anyone else would also feel a bit of an insult as well. Do you think that is wrong of me to feel this way? After all, I am only human.

Clip Johnson, I never said you were wrong to feel insulted. In fact, I said I understood why you would feel insulted.

You just don't perceive that the insulting statements flew in both directions.

Quote
But more importantly, please tell me what I said that was so insulting.

Well, here are a couple of statements that come near the beginning of your long proselytizing message and bear a lot of weight because they set up the premises for the rest of your argument:

Quote
When one objectively looks at the overwhelming amount of evidence to support the authenticity of the Bible, an individual can only come to the conclusion that the Bible is from God and Him alone.

and ...

Quote
if You are wrong and I am right about Jesus and where we will spend eternity, well, you will unfortunately have everything to lose and I will stand to gain everything. Furthermore, without a shadow of a doubt, God Himself wants you to hear this and learn as much as you can about Him and His promises.

Obviously if "an individual can ONLY come to the conclusion"  that you came to, then everybody here who studied and came to a different conclusion is either a nimrod, a scoundrel, or delusional.

That's pretty insulting. I understand it wasn't your intention to be insulting. But it's the only possible interpretation of your statement. And given the choice of that intellectual variety of insult or just  being called 'stupid," I'd personally opt for being called stupid.

The statement that everybody else has everything to lose and you have everything to gain is smug as a cat in a rug, pardon my saying so. It places you as possessor of The Truth and relegates us mere seekers and former seekers as those destined for -- and by implication deserving of -- Ultimate Doom.

That's cheeky.

You have also, there and in several other places, positioned yourself as a messenger conveying God's own stated wishes and instructions.

BTW, that "I'm making the right bet on God and you're not" position is also known as "Pascal's Wager." And you'll discover if you study it that it has a whale of a lot of logical flaws. Among other things, it presumes that God approves of betting on his existance. And then there's always the problem of "what if there really is a God, but his values aren't what you've assumed they are."

In short, your long message, though I recognized it was composed from the sincerity of your heart, assumed that this very well-read and thoughtful group of people, the non-Christians of TMM, is either an illiterate bunch of rubes or we're deliberately disreputable deniers of your god.

But no worry, because your god will get us for our disagreements. And you know that because you are a messenger of God.

I know that's not the impression you aimed to give, and I'm sure some people didn't get that impression, especially any of your fellow evangelicals. But that's how it reads to me. And that's exactly why I find evangelical religion so grating. You've got the only truth. Everybody else can literally go to hell -- and it matters not one whit whether hell is defined as boiling oil or separation from God. You believe that hell is an unspeakable thing, and you're intending to be eternally happy even as millions of other people -- perhaps even your own parents or children -- are being tortured for all eternity.

Sorry, I just couldn't be happy under those circumstances. I'd be too worried about the sufferers, and there'd be no way I could persuade myself they deserved that while I deserved to sit on a cloud or whatever. And I wouldn't want to share eternity with people who could be in bliss while such pain was being inflicted on millions of good folk.

So no, I don't blame you for feeling that you and your faith have been insulted. But as I said ... that goes both ways.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Clip Johnson on November 03, 2009, 07:15:31 pm
Claire, I sincerely thank you for pointing that out. I guess I did come across as being pretty 'Holy-er than Thou' and insulting in my reply. I truly didn't mean to come across as such, but as I said, I'm simply not that proficient with my writing skills, and it surely comes through. I really should have looked at my post a little more closely before submitting it so as to better word it without coming across as I did. But yes, you are indeed correct that what I was writing did in fact come from the heart, with the exception of talking down to or being insulting towards anyone. And for that I sincerely apologize for to you Claire, and everyone else who was offended by my remarks.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Claire on November 03, 2009, 07:26:17 pm
Claire, I sincerely thank you for pointing that out. I guess I did come across as being pretty 'Holy-er than Thou' and insulting in my reply. I truly didn't mean to come across as such, but as I said, I'm simply not that proficient with my writing skills, and it surely comes through. I really should have looked at my post a little more closely before submitting it so as to better word it without coming across as I did. But yes, you are indeed correct that what I was writing did in fact come from the heart, with the exception of talking down to or being insulting towards anyone. And for that I sincerely apologize for to you Claire, and everyone else who was offended by my remarks.

Clip Johnson, you are a very nice person and on a better day I'll promise not to be so hard on you. Apologies more than accepted and for my part, I apologize for my own waspish tone.

Wherever else you and I might disagree, it's clear that you have one sterling Christian virtue -- humility.

You've got me beat there, I'm afraid.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: padre29 on November 03, 2009, 07:55:28 pm
*Sigh.*
With deep sadness, I have to agree with the anti-Christian sentiment.
I was raised in a Christian home and have had a relationship with God since before I can remember.  But Christians have done some horrible things to me and people around me.  That's just my personal experience, to say nothing of the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.  Most Christians, if pushed, reveal themselves to be hypocrites.
That said, most Christians that I know personally are decent people who want to make the world around them a better place.  Unfortunately they think that one of the ways they have to do that is to support things like the drug war, anti-immigration laws and practices, and honor the veterans that are "fighting for our freedoms."

A great lie was perpetrated, and the people bought into it.  Lack of courage, lack of thought, lack of integrity...I don't know.

Well I find myself in the camp of supporting (or whatever the term of art may be) the military people who do go and fight the Empire's wars, not out of some misplaced sense of Patriotism, rather out of an appreciation for their misplaced idealism.

In my view, they have large amounts of courage to go overseas and potentially be killed or maimed or what have you, that said, it is disheartening that more don't return with Eyes that have been Opened.

Perhaps oddly, I've attended a Church service maybe 5 times in my life, most were for funerals, and a baptism of a friend's child, perhaps that is why I find myself convicted that Faith is not hostile to freedom, perhaps because I don't see the carnage of the sausage making that is Religion?

As for the historical things, I would point out that A)Government has killed tens of millions B) at least wars back then were "honest" in the sense that the "Heroic conquering army of the lord almighty so and so" got to keep all the spoils they could carry, at least there was a profit motive and not just an idealistic one in support of some .Gov somewhere.

As for "Believe or you are going to HELL!!!!!!

I've always found that to be the most curious complaint, "if" there is no Deity, then there is no "hell", whomever says that may as well say "repent or you are going to Disneyworld for all eternity"... :laugh:

Lew Rockwell had a great article up about how Judeo Christian religions are both founded on State persecution of it's adherents, in a way Islam was as well (the Haji), but instead of learning from the lesson of what it is like for the State to grind under it's heel, all three decided what was needed was to "become" the State so they could do the grinding.

And for all that Paul had written, it was mentioned that 'you are Citizens of a different Kingdom' no matter what State currently was treating one as chattel property.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on November 03, 2009, 08:06:56 pm
Quote
all three decided what was needed was to "become" the State so they could do the grinding.

yeah..................that says an awful lot.............but I'll leave it to the readers to decide what it says an awful lot about.......
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: padre29 on November 03, 2009, 08:28:28 pm
Quote
all three decided what was needed was to "become" the State so they could do the grinding.

yeah..................that says an awful lot.............but I'll leave it to the readers to decide what it says an awful lot about.......

That is what typically happens, if the proto "freedom" efforts in the West are looked at, from the Magna Charta to the Diet at Worms to the Constitution, freedom/rights/dignity are typically reserved for a class of victors who dictate their own freedoms..
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on November 03, 2009, 08:57:17 pm
Yeah...............and what about "this" freedom movement?
Is that where it's headed?...........with folks who once were ground under the boot grinding others under the same boot with a different foot inside it?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Rarick on November 04, 2009, 06:37:34 am
Quote
1.  Every group has it's share of assholes.  It's a requirement.  While it is necessary to understand that any group cannot be wholly regarded by the nature of its assholes, there is value to be found in how that group deals with its assholes.

A very true statement.  If whatever group you belong to does not have any asshole the most very likely you are, in fact, that asshole. 

 :laugh: Very good, Who...me?! I thought scarmig's post was pretty much spot on, but I hope he'll consider adding this as a corollary to "Scarmig's Law."

Reminds me of an old poem (origin unknown) that I sometimes use to keep myself humble:

See the happy moron.
He doesn't give a damn.
I wish I were a moron.
By god, perhaps I am!

Scarmig's Law?  Not in the wiki, Edumacate me?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Claire on November 04, 2009, 07:41:01 am
Scarmig's Law?  Not in the wiki, Edumacate me?


Very smart of you to check the wiki, Rarick. Scarmig's Law isn't there, but maybe somebody will want to add it.

I just made the name up on the spot, referring to scarmig's multi-point post above, where he said (paraphrase) "Every group contains at least one asshole."

Sounds like a nameable law to me. And Who...me?'s comment that if you don't see the asshole in the group it's most likely you is an excellent corollary.  :laugh: I believe I've been in that position a time or two.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Silver on November 04, 2009, 09:19:43 am
...on a better day I'll promise not to be so hard on you.

Yah, probably best not to discuss this on laundry days (http://thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?topic=22702.msg307620#msg307620)!   ^_^

Peace,

Silver
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Claire on November 04, 2009, 09:40:53 am
As for "Believe or you are going to HELL!!!!!!

I've always found that to be the most curious complaint, "if" there is no Deity, then there is no "hell", whomever says that may as well say "repent or you are going to Disneyworld for all eternity"... :laugh:

 :laugh: To a committed atheist, the threat of hell is indeed meaningless. But the threat of Disneyland might not be so bad.

OTOH, to somebody who's seeking answers and believes in the possibility of a deity, it's a cruel threat. It's also a very arrogant statement. Anybody who claims to know for sure that he's going to heaven and those who simply disagree with him are going to get the worst sort of punishment, forever and ever, world without end, amen, could be said to be suffering from a severe case of pride. And we all know what pride "goeth before."
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Claire on November 04, 2009, 09:41:56 am
...on a better day I'll promise not to be so hard on you.

Yah, probably best not to discuss this on laundry days (http://thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?topic=22702.msg307620#msg307620)!   ^_^

Sigh. Yeah. I was on kind of a roll yesterday, and not necessarily a good one.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Lenny on November 04, 2009, 10:13:18 am
Sorry, my Christian friends, but I've always perceived Christianity to be among the most authoritarian religions (next, perhaps, to Islam). I know some people say that by worshipping G*d, they resist worshipping the state. But to me, once you've learned to bow the knee to one outside authority figure, you've learned to bow the knee to authority figures, period. IMHO it's a bad habit of mind, no matter where you place your unquestioning loyalties.

Lots of Christians fit that description, it's true. It's pretty hard to find someone who will submit to one authority (say, God) but reject other authorities. For most, submitting to God and submitting to the Church and government are all wrapped up together.

For a very few, it works oppositely. Taking God as my authority sets the bar; anyone aspiring to be an authority in my life is out of luck unless he can beat God in a cage match. He being infinite and all, that's not just a little challenge--when Obama (or anyone else) offers himself as my Messiah, they don't just lose, "Better luck next time." Their attempt to assume God's role in my life is infinitely blasphemous, and makes them infinitely worse criminals than a mere murderer or rapist. One consequence of that, however, is that I'm not widely regarded as Christian at all, because I also reject the authority of the Church. When it tells me three is one and one is three, I tell it to go get stuffed, and it tells me I'm going to hell. When I tell them Catholic hell is a myth, and biblical hell is a metaphor, they tell me I'm getting the extra hot and nasty spot in hell.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: padre29 on November 04, 2009, 10:41:11 am
Sorry, my Christian friends, but I've always perceived Christianity to be among the most authoritarian religions (next, perhaps, to Islam). I know some people say that by worshipping G*d, they resist worshipping the state. But to me, once you've learned to bow the knee to one outside authority figure, you've learned to bow the knee to authority figures, period. IMHO it's a bad habit of mind, no matter where you place your unquestioning loyalties.

Lots of Christians fit that description, it's true. It's pretty hard to find someone who will submit to one authority (say, God) but reject other authorities. For most, submitting to God and submitting to the Church and government are all wrapped up together.

For a very few, it works oppositely. Taking God as my authority sets the bar; anyone aspiring to be an authority in my life is out of luck unless he can beat God in a cage match. He being infinite and all, that's not just a little challenge--when Obama (or anyone else) offers himself as my Messiah, they don't just lose, "Better luck next time." Their attempt to assume God's role in my life is infinitely blasphemous, and makes them infinitely worse criminals than a mere murderer or rapist. One consequence of that, however, is that I'm not widely regarded as Christian at all, because I also reject the authority of the Church. When it tells me three is one and one is three, I tell it to go get stuffed, and it tells me I'm going to hell. When I tell them Catholic hell is a myth, and biblical hell is a metaphor, they tell me I'm getting the extra hot and nasty spot in hell.

More or less Lenny, though I have no problem with a Trinity concept, and I also somewhat think the "Church" will ebb and flow over time, not become a Monolith that is "infalliable" no matter how corrupt it becomes.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: dogsledder54 on November 04, 2009, 07:24:17 pm

Scarmig's Law?  Not in the wiki, Educate me?



I'm paraphrasing  now, but I believe it is "Smash a guitar, go to JAIL.".
  ;-]
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: padre29 on November 04, 2009, 08:50:24 pm
As for "Believe or you are going to HELL!!!!!!

I've always found that to be the most curious complaint, "if" there is no Deity, then there is no "hell", whomever says that may as well say "repent or you are going to Disneyworld for all eternity"... :laugh:

 :laugh: To a committed atheist, the threat of hell is indeed meaningless. But the threat of Disneyland might not be so bad.

OTOH, to somebody who's seeking answers and believes in the possibility of a deity, it's a cruel threat. It's also a very arrogant statement. Anybody who claims to know for sure that he's going to heaven and those who simply disagree with him are going to get the worst sort of punishment, forever and ever, world without end, amen, could be said to be suffering from a severe case of pride. And we all know what pride "goeth before."

With that Claire, I believe there is a gentle meeting of the wills to be made, those who look for a Creator and those who are certain they "know" one.

Let me ask you, or anyone who cares to respond, assuming there is a Deity/Creator, what does one suppose they would have mankind say or do?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: suijurisfreeman on November 05, 2009, 09:05:47 am
If there is a 'creator'/deity/god why should we assume that human beings mean diddly-squat to said 'creator'/deity/god?  In my opinion we (human beings) are a fly-speck of shit on a gnats ass in the over-all scheme of things in this universe.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Claire on November 05, 2009, 09:13:48 am
Let me ask you, or anyone who cares to respond, assuming there is a Deity/Creator, what does one suppose they would have mankind say or do?

Suijurisfreeman said it pretty well for me. When I think of the vastness and strangeness of the universe, I can -- at best -- think that humans are nothing to any creator but stuff growing in a cosmic petri dish in a giant scientific experiment. More likely, we're even less significant than that.

WHY would an unimaginable creature (or committee of creatures, as I sometimes think) who created billions of galaxies billions of years ago even notice a little byblow that appeared a few thousand years ago on one tiny planet in one obscure corner of the universe -- let alone want to have personal relationships with those infinitely insignificant creatures or want to punish us for our interactions with each other?

Being that I'm still a seeker and still consider the possibility of deities, I sometimes imagine a localized god -- a fifth-assistant sub-god, if you will, keeping tabs on earth. But that's about as close as I can come to imagining why a deity would even notice us, let alone give us orders.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: freewoman on November 05, 2009, 09:30:36 am
I'm in the "spiritual but not religious" category, and am leaning toward the clockmaker idea.  There may have been a Source, or Prime Creator, that at some point wound it all up and let 'er fly.  But I'm not sure he/she/it has anything to do with us out here in the back 40.  In other words, I might be willing to accept a creator god/dess/being, but not necessarily one who is personally involved in the lives of his/her/its creation.

Jesus said "the kingdom of God is within you".  Several spiritual belief systems speak of the "divine spark", or "divine seed", within humans.  It's possible that we have the potential to experience "god" all on our own, within ourselves.  In some ways, this is a secular humanist sort of argument.  I see it as an individualist position.  I choose to believe certain things about myself as an individual.  No connection to any religious system necessary.  This also allows me to let others find their own truth, because my truth isn't dependent upon anyone else agreeing with me.  It also lets me take my time to evolve, and to change my mind if necessary (as I receive new data), because neither is my truth dependent upon what anyone else thinks.  I am the arbiter of my own spirituality, my own thoughts, my own decisions.  I am responsible for the consequences of my actions, and I create my own ideas.

However, I would say that if there is such a thing as God (or Goddess), as in a supreme being, he/she/it would not be definable by human standards.  Humans have a tendency to define God as some sort of super-human, which is very limiting and puts God in a box of human creation.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Silver on November 05, 2009, 09:43:21 am
Giving orders is what governments do, and when religions start giving orders, it is generally in the service of the state, not their god.

I've long struggled with the notion that if there is a god, it requires weekly acts of obeisance, observance of various rituals, etc.  Being honest and not hurting others is one thing, avoiding certain foods, attending weekly rituals (no matter what they are called), wearing certain clothing, it's a bit much.

An all-powerful, all-knowing being that requires such constant kow-towing by its vastly inferior creations strikes me as rather pathetic.  I get the image of a spoiled child-god who is teasing the pets while the parents aren't paying attention.

If it pleases Christians or Muslims or Jews to perform certain rituals to reinforce their faith, good for them.  But the number of people I've met who actually practice the rather plainly stated teachings of Christ can be counted on one hand.  The overwhelming majority not only ignore the beam in their own eye, but jump right to telling me that I'll be damned for not observing their rituals.

It would be funny if so many people weren't killed because of it.

Peace,

Silver
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on November 05, 2009, 09:48:45 am
Quote
I am the arbiter of my own spirituality, my own thoughts, my own decisions.  I am responsible for the consequences of my actions, and I create my own ideas.

Indeed, freewoman.

But consider this... the creator of the unimaginable universe, and every possible alternate universe, has the "capacity" to do absolutely anything whether we can imagine it or not. And that includes the capacity to care about each and every individual human being who ever lived.

Why is the limitless reach of the universe (or however many there might be) within the realm of possibility of the creator, but we decide to limit that creator to what we can imagine as possible in other things? Wow!

Those who choose not to seek that relationship are certainly free to do so. If we were NOT free to determine such things for ourselves, we would probably have been created very differently.

I choose, therefore I am free to choose... In order to be truly free, however, I must accept and cope with the natural consequence of my choices - even when the consequence is not clear before I choose. Lots of things in life work that way... 
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Claire on November 05, 2009, 10:41:49 am
An all-powerful, all-knowing being that requires such constant kow-towing by its vastly inferior creations strikes me as rather pathetic.  I get the image of a spoiled child-god who is teasing the pets while the parents aren't paying attention.

Yes. That, too.

It's certainly within the realm of possibility, as MamaLiberty says, that there could be a vast creator of this vast universe that had the capacity to care about, and even love, each creature in it.

If you believe that ... no argument. If you want me to believe that ... "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

It would actually be wonderful to believe in such a deity.

To then envision that deity issuing orders about whether we can flip light switches on Saturday or eat meat on Friday ... or especially to imagine that deity ordering us to slaughter all the men, women, children, and livestock of the tribe that lives over the hill ... that just doesn't mesh with the perception of such a vastly loving creator.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on November 05, 2009, 01:18:42 pm
And on the 8th day, man recreated God in his own image, and imbued in this God all the virtues and vices of it's creators, thus that the creators might do as they will or do as they want with their own blessings......

A couple days later they got booted out of eden, or maybe they didn't, maybe eden just went away and turned into Iraq.............not for eating an "apple", and not for seeking knowledge, and not even for being disobedient, but for proclaiming themselves through their creation, to be God........and if God's they are.............well, then they're on their own..............and on their own they'll stay as long as they worship this God that they've created and imbued with all the virtues and vices of men................

Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on November 05, 2009, 01:28:58 pm
Quote
To then envision that deity issuing orders about whether we can flip light switches on Saturday or eat meat on Friday ... or especially to imagine that deity ordering us to slaughter all the men, women, children, and livestock of the tribe that lives over the hill ... that just doesn't mesh with the perception of such a vastly loving creator.

Well, Claire, I have a warm and personal relationship with God (as I know him, of course) and I don't give any consideration to all those things you mention. They are not in any way what my God expects from me. Knowing HIM, it is clear to me that none of those things come from HIM, or are compatible with his nature.

His command, which I believe is universal, is to love our neighbor as ourself, not to initiate force or fraud against anyone, and to be responsible for our own lives and choices. I create my own immediate and painful hell, right here and now, whenever I neglect or ignore those things.

I don't need anyone to interpret it for me, or mediate it for me, or remind me to be "good." I have chosen this way, and walking in that way is the only place I find peace and joy. How could I ask for more from either God or myself?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Claire on November 05, 2009, 03:32:45 pm
Quote
To then envision that deity issuing orders about whether we can flip light switches on Saturday or eat meat on Friday ... or especially to imagine that deity ordering us to slaughter all the men, women, children, and livestock of the tribe that lives over the hill ... that just doesn't mesh with the perception of such a vastly loving creator.

Well, Claire, I have a warm and personal relationship with God (as I know him, of course) and I don't give any consideration to all those things you mention. They are not in any way what my God expects from me. Knowing HIM, it is clear to me that none of those things come from HIM, or are compatible with his nature.

It must be great to be completely confident that you have the love and philosophical support of a benevolent deity. I envy that, truly.

But when I've sought personal contact with God, nothing even remotely godlike has ever answered. And believe me, I've tried for many years, in many ways.

As you know, I can find truth only in two ways: one is by obtaining solid facts and data; the other is by experiencing something for myself.

If there's a God out there who has personal relationships with you or others on these forums, more power to you. But he has simply never wanted to have one with me.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: freewoman on November 05, 2009, 03:50:50 pm
Quote
To then envision that deity issuing orders about whether we can flip light switches on Saturday or eat meat on Friday ... or especially to imagine that deity ordering us to slaughter all the men, women, children, and livestock of the tribe that lives over the hill ... that just doesn't mesh with the perception of such a vastly loving creator.

Well, Claire, I have a warm and personal relationship with God (as I know him, of course) and I don't give any consideration to all those things you mention. They are not in any way what my God expects from me. Knowing HIM, it is clear to me that none of those things come from HIM, or are compatible with his nature.

His command, which I believe is universal, is to love our neighbor as ourself, not to initiate force or fraud against anyone, and to be responsible for our own lives and choices. I create my own immediate and painful hell, right here and now, whenever I neglect or ignore those things.

I don't need anyone to interpret it for me, or mediate it for me, or remind me to be "good." I have chosen this way, and walking in that way is the only place I find peace and joy. How could I ask for more from either God or myself?

Of course, you couldn't ask more from God or yourself.  Your lovely expression of personal faith is all one could properly ask, because it expresses your truth as you understand it, right now.   However, in a way, you're proving what several of us have said in this thread!  Because many people who purport to believe in God do initiate force or fraud against others (often in the name of God); they refuse to be responsible for their own lives (claiming to have been influenced by the devil or other external entity instead of facing their own issues); they regularly condemn to hell the people they claim to love; they interpret God's word (whether written or inferred) for others, and insist that a mediator is necessary; they remind others to be good, often conveniently forgetting to follow that way themselves.  I am able to write "many" here because I was one of those folks.  And I spent a long time hanging around those folks, in a variety of leadership positions.  I know whereof I speak.

If every individual who claimed to believe in God followed a similar set of guidelines in their pursuit of faith, dear friend MamaLiberty, this world would be a very different place. 
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on November 05, 2009, 04:15:09 pm
I understand exquisitely the oppression and irrational behavior of so many "christians," among many others. I was raised in "the church" and spent years as a Carmelite nun. I came to my relationship with God through the very valley of the shadow of death. That path was long, hard and sometimes brutal.

I wish I could share the peace and joy I've found, but it seems to be a journey that each one must make for themselves. Sort of like understanding liberty, justice and self ownership. We each come to it in our own way and time... if ever.

I found it when I stopped dictating the terms, stopped letting others dictate them, stopped caring what other people thought and did about it... and just lived the principles.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: padre29 on November 05, 2009, 04:24:37 pm
If there is a 'creator'/deity/god why should we assume that human beings mean diddly-squat to said 'creator'/deity/god?  In my opinion we (human beings) are a fly-speck of shit on a gnats ass in the over-all scheme of things in this universe.

Really? So "man" may as well be featherless chickens, there is nothing special nor inherent about mankind nor can their be anything along the lines "inalienable" anything, just power and it's application.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Jarel on November 05, 2009, 04:27:27 pm
I seem to have generated quite a stir with my posts on this subject, so first off let me say that my purpose was not to generate any ill feeling amongst Christians of good heart, rather to (in one case) show the true nature of a particular church and its power players. In another it was to illustrate what I believe to be a major inconsistency in one man's argument, and his particular arrogance, and the weapon which the Bible can be when used by disingenuous people. I stand behind the things I said in those posts within the confines of that clarity. Of irony is that, since the process of social "purification" is the brainchild of the triad of Catholic/Jewish/Islamic heads of faith, and we are still, in this age, embroiled in "holy war". How it is that anyone still wants to be a proud member of any of these organizations is beyond me; reverence of all life is one of the basic tenets of religion, yet otherwise good Christians are killing Muslims for Christ, and hating Jews for Christ, and so on, back and forth.  The concept of choice figures heavily here, as no one actually makes anyone go to war, and we all choose what's salient in our decisionmaking. And it does say, "Thou shalt not kill" without any mitigating factors like "unless your President tells you to".
I, too, am in the category of 'spiritual not religious'. I work every day to make relationships better, to do the right thing when it's not as easy, to be honest with myself and others when it's not as easy, and to love. That is the root of my problem, if any, with the God-concept: that so many individual views of God are inherently overbearing, jealous, and just plain mean. But that goes back to the church role in developing the concept; if there is a Creator, I'm pretty sure he's pissed at the College of Cardinals.
"His command, which I believe is universal, is to love our neighbor as ourself, not to initiate force or fraud against anyone, and to be responsible for our own lives and choices. I create my own immediate and painful hell, right here and now, whenever I neglect or ignore those things."--ML

Again, sorry for any undue strain; I could use a little refining with the timbre of my message, and I will try to be less absolutist and bald in the future.
Really interesting posts on this sub, by the way. Very thought-provoking

Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: freewoman on November 05, 2009, 04:34:51 pm
If there is a 'creator'/deity/god why should we assume that human beings mean diddly-squat to said 'creator'/deity/god?  In my opinion we (human beings) are a fly-speck of shit on a gnats ass in the over-all scheme of things in this universe.

Really? So "man" may as well be featherless chickens, there is nothing special nor inherent about mankind nor can their be anything along the lines "inalienable" anything, just power and it's application.

How do you jump from the separation of man from deity to the separation of man from inalienable rights?  You appear to be saying that rights can only come from God.  Since God cannot be proved (or disproved, for that matter), then the logical extension is that rights cannot be proved.  (That might actually be the case, but that's a topic for another thread.)
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Claire on November 05, 2009, 05:24:21 pm
Really? So "man" may as well be featherless chickens, there is nothing special nor inherent about mankind nor can their be anything along the lines "inalienable" anything, just power and it's application.

Padre, it's clear that you believe that a creator granted rights, so without a creator ... no rights.

But that doesn't necessarily follow from anyone else's perspective. Humans still have human nature, regardless of where it came from. And natural rights can be derived from human nature, creator or no creator.

Please don't impute to others conclusions that you're drawing only in your own mind.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: somedude on November 05, 2009, 06:10:21 pm
While there are many ontological and deontological arguments for natural rights I will posit that the egoist view of rights and the Judeo-Christian view of rights are essentially the same. The egoist maintains, in theory, that the only inalienable rights are those of might and of contract (the right of contract being enforced via the right of might). The Christian view of rights, is practice, is no different. The theological basis for “natural rights” is based on various biblical commandments that came about as a result of Abraham’s (and later, Jesus’) contract with God. That the biblical God had little respect for the rights of non-Israelites (and the argument could be made he had little respect for the rights of Israelites, e.g. the golden calf incident, etc.), is proved in numerous instances most notably of which is the Exodus and invasion of the promised land.

The idea that inalienable rights can only come from God is true and false. For rights to truly be inalienable some supernatural hand would have to be a work, and as of today there is no such magic (either for believers or non-believers as a group). If a stronger party desires to overcome a weaker party all the religious, or well reasoned deontological, natural rights arguments will not prevent it from overcoming a weaker party. The only difference is theologically an angry God will exact justice, at some from future point, whereas the egoist has only the law of causality, and that of contract for retribution. Rights are still either non-existent, or a product of contract, as God (if we are to believe fundamentalist theologians) violates the rights of all those who don’t contract with him, by punishing them eternally in a lake of fire, not just those who violate the rights of others.

So the argument that without a God (in the Judeo-Christian sense) there is no basis for natural rights is equally applicable to its dialectical opposite, chiefly that with a God (in the Judeo-Christian sense) there is no basis for natural rights.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: padre29 on November 05, 2009, 08:33:29 pm
Really? So "man" may as well be featherless chickens, there is nothing special nor inherent about mankind nor can their be anything along the lines "inalienable" anything, just power and it's application.

Padre, it's clear that you believe that a creator granted rights, so without a creator ... no rights.

But that doesn't necessarily follow from anyone else's perspective. Humans still have human nature, regardless of where it came from. And natural rights can be derived from human nature, creator or no creator.

Please don't impute to others conclusions that you're drawing only in your own mind.


Ah, however without a Creator grant of dignatas, there is no overarching claim that "man is supposed to be free" only opinions, and once it boils down to mere opinion, then any claim to freedom boils down to power, and who has the most power and whether or not they are willing to use it.

The harshest jackboot in some hellhole like N. Korea has their opinion as well.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Claire on November 05, 2009, 09:14:22 pm
Ah, however without a Creator grant of dignatas, there is no overarching claim that "man is supposed to be free" only opinions, and once it boils down to mere opinion, then any claim to freedom boils down to power, and who has the most power and whether or not they are willing to use it.

The harshest jackboot in some hellhole like N. Korea has their opinion as well.

But the idea of a creator can never be proven to be more than opinion, either.

Right here in this thread, we have MamaLiberty's benevolent, freedom-supporting creator and Clip Johnson's send-you-to-hell creator. There's George W. Bush's God-wants-me-to-whack-Iraq creator and the God-hates-fags creator of that crazy bunch that pickets military funerals.

No doubt there are religious liberals who think that their creator created rights to housing, food,the  minimum wage, and medical care, and religious conservatives who think that their creator created rights to crack down on everyone else's morality.

So positing a creator hardly clarifies any questions of rights. It only raises as many questions as does positing a lack of a creator.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on November 05, 2009, 09:28:55 pm
Quote
But the idea of a creator can never be proven to be more than opinion, either.

no...............it can't..............
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Lenny on November 05, 2009, 09:32:57 pm
But the idea of a creator can never be proven to be more than opinion, either.

Mostly true. I can't prove it conclusively, anyway. But technically there's an exception: if God Himself wants to convince you, then presumably he could do a pretty damn good job of convincing. Discussion and debate will never settle the matter conclusively, but the second coming would.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: padre29 on November 05, 2009, 09:51:47 pm
Ah, however without a Creator grant of dignatas, there is no overarching claim that "man is supposed to be free" only opinions, and once it boils down to mere opinion, then any claim to freedom boils down to power, and who has the most power and whether or not they are willing to use it.

The harshest jackboot in some hellhole like N. Korea has their opinion as well.

But the idea of a creator can never be proven to be more than opinion, either.

Right here in this thread, we have MamaLiberty's benevolent, freedom-supporting creator and Clip Johnson's send-you-to-hell creator. There's George W. Bush's God-wants-me-to-whack-Iraq creator and the God-hates-fags creator of that crazy bunch that pickets military funerals.

No doubt there are religious liberals who think that their creator created rights to housing, food,the  minimum wage, and medical care, and religious conservatives who think that their creator created rights to crack down on everyone else's morality.

So positing a creator hardly clarifies any questions of rights. It only raises as many questions as does positing a lack of a creator.

Disagree, if one accepts the idea of Creator then it would follow that what ideas that were instilled by such a fact would then have to have priority over mere opinion, for example the decalog would then not be a creation of mere opinon such as a Mao  or a Nietzche or even a Spooner could possibly have to say.

Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Claire on November 05, 2009, 09:57:43 pm
Mostly true. I can't prove it conclusively, anyway. But technically there's an exception: if God Himself wants to convince you, then presumably he could do a pretty damn good job of convincing.

True, no doubt -- although God, if he's out there, doesn't seem to be so inclined.

Quote
Discussion and debate will never settle the matter conclusively, but the second coming would.

Well, I hate to say it, but if Jesus himself came down from the sky in a cloud of glory accompanied by trumpeting angels, I can still see the dialog on freedomista forums:

"He's come back!"

"No, you moron. It's nothing but an illusion cooked up by the CIA."

"I heard Alex Jones say it's the antichrist."

"No, no, it's nothing but a gigantic media manipulation designed to cover up [name of current president's] latest corruption scandal."

Lenny, I agree God could persuade every one of us, if he's there and if he wished. But I think a small, but very definite, whisper in every ear would do it better than Deity Descending.  :laugh:

Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Claire on November 05, 2009, 10:01:10 pm
Disagree, if one accepts the idea of Creator then it would follow that what ideas that were instilled by such a fact would then have to have priority over mere opinion, for example the decalog would then not be a creation of mere opinon such as a Mao  or a Nietzche or even a Spooner could possibly have to say.

But how is one absolutely certain of which ideas, which rights, which commandments, etc. come from THE creator and which are merely the products of men. That has to be taken on faith.

And to complicate matters even further, it appears to me that nobody on earth shares exactly the same faith and/or beliefs with any other -- as per my examples above. Everybody believes in a slightly -- or radically -- different creator.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: suijurisfreeman on November 05, 2009, 10:17:01 pm
"Discussion and debate will never settle the matter conclusively, but the second coming would."

Second coming   :huh:  Christians have been proclaiming the 'second coming' since the Jewish man Jesus died and was buried.
They brought 'spices' to the grave to cover the stench of his rotting corpse as was the Jewish custom  (once the flesh rotted off the bones the bones were collected and then placed in another location or a stone box).  Humans who have been dead for three days don't come back to life.  The Jewish man Jesus is dead, he ain't coming back!
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: RagnarDanneskjold on November 06, 2009, 09:04:04 am
...
But it's still creepy to live among people you know would like to stone you to death, if only society would give them permission to.



I just don't think that stoning to death thing works. No matter how much I toke, I can't seem to get closer to death than a really serious case of Twinkie-munchies.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: freewoman on November 06, 2009, 09:08:14 am
Hee hee.  However, now you've done it--I have been humming Bob Dylan's Rainy Day Women #12 & 35 all week.  It's on my MP3 player now.  "Everybody must get stoned. . . "
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Claire on November 06, 2009, 09:45:39 am
I just don't think that stoning to death thing works. No matter how much I toke, I can't seem to get closer to death than a really serious case of Twinkie-munchies.

Well, see? Do you KNOW what Twinkies can do to you after years of consumption???

You may discover at age 90 that you have indeed been stoned to death.

 :laugh:
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Rarick on November 06, 2009, 03:22:01 pm
Thou Art GOD - Valentine Michael Smith as channeled by RAH











Sorry about screens, Noses and Keyboards.  This Root Canal Med stuff Is Goooood.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: RagnarDanneskjold on November 06, 2009, 03:33:56 pm
I am god.
You are god.
Three Magic Words by Uell S. Andersen (http://uellandersen.wwwhubs.com/).
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Winston on November 07, 2009, 01:16:29 pm
that crazy bunch that pickets military funerals.

Ahh you did it! You mentioned them!
I have had a silly personal experiment lately to see how long I could go without mentioning Westboro Baptist church in religious debates. I was so temped to use them as an example back when someone brought up the subject of people who would stone you to death. Claire beat me to it.  ^_^
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Claire on November 07, 2009, 01:22:00 pm
that crazy bunch that pickets military funerals.

Ahh you did it! You mentioned them!
I have had a silly personal experiment lately to see how long I could go without mentioning Westboro Baptist church in religious debates. I was so temped to use them as an example back when someone brought up the subject of people who would stone you to death. Claire beat me to it.  ^_^

 :laugh: It sounds as if you have the makings of "Winston's Law." You know, like "Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) that says that in every political discussion someone will eventually evoke the Nazis or  Adolf Hitler? Winston's Law: In every discussion of the pros and cons of religion someone will evoke the Westboro Baptist church or pastor Fred Phelps.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Winston on November 07, 2009, 01:50:28 pm
Yeah, that's exactly along the lines I was thinking. I was going to pretend that something as fucktarded as Westboro doesn't exsist; just to challenge myself to use different arguments and stuff for awhile, I do stuff like that a lot.

Speaking of Godwins law, there's another forum I go on that has effectively banned invoking it. You can still do it, but they have a word filter where if you type in 'nazi' or 'hitler' it will come out as "I just lost the argument, Bravo wise opponent!"
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on November 07, 2009, 04:58:09 pm
Yeah, that's exactly along the lines I was thinking. I was going to pretend that something as fucktarded as Westboro doesn't exsist; just to challenge myself to use different arguments and stuff for awhile, I do stuff like that a lot.

Speaking of Godwins law, there's another forum I go on that has effectively banned invoking it. You can still do it, but they have a word filter where if you type in 'nazi' or 'hitler' it will come out as "I just lost the argument, Bravo wise opponent!"

That is great - they need to add 'nuf said to that filter - it could say "I'm to stubborn, lazy and out of logic to continue"
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Winston on November 07, 2009, 05:03:29 pm
They had one for awhile to filter out '+1'. Too many people would just quote a post and put '+1' under it in agreement, the filter would change it to "I heartily agree with the sentiment expressed in the post above, but I am incapable of making a reply with more than two characters" or something along those lines
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: gaurdduck on November 07, 2009, 06:20:48 pm
that crazy bunch that pickets military funerals.

Ahh you did it! You mentioned them!
I have had a silly personal experiment lately to see how long I could go without mentioning Westboro Baptist church in religious debates. I was so temped to use them as an example back when someone brought up the subject of people who would stone you to death. Claire beat me to it.  ^_^

 :laugh: It sounds as if you have the makings of "Winston's Law." You know, like "Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) that says that in every political discussion someone will eventually evoke the Nazis or  Adolf Hitler? Winston's Law: In every discussion of the pros and cons of religion someone will evoke the Westboro Baptist church or pastor Fred Phelps.

Ahhh... The loons were on an radio talk show, where my Uncle called and gave them an earful.
It went something like this:

Church spokesperson: had just finished telling where the next three protests were going to be and when, then asked for caller's questions.

Crazy Uncle: first caller, verifies date and time, says he'll be there early.

Church spokesperson: 'Glad to have you. What is your reason for coming?'

Crazy Uncle: 'I'm retired from the Navy, and I can't stand you people. So when I see you, I'm going to rip your heart out and feed it to you. The same goes for all of you morons.'

Or something like that anyways.

Then a bunch of other military and otherwise called in saying they'd be there too, to help.

They canceled those three protests.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on November 07, 2009, 06:35:05 pm
This thread HAS been off course more than a drunken sailor in a cyclone, but the last few posts sort of take the cake - or the sail, to stretch a metaphor even worse....

Could we sort of, kind of get back on topic or forget about it? :)

Thanks, guys.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on November 07, 2009, 07:32:54 pm
well............I kinda' wonder whether this thread serves any real purpose at all.............except maybe to re-vent intellectual property abortionminarchy/anarchy religion vs atheism...........
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: suijurisfreeman on November 07, 2009, 07:44:13 pm
I think that one would only have to look at early colonial America to see that christianity is definitely opposed to freedom.  Not only was it anti-freedom it cost people their lives!

Isn't it a historical fact (especially in the New England colonies) that crimes against god were often indistinguishable from crimes against persons or property?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Clip Johnson on November 07, 2009, 08:46:48 pm

Right here in this thread, we have MamaLiberty's benevolent, freedom-supporting creator and Clip Johnson's send-you-to-hell creator.

Sorry for just now responding, but my work schedule hasn't permitted to do so until now.

I'm not exactly sure why you are saying that my God is a "send you to hell creator". I'm sorry if I must have perhaps worded things in such a way in any previous posts that would give anyone any indication that was my brief summary of Him. The God I know is Love.

For example, many of us often wonder why God permits evil to flourish as well as allowing so many terrible and tragically sad things to take place in this world. A good case in point is the heartbreaking picture a few years ago in a popular news magazine of a weeping woman in a severely drought stricken area of Africa holding in her arms her small child who’s dying of starvation. How can it be possible that an “all loving” God could ever allow this poor, truly innocent child to die when all that was needed was rain? Without a doubt God must be deeply saddened at such an incident and could very easily bring about the much-needed rain.

Furthermore, why is it that an “all powerful” God doesn’t just step in and put a stop to all the wickedness that takes place each and every day? The truth is God does get involved and change the outcome of a given state of affairs whenever He deems it appropriate. Perhaps the prayers of a righteous person intercede into the situation. But why is it not the case all the time? Why not just create some wondrous miracle and stamp out all anguish and all wickedness?

The answer, I believe, lies in the fact that if God were to intervene into this world by some miraculous event and put and end to all the evil and the suffering going on, most every person who saw such an event would then have to acknowledge that there actually was a God (although even then it is highly likely that not every living soul would). Many would then clearly feel obligated to worship Him and in so doing would no longer have the free-will choice that we now have. It seems very clear to me that God does not want us to love and worship Him without having this free-will choice to do so. Just as a father wants his child to truly and genuinely love him, and not simply because he is the child’s father and that is what’s required, God wants us to love Him because we freely choose to do so otherwise it wouldn’t be a genuine and true love. This, I believe, is the very reason we were created. So our “all loving” God can share and express real and indisputable love with us all.

On another note in response to several posts in this thread: whomever so inclined must be careful in judging Christianity solely based upon Christians that they have met who seemed preachy to them, or hypocritical, or whatever else. You cannot base your theology on your experience or just on a few Christians one has meet who seemed judgmental. Your theology must be based upon a different standard than people you've meet. It's sad, but many who claim to be Christian are not, even Jesus said that (Matt.7:21-23). Your theology must be based on the standard established by the one you have to give an account to. So, to judge Christianity based upon human standard (i.e. comparing yourself with others who claim to be Christian) is missing the point. God will not judge you based upon a comparison between you and another person even if that person is a Christian. God judges us based upon His standard, the Ten Commandments. In fact Paul argues this very point in the epistle to the Galatians chapter 3:16-29. The Ten Commandments were given to us so that we might see how far short we fall, or don't measure up to God's standard. So that we might see the need for Christ as our Savior.

There is no doubt that Christians should live "like Christ" and bear both a verbal and non-verbal positive witness for Him, but the sad fact is that some don't. But, I remind you again, one cannot measure Christianity based upon Christ's followers alone, rather one's measure must be Christ. Examine what Christ taught and the way he lived his life, that is the real measuring stick to measure the Christian faith, not some weak faithed fleshly so called Christian who never studies the Bible and rarely prays except when he needs something from God. Who thinks he knows all there is to know about God, Christ, The Holy Spirit, and the Church, when in fact he knows NOTHING!
 
Jesus and the New Testament tell us about REAL FREEDOM. Real freedom comes from a personal intimate realtionship with God through faith in His Son Jesus Christ (read John 8:32-36; Romans 5,6,7,8; Galatians 4:21-5:1; 1 Peter 2:15-16) Sin brings bondage, but Christ breaks sins hold and sets us free (Romans 6:6-14).

And BTW Claire, I am aware of "Pascal's Wager", but my referencing it wasn't in an attempt to validate my findings by the mentioning of it. What I was trying to emphasize was - after becoming aware of it, it was the beginning of the process that started me to thinking about the situation and hence on my path to seeking the truth of the matter. And I'm still learning and evolving daily, but please keep in mind (before you possibly beat me about the upper-head and thorax  :thrbiggrin:) that I don't consider my self any where near perfect, nor have all the answers.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: gaurdduck on November 07, 2009, 08:57:16 pm
I think that one would only have to look at early colonial America to see that christianity is definitely opposed to freedom.  Not only was it anti-freedom it cost people their lives!

Isn't it a historical fact (especially in the New England colonies) that crimes against god were often indistinguishable from crimes against persons or property?

Isn't that response kinda emotional? Where is the logic? So they had made sinning against the law. Big whoop.
I know it sucked, but get over it, it was a long time ago. Lots of religious people try to make their religion the
only legal one supposedly for the greater good. The pinkos do the same with atheism. In the former Soviet Union
it was illegal to be religious. I don't see the difference. In Alaska it is illegal to look at a moose from the window of
an airplane.

Every belief system or lack therof has cost people their lives. So to make an argument against any one of them by
saying "Not only was it anti-freedom it cost people their lives!" is an ineffective argument. C'mon, I know you can
do better than that.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: padre29 on November 07, 2009, 11:40:09 pm
This thread HAS been off course more than a drunken sailor in a cyclone, but the last few posts sort of take the cake - or the sail, to stretch a metaphor even worse....

Could we sort of, kind of get back on topic or forget about it? :)

Thanks, guys.

The "topic" was shredded long ago ML, this thread is solely about Christianity now..

I "do" think feel and believe it is a good discussion nonetheless simply because such topics rarely broach the surface in any sort of intellectual way with a give and take and well thought out positions.


Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: padre29 on November 07, 2009, 11:46:35 pm
If there is a 'creator'/deity/god why should we assume that human beings mean diddly-squat to said 'creator'/deity/god?  In my opinion we (human beings) are a fly-speck of shit on a gnats ass in the over-all scheme of things in this universe.

Really? So "man" may as well be featherless chickens, there is nothing special nor inherent about mankind nor can their be anything along the lines "inalienable" anything, just power and it's application.

How do you jump from the separation of man from deity to the separation of man from inalienable rights?  You appear to be saying that rights can only come from God.  Since God cannot be proved (or disproved, for that matter), then the logical extension is that rights cannot be proved.  (That might actually be the case, but that's a topic for another thread.)


Simply do to the ideal of any sort of "inalinable rights" are not "inalienable" if one group of men, or a single man has the power to grant or deny, then they are certainly not inalienable.

As for rights being proven, I think that is a valid point, and would go on to say that perhaps there are internal and self expressed rights, then societal rights, the difference being rights that are internally expressed and rights that Society just cannot override.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on November 08, 2009, 05:18:42 am

Right here in this thread, we have MamaLiberty's benevolent, freedom-supporting creator and Clip Johnson's send-you-to-hell creator.
...
I'm not exactly sure why you are saying that my God is a "send you to hell creator". I'm sorry if I must have perhaps worded things in such a way in any previous posts that would give anyone any indication that was my brief summary of Him. The God I know is Love.

For brevity I snipped the apologetics.

Clip, you seem like a nice guy and I feel bad that you are on the side attempting to work within the framework of the bible to justify a faith system that make you feel good, I feel bad because you will be forced to use circular arguments and in the end have only faith of a personal nature to justify the apologetics.

Sorry Mama Liberty I was guilty of throwing this off topic, but this is about to bring this back to the original in a very stark way.

Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?

I could rephrase this to simply are religions opposed to freedom as is known in our secular government under the constitution.

Simple answer - yes, in a more exact response the three Abrahamic religions are particularly opposed to personal freedom and its expression as known in our original Constitutional formation.

Here is where I feel bad about this, I have to resort to using the "holy books" to make a comparison because the eloquent expression of a personal experience ML puts to our review and your statement of spiritual love cannot be rationally or logically used to make or defend this point as they are personal experiences and can change from person to person and ideal to ideal. But most Christians refer to the Bible as the basis and "law" for the religious beliefs, it is more than just a guide it gives specific commandments and duties that must be followed.

To make this specific to Christianity, basically most of the Christian churches use what is known as the "Bible" there are many versions of this holy book and many of them are quite different and are written in ways that make comparison difficult, particular sects of Christianity use what is often refered to as "King James Only" where only a single version without further modification is used. I find some sects of Christianity very hard to understand and in some cases quite dangerous and repugnant.

Lets start out with the basic idea most Christians will agree with (at least most Fundamentalists)...

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Proverbs 30:5 (King James Version)

That is just a single reference to several that basically state - "This is all true you must believe all of it as is presented to you"

Only to be contradicted by...

How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. - Jeremiah 8:8 (KJV)

And then...

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
- Thessalonians 2:11-12 (KJV)

So God deceives the wicked to be able to condemn them, but then not every word of God can be true. Deceiving anyone at all by teaching from the Bible would then follow that it cannot be trusted if the scribes falsify the word. This points to the Bible inwardly and it cannot be the perfect word of a perfect God.

Here are some specific personal objections I have...

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 - kidnaping of women for sexual use - RAPE - with direct approval.

Deuteronomy 28:15, 30 - do not obey, God will force another man to cuckold you with your wife.

Judges 21:11-12 - Mass MURDER and RAPE as a command, including children, specifically only leaving the virgin girls as sex slaves, death to all others.

Samuel 18:27 - Instead of scalps, the severed foreskins of the murdered enemy - that is just sick. (What is this overwhelming obsession with foreskins?)

Samuel 12:11-12 - Public cuckolding?

Judges 11:30,39, Exodus 22:29 - Human sacrifice.

Numbers 15:32-36 - Don't pray, get stoned to death.

Deuteronomy 17:12 - Show contempt for a judge or priest, death penalty.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 - Woman not a virgin at marriage, death penalty.

Romans 13:1-4, Peter 2:13-14 - Submit to governments and law enforcement, might is justification through God.

1 Corinthians 3:18 - The worship of ignorance (like we need more of that in this country)

The complete subservience of women to their men, often ownership is implied (multiple passages)?

Direct justifications for slavery - sorry, I just cannot agree this is positive.

Multiple generational punishments - sorry, this also is repugnant and counter to logic and fairness.

Burning or killing witches, is a direct commandment.

The list of slaughter, murder, and forced rape are enough to fill two pages, most who have actually read the Bible know them, I can list them if needed, but I don't think that is necessary at this point.

The ideas of young earth creationists are as numerous as they are ridiculous, all of them are Bible based and every single point can be refuted utterly by overwhelming evidence.

The argument that God will not do things that force belief by abject magical events (giving them no chance for "free will" as doubt is removed) is refuted several times in the NT - John 6:24-30 - a crowd of thousands brought to faith by testing?

The prosperity doctrine is particularly revolting to me personally.

In essence you can have a faith in "something" that is based on the Bible, but the inconsistancies and direct contradictions (there are over 200 direct contradictions) but to become an apologist for the "perfect infallible word" puts any of the faithful in an undependable position. The book itself demands full faith in it's perfection - it is either 100% correct or not... under it's own guidelines.

I find it lacking and completely against freedom having too many commandments to breach the freedom of others.

Of the three Abrahamic religions Christianity is most likely the least anti-freedom of the three with the other two neck and neck on offensiveness and repellent nature.

I did not want to get into this because it is of so little importance as long as no one is stoning, raping virgins, or burning witches, as Thomas Jefferson wrote - it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket (what religion a man has faith in). To suggest that the Bible is something it is not is troublesome and I worry that "pious fraud" (lying for a good cause) has become something that is far to common and encouraged by the powers that be, Not that I am accusing anyone on this board in particular of pious fraud (but I see it often in the young earth creationist movement).

Hey, Ted Haggard lives in my state only a few miles from where I live - that makes me sick, in and of itself.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on November 08, 2009, 06:19:59 am
Sadly, worship of "the bible" has replaced any relationship with God in religion of most kinds. I often point out that the first century Christians were focused on  being good neighbors, loving each other and living with integrity. They didn't have a "bible."
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: freewoman on November 08, 2009, 07:22:17 am
Quote
Simply do to the ideal of any sort of "inalinable rights" are not "inalienable" if one group of men, or a single man has the power to grant or deny, then they are certainly not inalienable.

Sorry--does not compute.  Either a right is unalienable or it's not.  If any human can grant or deny a right, it's not unalienable, nor is it a right--it becomes a privilege.  This doesn't answer my question.  Basically what I was asking was, do humans have rights because deity grants them?  Or do they have rights simply because they're human?  if deity grants rights, then they're not rights at all--they're privileges.  The fact that Jefferson related these rights to a Creator doesn't mean we get all our rights from God.  As Radio Flyer has pointed out, the God of the Bible regularly takes those rights away. 
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Lenny on November 08, 2009, 07:56:46 am
Basically what I was asking was, do humans have rights because deity grants them?  Or do they have rights simply because they're human?

Rights are an abstract concept. They don't exist except inside a thinking mind. So humans don't literally have rights the way they have mass or volume or a certain quantity of calcium. You think you have certain rights, and the Powers That Be think you don't. There is no objective, scientific means of verifying which one of you is "right." So no, we definitely don't have rights simply because we're human. When I say I have rights, I mean that I believe I do, and furthermore I'm willing to react violently when they're violated. In addition, that belief of mine has an indefinable, deep-down quality that makes me want to swear that it's really really real, even though I know it isn't. Which is where I like to drag God into it; I externalize that deep-down quality by saying that if God deigned to weigh in on the subject, He'd take my side.

Quote
if deity grants rights, then they're not rights at all--they're privileges.

Quite true. But not important, for a couple of reasons. First, if deity doesn't exist, then our rights are safe: only deity can take them away, and for obvious reasons he won't. If deity exists but is indifferent, then again our rights are safe. Finally, if deity exists and is determined to screw with us, then consider yourself royally screwed anyway. Even if those rights of ours are concrete, objective, real, and come just from being human, how exactly to you propose to sue a supreme being for violating them? Even if deity were in the wrong, it's kinda moot.

As a believer, I'm content with this. ZAP is a law for interaction between humans. It's pretty irrelevant that I think there's a being out there to whom we are effectively cattle, the same way it doesn't bother me that I just ate me some cattle for breakfast. Libertarian theory is about human-human interaction, not human-cow or god-human interaction.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: freewoman on November 08, 2009, 09:08:33 am
Lenny:  We obviously disagree in many respects.  I believe your arguments are quite circular, but you're certainly allowed to have them.  I agree there's no scientific way to verify rights.  Or God, for that matter.  I have already stated that I am (intellectually speaking) an agnostic, because the mind demands proof, and there's no way to "prove" that there's a God--or that there isn't one.  I never suggested "suing a deity for violating rights".  Those are your words, coming from your "libertarian theory".  We are not discussing "libertarian theory".  We are discussing whether or not religion opposes freedom.  I do not believe such an animal as "libertarian theory" exists; it seems to be an oxymoron.  If you choose to follow the dictates of another individual, feel free.  But please do not assume that the rest of us are willing to do the same.  I have great respect for a number of libertarian writers, but I do not take everything they say as holy writ.  Simply invoking "libertarian theory" does not exempt one from thinking for oneself.

The bottom line for me is that I choose my own system of beliefs as an individual.  I do not need external verification of my choices (though my emotions may say otherwise!). 
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Lenny on November 08, 2009, 09:49:02 am
Lenny:  We obviously disagree in many respects.  I believe your arguments are quite circular, but you're certainly allowed to have them.

I'd love to hear your explanation of the circularity. As a PhD mathematician, I'm acutely interested to know exactly where I went wrong if I committed a basic logical fallacy.

Quote
I agree there's no scientific way to verify rights.

Then it looks like you've accepted the exact position I do: if we can't even prove they "exist," because they're abstractions, then asking where they come from is begging the question. (As an aside, "begging the question" is another name for circular reasoning. If I ask where unicorns come from, for example, then I'm smuggling in the assumption that they exist, and hence ultimately any conclusions about unicorns will be circular.)

Quote
I never suggested "suing a deity for violating rights".  Those are your words...

My apologies; I think I confused you. It wasn't on purpose. I'd already finished the question where rights come from, by dismissing it entirely on the grounds that rights are an abstraction and hence don't literally exist. I then pointed out that even if rights did exist as a concrete reality, and if in addition deity happens to exist, then you're basically up shits creek if deity wants to trample your rights, which makes the question rather moot. If deity either doesn't exist, or doesn't trample rights, then the question is also moot. Ergo, the question is 100% moot 100% of the time--whether God exists or not, whether rights exist or not, whether God (if He exists) is benevolent or malevolent.

Quote
We are not discussing "libertarian theory".  We are discussing whether or not religion opposes freedom.

"Freedom" is defined to be "the right not to be aggressed against," which IS libertarian theory. Rights, freedom, ZAP, liberty, and libertarianism (as a philosophy) are essentially synonyms.

Quote
I do not believe such an animal as "libertarian theory" exists; it seems to be an oxymoron.

There's a rich literature. I think you'd find it most interesting.

Quote
If you choose to follow the dictates of another individual, feel free.

That statement reminds me interestingly of the discussion in the "shunning" thread, where some felt compelled to say, "Even though so-and-so deserves shunning, now I can't because someone asked me to and I must be independent." It's a shallow perspective: since rights are an abstraction in human minds, the concept is useless unless shared. You may have some idea what your rights are, without reference to any other beings, but if it leads you to aggress against me, you will be resisted with deadly force. It's better to straighten things out with discourse, wouldn't you say, than to give it a try and judge the results by whether you end up dead or not?

Especially given that humans are evolved from creatures that routinely use aggression. Monkeys aggress all the time, and often mistake non-aggression for aggression. Suppose you notice the last banana on the tree, and decide to go up and get it, and about that time you see me pluck it and eat it. Our shared ape ancestry means you will feel deeply that I've "stolen" a banana of "yours," and you will by powerfully motivated to forcibly "recover" property of "yours" in "self-defense." Unfortunately, it wasn't your banana, I didn't steal it, and your use of force is aggression. Similarly, if I persuaded your significant other to leave you, your genes will almost irresistibly urge you to interpret that as aggression and attack me with "defensive" force. Unfortunately for you, speaking with your significant other is free speech, and your reaction would be aggression. You'd be guilty of a crime, and I'd be in the right to stop you with deadly force. That's our common heritage as balding monkeys. We're hard-wired to get liberty TOTALLY wrong. For that reason, I'm suspicious of anyone who thinks he has a purer conception of liberty because he HASN'T read, discussed or inquired deeply into the matter.

Quote
I have great respect for a number of libertarian writers, but I do not take everything they say as holy writ.  Simply invoking "libertarian theory" does not exempt one from thinking for oneself.

I'm with you 100% on this. Why does "theory" imply "holy writ"? The theory is evolving (just like mathematics), its contributors are fallible (just like mathematics), its conclusions are verifiable (just like mathematics), and ignorance of it is a horrible handicap (just like mathematics  ^_^ ).

Quote
I do not need external verification of my choices (though my emotions may say otherwise!).

Dialog is good. It helps monkeys not be dead.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: padre29 on November 08, 2009, 10:23:36 am

I disagree with you Lenny, at least somewhat, "rights' occur naturally and are not always an abstraction.

For example, when a young child plays with a toy, and another child swipes it away from them, the child's reaction, totally unrehearsed and untaught is to either snatch the toy back, or cry.

Such a child has no concept of property rights as taught, they simply react naturally.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Lenny on November 08, 2009, 10:26:30 am
I disagree with you Lenny, at least somewhat, "rights' occur naturally and are not always an abstraction.

For example, when a young child plays with a toy, and another child swipes it away from them, the child's reaction, totally unrehearsed and untaught is to either snatch the toy back, or cry.

Such a child has no concept of property rights as taught, they simply react naturally.

You're right. I agree that people have a tendency to think some things are "right," like, "I had it first!" The trouble is there's no objective way to say they're right. If they were born with a natural inclination to rape, it wouldn't make rape right. But, hopefully, that natural sense of "fairness" can help us make our case.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: freewoman on November 08, 2009, 11:13:53 am
Quote
I'd already finished the question where rights come from, by dismissing it entirely on the grounds that rights are an abstraction and hence don't literally exist.

Lenny, this is why any "discussion" with you will never go anywhere.  You have already decided you're right, and therefore you do not hear what the other person is trying to say.  I will not argue with you any more about these things, because it's pointless to do so.

A few years ago, one statement by a wise woman helped me see personally-held beliefs much more clearly.  I was in a Unity church class on praying for people in need.  One of the women in the class made a rather shocking statement that was very derogatory toward men.  As the rest of the class gasped in amazement, the minister simply replied, "That is your truth right now."  Wow.  In that one phrase, she said a heck of a lot.  The minister did not deride the woman by telling her she was wrong, or that she needed to deal with her issues (although she obviously did!).  She allowed the woman the freedom to express her viewpoint.  At the same time, by saying, "That is your truth," she did not allow the woman to try to force anyone else to go along with her.  Each person was then able to make his or her own decision on the woman's statement.  Then, by saying "right now", she allowed the woman space to grow, to change her viewpoint as she gained more information.

Of course, someone will most likely claim that truth must be defined.  To which I will say, that is your truth right now.  You are free to be hold your own beliefs; I am free to hold mine. 
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Lenny on November 08, 2009, 12:20:25 pm
Quote
I'd already finished the question where rights come from, by dismissing it entirely on the grounds that rights are an abstraction and hence don't literally exist.

Lenny, this is why any "discussion" with you will never go anywhere.  You have already decided you're right, and therefore you do not hear what the other person is trying to say...

That's not what I said, and I don't understand the need for such a defensive answer.

It's especially confusing given that you've already agreed that rights are an abstraction that different people define differently. Since you've agreed to that, how can you ask where rights "come from"? That's like asking whether ugly people are so by virtue of their inherent ugliness, or because of their "bad genes." The question doesn't make sense, since my idea of "ugly" is my Korean friend's idea of "beautiful," and vice versa. If you have a counter-argument I WILL listen to it, VERY ATTENTIVELY. It's not fair to complain that I ignore your counter-arguments when so far you've refused to offer any, preferring instead to get personal. I don't see why that was necessary, frankly.

Quote
As the rest of the class gasped in amazement, the minister simply replied, "That is your truth right now."  Wow.  In that one phrase, she said a heck of a lot.

I'm more receptive to that idea than I was in my youth, but I'm still nervous around people who espouse it: they seem surprisingly willing to believe that everything is subjective. My truth right now is I can fly. My truth right now is that my dead mother sings me to sleep at night. My truth right now is that I weigh five ounces. My truth right now is that the sun is cold and ice is hot. Etc., etc. The way I distinguish between things that aren't subjective, and things that are, is to avoid referring to subjective things as "truth." A gay man's "truth" may be that gay sex is wonderful, a masochist's "truth" may be that being whipped is delightful, etc.--that's absolutely true. But I don't call those things "truth," the same way I don't call it a "truth" that vanilla is better than chocolate. We can recognize subjectivity, and the uncertainty of our perceptions, without confusing ourselves whether cold is hot or up is down.

It's my "truth" that I have a right not to be aggressed against. Yours, too, as far as I know. But it's not Obama's truth. His "truth" is that we can be forced to pay each others' doctor bills, hallowed be Obama forever, amen. We can't even prove the right EXISTS not to be aggressed against, to Obama's satisfaction. And we can't prove that "society" DOESN'T EXIST, to Obama's satisfaction--let alone have a just claim on our obedience and property. So arguing about where those rights come from seems kind of pointless. Do you in fact disagree? Or do you agree? I don't even know that, so I certainly don't know whether there's even any debate here...

Quote
At the same time, by saying, "That is your truth," she did not allow the woman to try to force anyone else to go along with her...

If I were FORCING you to go along with me, you'd know it by the muzzle of my Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm pressed against your head. Since there's no pistol pressed against your head, please don't be melodramatic and suggest that anyone is forcing anything on anyone. As an aside, when I see someone misuse the word "force" so epically that stating one's position becomes "force," I wonder if we even have a common language in which to discuss the ZAP. If stating a viewpoint were "force," then you'd be justified to shoot me in self-defense when I do it to you. Puh-lease.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on November 08, 2009, 02:23:42 pm
Sadly, worship of "the bible" has replaced any relationship with God in religion of most kinds. I often point out that the first century Christians were focused on  being good neighbors, loving each other and living with integrity. They didn't have a "bible."

Of that I agree, I am far more supportive of the Gnostic Christian position, the history of the Christian churches are a long string of government control, sectarian compromise, the King James version of the Bible is a compromise from the growing thought pattern that would become Calvinism (a particularly repugnant set of Christian theory) and Catholic power structure.

Biblioidolatry has become so rampant that even the most ridiculous of the "worship of the word - WOTW" the Bible Numerology and Bible Code adherents have taken this to its furthest limits of twisted WOTW.

The early power struggles with "law-based" Christianity and the Gnostics ended up with many Gnostics suffering under the new Christian power base as badly as the original Christians (most of them Gnostic) under the Roman "anti-cult" pushes (the martyrs).

If more Christians would abandon the Biblioidolatry and move into Gnostic thought that stresses compassion, community, and sharing... it would make the Bible Belt less stressful, and more pleasant to live there - I myself was basically blackballed and forced out of our home because of fundamentalists (not that I miss it much).
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Rarick on November 09, 2009, 02:38:11 pm
If there was an organized religion that I would get involved in it would have to be of the congregational variety.  No real "Leader" or "council", just a bunch of adults discussing isues and making a "moral" call based on basic guiding concepts that the whole congregation agrees on.  The Bible has been edited a Bunch of Times, but there seem to be some basic concepts that do survive.  Take those and build with them.  There are parts of the bible that do seem to advocate a zap type concept, and the golden rule is a good concept.  with those twp firmly in mind when making a moral judgement call...........

Then again the people who drank the Kool Aid, started out  that way, until jones became a 1st among equals............
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Clip Johnson on November 09, 2009, 10:22:17 pm

Right here in this thread, we have MamaLiberty's benevolent, freedom-supporting creator and Clip Johnson's send-you-to-hell creator.
...
I'm not exactly sure why you are saying that my God is a "send you to hell creator". I'm sorry if I must have perhaps worded things in such a way in any previous posts that would give anyone any indication that was my brief summary of Him. The God I know is Love.

For brevity I snipped the apologetics.

Clip, you seem like a nice guy and I feel bad that you are on the side attempting to work within the framework of the bible to justify a faith system that make you feel good, I feel bad because you will be forced to use circular arguments and in the end have only faith of a personal nature to justify the apologetics.

Sorry Mama Liberty I was guilty of throwing this off topic, but this is about to bring this back to the original in a very stark way.

Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?

I could rephrase this to simply are religions opposed to freedom as is known in our secular government under the constitution.

Simple answer - yes, in a more exact response the three Abrahamic religions are particularly opposed to personal freedom and its expression as known in our original Constitutional formation.

Here is where I feel bad about this, I have to resort to using the "holy books" to make a comparison because the eloquent expression of a personal experience ML puts to our review and your statement of spiritual love cannot be rationally or logically used to make or defend this point as they are personal experiences and can change from person to person and ideal to ideal. But most Christians refer to the Bible as the basis and "law" for the religious beliefs, it is more than just a guide it gives specific commandments and duties that must be followed.

To make this specific to Christianity, basically most of the Christian churches use what is known as the "Bible" there are many versions of this holy book and many of them are quite different and are written in ways that make comparison difficult, particular sects of Christianity use what is often refered to as "King James Only" where only a single version without further modification is used. I find some sects of Christianity very hard to understand and in some cases quite dangerous and repugnant.

Lets start out with the basic idea most Christians will agree with (at least most Fundamentalists)...

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Proverbs 30:5 (King James Version)

That is just a single reference to several that basically state - "This is all true you must believe all of it as is presented to you"

Only to be contradicted by...

How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. - Jeremiah 8:8 (KJV)

And then...

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
- Thessalonians 2:11-12 (KJV)

So God deceives the wicked to be able to condemn them, but then not every word of God can be true. Deceiving anyone at all by teaching from the Bible would then follow that it cannot be trusted if the scribes falsify the word. This points to the Bible inwardly and it cannot be the perfect word of a perfect God.

Here are some specific personal objections I have...

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 - kidnaping of women for sexual use - RAPE - with direct approval.

Deuteronomy 28:15, 30 - do not obey, God will force another man to cuckold you with your wife.

Judges 21:11-12 - Mass MURDER and RAPE as a command, including children, specifically only leaving the virgin girls as sex slaves, death to all others.

Samuel 18:27 - Instead of scalps, the severed foreskins of the murdered enemy - that is just sick. (What is this overwhelming obsession with foreskins?)

Samuel 12:11-12 - Public cuckolding?

Judges 11:30,39, Exodus 22:29 - Human sacrifice.

Numbers 15:32-36 - Don't pray, get stoned to death.

Deuteronomy 17:12 - Show contempt for a judge or priest, death penalty.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 - Woman not a virgin at marriage, death penalty.

Romans 13:1-4, Peter 2:13-14 - Submit to governments and law enforcement, might is justification through God.

1 Corinthians 3:18 - The worship of ignorance (like we need more of that in this country)

The complete subservience of women to their men, often ownership is implied (multiple passages)?

Direct justifications for slavery - sorry, I just cannot agree this is positive.

Multiple generational punishments - sorry, this also is repugnant and counter to logic and fairness.

Burning or killing witches, is a direct commandment.

The list of slaughter, murder, and forced rape are enough to fill two pages, most who have actually read the Bible know them, I can list them if needed, but I don't think that is necessary at this point.

The ideas of young earth creationists are as numerous as they are ridiculous, all of them are Bible based and every single point can be refuted utterly by overwhelming evidence.

The argument that God will not do things that force belief by abject magical events (giving them no chance for "free will" as doubt is removed) is refuted several times in the NT - John 6:24-30 - a crowd of thousands brought to faith by testing?

The prosperity doctrine is particularly revolting to me personally.

In essence you can have a faith in "something" that is based on the Bible, but the inconsistancies and direct contradictions (there are over 200 direct contradictions) but to become an apologist for the "perfect infallible word" puts any of the faithful in an undependable position. The book itself demands full faith in it's perfection - it is either 100% correct or not... under it's own guidelines.

I find it lacking and completely against freedom having too many commandments to breach the freedom of others.

Of the three Abrahamic religions Christianity is most likely the least anti-freedom of the three with the other two neck and neck on offensiveness and repellent nature.

I did not want to get into this because it is of so little importance as long as no one is stoning, raping virgins, or burning witches, as Thomas Jefferson wrote - it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket (what religion a man has faith in). To suggest that the Bible is something it is not is troublesome and I worry that "pious fraud" (lying for a good cause) has become something that is far to common and encouraged by the powers that be, Not that I am accusing anyone on this board in particular of pious fraud (but I see it often in the young earth creationist movement).

Hey, Ted Haggard lives in my state only a few miles from where I live - that makes me sick, in and of itself.

I completely understand your position Radio Flyer. Just wished I felt like responding, but in all honesty, given what happened with Claire leaving, well, the wind has been taken out of my sails so to speak. And I feel that my posting in this thread may very well have contributed to the very reasons she chose to delete her account here at TMM.

Please forgive me RF, but right now I feel horrible and simply can't for the life of me muster up an appropriate reply.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on November 10, 2009, 10:46:18 pm
So given your arguement................exactly what is it that they worship?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: gaurdduck on November 11, 2009, 02:07:20 am
I will though that the vast majority of abuses throughout history have occured not because of 'religion' itself ( any given system) but instead lie at the hands of institutionallised religion , rife with the corruption of man and given over to the end of perpetuating itself and expanding it's political and economic power.
 
  And I'll willingly address mpst of the systems/theologies , but allow me to utilise the RCC as a convenient example. Was there anything whatsoever moral ,ethical or justifiably Biblical in the Waldensian or Spanish Inquisitions? The Childrens Crusades? And of course myriad more modern examples abound.
 
  And then of course we have the abuses that make the nightly news as regards more personally oriented whackos who exploit the Scriptures to build themselves a cult , David Berg ( C.O.G.) , Jim Jones ( Assembly of God originally) , Vernon Howell/David Koresh ( mutated from SDA to Shepherds Rod to Davidian to Branch Davidian...all offshoots of SDA)   Wayne Bent/Michael Travesser ( SDA------- founder of the Strong City Cult) and many , many more manage to bend and pervert a given theology to their own ends , which of course are ultimately the same as the large corporate ( institutional) churches.
 
   Money and power.

I agree 100%. I believe that my first comment was very similar, though shorter.

Without a creator we wouldn't be having such a conversation.

  The way I see it is; Religions aren't anti-freedom, but there are
those who would pretend to be priests, preachers and prophets
for their own gain. Such people are tyrant wannabes. Usually they
are the dreksachs that claim that obedience is key to _________
(insert pleasant outcome here). Usually they claim that obedience
is owed to themselves, the religious organization to wich they
belong, and (for the purpose of keeping from becoming another
Koresh) the government.

~GD

By "large corporate ( institutional) churches" did you mean ones like this: http://whc.rodparsley.com/ ?
They seem to fit the bill as a cult/business. Notice the preacher's name in the URL. That's just a side effect of leader worship though. Most members think he and the hierarchy are the greatest things since sliced bread. The services are like a vaudeville act and are more entertainment than teaching and fellowship. What teaching they do is usually centered around money, and how giving them so much that next time you put jewelry in the offering bucket for lack of money, will somehow make you wealthy. If anyone questions the preacher or the other top brass, they can expect to be yelled at by the more fanatic masses. I was, often. Members are expected to only have protestant christian friends. It is generally considered better if they are from that church. Several sermons I heard said that people who left the church or spoke out against a preacher were punished by God and died. They taught that rebellion against government, your parents, and the church were all horrible sins on par with theft and murder. Oh, it would seem I've started to rant again. Well, to wrap it up, don't waste your money on bogus shit like them. And yeah, I went there as a kid.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: gaurdduck on November 19, 2009, 02:09:32 am
That is way off topic dude.

Please read the thread before posting.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on November 19, 2009, 10:13:21 am
That is way off topic dude.

Please read the thread before posting.

When you see an obvious spam post like that, please don't respond to it, click onto the little line in the bottom of the post that says "report to moderator" so we can delete them. Thanks!
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: gaurdduck on November 19, 2009, 10:26:38 am
When I replied I thought he was real, and since he only had 1 post at the time, was not a spammer.
I just thought he was a confused n00b until he/she/it posted another 9 in short order, at which point
I notified you guys. He posted 6 more before I went to bed.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on November 19, 2009, 10:43:50 am
When I replied I thought he was real, and since he only had 1 post at the time, was not a spammer.
I just thought he was a confused n00b until he/she/it posted another 9 in short order, at which point
I notified you guys. He posted 6 more before I went to bed.

Thanks! Unfortunately, I've only found about 8 of those posts so far. If you know where there are others, please click the "report to moderator" link in each one you see so I can delete them as well. :)
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: gaurdduck on November 19, 2009, 10:47:33 am
When I replied I thought he was real, and since he only had 1 post at the time, was not a spammer.
I just thought he was a confused n00b until he/she/it posted another 9 in short order, at which point
I notified you guys. He posted 6 more before I went to bed.

 
 

  G.D. , I hope you're not refering to me? All I posted was a clarification of what I meant by 'institutional religion'. If you feel that was off the topic then I apologise.

I'm not. The guy who posted the screed I was referring to has had his account and posts deleted.

The OT post was about "evidence of clairvoyance", rather than the topic at hand.

Thanks! Unfortunately, I've only found about 8 of those posts so far. If you know where there are others, please click the "report to moderator" link in each one you see so I can delete them as well. :)

Will do after breakfast.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: GypsyJoker on June 27, 2010, 09:07:39 pm
Modern day religions, starting about the time the holy books were first put into print, are all about keeping the masses subservient. That's why the new testament, for example, is loaded with examples of JC telling everyone to follow the law no matter what, pay your taxes, be good little sheeple, and you'll get a paradise when you die. Meh. I'd rather have my own version of paradise now, before I die. I'm not concerned with any life after this one.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: gaurdduck on June 28, 2010, 03:55:52 am
Modern day religions, starting about the time the holy books were first put into print, are all about keeping the masses subservient. That's why the new testament, for example, is loaded with examples of JC telling everyone to follow the law no matter what, pay your taxes, be good little sheeple, and you'll get a paradise when you die.

When asked about taxes He replied with a non-answer.  He never actually said to "pay taxes". More like He avoided giving an answer.

I also suggest reading this: http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: penguinsscareme on June 28, 2010, 02:01:55 pm
Modern day religions, starting about the time the holy books were first put into print, are all about keeping the masses subservient. That's why the new testament, for example, is loaded with examples of JC telling everyone to follow the law no matter what, pay your taxes, be good little sheeple, and you'll get a paradise when you die. Meh. I'd rather have my own version of paradise now, before I die. I'm not concerned with any life after this one.

What??  Jesus frustrated and exasperated the local authorities at every turn, made them so angry that they killed him.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on June 28, 2010, 04:09:37 pm
Modern day religions, starting about the time the holy books were first put into print, are all about keeping the masses subservient. That's why the new testament, for example, is loaded with examples of JC telling everyone to follow the law no matter what, pay your taxes, be good little sheeple, and you'll get a paradise when you die. Meh. I'd rather have my own version of paradise now, before I die. I'm not concerned with any life after this one.

What??  Jesus frustrated and exasperated the local authorities at every turn, made them so angry that they killed him.

It is the contrast, the implied, deliberately manipulative or forced cognitive dissonance that is part of all controlling mechanisms for humans.

Be ready and happy for death, and because of that this world is worthless and you should follow your leaders - ever wonder why religions are popular with government? Oh, but of course you are loved and must suffer... cognitive dissonance.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: penguinsscareme on June 28, 2010, 04:20:12 pm
Modern day religions, starting about the time the holy books were first put into print, are all about keeping the masses subservient. That's why the new testament, for example, is loaded with examples of JC telling everyone to follow the law no matter what, pay your taxes, be good little sheeple, and you'll get a paradise when you die. Meh. I'd rather have my own version of paradise now, before I die. I'm not concerned with any life after this one.

What??  Jesus frustrated and exasperated the local authorities at every turn, made them so angry that they killed him.

It is the contrast, the implied, deliberately manipulative or forced cognitive dissonance that is part of all controlling mechanisms for humans.

Be ready and happy for death, and because of that this world is worthless and you should follow your leaders - ever wonder why religions are popular with government? Oh, but of course you are loved and must suffer... cognitive dissonance.

Ah.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: padre29 on June 28, 2010, 09:43:47 pm
Modern day religions, starting about the time the holy books were first put into print, are all about keeping the masses subservient. That's why the new testament, for example, is loaded with examples of JC telling everyone to follow the law no matter what, pay your taxes, be good little sheeple, and you'll get a paradise when you die. Meh. I'd rather have my own version of paradise now, before I die. I'm not concerned with any life after this one.

What??  Jesus frustrated and exasperated the local authorities at every turn, made them so angry that they killed him.

4 different Authorities at that PSM.

I do find myself in agreement with Radio Flyer, Institutional Churches have allowed themselves to be co-opted, which is not "cognitive dissonance' rather it is a spiritually unhappy marriage between Church and State,

Unless of course one is a fan of Gary North's work.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Moonbeam on June 29, 2010, 04:21:18 pm
... I'm more receptive to that idea than I was in my youth, but I'm still nervous around people who espouse it: they seem surprisingly willing to believe that everything is subjective. My truth right now is I can fly. My truth right now is that my dead mother sings me to sleep at night. My truth right now is that I weigh five ounces. My truth right now is that the sun is cold and ice is hot. Etc., etc. The way I distinguish between things that aren't subjective, and things that are, is to avoid referring to subjective things as "truth." A gay man's "truth" may be that gay sex is wonderful, a masochist's "truth" may be that being whipped is delightful, etc.--that's absolutely true. But I don't call those things "truth," the same way I don't call it a "truth" that vanilla is better than chocolate. We can recognize subjectivity, and the uncertainty of our perceptions, without confusing ourselves whether cold is hot or up is down.

It's my "truth" that I have a right not to be aggressed against. Yours, too, as far as I know. But it's not Obama's truth. His "truth" is that we can be forced to pay each others' doctor bills, hallowed be Obama forever, amen. We can't even prove the right EXISTS not to be aggressed against, to Obama's satisfaction. And we can't prove that "society" DOESN'T EXIST, to Obama's satisfaction--let alone have a just claim on our obedience and property. So arguing about where those rights come from seems kind of pointless...

If I were FORCING you to go along with me, you'd know it by the muzzle of my Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm pressed against your head. Since there's no pistol pressed against your head, please don't be melodramatic and suggest that anyone is forcing anything on anyone. As an aside, when I see someone misuse the word "force" so epically that stating one's position becomes "force," I wonder if we even have a common language in which to discuss the ZAP. If stating a viewpoint were "force," then you'd be justified to shoot me in self-defense when I do it to you.

LENNY - I'm a tad jealous of your mind ~ I think that was brilliant!

CLIP JOHNSON - I admire your faith and your willingness to share it. Thanks!
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on June 30, 2010, 12:03:16 pm
It's my "truth" that I have a right not to be aggressed against. Yours, too, as far as I know.

If I were FORCING you to go along with me, you'd know it by the muzzle of my Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm pressed against your head. Since there's no pistol pressed against your head, please don't be melodramatic and suggest that anyone is forcing anything on anyone. As an aside, when I see someone misuse the word "force" so epically that stating one's position becomes "force," I wonder if we even have a common language in which to discuss the ZAP. If stating a viewpoint were "force," then you'd be justified to shoot me in self-defense when I do it to you.

First of course is that there are also social forces that move like large waves in the water, while no individual may directly "put a gun to your head" they are just as pervasive and just as overwhelming. I was run out of town and blacklisted by "good religious people" and I can tell you, while a gun was never pointed at me, my family, financial, and social life was ruined BY FORCE and because I was not part of the in community I had no recourse for ANY justice (as much as some may think there is any in the US now). Social forces and "shunning" are more pervasive and more powerful than many would think.

FORCE does not require a firearm, ever wonder why the US government wants a "cashless society" or promote and support social groups and religion?

Language IS a problem, and NO it is not common, we may share a similar language, but from region to region the language is used differently, something that causes problems even on the boards here.

Clearly your version of "non aggression" is different from what I would see in the south, a typical distinction I see where the Atlantic north east uses a "legal" style definition that gives you what I think is too much "wiggle room" to be rude and then stand back and say - hey I didn't hit you, why are you upset I called you wife a worthless whore, and your kids retarded parasites? OR why are you upset that our community does not like former southerners who are not part of our religious community - you don't belong here so we will shun you into bankruptcy... that is not force.... - of course I think that is BS myself, but the best way to deal with that is to just "vote with your feet" as I was FORCED to do. That is why I think that balkanization will be good for this country, we all wont be shackled to each other as we are now - most people in the US will be glad to be separate from the "North Eastern Statist Empire".
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Lenny on June 30, 2010, 12:17:44 pm
...when I see someone misuse the word "force" so epically that stating one's position becomes "force," I wonder if we even have a common language in which to discuss the ZAP. If stating a viewpoint were "force," then you'd be justified to shoot me in self-defense when I do it to you.

First of course is that there are also social forces that move like large waves in the water...

Yes, yes, this is a FAQ: peer pressure is often called "force," and so is your wife's refusal to give you any nookie until you do what she wants. However, those things are NOT coercion, NOT aggression, NOT violations of ZAP, and NOT justification for defensive physical force. Confusing the various "pressures" in life with actual coercion is a serious error. Anyone who experiences that confusion is inherently incapable of understanding ZAP, because he doesn't see the difference between a man pointing a gun and a wife keeping her knees together.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Lenny on June 30, 2010, 12:26:17 pm
Social forces and "shunning" are more pervasive and more powerful than many would think.

I've said plenty of times, on this very forum, that social forces--especially shunning--are powerful. Terrifyingly so, in fact. They are not violations of ZAP, however. In fact they're vital to the proper functioning of a free, non-aggressive society. In a free society, a village of Orthodox Jews will still want to keep their village clear of neo-nazis, for example. And they're free to do so using (1) contracts, (2) private property, (3) persuasive discussion, and (4) shunning. Shunning is pretty much their only option if the local Stormfront chapter owns its own property, refuses to enter contracts and ignores persuasive speech.

In a society that forbids shunning as "aggression," there is NO non-aggressive option in that case; our poor, devout Jewish friends have no choice but to suck it while their neo-nazi neighbor displays swastikas, calls them üntermenschen, greets them daily with a "Heil, Hitler!", etc. Since that option is intolerable to them, they will eventually have recourse to violence.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on June 30, 2010, 06:44:25 pm
...when I see someone misuse the word "force" so epically that stating one's position becomes "force," I wonder if we even have a common language in which to discuss the ZAP. If stating a viewpoint were "force," then you'd be justified to shoot me in self-defense when I do it to you.

First of course is that there are also social forces that move like large waves in the water...
Yes, yes, this is a FAQ: peer pressure is often called "force," and so is your wife's refusal to give you any nookie until you do what she wants.

Nice try "Lenny" your ability to be an asshole without violating TOS/TOU is breathtaking. Oh, yea for the wife part, witch you were completly unable to understand for whatever reason  :thebirdman:

However, those things are NOT coercion, NOT aggression, NOT violations of ZAP, and NOT justification for defensive physical force. Confusing the various "pressures" in life with actual coercion is a serious error. Anyone who experiences that confusion is inherently incapable of understanding ZAP, because he doesn't see the difference between a man pointing a gun and a wife keeping her knees together.

I understand this legalistic concept of "ZAP" and I expect it from someone from the Atlantic coast - you simply have too many lawyers and too few honorable men in that ever enlarging shit-hole.

Nice try on equating my disagreement with a lack of mental powers - bravo on that one.

Look I don't know what your problem with women is, I don't know why the marriage idea causes you so much pain, possibly you momma didn't love you enough or your SOs found you as annoying as many of us on the boards do - but dude - you need to get a check on that problem.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on June 30, 2010, 06:55:09 pm
Social forces and "shunning" are more pervasive and more powerful than many would think.
I've said plenty of times, on this very forum, that social forces--especially shunning--are powerful. Terrifyingly so, in fact. They are not violations of ZAP, however. In fact they're vital to the proper functioning of a free, non-aggressive society. In a free society, a village of Orthodox Jews will still want to keep their village clear of neo-nazis, for example. And they're free to do so using (1) contracts, (2) private property, (3) persuasive discussion, and (4) shunning. Shunning is pretty much their only option if the local Stormfront chapter owns its own property, refuses to enter contracts and ignores persuasive speech.

In a society that forbids shunning as "aggression," there is NO non-aggressive option in that case; our poor, devout Jewish friends have no choice but to suck it while their neo-nazi neighbor displays swastikas, calls them üntermenschen, greets them daily with a "Heil, Hitler!", etc. Since that option is intolerable to them, they will eventually have recourse to violence.

So a community of "neo-nazis" then has the same rights?

So a community has a right to single out a person for religious or political views, shun them, attempt to force them into poverty and refuse to trade with them, with express intent to exclude and expel them from that community?

I don't have to "not be able to understand" to disagree with your politics, I am finding LTY's political arguments far more persuasive than any of the trolling you do here.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Lenny on June 30, 2010, 07:14:15 pm
So a community of "neo-nazis" then has the same rights?

As long as they keep their hands to themselves, yes. You believe otherwise? You believe that it's OK to attack anti-semites because you find their views repugnant? Bad news, then: as a Bible-thumping Christian, it's pretty much a lock that I find your sexual proclivities (whatever they may be) repugnant, not to mention your religious (or anti-religious) views. So why can I not attack you for offending my sensibilities? If you can attack a racist who isn't harming anyone, then surely I can attack you for doing or thinking or saying things I object to?

Quote
So a community has a right to single out a person for religious or political views, shun them, attempt to force them into poverty and refuse to trade with them...

There's that word again. You keep using it. But if they're aggressing against him by "refusing to trade with him," then it follows that they can rightfully be forced to trade with him--where here I mean real force, where if they try to bar him entry, he can bust the door down. And if they try to cling to their goods, he can wrench them from their arms. And if they try to refuse his money, he can shove it down their throat. Do you really believe they can morally be forced to trade with someone against their will?

Quote
I don't have to "not be able to understand" to disagree with your politics...

Every time we have an exchange like this, it's clear that I object not to your politics, but to your morals: you believe it's moral to force people to do various things, and not do other things, against their will, when they're not harming anyone. Doing so is assault, or theft, or kidnapping, as the case may be, and endorsing assault and theft and kidnapping isn't just a political view, it's flat-out immoral.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Lenny on June 30, 2010, 07:20:40 pm
Yes, yes, this is a FAQ: peer pressure is often called "force," and so is your wife's refusal to give you any nookie until you do what she wants.

Nice try "Lenny" your ability to be an asshole without violating TOS/TOU is breathtaking. Oh, yea for the wife part, witch you were completly unable to understand for whatever reason  :thebirdman:

I've been subjected to peer pressure, and shunning, and blackmail, and retaliatory firing, and blacklisting--and none of it is half so powerful as one of my wife's headaches. If not inviting you to my barbecue is "force," then withholding sex is near most men's breaking point. Even shunning doesn't compare, if you can at least come home to a woman who says, "Poor baby!" and lets you into the conjugal bed. If any social pressure is force, then withholding sex is.

Lots of men agree: they believe that if the wife withholds sex, it's OK to take it. I've met some. I've even heard some of them quote scriptures like, "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other..." See? Even the Apostle Paul calls it "defrauding"! Obviously a wife's duty is to give her husband his...

If you don't believe it's moral to rape your spouse, then surely you can at least comprehend why it's also immoral to force a man to serve you in his restaurant against his will, or sell you groceries in his store, etc? Surely you grasp the point being made here?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: padre29 on June 30, 2010, 07:36:06 pm
...when I see someone misuse the word "force" so epically that stating one's position becomes "force," I wonder if we even have a common language in which to discuss the ZAP. If stating a viewpoint were "force," then you'd be justified to shoot me in self-defense when I do it to you.

First of course is that there are also social forces that move like large waves in the water...
Yes, yes, this is a FAQ: peer pressure is often called "force," and so is your wife's refusal to give you any nookie until you do what she wants.

Nice try "Lenny" your ability to be an asshole without violating TOS/TOU is breathtaking. Oh, yea for the wife part, witch you were completly unable to understand for whatever reason  :thebirdman:

However, those things are NOT coercion, NOT aggression, NOT violations of ZAP, and NOT justification for defensive physical force. Confusing the various "pressures" in life with actual coercion is a serious error. Anyone who experiences that confusion is inherently incapable of understanding ZAP, because he doesn't see the difference between a man pointing a gun and a wife keeping her knees together.

I understand this legalistic concept of "ZAP" and I expect it from someone from the Atlantic coast - you simply have too many lawyers and too few honorable men in that ever enlarging shit-hole.

Nice try on equating my disagreement with a lack of mental powers - bravo on that one.

Look I don't know what your problem with women is, I don't know why the marriage idea causes you so much pain, possibly you momma didn't love you enough or your SOs found you as annoying as many of us on the boards do - but dude - you need to get a check on that problem.

Funniest line in a long time..no offense Lenny, but that I need a new monitor after that one... :laugh:
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: padre29 on June 30, 2010, 07:38:46 pm
Social forces and "shunning" are more pervasive and more powerful than many would think.

I've said plenty of times, on this very forum, that social forces--especially shunning--are powerful. Terrifyingly so, in fact. They are not violations of ZAP, however. In fact they're vital to the proper functioning of a free, non-aggressive society. In a free society, a village of Orthodox Jews will still want to keep their village clear of neo-nazis, for example. And they're free to do so using (1) contracts, (2) private property, (3) persuasive discussion, and (4) shunning. Shunning is pretty much their only option if the local Stormfront chapter owns its own property, refuses to enter contracts and ignores persuasive speech.

In a society that forbids shunning as "aggression," there is NO non-aggressive option in that case; our poor, devout Jewish friends have no choice but to suck it while their neo-nazi neighbor displays swastikas, calls them üntermenschen, greets them daily with a "Heil, Hitler!", etc. Since that option is intolerable to them, they will eventually have recourse to violence.

True, Coercion is as much force as a stilletto point in the ribs.

Withholding consent is perfectly acceptable under any version of ZAP or even other Ethical Systems.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on June 30, 2010, 07:54:25 pm
So a community of "neo-nazis" then has the same rights?
As long as they keep their hands to themselves, yes. You believe otherwise? You believe that it's OK to attack anti-semites because you find their views repugnant? Bad news, then: as a Bible-thumping Christian, it's pretty much a lock that I find your sexual proclivities (whatever they may be) repugnant, not to mention your religious (or anti-religious) views. So why can I not attack you for offending my sensibilities? If you can attack a racist who isn't harming anyone, then surely I can attack you for doing or thinking or saying things I object to?

I am strangely not opposed to the right of association or non-association, I simply wanted some clarification for my own processing. I have no intentions on attacking jews, nazis, pennsyltukians or anyone else, I simply don't care most of the time so long as it does not interfere with my intent to freely and fairly interact. I find many things repugnant that I would never bother to get into an argument about, I find homosexual behavior repugnant but I have no problems with homosexuals, and support "gay" unions - I do object to state meddling in "marriage", and I have never failed to give the best of services that I provide in fair trade with clients who happen to be homosexual, their sex life does not interfere with our business, I don't have to like a client to provide a great value.

Quote
Quote
So a community has a right to single out a person for religious or political views, shun them, attempt to force them into poverty and refuse to trade with them...

There's that word again. You keep using it. But if they're aggressing against him by "refusing to trade with him," then it follows that they can rightfully be forced to trade with him--where here I mean real force, where if they try to bar him entry, he can bust the door down. And if they try to cling to their goods, he can wrench them from their arms. And if they try to refuse his money, he can shove it down their throat. Do you really believe they can morally be forced to trade with someone against their will?

Force, as in social force, as I was following an idea, obviously a community or individual has the right if they can to use their money, position, or influence to damage another as long as that does not fit your legalistic definition of "force" - I get it - I got it a long time ago. Funny you would talk about "morals" as you do further in your post while driving another human into destruction is acceptable as long as no direct force is applied. You are simply inferring too much.

Quote
Every time we have an exchange like this, it's clear that I object not to your politics, but to your morals: you believe it's moral to force people to do various things, and not do other things, against their will, when they're not harming anyone. Doing so is assault, or theft, or kidnapping, as the case may be, and endorsing assault and theft and kidnapping isn't just a political view, it's flat-out immoral.

You are putting words I have not posted in there - You constantly read a post and then by some sort of "Lenny code reading" end up twisted in the wrong direction. You are in need of some new material.

I have not promoted assault, you are traveling down the wrong path. Regardless of your intent, willfully ignorant, trolling, or simply wishing to bait, I don't see the correlation, you are not aiding your points (in in this case lack of them) by the application of distraction/red herring does not seem to me helping.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Lenny on June 30, 2010, 08:09:00 pm
I am strangely not opposed to the right of association or non-association, I simply wanted some clarification for my own processing.

OK, that's good to hear. Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I support the rights of every brand of hater to hate all he wants, and to say what he wants, as long as he doesn't violate another's person or property, even though it's repugnant to me.

Quote
Force, as in social force, as I was following an idea, obviously a community or individual has the right if they can to use their money, position, or influence to damage another as long as that does not fit your legalistic definition of "force" - I get it - I got it a long time ago.

It's an inescapable part of reality anyway, by the way: try to imagine a world in which it is impossible to use "money, position or influence" to accomplish a shunning, for example, and you'll observe that it's a totalitarian world. Like neonazism, prostitution, and other things I find repugnant, I certainly don't endorse every such action. Some of them I do, however, for different reasons--one being, as I said, that it's infinitely preferable to shun a man than to assault or murder him. "If you don't like what he's doing, then don't hang around him!" It was good advice when your mom gave it to you when you were 5, and it's still good advice.

Quote
Funny you would talk about "morals" as you do further in your post while driving another human into destruction is acceptable as long as no direct force is applied.

You keep using words like "forcing" or "driving" or "destruction," but what exactly do you propose to DO about it? You keep not saying. It's impossible to make people stop shunning someone, without actual physical force. Do you acknowledge that that's true? Do you endorse this use of force? You don't say. How about filling us in on that point?

Meanwhile, I perfectly realize that one possible use of shunning is for white racist property owners, on a remote island, to shun a black man so that he starves to death. That would be a moral outrage; yet you seem to think I would approve of it. Obviously I do not. This is a good illustration that libertarian law is something different than morals. Lots of things are legal but not moral. The ZAP says that one may not use violence to oppose legal immorality. But luckily, guess what? You can use legal, moral force against those racist KKK-Island bastards. When news gets out how they starved that poor black man to death, everyone can refuse to fuel their boats, or let them dock, or make deliveries to their island. Depending on their contractual relationships, people could prevent them from sailing or fishing, and might even be able to cordon off their island completely. Their callous starving of their black victim was the worst nightmare scenario of non-aggressive immorality; the outraged world's boycotting and shunning of their island is one of the best uses of non-aggressive social force, and a good illustration why it's a necessary part of a free society.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Lenny on June 30, 2010, 08:11:07 pm
I have not promoted assault, you are traveling down the wrong path.

The only reason you haven't, is that you've refused to say what you WOULD do about the neonazis in Jewtown, or the owner of KKK-Island who starves blacks to death by refusing to do business with them. Once you say what you WOULD do, you MUST either (1) advocate assault, or else (2) admit that I was right when I said those bastards can't be targeted with physical force.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on June 30, 2010, 08:14:54 pm
Yes, yes, this is a FAQ: peer pressure is often called "force," and so is your wife's refusal to give you any nookie until you do what she wants.

Nice try "Lenny" your ability to be an asshole without violating TOS/TOU is breathtaking. Oh, yea for the wife part, witch you were completly unable to understand for whatever reason  :thebirdman:

I've been subjected to peer pressure, and shunning, and blackmail, and retaliatory firing, and blacklisting--and none of it is half so powerful as one of my wife's headaches. If not inviting you to my barbecue is "force," then withholding sex is near most men's breaking point. Even shunning doesn't compare, if you can at least come home to a woman who says, "Poor baby!" and lets you into the conjugal bed. If any social pressure is force, then withholding sex is.

Lots of men agree: they believe that if the wife withholds sex, it's OK to take it. I've met some. I've even heard some of them quote scriptures like, "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other..." See? Even the Apostle Paul calls it "defrauding"! Obviously a wife's duty is to give her husband his...

If you don't believe it's moral to rape your spouse, then surely you can at least comprehend why it's also immoral to force a man to serve you in his restaurant against his will, or sell you groceries in his store, etc? Surely you grasp the point being made here?

Lenny, for once could you get some new line outside of "so when was the last time you beat your wife" that tactic is beneath your talents, I have seen so much better I would have expected a bit more sophistication, are you tired?

My wife is a great lady, we have arguments - that one in particular is a rare one, I don't now nor have I ever forced myself on anyone for any reason, I never had the need.

If a contract of marriage includes at the beginning a particular set of "manly needs" and by breach of that "contract" a woman feels the need to "withhold" her "services" could be a real man could simply withhold the new shoes or grocery money until contract negotiations continue... but that would take a real man with some real control over his position, the typical man in the US is sadly a step up from a medieval surf to his wife as master.

Shunning of a community to the destruction of an individual because of religion or non-religion equated to a wife's impression of Victorian morals is, you must admit a bit silly, for goodness sakes Lenny get a hobby.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on June 30, 2010, 08:34:45 pm
I am strangely not opposed to the right of association or non-association, I simply wanted some clarification for my own processing.

OK, that's good to hear. Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I support the rights of every brand of hater to hate all he wants, and to say what he wants, as long as he doesn't violate another's person or property, even though it's repugnant to me.

Quote
Force, as in social force, as I was following an idea, obviously a community or individual has the right if they can to use their money, position, or influence to damage another as long as that does not fit your legalistic definition of "force" - I get it - I got it a long time ago.

It's an inescapable part of reality anyway, by the way: try to imagine a world in which it is impossible to use "money, position or influence" to accomplish a shunning, for example, and you'll observe that it's a totalitarian world. Like neonazism, prostitution, and other things I find repugnant, I certainly don't endorse every such action. Some of them I do, however, for different reasons--one being, as I said, that it's infinitely preferable to shun a man than to assault or murder him. "If you don't like what he's doing, then don't hang around him!" It was good advice when your mom gave it to you when you were 5, and it's still good advice.

It's an elitist oligarchical controlled world, and by hook an crook they have most of the money also... truly they use "money, position or influence" to accomplish far more than just a "shunning" they make us pay to bomb poor "brown people not like us, siting on oil pathways" into small crow food every day.

Your KKK island example shunning to starvation was ME in a sea of "good christians" it is where I was going with this, and sadly none of this behavior is ever corrected by the "market if ideas" if your group is big enough, or your chest filled enough just about any travesty is possible. Will the ruin and destruction to my family ever be repaid - never, will the sorry christian bastards ever pay - likely never.

If anything we have the current control of international banking as an example of how "justified injustice" can be bought. Even the much lauded L. Neil Smith has pointed out some of the weaknesses here.

Quote
Quote
Funny you would talk about "morals" as you do further in your post while driving another human into destruction is acceptable as long as no direct force is applied.

You keep using words like "forcing" or "driving" or "destruction," but what exactly do you propose to DO about it? You keep not saying. It's impossible to make people stop shunning someone, without actual physical force. Do you acknowledge that that's true? Do you endorse this use of force? You don't say. How about filling us in on that point?

I cannot "fill you in" because I am unsure of how to process this, I am in a quandary, and this is the truth, would I feel unjustified in putting a bullet into some of the bastards who have used "money, position or influence" to harm my family - no I think not, to be honest the only reason they are not dead now is because it is illegal to shoot them down in the street like the cur that they are.

Quote
Meanwhile, I perfectly realize that one possible use of shunning is for white racist property owners, on a remote island, to shun a black man so that he starves to death. That would be a moral outrage; yet you seem to think I would approve of it. Obviously I do not. This is a good illustration that libertarian law is something different than morals. Lots of things are legal but not moral. The ZAP says that one may not use violence to oppose legal immorality. But luckily, guess what? You can use legal, moral force against those racist KKK-Island bastards. When news gets out how they starved that poor black man to death, everyone can refuse to fuel their boats, or let them dock, or make deliveries to their island. Depending on their contractual relationships, people could prevent them from sailing or fishing, and might even be able to cordon off their island completely. Their callous starving of their black victim was the worst nightmare scenario of non-aggressive immorality; the outraged world's boycotting and shunning of their island is one of the best uses of non-aggressive social force, and a good illustration why it's a necessary part of a free society.

This also does not work (at least not always), currently we have an exact (and even racist) example of the above in action in the mideast.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Lenny on June 30, 2010, 09:00:30 pm
My wife is a great lady, we have arguments - that one in particular is a rare one, I don't now nor have I ever forced myself on anyone for any reason, I never had the need.

Forest for the trees? I've never met you or your wife, and I neither know nor care about your sex life. Can you not simply follow the example for what it is, and place yourself in the shoes of a man whose pissed-off wife withholds sex for a year or so? Then, armed with this perspective, can you not see the fundamental point that it is in fact her right to withhold sex for a year if that's what she wants to do? And that making her stop withholding sex would be a crime, one we know as "rape"? And yet... surely you admit that withholding sex for a year is almost more than any mortal man could bear--enough to drive him over the edge and make him put a bullet in his own brain, for example?

If you can see all of that, then you understand how a woman can, if she wants, do her husband to death without ever committing a crime, and in such a way that if he tried to stop her he would be committing a crime? And furthermore, that this scenario can and does play out, not just in Libertopia but today in this society we have right now?

Quote
If a contract of marriage includes at the beginning a particular set of "manly needs" and by breach of that "contract" a woman feels the need to "withhold" her "services" could be a real man could simply withhold the new shoes or grocery money until contract negotiations continue... but that would take a real man with some real control over his position, the typical man in the US is sadly a step up from a medieval surf to his wife as master.

Now you're talking! Yes, there ARE solid steps you can legally and morally take if your spouse starts using social pressure to put the squeeze on you. Withholding your paycheck, the example you just gave, is definitely one of them.

Quote
Shunning of a community to the destruction of an individual because of religion or non-religion equated to a wife's impression of Victorian morals is, you must admit a bit silly...

People ARE silly. You say you've been shunned by your community for not being a good little Christian like they want. I can believe it. I don't do that to my neighbors, but my church will do it to members who violate church rules. A bunch of card-players will shun one of theirs if he cheats. Wives withhold sex, husbands withhold encouragement, parents withhold approval, etc., over things that a bystander would call idiotic. You've been on the receiving end, so it's no surprise that you hate it pretty bad. But then again, you've also dished it out, guaranteed. It's the only real tool you have to deal with neighbors who cuss, or grandparents who don't respect your rules for your kids, or hateful co-workers, etc. It's a knife with two edges.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on June 30, 2010, 10:13:00 pm
My wife is a great lady, we have arguments - that one in particular is a rare one, I don't now nor have I ever forced myself on anyone for any reason, I never had the need.

Forest for the trees? I've never met you or your wife, and I neither know nor care about your sex life. Can you not simply follow the example for what it is, and place yourself in the shoes of a man whose pissed-off wife withholds sex for a year or so?

Sure I can Lenny, can you? you seem to be quite incapable often to be willing or able to put yourself into the situations of others or in particular follow examples for what they are... I know you can see this, far too often I see you drop a thread.

If a wife withholds sex for a year there is a problem far beyond sex or the marriage contract, seek help or get a lawyer to review that contract.

Quote
Then, armed with this perspective, can you not see the fundamental point that it is in fact her right to withhold sex for a year if that's what she wants to do?

How could it not be her right?

Quote
And that making her stop withholding sex would be a crime, one we know as "rape"?

I follow, agree even.

Quote
And yet... surely you admit that withholding sex for a year is almost more than any mortal man could bear--enough to drive him over the edge and make him put a bullet in his own brain, for example?

Honestly, I would never be in that position, it's simply not important enough, if a contract is breached in this way I would simply state the contract is breached and the husband has recourse to outside relationships or withholding of financial rewards. I don't think that any SO would ever be worth ending your own life, but I am vain like that.

Quote
If you can see all of that, then you understand how a woman can, if she wants, do her husband to death without ever committing a crime, and in such a way that if he tried to stop her he would be committing a crime?

If this is the only tool in a woman's tool box, that is sad (bordering on pathetic), I would guess this is not the only problem, breach of "contract" in this was is indicative of far deeper problems. Womanly skills limited to the "skull crushing parasitic harpy" setting shows a depth similar to a bird bath.

Quote
And furthermore, that this scenario can and does play out, not just in Libertopia but today in this society we have right now?

Sadly divorce is too frequent, I have no answer to that, I will point out (just to be an asshole) that atheist households have a lower rate of divorce than the religious.

I am not encouraging now nor have I in any way in the past, rape in any way, nor aggression.

Quote
Quote
If a contract of marriage includes at the beginning a particular set of "manly needs" and by breach of that "contract" a woman feels the need to "withhold" her "services" could be a real man could simply withhold the new shoes or grocery money until contract negotiations continue... but that would take a real man with some real control over his position, the typical man in the US is sadly a step up from a medieval surf to his wife as master.

Now you're talking! Yes, there ARE solid steps you can legally and morally take if your spouse starts using social pressure to put the squeeze on you. Withholding your paycheck, the example you just gave, is definitely one of them.

Wow, we agree on something, I was simply stating the obvious. Sadly too many "men" are likely to just buckle under an oppressive harpy and society has suffered.

Quote
Quote
Shunning of a community to the destruction of an individual because of religion or non-religion equated to a wife's impression of Victorian morals is, you must admit a bit silly...

People ARE silly. You say you've been shunned by your community for not being a good little Christian like they want. I can believe it. I don't do that to my neighbors, but my church will do it to members who violate church rules. A bunch of card-players will shun one of theirs if he cheats. Wives withhold sex, husbands withhold encouragement, parents withhold approval, etc., over things that a bystander would call idiotic. You've been on the receiving end, so it's no surprise that you hate it pretty bad. But then again, you've also dished it out, guaranteed. It's the only real tool you have to deal with neighbors who cuss, or grandparents who don't respect your rules for your kids, or hateful co-workers, etc. It's a knife with two edges.

So now it's a knife? I thought you did not like the fact I was using words like "force" so how did this change?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on July 01, 2010, 05:46:35 am
RF, now you're just not being serious. Picking at a figure of speech, and running off on tangents about divorce and marital improvement, do nothing to engage the topic and you know it.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Klapton Isgod on July 01, 2010, 09:11:31 am
Womanly skills limited to the "skull crushing parasitic harpy" setting shows a depth similar to a bird bath.

You know my ex-wife?!?!
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: dubber308 on July 01, 2010, 11:00:18 am
Womanly skills limited to the "skull crushing parasitic harpy" setting shows a depth similar to a bird bath.

You know my ex-wife?!?!
I thought he was talking about my ex-wife!
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 01, 2010, 01:30:13 pm
RF, now you're just not being serious. Picking at a figure of speech, and running off on tangents about divorce and marital improvement, do nothing to engage the topic and you know it.

Not only topical but illuminative and you know that, you cannot deny that you see your own tactics here, I am simply turning them onto your posts.

You will note the tinge of humor and you know that was also the intent.

Look Lenny, the reason I have never put you or anyone else on "ignore" is that even the most curmudgeonly reptilian conspiratorialist and even some of you Anarchists (barring the typical bare assertion, special pleading, dicto simpliciter, and auto-authority exterior-rejection justifications) have things of great and small value to contribute.

Funny you would point out "running off on tangents" and "engage the topic" something many of us have noted are typical modi operandi.

How topical is the modern problem collections in marriage and government with religion - using the general misery observed and the divorce rates of the religious it possibly could be an indicator. Could the emasculating effects of modern "feminist" women in control over marriages backed by a deliberate anti-marriage, anti-male legal society be indicators?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on July 01, 2010, 02:15:33 pm
RF, now you're just not being serious. Picking at a figure of speech, and running off on tangents about divorce and marital improvement, do nothing to engage the topic and you know it.

Not only topical but illuminative and you know that, you cannot deny that you see your own tactics here, I am simply turning them onto your posts.

Nope, all I'm seeing is that you're missing the point entirely.

Quote
How topical is the modern problem collections in marriage and government with religion - using the general misery observed and the divorce rates of the religious it possibly could be an indicator...

Nope, you're missing the point completely. Humans come with numerous foibles, including hobbies, religions, sexual preferences, favorite sports, social customs and mores, and so on. In a perfectly free society, there will be gay men who like to wear tutus and mostly associate with other gay men in tutus, and there will be Orthodox Jews who consider not only that an abomination, but also the guy who mows his lawn on Saturday. There will be whites who hate blacks, and blacks who hate whites. There will be people who not only love football, but who find your company distasteful if you don't share their enthusiasm.

So how does this hypothetical free society function, given that the Jews still hate the Sabbath-breakers, and the Neonazis still hate the Jews, and the blacks still hate the Klanners, and the pre-Vatican-II Catholics still hate the post-Vatican-II Catholics?

A liberal lunatic would expect them all to just get along, live together in harmony, and teach the world to sing Kumbaya. They're idiots, which is why you and I both despise them.

You, on the other hand, don't even seem to have considered this problem. Blueghost and some others have indicated that in this world they would have a very short fuse, after which they would resort to violence. You I'm not so sure of; as a Southerner, it's part of your cultural heritage that a good solid punch in the face is sometimes just what the doctor ordered, but you've said you don't believe in that. So maybe you believe that in a free society there just isn't any more religion, racism, or other reasons for one man to get pissed off at another? If so then you're picturing liberal Kumbaya-land, whether or not you realize it.

So if you get it straight that people will still disagree, sometimes passionately, and will still have anger and hate, but they're still not allowed to resort to violence, EVER, then you'll be up to speed on the question I'm actually addressing here: what DO you do in those circumstances? If there will still be assholes, and racists, and Hare Krishnas bothering us, but we can't give them a smack in the puss, what DO we do?

The answer, of course, is "anything you want, as long as you keep your hands to yourself."

Of course if you're raised in a world where violence is really the only option you know of, then you'll need some help finding alternatives, since that's the one thing you aren't allowed to do--regardless what they just said about your mother. The alternative is to come to an understanding, which we usually call "manners" or "etiquette" or "culture." It would include "rules" like "Don't preach Hare Krishna inside the grocery store," and it might also include rules like, "Don't move into that neighborhood if you aren't a devout Jew." We have such rules today, except that we often enforce them with violence; for example if a black man moves into a racist town, instead of shunning him they might burn a cross on his lawn or kill his dog. In a free society there's only one way to "enforce" rules like this: non-coercively. And that ALWAYS boils down to withholding association, in one way or another. That's the only option available, other than asking you nicely or bad-mouthing you. But a civil society simply cannot function without such rules, and therefore it cannot function without non-aggressive social enforcement.

If you followed all that, you'd understand why on the one hand I keep saying that you can't assault a man for flirting with your wife, but on the other hand that you can do something about the asshole. Any given social group WILL do something about assholes like that, because nobody wants his woman stolen. What can they do? They can shun him. Plain and simple. It works, and it's their only choice.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Klapton Isgod on July 01, 2010, 06:05:47 pm
In a truly free society, you CAN punch someone for flirting with your wife.  You just might have to convince a jury that the guy deserved it.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 01, 2010, 06:10:12 pm
RF, now you're just not being serious. Picking at a figure of speech, and running off on tangents about divorce and marital improvement, do nothing to engage the topic and you know it.

Not only topical but illuminative and you know that, you cannot deny that you see your own tactics here, I am simply turning them onto your posts.

Nope, all I'm seeing is that you're missing the point entirely.

NO I'm not - I am not seeing enough from your side to agree with you, again disagreement does not equate lack of mental powers or a misunderstanding.

And you are as usual avoiding the fact that someone is calling you on your tactics and pointing them out.

Quote
Quote
How topical is the modern problem collections in marriage and government with religion - using the general misery observed and the divorce rates of the religious it possibly could be an indicator...

Nope, you're missing the point completely. Humans come with numerous foibles, including hobbies, religions, sexual preferences, favorite sports, social customs and mores, and so on.

Again NO I am not missing your point, I am alluding to the issue that I disagree.

Humans are simply simi-evolved hairless apes with an evolutionary tendency to violence and herd behavior inherent in our genetic programed responses.

Quote
So how does this hypothetical free society function, given that the Jews still hate the Sabbath-breakers, and the Neonazis still hate the Jews, and the blacks still hate the Klanners, and the pre-Vatican-II Catholics still hate the post-Vatican-II Catholics?

A liberal lunatic would expect them all to just get along, live together in harmony, and teach the world to sing Kumbaya. They're idiots, which is why you and I both despise them.

So you and I are stating the obvious human flaws, you are attempting to promote an idea based on your view of "ZAP" where I tend to lean to LTY's "NAP" - this seems to be splitting hairs to some extent as LTY, you, myself and others on that "thin line" cross over in concepts, ZAP/NAP seem to be a shared point, with some provisions from each side. - Easy enough.

Do I think "kumbaya" liberals are crazy, to some extent yes, but just as I value the input from anarchists, I also value the input from the furthest left (canaries - coal mine effect) - I need to digress a bit here: I am an unusual "egalitarian" that is that I could wish that "man" COULD just get along all blue and pink rainbow singing brotherly love and all - I also recognize that that is impossible for man as the semi-evolved ape that he is to ever achieve this fantasy, I am intelligent enough to know that no matter how much I may wish for peace and harmony it is impossible. I like everyone else am allowed my personal wishes as the above, I simply don't allow that wish to become an obstruction to observing and analyzing the facts.

Quote
You, on the other hand, don't even seem to have considered this problem.

Not true, it actually borders on an obsession and give me nightmares - I know what the "best and most goodly" are capable of, I shudder to think of the general beer swilling dipshits are capable of... in a crash (that I am convinced is coming) I fear for myself and my family, and for that matter humanity itself as a whole.

Quote
Blueghost and some others have indicated that in this world they would have a very short fuse, after which they would resort to violence. You I'm not so sure of; as a Southerner, it's part of your cultural heritage that a good solid punch in the face is sometimes just what the doctor ordered, but you've said you don't believe in that.

I was raised in that culture, and I developed skills necessary to defuse that typical "punch in the face" - gentlemanly behavior is respected and lauded in the south, the all armed and capable of great violence is tempered with the "rules of good behavior" the typical thoughts of "fair play" and the expected "respect and admire your enemy - but prepare for your duty" is part of (or was) the culture.

Fighting is crude and vulgar, but a response to crude and vulgar behavior - a reason the most educated southerners despise Atlantic Coast Empire statist and their rude, vulgar, and "legalistic" behavior. We can have a reasonable even heated discourse, but leave our SOs out of it - you on the other hand have multiple times stepped over the line into just that type of speech behavior I was trained to despise and find repulsive, it is one of the reasons Blueghost would rather pull your guts out with a meat hook than deal with your nasty "legalistic-yankee" distracting tactics.

Quote
So maybe you believe that in a free society there just isn't any more religion, racism, or other reasons for one man to get pissed off at another? If so then you're picturing liberal Kumbaya-land, whether or not you realize it.

My hope is, and statistics lean this way, that one day the delusion of religion will die out and that alone will solve many problems, will it solve them all - NO.

I do think that ZAP/NAP combined with "rules of behavior" could do a lot in that regard, it is one of the reasons I bother to put up with the endless string of logical fallacies I see too many of you anarchists spew from your maws expecting the rest of us to lick it up like "milk and honey". If I did not think there was any value I would just find somewhere else to play.

Quote
So if you get it straight that people will still disagree, sometimes passionately, and will still have anger and hate, but they're still not allowed to resort to violence, EVER, then you'll be up to speed on the question I'm actually addressing here: what DO you do in those circumstances? If there will still be assholes, and racists, and Hare Krishnas bothering us, but we can't give them a smack in the puss, what DO we do?

You have not answered sufficiently the "black man on racist island" issue - shunned to death, what recourse does the black man have, is he justified in defending himself from the onslaught of offensive "non-aggression" turned to a level to ruin and even kill him?

What I my situation? Am I justified in wanting to do harm to people who had every intention to ruin my life and harm my family? They are still considered "good christians" and society at large has no intention of "shunning" them for their despicable behavior.

Quote
The answer, of course, is "anything you want, as long as you keep your hands to yourself."

How is this any more a fantasy than the kumbaya singing liberals?

Quote
Of course if you're raised in a world where violence is really the only option you know of, then you'll need some help finding alternatives, since that's the one thing you aren't allowed to do--regardless what they just said about your mother.

I see you use this as a blanket like defense for your offensive speech - constantly, and repeatedly, as if just because you never "hit" or physically aggressed property you are excused from calling someone's mother a whore?

Quote
The alternative is to come to an understanding, which we usually call "manners" or "etiquette" or "culture." It would include "rules" like "Don't preach Hare Krishna inside the grocery store," and it might also include rules like, "Don't move into that neighborhood if you aren't a devout Jew." We have such rules today, except that we often enforce them with violence;

To some extent yes, I would say that my constant visits to that shithole Atlantic Coast with all it's typical "legalistic" nastiness, you have fewer rules, far less politeness, and it is one of the reasons I think the best thing for the US is balkanization and then we can all become smaller regional areas where we understand one another better. I have seen it written that the Atlantic coast is so anti-gun because they don't trust themselves with them, preferring to argue and haggle like a couple of stinking primitives at a third world vegetable stand - armed and polite just does not suit the lawyers amongst you.

Quote
for example if a black man moves into a racist town, instead of shunning him they might burn a cross on his lawn or kill his dog. In a free society there's only one way to "enforce" rules like this: non-coercively. And that ALWAYS boils down to withholding association, in one way or another. That's the only option available, other than asking you nicely or bad-mouthing you. But a civil society simply cannot function without such rules, and therefore it cannot function without non-aggressive social enforcement.

Now you sound like a minarchist.

Quote
If you followed all that, you'd understand why on the one hand I keep saying that you can't assault a man for flirting with your wife, but on the other hand that you can do something about the asshole. Any given social group WILL do something about assholes like that, because nobody wants his woman stolen. What can they do? They can shun him. Plain and simple. It works, and it's their only choice.

I simply don't agree. This could all too quickly turn into a situation WORSE than you are willing to admit.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on July 01, 2010, 06:38:07 pm
In a truly free society, you CAN punch someone for flirting with your wife.  You just might have to convince a jury that the guy deserved it.

A "truly free" society is defined by ZAP, and the only way to "deserve" physical attack is to have first attempted physical aggression, or threat of same, against someone's person or property. No amount of "flirting" constitutes physical aggression.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Klapton Isgod on July 01, 2010, 06:44:15 pm
In a truly free society, you CAN punch someone for flirting with your wife.  You just might have to convince a jury that the guy deserved it.

A "truly free" society is defined by ZAP, and the only way to "deserve" physical attack is to have first attempted physical aggression, or threat of same, against someone's person or property. No amount of "flirting" constitutes physical aggression.

Juries will still have the right to vote their conscience is LennyLand?  If so, then depending on the community, a jury just might accquit someone for punching another guy in the mouth for disrespecting his wife.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 01, 2010, 06:53:05 pm
In a truly free society, you CAN punch someone for flirting with your wife.  You just might have to convince a jury that the guy deserved it.

A "truly free" society is defined by ZAP, and the only way to "deserve" physical attack is to have first attempted physical aggression, or threat of same, against someone's person or property. No amount of "flirting" constitutes physical aggression.

You are using "ZAP" as a blanket to protect your tendency or desire to be a jerk.

You like the idea of having your mitts on your pistol on the street and shouting "fuck you" and "suck it whore" telling everyone that because you did not hit anyone you cannot be touched.

You continue to tell everyone "they don't understand" or "you don't get it" when the entire time you continue to talk about "flirting" and no one but you continues to use that example, I'm sorry you have an issue with this but your idea of "ZAP" is not helping anarchism or it's promotion.

I never said "flirting" I was talking about some tactless empire elitist or penslytuckian slithering up and verbally accosting someone - you may not see that as aggression and that is your personal problem - Klapton "gets it".

If you treat people in the real world like here, it does not bode well for your social health, I hope you find a solution and some peace.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on July 01, 2010, 07:17:30 pm
And you are as usual avoiding the fact that someone is calling you on your tactics and pointing them out.

You're full of beans: I'm not using any such "tactics" as you're implying, and you certainly haven't offered any kind of evidence to the contrary. What you're mistaking for "tactics" is actually direct discussion of a particular point, that happens to be going over your head.

Quote
Again NO I am not missing your point, I am alluding to the issue that I disagree.

You disagree that humans have beliefs, opinions and prejudices that will cause them to disagree and dislike each other? OK, if you disagree with that then you live in fantasy land. Look in the mirror: here are you and I with beliefs, opinions and prejudices that cause to disagree, if not actually dislike each other. QED.

Quote
So you and I are stating the obvious human flaws, you are attempting to promote an idea based on your view of "ZAP" where I tend to lean to LTY's "NAP"...

Which you still haven't defined, because if you DO NOT support initiation of force, EVER, then you agree with me completely; but if you DO support initiation of force, then you've consistently refused to give an example of aggression that you'd endorse. So which is it? Do you in fact agree with me that initiated aggression is always wrong? Or do you believe it's NOT always wrong, and if so, when would it be right? It must be one or the other, so tell us which.

Quote
Quote
You... as a Southerner, it's part of your cultural heritage that a good solid punch in the face is sometimes just what the doctor ordered, but you've said you don't believe in that.

I was raised in that culture... Fighting is crude and vulgar, but a response to crude and vulgar behavior - a reason the most educated southerners despise Atlantic Coast Empire statist and their rude, vulgar, and "legalistic" behavior...

Fine, despise all you want--but keep your hand to yourself. If you find my kind "crude and vulgar," and therefore deserving of a "crude and vulgar" punch in the face, then bear in mind that maybe we find your ways equally "crude and vulgar," and hence equally deserving of a punch in the face. I've seen Southern boys and Northern boys get into fist fights precisely because each viewed the other as "crude and vulgar." So is that really you? Do you really believe that "crude and vulgar" people may be legitimately aggressed against like that?

I don't. Even if I did find you "crude and vulgar," I wouldn't assault you. Matter of fact the main reason I would find you crude and vulgar is because of your willingness to assault "crude and vulgar" people. Using violence to make people behave like gentlemen? Seriously? Yes, I know that's done in your part of the country, but don't you see the contradiction there?

Quote
We can have a reasonable even heated discourse, but leave our SOs out of it - you on the other hand have multiple times stepped over the line...

I have spoken hypothetically about whether such conduct constitutes aggression; I have certainly not actually been speaking of YOUR real-life significant other, because I don't even know (or care) if you have one. I don't know, and don't care, whether you're married, or single, or gay, or cohabiting with a sheep. If you actually interpreted anything in our discussion as a literal reference to your literal spouse, then you're illustrating my point: in your part of the country, people can't tell the difference between words and force--and they can't even tell the difference between an actual and a hypothetical insult. Not because you're stupid, but because your culture is highly prone to taking offense, and to reacting violently.

Quote
...into just that type of speech behavior I was trained to despise and find repulsive, it is one of the reasons Blueghost would rather pull your guts out with a meat hook than deal with your nasty "legalistic-yankee" distracting tactics.

There we go. I'm saying words--and not even actual insulting words, but hypothetical words about insulting words, and already he's ready to "pull my guts out with a meat hook." In your culture and his, words = violence. That's a problem, because you will never be free if you operate that way. It's why you yourself were ostracized by your neighbors for being an atheist: you simply saying "I don't believe in God" was taken exactly the same as if you'd literally smacked them in the face or spit on Christ himself. And you see the destructive results? If you've never been in a fist-fight over that, you're either lucky or you kept your mouth shut about atheism.

Quote
My hope is, and statistics lean this way, that one day the delusion of religion will die out...

Maybe so. But it would only be replaced by NASCAR, or preference in music, or dick size. When men stop disagreeing over religion, they'll just move on to disagree about other things, just as violently.

Quote
I do think that ZAP/NAP combined with "rules of behavior" could do a lot in that regard....

Me too! That's why shunning is so important. It's the only way to enforce "rules of behavior," other than using criminal means like assault.

Quote
You have not answered sufficiently the "black man on racist island" issue - shunned to death, what recourse does the black man have, is he justified in defending himself from the onslaught of offensive "non-aggression" turned to a level to ruin and even kill him?

Excellent questions all! The answer is lengthy, but I'll try to put some of it in a nutshell. In that case, stealing food is still stealing--but the penalty for stealing is not death, so a man in that position, if he has any brains, will steal and then take the punishment, rather than starve to death. And these owners on KKK Island know that. They might say it disparagingly, like, "A starving n****r is like a caged animal--dangerous!" but the result is the same: if they aren't willing to violate ZAP and simply attack him--which would give the cavalry all the justification they need to come in guns a-blazing--then slowly starving him would be too dangerous to themselves, so they wouldn't do it. Exactly what they do depends on circumstances, but the likeliest would be some variation of sticking him on a boat heading for somewhere else.

Quote
What I my situation? Am I justified in wanting to do harm to people who had every intention to ruin my life and harm my family? They are still considered "good christians" and society at large has no intention of "shunning" them for their despicable behavior.

Justified in wanting to, sure. I understand completely--like I said, I've been shunned before. he only viable option is to leave, and it sounds like you did just that. But it's a hell of a pickle to be in, say if your wife refuses to leave because her family is there.

There isn't any good solution to that problem, though. If everyone in town hates you--for whatever retarded reason--then you're over a barrel, and you probably have no choice but to move on. That's true today, as you know firsthand, and it would be the same in any reality, including Libertopia, that's populated by humans.

Quote
Quote
The answer, of course, is "anything you want, as long as you keep your hands to yourself."

How is this any more a fantasy than the kumbaya singing liberals?

Saying, "You're not allowed to assault them, even though they're despicable assholes," is fantasy? I suppose it is: most men would resort to violence. I've thought that before too, and admit that it just might be a fantasy. So maybe freedom is unworkable, because humans are just hopeless apes who can't learn to stop flinging their poo.

What gives me hope is the number of times a day that I interact with people, and they don't fling their poo after all.

Quote
Quote
Of course if you're raised in a world where violence is really the only option you know of, then you'll need some help finding alternatives, since that's the one thing you aren't allowed to do--regardless what they just said about your mother.

I see you use this as a blanket like defense for your offensive speech - constantly, and repeatedly, as if just because you never "hit" or physically aggressed property you are excused from calling someone's mother a whore?

Excused? Huh? No, it's inexcusable, rude, immoral and disgusting. I've never done it. I've had people call MY mother a whore, and I've never assaulted them. In your neck of the woods that might ruin my social standing--a little sissy who won't stand up for his momma. Too bad. So I'm a sissy. I wouldn't defend my wife's honor, either, using physical force. I would defend her person, of course, which is why I bother to be armed.

Quote
Quote
The alternative is to come to an understanding, which we usually call "manners" or "etiquette" or "culture." It would include "rules" like "Don't preach Hare Krishna inside the grocery store," and it might also include rules like, "Don't move into that neighborhood if you aren't a devout Jew." We have such rules today, except that we often enforce them with violence;

To some extent yes, I would say that my constant visits to that shithole Atlantic Coast with all it's typical "legalistic" nastiness, you have fewer rules, far less politeness...

Actually we have quite a lot of politeness. It just works differently than you're used to, and instead of learning the local customs you choose to be all pissed off about it. A Northerner visiting your town might say similar things--that you're a bunch of brutes who start out polite, with your "Sir" and "Ma'am," but easily become pissed off, fly into a rage and start a fist-fight. We're wrong about you, and you're wrong about us. Then again, we're right about you, and you're right about us. Customs are the damndest things.

Quote
I think the best thing for the US is balkanization and then we can all become smaller regional areas where we understand one another better.

I quite agree. There will always be different cultures, and friction when they collide. If we can all agree to obey ZAP when the friction arises, we can work it out. Partly, by staying where the culture suits us.

Quote
Quote
But a civil society simply cannot function without such rules, and therefore it cannot function without non-aggressive social enforcement.

Now you sound like a minarchist.

OK, sure, if you want to call social pressure "government." It's not, though, because there's no aggression involved. It's a hard thing to get a whole town to shun someone. You'd have to be a baby-raper, or the only atheist in a town of Baptists, or something like that. In most cases, a few people may shun you, but the others won't bother to go along.

Quote
Quote
If you followed all that, you'd understand why on the one hand I keep saying that you can't assault a man for flirting with your wife, but on the other hand that you can do something about the asshole. Any given social group WILL do something about assholes like that, because nobody wants his woman stolen. What can they do? They can shun him. Plain and simple. It works, and it's their only choice.

I simply don't agree. This could all too quickly turn into a situation WORSE than you are willing to admit.

Worse than starving a black man to death on KKK Island?
Quote
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on July 01, 2010, 07:27:47 pm
In a truly free society, you CAN punch someone for flirting with your wife.  You just might have to convince a jury that the guy deserved it.

A "truly free" society is defined by ZAP, and the only way to "deserve" physical attack is to have first attempted physical aggression, or threat of same, against someone's person or property. No amount of "flirting" constitutes physical aggression.

Juries will still have the right to vote their conscience is LennyLand?  If so, then depending on the community, a jury just might accquit someone for punching another guy in the mouth for disrespecting his wife.

They might; you raise an interesting point. In a hyper-legalistic society, breathing is trespassing, if my CO2 goes over your property line. We tolerate that form of trespassing because if I sued you for it, you'd sue me back over MY CO2, and it'd be a never-ending feud. So in practice we put up with trespassing, and other "crimes" of aggression, all the time--when the "damages" are too small to bother about, or when we expect the same courtesy back, etc. In that same light, a culture can evolve in which fist-fighting falls under that heading. In Cowboy Town, in West Libertopia, people haul off and smack each other, and the victim doesn't sue because he knows that he'd react the same way. So the folks in that town have an implicit contract that allows fist-fighting. It absolutely can happen. If the US ever became a free country, the South is likely to develop just such a culture.

Visitors from other cultures pose an interesting problem, though. To an extent, they're expected to know the local customs. But also, to an extent, they're allowed to opt out. So if the cowboys in Cowboy Town haul off and punch New England Dude, he might just gun some of them down. When the case gets sorted out, he's liable to be acquitted.

As an aside, though, juries aren't compulsory in Libertopia. Rothbard discusses a libertarian legal system at some length, including how you deal with criminals when you can't actually force them to submit to the Cowboy Town court.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on July 01, 2010, 07:37:02 pm
In a truly free society, you CAN punch someone for flirting with your wife.  You just might have to convince a jury that the guy deserved it.

A "truly free" society is defined by ZAP, and the only way to "deserve" physical attack is to have first attempted physical aggression, or threat of same, against someone's person or property. No amount of "flirting" constitutes physical aggression.

You are using "ZAP" as a blanket to protect your tendency or desire to be a jerk.

You're still confusing hypothetical with actual insults. I do not, and have not, insulted anyone's mother, wife, etc. I can't tell if you have that straight; Blueghost definitely seems to mistake a hypothetical discussion for an actual insult to his wife--where I don't even know if he's married.

There are things you can do to jerks. But you can't hit them. If you try, they can shoot you. Find a better way to deal with jerks. Simple as that.

Quote
You like the idea of having your mitts on your pistol on the street and shouting "fuck you" and "suck it whore" telling everyone that because you did not hit anyone you cannot be touched.

Wow. You know, don't you, that self-defense law in the US means that if I did that, and then defended myself with a firearm, that I would go to prison for murder? You do realize that, right? We're discussing hypotheticals here, because (a) the last thing I ever want to do is shoot someone, and (b) if I did shoot someone, and was found to have provoked or escalated hostilities, then I'd be guilty of murder, and (c) therefore I'm so damn polite butter doesn't melt in my mouth. Trust me. If a little pipsqueak calls MY wife a whore, *I* apologize. Because I don't want to have to shoot him, and if I *do* have to shoot him, I want it to be very clear that I did everything to avoid confrontation.

Quote
You continue to tell everyone "they don't understand" or "you don't get it" when the entire time you continue to talk about "flirting" and no one but you continues to use that example, I'm sorry you have an issue with this but your idea of "ZAP" is not helping anarchism or it's promotion.

See, I'm troubled by the fact that you can't contain your violence over hypothetical flirting. I haven't flirted with anyone's wife, least of all yours. I haven't even threatened to. I haven't even said "If I flirted with your wife...," as far as I recall. I said, "If someone flirted with your wife..." That's a hypothetical flirtation by an imaginary person other than myself. And still you direct powerful hostility at me, as if I did something. That interests me because if that's how men really work, and they can't learn to control themselves, then freedom can't ever work.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: padre29 on July 01, 2010, 07:54:06 pm
In a truly free society, you CAN punch someone for flirting with your wife.  You just might have to convince a jury that the guy deserved it.

A "truly free" society is defined by ZAP, and the only way to "deserve" physical attack is to have first attempted physical aggression, or threat of same, against someone's person or property. No amount of "flirting" constitutes physical aggression.

Juries will still have the right to vote their conscience is LennyLand?  If so, then depending on the community, a jury just might accquit someone for punching another guy in the mouth for disrespecting his wife.

What if there was a challenge to a Duel?

Made by the offended party?

Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Klapton Isgod on July 01, 2010, 08:06:43 pm
In a truly free society, you CAN punch someone for flirting with your wife.  You just might have to convince a jury that the guy deserved it.

A "truly free" society is defined by ZAP, and the only way to "deserve" physical attack is to have first attempted physical aggression, or threat of same, against someone's person or property. No amount of "flirting" constitutes physical aggression.

Juries will still have the right to vote their conscience is LennyLand?  If so, then depending on the community, a jury just might accquit someone for punching another guy in the mouth for disrespecting his wife.

They might; you raise an interesting point. In a hyper-legalistic society, breathing is trespassing, if my CO2 goes over your property line. We tolerate that form of trespassing because if I sued you for it, you'd sue me back over MY CO2, and it'd be a never-ending feud. So in practice we put up with trespassing, and other "crimes" of aggression, all the time--when the "damages" are too small to bother about, or when we expect the same courtesy back, etc. In that same light, a culture can evolve in which fist-fighting falls under that heading. In Cowboy Town, in West Libertopia, people haul off and smack each other, and the victim doesn't sue because he knows that he'd react the same way. So the folks in that town have an implicit contract that allows fist-fighting. It absolutely can happen. If the US ever became a free country, the South is likely to develop just such a culture.

Visitors from other cultures pose an interesting problem, though. To an extent, they're expected to know the local customs. But also, to an extent, they're allowed to opt out. So if the cowboys in Cowboy Town haul off and punch New England Dude, he might just gun some of them down. When the case gets sorted out, he's liable to be acquitted.

As an aside, though, juries aren't compulsory in Libertopia. Rothbard discusses a libertarian legal system at some length, including how you deal with criminals when you can't actually force them to submit to the Cowboy Town court.

There's a saying, "Them's fightin' words!"  What that means is that there are certain things that one might say when they actually WANT to start a fight.  Or that within some cultures or communities, there are words that one does NOT necessarily have to put up with from another person.  The most important thing about "fightin words" is that everyone who was raised in that culture KNOWS what those fighting words are, and what words aren't. 

So...

In a culture or community like that, those words could be considered aggression, in much the same way that a verbal threat can be considered aggression.  If someone says, "I'm going to kick your ass" or "Your mom is a whore" doesn't really matter if their intent - to initiate a physical altercation - is clear.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on July 01, 2010, 08:20:23 pm
In a culture or community like that, those words could be considered aggression, in much the same way that a verbal threat can be considered aggression.  If someone says, "I'm going to kick your ass" or "Your mom is a whore" doesn't really matter if their intent - to initiate a physical altercation - is clear.

Agreed. Depending on the culture, almost any statement might take on the meaning of a threat, or an agreement to fight by mutual consent. That leads interestingly to the outsider problem, if an American visits an African village where saying, "You have a beautiful child!" is actually an invitation to mortal combat.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 02, 2010, 12:42:01 am
And you are as usual avoiding the fact that someone is calling you on your tactics and pointing them out.
You're full of beans: I'm not using any such "tactics" as you're implying, and you certainly haven't offered any kind of evidence to the contrary. What you're mistaking for "tactics" is actually direct discussion of a particular point, that happens to be going over your head.

And you are full of manure Lenny. Your MO is to never discuss a point directly, you enjoy distraction too much. As far as attempting to say I am incapable of understanding you, I understand completely and I continue to be unconvinced.

Quote
Quote
Again NO I am not missing your point, I am alluding to the issue that I disagree.
You disagree that humans have beliefs, opinions and prejudices that will cause them to disagree and dislike each other? OK, if you disagree with that then you live in fantasy land. Look in the mirror: here are you and I with beliefs, opinions and prejudices that cause to disagree, if not actually dislike each other. QED.

No, I disagree that the "ZAP" you are touting isn't philosophical solipsism, and no, I do not feel that you have completion of the proof (quod erat demonstrandum)..

Quote
Which you still haven't defined, because if you DO NOT support initiation of force, EVER, then you agree with me completely; but if you DO support initiation of force, then you've consistently refused to give an example of aggression that you'd endorse. So which is it? Do you in fact agree with me that initiated aggression is always wrong? Or do you believe it's NOT always wrong, and if so, when would it be right? It must be one or the other, so tell us which.

I'm not in the position to define a point, I am not promoting some version of ZAP/NAP I am attempting to correlate and analyze the information so I can make a rational decision. So far the only thing I seem to understand about anarchists is that they have no intention nor feel a responsibility of promoting their ideas in a way that makes it acceptable, rational, or reasonable. About the only thing I am taking away from it so far is narcissism, "your too dense to understand" and thinly veiled "piss up a rope" for the most part a miserable failure - and I and others are in some basic agreement!

So when would the use of aggression be right, with your open-ended and ever changing legalistic line that could be anywhere.

Quote
Fine, despise all you want--but keep your hand to yourself. If you find my kind "crude and vulgar," and therefore deserving of a "crude and vulgar" punch in the face, then bear in mind that maybe we find your ways equally "crude and vulgar," and hence equally deserving of a punch in the face. I've seen Southern boys and Northern boys get into fist fights precisely because each viewed the other as "crude and vulgar." So is that really you? Do you really believe that "crude and vulgar" people may be legitimately aggressed against like that?

More than anything it simply points out that Lincoln was wrong and this country SHOULD break up, and the time is long past. I have seen your Atlantic Elitist version of "hate the southerner" that version of "reason" is "agree with me or else". I have seen your "superior" culture there, you are just as prone to fighting if not more.

Quote
I don't. Even if I did find you "crude and vulgar," I wouldn't assault you. Matter of fact the main reason I would find you crude and vulgar is because of your willingness to assault "crude and vulgar" people. Using violence to make people behave like gentlemen? Seriously? Yes, I know that's done in your part of the country, but don't you see the contradiction there?

And you are showing that you don't understand the southern culture, so be it. Violence is not needed to behave, violence is a result of bad behavior. I myself don't start nor indulge in that type of bad behavior, some will involve themselves in drunkenness increasing the chance for bad behavior, I don't. It is not the violence that makes people behave like gentleman it's the education - this ties back into my past posts, pointing out that the more educated and intelligent the population the less crime and violence.

Quote
If you actually interpreted anything in our discussion as a literal reference to your literal spouse,

I did not, I was pointing to the fact that you were using that as a cover even "hypothetical" as on the internet there can be nothing else but the hypothetical. You kept changing the hypothetical to your desired position rather than stick to the original.

Quote
then you're illustrating my point: in your part of the country, people can't tell the difference between words and force--and they can't even tell the difference between an actual and a hypothetical insult. Not because you're stupid, but because your culture is highly prone to taking offense, and to reacting violently.

"Can't tell the difference", that only illuminates the elitist eastern view I was pointing out. We can tell the difference, also we are taught that words are precursors to actions, your culture loves the verbally aggressive argument, when I visit your cultural area I make myself aware of how that works, while on the other hand the typical elitist easterner wants US to follow YOUR ideas and cultural legalistic lines, and we would rather you just calm down. We take offense because words mean things, we are not taught as you are that words can be used, abused, twisted and bandied carelessly with intent to manipulate.

The old southern society was peaceful with a lower instance of violence, it was the social pressure to behave "to be a man" not the violence.

Quote
There we go. I'm saying words--and not even actual insulting words, but hypothetical words about insulting words, and already he's ready to "pull my guts out with a meat hook." In your culture and his, words = violence. That's a problem, because you will never be free if you operate that way. It's why you yourself were ostracized by your neighbors for being an atheist: you simply saying "I don't believe in God" was taken exactly the same as if you'd literally smacked them in the face or spit on Christ himself. And you see the destructive results? If you've never been in a fist-fight over that, you're either lucky or you kept your mouth shut about atheism.

I was open about my atheism, I don't get into fights, it is simply something most people would never think about - Why, because I am useful, helpful, polite, and dare I say it, the knowledgeable gentleman. My issues with christians were simply that their "bible code" overcomes southern culture and I was to be shunned and ruined because I was "of the devil" many cultural lines were crossed on their part, it is one of the reasons I view christianity as so dangerous - it overcomes even ingrained cultural rules allowing the unscrupulous to abuse the issue.

When did freedom center on "ZAP"? How can you justify the idea that without "ZAP" there is no freedom?

Quote
When men stop disagreeing over religion, they'll just move on to disagree about other things, just as violently.

Possibly, but statistics bear out that less religion (the more atheist the society) the less crime, the evidence points to religion as a problem.

Quote
Me too! That's why shunning is so important. It's the only way to enforce "rules of behavior," other than using criminal means like assault.

Our disagreement stems from the fact that I consider "shunning" as you have labeled it aggression, capable of as deadly of results as assault with a weapon, just slower and more accepted. I see what was done to me any different than theft, the results the same.

I feel our Constitution is flawed, but the idea of a "set of rules" I think makes reasonable sense.

Quote
Quote
... justified in defending himself from the onslaught of offensive "non-aggression" turned to a level to ruin and even kill him?

Excellent questions all! The answer is lengthy, but I'll try to put some of it in a nutshell. In that case, stealing food is still stealing--but the penalty for stealing is not death, so a man in that position, if he has any brains, will steal and then take the punishment, rather than starve to death. And these owners on KKK Island know that. They might say it disparagingly, like, "A starving n****r is like a caged animal--dangerous!" but the result is the same: if they aren't willing to violate ZAP and simply attack him--which would give the cavalry all the justification they need to come in guns a-blazing--then slowly starving him would be too dangerous to themselves, so they wouldn't do it. Exactly what they do depends on circumstances, but the likeliest would be some variation of sticking him on a boat heading for somewhere else.

Not only no justice, or recourse, but also as in my case no "cavalry guns a-blazing" and again no recourse, so an evil that is equivalent to theft is left with no recourse.

Quote
Justified in wanting to, sure. I understand completely--like I said, I've been shunned before. he only viable option is to leave, and it sounds like you did just that. But it's a hell of a pickle to be in, say if your wife refuses to leave because her family is there.

There isn't any good solution to that problem, though. If everyone in town hates you--for whatever retarded reason--then you're over a barrel, and you probably have no choice but to move on. That's true today, as you know firsthand, and it would be the same in any reality, including Libertopia, that's populated by humans.

It can, until the kids are threatened with hunger, most women will change from unreasonable to a flag bearer when the kids are threatened. And still no recourse?

Quote
Saying, "You're not allowed to assault them, even though they're despicable assholes," is fantasy? I suppose it is: most men would resort to violence. I've thought that before too, and admit that it just might be a fantasy. So maybe freedom is unworkable, because humans are just hopeless apes who can't learn to stop flinging their poo.

What gives me hope is the number of times a day that I interact with people, and they don't fling their poo after all.

I sadly have to agree with the first part, likely the central part of our disagreement because I find no hope as you do with the second part, something I have stated before freedom individualistic anarchy is the playground of philosophers not our standard hairless ape.

Quote
OK, sure, if you want to call social pressure "government." It's not, though, because there's no aggression involved. It's a hard thing to get a whole town to shun someone. You'd have to be a baby-raper, or the only atheist in a town of Baptists, or something like that. In most cases, a few people may shun you, but the others won't bother to go along.

Force is force, I am pointing out the splitting of hairs here, typically humans need a leader to organize anything other than eating, sex, and excrement, so while using your legalistic line for ZAP the results can still be the same and continue to be screwed. It is still aggression.

Quote
Quote
I simply don't agree. This could all too quickly turn into a situation WORSE than you are willing to admit.
Worse than starving a black man to death on KKK Island?
Quote

That was actually my point, and the lack of recourse.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Rarick on July 02, 2010, 05:56:27 am
In a truly free society, you CAN punch someone for flirting with your wife.  You just might have to convince a jury that the guy deserved it.

A "truly free" society is defined by ZAP, and the only way to "deserve" physical attack is to have first attempted physical aggression, or threat of same, against someone's person or property. No amount of "flirting" constitutes physical aggression.

Juries will still have the right to vote their conscience is LennyLand?  If so, then depending on the community, a jury just might accquit someone for punching another guy in the mouth for disrespecting his wife.

They might; you raise an interesting point. In a hyper-legalistic society, breathing is trespassing, if my CO2 goes over your property line. We tolerate that form of trespassing because if I sued you for it, you'd sue me back over MY CO2, and it'd be a never-ending feud. So in practice we put up with trespassing, and other "crimes" of aggression, all the time--when the "damages" are too small to bother about, or when we expect the same courtesy back, etc. In that same light, a culture can evolve in which fist-fighting falls under that heading. In Cowboy Town, in West Libertopia, people haul off and smack each other, and the victim doesn't sue because he knows that he'd react the same way. So the folks in that town have an implicit contract that allows fist-fighting. It absolutely can happen. If the US ever became a free country, the South is likely to develop just such a culture.

Visitors from other cultures pose an interesting problem, though. To an extent, they're expected to know the local customs. But also, to an extent, they're allowed to opt out. So if the cowboys in Cowboy Town haul off and punch New England Dude, he might just gun some of them down. When the case gets sorted out, he's liable to be acquitted.

As an aside, though, juries aren't compulsory in Libertopia. Rothbard discusses a libertarian legal system at some length, including how you deal with criminals when you can't actually force them to submit to the Cowboy Town court.

There's a saying, "Them's fightin' words!"  What that means is that there are certain things that one might say when they actually WANT to start a fight.  Or that within some cultures or communities, there are words that one does NOT necessarily have to put up with from another person.  The most important thing about "fightin words" is that everyone who was raised in that culture KNOWS what those fighting words are, and what words aren't. 

So...

In a culture or community like that, those words could be considered aggression, in much the same way that a verbal threat can be considered aggression.  If someone says, "I'm going to kick your ass" or "Your mom is a whore" doesn't really matter if their intent - to initiate a physical altercation - is clear.


Basically a declaration that war is imminent unless we separate right now.  There are states that have "incitement or fighting words" clauses written into their self defense laws.  Words can be a statement of hosrilities are commencing NOW, defend yourself!

Also ZAP is still functional in a situation where a man is making unwelcome advances on a woman, or simply commitiing constant social aggression. If the guy does not take avoidance or "no go away" as an indicator, and keeps on pursueing his socially agrressive/ offensive behavior, he can end up having to deal with defending himself from physical aggression.  Human being are flawed creatures, but there is some basic programming from evolution, the emotional response is that evolutionary programming.  That can be overriden only so much before a person acts, in which case ZAP may have been satisfied.  It is up to "peers/ witnesses" to make up their minds, and make personal responses they deem appropriate.

If someone kept making advances on me or my wife, and we had made them well aware that this was undesired and unappropriate, and the behavior persisted then there would be repercussions.  After a couple of times loud and agressive countering responses verbally, so EVERYONE would know there was an issue, and why the physical violence finally happened (many rejections and declarations later).  That individual would be facing both of us, we both value each other and our relationship and will defend it against whoever aggresses on it.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on July 02, 2010, 07:14:00 am
When did freedom center on "ZAP"? How can you justify the idea that without "ZAP" there is no freedom?

Fair question, and that's the heart of the matter. Freedom means allowing you to do whatever you please with your property (including your body), except use them to take away someone else's freedom. Whatever you want. If that means smoking dope, or drinking corn whiskey, or selling your body, or marrying four other men, or worshipping the apple core you just ate, or rolling around on your floor naked, or attempting to make a pact with Satan, or paying a bunch of midgets to bow and call you "Your Majesty," or driving without a seat belt, or having a toilet that uses 500 gallons per flush... whatever you want. If you're using your rightfully-owned property, and you aren't interfering with anyone else's rightfully-owned property, knock yourself out. YOU'RE FREE.

If I'm not doing anything to your person or property, you need to leave me alone the same way I leave you alone. Even if that means I like to pray to Satan, naked, while fornicating with gay midgets dressed as Cinderella. If you decide that my Satanic religion, or my gay persuasion, or my annoying lisp, or my midget "princesses," somehow offend you and you decide to assault me, I'M NOT FREE AFTER ALL.

Notice that defending freedom means defending freaks and scoundrels. Your culture is pretty freedom-oriented, in many ways, and nobody has to tell you to mind your own business if a man wants to poach deer and make corn whiskey. You're already quite happy to tolerate freedom when a man does things you find tolerable and acceptable. That's true everywhere. Near me nobody makes corn whiskey, but plenty of people smoke dope, and folks are pretty tolerant of it. Things only get interesting when a freak comes to town: we find him offensive, and we want to use violence against him, and nobody will stop us because everyone else feels the same way. It's how we treat that freak that shows whether we really believe in freedom or not.

So anyway, if you lay your hands on me or my stuff, when I'm not harming you, I'M NOT FREE. If I lay hands on you or your stuff, when you're not harming me, YOU'RE NOT FREE. That pretty much proves that freedom is synonymous with freedom from aggression.

Americans think they're free today because they're allows to to certain things. They're subject to all sorts of aggression, right down to doing jail time if their toilet flushes 3 gallons instead of 1.5 gallons. That's not freedom. To be truly free, they must be left alone as long as they're not harming anyone else.

Quote
Force is force, I am pointing out the splitting of hairs here...

All force is not the same. Your culture teaches that a physical attack is really the same as a reprimand; I get that. Americans in general believe that it's OK to kidnap a man, and lock him in a cage, if he drinks or smokes something we disapprove of. So we already know that almost everyone thinks certain types of force are OK, and not really "aggression." They're wrong: when a man who hasn't harmed anyone is lying there with a face full of pepper spray, thrashing about as the TASER cycles, that's a criminal assault. Lots of Americans don't think so. Many even get off on it. But it is, and we'll never be free until people realize it. In just the same way, if a man says the wrong thing in a bar in Atlanta, and finds himself face-down on the floor swallowing teeth, that was a criminal assault. Lots of people don't think so. Many even get off on it. But it is, and we'll never be free until people realize it.

Refusing to associate is different, at least in that you can't possibly end up swallowing teeth as a result. You call it "force," and it is in the sense that humans are herd animals, and cutting them off from the herd causes tremendous anxiety. So be it: at least in that case, you have the option of finding another herd, because you're not face down with eyes swollen shut or locked in a cage.

Quote
...typically humans need a leader to organize anything other than eating, sex, and excrement...

There's organizing, and there's organizing by force. People do not need to be organized by force. A hundred million Americans illustrate that every day by working at a job where nobody has the power to kill, hit, kidnap, cage, rape, rob or otherwise lay a finger on their employees.

Quote
Quote
Worse than starving a black man to death on KKK Island?
Quote

That was actually my point, and the lack of recourse.

He has more recourse than he would swinging on the end of a rope.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on July 02, 2010, 07:17:02 am
. Blueghost and some others have indicated that in this world they would have a very short fuse, after which they would resort to violence.

 
And tell ya what asshole , my words are still there and they still state that I'd walk away , and that I'd walk away a second time and that I'd keep walking but if you persisted in following and keeping it up you'd then get your teeth rattled.

I rest my case. You'd make a couple attempts to avoid the conversation, but if I kept saying things you disliked I'd "get my teeth rattled." So you would refrain from violence until your short fuse burned out, and then you'd resort to violence. It's helpful that you call me a liar and prove me right in the same post--it saves looking up old posts.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on July 02, 2010, 07:43:12 am
Also ZAP is still functional in a situation where a man is making unwelcome advances on a woman, or simply commitiing constant social aggression.

You're absolutely right! But in my hypothetical, the woman is consenting, and the advances are welcomed.

Quote
If the guy does not take avoidance or "no go away" as an indicator, and keeps on pursueing his socially agrressive/ offensive behavior, he can end up having to deal with defending himself from physical aggression.

It's basically impossible to harass a woman without violating ZAP. If you touch her, get in her way or corner her, that's assault and she can shoot you. If you follow her persistently, she has reasonable fear that you will assault or otherwise harm her, and she can issue verbal commands and, if you persist, shoot you. In addition, no property owner would allow that kind of behavior, so the harasser is violating the property-owner's rules and therefore trespassing. He can be evicted using physical force, and if he resists he can be shot.

Quote
If someone kept making advances on me or my wife, and we had made them well aware that this was undesired and unappropriate, and the behavior persisted then there would be repercussions.

Like I just described, there could and should be. If the advance is welcomed by the hypothetical wife, however, it's much harder to justify physical force.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on July 02, 2010, 10:54:19 am
You contribute little to this forum but strife and divisive behavior, and you can't take it when someone disagrees with you, oh no that's not allowed.

Not in my case. I disagreed with a few folks on here regarding the whole Joe Stack thing (http://www.thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?topic=25442.75). I conceded that Lenny made some excellent points, and I believe he did so without being patronizing. I didn't agree with him, but I had no quarrel with his views.

Quote
In short ya got no MANNERS and ya got no ETHICS, which makes you worth about as much as tits on a boar hog.

- You're pathetic
- In short jackasses like YOU
- And tell ya what asshole
- And quit claiming to be a Christian , you aren't
- Christian my ass, you're yet another false Christian
- See in the last analysis what you ARE is a real life MODERN incarnation of the EXACT same sort of people that crucified Christ.


I've found the volleying between RF and Lenny to be quite fascinating. Mostly because neither one of them have resorted to boorish dialogue...
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on July 02, 2010, 11:26:27 am
You've utterly failed to learn some of the most basic lessons of life , 'freedom' doesn't remotely mean that you're free to run around treating folks as you see fit , such behavior has consequences , and you attempt to hide behind the auspices of *your* version of ZAP to avoid the consequences of your own egregious behavior.

I didn't note that. What I did read from Lenny was:

If I'm not doing anything to your person or property, you need to leave me alone the same way I leave you alone. Even if that means I like to pray to Satan, naked, while fornicating with gay midgets dressed as Cinderella. If you decide that my Satanic religion, or my gay persuasion, or my annoying lisp, or my midget "princesses," somehow offend you and you decide to assault me, I'M NOT FREE AFTER ALL.... So anyway, if you lay your hands on me or my stuff, when I'm not harming you, I'M NOT FREE. If I lay hands on you or your stuff, when you're not harming me, YOU'RE NOT FREE. That pretty much proves that freedom is synonymous with freedom from aggression.

Quote
In real life I'm pretty easygoing , I get along with most everybody. Until some raving berk such as yourself gets in my face and starts telling me that I have to do as they say and endorse their partyline rhetoric and bullshit.

I'm learning a lot from RF and Lenny. But, it is distracting from the discussion when you say something like that Blueghost because I just didn't see that manifested from Lenny?...
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 02, 2010, 11:58:49 am
When did freedom center on "ZAP"? How can you justify the idea that without "ZAP" there is no freedom?

Fair question, and that's the heart of the matter. Freedom means allowing you to do whatever you please with your property (including your body), except use them to take away someone else's freedom. Whatever you want. If that means ... whatever you want. If you're using your rightfully-owned property, and you aren't interfering with anyone else's rightfully-owned property, knock yourself out. YOU'RE FREE.

If I'm not doing anything to your person or property, you need to leave me alone the same way I leave you alone. Even if that means I like to pray to Satan, naked, while fornicating with gay midgets dressed as Cinderella. If you decide that my Satanic religion, or my gay persuasion, or my annoying lisp, or my midget "princesses," somehow offend you and you decide to assault me, I'M NOT FREE AFTER ALL.

Don't you think that the above is a rather juvenile and narcissistic view of what freedom is? I am perfectly able, willing, and in fact do follow ZAP/NAP and beyond because I do believe politeness is a sign of a "good person", I do business in the same way and with the same service regardless of how repugnant I think a persons ideas, culture, and more are to me personally - it is simply good business.

Quote
Notice that defending freedom means defending freaks and scoundrels. Your culture is pretty freedom-oriented, in many ways, and nobody has to tell you to mind your own business if a man wants to poach deer and make corn whiskey. You're already quite happy to tolerate freedom when a man does things you find tolerable and acceptable. That's true everywhere. Near me nobody makes corn whiskey, but plenty of people smoke dope, and folks are pretty tolerant of it. Things only get interesting when a freak comes to town: we find him offensive, and we want to use violence against him, and nobody will stop us because everyone else feels the same way. It's how we treat that freak that shows whether we really believe in freedom or not.

And here is where we diverge, you define aggression (we could also call this destructive action or inaction from my POV) in one way, and I consider any action/inaction that is destructive to another - aggression, aggression that should have a recourse. I would prefer that recourse in a formal setting like a court, or with a "constitutional set of laws" (for lack of a better term) and local mediation - I do think that courts and mediation could both be private services if set in a fair way.

It's this simple, as a victim of "good christians" for for all intents and purposes organized to damage my family simply because I was an alternate religion and refused to "play their local game" of religious cronyism. This cost me my life savings (well over 500k), my house, my living space near extended family, and my wife's ranch, of course I had no recourse, but the damage was deliberate and intentional. Your system you propose allows (it seems) without recourse, just as it is now - I remain unconvinced that ignorant hairless bipedal apes can keep to ZAP for more than a few days and would not devolve into WORSE than we have now.

Quote
So anyway, if you lay your hands on me or my stuff, when I'm not harming you, I'M NOT FREE. If I lay hands on you or your stuff, when you're not harming me, YOU'RE NOT FREE. That pretty much proves that freedom is synonymous with freedom from aggression.

None of this takes into account the biological genetic conditioning of hairless bipedal ape species we belong to, It is an undeniable fact that the more intelligent that hairless bipedal ape the lower the crime, violence, and trouble is involved - this of course is a "politically incorrect" fact, but it is a fact none the less. So higher concepts like minarchism, anarchism, libertarianism, and hybrids like arorism are the playground of the intelegencia.

Quote
Americans think they're free today because they're allows to to certain things. They're subject to all sorts of aggression, right down to doing jail time if their toilet flushes 3 gallons instead of 1.5 gallons. That's not freedom. To be truly free, they must be left alone as long as they're not harming anyone else.

Viewing society as the extension of a family, no one is, or can be, without irresponsible narcissism that "free" we are not designed biologically like the solitary animals but rather small cell pod structures, every "group" animal has a biological connection to that cell pod and therefore naturally structure bound. I am coming to the conclusion that anarchism as I see here on the boards and ZAP as a concept are not only unfair in aspects but biologically unnatural.

Quote
Quote
Force is force, I am pointing out the splitting of hairs here...
All force is not the same. Your culture teaches that a physical attack is really the same as a reprimand; I get that. Americans in general believe that it's OK to kidnap a man, and lock him in a cage, if he drinks or smokes something we disapprove of. So we already know that almost everyone thinks certain types of force are OK, and not really "aggression." They're wrong: when a man who hasn't harmed anyone is lying there with a face full of pepper spray, thrashing about as the TASER cycles, that's a criminal assault. Lots of Americans don't think so.

We are in agreement, to some extent, southern culture (at least in the past, sadly it is near death) is the idea that violence is the "last resort" and a tool for defense of self and others, far closer to "ZAP" than what I see in the Atlantic cultures.

Strange, but my resistance to police abuse is basically from that "kumbya liberal" types, without them and there parade of websites about police abuse we may never know about that to the extent we do.

Please don't confuse or group  me with a standard American, that is offensive, I would not be posting to this set of boards if I were.

Quote
Refusing to associate is different, at least in that you can't possibly end up swallowing teeth as a result. You call it "force," and it is in the sense that humans are herd animals, and cutting them off from the herd causes tremendous anxiety. So be it: at least in that case, you have the option of finding another herd, because you're not face down with eyes swollen shut or locked in a cage.

Of course you are making the assumption that "the good folks" who shun will not resort to violence - of course that is not true, one of the favorite tricks the christian swarms in this case use it to bring in the Politzi and start to claim "evil satanism" - this is well documented. While physical force may or may not be used, the damage is still there and that is as I see it THEFT, you will never convince me it is not theft, the damage happened, it harmed my family (if it were just me I likely would no be so perpetually angry about this issue) and the fact there is no recourse makes me reject the concept.

Quote
Quote
...typically humans need a leader to organize anything other than eating, sex, and excrement...
There's organizing, and there's organizing by force. People do not need to be organized by force. A hundred million Americans illustrate that every day by working at a job where nobody has the power to kill, hit, kidnap, cage, rape, rob or otherwise lay a finger on their employees.

Now you bring up an additional point, many americans are more afraid of their bosses and the loss of a job than death itself, there may not be any physical force involved but the results can be just as powerful.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Worse than starving a black man to death on KKK Island?
Quote
That was actually my point, and the lack of recourse.
He has more recourse than he would swinging on the end of a rope.
Quote

And that makes it justifiable? with no recourse?

I remain unconvinced, if anything I am less so, some of the basic concepts and others with modification, but if the anarchist cannot turn me, there is no hope with the general populace - I will turn on a dime if there is enough factual evidence and rational reasoning - the general public NEVER works that way.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on July 02, 2010, 12:45:43 pm
And if you found my commentary to Lenny to be boorish then so be it , I find zero need to sugar coat things when encountering certain things , I in the general sense don't say " oh my there's a large redolent deposit of warm male bovine excremental leavings.' , I just say 'that's bullshit'.

I am by no means a genteel woman. I simply found it interesting that you would state Lenny is ill-mannered when your posts have been littered with insults (honestly Blueghost, I don't think anyone can hold a candle to Pelosi!). Again, I don't agree with everything that Lenny has stated, but I have not found him to be rude or unethical. Of course, you and I may very well have different views as to what is ill-mannered and unethical...
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on July 02, 2010, 12:49:37 pm
When did freedom center on "ZAP"? How can you justify the idea that without "ZAP" there is no freedom?

Fair question, and that's the heart of the matter. Freedom means allowing you to do whatever you please with your property (including your body), except use them to take away someone else's freedom. Whatever you want. If that means ... whatever you want. If you're using your rightfully-owned property, and you aren't interfering with anyone else's rightfully-owned property, knock yourself out. YOU'RE FREE.

If I'm not doing anything to your person or property, you need to leave me alone the same way I leave you alone. Even if that means I like to pray to Satan, naked, while fornicating with gay midgets dressed as Cinderella. If you decide that my Satanic religion, or my gay persuasion, or my annoying lisp, or my midget "princesses," somehow offend you and you decide to assault me, I'M NOT FREE AFTER ALL.

Don't you think that the above is a rather juvenile and narcissistic view of what freedom is?

Nope. I take a dim view of some African tribesman who wants to anoint himself with goat piss and pray to a statue of its teats, while keeping a harem and doing rain-dances, but I respect his freedom to pursue his whacked-out goofy tribal culture all he wants, as long as he doesn't nail me with a spear, or kidnap my daughters for his harem, or shovel goat feces onto my land. Same goes for Rastafarians, Rosicrucians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Peyote-eating Indians, Shriners, Masons or Fraternal Brothers of the Order of the Moose.

Not all of those people would get along very well in my town, because we're probably not inviting a man to our barbecue if he's anointed with goat piss. But neither are we free to assault him, burn his house (or a cross on his lawn), kill his dog, slash his tires, bash in his mailbox or anything else. We might find a way to coexist, like convincing him to dress "normal" when he goes out. Or we might not, and he might go find himself another neighborhood where his tribe is more welcome. That's something we'd have to sort out among ourselves, and we certainly can sort it out as long as violence is off the table as an option.

Quote
I am perfectly able, willing, and in fact do follow ZAP/NAP and beyond because I do believe politeness is a sign of a "good person", I do business in the same way and with the same service regardless of how repugnant I think a persons ideas, culture, and more are to me personally - it is simply good business.

See? You're living proof it can work. I'm told that Southerners can be pretty tolerant of strange foreigners, as long as a few specific, strict customs are respected in return. Depends on the town, probably.

Quote
Quote
Notice that defending freedom means defending freaks and scoundrels... It's how we treat that freak that shows whether we really believe in freedom or not.

And here is where we diverge, you define aggression (we could also call this destructive action or inaction from my POV) in one way, and I consider any action/inaction that is destructive to another - aggression, aggression that should have a recourse.

Social pressure does have a recourse, by the way. The only restriction is that violence isn't allowed as that recourse. If your neighbors stop talking to you because they're "Christian" and you're a "heathen," there's a lot you can do--but punching their lights out, or slashing their tires, are not among your options.

Quote
I would prefer that recourse in a formal setting like a court, or with a "constitutional set of laws" (for lack of a better term) and local mediation - I do think that courts and mediation could both be private services if set in a fair way.

I agree completely. You won't be able to use a mediator to force people to invite you to their barbecues, but you can use mediation for most torts--and even simple disagreements where no tort is involved.

Quote
It's this simple, as a victim of "good christians" for for all intents and purposes organized to damage my family simply because I was an alternate religion and refused to "play their local game" of religious cronyism.

There's no universe in which you aren't basically screwed if all the neighbors dislike you. That's just reality. But it's a comfort to know that they won't shoot you, or punch you, or burn your house down, or kill your dog. Knowing that, you have a little breathing room to figure out what you should do next.

Quote
This cost me my life savings (well over 500k), my house, my living space near extended family, and my wife's ranch, of course I had no recourse, but the damage was deliberate and intentional.

That is completely immoral, and those people were no Christians. I'm very sorry to hear it, and I really mean that.

Quote
Your system you propose allows (it seems) without recourse, just as it is now...

It doesn't, though. It only forbids violent recourse. They didn't actually take your life savings; they just did whatever they did--boycott your business?--so that you had to live on it, and draw it down to nothing. That sucks, and there's a lot you can do about it, but actually suing them for $500K isn't one of your options. Unless, of course, they did use coercion, like forcing people to boycott you using threats.

Quote
I remain unconvinced that ignorant hairless bipedal apes can keep to ZAP for more than a few days and would not devolve into WORSE than we have now.

I agree with you almost completely. The only part I disagree on is that it's pretty hard to get worse than what we have now. Every kind of non-aggressive "force" is allowed today, with the addition of government-sponsored violence.

Quote
Quote
So anyway, if you lay your hands on me or my stuff, when I'm not harming you, I'M NOT FREE. If I lay hands on you or your stuff, when you're not harming me, YOU'RE NOT FREE. That pretty much proves that freedom is synonymous with freedom from aggression.

None of this takes into account the biological genetic conditioning of hairless bipedal ape species we belong to, It is an undeniable fact that the more intelligent that hairless bipedal ape the lower the crime, violence, and trouble is involved - this of course is a "politically incorrect" fact, but it is a fact none the less.

I agree with you 100%. Non-aggression may be too much to ask of Homo "sapiens." We still think we "own" that banana because "I saw it first!"

Quote
We are in agreement, to some extent, southern culture (at least in the past, sadly it is near death) is the idea that violence is the "last resort" and a tool for defense of self and others, far closer to "ZAP" than what I see in the Atlantic cultures.

The Old South had some real advantages. The Confederates weren't exactly Libertarians, but they came worlds closer than the moneyed New Englanders who backed the War of Northern Aggression. The South was right about pretty much everything, with the exception of slavery.

Quote
Please don't confuse or group  me with a standard American, that is offensive, I would not be posting to this set of boards if I were.

Definitely wasn't trying to group you. I apologize if I came across that way.

Quote
Of course you are making the assumption that "the good folks" who shun will not resort to violence - of course that is not true, one of the favorite tricks the christian swarms in this case use it to bring in the Politzi and start to claim "evil satanism"

You're right: most "Christians" are avid statists, as long as the state is enforcing their will.

Quote
Quote
He has more recourse than he would swinging on the end of a rope.

And that makes it justifiable? with no recourse?

No. Ancapistan is NOT "utopia," and it will still have immorality, and even injustice. The black man in this hypothetical would still be better off than today, because today the black man would be subjected to violence--probably legal violence by the government itself. Slavery was a government program, and so was Jim Crow, and so were Northern laws banning blacks from owning property, and so are laws that keep the black man down today. Starting with child labor and minimum wage laws, which guarantee that a young black man can't find a job and has few options other than joining a gang for mutual protection, and then preying on the weaker.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on July 02, 2010, 01:13:04 pm
Okay Blueghost. But, if you're ever so inclined, I would like to know how Lenny was ill-mannered and unethical?...
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Klapton Isgod on July 02, 2010, 01:40:02 pm
I remain unconvinced that ignorant hairless bipedal apes can keep to ZAP for more than a few days and would not devolve into WORSE than we have now.

I agree with you almost completely. The only part I disagree on is that it's pretty hard to get worse than what we have now. Every kind of non-aggressive "force" is allowed today, with the addition of government-sponsored violence.

And that government-sponsored, badge-protected violence will ALWAYS attract the WORST KIND of "ignorant hairless bipedal apes", whether you have outright tyranny or the "limited" kind where comedians still get to make fun of politicians on TV.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 02, 2010, 09:20:40 pm

Quote
I am perfectly able, willing, and in fact do follow ZAP/NAP and beyond because I do believe politeness is a sign of a "good person", I do business in the same way and with the same service regardless of how repugnant I think a persons ideas, culture, and more are to me personally - it is simply good business.

See? You're living proof it can work. I'm told that Southerners can be pretty tolerant of strange foreigners, as long as a few specific, strict customs are respected in return. Depends on the town, probably.

I'm not the typical 'merican, I'm not proof of anything outside of the more intelligent the less likely to be trouble statistics.

Quote
Quote
And here is where we diverge, you define aggression (we could also call this destructive action or inaction from my POV) in one way, and I consider any action/inaction that is destructive to another - aggression, aggression that should have a recourse.

Social pressure does have a recourse, by the way. The only restriction is that violence isn't allowed as that recourse. If your neighbors stop talking to you because they're "Christian" and you're a "heathen," there's a lot you can do--but punching their lights out, or slashing their tires, are not among your options.

And without recourse I could not accept ZAP or anarchism, I see no way that it could not quickly devolve into something far worse than what we have now, in fact the more I think about it the more likely I think it would lead to more oligarch tyranny (likely more of the same bastards that run the oligarchy now).

Quote
I agree completely. You won't be able to use a mediator to force people to invite you to their barbecues, but you can use mediation for most torts--and even simple disagreements where no tort is involved.

You know I'm not bringing this to the low and flippant level of "invite you to their barbecues" - this issue is a major point for me, if I am going to be a backer for something "new" I damn sure want to make sure it is an improvement over the shit we live in now. I have seen nothing that convinces me this would be true with anarchism or the promotion of ZAP.

Quote
There's no universe in which you aren't basically screwed if all the neighbors dislike you. That's just reality. But it's a comfort to know that they won't shoot you, or punch you, or burn your house down, or kill your dog. Knowing that, you have a little breathing room to figure out what you should do next.

Quote
This cost me ... I had no recourse, but the damage was deliberate and intentional.

That is completely immoral, and those people were no Christians. I'm very sorry to hear it, and I really mean that.

Problem is (on the first part) I can guarantee you they WILL and quickly.

As for the second part - why I hesitate on answering your ZAP questions is that there are several humans living today that if I could figure out how to eliminate their wasting our good air and not disrupt my life I would, and without any remorse, likely I would revisit a few very deep root inspector locations to urinate there a few times a year. No fairness, no recourse, no justice, why should I support something that is as I see it any better that the crap now?

Quote
I agree with you almost completely. The only part I disagree on is that it's pretty hard to get worse than what we have now. Every kind of non-aggressive "force" is allowed today, with the addition of government-sponsored violence.

Sadly, we may see this day, and even more depressing for me is that I think my predictions "post crash" are likely fairly accurate. I have seen what are supposed to be the "best and most moral" and what they can do, I remember the LA riots, I have worked with clients post Katrina, this will not be nice.

Quote
The Old South had some real advantages. The Confederates weren't exactly Libertarians, but they came worlds closer than the moneyed New Englanders who backed the War of Northern Aggression. The South was right about pretty much everything, with the exception of slavery.

Until the invention of the cotton gin, slavery was on the way out, slavery was supported by the industrial north as a secondary source of profit via. cotton. The majority of whites in the south and who fought for the south understood slavery was a problem (as competition for work). Sadly the invention of the cotton gin came before mechanical pickers and before the damage cotton crops cause to the land was understood. It was the perfect storm on top of the inevitable conflict caused by the takeover by Hamiltonian political ideas. Sadly far too many paid the price with death in that conflict, soldiers and civilians.

Quote
No. Ancapistan is NOT "utopia," and it will still have immorality, and even injustice. The black man in this hypothetical would still be better off than today, because today the black man would be subjected to violence--probably legal violence by the government itself. Slavery was a government program, and so was Jim Crow, and so were Northern laws banning blacks from owning property, and so are laws that keep the black man down today. Starting with child labor and minimum wage laws, which guarantee that a young black man can't find a job and has few options other than joining a gang for mutual protection, and then preying on the weaker.

We are witnessing a second set of "perfect storms", the promotion of the "great society" that has enslaved a large portion of the black population more completely than slavery in the past. Add to this the outsourcing of american production, mix in the deliberate juxtaposition of traditional family roles, and bake it all with the promotion of ignorance and deliberate destruction of the education of the americans and well we get what we have...

I have sympathies as I have expressed before for the anarchist individualist position, I just remain unconvinced it is workable.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on July 02, 2010, 09:39:16 pm
I am perfectly able, willing, and in fact do follow ZAP/NAP and beyond because I do believe politeness is a sign of a "good person", I do business in the same way and with the same service regardless of how repugnant I think a persons ideas, culture, and more are to me personally - it is simply good business.

See? You're living proof it can work. I'm told that Southerners can be pretty tolerant of strange foreigners, as long as a few specific, strict customs are respected in return. Depends on the town, probably.

I'm not the typical 'merican, I'm not proof of anything outside of the more intelligent the less likely to be trouble statistics.

Quote
Quote
Social pressure does have a recourse, by the way. The only restriction is that violence isn't allowed as that recourse...

And without recourse I could not accept ZAP or anarchism...

I said there IS recourse.

Quote
As for the second part - why I hesitate on answering your ZAP questions is that there are several humans living today that if I could figure out how to eliminate their wasting our good air and not disrupt my life I would, and without any remorse, likely I would revisit a few very deep root inspector locations to urinate there a few times a year. No fairness, no recourse, no justice, why should I support something that is as I see it any better that the crap now?

I keep saying there IS recourse. You keep saying "no recourse." There seems to be a failure to communicate here. NOT "no recourse": YES recourse. But I'm afraid you won't be able to kill them, much as you say you'd like to.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 02, 2010, 11:27:06 pm
I am perfectly able, willing, and in fact do follow ZAP/NAP and beyond because I do believe politeness is a sign of a "good person", I do business in the same way and with the same service regardless of how repugnant I think a persons ideas, culture, and more are to me personally - it is simply good business.

See? You're living proof it can work. I'm told that Southerners can be pretty tolerant of strange foreigners, as long as a few specific, strict customs are respected in return. Depends on the town, probably.

I'm not the typical 'merican, I'm not proof of anything outside of the more intelligent the less likely to be trouble statistics.

Quote
Quote
Social pressure does have a recourse, by the way. The only restriction is that violence isn't allowed as that recourse...

And without recourse I could not accept ZAP or anarchism...

I said there IS recourse.

Quote
As for the second part - why I hesitate on answering your ZAP questions is that there are several humans living today that if I could figure out how to eliminate their wasting our good air and not disrupt my life I would, and without any remorse, likely I would revisit a few very deep root inspector locations to urinate there a few times a year. No fairness, no recourse, no justice, why should I support something that is as I see it any better that the crap now?

I keep saying there IS recourse. You keep saying "no recourse." There seems to be a failure to communicate here. NOT "no recourse": YES recourse. But I'm afraid you won't be able to kill them, much as you say you'd like to.

There was no recourse then, or I should say that I was not allowed recourse as my attempts to use the laws and courts to help cost me much and gained me nothing, when the system is fixed (and it is in a closed community) the game is up.

I guess I have to ask - do you believe in "evil" - do you think there are humans on the earth that due to their narcissism and amoral outlook are predatory and evil?

I have meet some of them, I know them well, ZAP fails as long as society allows them haven, and they will, humans are programed to flock to leaders who show this predatory ability to manipulate, only a few are immune - we who are will always eventually be outlawed and the cycle continues. So long as this cycle stands we are forever bound to our fate, ZAP does nothing to break this cycle, if anything it will allow it to grow larger than it is now.

Do you think the corporate oligarchy will be unable to manipulate an anarchist system and ZAP eventually breaking it? They buy what they need now, including the political and pulpit whores.

Pray for a crash, pray for war, pray for massive upheaval as slavery of the future is the only alternative, we have literally allowed them to breed themselves into a genetically parasitic elite that both makes and converts many. The ruling oligarchy has been interbreeding for hundreds of years producing a predatory class that is growing throughout the ranks, it transcended politics centuries ago and became a biological force by evolution. Not some crazy "reptilian invader masters" but a home-grown self supporting incestuous political/biological force. What I have just entered is likely the most politically incorrect thing I have ever posted, and some will instantly place that into the category of batshit crazy, this is my own theory and it has taken form over the last 30 years, it is not something I think I have posted before in that blunt a form.

I believe there is evil, because I am convinced I have seen it, I think this presents a problem.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on July 02, 2010, 11:41:33 pm
There was no recourse then, or I should say that I was not allowed recourse as my attempts to use the laws and courts to help cost me much and gained me nothing, when the system is fixed (and it is in a closed community) the game is up.

You had recourse: ONE choice you had was to leave. I don't know any details, so I don't know what other choices you had, but you had at least one. And it wouldn't have cost your life's savings.

Quote
I guess I have to ask - do you believe in "evil" - do you think there are humans on the earth that due to their narcissism and amoral outlook are predatory and evil?

Of course I do! The easiest place to spot them is in positions that give them power over others--especially government and police departments.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Jarel on July 03, 2010, 01:19:46 am
While some seem convinced of their mission to breed passivity and even cowardice in some cases, I believe, as RadioFlyer, "Pray for a crash, pray for war, pray for massive upheaval as slavery of the future is the only alternative, we have literally allowed them to breed themselves into a genetically parasitic elite that both makes and converts many. The ruling oligarchy has been interbreeding for hundreds of years producing a predatory class that is growing throughout the ranks, it transcended politics centuries ago and became a biological force by evolution. Not some crazy "reptilian invader masters" but a home-grown self supporting incestuous political/biological force."

I also believe that there is legitimate recourse, and continue to seek it without reserve and without deference to those who would ask me to believe in the inevitability of their success, or our own powerlessness.  :protest:
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on July 03, 2010, 06:31:19 am
Problem is that this massive upheaval won't lead to liberty. It will only lead to a change of masters. What good does it do if a bunch of pissed-off rednecks start slaughtering aggressors, Mexicans and rich people indiscriminately, only too loot their stuff and set up their own coercive regime? The path out of slavery is not to set yourself up as the new master.

That was ML's entire point in the "Ring of Power" thread.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on July 03, 2010, 07:26:06 am
Problem is that this massive upheaval won't lead to liberty. It will only lead to a change of masters. What good does it do if a bunch of pissed-off rednecks start slaughtering aggressors, Mexicans and rich people indiscriminately, only too loot their stuff and set up their own coercive regime? The path out of slavery is not to set yourself up as the new master.

That was ML's entire point in the "Ring of Power" thread.

Indeed. The one ring of power must be smashed. How that can be done is another discussion. I don't think it can be done universally or "once and for all."  I think it CAN be done locally, and for whatever length of time the people there are willing to make it happen. It is a war that must be fought and won continuously.

Will they win? No guarantees.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: hangman on July 03, 2010, 09:32:20 am
Quote
slaughtering people indiscriminately, only too loot their stuff and set up their own coercive regime?

That's exactly what The Empire is doing around the world. On the radio I hear give-away contests with Saddam's gold coins as a prize. Murder someone and steal his stuff and then get away with it. What a country.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 03, 2010, 01:11:40 pm
Problem is that this massive upheaval won't lead to liberty. It will only lead to a change of masters. What good does it do if a bunch of pissed-off rednecks start slaughtering aggressors, Mexicans and rich people indiscriminately, only too loot their stuff and set up their own coercive regime? The path out of slavery is not to set yourself up as the new master.

That was ML's entire point in the "Ring of Power" thread.

Possibly, but my own view on why the French revolution was a failure was that they did not (or were not allowed to, or aggressive enough) expand out to finish off ALL of the royalty and rid us forever of what would be part of the modern elite oligarchy.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on July 06, 2010, 02:48:46 pm

In trying to understand this whole ZAP discussion, I have a few questions (not trying to be a wise-guy):

What about protecting children? Who do we protect them from? Anyone who is complicit in harming them? What is harmful? School officials in public education? Parents who allow their kids to attend "R" movies, eat junk food and turn a blind eye to any fornicating for example? What about abortion clinics who destroy the unborn and provide abortions to underage girls without parental consent? What about parents who consent for their underage girls to have an abortion? What about children who are spanked, swatted, or physically reprimanded? What about parents who take their kids to a religious service that encourages hate against others? Who do you go after if a kid is caught smoking cigarettes? Pot? Crack? Sniffing fumes? Looking at pornography? What if a parent names their child Adolf Hitler and teaches them to hate Jews? What if a parent is intoxicated and is about to leave in their vehicle when you spot children in the car: is force necessary to stop them?

RF - I also have some sincere questions for you -again, not being a wise-guy here... Do you believe in miracles? In miraculous events? Are there some things that cannot ever be explained by the medical or scientific communities? Is there purpose in life? Purpose for mankind? Do you think folks who choose to worship "God" are silly? Wasting their time? Wasting their intellect? If one of your children came home and said they were going to marry a born-again Christian how would you react? In your opinion, do you believe that you are "more free" than a religious person because you do not believe in religion/a God? Do you think those that are religious (whatever religion) are enslaved to/by it?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Klapton Isgod on July 06, 2010, 03:09:07 pm
Here's my take on the issue of children:

The life, liberty, and property of children are the responsibility of their parents, until those children are able to take responsiblity for their own life, liberty, and property.  Those parents should do so according to their own conscience, and unless it is clear that a child is being seriously harmed (i.e. evidence of serious abuse), they should not be interfered with, except of course by persuasion

As for kids in a community...

The owner of the store can refuse to sell kids (or anyone else they choose) cigarettes, liquor, whatever.  They can rat out the kid to their parents if they try.  If the kid tries to steal them, the owner can use force to stop the kid, and should then call the kid's parents. 

As for general mischief...  If there were any sense left in the world once we stop thinking it's the government's job to do everything, things would revert back what they were like when I was a kid.  If I got caught by ANY adult doing mischief, I was in TROUBLE.  Why?  Because they were going to tell my parents, and my parents would believe the ADULT.  Ol' Klapton being a punk again?  No big suprise there.

Anyway... these are just some of my thoughts on raising kids in a free society.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 06, 2010, 03:56:52 pm

In trying to understand this whole ZAP discussion, I have a few questions (not trying to be a wise-guy):

What about protecting children? Who do we protect them from? Anyone who is complicit in harming them? What is harmful? School officials in public education? Parents who allow their kids to attend "R" movies, eat junk food and turn a blind eye to any fornicating for example? What about abortion clinics who destroy the unborn and provide abortions to underage girls without parental consent? What about parents who consent for their underage girls to have an abortion? What about children who are spanked, swatted, or physically reprimanded? What about parents who take their kids to a religious service that encourages hate against others? Who do you go after if a kid is caught smoking cigarettes? Pot? Crack? Sniffing fumes? Looking at pornography? What if a parent names their child Adolf Hitler and teaches them to hate Jews? What if a parent is intoxicated and is about to leave in their vehicle when you spot children in the car: is force necessary to stop them?

A good question, again for me I don't have the answer - I'm working on it, thinking about it, but I don't have an answer. I tend to lean to the side of the anarchists, a reason I tend to be hard on the concept, I don't like accepting an idea until I have had the chance to "chew on it" I don't have an alternative I have found yet, outside of the Constitutional one we are not using now as a "default" - and that default is only because I don't have an alternative - at least not yet.

I grew up in the same era as Klapton and others - I agree with the general premise presented by Klapton in his post.

Quote
RF - I also have some sincere questions for you -again, not being a wise-guy here... Do you believe in miracles? In miraculous events?

No - I believe there are statistical anomalies that can be mistaken for "miraculous events" and also there are environmental aspects to consider, what if a "miraculous recovery" from a sickness is caused by the ingestion of a food herb and this is un-observed or overlooked?

Quote
Are there some things that cannot ever be explained by the medical or scientific communities?

Yes, lots of things, for example "atomic" energy is what makes the sun produce heat, and we to this day do not fully understand it, but we are not telling our children that Apollo is dragging it across the sky for us...

The logical fallacy of the "god of the gaps" starts here - that if we cannot explain something, prove it by scientific methods or mathematics then "god did it" is just primitive delusional thinking.

Quote
Is there purpose in life?

Yes and no, for the individual sentient conscious person, it depends on their personal goals, for mankind and all animals we have imbedded biology - the advancement and sexual reproduction of our species - this is also subdivided in every species and is the biological cause for what humans call ethnocentric conflicts or "racism" and why in stress humans "default" to primitivism.

Quote
Purpose for mankind?

See above - eat, seek sex, procreate, expand into new resources - likely the root cause of most conflicts - we may not like identifying ourselves as primitive animals but that is our lot we find ourselves in.

Quote
Do you think folks who choose to worship "God" are silly?

I would use the word deluded, or willfully ignorant, or simply culturally bound due to necessity.

Quote
Wasting their time?

Good question, I know the christian bible better than 90% of christians, I don't consider that knowledge a waste of time, in fact the reason I am no longer a christian is that I DID read the bible.

Quote
Wasting their intellect?

A tricky question - if they are using their time to make "science" fit the primitive bounds of the bible to promote "apologetics" then yes, and in fact most who do are doing that very thing to manipulate and control - nefarious intent.

Quote
If one of your children came home and said they were going to marry a born-again Christian how would you react?

I de-converted my wife, and I let my children read everything they can and we all discus as a family, my children are their own people, my love for my children is unconditional (like I love my own legs or arms - genetic connections) that does not diminish because the make mistakes or disagree with the family - I fear more they would get indoctrinated with unreasonable liberalism than religion.

Quote
In your opinion, do you believe that you are "more free" than a religious person because you do not believe in religion/a God?

No, I am bound by my surroundings and society just as any other, I find I am more moral than most christians, I make decisions based on mutual good and logic and reason (unless angry, as most have this weakness) and I am not forced to default to a "sprit" the default is my responsibility.

Quote
Do you think those that are religious (whatever religion) are enslaved to/by it?

Some yes, some no, is every Hindu, Christian, Jew, Muslim a "true believer" or are they following customs?

The real issue for me is - are the actions of the individual based on morality centered on personal responsibility, empathy and social interaction/justice/"fair play" or are the actions based on a text that often is in opposition to "fair play" and empathy.

Are you aware that all three Abrahamic religions contain in their "holy" texts promotions for what we would consider illegal, immoral and violent acts? This is my main concern and I note that far too many even here on the boards ignore or wish to be "willfully ignorant" of this fact - it is their choice but it does not bode will for the promoters of ZAP and anarchy with this source of cognitive dissonance.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on July 07, 2010, 04:47:38 pm
Quote
Do you think folks who choose to worship "God" are silly?

I would use the word deluded, or willfully ignorant, or simply culturally bound due to necessity.

That's interesting........because I'd have to use the same words, and in particular the "culturally bound due to neccessity" excuse, to describe those who worship(deeply believe in) the concept of the neccessity of government and only argue the details..........

Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 07, 2010, 05:15:07 pm
Quote
Do you think folks who choose to worship "God" are silly?

I would use the word deluded, or willfully ignorant, or simply culturally bound due to necessity.

That's interesting........because I'd have to use the same words, and in particular the "culturally bound due to neccessity" excuse, to describe those who worship(deeply believe in) the concept of the neccessity of government and only argue the details..........

Gee, I wonder how one would get picked on because they give pass to one and not the other...  :rolleyes:

And isn't the details why one would post to the boards?

Let's use an example:

Hey we love all people, just ignore rule 231:45 sub section 5 that tells you to kill and eat all the "redskins"... We just ignore that...

Don't you think working out all of the details is important when thinking about something as central as a proposed life philosophy religious or political?

I am not one to be very flippant on issues like that.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on July 07, 2010, 05:42:38 pm
I don't give "pass" to either.......

there's a diiference between faith and religion, and by the same token, there's a difference between order and government..........

Regardless of what folks "say" those old books were written by "men".........men with an agenda..........as were the founding documents............and "I" feel they both have about the same degree of credability...........

In both are some truth.............and an awful lot of bullshit.............

Folks here are babblng about Glen Beck...............but the fact is.............he's doing EXACTLY the same things........taking a grain of truth.........mixing it with a gallon of bullshit, and telling folks to drink it because it might not taste good, but it's good for them.........

And ya' know.............it seems folks are willing to forego that grain of truth, if perchance the bullshit benefits them......
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 07, 2010, 06:03:36 pm
I don't give "pass" to either.......

there's a (difference) between faith and religion, and by the same token, there's a difference between order and government..........

There is the problem, identifying gnostic faith with an established religion tie them together and there are problems.

Quote
Regardless of what folks "say" those old books were written by "men".........men with an agenda..........as were the founding documents............and "I" feel they both have about the same degree of credability...........

In both are some truth.............and an awful lot of bullshit.............

I would agree and disagree, why, because the founding documents clearly were an attempt at a societal contract, religion properties to be the "ultimate truth" or you "burn in hell" and "deserve death" on an individual basis, and can be used that way - not that I am giving an excuse to the federalist Hamiltonians by any means.

Quote
And ya' know.............it seems folks are willing to forego that grain of truth, if perchance the bullshit benefits them......

"Truth" I want, and bullshit makes good fertilizer, as would media hacks and political whores, the French found the oligarchy can provide that also...  :laugh:
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on July 07, 2010, 06:07:23 pm
Quote
I would agree and disagree, why, because the founding documents clearly were an attempt at a societal contract,

well, there's yet another facet to this never ending arguement..........in that some might claim it was an attempt at a societal contract while others might argue it was an attempt at mass fraud  :laugh:
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 07, 2010, 08:11:16 pm
Quote
I would agree and disagree, why, because the founding documents clearly were an attempt at a societal contract,

well, there's yet another facet to this never ending arguement..........in that some might claim it was an attempt at a societal contract while others might argue it was an attempt at mass fraud  :laugh:


I'll grant you that, I could even say I agree... it was unique up to that point - breaking from the old monarchies.

Still, no sky daddy admonishing you for eating shrimp or boiling a young farm animal in it's mothers milk.... no magic tricks.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Moonbeam on July 08, 2010, 05:50:53 pm
Still, no sky daddy... ... no magic tricks.

RF - I don't want to make assumptions here, so please clarify: are you trying to persaude folks that their "God" is non-existent by making it okay to use demeaning names/themes to describe Him?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 08, 2010, 06:46:16 pm
Still, no sky daddy... ... no magic tricks.

RF - I don't want to make assumptions here, so please clarify: are you trying to persaude folks that their "God" is non-existent by making it okay to use demeaning names/themes to describe Him?

No, it is the concept that items that deserve no respect get none, many people here denigrate many other systems and famous individuals, I intend no specific offense, simply because there can be none - non-existent items can reserve no respect.

Would you give respect to flat-earth proponents, or those who say that the universe revolves around the earth?

How about UFO abduction?

Leprechauns and fairies?

How about Zeus, Zenu, Hathor or Ganesha? Are you willing to have Kotodama posted next to the Ten Commandments and the The Noble Eightfold Path in every public building and school?

The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the proposer - to claim supernatural substance that supernatural claim must be proven - as it has not in over 5000 years and I see no time in the near future for some necromancer to conger up Xochiquetzal I am forced to put all religion in the same category - mythology.

Now to the real heart of the issue...

Do you respect, the "god hates fags", KKK, or the misogynistic? How were and are repugnant ideas treated in current culture, and how did that change? in many cases this was accomplished by long bouts of disrespectful humor, and cultural exclusion - regardless of the source the former ideas are and were marginalized in today's culture. Was it an effective tool?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Lenny on July 08, 2010, 07:21:04 pm
Still, no sky daddy... ... no magic tricks.

RF - I don't want to make assumptions here, so please clarify: are you trying to persaude folks that their "God" is non-existent by making it okay to use demeaning names/themes to describe Him?

No, it is the concept that items that deserve no respect get none, many people here denigrate many other systems and famous individuals, I intend no specific offense, simply because there can be none - non-existent items can reserve no respect.

Exactly! That's why, when I'm talking to someone who disagrees with me on some important principle of philosophy, say, I always address him as "You pathetic fucktard." People who deserve no respect get none, after all. Strangely, they get all weird and whiney about it. But what do you expect from a pathetic fucktard?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 08, 2010, 07:44:47 pm
That's why, when I'm talking to someone who disagrees with me on some important principle of philosophy, say, I always address him as "You pathetic fucktard." People who deserve no respect get none, after all. Strangely, they get all weird and whiney about it. But what do you expect from a pathetic fucktard?

Na, it's just your debilitating cognitive dissonance driven by your monumental narcissism riding on top of deep seated inferiority complex... :wub:
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Moonbeam on July 09, 2010, 10:50:35 am
No, it is the concept that items that deserve no respect get none...  non-existent items can reserve no respect...

Then it stands to reason that if God doesn't exist thus He doesn't deserve your respect, then He doesn't deserve your denigration either
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Clip Johnson on July 09, 2010, 12:11:35 pm
I would suggest it would have more to do with being respectful of those of us who have made our decision to hold to the "truths" that we believe in - not so much as being disrespectful to a "sky daddy" whom you believe to not exist. We each have came to our own conclusions of our own volition. And my conclusion to believe in the existence of God, and believe the Bible to be the "inspired" word of God, is due to my many years of searching for the truth of the existence of this being. I, as I've previously written in this very thread, came to my conclusion due to the preponderance of evidence as I found it. As I previously stated, one simply cannot empirically prove the existence of God through scientific evidence, as one cannot find via empirical scientific proof that Abraham Lincoln was shot and killed in Ford's Theater either. And furthermore, I have not found one shred of evidence that disproves ANY of the historical or archeological data listed in the Bible. If there is, please point me to it!

So to briefly sum it up, I feel it to be a personal affront when anyone makes such statements and inferences as I seen made mention of in this thread, where as I (or anyone else) who holds to personal salvation offered through Christ must not be too bright if they believe in such nonsense. At least that's what I get when reading through some of these posts. My apologies if I am missing the intent of a few of the posters here.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on July 09, 2010, 12:49:17 pm
RF - The Sesame Street puppets aren't real. Trains and cars don't actually speak. Santa Claus doesn't exist. But, I wouldn't denigrate a child for believing in such things (nor would I begrudge their parent for contributing to that illusion) nor would I denigrate those non-existent characters. Do you make it point to tell children that they are "deluded or willfully ignorant" for believing in such things? And/or do you use crude terminology when describing those non-existent characters? I mean, why show any respect for someone else's belief when Santa, the Tooth Fairy, Donald Duck and The Little Mermaid don't actually exist? I'm guessing you probably leave that up to parents to do what they see fit. But, then do you also have disdain for adults who encourage kids to hold such beliefs?


You are smart enough guy (I can tell because you use big words and big concepts) to appreciate that using degoratory terms for a God you don't believe in is inciting. Claiming you mean no offense means you are aware that it can -and probably does- cause offense.

Is marginalizing God an effective tool for you?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 09, 2010, 01:57:29 pm
I would suggest it would have more to do with being respectful of those of us who have made our decision to hold to the "truths" that we believe in - not so much as being disrespectful to a "sky daddy" whom you believe to not exist. We each have came to our own conclusions of our own volition. And my conclusion to believe in the existence of God, and believe the Bible to be the "inspired" word of God, is due to my many years of searching for the truth of the existence of this being. I, as I've previously written in this very thread, came to my conclusion due to the preponderance of evidence as I found it. As I previously stated, one simply cannot empirically prove the existence of God through scientific evidence, as one cannot find via empirical scientific proof that Abraham Lincoln was shot and killed in Ford's Theater either. And furthermore, I have not found one shred of evidence that disproves ANY of the historical or archeological data listed in the Bible. If there is, please point me to it!

First, i don't think religion points to a lack of facilities, but a delusion, note the difference. Americans have an attitude about the word ignorance, but ignorance is a condition.

Because you narrowed down the conversation from religion to the bible we can be specific, I myself was convinced the bible was wrong simply by reading it, I found the contents horrific and immoral.

You say you consider the bible the "word of god" does that translate to biblical literalist? Is everything in there 100% correct? Are the directions contained therein to be followed? Is is 100% correct?

Do you support:

Murder People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Murder Witches and Fortunetellers
Murder Homosexuals
Murder for Cursing Parents
Murder for Adultery
Murder for Fornication
Murder Followers of Other Religions
Murder for Working on the Sabbath

If the answer is yes, as is commanded, you will have to understand that I consider that very dangerous.

Evidence: You are not the only one to say that archaeology does not disprove the Bible. Some will claim that archaeology completely supports the Bible, this has become the arena of the parasite within religion, using the desires of the followers to promote false information and gain great wealth. The most popular apologists for the various aspects of christianity are 'professionals" who are quite wealthy for their manipulation.

Modern archaeology using evidence shows that there were within 5-10% 3 million people in "Egypt" in the Late Bronze Age. The Bible claims that 600,000 fighting men, aged 20 and upwards, (600,000 men are individually counted in Numbers) migrated out of Egypt during this time frame. Adding attending women, children and even the elderly, 600,000 men of age would expand to roughly a group of 2 to 3 million people migrating from Egypt in this Age. Archaeological evidence not only shows no evidence of this migration, but provides no evidence of a massive disruption that without question would be evident in the archaeological record. In contrast, Egypt generally grew in strength of numbers throughout this entire period. 600,000 men of age and attendants migrating from of Egypt in the Exodus is thus proved false by archaeology.

This is just one instance, of course there are several things in just about any mythology that would point to a specific "place" - there is evidence that Troy actually existed, does that in and of itself prove the Pantheon of gods?

I could with ease fill posts about the flaws in the bible and then reference archaeological evidence, but is this the place for that? It is a fact that profit seeking religious apologists have filled a few small books and some web pages with their deliberately misleading conjecture, but that is countered by MOUNDS of evidence in almost countless reviewed books on subjects from archaeology to mathematics.

Then there is faith - faith is, by definition the strongly followed belief in an idea without evidence... No one can counter that - including me, it is also what makes this subject so potentially dangerous.

Now for the subject of respect for fellow members, I have to concur, I don't even have to admit my dislike and distaste it is obvious, but I would propose that it will also not end attempting to "get along" it is the "once stung" effect.

Quote
So to briefly sum it up, I feel it to be a personal affront when anyone makes such statements and inferences as I seen made mention of in this thread, where as I (or anyone else) who holds to personal salvation offered through Christ must not be too bright if they believe in such nonsense. At least that's what I get when reading through some of these posts. My apologies if I am missing the intent of a few of the posters here.

OK, so here is an apology, person to person I intended no offense to you as an individual, it was not intended in that way. I have been accused of the same disrespect to managers, city officials, government bureaucrats, and police - it is not in my personality to ever "give" respect, I understand politeness, but genuflection is out of the question.

Now that said, why do you think that a personal belief in any way then demands that the belief is immune to criticism?

You are promoting a belief, religion is proposing a conformity, the burden is on the proposer - it is a simple concept that for some reason religion and authority never recognize - why is that?

Proposing a conformity, with NO evidence, then demanding respect is typical of religion, can you see how maddening that is?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 09, 2010, 02:16:00 pm
RF - The Sesame Street puppets aren't real. Trains and cars don't actually speak. Santa Claus doesn't exist. But, I wouldn't denigrate a child for believing in such things (nor would I begrudge their parent for contributing to that illusion) nor would I denigrate those non-existent characters. Do you make it point to tell children that they are "deluded or willfully ignorant" for believing in such things? And/or do you use crude terminology when describing those non-existent characters? I mean, why show any respect for someone else's belief when Santa, the Tooth Fairy, Donald Duck and The Little Mermaid don't actually exist? I'm guessing you probably leave that up to parents to do what they see fit. But, then do you also have disdain for adults who encourage kids to hold such beliefs?

We are, as you yourself point out talking about children, my wife and I agreed early that we would not propose any mythology or story as "real" to our children. We have "christmas" decorations and gifts like every other secular celebration of that season, we never told our children than any stories were "real" but they were exposed to the stories.

But would you be happy on the other hand having someone try and convince your children that the earth was flat?

Someone's children, well that is their choice, I may well think that the above is a wrong way to raise a child, but it's not my child. If I were asked advice I possibly may have a "sit down" with someone but also because of my age, most of the parents of children we know have teen and older children, the younger friends I have that have children are all by happenstance all atheists. Now that I think about it likely over 60% of the people I know personally are atheists...

Only once have I ever admonished a parent, (who did not ask for advice) and it had nothing to do with religion but safety with dangerous equipment.

Adults on the other hand are not allowed delusion without review...

Quote
You are smart enough ... to appreciate that using degoratory terms for a God you don't believe in is inciting. Claiming you mean no offense means you are aware that it can -and probably does- cause offense.

Yes, and I habitually use terms that are offensive, you will note it is not reserved only for religion - note also when I call a .gov representative a "political whore" or Obama a "hapless lickspittle" I don't tend to get a ration of "hard hearted" for that here on the boards....

Quote
Is marginalizing God an effective tool for you?

Again, it possibly is because of my past, and the fact that I am most likely to have a conversation with atheists in my personal life - in business it just would never be an issue, technical topics tend to exclude anything else.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on July 09, 2010, 02:34:48 pm
RF - I find it interesting that you even make the effort to disparage a God you don't even believe in...
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 09, 2010, 04:33:35 pm
RF - I find it interesting that you even make the effort to disparage a God you don't even believe in...

A fair question, I don't "believe" in communism or marxism (both show signs more like competitive religions) and I disparage them...

Look from my point of view, I see no difference in any of the "belief" systems, political or religious, where most tend to isolate religion into a protected category, and I do not. You will also note that in any of my rather mild comments (disparaging remarks as you label them) that none of them allude to a belief at all.

I represent all of the mythology in the same way, just as I see christians on this board disparage more than even I do competitive religions - currently and in particular Islam.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on July 09, 2010, 06:26:46 pm
It actually doesn't bother me that you don't believe in God. It also doesn't bother me that you take issue with religion. I can only speak for myself (though I may not be off the mark for other's sentiments): when you deliberately misspell Jesus' name or when you refer to God as "sky daddy" for example, it wounds me. It wounds me because God is my Heavenly Father and Christ is my Savior. I know the good Lord doesn't need me to defend Him, but it's an affront to me as surely as an insult about my family would be.

You don't need to explain why God doesn't exist to me any more than I need to explain why God does exist to you. I think you're somewhat of a plucky fellow and I enjoy your commentary for the most part. And as much I passionately disagree with you about God, I would not ridicule your beliefs. When you stick to your incredible (or incredulous!) points I can feel the wheels turning in my head as I mull over your presentation. And that's a good thing! When you litter your posts with cheap shots it's rather sophomoric, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 09, 2010, 07:27:14 pm
It actually doesn't bother me that you don't believe in God. It also doesn't bother me that you take issue with religion. I can only speak for myself (though I may not be off the mark for other's sentiments): when you deliberately misspell Jesus' name or when you refer to God as "sky daddy" for example, it wounds me. It wounds me because God is my Heavenly Father and Christ is my Savior. I know the good Lord doesn't need me to defend Him, but it's an affront to me as surely as an insult about my family would be.

You don't need to explain why God doesn't exist to me any more than I need to explain why God does exist to you. I think you're somewhat of a plucky fellow and I enjoy your commentary for the most part. And as much I passionately disagree with you about God, I would not ridicule your beliefs. When you stick to your incredible (or incredulous!) points I can feel the wheels turning in my head as I mull over your presentation. And that's a good thing! When you litter your posts with cheap shots it's rather sophomoric, in my opinion.

Fair enough, so just what would be fair?

I was raised in the south - the misspelling is not even making fun of the figure of christ as much as the endless parade of pulpit prostitutes that for the most part use the expression that when spelled out is Jh-Ez-zuH-Ss-ah (and I would bet you could identify several well known super church CEOs that would bring to mind).

I have no excuse for sophomoric writing, it is in my nature from time to time, you may find it interesting that I rarely show sophomoric behavior human to human as I am so often in "teacher" mode that it just rarely happens. Writing is often a way to "let my hair down", my blog is simply being myself, as it here.

I am willing to tone down anything if asked to in a way I feel is worthy, you certainly have done that. I was asked once to stop using a term for a political party, easy enough, I would be willing to do the same for you.

Now I do have to ask - why wounded, why is the belief in the spiritual so important? Why is protecting a faith and belief so important?

You have to note that even an atheist has come to the defense of spiritual faith here, something I find fascinating - why is a belief in something without proof so defended and protected? What makes it special?

I was at one time BTW so you are talking to someone who spent lots of time attempting to NOT be an atheist. I spent most of my HS and college years sampling churches of various flavors, so when I talk about catholic, baptist, pentecostal, COC, mormon, J-W, methodist and others - I was there, been there, gave each one a fair shake, often for the benefit and at the request of someone who invited me.

Were I ever to be convinced to return (highly unlikely as it would require empirical proof) I was most impressed with the mormons, and catholics as a close second, personally the more fundamentalist protestant the more likely I am to find it repelling.

Also you should note I am using the word delusion in it's more classic way: delusion - a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception.

Just as I use the word ignorant in the classic way - I intend neither as a direct insult, in a way it is a way of attempting to show disagreement without being "unkind" and as I use delusion I am pointing out the fact that I consider religion a form of manipulation so the description is referencing the deception.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Clip Johnson on July 09, 2010, 09:16:35 pm
I was so very reluctant to post in this thread again (and actually shouldn't have), as it was clearly demonstrated in my previous conversations near the beginning of this thread with Claire. By responding I am risking coming across as proselytizing once again. This was, and is, not my intention. So this should be the last I post regarding this "debate".

I am left to wonder (and no, I'm not looking for an answer) why it is RF that you are espousing your views on God/Jesus/Christianity through out this forum time and time again, and so adamantly at that. When in fact, we all here know your feelings on such matters, and know it is your right to think and feel the way you do. It's what you are entitled to do as a human being, and no one here is going to argue that.

And yes, you are correct regarding my use of the word respect (or being respectful). But I know you gathered my meaning when I said it, which revolves around simply being a bit more considerate of others (namely Christians), particularly when we (all the non-murdering, non-witch hunting, or otherwise sorry excuse for a Christian, which btw there are admittedly quite a few) are not, and will never be, actively pursuing any harmful or hurtful action against anyone whatsoever. And do NOT hold to the views you have assigned to the masses of Christians, as it seems to me.

And in regards to the non existence of any archeological evidence concerning the Jewish exodus out of Egypt, I would suggest you dig a little deeper into a few history books or other valid items of reference. I am quite busy this evening doing some other stuff that is of the utmost importance to me and my survival, so I don't have the time to look up references at this very moment (otherwise I would be more than happy to do so), but they are abundant. But there is indeed archeological evidence of that very event.

The Old Testament is for the most part a narrative. It gives us lots of stories of imperfect people and how God was still forgiving of them, and used them for His purposes. There are also lots of commandments given by God for various reasons, many of which were to keep the people safe and healthy. But please note, I am no Bible scholar. I can only give you my interpretation of some of this. but I do know for a fact that many folks did not, nor still do, live by Godly principles. That's because they truly aren't Christians, but merely try and talk the talk. This is exactly what Jesus was referring to when He mentions separating the wheat from the tares on Judgment Day. The tares look just like the wheat, but have produced no fruit. Same is true for the Christian community, at least according to the Scriptures. Far too many non-Christians who claim to be Christian attending Church services religiously, yet bear no fruit of a actual Christian, or that the Holy Spirit has ever been placed upon them. So yes, where man is involved, there will always be the propensity for things to be screwed up and do things "our own way" or whatever else strikes our fancy. We've seen it time and time again through out history, and it continues to repeat itself to this day.

But please note that Christianity holds to the fact the "Old Law" came to pass with Jesus, Hence the "New Testament" or New Covenant with his people. We now live by grace and not by law. There is nothing under the sun any human can do or accomplish that will earn his way into Heaven. He is saved by the Grace of God freely offered to everyone through the redeeming blood of our Savior - Jesus Christ. So there is nothing one should interpret from out of the Old Covenant (Testament) that is a direct commandment for us today. Sure there are lots and lots of Godly principles, characteristics, etc, we can gather and apply to our lives in the times we are living in. And for anyone to interpret something such as witches, or homosexuals,or adulterers, or whoever else, are bad and should be murdered, well, I hate to say it, but people who think such are mentally unstable, and WAY off the mark concerning God and/or His wishes. As a matter of fact, if someone were to practice witchcraft, worship of demons, murder someone, or whatever, God will have the final judgment of that individual and punish accordingly. We, as Christians (or anyone else for that matter), are not to take it upon ourselves in an attempt to dole out punishment on God's behalf. There are no commandments for us as such for He is more than capable of dealing with this in His own time and His own way. It is not up to any of us to decide what is best in His eyes concerning such a matter, period. If He wanted us to know something, He would tell us, and He hasn't.

Speaking of punishment, this is precisely what I perceive was happening when in the Old Testament it describes witches, homosexuals, fornicators, adulterers, etc being killed. It was punishment, just the same as when the state executes a alleged criminal nowadays. It is punishment just the same. Is it right? I dunno, but it is what it is.
It seems to me, murder is a premeditated or ill-conceived thing. But once again, this is just my perception. YMMV :mellow: 

Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 10, 2010, 02:16:36 am
I was so very reluctant to post in this thread again (and actually shouldn't have), as it was clearly demonstrated in my previous conversations near the beginning of this thread with Claire. By responding I am risking coming across as proselytizing once again. This was, and is, not my intention. So this should be the last I post regarding this "debate".

That is too bad, ending the input part that is.

Quote
I am left to wonder (and no, I'm not looking for an answer) why it is RF that you are espousing your views...

Why do anarchist continue to espouse their ideas over and over, when we all know what they will say? (see the connection)

Quote
And yes, you are correct regarding my use of the word respect (or being respectful).

I think I addressed that.

Quote
And in regards to the non existence of any archeological evidence concerning the Jewish exodus out of Egypt, I would suggest you dig a little deeper into a few history books or other valid items of reference.

I could suggest the same, you are suggesting that I have come to a conclusion based on lack of information or ignorance. Outside of discredited religious backed propagandists the available evidence does not support the account in the Bible. Additionally there is only one archeological find that even suggests the Jews were ever in Egypt at the time period, and absolutely no evidence of mass slavery of that ethnic group.

Quote
there's no physical evidence that thousands of people wandered for decades in the desert. Besides, Jericho and other Canaanite cities described in the Bible didn't exist when the Israelites were supposed to be conquering them. Finkelstein says the Bible isn't just fantasy, though. He thinks the first books of the Bible were written in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., long after the Exodus might have happened. The writers drew on a pool of folk tales, of myths, of shreds of evidence to build a history for Israel
- Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University

Quote
Maybe, the Exodus actually happened over and over. Everyone knew someone who'd gone to Egypt and come back complaining. That's basically what the story is about, "God, you know how much taxes they make us pay in Egypt?" Maybe through years of retelling, their grousing became an epic of enslavement and escape.
- Baruch Halpern historian Pennsylvania State University

Quote
... I do know for a fact that many folks did not, nor still do, live by Godly principles. That's because they truly aren't Christians, but merely try and talk the talk....So yes, where man is involved, there will always be the propensity for things to be screwed up and do things "our own way" or whatever else strikes our fancy. We've seen it time and time again through out history, and it continues to repeat itself to this day.

The one true Scotsman fallacy? This has become SOP for just about every religious apologist, it does not hold water, in the end.

Far from being shunned for offensive behavior most "sinners" are given a pass card, and welcomed back in or the offense is never even officially shunned or repudiated. "We are so sorry the devil made you do such terrible things, ruin lives, steal 1.5 million dollars, build a mc-Mansion off donations, hire male hookers, and shoot dope, You are with "him" now and everything is "good with the lord"... here are the keys to the new rec. center."

Quote
We now live by grace and not by law. There is nothing under the sun any human can do or accomplish that will earn his way into Heaven. He is saved by the Grace of God freely offered to everyone through the redeeming blood of our Savior - Jesus Christ.

And all others, regardless of good deeds, a goodly life, and good intent - deserve to burn in hell forever tortured endlessly? Yet any murderer, molester, rapist, thief and general scum-bag can completely avoid this endless torture with only a simple thought and conversion to faith in something without proof (You don't need to answer this, we all know the honest answer).

Now this typically leads into the Pascal's Wager fallacy.

Quote
for anyone to interpret something such as witches, or homosexuals,or adulterers, or whoever else, are bad and should be murdered, well, I hate to say it, but people who think such are mentally unstable, and WAY off the mark concerning God and/or His wishes.

And yet we have, well lots if not most of that now practiced by "believers".

Quote
It is not up to any of us to decide what is best in His eyes concerning such a matter, period. If He wanted us to know something, He would tell us, and He hasn't.

Completely silent for 2000 plus years? Here is the trick, just a few items that would have been unknown to bronze age humans would have been nice... I don't know how hard would have it been to say "Therefore the lord said to Mark, drink not the stagnant waters of the lakes because inside are little demon monsters who will eat your innards and maketh you sick, maketh the waters clean to your lord's eyes by boiling this water before thou drink" - now this is a weakness of all religious texts not just the Abrahamic religions.

Quote
Speaking of punishment, this is precisely what I perceive was happening when in the Old Testament it describes witches, homosexuals, fornicators, adulterers, etc being killed. It was punishment, just the same as when the state executes a alleged criminal nowadays.

Thank you - exactly, and that brings us back to the thread's main subject and my argument that was even objected to by an other atheist.

And again, I am going to continue to get pounded on this, for repetitiveness, (at least it is in this thread and I can't be trounced for off subject reference) that there is a connection with dangers that are similar or the same with anti-statist arguments (yet they are not criticized for their continued defense/offense).

I am perfectly happy if someone is offended and wants to use the "ignore" button - I never do, because even someone I find offensive could spout out a gem from time to time. Hell I am forced to admit that I am glad at least Lenny is from time to time willing to come to bat and I think that is adding value - something far too many others do not.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: gaurdduck on July 10, 2010, 02:44:24 am
While I don't recall a passage on boiling water, there is a good deal on disease prevention in Leviticus. Even talks about how to deal with dysentery. Washing with fat and ashes is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. I don't remember where exactly. Then there are the rules for preparing food and which foods are not allowed to be eaten. Most scavengers are forbidden. It even says that it is because they are dirty.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 10, 2010, 03:22:58 am
While I don't recall a passage on boiling water, there is a good deal on disease prevention in Leviticus. Even talks about how to deal with dysentery. Washing with fat and ashes is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. I don't remember where exactly. Then there are the rules for preparing food and which foods are not allowed to be eaten. Most scavengers are forbidden. It even says that it is because they are dirty.

None of that is outside of the realm of the bronze age, that was the point, nothing contained proves supernatural origin...
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Clip Johnson on July 10, 2010, 01:57:16 pm

  And we're once again back to ZAP and the question of how far it extends , sorry folks but I don't buy into the 'Christians never hurt anyone or aggress against others' boondoggle , there's too much evidence to the contrary. "Shunning" and other types of social pressure that has far=reaching negative result on the individual is FORCE just a surely as smacking someone in the teeth is.
 
 

Yep. Shouldn't happen but it does. As I made mention of previously, such transgressions and episodes of idiocy will never fail to exist because of they are committed by another human being, who most assuredly possesses the propensity to "screw things up royally".

And I hope to clarify something else when I mentioned there are indeed Christians who live (and have lived) their life and sincerely mean to do no harm to a fellow human, nor be aggressive against in any fashion (whether anyone will acknowledge such is another issue in and of itself). There are bad apples in every bunch regardless of whatever affiliation with whatever group (religious or not). As a shining example, I am currently dealing with an "alleged" Christian, at least self-professed, whom I have done a considerable amount of very involved and difficult work for, and he hasn't paid me what I worked hard to earn. It's been well over six weeks now, and I still get the run around. My point is, not all who claim to be Christian are. For a true Christian would not do anyone as I have been done IMHO.

I will try and post more later as time will allow today, as I would like to better present why it is I believe and feel the way I do on this subject, and how I arrived at said beliefs. But it sure is hard to do without coming across as being preachy, or "holy-er than thou".

Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 10, 2010, 02:58:55 pm
I will try and post more later as time will allow today, as I would like to better present why it is I believe and feel the way I do on this subject, and how I arrived at said beliefs. But it sure is hard to do without coming across as being preachy, or "holy-er than thou".

Why would that be a detriment? It seems I was pretty effective at alienating all of the anarchist who are religious so why would that be an issue...

As long as you are up to defending your posts from what you know is already going to happen, it should be a good exercise in how well we could pull this off without diverging into some other messes I see on other boards.

I do have to call you on the "no true scotsmen" argument, that does not work as long as the entire cognizant religious community denounces the offenders, you may not like being boxed in that way, but you would not allow a marxist or Klansman the same latitude. What I do see is a splintered religious community that does not police their own, and is so laden with excuse making that it becomes a amorphous mist. Reasons with denouncement are acceptable, excuses are not.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: gaurdduck on July 10, 2010, 03:53:41 pm
Well, I don't tell most people this but I'll just come out and say it here to avoid further confusion. It does apply to me. I am descended from Abraham. Specifically the Tribes of Dan and Judah. There, happy? I spilled the flipping beans and now Hangman is going to hate me. But I don't care. I have ancestors down another line that were Crusaders. And to be quite clear, My religion does not control me, I chose to follow it. I was not forced. I could follow any religion but I chose to be a Christian. It was a good choice. I've never been seriously injured, I have never gone hungry for lack of food, I prayed that I would get to meet my Dad and I talked to him on the phone yesterday. That is a miracle to me. I was depressed, but now I'm happier than a high hippie on hash. I cannot say either that God does not exist or that he is not benevolent. To do so would be dishonest.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on July 11, 2010, 12:03:03 pm
Quote
a wed night Bible study class hosted at my residence in Collettesville N.C. that turned into a *battle* over what resided on my bookshelves ,

Just curious... why, at THIS point, were not all of these people firmly escorted to the door, pushed out and the door locked behind them? Why did you ALLOW this to become a discussion, let alone a "battle" in your own home? Just curious.

In my experience, hosting a "bible study" is pretty much the same as issuing an engraved invitation to a battle anyway. Unless, of course, everyone already thinks exactly the same to start with. Then they can all sit around holding hands and sharing "precious verses." Bleah!
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 11, 2010, 12:57:09 pm
Quote
a wed night Bible study class hosted at my residence in Collettesville N.C. that turned into a *battle* over what resided on my bookshelves ,

Just curious... why, at THIS point, were not all of these people firmly escorted to the door, pushed out and the door locked behind them? Why did you ALLOW this to become a discussion, let alone a "battle" in your own home? Just curious.

In my experience, hosting a "bible study" is pretty much the same as issuing an engraved invitation to a battle anyway. Unless, of course, everyone already thinks exactly the same to start with. Then they can all sit around holding hands and sharing "precious verses." Bleah!

Did you not just answer your own question? As the Bible admonishes followers (and this is in the new testament) to eschew their relatives and cling to their new "family in the lord" to make sure not to marry outside the church, and close their ears to outside influence? Is in not all self perpetuation?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on July 11, 2010, 01:47:24 pm
Did you not just answer your own question? As the Bible admonishes followers (and this is in the new testament) to eschew their relatives and cling to their new "family in the lord" to make sure not to marry outside the church, and close their ears to outside influence? Is in not all self perpetuation?

No, the question was "why would you allow it?" I never would have, even when I was a member of a church. But then, I've always had an acute sense of self ownership and would never have put up with such bully tactics.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on July 11, 2010, 03:52:34 pm
  So you can monday morning quarterback all you wish , but when the social and economic ties that bind are in place in such a manner it's not quite as easy as you make it out within the context of the simplistic scenario you describe.

No, I've never encountered any sort of religious outfit like that. I was a Catholic nun for a few years, and when I decided that wasn't where I belonged, I walked away and never looked back. Never heard from anyone at the convent again either, and nobody ever bothered me in the least about it - not even the parish I came from originally.

I've attended a few "fundamentalist" type churches - briefly! They had no appeal for me, and I left without any effort.

It is difficult to imagine such a situation as you describe. I guess I'm even more glad than ever that I live in Wyoming.

Not trying to "monday morning quarterback" here... just trying to understand how anyone would let themselves in for such nonsense. I know it does happen... and I don't doubt at all that it happened to you. I'm sorry it did.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 11, 2010, 04:07:59 pm
Did you not just answer your own question? As the Bible admonishes followers (and this is in the new testament) to eschew their relatives and cling to their new "family in the lord" to make sure not to marry outside the church, and close their ears to outside influence? Is in not all self perpetuation?

No, the question was "why would you allow it?" I never would have, even when I was a member of a church. But then, I've always had an acute sense of self ownership and would never have put up with such bully tactics.

I have to wonder have you ever evaluated just how rare your personal response and outlook is in the world, not even to single it into the smaller community of the religious.

Blueghost and I represent a problem I have identified.

Christian attitudes to their own and their chosen belief.

Using the tactics that BG and I have encountered (and they are by no means rare) why are christians constantly using the "no true Scotsman" argument to excuse their community?

Take for example, all the effort it took for the actions against myself and BG and compare that to the likes of Peter Popof, Bob Larson, and even the recent Ted Haggard scandal - all of them lived lavish lives, supported by for the most part the poorest and most gullible of the community, and rather than see the community hound them into poverty (as I was) the community continues to support them, forgive them and all three are "back" to some extent. In the case of Larson and Popof they have built large churches again and are again making millions fleecing the most vulnerable.

Until I see the general religious community "clean up their own" the "no true Scotsman" excuse does not hold water - and until I see a general call from the community for "cleaning up" and some actions in that direction and not constantly using their power base to push the "moral" issues in politics and chasing down the "lost" like BG and hounding the "heathens" like myself - your all full of crap as far as I am concerned and it reflects on how evil I consider religion.

Less than one week worth of donations to that evil bastard Popof or Larson would have repaid my loss at the religious communities hands, I may even be less likely to spend time actively trying to de-convert individuals (proudly that number is now over twenty) and minimize the community efforts if the evil was not so apparent.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 11, 2010, 04:13:25 pm
  So you can monday morning quarterback all you wish , but when the social and economic ties that bind are in place in such a manner it's not quite as easy as you make it out within the context of the simplistic scenario you describe.

No, I've never encountered any sort of religious outfit like that. I was a Catholic nun for a few years, and when I decided that wasn't where I belonged, I walked away and never looked back. Never heard from anyone at the convent again either, and nobody ever bothered me in the least about it - not even the parish I came from originally.

I've attended a few "fundamentalist" type churches - briefly! They had no appeal for me, and I left without any effort.

It is difficult to imagine such a situation as you describe. I guess I'm even more glad than ever that I live in Wyoming.

Not trying to "monday morning quarterback" here... just trying to understand how anyone would let themselves in for such nonsense. I know it does happen... and I don't doubt at all that it happened to you. I'm sorry it did.

The west is thankfully the most likely to be non-religious and more self-reliant... a "godsend" as it were for refugees of the bible belt.

And YES it is THAT bad.

The Catholic church is now (not historically) the least aggressive, they still have the idea that they can "just breed more" where the evangelicals are downright bulldogs in most cases.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on July 11, 2010, 04:22:22 pm
Quote
Until I see the general religious community "clean up their own" the "no true Scotsman" excuse does not hold water - and until I see a general call from the community for "cleaning up" and some actions in that direction and not constantly using their power base to push the "moral" issues in politics and chasing down the "lost" like BG and hounding the "heathens" like myself - your all full of crap as far as I am concerned and it reflects on how evil I consider religion.

HMMM, how did I get painted into this picture. ?? I don't belong to any religious group and I'm not apologizing for any of them. I have no idea what you mean by the "no true Scotsman" thing, but I'd like to know... being a Scot myself. <grin>

I'm not pushing "moral issues," politically anyway, and I don't chase down "lost souls" in any event. If you are "heathens," then that is your own evaluation, not mine. I don't recognize any such, myself, just human beings. And yes, I regretfully recognize that my outlook on self ownership is not common.

I just have had a hard time understanding the serious hate and vitriolic of your posts. Your experience would certainly generate that, of course, but I do not find that it is a general pattern for most people here in the US. I'm sorry that you do.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 11, 2010, 04:58:20 pm
Quote
Until I see the general religious community "clean up their own" the "no true Scotsman" excuse does not hold water - and until I see a general call from the community for "cleaning up" and some actions in that direction and not constantly using their power base to push the "moral" issues in politics and chasing down the "lost" like BG and hounding the "heathens" like myself - your all full of crap as far as I am concerned and it reflects on how evil I consider religion.

HMMM, how did I get painted into this picture. ?? I don't belong to any religious group and I'm not apologizing for any of them. I have no idea what you mean by the "no true Scotsman" thing, but I'd like to know... being a Scot myself. <grin>

No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy used as an excuse by Christians (and the religious in general) to say that "bad" people or actions are not "true christians" and therfore the religion, church, or community is immune from criticism for the actions of their fellows or leaders.

I was referring to this in response to the use of that fallacy by others in this thread, the post was not specifically aimed at you in particular, I understand the gnostic approach you have presented in the past and I also long ago recognized your independent thinking and hardcore politics.

Quote
I'm not pushing "moral issues," politically anyway, and I don't chase down "lost souls" in any event. If you are "heathens," then that is your own evaluation, not mine. I don't recognize any such, myself, just human beings. And yes, I regretfully recognize that my outlook on self ownership is not common.

If more of the religious were more like you, this thread would not even exist.

Quote
I just have had a hard time understanding the serious hate and vitriolic of your posts. Your experience would certainly generate that, of course, but I do not find that it is a general pattern for most people here in the US. I'm sorry that you do.

Here are some illuminating articles about how two-faced the community is without understanding or recognizing that fact.

Ted Haggard to start new church in Colo. Springs http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/02/ex-pastor-ted-haggard-plans-announcement-in-colo/

Quote
Haggard made his announcement outside his home, a two-story, brick-fronted structure with a large barn, a swimming pool and white-fenced corrals on Colorado Springs’ north side
If you know springs, you know this is a very expensive house and land (as in rock star expensive).

Quote
Haggard told the AP that after his downfall, he doesn’t feel qualified or entitled to return to the ministry, but that he feels compelled to do so by love for others. He cited conversations he had this week with a woman fighting drugs and with an unmarried couple expecting their second child.

“I’m certainly not going to say no to people (who need help) because of my personal shame. I’ve got to overcome my personal shame and be willing to help somebody that knocks on our door,” he said.

Popoff Is Making a Comeback, With a Little Help From 'Miracle Spring Water' http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3164858&page=1

Quote
Bercier said she soon received her miracle water in the mail, along with a letter from Popoff. "20/20" obtained a similar letter, which claims the miracle water comes from a Russian spring that, after the Chernobyl nuclear accident, had actually protected those who drank from it.

The letter goes on to say that this same spring water can miraculously protect the faithful today, and help them prosper financially — all they have to do is follow God's instructions precisely.

And don't even get me started with Bob Larson...

No true Scotsman will never hold water until the community turns their attention to predatory parasites like the above, and quit spending their efforts on the "heathens" like me - I never took advantage of anyone, nor did I ever fool old grandmothers and the weak out of money - yet I was a good target to be ruined for whatever reason, and the parasites and predators like the above get "forgiven" and welcomed back...???
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 11, 2010, 05:07:48 pm
I just have had a hard time understanding the serious hate and vitriolic of your posts. Your experience would certainly generate that, of course, but I do not find that it is a general pattern for most people here in the US. I'm sorry that you do.

I'm not sure how first helping a few leading members of a community MORE money, befriending them, then having them send the surrounding community after you to ruin your life, work, business, drive one into poverty and eventually out of the area. All with two children and a new addition soon...

Na, can't understand any sore feelings... there are a few members of a community that have not meet with god yet only because it is problematic to help them in that endeavor.

Never underestimate the damage  predatory narcissists surrounded by willing cohorts fueled by "the goodness" can do to your family.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 11, 2010, 05:29:56 pm

keep in mind that we recently had a respected member here state ' there should be no Law but God's Law and it's not argueable that it should be so."
 

Wow, just wow... (I would like to read that exchange)
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on July 11, 2010, 06:08:29 pm
Quote
and the parasites and predators like the above get "forgiven" and welcomed back...Huh

Ok, and why would you care about that any more than you'd care about a feral dog that returned to its own vomit?

There have been manipulators, "rulers" and those who use the "law" and government for their own purposes since there were such things. They go by different names and have various amounts of power from age to age, but are basically the same parasites as always. They wax and wane, come and go, and will probably always do so.

I don't waste any time fearing or worrying about such people. I avoid them when I can, and take steps to protect myself from them the best I am able. That generally means living with and nearby as many like minded people as possible. I don't go to Gillette because I don't see any purpose in it. I have no desire to visit churches of any denomination. I don't thereby deny that they probably have serious problems or even designs on the lives of other people... I'm just not in any position to do anything about it except avoid them.

I don't know that there is really anything else worth doing, but that does not mean there is not, of course. :)

Thanks for explaining what you meant. I do appreciate it. I just don't share the angst.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 11, 2010, 06:40:47 pm
Quote
and the parasites and predators like the above get "forgiven" and welcomed back...

Ok, and why would you care about that any more than you'd care about a feral dog that returned to its own vomit?

Likely because I am constantly told how morally superior the "saved" are, for some reason, because I have spent most of my life helping people, good marriage with no violation, somehow not genuflecting will earn eternal burning and meanwhile predatory parasites can cheat with homosexual prostitutes, fleece the poor, and as long as they genuflect correctly they should be rewarded with wealth in life and of course they get the chance to "pray for me" while I burn in the afterlife. A very convincing argument for moral superiority  :rolleyes:

And I care, because I have experienced the "love" the "saved" can give, much to the detriment of my children that I had to explain why the other children were encouraged by their teachers to throw food at them and steal their supplies and work...

Quote
There have been manipulators, "rulers" and those who use the "law" and government for their own purposes since there were such things. They go by different names and have various amounts of power from age to age, but are basically the same parasites as always. They wax and wane, come and go, and will probably always do so.
As will parasites until the day an effort is taken by the "goodly followers" to actually fix this - I don't expect that either.

Quote
I don't waste any time fearing or worrying about such people. I avoid them when I can, and take steps to protect myself from them the best I am able. That generally means living with and nearby as many like minded people as possible.

I would like to not "waste time" but I expect the same treatment again unless I can continue to avoid and hide from the massive weight of the statistical odds.

Quote
Thanks for explaining what you meant. I do appreciate it. I just don't share the angst.

Why would you share any of the angst? It was not your life and family, you did not have to face children abused in school, a community bent on ill, nor a predatory leadership in collusion with "goodly" community "leaders" and later to learn there is no recourse within the "system". And of course something I have noted and talked about with my wife is the frustration with remembering it all, I had been away from it until I recently ran afoul with some predators again recently.

The system never looks dangerous if you are a part of it, or accepted by it...
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 11, 2010, 06:47:32 pm
keep in mind that we recently had a respected member here state ' there should be no Law but God's Law and it's not argueable that it should be so."

Wow, just wow... (I would like to read that exchange)

 
General section , 'Rule of Law' thread , you'll see the post i spoke of , I did paraphrase his words a bit for brevity but same same. I stayed out of it at that time , but I just bumped it back to the front page. I may answer the facet.
 
As I've stated WHO decides what 'God's Law' is ,within the Bible itself are many violations of 'God's Law' by the supposedly 'Godly'.............

Interesting, I will stay the hell out of that thread and away from that - to turn a phrase. I get pounded enough for pointing out what you note is blatantly obvious but for some reason seems to be invisible.

I have corn to vac-pack...
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: RagnarDanneskjold on July 11, 2010, 07:38:00 pm
[sarcasm - just in case it is not recognized as such]
but, but, that can't be. It's the Muslims who are the aggressive ones in their proselytizing. I know because people who justify the USofA aggression in the Middle East tell me it is so and the killing of radical Muslims is to keep them from forcing their religion on the rest of the world which Christians don't do.
[/sarcasm - just in case it is not recognized as such]
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 11, 2010, 07:55:55 pm
[sarcasm - just in case it is not recognized as such]
but, but, that can't be. It's the Muslims who are the aggressive ones in their proselytizing. I know because people who justify the USofA aggression in the Middle East tell me it is so and the killing of radical Muslims is to keep them from forcing their religion on the rest of the world which Christians don't do.
[/sarcasm - just in case it is not recognized as such]

For the levity, that was funny.

Now, don't think I cannot come to disparage Sharia law and islam - I am an equal opportunity jerk that way...

The real trick is that the religious punishments and laws amongst the countries that are controlled by Islam seem barbaric and make good MSM propaganda.

What happens in the US is minimized and broken into regions and not promoted as often as the propaganda value is less.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on July 11, 2010, 08:03:56 pm
I think the problems of RF and others is colored by its setting: small southern redneck towns. RF blames the whole thing on their "Christianity," but I belong to a relatively fanatical little sect that would surely give his (Baptist?) town a run for its money--and yet, of the dozens of churches I've attended in the Northern US and Ontario, none behave like that. I know secondhand of a faction of my sect located mainly in Arkansas and Louisiana that does pull crap like this, to the extent of holding funerals for family members who leave the church. But in the North, never.

It wouldn't be easy finding a town of atheist Southern rednecks, but if you could, and you pissed them off, you'd see the same sorts of behaviors chronicled by RF.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 11, 2010, 09:08:03 pm
I think the problems of RF and others is colored by its setting: small southern redneck towns. RF blames the whole thing on their "Christianity," but I belong to a relatively fanatical little sect that would surely give his (Baptist?) town a run for its money--and yet, of the dozens of churches I've attended in the Northern US and Ontario, none behave like that. I know secondhand of a faction of my sect located mainly in Arkansas and Louisiana that does pull crap like this, to the extent of holding funerals for family members who leave the church. But in the North, never.

It wouldn't be easy finding a town of atheist Southern rednecks, but if you could, and you pissed them off, you'd see the same sorts of behaviors chronicled by RF.

Don't think you are immune - in fact Scarming and I both pointed out that often the void filled my oppressive religion is often replaced with a more invasive worship of the state.

Ignorance is the key - the more ignorant the more oppressive - think about how ignorant and statist areas like Phily and New York are, within your culture replace rednek with Yankabilly or Urban trash - entitlement mentality and ignorance is the problem.

I suppose that if you made a libertopia city in yankeeland it would not talk long before they set up an oppressive statist system for their comfort.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Clip Johnson on July 11, 2010, 10:27:52 pm

Why would that be a detriment? It seems I was pretty effective at alienating all of the anarchist who are religious so why would that be an issue...


Actually, I consider the problem to be that I do not wish to alienate anyone. I still have deep regrets from what I said early on in this thread. I truly believe that my posting was a contributing factor in why Claire apparently become fed up and choose to leave TMM. Furthermore, I am not one who possesses anywhere near such a keen mind as yourself, or BG, MamaLiberty, Scarmig, FeralFae, Junker, Silver, Bill St.Clair, Claire, Lenny, Basil, Elias, Ragnar, Joel (though haven't seen him around in a while) and truly the list goes on and on. In fact I consider it an honor and a privilege to be able to simply observe and learn from what all you folks post here in this forum. Suffice it to say, I have learned a great deal since I've been here, but I am still, by no stretch of the imagination, not well versed in my writing skills, as most of the things I seem to type, are for the most part, words I really should have used differently to bring my true thoughts to light. Sometimes I read back at a few of my posts and can hardly believe I said something in a certain fashion because it didn't reflect the crux of what I was trying to say. So hence, my reservations at getting into a debate. As the old saying goes; "if you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch"! So ridicule me if you like, but I choose to stay on the porch, as opposed to saying something improperly and alienating someone, or offending without intending to do so. Case in point is you and I. I apparently said something that has given you cause to somehow associate me with those who have (and apparently still are) wronged you in the name of religion. I suppose that would be guilt by association? No doubt, I can surely understand why you (and BG) have such animosity built up. I would too!

But I must say it seems to me that you are passing judgment on me based upon your previous encounters with the "legalistic Christians" who have caused you and your family so much hardships and heartaches. As I said before, we as Christians live under "grace" not by Godly laws. From what you have described these people did to you and family (as well as BG), these folks were in fact not very in tune with God, nor Godly principles. Hence, have really missed the boat concerning Christianity. And I for one am very saddened to hear of all you, and BG, have be put through. It is absolutely unbelievable (although I don't mean to infer I don't believe what you say actually happened, because I do)!!  

But please know this; that I too, precisely as Moonbeam has said, feel personally offended (which is why I replied to this thread to start with) when you use such derogatory terms as you have - just the same as if you were speaking poorly of a close family member - as well as seemingly painting us (Christians) all in the picture together as one. So I am very appreciative to hear that you wont be doing that out of your kind consideration of her. But I can assure you that I don't like any of the things you have mentioned (i.e., Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart (problems keeping little jimmy in the pulpit), Popoff, and the myriad others engaged in fraudulent, criminal, or other despicable acts and in my humble opinion should very well be run out of town on a rail and never allowed anywhere near the same positions they held prior to their acts coming to light. But if they are truly sincere in their heart and seek forgiveness, then whatever forgiveness should be due them through their maker, and I could forgive as well (but I am after all only human and have problems in many areas including something like forgiving a church leader/s of such horrific wrongdoing; furthermore, I don't know what's in their heart, as they can speak as many words as they wish - still doesn't enable me to see the sincerity). However, I would still absolutely not approve of them being a church leader ever again, period.  

Moreover, I should state that I believe my relationship with Christ is an absolute personal thing. I do NOT need an organized religion/s to validate that relationship (nor do I in all actuality). As a matter of fact, we as Christians, should fellowship with other like-minded Christians simply because it is considered to be like steel sharpening steel. Making each other stronger in our faith. We go to church to fellowship, and to learn, but mainly to worship God. If  you're not going there with worshiping God clearly on your heart, you are literally wasting your time probably just to been seen, or to simply please someone else. And of course this would be for all the wrong reasons.

And my apologies RF, as I said I was going to attempt to explain why I made the decision that accepting Jesus Christ as my personal Savior was right for me, and strongly feel it was a rational decision at that. But it has been a long difficult last couple of days with very little available time to me for logging on here and writing, but I promise I will do my best to respond with my findings on this matter as soon as I possibly can. But please note, by my doing so, I am not hoping to sway your mind to accept Christ as your own personal Savior, or believe the existence of God or what ever else. I just want to do as I said and provide you with some semblance of an explanation as to why there is some rational thought that goes into (or at least should IMHO) accepting these things into one's life (at least as it applied to me) and to do so with all our hearts and all our minds. For as I said previously, we were all made in His image, and I personally feel we should use all of this "image", meaning all of our minds, our hearts, our senses, and our souls when seeking Him. For me personally, I found it to be the correct thing to do, but let me reemphasize, it is a personal decision everyone must make for themselves without any interference for outside forces such as the loco's you and BG have encountered!!!
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 12, 2010, 12:34:04 am
Sometimes I read back at a few of my posts and can hardly believe I said something in a certain fashion because it didn't reflect the crux of what I was trying to say.

Join the club, that is the biggest secret in the world of the published - editors are your friend, not everyone uses them (some are quite talented), but you would be surprised who does they take utter crap and make it readable, make no mistake it is not the words formed into grammar that is important - it is the communication. I'm a little fish, a very little fish, yet I can tell you content remains king.

My writing and grammar along with my spelling is pathetic, I need help as is evidenced by my unedited ramblings.

Too this day I am mostly/completely in the dark about the entire CW issue, I am not sure what just happened, I'm not sure I want to.

Quote
So hence, my reservations at getting into a debate. As the old saying goes; "if you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch"!

I'm not sure that is how the board here even works... rarely does someone get chased off the boards unless they just cannot cool down, as evidenced by Lenny and myself

Quote
So ridicule me if you like, but I choose to stay on the porch, as opposed to saying something improperly and alienating someone, or offending without intending to do so. Case in point is you and I. I apparently said something that has given you cause to somehow associate me with those who have (and apparently still are) wronged you in the name of religion. I suppose that would be guilt by association? No doubt, I can surely understand why you (and BG) have such animosity built up. I would too!

It is guilt by association, and contrary to popular use, guilt by association is not in and of itself a fallacy, It can be used and abused, but particularly in human heard social groups guilt by association is valid, am I using it incorrectly - that is a possibility.

Now don't assume that I am picking on you in particular, I am in fact using your arguments for example.

Quote
But I must say it seems to me that you are passing judgment on me based upon your previous encounters with the "legalistic Christians"

If I did not think there was any value in exchange I simply would not, please accept that as my proposition that I am not passing judgement on you as an individual.

Quote
As I said before, we as Christians live under "grace" not by Godly laws. From what you have described these people did to you and family (as well as BG), these folks were in fact not very in tune with God, nor Godly principles. Hence, have really missed the boat concerning Christianity.

Here is where we are having a problem, again this is identified as the "no true Scotsman" argument, as long as abuses happen under the cloak of a religion and the majority of followers that identify themselves as partaking of that spirituality do not employ some self cleaning in the form of "shunning" as they employ on "outsiders", it cannot hold water.

Quote
But please know this; that I too, precisely as Moonbeam has said, feel personally offended (which is why I replied to this thread to start with) when you use such derogatory terms as you have - just the same as if you were speaking poorly of a close family member - as well as seemingly painting us (Christians) all in the picture together as one. So I am very appreciative to hear that you wont be doing that out of your kind consideration of her.

I am willing to end the gratuitous offensiveness, but some issues remain... Just WHY does religion get the "pass" - do you see this? I am afraid that most people are just too "close" to the matter to be able to separate the emotions from it. If I really, really believe firmly that UFOs are controlling the .gov is the belief in that make the criticism invalid? And why is it capable of bringing emotions to the forefront - is that conditioning?

Quote
But I can assure you that I don't like any of the things you have mentioned (i.e., Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart (problems keeping little jimmy in the pulpit), Popoff, and the myriad others engaged in fraudulent, criminal, or other despicable acts and in my humble opinion should very well be run out of town on a rail and never allowed anywhere near the same positions they held prior to their acts coming to light. But if they are truly sincere in their heart and seek forgiveness, then whatever forgiveness should be due them through their maker, and I could forgive as well (but I am after all only human and have problems in many areas including something like forgiving a church leader/s of such horrific wrongdoing; furthermore, I don't know what's in their heart, as they can speak as many words as they wish - still doesn't enable me to see the sincerity). However, I would still absolutely not approve of them being a church leader ever again, period.  

Now if that were more common, and more universal and the predators were hounded out, and damaging behavior was not tolerated then most religions would not have the problems and I would remove/change my condemnation that they are dangerous and evil...

Quote
Moreover, I should state that I believe my relationship with Christ is an absolute personal thing.

Personal revelations are just that - personal, but as you could surmise they are not valid outside of your person, the individual, that is your personal revelation is not valid for anyone but you. To say that someone should believe in a "spiritual entity" because you experienced "something" is uselessly invalid. It's not that I don't trust you or any other convinced and honest person, but the results can be duplicated without the manifestation of a "spiritual entity" (this includes meditation, stress positions, repetitive sounds, singing, chanting, "love bombing", chemical aids, sickness/fever, and other stimulus).

Quote
I do NOT need an organized religion/s to validate that relationship (nor do I in all actuality). As a matter of fact, we as Christians, should fellowship with other like-minded Christians simply because it is considered to be like steel sharpening steel. Making each other stronger in our faith. We go to church to fellowship, and to learn, but mainly to worship God. If  you're not going there with worshiping God clearly on your heart, you are literally wasting your time probably just to been seen, or to simply please someone else. And of course this would be for all the wrong reasons.

So would you accept the "Jefferson concept" where the offending parts of the bible and the entire old testament were discarded. You do know he created the "Jefferson bible" to remove the "offending parts" a pet project for him.

Quote
I will do my best to respond with my findings on this matter as soon as I possibly can. But please note, by my doing so, I am not hoping to sway your mind to accept Christ as your own personal Savior, or believe the existence of God or what ever else. I just want to do as I said and provide you with some semblance of an explanation as to why there is some rational thought that goes into (or at least should IMHO) accepting these things into one's life (at least as it applied to me) and to do so with all our hearts and all our minds.

Are you willing to have them examined critically? I am willing to read and consider them without accusations of excessive evangelical postulations. Fair?

This is the subject of this thread, I would expect some of it to become uncomfortable, the question is, can we form a base to prevent the derailing of the conversation into damaging or unproductive emotional outbursts? ... I think it is probable.

Quote
For as I said previously, we were all made in His image, and I personally feel we should use all of this "image", meaning all of our minds, our hearts, our senses, and our souls when seeking Him. For me personally, I found it to be the correct thing to do, but let me reemphasize, it is a personal decision everyone must make for themselves without any interference for outside forces such as the loco's you and BG have encountered!!!

As you can tell I am sectioning this off into smaller subjects, because this is a complicated issue and each part has to be examined as a separate issue or it becomes too jumbled to keep a hold on (as Lenny has identified elsewhere).
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Bill St. Clair on July 12, 2010, 03:15:24 am
I agree that "God's Law should be the only law," but the meaning to me of that sentence is likely very different from the usual religious meaning. To me, God's Law is the laws of physics, economics, mathematics, chemistry, etc. Properties of the universe that we cannot control but can only discover, and attempt to understand well enough to avoid the inevitable natural consequences of breaking the Law.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on July 12, 2010, 11:48:58 am
  M.L. , you missed my point. Avoidance will work for *now* , if a theocracy comes to power in this country then avoidance will no longer work , the time to make oneself aware of these factors and possbily fight against such a rise is prior to it becoming more established within the power structure than it already is. Not after it establishes an iron grip on the country , and it well may do so should the aforementioned pendulum swing the wrong way , at that juncture it *will* have an effect on you personally.

Well, I happen to disagree with you totally. You fight "them" however you wish, but I plan to spend the few remaining years I have left in a much more wholesome and productive manner.

And, BTW, there isn't a damned thing I can do to prevent ANYONE from establishing an "iron grip on the country" - and neither can you. I can do what is possible to BUILD a better community right here and now, to face whatever comes. That's all I rationally CAN do. :)
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on July 13, 2010, 05:49:38 am
Well, BG, you pick your battles and I'll pick mine.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on July 13, 2010, 07:54:45 am
Quote
I have no wish to replace the current regime with another that has the potential to be even *more* repressive ,and a theocracy undoubtedly contains such potential.

So then why risk replacing it with anything?.........as anything has "the potential" to become much more than it was intended to be.......as the last 200+ years has so vividly demonstrated.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: mouse on July 13, 2010, 09:12:13 am
My idea is that you cannot be truly free unless you believe in God, or at least a version of God.

Atheism is sad.  Sad because it teaches nothing, is nothing.  If you truly believe in atheistic values, then you believe that there are no real consequences for anything at all.

I think we tend to confuse the earthly with the supernatural.  After all these years I have realised that I don't like organised religion, it might work for others and it certainly has a place, but it does not work for me.  I decided to embrace God only seven years ago and a lot has been explained to me by that since then.  However, recently I discovered the - widely held it seems - belief that God has delegated his powers to earthly "rulers".  That has been the belief for some now, but I only found out about it in recent years.  Somebody said to me a while ago "you should trust and embrace government because God has ordained it and appointed the leaders".  I found that view to be utterly horrifying, obscene in fact.

I was recently (I mean by recently, some years ago) reading about how the King James Bible was translated into english and for the first time the masses could read it and interpret it for themselves.  Before that reading and quoting the Bible was exclusively the preserve of priests, or Latin speakers.  I finally understood how for centuries Christianity was used to control people and keep the masses oppressed.

A couple of years ago I wrote a letter to the editor of a local paper about surveillance cameras in public.  A few days later there appeared another letter quoting what I'd said and quoting a Bible passage about "people who do things under cover of darkness and how it is good to shine light on it", the writer was comparing the owners of surveillance cameras to God, and he/she was totally serious.  That to me, is an excellent example of just not understanding things.  I didn't write any more letters because I didn't want to get into a debate about it, but maybe I should have.

I presume that other religions are the same.

Also a dangerous belief is the “it is preordained” doctrine, or “there’s not a damned thing we can do about it because it is God’s will”.  This is really frustrating because you just cannot convince people who say this that they can change things, they have given up completely.

Another one is “well this had to happen, it only means that we are in ‘endtimes’”.  I don’t even like to get into “end times” because what was prophesied is open so much to interpretation and nobody can agree on anything.

Likewise when I complain about fingerprinting or id cards or anything of that nature at all, someone will always come up with “it is the beginning of the mark of the beast and it all HAS to happen”.  This just about closes down any debate and leaves me wondering: “would that person take an id card because they believe the microchip is the MOB?  Or if a subdermal microchip is ever introduced will they talk themselves into taking it because “the Bible says the ‘right hand’ and this will not be in the right hand’”?

Religion complicates things.  But it shouldn’t.

Atheism is dangerous because it means that you believe in nothing at all, you have no moral absolutes.  Anything goes.  That might be freedom for some, but often that denotes a belief in ownership or exploitation of other people, and it is not true freedom for those other people.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Scarmiglione' on July 13, 2010, 10:11:30 am
My idea is that you cannot be truly free unless you believe in God, or at least a version of God.

Atheism is sad.  Sad because it teaches nothing, is nothing.  If you truly believe in atheistic values, then you believe that there are no real consequences for anything at all.

Mouse, this is incorrect.  There are no "atheistic" values.  Atheism is *not* a value system, it is not a set of morals, it is not a moral code, it is not a guide, it is not a politic.  All atheism is, is a lack of belief in god.  That's it.  Nothing else.  It literally means "without belief".  It is nothing more than that.

As atheists, we do have moral codes, and guides, and many people who are atheists can find or build their moral codes from religion, from spirituality, from philosophy, for all kinds of sources.  Buddhists have an entire spiritually guided moral code, yet they are atheists.  Buddhists do not believe in god. 

Likewise, atheists can come to build a personal moral code from many different sources.  Religion, culture, philosophy, logic, tradition, etc.

Also, I fail to see how consequences on this earth are not "real".  They are certainly more relevant and immediate than unproven, unknown, unverifiable consequences after death.  We non-believers probably put more emphasis on the earthly consequences because that's all we see evidence for, but I find it hard to believe that believers see no "real" consequences on this earth.

Quote

I was recently (I mean by recently, some years ago) reading about how the King James Bible was translated into english and for the first time the masses could read it and interpret it for themselves.  Before that reading and quoting the Bible was exclusively the preserve of priests, or Latin speakers.  I finally understood how for centuries Christianity was used to control people and keep the masses oppressed.

A couple of years ago I wrote a letter to the editor of a local paper about surveillance cameras in public.  A few days later there appeared another letter quoting what I'd said and quoting a Bible passage about "people who do things under cover of darkness and how it is good to shine light on it", the writer was comparing the owners of surveillance cameras to God, and he/she was totally serious.  That to me, is an excellent example of just not understanding things.  I didn't write any more letters because I didn't want to get into a debate about it, but maybe I should have.

I presume that other religions are the same.

Also a dangerous belief is the “it is preordained” doctrine, or “there’s not a damned thing we can do about it because it is God’s will”.  This is really frustrating because you just cannot convince people who say this that they can change things, they have given up completely.

Another one is “well this had to happen, it only means that we are in ‘endtimes’”.  I don’t even like to get into “end times” because what was prophesied is open so much to interpretation and nobody can agree on anything.

Likewise when I complain about fingerprinting or id cards or anything of that nature at all, someone will always come up with “it is the beginning of the mark of the beast and it all HAS to happen”.  This just about closes down any debate and leaves me wondering: “would that person take an id card because they believe the microchip is the MOB?  Or if a subdermal microchip is ever introduced will they talk themselves into taking it because “the Bible says the ‘right hand’ and this will not be in the right hand’”?

I completely agree with your criticisms against organized religion.

Quote
Religion complicates things.  But it shouldn’t.

I also agree with this.

Quote
Atheism is dangerous because it means that you believe in nothing at all, you have no moral absolutes.  Anything goes.  That might be freedom for some, but often that denotes a belief in ownership or exploitation of other people, and it is not true freedom for those other people.

For *some* atheists this might be true.  But that would be because they have developed a moral code where ownership and exploitation of other people is just and desired.  Atheism is not a moral code in and of itself. 

Atheists can have moral absolutes.  Atheists can be moral relativists.  Atheists can be both, about different areas of concern.  Atheists can be capitalists, or communists.  Atheists can be oligarchs, or tyrants.  Many atheists are humanists, but don't have to be.   There is *nothing* about atheism that defines anything about a person beyond, "He don't believe in god."  That's it.  Everything else is variable.  The lack of belief is the only commonality.



Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 13, 2010, 04:09:43 pm
My idea is that you cannot be truly free unless you believe in God, or at least a version of God.

Atheism is sad.  Sad because it teaches nothing, is nothing.  If you truly believe in atheistic values, then you believe that there are no real consequences for anything at all.

For all the talk about using the "lord's" name in offensive ways and being downright rude - christians take the cake and the above is a perfect example.

For some reason the genuflection to a "supernatural sprit" and worshiping the words written by bronze age malcontents bent on manipulating their flocks makes one "moral"?

To be factual and using statistical data the more "atheist" the more likely to stay married, the less likely to commit crime, the lower ratios of teen pregnancy, and the higher the education and even IQ... These are all verifiable facts so just where does fact indicate that atheists are less moral?

I would say that the facts point out that athiests are clearly SUPERIOR in morals than the religious. To argue counter to the facts to defend "spiritualism" against the non-believers is not only disingenuous it is offensive. In fact it is not a defense but a passive/aggressive attack on "you others" and shows a bend counter to individualism.

Quote
I think we tend to confuse the earthly with the supernatural

That would qualify as a delusion.

Quote
After all these years I have realised that I don't like organised religion, it might work for others and it certainly has a place, but it does not work for me.

I simply went several steps further, rather than just be an atheist about Zeus, Zenu and Krishna I realized all of them were simple mythology.

Quote
I decided to embrace God only seven years ago and a lot has been explained to me by that since then.
 

That is an individual revelation, it by it's nature cannot be used to do anything but explain a personal explanation.

Quote
However, recently I discovered the - widely held it seems - belief that God has delegated his powers to earthly "rulers".  That has been the belief for some now, but I only found out about it in recent years.

It is a widely held belief because the "King James" version was "enhanced" to bolster the position of "devine right of kings" and the submission of the subjects to authority.

Quote
Somebody said to me a while ago "you should trust and embrace government because God has ordained it and appointed the leaders".  I found that view to be utterly horrifying, obscene in fact.

As do I, in fact it along with so much of the contents I found disgusting why actually reading the Bible was part of my de-conversion away from religion. In fact you will find that with many rationalist and anti-theists among the atheist this is a common theme.

Quote
I was recently (I mean by recently, some years ago) reading about how the King James Bible was translated into english and for the first time the masses could read it and interpret it for themselves.  Before that reading and quoting the Bible was exclusively the preserve of priests, or Latin speakers.  I finally understood how for centuries Christianity was used to control people and keep the masses oppressed.

Yes it was, and the modified and translated version did nothing to remove the demands for genuflection. Note the one point I promote constantly - ignorance - is key for the oligarchy to continue to manipulate.

Quote
Also a dangerous belief is the “it is preordained” doctrine, or “there’s not a damned thing we can do about it because it is God’s will”.  This is really frustrating because you just cannot convince people who say this that they can change things, they have given up completely.

There is enough content in that bronze age tome to be used for this manipulation.

Quote
Another one is “well this had to happen, it only means that we are in ‘endtimes’”.  I don’t even like to get into “end times” because what was prophesied is open so much to interpretation and nobody can agree on anything.

I am convinced this was deliberate.

Quote
Likewise when I complain about fingerprinting or id cards or anything of that nature at all, someone will always come up with “it is the beginning of the mark of the beast and it all HAS to happen”.  This just about closes down any debate and leaves me wondering: “would that person take an id card because they believe the microchip is the MOB?  Or if a subdermal microchip is ever introduced will they talk themselves into taking it because “the Bible says the ‘right hand’ and this will not be in the right hand’”?

Could that be because it is simply mythology and interpreting?

Quote
Religion complicates things.  But it shouldn’t.

Unlike Scarming, I disagree, I think the very nature of irrational faith in anything that has no factual basis is bound to complicate everything.

Quote
Atheism is dangerous because it means that you believe in nothing at all

That is a very common argument amongst apologists, and it simply does not hold water, you do realize that there are atheist religions? Several asian religions do not have a central spiritualism or god.

Atheism is simply not believing or having faith is something that has absolutely no basis in fact!

So you deny the dangerous parts of the bible? How is atheism any more dangerous than religion, the facts lend weight to the argument that the exact opposite of your statement is true.

Quote
you have no moral absolutes.  Anything goes.

Sounds like the general mistaken idea of what anarchism is... do you believe that individualist anarchism is "anything goes"? - do you see the find line from religion and political systems?

Quote
That might be freedom for some, but often that denotes a belief in ownership or exploitation of other people, and it is not true freedom for those other people.


You are mistaking atheism with predatory parasitism, as if atheism has some sort of non-rules, a typical confusion I would expect from christians who think that anyone who is not christian is some sort of "devil worshiper" and the any and everything done outside of your religious rules is "from the devil".

Your specific arguments I have point out above fail on all points and all levels. At least you are not promoting some truly evil or disgusting theology of christianity like calvinism, Young earth creationism, or christian science.

I actually have no problems with gnosticism or individual revelations, so long as they are willing to disavow the evil parts of the bible (something I have not seen even here).
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on July 13, 2010, 05:31:10 pm
Quote
   Get real Zoot , it *will* be replaced with *something* , of that there is very little doubt , even after a complete collapse there will be people attempting to put a new system of some sort in place , therefore it well behooves the individual to be aware of what's coming down the road and be on guard against something that's even worse than what is already in place.


Yeah.............and that's why I'm asking "you" about this........
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: ubik380 on July 13, 2010, 05:50:20 pm
RadioFlyer suggested that there is a fine line between religion and politics. I submit that there is no line, but people say there is. People create their own "belief system"s from the smorgasbord of beliefs/ideas/memes that they are exposed to.* Some of these memes/patterns are constructed in such a way that they are persistent and difficult to change: ideas based on untestable theories, ideas that contain rules against questioning the ideas or rules, ideas who's authority comes from an absolute and "true" source and, of course, ideas backed up with threats/force and not reason/experience. The faults that some see in (what we call) religion exist equally in (what we call) politics, in slightly different forms.

When some people say what a great thing it is to live in a place that supports "freedom of religion", I wonder why they don't support "freedom of politics" too. Freedom of religion doesn't include forcing others to subscribe and submit to your "religious belief"s. In the same way, "freedom of politics" (sounds strange, doesn't it?) would prohibit  coercion in other domains.

But if we had "freedom of politics", wouldn't we automatically have "freedom of religion"?

*Hopefully, people continue to develop and invent new and better ideas and transmit them to others.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on July 13, 2010, 11:22:10 pm
Now I do have to ask - why wounded, why is the belief in the spiritual so important? Why is protecting a faith and belief so important?

My concept of God has evolved throughout my life, but my belief in Him has never waned. Because as I see it, God isn’t the problem people are.

While growing up, some people were not very nice to me. There were some awful things that happened to me that could have easily cast God in a negative light. Despite these events, I saw God as someone Who wanted to save me, love me, and treasure me. I was very young when I understood His ultimate love for me (and the entire world!): the giving of His Son.

I’m not going to speculate as to why some religious folks behave the way they do; just like I don’t feel like psycho-analyzing why anyone is motivated to behave badly. Obviously not every Christian believes what I do: hate the sin, but love the sinner. Rather than interfere the way they did with Blueghost, for example, I’d much rather see them use their energies to helping the truly hurting. I know that only God can judge a person’s heart – so that’s why I try not to engage in “they’re not a Christian because X-Y-Z.”

Reading Anne Rice (who is a Christian now interesting enough) or Harry Potter doesn’t necessarily mean you will begin practicing vampirism or witchcraft. However, I can see how it would open the door to such worlds. There are many things in this world that entice us and will make us stumble. We can easily succumb to drugs, alcohol, gambling, and pornography just to name a few. Avoiding such vices that typically lead to destruction of self, family and sometimes communities would be prudent one could argue.

I know when I was rebelling in my teens and early twenties it was distracting me from a close relationship with God. Whenever I stop needing Him I become arrogant or proud. And whenever I act on my temptations it drives a wedge between us. He doesn’t pull away, I do. I cannot imagine the hurt this causes Him!

There are many verses in the Bible that I love. But, one verse that I hold dear is from Jeremiah 29:11 (NIV): “‘For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.’”

I believe that my DH is a beautiful gift from God. And I sure wish that I could have given him a treasure he deserved: my virginity. I regret the pre-martial sex that I had. From time to time it haunts me. Just looking at this one instruction from God leaves me no doubt that He does indeed know what’s best for us, and that He gives such commands because of His love for us. If only I had heeded His message!

Why is protecting a faith and belief so important? Because I am nourished by His love, I benefit from His promises and I prosper because of His grace. For me, not having a personal relationship with the Lord would be a life without purpose, a life without hope. My relationship with God is rewarding, and I want to bring Him glory.

Why is the belief in the spiritual so important? Because I believe in eternal life and for me, I do not wish to be separated from God. Knowing Him brings me comfort. And the more I learn about the Lord, the more I love Him.

Why wounded? Because I love Him.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: mouse on July 14, 2010, 09:15:01 am
My idea is that you cannot be truly free unless you believe in God, or at least a version of God.

Atheism is sad.  Sad because it teaches nothing, is nothing.  If you truly believe in atheistic values, then you believe that there are no real consequences for anything at all.

Mouse, this is incorrect.  There are no "atheistic" values.  Atheism is *not* a value system, it is not a set of morals, it is not a moral code, it is not a guide, it is not a politic.  All atheism is, is a lack of belief in god.  That's it.  Nothing else.  It literally means "without belief".  It is nothing more than that.

As atheists, we do have moral codes, and guides, and many people who are atheists can find or build their moral codes from religion, from spirituality, from philosophy, for all kinds of sources.  Buddhists have an entire spiritually guided moral code, yet they are atheists.  Buddhists do not believe in god. 

Likewise, atheists can come to build a personal moral code from many different sources.  Religion, culture, philosophy, logic, tradition, etc.

Also, I fail to see how consequences on this earth are not "real".  They are certainly more relevant and immediate than unproven, unknown, unverifiable consequences after death.  We non-believers probably put more emphasis on the earthly consequences because that's all we see evidence for, but I find it hard to believe that believers see no "real" consequences on this earth.

Quote

I was recently (I mean by recently, some years ago) reading about how the King James Bible was translated into english and for the first time the masses could read it and interpret it for themselves.  Before that reading and quoting the Bible was exclusively the preserve of priests, or Latin speakers.  I finally understood how for centuries Christianity was used to control people and keep the masses oppressed.

A couple of years ago I wrote a letter to the editor of a local paper about surveillance cameras in public.  A few days later there appeared another letter quoting what I'd said and quoting a Bible passage about "people who do things under cover of darkness and how it is good to shine light on it", the writer was comparing the owners of surveillance cameras to God, and he/she was totally serious.  That to me, is an excellent example of just not understanding things.  I didn't write any more letters because I didn't want to get into a debate about it, but maybe I should have.

I presume that other religions are the same.

Also a dangerous belief is the “it is preordained” doctrine, or “there’s not a damned thing we can do about it because it is God’s will”.  This is really frustrating because you just cannot convince people who say this that they can change things, they have given up completely.

Another one is “well this had to happen, it only means that we are in ‘endtimes’”.  I don’t even like to get into “end times” because what was prophesied is open so much to interpretation and nobody can agree on anything.

Likewise when I complain about fingerprinting or id cards or anything of that nature at all, someone will always come up with “it is the beginning of the mark of the beast and it all HAS to happen”.  This just about closes down any debate and leaves me wondering: “would that person take an id card because they believe the microchip is the MOB?  Or if a subdermal microchip is ever introduced will they talk themselves into taking it because “the Bible says the ‘right hand’ and this will not be in the right hand’”?

I completely agree with your criticisms against organized religion.

Quote
Religion complicates things.  But it shouldn’t.

I also agree with this.

Quote
Atheism is dangerous because it means that you believe in nothing at all, you have no moral absolutes.  Anything goes.  That might be freedom for some, but often that denotes a belief in ownership or exploitation of other people, and it is not true freedom for those other people.

For *some* atheists this might be true.  But that would be because they have developed a moral code where ownership and exploitation of other people is just and desired.  Atheism is not a moral code in and of itself. 

Atheists can have moral absolutes.  Atheists can be moral relativists.  Atheists can be both, about different areas of concern.  Atheists can be capitalists, or communists.  Atheists can be oligarchs, or tyrants.  Many atheists are humanists, but don't have to be.   There is *nothing* about atheism that defines anything about a person beyond, "He don't believe in god."  That's it.  Everything else is variable.  The lack of belief is the only commonality.





I am quoting your whole post because my computer is playing up and I keep losings screeds of text, so I am “copy and pasting it” all the time and trying to keep things as simple as possible.

Firstly yes, sorry, I do realise that atheism is a complete lack of a belief system, and is not a “values system”.  My bad choice of words I’m afraid.

Sorry, I just don’t see how you can have lasting moral codes with no belief system to back it up.  You must believe that morals are what ever you want them to be.  This will inevitably be flexible and must be based around an earthly hierarchy.  Isn’t it earthly hierarchy that we are railing against all the time?

Sure consequences on this earth are very real, but they are also very temporary.  If a moral code exists whereby ownership and esxploitation of people is just and desired” then that “moral code” stinks badly and is evil, and most definitely anti-freedom.  How can you be free if you born vulnerable (by circumstances perhaps) to being owned or exploited by someone else, or some organization (government?)?

I totally agree with one thing you have said, though, that is that atheism is nothing, a belief in nothing, no point to anything because there is nothing.  All is temporary.  What is the point of anything?  You work hard all your life and provide a bugout and a food supply and physical protection for your family.  Then you die while fighting off that intruder and your family says “well there’s nothing left of him so we’d better just go and get good paying government jobs and have done with all this nonsense”.

Consider, also, the American declaration of independence:

… We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights …..

Doesn’t that sum it all up?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Scarmiglione' on July 14, 2010, 09:48:57 am

Firstly yes, sorry, I do realise that atheism is a complete lack of a belief system, and is not a “values system”.  My bad choice of words I’m afraid.


I don't think so.  I think you use the words to accurately reflect your understanding.  I'm hoping to broaden that understanding.

Quote
Sorry, I just don’t see how you can have lasting moral codes with no belief system to back it up. 

Well, then I think you have quite a burden in front of you.  I've been an atheist for twenty five years.  I've been continuously employed for twenty years.  I've been married faithfully for twelve years.  I have never committed theft, rape, or murder.  I've never started a fight.  I don't abuse my wife, kids, or dogs.  I've worked for charities.  I believe and live the non-aggression principal.  I haven't voted in twenty years.  I practice respect for others homes and lives, including being respectful of their religious practices.

So, if my moral codes are not lasting, do you truly and legitimately expect that at any moment all of this will simply snap, and I'll go on some kind of violent rampage?

Do you believe my children are in danger from my lack of deistic belief?

I'm not trying to be inflammatory.  I am genuinely curious to know your perception of me as an atheist.  By your comments I cannot be a moral person and any morality I am practicing is temporary and destined to be cast aside.  So I am curious to know what behavior you think all atheists are destined to commit.

Quote
You must believe that morals are what ever you want them to be.  This will inevitably be flexible and must be based around an earthly hierarchy.  Isn’t it earthly hierarchy that we are railing against all the time?

I know that morals are whatever each person wants them to be.  This *is* flexible and is of course based around this earthly existence. 

This is just the reality of things.  Even within religious belief, there are individually different and flexible morals.  If there weren't, there wouldn't be different religious, different practices, different customs, different sects, and different rituals.

You may view your morals to be from an external source, to be unquestionable, but the very fact that other people exist who have different morals than you proves that idea is not the reality.  It is belief, not objective fact.

So yes, I do have earthly morals.  And yes, over time my morals *have* changed to reflect my experiences and particularly my growth as a free individual.  For example, I used to believe that anyone who smoked cannabis was committing a "sin", a violation of moral code.  But since then, I have come to the conclusion that other people's bodies are not my concern, and I have no authority or jurisdiction to judge what is "right" or "wrong" for their chemistry.  My moral code has been adjusted and removed "doing drugs" as a violation of my code.

Also, a moral code has *nothing* to do with earthly heirarchy.  A moral code begins and ends with the individual.  The individual may get inspiration or education from other individuals, from groups, from books, or from experience, but each individual defines their own code.  That may include subservience to supposed "authorities", or it may not.  But in no way does having a moral code derived from within oneself mean advocating the coercion and violence of government.

Quote
Sure consequences on this earth are very real, but they are also very temporary.

To an atheist, death is permanent.

Quote
people is just and desired” then that “moral code” stinks badly and is evil, and most definitely anti-freedom.  How can you be free if you born vulnerable (by circumstances perhaps) to being owned or exploited by someone else, or some organization (government?)?

Freedom is not something people are born with.  How can you be free when you can't even feed yourself?  You are born so vulnerable that cannot be free of your own mother.  Freedom is something claimed and hopefully respected, and if it is not, then defended. 

Quote
I totally agree with one thing you have said, though, that is that atheism is nothing, a belief in nothing, no point to anything because there is nothing.

No, that is not what I said at all.  Atheist is a lack of belief.  It does not attempt to define the meaning of life.  It does not say there is no point to anything.  It is a lack of belief, nothing more.

A lack of belief in god for me is the same as your lack of belief in purple floznuppers.   Does your lack of belief in floznuppers mean you have no point in life?  That there is no point to anything?  That you have no purpose, no motivation, no inspiration, no desire and no consequence?

Quote
You work hard all your life and provide a bugout and a food supply and physical protection for your family.  Then you die while fighting off that intruder and your family says “well there’s nothing left of him so we’d better just go and get good paying government jobs and have done with all this nonsense”.

Are you saying that a belief in god would prevent that from happening?

I recognize that might happen.  All I can do is satisfy myself that I have given it my best shot.  But my family are free individuals, and that includes the freedom to make their own decisions when they claim their lives for their own.

But you...  why would you care if this very thing happened to you?  After all, earthly consequences are just temporary?  Why would you care if your family gets government jobs, so long as they told you they believe in god?  This earth doesn't matter.  Might as well make it as easy as possible.  Get a government job, go to church, just coast along through life until you die so you can go to heaven.  After all, nothing on earth matters.  There is no point to earthy existence except to get to heaven.  Everything else is just a waste of time.

Quote
Consider, also, the American declaration of independence:

… We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights …..

My Creator is my Mother and Father.  How does that take away my unalienable rights?  (Although what rights actually are is a completely different discussion).  I find it not a little insightful that the Declaration doesn't specifically name a god, or even that the creator must be a deity.  It implies that merely existing, however you think that existence came about, imbues you with rights.

Interesting that.


Thank you for continuing the discussion with me.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 14, 2010, 11:09:34 am
Sorry, I just don’t see how you can have lasting moral codes with no belief system to back it up.  You must believe that morals are what ever you want them to be.  This will inevitably be flexible and must be based around an earthly hierarchy.  Isn’t it earthly hierarchy that we are railing against all the time?

Morality or as Lenny calls it "quasi-morality" is biological, it along with genetic indicators is convincing evidence for evolutionary processes.

But in the end how could it be impossible to imagine a code created by "man" when there are facts to prove that christianity in particular is man-made, in no way unique, completely copied from older sources in fact and easily proven that the contents are the product of a bronze age civilization that was not even particularly moral.

Quote
Sure consequences on this earth are very real, but they are also very temporary.

From a geological stance all of human history is simply a blip, temporary is scale of perception.

You are of course indicating that there is an afterlife, care to provide any proof? Outside of that then as scarming indicated death is permanent.

Quote
If a moral code exists whereby ownership and esxploitation of people is just and desired” then that “moral code” stinks badly and is evil, and most definitely anti-freedom.  How can you be free if you born vulnerable (by circumstances perhaps) to being owned or exploited by someone else, or some organization (government?)?

Now you come to a dilemma we all have to work with, the natural tendency of the parasitic predators to control others, that is something we can all agree we would "fight against".

So, you then have to answer the problems with SLAVERY as indicated by your religions moral code - HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY THE SLAVERY AS ALLOWED BY THE BIBLE? How does an adherent of the Abrahamic religions deal with the anti-freedom contents of their own religions - if you have problems finding them I can point them out - INCLUDING IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Quote
I totally agree with one thing you have said, though, that is that atheism is nothing, a belief in nothing, no point to anything because there is nothing.  All is temporary.  What is the point of anything?  You work hard all your life and provide a bugout and a food supply and physical protection for your family.  Then you die while fighting off that intruder and your family says “well there’s nothing left of him so we’d better just go and get good paying government jobs and have done with all this nonsense”.

Care to provide any proof that an atheist family is more prone to "bad behavior" - I have pointed out that statistical evidence proves that atheist are more likely to "behave" so do you care to elaborate on how an atheist is somehow in a more precarious position in following a moral code, making a moral code, or following even ZAP?

So I was willing to stay "nice" for MB - but you are walking the line - what you posted above is offensive, care to add something about my wife as Lenny (sideline and within TOS) that tends to want to do to get a good reaction?

Quote
Consider, also, the American declaration of independence:

… We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights …..

You do realise that this was written as "art of language" and written by Thomas Jefferson... We can of course go over TJ's ideas and thoughts of religion....

Quote
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson

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 toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson

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?")

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson

There are more - you must by now understand that when using reason, rational thought, and facts the religious are in the weak position, limited to facts the religious position is well, undependable it leaves only emotion, tradition, and mythology.

Quote
Doesn’t that sum it all up?

How about...

Quote
If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
-Thomas Jefferson

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
-Thomas Jefferson

Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.
-Thomas Jefferson

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.
-Thomas Jefferson

Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on July 14, 2010, 12:23:26 pm
So, you then have to answer the problems with SLAVERY as indicated by your religions moral code - HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY THE SLAVERY AS ALLOWED BY THE BIBLE? How does an adherent of the Abrahamic religions deal with the anti-freedom contents of their own religions - if you have problems finding them I can point them out - INCLUDING IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

It shouldn't surprise you that there are in fact answers to questions like this, since people have grappled with such questions for at least two millennia. Rant: some atheists (not picking on you RF) debate theology with no background in the subject, little realizing that that's as stupid as fundies arguing science who have an eighth-grade education. /rant

In a nutshell, the answer has three parts:

1) Property rights: humans have property rights in things like real-estate, bananas and cows; we don't consult the cows for their views on this. Beings who occupy a higher plane of existence (if any such exist) can have property rights in humans precisely as humans have in cows. In particular, if a Supreme Being wants to exterminate mankind with a flood because He considers them "wicked," he has as much right as a farmer does to slaughter his herd because it's infected with mad cow disease. NOTE: This argument does not assume the existence of a supreme being, and is not circular.

2) Accommodation: some commandments are given, not because they represent ultimate morality, but because it's the best that the recipients of the commandment can actually do, whether due to mental defect, or lack of education. Anarchists who endorse Ron Paul, or the Constitution, or the Articles of Confederation, are accommodating people who don't yet understand ZAP fully, and can't handle it at their present level of understanding.

3) Mitigation: some commandments are given to mitigate abuses occurring at the time. This is a special case of accommodation. Two canonical examples are divorce and slavery in the OT. Both were already customs among the Ancient Near East peoples. Divorce and polygamy were subject to horrible abuses, in which women would be rendered destitute or otherwise abused. The OT doesn't forbid divorce, but instead regulates it in various ways--mainly by requiring a written statement of cause called a "bill of divorcement," and by requiring that polygamous husbands continue rendering material and conjugal duties to earlier wives. The horrors of slavery we know about; the OT doesn't eliminate the custom, but makes all manner of injury to the slave a sufficient grounds for liberation, limits the term of service to six years (for Israelite slaves at least), and requires payment for services rendered at the time of manumission.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on July 14, 2010, 02:09:36 pm
Quote
Outside of that then as scarming indicated death is permanent.

yeah...........death is the end of our physical bodies, but somehow, I simply can't believe that it's the end of what we are.

I believe there's something more in humans............something that we still don't fully understand............and that's where this "sky daddy" stuff comes from.

Quote
By your comments I cannot be a moral person and any morality I am practicing is temporary and destined to be cast aside.  So I am curious to know what behavior you think all atheists are destined to commit.

Here we go again...........and this is something that "I" had a very difficult time getting my head wrapped around........and it was just the words, or rather my understanding of the words at that time

No scarmig.........by theistic mindset, you can't have "morals"as morals are based on some theistic agenda...........but that doesn't mean that you don't, or can't have ethics and principles............and personally I'd rather deal with a person with ethics and principles over one with theistic agenda driven morality any day........

ZAP doesn't deal with morality, although it's mistakenly linked to morality by some..............it deals with ethics, or to be precise, a single ethical concept or principle............that concerning the initiation of agression...........and that's ALL it does...........
That being that it's "not "ok" to initiate agression against other, nor to delegate the initiation of agression against others in ones stead.............with aggression being defined as the commission of acts of violence..........
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Bill St. Clair on July 14, 2010, 02:15:06 pm
I, too, have been unable to convince myself that death is the end, that life is nothing more than a chemical reaction. But I also have a hard time believing that a guy in a robe with a long white beard is recording my every move, will pass judgement when I die, and will sentence me to eternity of bliss or suffering, depending on how I behaved while on planet. The chemical reaction theory definitely wins over that one.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Scarmiglione' on July 14, 2010, 02:23:45 pm
I think most people, including myself, are simply using "morals" to represent a code of behavior by which we discern right from wrong, not specifically distinguishing "morals" as opposed to "principals" as opposed to "ethics".

For the purposes of this discussion, I don't see any notable difference, because I have never know the word "morals" to belong exclusively to the domain of religious thought.  I could be wrong, but that still doesn't preclude the possibility of someone being religious, having religious morals, yet not believing in a singular, supernatural consciousness.



Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on July 14, 2010, 02:51:26 pm
Quote
For the purposes of this discussion, I don't see any notable difference, because I have never know the word "morals" to belong exclusively to the domain of religious thought.

Anarchist, voluntaryist, or sovereign individual?

What's the difference, except one of perception?.............and as Elias once said concerning a discussion with some spook, who stated that:
Perception is everything

Quote
But I also have a hard time believing that a guy in a robe with a long white beard is recording my every move, will pass judgement when I die, and will sentence me to eternity of bliss or suffering, depending on how I behaved while on planet.
 

Again............that's a matter of perception.........and quite possibly man-made attributions..........

And on the eighth man recreated God in his own image, and imbued unto this god, all the virtues and vices of man, thus that man might do as he pleased with his own blessings......

As time goes on, I'm beginning to believe that heaven and hell are right here on earth, and that that unknown quality which makes us human called "the spirit" merely recycles, and that good is it's own heaven, and evil it's own hell.........And funny...........but I see it all around me each and every day...........



Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Bill St. Clair on July 14, 2010, 03:20:47 pm
As time goes on, I'm beginning to believe that heaven and hell are right here on earth, and that that unknown quality which makes us human called "the spirit" merely recycles, and that good is it's own heaven, and evil it's own hell.........And funny...........but I see it all around me each and every day...........

Now there's a theory that makes some sense.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: gaurdduck on July 14, 2010, 05:54:36 pm
As time goes on, I'm beginning to believe that heaven and hell are right here on earth, and that that unknown quality which makes us human called "the spirit" merely recycles, and that good is it's own heaven, and evil it's own hell.........And funny...........but I see it all around me each and every day...........

Now there's a theory that makes some sense.

Sounds a little like what Johnny Appleseed preached...
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 14, 2010, 11:43:29 pm
Quote
For the purposes of this discussion, I don't see any notable difference, because I have never know the word "morals" to belong exclusively to the domain of religious thought.

Anarchist, voluntaryist, or sovereign individual?

What's the difference, except one of perception?.............and as Elias once said concerning a discussion with some spook, who stated that:
Perception is everything

Quote
But I also have a hard time believing that a guy in a robe with a long white beard is recording my every move, will pass judgement when I die, and will sentence me to eternity of bliss or suffering, depending on how I behaved while on planet.
 

Again............that's a matter of perception.........and quite possibly man-made attributions..........

And on the eighth man recreated God in his own image, and imbued unto this god, all the virtues and vices of man, thus that man might do as he pleased with his own blessings......

As time goes on, I'm beginning to believe that heaven and hell are right here on earth, and that that unknown quality which makes us human called "the spirit" merely recycles, and that good is it's own heaven, and evil it's own hell.........And funny...........but I see it all around me each and every day...........

As for Bill SC and Zoot - is not the "special nature" of man simply a form of narcissism? many animals show "self aware" minds if they are equal or even superior in mental powers would not salvation be available to all cognizant creatures?

I would love there to be a just and loving "creator" someone who helps and guides us, even shows us how to be "better" - even just an afterlife, even the "grey and dismal" afterlife from some, but there is just no evidence. Hell, I would love worldwide brotherly love and peace, with fairness and plenty for all - but I am just not stupid enough to think my dreams (however silly) are ever possible with the current evolutionary level of humans.

Many of the asian religions hold some values and codes that could possibly be considered comparatively superior to the abrahamic systems.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 14, 2010, 11:45:57 pm
I have to start off - I am not going to get too deep into the etymology, philology, semantics and pragmatics of the word and words surrounding "morals" unless we have to - I think we have done fairly well so far, if we have to we can, it just does not seem to be a big point of contention, certainly we can be more accurate if we need to be.

Second item - Thank you Lenny, and I am honest about that, you have taken the time to write your thoughts and regardless of my agreement (or not) it has proven useful. (the rest of you can clean the spray of diet coke off of your keyboards)

The post I am about to go into is to me very illuminating, those of you who are participating in the apologetics (we can go into this later) may not have caught on to exactly how much, and you may never fully comprehend "the tree for the forest" as it were.

It shouldn't surprise you that there are in fact answers to questions like this, since people have grappled with such questions for at least two millennia. Rant: some atheists (not picking on you RF) debate theology with no background in the subject, little realizing that that's as stupid as fundies arguing science who have an eighth-grade education. /rant

Yes I am more than familiar, with apologetics (in modern language).

Feel free to rant all you want.

I don't think that most would make the assumption that I am not familiar with the subject, at least from the view of a participant.

What I am stating is that theology is in effect useless - without a grounding in fact it is simply arguing over the various merits of differing mythologies. I am proposing that at best religions are competing mythology and until proven to be correct (and that includes the existence of god and that that god is also the god of that particular religion) then they hold no more weight than any other philosophical presumptions.

I am not attempting to argue theology I am criticizing all mythology.

Any religious texts given value and weight outside of the possible value of the literature itself is of corse useless without verifiable facts (outside of control and manipulation). In that view I propose that the moral codes contained must justify themselves.

There are three definitions for Theology.

Quote
1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.

This is what I consider useless, because there is and has not been any evidence for any "supernatural". For 2000 plus years the study of the best minds of the ages trying desperately have not presented or discovered one verifiable bit of evidence of the supernatural. Theology therefore is arguing over "sprits on a pin head" bypassing the burden of proof, wrangling over interpretations of vague passages in multiple languages.

Quote
1. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions

This also is bypassing the burden of proof, in other words training adherents or likely predatory parasites (current or future) the "rules of the game".

Quote
3. A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.

That has some possibilities, the study of any subject can have or could prove to have some value (no matter how small, art history for example).

Now of course if someone is unqualified to argue "sprits on a pin head" because they are unfamiliar with the historical wrangling over the mythology then they are in effect "unarmed" in the same way Young Earth Creationists "are unprepared for scientific review", that should make an easy target, should it not?

Quote
1) Property rights: humans have property rights in things like real-estate, bananas and cows; we don't consult the cows for their views on this. Beings who occupy a higher plane of existence (if any such exist) can have property rights in humans precisely as humans have in cows. In particular, if a Supreme Being wants to exterminate mankind with a flood because He considers them "wicked," he has as much right as a farmer does to slaughter his herd because it's infected with mad cow disease. NOTE: This argument does not assume the existence of a supreme being, and is not circular.

And clearly then you do not support the "omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and benevolence" argument (that is, I take it the circular argument your are referring to) - a clear provable logical fallacy (when applied to the abrahamic religions). Several contradictions in the christian text indicate problems with "omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and benevolence" - contradictions or mistakes (and I would propose the bibe is very full of mistakes).

Of course I am a gnostic/atheist in regards to christianity in particular because I was raised and went to school and confirmed under the catholics, I attempted to find a new sect of christianity when originally contemplating leaving "the church" - after reviewing the bible in it's entirety I rejected it (the bible) as false, and rather than spend the rest of my life swimming all of the alternative religion or as scarming has pointed out moving that worship into the statism trap. Many may or may not have noticed that so many former christians (or the religious in general for that matter) fall into other religions or the worship of the state (it is a strange tendency).

I would also be of the position that if the abrahamic god ever was proven to exist it/he/she would have to also contend with the possibility of other gods.

Even after evidence presented I would continue to reject the abrahamic god as "evil" a god simply not worthy of any respect because there is no benevolence, mercy, fairness or simple good form - in other words the "god" of the bible is a reprehensible narcissistic, monster. We may recognize the right of cattle owners to mistreat, and torture their stock, but that does not make the owner any less of a reprehensible narcissistic, monster. How possible could it be that the abrahamic "god" is actually the evil one in the story and the final test is to see if the faithful have enough thought power and fortitude to reject the evil?

Quote
2) Accommodation: some commandments are given, not because they represent ultimate morality, but because it's the best that the recipients of the commandment can actually do, whether due to mental defect, or lack of education. Anarchists who endorse Ron Paul, or the Constitution, or the Articles of Confederation, are accommodating people who don't yet understand ZAP fully, and can't handle it at their present level of understanding.

First I continue to remain unconvinced of ZAP, I simply stand in disagreement until further analysis. You also are tending to give credence to ZAP in an almost religious way, just because someone disagrees does not equate to "unable to understand". As for accommodation, that is an excuse, one I see all too often. I stated before that a simple identification in the texts of any of the physical or biological sciences not available to bronze age manipulators would lend some credence to existence of the supernatural (of course there is none). Accommodation is simple - no, the basest, of excuse-making something ALL TOO COMMON with apologetics.

Quote
3) Mitigation: some commandments are given to mitigate abuses occurring at the time. This is a special case of accommodation. Two canonical examples are divorce and slavery in the OT. Both were already customs among the Ancient Near East peoples. Divorce and polygamy were subject to horrible abuses, in which women would be rendered destitute or otherwise abused. The OT doesn't forbid divorce, but instead regulates it in various ways--mainly by requiring a written statement of cause called a "bill of divorcement," and by requiring that polygamous husbands continue rendering material and conjugal duties to earlier wives. The horrors of slavery we know about; the OT doesn't eliminate the custom, but makes all manner of injury to the slave a sufficient grounds for liberation, limits the term of service to six years (for Israelite slaves at least), and requires payment for services rendered at the time of manumission.

Slavery and the obvious racism involved within the abrahamic texts, is enough for anyone of moral conscience to reject it. We view slavery as repugnant because we have learned, paid prices, and understood the damage not only to the slave but the owner as well, but it still lingers in actual practice.

Too little too late and clearly anchored in the bronze age, the laws were clearly in favor of the "owner" even when reviewing the laws for the "in-ethnic-group racial" terms. The laws allow simple "loop-hole" abuses such as wife and children as an anchor (something a "god" could foresee), it is similar in many ways to how I see corporate whores justify abuses of illegal aliens and they are asses also.

If Mitigation is a special case of accommodation, then I hold firm that this religion is horrible, immoral, and a clear violation of even your ZAP - something that i feel is contributing to the massive cognitive dissonance.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: mouse on July 15, 2010, 09:54:39 am
Replying to Scarmig's post 282 on July 15:

Firstly I think I do have a pretty good picture of what atheism is.  Why don’t you believe that I do? 

Next, a quote from you (I know this is cumbersome, but for some reason this text keeps jumping to the top of the page and I tend to get frustrated and lose track of where I am at – so sorry, please bear with me):   “I've been an atheist for twenty five years.  I've been continuously employed for twenty years.  I've been married faithfully for twelve years.  I have never committed theft, rape, or murder.  I've never started a fight.  I don't abuse my wife, kids, or dogs.  I've worked for charities.  I believe and live the non-aggression principal.  I haven't voted in twenty years.  I practice respect for others homes and lives, including being respectful of their religious practices.
That is great!  Really it is.  Obviously you have developed a morals system that you are happy with.

Quote:  So, if my moral codes are not lasting, do you truly and legitimately expect that at any moment all of this will simply snap, and I'll go on some kind of violent rampage?

I am guilty of generalising here.  YOUR moral codes might be lasting, but the atheist moral code in general might not be lasting because there is nothing to ensure that it will be.  Atheists that I’ve known tend to “rationalise that morals are flexible, and their’s might – and often does – change.

Quote:  Do you believe my children are in danger from my lack of deistic belief?  No, of course not.

Quote:  I'm not trying to be inflammatory.  I am genuinely curious to know your perception of me as an atheist.  By your comments I cannot be a moral person and any morality I am practicing is temporary and destined to be cast aside.  So I am curious to know what behavior you think all atheists are destined to commit.
Again, if I gave that impression, I apologise.  When I said “temporary”, I mean that our lives on earth are by nature very temporary.  The body is temporary, destined to decay with age first and then decay away altogether.  I just cannot stand the thought that these lives, in these bodies, is all that we could ever expect.

Quote:  I know that morals are whatever each person wants them to be.  This *is* flexible and is of course based around this earthly existence. 

This is just the reality of things.  Even within religious belief, there are individually different and flexible morals.  If there weren't, there wouldn't be different religious, different practices, different customs, different sects, and different rituals.

Now here’s where I totally disagree with you.  Morals are most definitely not flexible, not subjective or “inclusive”, they are absolute, end of story.  Is someone genuinely believed that they could talk themselves into embracing any sin and making it acceptable.  I did not say that all religious belief was equal, different sects, different rituals – I find some of them repugnant.  An example is the Church of England trying to be all inclusive and ultra “reasonable” takes away everything from the teachings of the Bible.  They end up by embracing sin and calling it “inclusiveness”.  That is what I find repugnant.

Quote:  Also, a moral code has *nothing* to do with earthly heirarchy.  A moral code begins and ends with the individual.  The individual may get inspiration or education from other individuals, from groups, from books, or from experience, but each individual defines their own code.  That may include subservience to supposed "authorities", or it may not.  But in no way does having a moral code derived from within oneself mean advocating the coercion and violence of government.
Well actually I got this impression from reading some of GW Bush’s speeches.  I don’t know that I could agree that “a moral code begins and ends with the individual” either.
Quote:  So yes, I do have earthly morals.  And yes, over time my morals *have* changed to reflect my experiences and particularly my growth as a free individual.  For example, I used to believe that anyone who smoked cannabis was committing a "sin", a violation of moral code.  But since then, I have come to the conclusion that other people's bodies are not my concern, and I have no authority or jurisdiction to judge what is "right" or "wrong" for their chemistry.  My moral code has been adjusted and removed "doing drugs" as a violation of my code.

The Bible says that “it does not matter what you put into your bodies”  (or something like that, I can’t remember the exact part, but it was referring to acceptable and unacceptable foods, or Jewish traditions where foods are concerned) so I presumed that that means Cannabis is OK, so it really has nothing to do with a moral code or otherwise.  Morals have to do with what we do, not what we eat, drink, imbibe in any way.
Quote: 
To an atheist, death is permanent

Well I believe that the death of the body is permanent.
Quote:  Freedom is not something people are born with.  How can you be free when you can't even feed yourself?  You are born so vulnerable that cannot be free of your own mother.  Freedom is something claimed and hopefully respected, and if it is not, then defended. 
Yep, freedom sure is something you are born with.  You are born free, you mother looks after you and feeds you until you can do it yourself – that is her obligation.  When you grow up you do it for your own kids.  That doesn’t make you, or them, any less free, freedom is endowed by our creator (who is not our parents by the way, their bodies are only the tools used for creating you).
And how do you know that I don’t believe in “purple floznuppers”?
Quote:  I recognize that might happen.  All I can do is satisfy myself that I have given it my best shot.  But my family are free individuals, and that includes the freedom to make their own decisions when they claim their lives for their own.

But you...  why would you care if this very thing happened to you?  After all, earthly consequences are just temporary?  Why would you care if your family gets government jobs, so long as they told you they believe in god?  This earth doesn't matter.  Might as well make it as easy as possible.  Get a government job, go to church, just coast along through life until you die so you can go to heaven.  After all, nothing on earth matters.  There is no point to earthy existence except to get to heaven.  Everything else is just a waste of time.
To the first part, I apologise again, I was just being facetious.  However, actually I would care very much if my family got government jobs because I believe that what ever you do – anywhere – affects what you are, and getting government jobs goes against the most basic moral behaviour.  I would equate that with breaking any of the 10 commandments.  It is not true that “nothing on earth matters” and there are very often no earthly consequences for true evil so it follows that there must be consequences somewhere else.
And I do believe that mere existence does imbue you with inalienable human rights.  Where else would they come from?




Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on July 15, 2010, 10:42:39 am
What I am stating is that theology is in effect useless - without a grounding in fact it is simply arguing over the various merits of differing mythologies...

It's a multi-disciplinary field, involving among other things philosophy, linguistics and history. It may still be useless, in the sense that if no gods exist we're in effect using the enhanced satellite imagery to look for Jabberwockies, but it would still be a mistake to dismiss advanced satellite imagery as useless or bad science because someone decides to use it hunting Jabberwockies.

Quote
Quote
1) Property rights: humans have property rights in things like real-estate, bananas and cows; we don't consult the cows for their views on this. Beings who occupy a higher plane of existence (if any such exist) can have property rights in humans precisely as humans have in cows...

And clearly then you do not support the "omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and benevolence" argument...

That's a bit like asking whether I think cows should believe humans are benevolent. They might discuss it, naturally. They might conclude we're benevolent, because we feed them and milk them and shelter them. Or they might conclude we're malevolent, because we kill them and eat them. But from our perspective, their entire discussion is basically meaningless: they're COWS. A cow-centric concept of "benevolence" is barely meaningful to us at all. We are neither benevolent nor malevolent as they understand it, because those are subjective concepts that really only make sense in the first place if you're a cow.

Imagine the dandelions in your yard, as you root them up, shrieking at the top of their lungs, "How have we offended thee, O Man!? What must we do to appease your awful wrath!? How can we make you once again love us, as heretofore!?"

So no, I don't claim that God is "benevolent" in a human-centric sense. That's precisely why I'm bringing property rights into it. Humans cannot be the property of other humans (that's an assumption, and it's equivalent to ZAP), but humans can be the property of beings (if any) on higher planes of existence. There IS a meaningful sense in which property can say, "I'm glad you're my owner, and not someone else," just as a beef cow would prefer a kind farmer over a cruel one right up until slaughtering time. But to equate that with human benevolence is to set up all sorts of contradictions and paradoxes. If there's an all-powerful, all-knowing being out there, then to it we're COWS.

Quote
Several contradictions in the christian text indicate problems with "omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and benevolence" - contradictions or mistakes (and I would propose the bibe is very full of mistakes).

Except that's why I mentioned "knowing something about theology": it's been established for more than a thousand years that your objection here is based on the wrong definition of "benevolence." It's news to nobody that God's brand of benevolence involves wholesale slaughter of those He considers "the wicked," and that a humanist would hardly call that "benevolence." But it's not a "contradiction," because the theists were never using your definition of "benevolence" in the first place.

Quote
Even after evidence presented I would continue to reject the abrahamic god as "evil" a god simply not worthy of any respect because there is no benevolence, mercy, fairness...

That's your choice. If this particular God does in fact exist, then you're in the same boat as the cow who calls the farmer "evil." Whether he rage or laugh, at the end of the day he's still hamburger.

Quote
Quote
2) Accommodation: some commandments are given, not because they represent ultimate morality, but because it's the best that the recipients of the commandment can actually do, whether due to mental defect, or lack of education...

First I continue to remain unconvinced of ZAP, I simply stand in disagreement until further analysis. You also are tending to give credence to ZAP in an almost religious way...

Sure. I've said plenty of times that ZAP is an axiom, not a proposition that can be proven. Though it's interesting that your condemnation of the Judeo-Christian God is based on the fact that He aggresses, but you're not convinced there's anything wrong with you aggressing. I believe aggression is wrong. You don't. That's more than just "almost" religious.

Quote
As for accommodation, that is an excuse, one I see all too often.

One you see? If you've ever voted, then it's one you USE. You pick the lesser of two evils in hopes it will at least improve the situation a little. But in so doing, you're accommodating evil. You already know he's going to do things you object to vehemently, and you're prepared to accommodate it because you think the alternative is worse. So like aggression, it looks like something that's "practical" and such when you do it, but just plain "evil" when a god does it.

Quote
I stated before that a simple identification in the texts of any of the physical or biological sciences not available to bronze age manipulators would lend some credence to existence of the supernatural (of course there is none). Accommodation is simple - no, the basest, of excuse-making something ALL TOO COMMON with apologetics.

There's a difference between theology and apologetics, and the concept of "accommodation" has nothing whatsoever to do with proof, or lack of it, for the "supernatural." So I'm not sure whether you do see what I'm saying. I'm saying that an objectively unjust act may be the best choice when it prevents worse injustice. In particular, in a circumstance where eliminating slavery is impossible, protecting slaves from various types of aggression really is the best thing you can do. And eliminating slavery IS impossible--though we like to whitewash 21st-Century slavery by calling it something else, like "parenting." The purest-minded anarchist is still nothing but a benevolent slave-owner when his babies are born.

Quote
If Mitigation is a special case of accommodation, then I hold firm that this religion is horrible, immoral, and a clear violation of even your ZAP - something that i feel is contributing to the massive cognitive dissonance.
So when you vote, you admit that you're horrible and immoral? And when you discipline your children, likewise? You shouldn't be so hard on yourself--falling short of libertarian perfection does not necessarily make you a horrible person.

There's no cognitive dissonance on my end, because:

(1) ZAP doesn't apply to gods' dealings with men, any more than it applies to man's dealings with cows, and
(2) Many divinely-sanctioned violations of ZAP in human-human relations are a special case of #1 above, and
(3) The rest are temporary measures intended to move humanity closer to ZAP.

Note: Point #2 above wasn't mentioned much in my previous post, but it covers Joshua's slaughter of the Canaanites. God can slaughter Canaanites because He (if He exists) is a property owner. He can use humans to those ends just as a farmer can use hunting dogs.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Scarmiglione' on July 15, 2010, 11:06:41 am
Replying to Scarmig's post 282 on July 15:

Firstly I think I do have a pretty good picture of what atheism is.  Why don’t you believe that I do? 

Because you consistently misrepresent atheism in your arguments.

Quote
I am guilty of generalising here.  YOUR moral codes might be lasting, but the atheist moral code in general might not be lasting because there is nothing to ensure that it will be.  Atheists that I’ve known tend to “rationalise that morals are flexible, and their’s might – and often does – change.

So you recognize it is possible for atheists to have moral codes.  You recognize it is possible for those moral codes to be consistent and lasting.

So, do you still claim it is impossible for atheists to have morality?

Quote
Quote:  Do you believe my children are in danger from my lack of deistic belief?  No, of course not.

Great!  Then you recognize that morality *is* individual!  Otherwise the blanket statement that atheists cannot be moral would be equally applied to me.  Since it is not, since you see a difference in my individual morality, this means morality can be unique to an individual, can be implemented without religion or god, and can be strong and consistent enough that you are comfortable with an atheist raising children.

I think this is great progress!


Quote
Again, if I gave that impression, I apologise.  When I said “temporary”, I mean that our lives on earth are by nature very temporary.  The body is temporary, destined to decay with age first and then decay away altogether.  I just cannot stand the thought that these lives, in these bodies, is all that we could ever expect.

The same state of existence viewed from different angles.  I see death as permanent, you see life as temporary.  Same thing.


Quote
Now here’s where I totally disagree with you.  Morals are most definitely not flexible, not subjective or “inclusive”, they are absolute, end of story.

Reality suggests otherwise.  You can deny it all you want.  But within your own religion there are moral differences.

And this brings us full circle above.  If morals *cannot* be flexible, then you have problem.  If atheists can have morals and morals cannot be flexible (and thus cannot be interpreted or individual), then that necessarily means morals do not come from god, else it would be impossible for any atheist anywhere to ever have a moral code.  You recognized we do.  So you have conflicting claims.

I think I understand your view.  You want morals to be universal so you can motivate people to be better than what they are.  You recognize that having internally written morals *may* be abused by some people and you don't want them to do that.  So you want to externalize morality into an untouchable platform and then force people to strive for them.  I know this.  I understand it.  But it isn't reality.  And lends itself to problems in that far too often personal preferences are placed on that platform, not objective, common, morality.

For a moral to be universal, it absolutely must be common to all humans.  All of them.  No exceptions.  Otherwise, by definition, it not a universal moral.


Quote
  Is someone genuinely believed that they could talk themselves into embracing any sin and making it acceptable.  I did not say that all religious belief was equal, different sects, different rituals – I find some of them repugnant.  An example is the Church of England trying to be all inclusive and ultra “reasonable” takes away everything from the teachings of the Bible.  They end up by embracing sin and calling it “inclusiveness”.  That is what I find repugnant.

Okay, you don't like it.  But you can still recognize that it is their choice, their moral code (even if it is one you disagree with), and can respond or interact with it peacefully and voluntarily (which includes not interacting with them, if you so choose).  There's not even a need to judge them.  Your moral code applies to you, not them.


Quote
Well actually I got this impression from reading some of GW Bush’s speeches.  I don’t know that I could agree that “a moral code begins and ends with the individual” either.

Do you believe it is right to enforce your moral code upon others?  If not, then you believe your moral code only applies to you.  If you believe you are justified in forcing others to abide by your morality, then there is a moral (and freedom) conflict.  The philosophy of freedom requires that we keep our morality to ourselves, apply it to ourselves, and let others do the same.  The only force allowed is in defense of ourselves and our property.

Enforcing morality upon others conflicts with the idea of individual freedom.

Quote
The Bible says that “it does not matter what you put into your bodies”  (or something like that, I can’t remember the exact part, but it was referring to acceptable and unacceptable foods, or Jewish traditions where foods are concerned) so I presumed that that means Cannabis is OK, so it really has nothing to do with a moral code or otherwise.  Morals have to do with what we do, not what we eat, drink, imbibe in any way.

I think you missed my point.  My moral code at the time believed it was just and right to forcefully prevent people from ingesting certain things, because that is what my religious belief taught me.  My moral code changed in response to a new respect for freedom.  

If morals were not flexible, my morality regarding drugs could not have changed.

Quote
Yep, freedom sure is something you are born with.  You are born free, you mother looks after you and feeds you until you can do it yourself – that is her obligation.

So the child is free and the mother is the slave?  You may *want* it to be that way, but the reality is very different.  We hope the mother feels an obligation.  We hope she is respectful and caring of her child.  But the reality is that the child exists at the whim of the mother from moment to moment.  That's not freedom.

Quote
And how do you know that I don’t believe in “purple floznuppers”?

It's a thought exercise to try and get you to put yourself in my shoes.  I'm hoping to give you a glimpse of religion and morality from my point of view.  I'm not trying to attack you, or deconvert you, but I would like to spread understanding and to point out the many things we do have in common.  I am looking, quite simply, to show you that just because a person is an atheist doesn't make them a bad person.  I hope to share with you my view, so that you don't have a reaction to the word "atheist" that immediately dismisses anything we say or do.  We are as unique as anyone else.  We are people, some good, some bad, of all stripes and colors.  And we share with you your disbelief that Zeus isn't real.  We share with you the idea that the breeze isn't a Chinese dragon, and that not believing in Allah is a really bad reason to kill people.


Quote
To the first part, I apologise again, I was just being facetious.  However, actually I would care very much if my family got government jobs because I believe that what ever you do – anywhere – affects what you are, and getting government jobs goes against the most basic moral behaviour.  I would equate that with breaking any of the 10 commandments.  It is not true that “nothing on earth matters” and there are very often no earthly consequences for true evil so it follows that there must be consequences somewhere else.

Do you think the idea that consequences may be found in another life may sometimes act as a deterrent to bringing about those consequences in this one?

Quote
And I do believe that mere existence does imbue you with inalienable human rights.  Where else would they come from?

Well, you claimed they came from god, specifically.  That is significantly different than claiming they are inherent with existing.


Again, than you for continuing the discussion with me.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on July 15, 2010, 05:57:13 pm
Quote
Do you think the idea that consequences may be found in another life may sometimes act as a deterrent to bringing about those consequences in this one?

that's a VERY interesting question........and could be the basis, the idea of reward and punishment, for the creation of the concepts of heaven, and more notably hell.......which in the case of hell, has been described as different things to different people based on the existing conditions of those people..........

i believe I've seen heaven described in it's most basic description, in the bible as "being with God" or fellowship, and hell described as .being isolated or seperated from god, or not in fellowship..........or course both these things are also described in a hundred other ways as well.........but it at it's base, this idea of fellowship or  not being in fellowship ties into my earlier suggestion that maybe heaven and hell are here and now.....with good itself being it's own reward, and evil being it's own punishment..........

I see good as contentment,and most good people that I see are "relatively" content with themselves and more importantly, I see evil as an insatiable hunger, that feeds on itself, and evil people as only being happy while in the comision of evil acts or reaping the temporary rewards of evil acts, but left feeling empty and hungry afterwards, which of course can only be temporarily satiated by more evil but can never be fulfilled.......like an addiction...


Quote
So you want to externalize morality into an untouchable platform and then force people to strive for them.

Strive for, or mindlessly comply out of fear of retribution for noncompliance?..........after all............externalized morality could be called "laws"...........and laws require enforcers..........who punish the noncompliant......

Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on July 15, 2010, 06:58:29 pm
Oh..........and I forgot to mention that the buddhists believe the the most evil of people spend time as "hungry ghosts"
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Scarmiglione' on July 15, 2010, 07:34:31 pm
Quote
Do you think the idea that consequences may be found in another life may sometimes act as a deterrent to bringing about those consequences in this one?

that's a VERY interesting question........and could be the basis, the idea of reward and punishment, for the creation of the concepts of heaven, and more notably hell.......which in the case of hell, has been described as different things to different people based on the existing conditions of those people..........

i believe I've seen heaven described in it's most basic description, in the bible as "being with God" or fellowship, and hell described as .being isolated or seperated from god, or not in fellowship..........or course both these things are also described in a hundred other ways as well.........but it at it's base, this idea of fellowship or  not being in fellowship ties into my earlier suggestion that maybe heaven and hell are here and now.....with good itself being it's own reward, and evil being it's own punishment..........

I see good as contentment,and most good people that I see are "relatively" content with themselves and more importantly, I see evil as an insatiable hunger, that feeds on itself, and evil people as only being happy while in the comision of evil acts or reaping the temporary rewards of evil acts, but left feeling empty and hungry afterwards, which of course can only be temporarily satiated by more evil but can never be fulfilled.......like an addiction...


Quote
So you want to externalize morality into an untouchable platform and then force people to strive for them.

Strive for, or mindlessly comply out of fear of retribution for noncompliance?..........after all............externalized morality could be called "laws"...........and laws require enforcers..........who punish the noncompliant......




That's some very interesting thoughts there, Zoot.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 15, 2010, 09:57:15 pm
What I am stating is that theology is in effect useless - without a grounding in fact it is simply arguing over the various merits of differing mythologies...

It's a multi-disciplinary field, involving among other things philosophy, linguistics and history. It may still be useless, in the sense that if no gods exist we're in effect using the enhanced satellite imagery to look for Jabberwockies, but it would still be a mistake to dismiss advanced satellite imagery as useless or bad science because someone decides to use it hunting Jabberwockies.

Quote
Quote
1) Property rights: humans have property rights in things like real-estate, bananas and cows; we don't consult the cows for their views on this. Beings who occupy a higher plane of existence (if any such exist) can have property rights in humans precisely as humans have in cows...

And clearly then you do not support the "omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and benevolence" argument...

That's a bit like asking whether I think cows should believe humans are benevolent. They might discuss it, naturally. They might conclude we're benevolent, because we feed them and milk them and shelter them. Or they might conclude we're malevolent, because we kill them and eat them. But from our perspective, their entire discussion is basically meaningless: they're COWS. A cow-centric concept of "benevolence" is barely meaningful to us at all. We are neither benevolent nor malevolent as they understand it, because those are subjective concepts that really only make sense in the first place if you're a cow.

Imagine the dandelions in your yard, as you root them up, shrieking at the top of their lungs, "How have we offended thee, O Man!? What must we do to appease your awful wrath!? How can we make you once again love us, as heretofore!?"

So no, I don't claim that God is "benevolent" in a human-centric sense. That's precisely why I'm bringing property rights into it. Humans cannot be the property of other humans (that's an assumption, and it's equivalent to ZAP), but humans can be the property of beings (if any) on higher planes of existence. There IS a meaningful sense in which property can say, "I'm glad you're my owner, and not someone else," just as a beef cow would prefer a kind farmer over a cruel one right up until slaughtering time. But to equate that with human benevolence is to set up all sorts of contradictions and paradoxes. If there's an all-powerful, all-knowing being out there, then to it we're COWS.

Quote
Several contradictions in the christian text indicate problems with "omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and benevolence" - contradictions or mistakes (and I would propose the bibe is very full of mistakes).

Except that's why I mentioned "knowing something about theology": it's been established for more than a thousand years that your objection here is based on the wrong definition of "benevolence." It's news to nobody that God's brand of benevolence involves wholesale slaughter of those He considers "the wicked," and that a humanist would hardly call that "benevolence." But it's not a "contradiction," because the theists were never using your definition of "benevolence" in the first place.

Quote
Even after evidence presented I would continue to reject the abrahamic god as "evil" a god simply not worthy of any respect because there is no benevolence, mercy, fairness...

That's your choice. If this particular God does in fact exist, then you're in the same boat as the cow who calls the farmer "evil." Whether he rage or laugh, at the end of the day he's still hamburger.

Quote
Quote
2) Accommodation: some commandments are given, not because they represent ultimate morality, but because it's the best that the recipients of the commandment can actually do, whether due to mental defect, or lack of education...

First I continue to remain unconvinced of ZAP, I simply stand in disagreement until further analysis. You also are tending to give credence to ZAP in an almost religious way...

Sure. I've said plenty of times that ZAP is an axiom, not a proposition that can be proven. Though it's interesting that your condemnation of the Judeo-Christian God is based on the fact that He aggresses, but you're not convinced there's anything wrong with you aggressing. I believe aggression is wrong. You don't. That's more than just "almost" religious.

Quote
As for accommodation, that is an excuse, one I see all too often.

One you see? If you've ever voted, then it's one you USE. You pick the lesser of two evils in hopes it will at least improve the situation a little. But in so doing, you're accommodating evil. You already know he's going to do things you object to vehemently, and you're prepared to accommodate it because you think the alternative is worse. So like aggression, it looks like something that's "practical" and such when you do it, but just plain "evil" when a god does it.

Quote
I stated before that a simple identification in the texts of any of the physical or biological sciences not available to bronze age manipulators would lend some credence to existence of the supernatural (of course there is none). Accommodation is simple - no, the basest, of excuse-making something ALL TOO COMMON with apologetics.

There's a difference between theology and apologetics, and the concept of "accommodation" has nothing whatsoever to do with proof, or lack of it, for the "supernatural." So I'm not sure whether you do see what I'm saying. I'm saying that an objectively unjust act may be the best choice when it prevents worse injustice. In particular, in a circumstance where eliminating slavery is impossible, protecting slaves from various types of aggression really is the best thing you can do. And eliminating slavery IS impossible--though we like to whitewash 21st-Century slavery by calling it something else, like "parenting." The purest-minded anarchist is still nothing but a benevolent slave-owner when his babies are born.

Quote
If Mitigation is a special case of accommodation, then I hold firm that this religion is horrible, immoral, and a clear violation of even your ZAP - something that i feel is contributing to the massive cognitive dissonance.
So when you vote, you admit that you're horrible and immoral? And when you discipline your children, likewise? You shouldn't be so hard on yourself--falling short of libertarian perfection does not necessarily make you a horrible person.

There's no cognitive dissonance on my end, because:

(1) ZAP doesn't apply to gods' dealings with men, any more than it applies to man's dealings with cows, and
(2) Many divinely-sanctioned violations of ZAP in human-human relations are a special case of #1 above, and
(3) The rest are temporary measures intended to move humanity closer to ZAP.

Note: Point #2 above wasn't mentioned much in my previous post, but it covers Joshua's slaughter of the Canaanites. God can slaughter Canaanites because He (if He exists) is a property owner. He can use humans to those ends just as a farmer can use hunting dogs.

At first I wanted to go over this point by point and then I recognized I don't need to...

You have proven my point, in regards to christianity - it is a manipulative, dangerous, delusion full of excuses, commandments of excuses, no proof, continuous contradictions and more excuse making.

I consider most apologetic promoters disingenuous parasites, the are in effect salesmen for god - and will tell someone anything to get them hooked. I see some of the best out there promoting some of the most twisted, sick, lies I have ever had the displeasure to assault my ears.

What you have presented of course is the typical circular argument every christian apologist is eventually forced to make "well, he is just god, and he can do what he wants and you just have to believe the contradictions in the bible, well because it states what he said by divine influence.

Pardon me if I am not only not convinced, but sickened to my core by what you were willing to post. No offense to you Lenny, as least you have the courage to stand up and defend it as you have, in fact you have been at least honest enough to lay out the deepest points that most apologists are loathe to bring up and present because they know it is their second biggest weakness (the evil, second only to the lack of proof).

Note a secondary weakness imbedded - god HAD to do this, and HAD to do that, hell he blinked the world into existence from nothing, fixing slavery (and there is NO indication that is was ever to be fixed) would have been a snap...

Quote
Except that's why I mentioned "knowing something about theology": it's been established for more than a thousand years that your objection here is based on the wrong definition of "benevolence." It's news to nobody that God's brand of benevolence involves wholesale slaughter of those He considers "the wicked," and that a humanist would hardly call that "benevolence." But it's not a "contradiction," because the theists were never using your definition of "benevolence" in the first place.

Ever so convenient and ever so full of excuses of the most pathetic type, is is one of the reasons I discount "theology" wholesale, an religion dangerous, and one small part that makes it obvious christianity is simply mythology that has been supported and propped up artificially by men of great talent sadly spending it on the most superfluous propositions. The "dark ages" for europe were clearly the result of this ruinous religion.

Quote
Sure. I've said plenty of times that ZAP is an axiom, not a proposition that can be proven. Though it's interesting that your condemnation of the Judeo-Christian God is based on the fact that He aggresses, but you're not convinced there's anything wrong with you aggressing. I believe aggression is wrong. You don't. That's more than just "almost" religious.

You are making assumptions, I have not come to the conclusion for myself about ZAP, but you are WRONG about my indication that I view aggression as "OK", you can continue to make that statement but is continues to be wrong, try something new and creative next time, this one is worn out.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Jarel on July 15, 2010, 10:49:56 pm
This may come off a little simplistic, but GOD, especially the Christian/Jewish/Moslem iteration of GOD, violates ZAP in a way that, if he/she/it/they WERE really omnipotent/omniscient, wouldn't (dropjaw). GOD would never look at people as cattle, would in fact have the intelligent and compassionate means necessary to look at humans as anything but. And that has always been the rub when I talk about GOD with proponents of. So I am a little perplexed when it comes to matters religiousitual, and, if it is true that: "It's a multi-disciplinary field, involving among other things philosophy, linguistics and history.", then this is all semantical bullshit meant to appease the cryings of people who are afraid to die, and to control the earthly life  of people whose emotional cravings won't let them look any farther than their own fear of death. Now, I can respect that, really I can, but if you stretch the tiimeline out far enough the survival rate drops to zero (silly movie plug). Deal with it. What I think is interesting is that so many still buy it, and so many spend so much time and energy figuring out new word structures explaining something that is obviously, historically,  bullshit.

In the words of a great PSYOP leader, "Perception is reality--prove it isn't, I dare you" I now defer to those who rabidly support the positions of those who trained them. GOD should never need to be a "multi-disciplinary field" just as just governance doesn't need to explain itself. Like I said,This may come off a little simplistic.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Clip Johnson on July 15, 2010, 11:01:06 pm
Quote
Do you think the idea that consequences may be found in another life may sometimes act as a deterrent to bringing about those consequences in this one?

that's a VERY interesting question........and could be the basis, the idea of reward and punishment, for the creation of the concepts of heaven, and more notably hell.......which in the case of hell, has been described as different things to different people based on the existing conditions of those people..........

i believe I've seen heaven described in it's most basic description, in the bible as "being with God" or fellowship, and hell described as .being isolated or seperated from god, or not in fellowship..........or course both these things are also described in a hundred other ways as well.........but it at it's base, this idea of fellowship or  not being in fellowship ties into my earlier suggestion that maybe heaven and hell are here and now.....with good itself being it's own reward, and evil being it's own punishment..........

I see good as contentment,and most good people that I see are "relatively" content with themselves and more importantly, I see evil as an insatiable hunger, that feeds on itself, and evil people as only being happy while in the comision of evil acts or reaping the temporary rewards of evil acts, but left feeling empty and hungry afterwards, which of course can only be temporarily satiated by more evil but can never be fulfilled.......like an addiction...


Quote
So you want to externalize morality into an untouchable platform and then force people to strive for them.

Strive for, or mindlessly comply out of fear of retribution for noncompliance?..........after all............externalized morality could be called "laws"...........and laws require enforcers..........who punish the noncompliant......



In my limited understanding, this is exactly correct Zoot (btw, my apologies for not including you in the list of 'all stars of the forum' I listed in one of my previous posts, as you most certainly are someone I have learned a lot from this past year or so).

Hell is indeed a separation from God, not an eternal torture chamber. The image of fire and brimstone are one of man's inventions, but I suppose it was fairly easily misconstrued based upon the symbolism or 'figure of speech' of fire given in the Scriptures. We know the reference to flames is figurative because if you try and take it literally, it makes  no sense, e.g., hell is described as a place of "utter darkness" and yet there are flames too. How can that be?  Flames would light things up! In addition, we're told Christ is going to return surrounded by flames and that He's going to have a big sword coming out of His mouth. But nobody thinks Christ won't be able to say anything because He'll be choking on a sword. The figure of the sword stands for the Word of God in judgment. The flames stand for Christ coming in judgment. In Hebrews 12:29, God is called a consuming fire. Yet nobody thinks "God is a cosmic Bunsen burner. Using the flame imagery is a way of saying He's a God of judgment.

But God doesn't torture people in hell. Its not like He's like a spoiled child who says to people, "Look, if you're not willing to obey my arbitrary rules, then I'm going to sentence you for it. You need to know that my rules are my rules, and if I don't get my way, then I'm going to make you pay." Well of course if God is just a child with arbitrary rule, then it wold be capricious for Him to sentence people. But that's not at all what's going on here.

This is what I firmly believe: God is the most generous, loving, wonderful, attractive being in the cosmos. He has made us with free will and He has made us for a purpose: to relate lovingly to Him and others. We are not accident, we're not modified monkeys, we're not random mistakes. And if we fail over and over again to live for the purpose for which we were created - a purpose, by the way, which would allow us to flourish more than living any other way - Then God will have no choice but to give us what we've asked for all along in our lives, which is separation from Him.  And that is hell.

Furthermore, I believe hell was not part of the original creation. Hell is like God's fall back position. Hell is something God was forced to make because people chose to rebel against Him and turn against what is best for them and the purpose for which they were created.

Anyway, this is how I perceive it.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Clip Johnson on July 15, 2010, 11:02:17 pm
My apologies for just now responding RF, but I simply haven’t had time to devote to responding until now. In all honesty, I really don’t have the time to respond now, but felt I should try and make time, so here I am. And also my apologies for the length of this response, but it really requires a lot of reflecting and a lot of thought, and a lot of words in order to attempt to clearly represent the points I am trying to make here (which is further compounded by my ineffective writing abilities). But I do want to make it clear that I’m not writing all this in hopes of debating back and forth about the theology of such, as I am no scholar and ergo am not qualified to debate things on the scholarly level. I can only attest to my findings as they relate to what has influenced my decisions regarding Christ and Christianity in general. And that my quest involved more than a mere leap of faith – I was in need of some concrete evidence to indicate there was, or wasn’t a God. Which, as I’ve attempted to explain before, there simply is no way to prove via empirical scientific evidence that God exists.  Therefore I must rely on a preponderance of the evidence as I find it, being careful to only search for it and examine it with a true open mind. I must say, this was not easy to overcome given the fact that so many things are already ingrained into our minds via culture/society/etc, as being fact and/or fiction. But I felt to base my judgment on the preponderance of the evidence would only be prudent, as this is precisely what courts of justice have been doing for thousands of years. Where as in trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true.

But do note that I began my quest in searching for the existence of God as an agnostic. I actually thought it was more or less a fairy tale. I thought that is sure would be nice if such a being did exist, but where is the proof. I see none! Sure I’d heard folks say that you can find His fingerprints on everything that exists in the world. In other words, He is manifested in everything He has created. By design, everything created indicates a supreme being was in charge. And of course there were many other things as well that were given to me as being some semblance of proof, or indicating such, but for brevity’s sake, I’m not going to get into everything here (heck, I can’t even get into much details about my findings without actually writing a book here). But all that I had heard or been presented with just didn’t cut it for me. Where was the actual proof? I didn’t hear Him, see Him, or sense His existence in any way.

And because I didn’t sense He existed, I really didn’t expend much more energy for quite a long time in getting to some definitive answers until a family member eventually said that I should at least consider looking into the matter. For if he (being a Christian) was right about God, and I was wrong in assuming God didn’t exist, well, I would have a lot to lose and he would have everything to gain if it were true. Yeah sure, this is commonly referenced to “Pascal’s Wager”, but my point is that it served to get me thinking about checking into the validity of the claims made about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, which I did.

Before I go any further, I wanted to say something in regards to something you brought up, which was there is no evidence for the exodus of the Jewish people from out of Egypt as it is described in the Bible. It seems to me that I remember something that had been discovered supporting the occurrence of this event, but I don’t, off the top of my head, remember exactly what that was, and haven’t had the time to search for it these past few days. But I will try and do so when I can. But I would like to suggest that much of the archeological evidence might very well lie several feet under the sand. As there are still to this day sites that are being found dating back to the Bronze Age (and even further back in time I believe) that are sitting ten feet or more under the sand. It only seems logical that there could be much more unseen that hasn’t been found as of yet. But of course that is only speculation, and my opinion of course. But it does make sense that it’s barely possible there could be archeological evidence to support the exodus that simply hasn’t been found to date. Does it not? But most importantly, while archeology can never “prove” the inspiration of the Bible, there are discoveries that have confirmed the historical accuracy of thousands of individual Bible statements. To my knowledge, there hasn’t been anything to disprove, contradict, or deny one word, phrase, clause, or sentence of the Bible. But always confirms and verifies the facts of the Biblical record.

Anyway, back to the point at hand. When I began searching for some answers, I started with looking into the person called Jesus. So I began with several questions in mind hoping to find some answers to: Did Jesus really live? Was He who he claimed to be - the Son of God? Or was He a liar or a madman? Are the accounts about His miraculous healings and raising people from the dead true? Did He actually die on the cross? What is the evidence that He truly rose from the dead? What historical evidence is there to support the Bible’s extraordinary claim that Jesus is the Son of God and the true Messiah?

Several decades ago, Professor C.S. Lewis wrote the following comment about the untenable position in his book Mere Christianity:
   
“You must make your choice. Either this man was and is the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

After looking into this matter with my mind as open as I could possibly get it, I found there to be a tremendous amount of historical, archeological, and scientific evidence that points to the reality of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I had heard claims that there is little surviving historical evidence about Jesus; however, I found that there is a significant amount of historical evidence about Him. Four Gospel accounts from four separate individuals who claim they personally knew Jesus and were eyewitnesses to many key events provide historical evidence. I found there are also reliable references to Jesus from His enemies, including Roman historians and governors, as well as pagan historians who describe the remarkable darkness that occurred during His crucifixion. Significant Jewish references about the life and death of Jesus have been found in the Talmud, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the works of contemporary Jewish historian Flavis Josephus. 

I’ve also heard some suggest that we cannot place confidence in the authority of Gospel accounts of Jesus because none of the four original Gospels have survived. I found the we actually have over five thousand existing copies of the Greek New Testament that date back to the first few centuries of the early Church. As far as I’m aware, no other ancient manuscript has survived with more than ten genuine copies. The wealth of surviving manuscripts of the New Testament, as well as over one hundred thousand letters from Christians (which btw a brief inventory would reveal that there were some thirty-two thousand citations of the New Testament prior to the time of the Council of Nicea)  that contain more than 99 percent of the eight thousand verses of the New Testament, provides me overwhelming proof that the text of the New Testament is historically reliable.

I’ve also heard some claim that the four Gospels are not really independent eyewitness accounts, but are in fact copied from one initial source, namely the Gospel of Mark. The critics dispute the historical accuracy of the four Gospels on the basis that they often differ from each other in their description of small details. However, as most any judge will tell you, any four eyewitness accounts of an event that agree in every detail would more than likely be throw out of court as a collaboration. Any eyewitnesses of an event, such as a car accident, naturally will describe the same event with different details and occasional discrepancies, although they each honestly describe what they saw of the actual event.

There is over 300 prophetic passages in the Old Testament that refer to the first appearing of Jesus the Messiah. 48 of these refer exclusively to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. All of them were published during an eleven-hundred-year period that ended 4 centuries before Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

I guess I should first talk about the study of statistics involving the theory and laws of mathematical probability, although I am no authority, I will try and get through this nonetheless. This theory states that if the probability of a single event occurring randomly is one chance in five, and the probability of another is one in ten, then the combined probability that both events will occur together in sequence is five multiplied by ten. Thus the combined chance of both events occurring in sequence is on chance in fifty.

Examining the predictions in the Old Testament about the eventual Messiah, lets look at each one briefly and it’s probability, whether they are by chance, or the prophets correctly guessed.

First; He would be born in Bethlehem and be descended from the tribe of Judah.
Old Testament prediction; Micah 5:2, Genesis 49:10
New Testament fulfillment; Matthew 2:1
Probability; 1 chance in 2400

A messenger would precede the Messiah
Old Testament prediction; Isaiah 40:3
New Testament fulfillment; Matthew 3:1,2
Probability; 1 in 20

He would enter Jerusalem on a colt.
Old testament prediction; Zechariah 9:9
New Testament fulfillment; Luke 19:35-37
Probability; 1 in 50

He would be betrayed by a friend.
Old Testament prediction; Psalm 41:9
New Testament fulfillment; Matthew 26:47,48
Probability; 1 in 10

His hands and feet will be pierced.
Old Testament prediction; Psalm 22:16
New Testament fulfillment; Luke 23:33
Probability; 1 in 100

His enemies would wound the Messiah.
Old Testament prediction; Isaiah 54:5
New Testament fulfillment; Matthew 27:26

He would be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver.
Old Testament prediction; Zechariah 11:12
New Testament fulfillment; Matthew 26:15
Probability; 1 in 50

He will be spit on and beaten.
Old Testament prediction; Isaiah 50:6
New Testament fulfillment; Matthew 26:67
Probability; 1 in 10

His betrayal money would be thrown into the Temple and given to buy a potter's field.
Old Testament prediction; Zechariah 11:13
New Testament fulfillment; Matthew 27:5-7
Probability; 1 in 200

He would be silent before His accusers.
Old Testament prediction; Isaiah 53:7
New Testament fulfillment; Matthew 27:12-14
Probability; 1 in 100

He would be crucified with thieves.
Old Testament prediction; Isaiah 53:12
New Testament fulfillment; Matthew 27:38
Probability; 1 in 100

People would gamble for His garments.
Old Testament prediction; Psalm 22:18
New Testament fulfillment; John 19:23-24
Probability; 1 in 100

His side would be pierced.
Old Testament prediction; Zechariah 12:10
New Testament fulfillment; John 19:34
Probability; 1 in 100

None of His bones will be broken.
Old Testament prediction; Psalm 34:20
New Testament fulfillment; John 19:33
Probability; 1 in 20

His body would not decay.
Old Testament prediction; Psalm 16:10
New Testament fulfillment; Acts 2:31
Probability; 1 in 10,000

He would be buried in a rich man's tomb.
Old Testament prediction; Isaiah 53:9
New Testament fulfillment; Matthew 27:57-60
Probability; 1 in 100

Darkness would cover the earth.
Old Testament prediction; Amos 8:9
New Testament fulfillment; Matthew 27:45
Probability; 1 in 1000

Thallus and Phlegon, two pagan historians lived in the first century and both reported an unusual darkness that blotted out the sun for three hours during the Passover in the year AD 32, the same year as Jesus' crucifixion.

This analysis has shown that seventeen detailed prophecies, which were written more than 400 years before the birth of Jesus, were fulfilled with absolute precision during the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The question is this: What are the chances that all 17 of these predictions occurred by chance in the life of a single man rather than by divine plan of God? The combined probability against these 17 predictions occurring is equal to: 1 chance in 480 billion x 1 billion x 1 trillion or, 1 chance in 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Some Bible critics have suggested that Jesus of Nazareth, as a rabbi, naturally knew about these predictions and simply arranged the events of His life to fulfill these specific prophecies. But how would you arrange to be born in Bethlehem? How would you manage to be born into the tribe of Judah? How would you make sure that the price of your betrayal would be precisely thirty pieces of silver? How would you arrange to be crucified with thieves? How would a crucified man arrange to have his enemies gamble for his garments? The truth is that, if you could arrange all these details, you would have to be the Son of God.

Not to mention a look at First Corinthians 15. The thing to bear in mind is Paul didn’t initially write this as being Holy Scripture; it was a letter to the church at Corinth just about thirty years after Jesus’ death and ascension. And stated in it was that Jesus died and was buried then rose after three days then was seen by many. He included Peter and other disciples, 500 people and even some people in the crowd he was talking to knew of these things that took place. The fact is if anyone could attest to anything other than what Paul was saying, they would have certainly spoken up. There is no evidence of anyone ever doing so.

Furthermore, each and every one of the disciples of Jesus proclaimed through out the land what had happened and whom Jesus was, never once denying Him. All of this was after they had been emotionally crushed after Jesus was killed, After all how could the Messiah allow Himself to suffer a horrible death at the hands of men, yet they were rejuvenated after seeing Jesus risen from the grave. Had this been a lie these men would not have went to their deaths and not admitted it as such. The fact once again is that every one of these disciples, with the exception of the Apostle John, died horrible deaths and never once denied Jesus was who He said He was. These things are recorded in various Roman archives, and other historians of the time.
 
Speaking of historians, Luke, who wrote Luke and Acts, was a physician and a historian. In his work you will find many historical references, of which there is a tremendous amount of archeological evidence to support what he wrote. As a matter of fact, there is absolutely nothing that has ever been discovered that disproves anything written in the Bible. The simple truth is there are archeological support, prophetic support, and historical support for what is written in the bible. As far as I’m aware, the same cannot be said for any other religion.

Also in A.D. 70, only four decades after Jesus died on the cross, Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, the minister responsible for several churches in Syria, quoted extensively from the New Testament in his writings. Clement, the Bishop of Rome (mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3), also quoted extensively from the New Testament within forty years of Christ’s resurrection. To my mind, this lends itself to the credibility and accuracy of the Scriptures.

This is a brief summary of some of the things I found to be enlightening regarding the evidence of the accuracy of the Scriptures are the following (although for brevity’s sake, I am not including much detail – this post is already way too long as it is):

1.   Many other ancient inscriptions and manuscripts (other than what I’ve listed above) that support the historical accuracy of the Scriptures.
2.   Little known archeological discoveries of the actual tombs of people mentioned in the Gospel account of Christ’s trial and crucifixion.
3.   The ancient pagan and Jewish writings that provide remarkable conformation of the biblical accounts about the death of Jesus.
4.   The fulfillment of many detailed messianic prophecies about Jesus that authenticate the Scriptures (some are given above).
5.   The transformed lives of the writers of the Bible.
6.   The unprecedented influence of Jesus Christ on the lives of individuals, Western culture, and the history of the world.
7.   Ancient manuscripts from the Dead Sea Scrolls that refer to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and contain quotations from the Gospels.

And all these things I’ve listed are merely scratching the surface, as I can’t continue to write on and on about this subject within the confines of this forum. There are far too many things to list that swayed my mind to accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior. What I’ve listed is only a few things that I considered. And I haven’t even touched on my findings for the authenticity of God and the Bible in its entirety, as this is pretty lengthy to list as well. But suffice it to say, based upon the preponderance of the evidence as I found it, I now choose to believe where as I didn’t prior to my search.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 16, 2010, 12:14:07 am
For if he (being a Christian) was right about God, and I was wrong in assuming God didn’t exist, well, I would have a lot to lose and he would have everything to gain if it were true. Yeah sure, this is commonly referenced to “Pascal’s Wager”, but my point is that it served to get me thinking about checking into the validity of the claims made about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, which I did.

Understanding the fallacy of Pascal's Wager was an additional reason I de-converted.

Here is the "standard" argument against Pascal's wager:

Belief in a single God - you must choose one out of almost infinite possible traditions (and in this case a flawed religion with mistakes).

If even a single other god or gods will punish you after death, how could you calculate the odds that you find the correct deity from thousands.

It is almost impossible to pick up the correct "One True God", made harder by the complete lack of evidence for the supernatural.

Quote
Before I go any further, I wanted to say something in regards to something you brought up, which was there is no evidence

We can just stop right there - science and faith have always been in opposition, contrary to the professional apologists, and yes I recognize just what apologist you got most of your post from.

You state that history and science only have supported the bible not contradicted it - do you really want to go there? This is the area of the most disingenuous and predatory parasites in religion - apologetics for profit and not only is it full of lies it is deliberately deceptive. I don't feel like you want to be deliberately deceptive but you are falling into a trap of their making, standing on this ground will (as you will find) put you in the defense of some of the most horrid humans in the religious community today - it is only a small part of why religion is so dangerous.

Here are some simple things and concepts that proof that the bible is false, deceptive, or delusional (that men of limited knowledge from the bronze age are the only authors not divinely inspired).


Geocentric / heliocentric

Age of the earth

Slavery

Spiritual mandated racism

Worldwide flood

First-born of Egypt

Here is the kicker, I posted it earlier - there is nothing in the bible to indicate that there was any supernatural knowledge imparted to the bronze age creators of the texts - nothing. Not mathematics, biology, or physical sciences that we can prove and test now, none of the small and important details are contained therein.

Germ theory

Gravitational theory

Electrical sciences

Atomic theory

Geography

Extinct life
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Clip Johnson on July 16, 2010, 01:09:35 am

Understanding the fallacy of Pascal's Wager was an additional reason I de-converted.

Here is the "standard" argument against Pascal's wager:

Belief in a single God - you must choose one out of almost infinite possible traditions (and in this case a flawed religion with mistakes).

If even a single other god or gods will punish you after death, how could you calculate the odds that you find the correct deity from thousands.

It is almost impossible to pick up the correct "One True God", made harder by the complete lack of evidence for the supernatural.


I am left to wonder why you and so many others get hung up on the "Pascals wager" aspect. As it pertains to me, it only served to get me motivated to in finding out for myself about God! Furthermore, I find it fascinating that I posted some of the things that I considered when trying to make a personal determination in the existence of God, and you choose to tell me basically that my reasoning is flawed, and potentially dangerous. I am sorry, but as I said I find this fascinating. You simply choose what belief systems, etc work for you, and I will do the same for me. Please understand, I am NOT trying to push my beliefs on you, or anyone else.


Quote

We can just stop right there - science and faith have always been in opposition, contrary to the professional apologists, and yes I recognize just what apologist you got most of your post from.


I would suggest that science and faith are in opposition if you choose to see it that way. I don't see it that way in every single instance! In fact, not many instances where they are opposed.


And yeah, I have books by Josh McDowel, Wayne Grudem, Lee Strobel, J.P. Moreland, Grant R. Jeffrey, among others that I've studied! I have also read works by Bertrand Russel, David Hume, Joseph Lewis, Clarence Darrow, among others. Yet I still made a conscious decision to believe in what I previously stated. Just the same as you have chose to believe in what you do. It is our right is it not?

Quote

You state that history and science only have supported the bible not contradicted it

No Sir, I used the word "disproved", not "contradicted".


Quote

Here are some simple things and concepts that proof that the bible is false, deceptive, or delusional (that men of limited knowledge from the bronze age are the only authors not divinely inspired).


Geocentric / heliocentric

Age of the earth

Slavery

Spiritual mandated racism

Worldwide flood

First-born of Egypt

Here is the kicker, I posted it earlier - there is nothing in the bible to indicate that there was any supernatural knowledge imparted to the bronze age creators of the texts - nothing. Not mathematics, biology, or physical sciences that we can prove and test now, none of the small and important details are contained therein.

Germ theory

Gravitational theory

Electrical sciences

Atomic theory

Geography

Extinct life

Please if you will, elaborate on how exactly these things you list are definitive proof the Bible is, as you say, false, deceptive, delusional, etc.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Rarick on July 16, 2010, 04:06:07 am
This may come off a little simplistic, but GOD, especially the Christian/Jewish/Moslem iteration of GOD, violates ZAP in a way that, if he/she/it/they WERE really omnipotent/omniscient, wouldn't (dropjaw). GOD would never look at people as cattle, would in fact have the intelligent and compassionate means necessary to look at humans as anything but. And that has always been the rub when I talk about GOD with proponents of. So I am a little perplexed when it comes to matters religiousitual, and, if it is true that: "It's a multi-disciplinary field, involving among other things philosophy, linguistics and history.", then this is all semantical bullshit meant to appease the cryings of people who are afraid to die, and to control the earthly life  of people whose emotional cravings won't let them look any farther than their own fear of death. Now, I can respect that, really I can, but if you stretch the tiimeline out far enough the survival rate drops to zero (silly movie plug). Deal with it. What I think is interesting is that so many still buy it, and so many spend so much time and energy figuring out new word structures explaining something that is obviously, historically,  bullshit.

In the words of a great PSYOP leader, "Perception is reality--prove it isn't, I dare you" I now defer to those who rabidly support the positions of those who trained them. GOD should never need to be a "multi-disciplinary field" just as just governance doesn't need to explain itself. Like I said,This may come off a little simplistic.

"Welcome to life kid, good or bad, you aren't getting out of this predicament alive"-  Unknown

I just try to pursue my goals with out causing harm to others.  Too many religions seem to have the mandatory "preach the Gospel and be a witness to the gooodness of God".  I tend to think ther is a reason behind all this.  God knows what it is, since he is omniscient/omnipotent, he set it up they way he wants it to go, it will go that way.  Our role in all this? Die as wealthy as you can in the thing you can take with you.  You can die with a good legacy, high knowledge, deep spirit, and a strong soul, That goes with you. Everything else is just tools you have used along the way that you have need of for whatever comes next.  A priest/shaman/monk/preacher/imam cannot tell you how to do that, they may provide some insight or signposts, but to achieve the kind of wealth I mentioned requires a breadth that knowledge of a single religion cannot provide.  Each religion is founded a run by.......MEN........Therefore they are flawed.  It would be important to recognise these flaws and have to height, width and depth to adjust for them, with enough goodness to avoid harming those who have not yet achieved enough to make the next step.

As far as I am concerned ALL religions have something to teach, the merit of those lessons is up to the individual learning- right or wrong...........
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: gaurdduck on July 16, 2010, 04:20:35 am
Quote
Worldwide flood

I can refute this claim that there was no world-wide flood using only non-Abrahamic sources.... Did it for a school paper once. I've got more info now than I did then. A lot of it is scientific discoveries*, archeological evidence**, and the combined memories of all humanity***.


*human artifacts found in sedimentary stone or coal deposits

**certain ruins off Japan's coast, a certain gigantic grapevine in turkey and aircraft-carrier sized ship sticking out of a crevasse on a mountain (I would use the Gilgamesh Epic for the latter, but the grapevine is only mentioned in the Bible.)

***Nearly every culture has a story of the whole world flooding
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Rarick on July 16, 2010, 04:24:30 am
There was a worldwide flood from the last ice age, duh.  When the ice melted and raised the sea levels along all the shorelines.  That has nothing to do with the bible/religion tho' just objective reality.  I am waiting for us to finally start cruising the ocean bed about 300 feet down or so, I wonder if we will find any flooded and preserved cities?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: gaurdduck on July 16, 2010, 04:42:47 am
There was a worldwide flood from the last ice age, duh.  When the ice melted and raised the sea levels along all the shorelines.  That has nothing to do with the bible/religion tho' just objective reality.  I am waiting for us to finally start cruising the ocean bed about 300 feet down or so, I wonder if we will find any flooded and preserved cities?

I just mentioned one off the coast of Japan... http://aquaviews.net/dive-the-japanese-atlantis-at-yonaguni/
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Rarick on July 16, 2010, 04:49:55 am
yep I know that one, but I was keeping it short-respects to thread topic?  I was kind of trying to provoke a little outside the book/box thinking? and maybe learn something.  New thread?  Title?  Great flood discussion?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 16, 2010, 06:17:33 am
I am left to wonder why you and so many others get hung up on the "Pascals wager" aspect.

Because it is false, it is a form of illogical manipulation, it is peculiar to the abrahamic religions, specific to christianity, you don't see Buddhists using that argument.

Quote
I find it fascinating that I posted some of the things that I considered when trying to make a personal determination in the existence of God, and you choose to tell me basically that my reasoning is flawed, and potentially dangerous. I am sorry, but as I said I find this fascinating.

You miss my intent - I use the words and the process because I actually care, I care that people are being manipulated by falsehood, manipulated by parasites, I am concerned because the advancement of humanity is basically 400 to 1000 years behind because it was deliberately retarded by religion, specifically the west was held hostage to it during the dark ages.

Quote
And yeah, I have books by Josh McDowel, Wayne Grudem, Lee Strobel, J.P. Moreland, Grant R. Jeffrey, among others that I've studied! I have also read works by Bertrand Russel, David Hume, Joseph Lewis, Clarence Darrow, among others. Yet I still made a conscious decision to believe in what I previously stated. Just the same as you have chose to believe in what you do. It is our right is it not?

I am not familiar with the entire list but I can tell you the apologists I do know are parasitic disingenuous profiteers, who will outright lie and use what equate to charlatan's tricks to manipulate for profit.

Had you said that you had a personal revelation we would be done, had you said that the "scriptures" were unimportant and you disavowed the bad parts (such as Thomas Jefferson did weeding out the bible) but instead you have chosen to defend the bible as "the best we have" (I am simplifying what I understand is your position) and I contend the book and the subsequent worship of it is downright dangerous.

Quote

You state that history and science only have supported the bible not contradicted it
No Sir, I used the word "disproved", not "contradicted".
Quote

How far do we need to go with this? Is the bible 100% correct, 80%, 50%? Is it the "living breathing word of god and infallible"?

Please if you will, elaborate on how exactly these things you list are definitive proof the Bible is, as you say, false, deceptive, delusional, etc.

If you have read the above then you understand the wrangling and word trickery that has to be employed to skirt around the ravings of some bronze age writer to manipulate the content to fit the real world.

I am also giving you too much slack here because the burden of proof is on the religious to prove that their content is real, I am not telling anyone to genuflect to something without any verifiable evidence.

Simple - is the earth the center of the universe?
Is slavery acceptable

Or the second part.

Where in the bible does it
Quote
show that there is information that could not be known by bronze age man
, where is germ theory, or any of the others.

It's not your faith, that is yours, it is the attempt to say that the bible is anything other than a collection of traditional stories involving a racist sect of nomads (first part) and a report of the ideas and life of a cult leader and his followers, that is has any value outside of that and that any of it's content can be taken as law...

That is the dangerous part - many of you christians don't want to admit that, given the lack of shackles of a secular government who has specific laws contrary to the content of the bible, there would be evil in it's promotion and expansion.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 16, 2010, 06:21:41 am
Quote
Worldwide flood

I can refute this claim that there was no world-wide flood using only non-Abrahamic sources.... Did it for a school paper once. I've got more info now than I did then. A lot of it is scientific discoveries*, archeological evidence**, and the combined memories of all humanity***.

*human artifacts found in sedimentary stone or coal deposits

**certain ruins off Japan's coast, a certain gigantic grapevine in turkey and aircraft-carrier sized ship sticking out of a crevasse on a mountain (I would use the Gilgamesh Epic for the latter, but the grapevine is only mentioned in the Bible.)

***Nearly every culture has a story of the whole world flooding

So this is evidence of a world wide complete flood?

The entire world was flooded - all at one time - completely 100% for days the entire surface of the earth, sometime within the last 10,000 years?

You realize that some of your content listed is long ago disproved religious promotional fraud.

I suppose the belly button is evidence that man was created?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on July 16, 2010, 06:35:01 am
Pardon me if I am not only not convinced, but sickened to my core by what you were willing to post. No offense to you Lenny...

None taken. That's exactly how a PETA member feels when she sees you eating meat. You're shocked and sickened when higher beings exercise lordship over humans, but perfectly OK with farmers owning cows.

Quote
Quote
... t's been established for more than a thousand years that your objection here is based on the wrong definition of "benevolence."

Ever so convenient and ever so full of excuses of the most pathetic type...

You're basically giving a fancy version of, "If God were truly benevolent, there would be no VD or monogamy, and women would have big tits and always go topless."
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on July 16, 2010, 03:02:25 pm
Do you believe it is right to enforce your moral code upon others?  If not, then you believe your moral code only applies to you.  If you believe you are justified in forcing others to abide by your morality, then there is a moral (and freedom) conflict.  The philosophy of freedom requires that we keep our morality to ourselves, apply it to ourselves, and let others do the same.  The only force allowed is in defense of ourselves and our property. Enforcing morality upon others conflicts with the idea of individual freedom.

Then children are not free are they? DH and I believe it is right to enforce our moral codes upon our children. Did you not raise your children by your own moral code?

If morals were not flexible, my morality regarding drugs could not have changed.


I agree. I believe that God's morals are absolute but human's are flexible.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on July 16, 2010, 03:05:44 pm
Where do morals come from? If your mother gave birth to you in the woods, then left you, and you were raised by forest creatures, how would you determine what is and isn't moral? Let's say that on the other side of the forest there was a mother who had just given birth to her child and left them to be raised by the forest creatures. Eighteen years later the two of you meet and procreate, starting your own little family. What kind of morals would you teach your children? Then ten years later some folks who were raised by a Mommy and a Daddy outside of the forest find you. They begin to communicate with you and trade with you, etc. How would you know if they were honest or dishonest?

Where does bad behavior originate from? Ever see a 10 month-old test their parent's authority? Seen a 14 month-old lie? Did you teach your children to hit, be mean to others, bite, take what's not theirs? How do these little darlings behave in a such a way if they have not witnessed it?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on July 16, 2010, 03:26:29 pm
I agree with CLIP in that it would behoove individuals to go on their own journey seeking the existence of God. Like I said in a previous post, I just haven't doubted His existence. I remember being a very young girl and feeling awe over creation - all creation. How could the intricacies of life be random? The Milky Way, the solar system, earth, water, air, weather, geology, fish, fowl, the creepy crawlies, humans and other mammals - utterly fascinating! How a human being is formed in the womb, the function of each organ we have, the intelligence and capacity we possess that no other creature has... The reproduction, organs and purpose of animals... The reproduction and purpose of plant life... The awesomeness and force of nature... The beauty in rocks, rivers, oceans, trees, flowers... The change in seasons, how the earth tilts and rotates, the incredible power of the sun... I will never believe that all this is random, or was created by a whimsical or a narcissistic god.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Jarel on July 16, 2010, 07:04:19 pm
So. you know that there is a GOD because of a FEELING you had as a "very young girl"?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on July 16, 2010, 08:20:40 pm
So. you know that there is a GOD because of a FEELING you had as a "very young girl"?

Yep! More or less that's how my curiousity started!

On a side note, why did you put very young girl in quotes? Are you mocking the awareness a child can have?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on July 17, 2010, 09:07:00 pm
Quote
As with any other group, when some members begin to spout hate and demand violence/aggression against others, it is incumbent on the other members of the group to denounce the aggressor or, if possible, even take steps to remove him/her from their number. If they remain silent or support the aggressor, then they participate in the aggression and evil to follow.

Hummm....
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Jarel on July 18, 2010, 11:07:42 pm
So. you know that there is a GOD because of a FEELING you had as a "very young girl"?

Yep! More or less that's how my curiousity started!

On a side note, why did you put very young girl in quotes? Are you mocking the awareness a child can have?
Look, Moonbeam, you and I seem to be on opposite sides of a particular social equation; it is not my desire to be demeaning. I haven't been as thoughtful as I would like of late. My apologies to all who were offended.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: securitysix on July 18, 2010, 11:38:08 pm
the intelligence and capacity we possess that no other creature has...

That's a very broad brush to paint with, and I'm not convinced it's an entirely accurate one.  But first, I must ask:  Is this "no other creature" claim limited only to our planet or to the entirety of the universe? 

If the former, I would point out that dolphins are very intelligent and that one study even showed that dolphins were more intelligent than previously thought as it had been discovered that they were intentionally throwing the tests.  I've also seen some extremely intelligent dogs, and likewise, some extremely stupid dogs, but then, the same can be said for humans.  Now, I'm not saying that the intelligence dogs are capable of is necessarily on par with human intelligence.  I have, however, seen dogs that had a better vocabulary, albeit without the ability to speak, than many 4 and 5 year old human children.  In the presence of the more intelligent dogs I've been around, I've wondered if the limits we humans place on their intelligence isn't just a limit to our ability to communicate with and understand them. 

If the latter, I'd say that it's a bit presumptuous to assume that there's no intelligent life on other planets, and especially so to assume that it would be less intelligent than we are if there is.  God or no, it's silly to assume that there is no life on other planets, and it's just as silly to assume that we humans are the only intelligent life in the universe.

Or perhaps I misunderstood the point you were trying to make?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Bill St. Clair on July 19, 2010, 07:20:05 am
Which reminds me of a joke.

In national parks that have bears, e.g. Yellowstone, there are bear-proof garbage cans. The problem with designing these garbage cans is that there's an overlap in intelligence between the smartest bear and the dumbest tourist.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on July 19, 2010, 02:30:37 pm
As with any other group, when some members begin to spout hate and demand violence/aggression against others, it is incumbent on the other members of the group to denounce the aggressor or, if possible, even take steps to remove him/her from their number. If they remain silent or support the aggressor, then they participate in the aggression and evil to follow.

Did you get that quote from the NAACP regarding the Tea Party?!  :laugh:
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on July 19, 2010, 02:35:59 pm
Or perhaps I misunderstood the point you were trying to make?

I believe so... I didn't say there were no other intelligent creatures out there (no need to read between the lines because I wasn't implying it either). But, humans do have a uniqueness, and posses talents, intelligence, and capacities that no other creature possesses. Where's the argument in that?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on July 19, 2010, 02:45:31 pm
As with any other group, when some members begin to spout hate and demand violence/aggression against others, it is incumbent on the other members of the group to denounce the aggressor or, if possible, even take steps to remove him/her from their number. If they remain silent or support the aggressor, then they participate in the aggression and evil to follow.

Did you get that quote from the NAACP regarding the Tea Party?!  :laugh:

??? Not sure what you mean. That is not a quote... it is my own statement.

The members of the group must, obviously, have some kind of standing in order to "take steps" to expel the violent ones. They would have to be in the majority to prevail. The other thing that can be done is to disassociate oneself from that group.

If they do neither one, they are implying consent for the violence even if they do not engage in it themselves.

This is exactly why I refuse to be known as a "citizen" of the United States (or ANY "state"). To the best of my ability, I disassociate myself from those who find all manner of theft, murder, lies, fraud and oppression somehow perfectly acceptable as long as it is done by their "government." And, almost universally, they find this most acceptable when it is someone ELSE being robbed, murdered .. never recognizing that they ARE also being lied to and oppressed.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on July 19, 2010, 03:04:36 pm
ML - I'm aware that RF copied your quote from a thread under General Discussion... I was being funny -that's why I included a smiley face
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on July 19, 2010, 04:21:03 pm
ML - I'm aware that RF copied your quote from a thread under General Discussion... I was being funny -that's why I included a smiley face

Oh, sorry. <grin> I missed that. I'm so literal that I often miss the joke. sigh :):):)
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on July 19, 2010, 04:59:43 pm
Quote
And, almost universally, they find this most acceptable when it is someone ELSE being robbed, murdered .. never recognizing that they ARE also being lied to and oppressed.

Or recognizing that they're being robbed for a dollar but getting 5 dollars is money stolen from someone else.............
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on July 19, 2010, 05:19:33 pm
Quote
And, almost universally, they find this most acceptable when it is someone ELSE being robbed, murdered .. never recognizing that they ARE also being lied to and oppressed.

Or recognizing that they're being robbed for a dollar but getting 5 dollars is money stolen from someone else.............

Oh, I'm sure that happens, but it's not even the point. I can't imagine anyone could calculate it. What they are being robbed of is not just money, but dignity, integrity, self respect, joy, liberty by every description. No amount of money can replace that.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on July 19, 2010, 05:53:16 pm
Quote
What they are being robbed of is not just money, but dignity, integrity, self respect, joy, liberty by every description. No amount of money can replace that.

Yeah.............maybe for "human" beings............but not all people are human beings............many lack some or all those attributes described "by choice".......and in their place lies malice, hatred, and envy............

People mention a pot full of frogs.........but it's more like a pot full of crawfish.......where if one starts to climb out.........the others clamp on and drag it back in to be cooked with all the rest............

Quote
No amount of money can replace that.

Tell that to one who believes that money is an end unto itself, rather than the means to an end..............
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: securitysix on July 19, 2010, 06:48:59 pm
Or perhaps I misunderstood the point you were trying to make?

I believe so... I didn't say there were no other intelligent creatures out there (no need to read between the lines because I wasn't implying it either). But, humans do have a uniqueness, and posses talents, intelligence, and capacities that no other creature possesses. Where's the argument in that?

I see.  Many one of those traits can be found elsewhere on the earth, and quite probably beyond it, but as a package, I'm inclined to agree.  The combination of those various traits does seem to be limited to humans, at least so far as we've discovered.  I personally hope that doesn't always remain the case.  I hope that as we expand out into the universe, we find others similar (but not necessarily identical) to us in that collection of traits you list.  Otherwise the universe may well turn out to be a very boring place.  But I digress...

I'll let the thread get back to bringing religiousity to the fuzzy wuzzies, or whatever was going on here.   :thrbiggrin:
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: RagnarDanneskjold on July 19, 2010, 08:08:09 pm
...
If the former, I would point out that dolphins are very intelligent and that one study even showed that dolphins were more intelligent than previously thought as it had been discovered that they were intentionally throwing the tests.
...


... then why do we have to have dolphin safe tuna?  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: securitysix on July 20, 2010, 12:09:24 am
...
If the former, I would point out that dolphins are very intelligent and that one study even showed that dolphins were more intelligent than previously thought as it had been discovered that they were intentionally throwing the tests.
...


... then why do we have to have dolphin safe tuna?  :rolleyes:

Because of a bunch of whine bag hippy cry babies, of course.  It is my opinion that tuna hasn't tasted nearly as good since it all became "dolphin safe".  But I take your point.  Dolphins were smart enough to figure out how to follow tuna boats and get some easy meals.  Unfortunately, they evidently weren't smart enough to figure out how to clear themselves from the nets.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: gaurdduck on July 20, 2010, 02:19:49 am
...
If the former, I would point out that dolphins are very intelligent and that one study even showed that dolphins were more intelligent than previously thought as it had been discovered that they were intentionally throwing the tests.
...


... then why do we have to have dolphin safe tuna?  :rolleyes:

Because of a bunch of whine bag hippy cry babies, of course.  It is my opinion that tuna hasn't tasted nearly as good since it all became "dolphin safe".  But I take your point.  Dolphins were smart enough to figure out how to follow tuna boats and get some easy meals.  Unfortunately, they evidently weren't smart enough to figure out how to clear themselves from the nets.

If you're going to eat tuna, raw is the best way.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on July 20, 2010, 05:54:03 am
If you're going to eat tuna, raw is the best way.

How does that help the dolphins? Or anyone else? No thanks. I like mine canned, with mayo and pickle relish on rye.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: securitysix on July 20, 2010, 02:38:44 pm
If you're going to eat tuna, raw is the best way.

How does that help the dolphins? Or anyone else? No thanks. I like mine canned, with mayo and pickle relish on rye.

I'm with you on that one, ML, though I usually use whole wheat bread rather than rye just because we don't usually keep rye in the house.  For the actual tuna, canned, in veggie oil.  None of that mineral water stuff.  Although I've found that the stuff that comes in the foil packets and packed in sunflower oil is even better than the stuff in a can (I think it's because of the sunflower oil, specifically). 
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on July 20, 2010, 03:12:16 pm
For the actual tuna, canned, in veggie oil.  None of that mineral water stuff.  Although I've found that the stuff that comes in the foil packets and packed in sunflower oil is even better than the stuff in a can (I think it's because of the sunflower oil, specifically). 

Have never tried the foil packets. I don't like the flavor of sunflower anything, so that might not be for me. Does it taste like sunflower seeds?

I used to buy nothing but the water pack - the oil kind was hard to find and they had us convinced that the oil was somehow "bad." (I got over that a long time ago.) Anyway, two years ago I got some cans in oil because I wanted them for deep storage. Curious, I opened and used one. I was amazed that it actually tasted like tuna - as it used to many years ago. I never even thought about the water causing the super bland flavor.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: securitysix on July 20, 2010, 03:20:46 pm
For the actual tuna, canned, in veggie oil.  None of that mineral water stuff.  Although I've found that the stuff that comes in the foil packets and packed in sunflower oil is even better than the stuff in a can (I think it's because of the sunflower oil, specifically). 

Have never tried the foil packets. I don't like the flavor of sunflower anything, so that might not be for me. Does it taste like sunflower seeds?

Not to me.  But if you don't like the flavor of sunflower in general, you may not care for it.  It does have the same shelf life (according to the date stamped on) as the stuff packed in cans, though.  I'll give the advantage to cans for storage, though, as rodents are less likely to chew through stainless steel than the foil packs.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: RagnarDanneskjold on July 20, 2010, 03:41:08 pm
ha ha. Funny how this drifted to tuna. I hadn't thought about the water making the flavor bland. There was a Chinese restaurant around the corner where we got some food a few years ago and the veggies had no flavor. The owner said he kept them in water and wouldn't consider otherwise. We never went back.

But I've thought about that smart dolphin thing since I first heard of it and of dolphin safe tuna. If they are so smart, why can't they pass on their knowledge to their dolphin friends with a shout as the nets are going up, "eep eeeeep eep eeeeep eep eep!" - "stay away from the tuna!"

getting somewhat back on track, do you think dolphins believe in god?
and do they pray?
maybe going up in the net with the tuna is going to heaven? "eeeeeeeeeeeep eeeep eeeeeeeeeeeepp eep eeeeep" - "heaven is a place filled with tuna"
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on July 20, 2010, 04:19:45 pm
I don't know about dolphins, but I'm sure my dog believes in god. He's sure god is the one in this house with THUMBS... and who also operates the can opener. Want to see a call to prayer? Run the can opener in my house. LOL
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: RagnarDanneskjold on July 20, 2010, 04:38:54 pm
I don't know about dolphins, but I'm sure my dog believes in god. He's sure god is the one in this house with THUMBS... and who also operates the can opener. Want to see a call to prayer? Run the can opener in my house. LOL

 :laugh: :laugh: that had me in tears.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on August 07, 2010, 02:48:18 pm
Radio show clip (youtube) of the moral argument and the false nature of excuse-making touching on lightly on the property argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNP4OZFrCic

I am currently reviewing the fraud and manipulation from that hideously evil Scofield Reference Bible, and uncovering several sources for the current state of modern evangelical churches.

Of course this brings up the final argument - support of the concept "might makes right" Lenny's argument was the ultimate extension of "might makes right" where humans are simple property and therefore he has the right to send other "cattle humans" to attack other "cattle humans" and destroy, rape, molest, move and punish because there is the ultimate of property rights "might makes right"...

Because of this I simply left what was there, because I did not need to argue, all of my points were made by others "might makes right" so in the end we cannot argue with "might makes right" because when some leader (remember leadership is condoned and their placement is by the "divine right of kings" or divine support of leadership) so commandments are to "bow and follow" and that actions of one group on another are divinely inspired and are simply a reflection of the divine "might makes right" - it makes ZAP, anarchy, and libertarianism the realm of satan.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on August 18, 2010, 08:27:36 pm
RF - Something has been tugging the back of my brain... Do you believe that Thomas Jefferson was an atheist?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Klapton Isgod on August 18, 2010, 08:55:14 pm
RF - Something has been tugging the back of my brain... Do you believe that Thomas Jefferson was an atheist?

He was Deist.  Basically, that means that God exists and created the universe, but then He no longer interacts directly with creation.  The clock analogy is often used to describe Deism:  God wound the clock (creation) and let it run.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on August 18, 2010, 09:54:12 pm
RF - Something has been tugging the back of my brain... Do you believe that Thomas Jefferson was an atheist?

Why would you ask - where is that question going?

Like George Washington and others Jefferson was or is labeled as a deist rejecting miraculous occurrences and prophecies and as Klapton posted believed there was or could have been a "creative force", something not uncommon amongst the founding minds many who were also Masons (one of the requirements for Masonic tradition is the belief in a "creative force"). Deist thought is clearly a transitional position brought on by the need to keep to tradition (typical for humans) and the scientific facts spouting from the Enlightenment.

It is clear that Jefferson struggled with religion, faith, and belief his entire life, I think many times in his writings he may have see-sawed from agnostic atheist and agnostic deist.

He clearly did see religion as dangerous, he was particularly harsh with religious leadership, he clearly questioned the value of christianity.

He re-wrote the bible removing parts he thought were offensive and it is available on line the book was "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth."

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/JefJesu.html

"I have performed the operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter, which is evidently his and which is as easily distinguished as diamonds in a dunghill." About the Jefferson bible, Thomas Jefferson

I think his struggles more show a man torn and continually thinking about issues he thought important, far more interesting in my view.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: padre29 on August 19, 2010, 11:44:32 pm
RF - Something has been tugging the back of my brain... Do you believe that Thomas Jefferson was an atheist?

Why would you ask - where is that question going?

Like George Washington and others Jefferson was or is labeled as a deist rejecting miraculous occurrences and prophecies and as Klapton posted believed there was or could have been a "creative force", something not uncommon amongst the founding minds many who were also Masons (one of the requirements for Masonic tradition is the belief in a "creative force"). Deist thought is clearly a transitional position brought on by the need to keep to tradition (typical for humans) and the scientific facts spouting from the Enlightenment.

It is clear that Jefferson struggled with religion, faith, and belief his entire life, I think many times in his writings he may have see-sawed from agnostic atheist and agnostic deist.

He clearly did see religion as dangerous, he was particularly harsh with religious leadership, he clearly questioned the value of christianity.

He re-wrote the bible removing parts he thought were offensive and it is available on line the book was "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth."

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/JefJesu.html

"I have performed the operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter, which is evidently his and which is as easily distinguished as diamonds in a dunghill." About the Jefferson bible, Thomas Jefferson

I think his struggles more show a man torn and continually thinking about issues he thought important, far more interesting in my view.

Jefferson also could not reconcile Newton's strict adherence to Christianity and his scientific genius.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on August 20, 2010, 12:53:55 am
Jefferson also could not reconcile Newton's strict adherence to Christianity and his scientific genius.

One day when I have time...

http://www.monticello.org/streaming/speakers/newton.html

Newton is a special case, a review of his life could make a college professional life long study.

I think many had problems with Newton's alchemist obsession. I think it is strange that he was Antitrinitarian and a heavy critic of the pious fraud he thought the church was guilty of...

His support for heliocentrism and his work with his theory of gravitation in conjunction with Kepler's laws of planetary motion would have had him burnt at the stake if he had lived earlier. I am no student of mathematics so I am in wonder of any persons ability in that regard, his advancement of mathematics and science in general are undisputed.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on September 13, 2010, 12:01:02 am
Video of a clip from the Glenn Beck show.

Proof of how dangerous this actually is, I am in awe at how delusional Beck is about the false "Christian America".

But this worthless shiksa he has on his show takes the cake...

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201009030038

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvqfNiBsHt8

Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on September 28, 2010, 01:06:16 pm
Atheists Know More about Religion than Most Religous Follower's

http://www.examiner.com/spirituality-in-san-francisco/atheists-know-more-about-religion-than-most-religous-follower-s

Short version

http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/

There is an online test, but I took the 32 question test.

http://pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Belief_and_Practices/religious-knowledge-questionnaire.pdf
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on October 31, 2010, 12:46:32 pm
  By the way , his opinion on the state that America is in? " It's happening again , you just wait , the pogroms are coming , millions will be in jail and the rest will lay down on their bellies just as they did for the Soviet machine. Any who resist will be crushed financially , socially ,ethically and if necessary physically with overwhelming force. And Americans will not believe it until the Black Mariah pulls into THEIR driveway."

I am afraid it may well be wrapped in an american flag and waving a cross.

1 Pet. 2:13–17

Then there was from FEMA the plan to use the churches - I don't think that is over.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Jarel on October 31, 2010, 11:05:03 pm
The churches are an integral part of the whole thing. How else would Armageddon happen with the CHURCH on the sidelines? Just like they helped Hitler, they will help FEMA.
After all, 
"Submit 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. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king."

This is actually the part that gives me cause for pause in the whole thing: my driving passion is to live free, but as a basically honest man, one who has done dishonest things but knew and was pained by the act(s), I am constantly assailed by the monumental acts of dishonesty people are capable of. Not because of any matters of faith, but more from a sense of Balance. Little by little a system that makes balanced people hate things such as they are is being grown to accentuate that hatred, and as much as I hate the idea of the horror that is coming if things continue, there is that little problem of choice. People choose to help create depressions, people choose to create biological weaponry, people choose to mow down other people, even if they are doing so to their own Neighbors, Friends, and Family.
Now, having said that, I still don't have it in me to SUBMIT to every authority instituted among men. Not in this time, and not ever since I know that the endgame is to create, in a time of monumental technology, a vastly unbalanced culture. Communism is a small word to describe peasants who work their fields and lives with hand tools and who live near people who play with spaceships.

I mean, really? Is that the only viable option? Jeez, REALLY?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: jimoutside on October 31, 2010, 11:39:42 pm
My first posting in this thread-- I read the first six pages and this last one, and don't have time to wade through all of it--

I am a Christian. Because I am a Christian, I am concerned for others who do not believe as I do, and therefore, I try to gently persuade those who show any interest.

I recognize that I cannot force anyone to change their mind on this or any other topic.

I recognize that many "christians" over time from Judas Iscariot to many people in our present time are not true Christians and are actually soldiers of fortune in the Christian arena, using their label to obtain things and power.

I believe the Bible is 100% accurate and relevant, as given by God. However, I do nor pretend that I or any other person understands 100% of the Bible, although I study it constantly and try to learn more and more details and mysteries all the time.

I do believe that the oft-questioned passage of Romans 13 is misunderstood by many people-- Christians and non-Christians alike.

I believe that Romans 13, in conjuncture with other Bible passages, asserts that Christians must submit to human government when that government makes rules or laws that do not go against God's expectations for Christians. In those cases, the Bible is clear that "we ought to obey God rather than men."

I believe that the real hang-up in the uSA is that Christians think that the current socialist government is "their government" when it is not.

My government is based on the Declaration of Independence and the freedom it declares. The Declaration states that it is our duty to throw off tyrannical government. Therefore, to obey Romans 13, I must obey the Declaration.

The Constitution is admittedly a flawed document. However, such as it is, it is a contract between the government and the people of the uSA. The govt. has failed to uphold its side of the contract. Therefore, the resulting tyranny is null and void in its authority over me.

The French resistance movement in WWII had the French patriots resisting the Nazi occupation of their homeland. A Christian could ask-- how dare you resist the powers that be (the Nazi occupiers)? The answer would be-- The Nazi government is not our government-- we fight for our true country, which is France. I consider the tyranny of today to be akin to the illegitimate Nazi regime in France. It is not our true government, as intended by Jefferson, et al.

The end result is, I am as free to resist or ignore the tyranny as any of you who are not Christians.

Now if only more Christians would get their heads out of the sand and see these truths for what they are.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: suijurisfreeman on November 01, 2010, 09:07:06 am
"The Constitution is admittedly a flawed document. However, such as it is, it is a contract between the government and the people of the uSA. The govt. has failed to uphold its side of the contract. Therefore, the resulting tyranny is null and void in its authority over me."

If the constitution of 1787 is actually a 'contract' between the government and the people of the USA then when did you agree to or sign said contract?  I'm most definitely not a party to the social compact known as the United States of America or any of the 50 States of that union.  I've never, ever agreed to let alone signed anything obligating me to any contract with the government of the united States of America.  I've never sworn an oath to uphold and/or defend said constitution.  Any rights that I claim are neither derived from nor dependent upon said constitution.
The constitution of 1787 was fraud from the get-go, it was a betrayal of virtually all the principles of the Declaration of Independence and of those who fought and died in the American Revolution.

I am most definitely not a christian and the bible has absolutely no relevance to my life whatsoever.  Religion and government are both my mortal enemies.  Like I posted on another thread, "voting is the sacrament of the civil religion, I'm a political atheist"!
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: jimoutside on November 01, 2010, 10:30:42 pm
Any rights that I claim are neither derived from nor dependent upon said constitution.

I do not depend on the constitution for my rights either. It merely enumerated some of them and guaranteed that the government would not trample on them-- or try to remove them. The government has broken its agreement.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: suijurisfreeman on November 02, 2010, 08:12:58 am
Any rights that I claim are neither derived from nor dependent upon said constitution.

I do not depend on the constitution for my rights either. It merely enumerated some of them and guaranteed that the government would not trample on them-- or try to remove them. The government has broken its agreement.

But exactly what makes one a party to the constitution of 1787?  Are you a party to said constitution?  If so, how did you become a party to said constitution?  You posted that the government has broken its agreement, who is a party to this agreement and exactly how did they become a party?  I certainly was never a party to said agreement.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: suijurisfreeman on November 02, 2010, 08:15:05 am
Didn't this thread die a while back?

If I'm not mistaken the way it works here is that if you're interested in posting a comment to a existing thread then anyone and everyone is free to do so.  A thread only 'dies' if no one posts any further comments.   :laugh:
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Rarick on November 03, 2010, 09:23:44 am
Nah, it takes more than a mere month to kill a thread around here.  I actually like to see new people pop these up, it shows they are self reliant and willing to do for themselves.  I see entirely too much of the "I tried a search, but" crap...........only to do a search myself and there it is.  (another liar to ignore, I think)

Besides ressurrecting a dead thread helps refresh things, and see them in new light if your opinion has changed..........
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on November 03, 2010, 10:02:07 am
Nah, it takes more than a mere month to kill a thread around here.  I actually like to see new people pop these up, it shows they are self reliant and willing to do for themselves.  I see entirely too much of the "I tried a search, but" crap...........only to do a search myself and there it is.  (another liar to ignore, I think)

Besides ressurrecting a dead thread helps refresh things, and see them in new light if your opinion has changed..........


Opinions do change, this board is good for that...

Using a search function is harder for very specific things than some are capable of using (at least until they learn how). An example would be trying to find conversations about non-agression and not putting in nap, non-agression, zap, zero-agression, and other terms to catch it all...
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on November 03, 2010, 10:48:50 am
Using a search function is harder for very specific things than some are capable of using (at least until they learn how). An example would be trying to find conversations about non-agression and not putting in nap, non-agression, zap, zero-agression, and other terms to catch it all...

AGGGG!! You'd get about a zillion returns for that search string. LOL 

Seriously, the search feature on this forum is pretty lame, even if you really, really know how to use a search engine. But I'm happy if new folks at least have tried before they start in asking the "is the sky blue" questions. :)

And yes, rebooting old threads can be very interesting. Maybe we ought to do more of that ourselves.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Bill St. Clair on November 03, 2010, 01:51:10 pm
Seriously, the search feature on this forum is pretty lame, even if you really, really know how to use a search engine. But I'm happy if new folks at least have tried before they start in asking the "is the sky blue" questions. :)

You're right. It is. So I've added a "Google Site Search" button to the home page, http://thementalmilitia.com/
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: jimoutside on November 04, 2010, 07:43:04 am
Any rights that I claim are neither derived from nor dependent upon said constitution.

I do not depend on the constitution for my rights either. It merely enumerated some of them and guaranteed that the government would not trample on them-- or try to remove them. The government has broken its agreement.

But exactly what makes one a party to the constitution of 1787?  Are you a party to said constitution?  If so, how did you become a party to said constitution?  You posted that the government has broken its agreement, who is a party to this agreement and exactly how did they become a party?  I certainly was never a party to said agreement.

I wasn't directly, but the nation-state I am a citizen of (South Carolina) did. I made a conscious decision to be a citizen of South Carolina. South Carolina is and should be free to leave the USA and I am pushing for that.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: suijurisfreeman on November 04, 2010, 09:40:24 am
"I wasn't directly, but the nation-state I am a citizen of (South Carolina) did. I made a conscious decision to be a citizen of South Carolina. South Carolina is and should be free to leave the USA and I am pushing for that."

If I may ask, exactly how did you become a citizen of South Carolina?  You stated that you made "a conscious decision to be a citizen of South Carolina", and then what?  Did you sign a contract that entered you into an agreement with the State of South Carolina? If so, what were the terms and conditions of said contract/agreement?   I have a photo copy of the Mayflower compact, all the adult males signed it, the terms of being part of that social compact were explicitly laid out in the agreement.  Do you have something like that from the State of South Carolina?  Can you rescind your citizenship in the State of South Carolina?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: da gooch on November 04, 2010, 01:25:34 pm
Seriously, the search feature on this forum is pretty lame, even if you really, really know how to use a search engine. But I'm happy if new folks at least have tried before they start in asking the "is the sky blue" questions. :)

You're right. It is. So I've added a "Google Site Search" button to the home page, http://thementalmilitia.com/

Thanks Bill.

Personally I don't much care for Google [I use Scroogle Scraper instead or IXQuick]
Still .... having a much better search function will help all here to be able to find their chosen subject matter.

It is reassuring to know that we have you to maintain the nuts and bolts of this place.
Now if we could figure out how to handle the human "nuts" .... sigh
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: da gooch on November 04, 2010, 01:40:11 pm
What is all of this sticky stuff on my face ... ?

Thanks Bill I went to see your new addition After I opened my big mouth and inserted my foot.

IX Quick search engine as well Excellent !
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on November 04, 2010, 01:43:03 pm
well there Sui, that's a whole nuther bag o' worms there guy.

nobody alive today is bound by, or to the terms, of any of those contracts, except via threat of force.......

There are many who believe that contract is legitimate, and more importantly, they believe that they have the right to impose their beliefs unto others.....

Boston T Party called it "parchment worship", ,and there's an ongoing religious war over the worship of this parchment....
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Scarmiglione' on November 04, 2010, 02:07:26 pm
well there Sui, that's a whole nuther bag o' worms there guy.

nobody alive today is bound by, or to the terms, of any of those contracts, except via threat of force.......

There are many who believe that contract is legitimate, and more importantly, they believe that they have the right to impose their beliefs unto others.....

Boston T Party called it "parchment worship", ,and there's an ongoing religious war over the worship of this parchment....


Wendy McElroy, 15 years ago:

http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/demyst.html

Demystifying the State

by Wendy McElroy, 1995

Mystification is the process by which the commonplace is elevated to the level of the divine by those who have a vested interest in its unassailability. Government is a perfect example of mystification at work. Government is a group of individuals organized for the purpose of extracting wealth and exerting power over people and resources in a given geographic area. Ordinarily people object to and resist thieves and robbers; but in the case of government, they do not because the government has created a mystique of legitimacy about its activities.
"Government is founded on opinion," wrote William Godwin. "A nation must have learned to respect a king, before a king can exercise any authority over them." Past governments used the divine right of kings, by which monarchs claimed the divinity of being appointed to rule by God, as a means of instilling this respect; rebellion against the king became rebellion against the will of God. Contemporary governments have replaced this with the legitimacy derived from such concepts as "democracy," "equality," the "motherland," or the "American way of life." Such patriotic concepts have the ability to rouse feelings of awe and reverence in the population. These reactions are ingeniously channeled to support the government, and in turn help create the mystique of legitimacy which governments need to survive.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on November 04, 2010, 02:09:02 pm
well there Sui, that's a whole nuther bag o' worms there guy.

nobody alive today is bound by, or to the terms, of any of those contracts, except via threat of force.......

There are many who believe that contract is legitimate, and more importantly, they believe that they have the right to impose their beliefs unto others.....

Boston T Party called it "parchment worship", ,and there's an ongoing religious war over the worship of this parchment....


That brings up a good point - the transfer of "worship" from religion to statism.

Marxism and it's children the forms of communism "by force" all ended up supplanting religion not removing religion.

We also have to deal with the worship of ignorance, and I am pointing out the anti-fact, anti-intelectual, anti-empiricist, position that is part of the imbedded "religionist" position in the US.

Culture, Religion, Politics the three are all intertwined so tightly that often the edges of one blur into the other - this makes our analysis and rational evaluation difficult at best. This thread is a great resource about this issue, the depth of the imbedded nature of religious thought is illuminating if you are willing to analyze the input.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Bill St. Clair on November 04, 2010, 03:07:24 pm
What is all of this sticky stuff on my face ... ?

Thanks Bill I went to see your new addition After I opened my big mouth and inserted my foot.

IX Quick search engine as well Excellent !

You have Mama Liberty to thank for that. Initially, it was just Google, but she pointed out that lots of people here eschew Google, so I added ixquick. At the top of every forum page, too!
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: suijurisfreeman on November 04, 2010, 03:37:44 pm
well there Sui, that's a whole nuther bag o' worms there guy.

nobody alive today is bound by, or to the terms, of any of those contracts, except via threat of force.......

There are many who believe that contract is legitimate, and more importantly, they believe that they have the right to impose their beliefs unto others.....

Boston T Party called it "parchment worship", ,and there's an ongoing religious war over the worship of this parchment....


I realize that Zoot, obviously you realize that and Lysander Spooner realized that, so why do the 'parchment worshipers' still believe in something that never was?   I was just hoping that jim could explain to me more about his decision to become a citizen of South Carolina.  Also I'd like to know more about what the terms and conditions of his agreement with the State of South Carolina actually were and/or are.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on November 04, 2010, 04:22:44 pm
Quote
I realize that Zoot, obviously you realize that and Lysander Spooner realized that, so why do the 'parchment worshipers' still believe in something that never was? 

Because to recognize, or more properly, realize, the contrary, that the "only" thing binding anyone, are men with guns, is an uncomfortable thought at best.....and it leads to thoughts in other directions......and about other illusions which people mistake for reality.

Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Klapton Isgod on November 04, 2010, 05:34:04 pm
Quote
I realize that Zoot, obviously you realize that and Lysander Spooner realized that, so why do the 'parchment worshipers' still believe in something that never was? 

Because to recognize, or more properly, realize, the contrary, that the "only" thing binding anyone, are men with guns, is an uncomfortable thought at best.....and it leads to thoughts in other directions......and about other illusions which people mistake for reality.



People CAN voluntarily bind themselves.  I spent 21 years in the Army.  I volunteered.  If I believed then what I do now, I would not have.  But I did.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on November 04, 2010, 06:52:45 pm
Quote
People CAN voluntarily bind themselves.

Yes they can.............just like they can bind themselves to almost anything.........including other religions

Quote
If I believed then what I do now, I would not have.

Found it to be illusionary?

Now comes the sticky part, pray tell............what would have happened had to "discovered" the illusionary nature of this supposed contract which binds all men in this country, and decided it was a fraud...........so much so that you didn't want any part of it anymore, and simply walked away?

Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: jimoutside on November 04, 2010, 10:50:51 pm
Quote
I realize that Zoot, obviously you realize that and Lysander Spooner realized that, so why do the 'parchment worshipers' still believe in something that never was? 

Because to recognize, or more properly, realize, the contrary, that the "only" thing binding anyone, are men with guns, is an uncomfortable thought at best.....and it leads to thoughts in other directions......and about other illusions which people mistake for reality.



People CAN voluntarily bind themselves.  I spent 21 years in the Army.  I volunteered.  If I believed then what I do now, I would not have.  But I did.


I can unbind myself any time I like. But it's complicated. Right now I pay them taxes, I let them issue me a driver's license, and I consider myself a part-owner of every piece of government property in the state. I take part in the politics of the state, and I am part of a movement that is trying to gain independence for my state. I consider it my country, but its government is falling apart and needs to be replaced by a minarchist sort of system, imo.

But I have enjoyed seeing you beat the ramifications about.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on November 05, 2010, 03:01:19 am
Well.............whether it's a 2000 year old book, or the principles contained within that book, or a 200 year old piece of parchment or the principles contained within that parchment.............they're both religions............and "some" individuals seem to be ready, willing, and able to kill for them...........

Hell that piece of parchment declares it illegal to have a state religon.............nor would it, as the state is a religion unto itself...........and pay it enough money, and it WILL smite your enemies for you.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: suijurisfreeman on November 05, 2010, 08:04:02 am
"I can unbind myself any time I like. But it's complicated. Right now I pay them taxes, I let them issue me a driver's license, and I consider myself a part-owner of every piece of government property in the state. I take part in the politics of the state, and I am part of a movement that is trying to gain independence for my state. I consider it my country, but its government is falling apart and needs to be replaced by a minarchist sort of system, imo.

But I have enjoyed seeing you beat the ramifications about."

Ok jim, but I still don't understand how you came to be a citizen of South Carolina or exactly what's in the contract/agreement that you've bound yourself to.  Here's what's in the Mayflower Compact:

    In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.
    Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

    In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.

And here's the Oath of a Freeman:

Freeman's Oath

The term "Freeman" in Colonial days had nothing to do with servitude or bondsmen. Simply it meant you were a full citizen of the Colony. Under the first Massachusetts charter, only Freemen had the right to hold public office or vote in town meetings. Indentured servants and bonded servant were not eligible.

To be admitted a freeman you must first fulfill the requirements.
   Must of Sworn Allegiance to the Crown
   Must be a Male over 21 years of age
   Membership in a duly recognized church
   

Own personal property generally valued at 40 pounds or  40 shillings per year
   Must be of a quiet and peaceful manner
   Other Freemen in the area endorsed him.

If all of the requirements are met then they were allowed to take the Freemen's Oath at a meeting of the town's selectmen.

Being a Freeman brought certain duties and rights among others

 
   The right to vote in town meetings

 
   The right to hold public office

 
   The right to elect deputies to the General Assembly

 
   Required to pay taxes

 
   The right to elect new Freemen

The Freeman's Oath was the first paper printed in New England. Printed in Cambridge Massachusetts, by Stephen Day, in1639. There is no known copy of the original.  Below is one version of the Freeman's Oath.  It changed slightly from providence to providence.

 
I ________being by gods providence, an Inhabitant, and Freeman, within the Jurisdiction of this Commonwealth; do freely acknowledge myself to be subject to the Government thereof: And therefore do here swear by the great and dreadful Name of the Ever-living God, that I will be true and faithful to the same, and will accordingly yield assistance and support there unto, with my person and estate, as in equity I am bound; and will also truly endeavor to maintain and preserve all the liberties and privileges thereof, submitting myself to the wholesome Laws and Orders made and established by the same. And further, that I will not plot or practice any evil against it, or consent to any that shall so do; but will timely discover and reveal the same to lawful Authority now here established, for the speedy preventing thereof.

Moreover, I do solemnly bind myself in the sight of God, that when I shall be called to give my voice touching any such matter of this State, in which Freemen are to deal, I will give my vote and suffrage as I shall judge in mine own conscience may best conduce and tend to the public weal of the body, So help me God in the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

Now in both of these early colonial documents I can see where an agreement has been entered into, the terms and conditions of said agreement are clearly laid out.  Can you produce a copy of the agreement/contract that you've bound yourself to?  You've stated that the government has broken their part of the agreement but I fail to see where any agreement has actually been offered and accepted.  Could you please explain your position further.


Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on November 05, 2010, 12:51:48 pm
Oh ok............I see.........this is going in a "produce the contract" direction........in this case for the purpose of showing where and "how" government broke that contract....

But of course there is no actual contract, and therefore no signatures, and thus no terms to be examined for evidence of fraud or breech of contract.............

So again............if there's there's no actual contract, and no signatures, there can be no "breech of contract", and no way to legally enforce that contract............
So here comes the guys wth the guns to illlegally enforce some pretend contract, that even if one agreed to it, one ever signed, and thus it's not anything legally binding......

Taken to a "true" court of law, governments claim of any legally binding contract would be laughed out of court, and that's why government bought, and pays for the legal system.............using money stolen via this pretend contract......because the money is real enough to the guys with the guns and the judges............and they want it to keep coming......
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Rarick on November 06, 2010, 07:56:11 am
You could find a good area and do what Suijuris did........the local cops and apparattchik will leave you alone due to the knowledge that you just do not care and are too much trouble for them.............  "The Art of The Obdurate NO" has its uses if you are willing to invest in the capitol it takes........
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: jimoutside on November 09, 2010, 10:09:26 pm
You could find a good area and do what Suijuris did........the local cops and apparattchik will leave you alone due to the knowledge that you just do not care and are too much trouble for them.............  "The Art of The Obdurate NO" has its uses if you are willing to invest in the capitol it takes........

I would really like to do that. I'm not sure just what area will do for me, but I know it isn't where I am. Here it is way too organized. I'm getting out as soon as I can make an organized withdrawal. I need more freedom. Around here there are too many people opposed to my freedom.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: mouse on December 06, 2010, 06:54:01 am
This is just my personal view, I don't expect anyone to share it or even agree with it and nobody can be hostile to it because it is (to me anyway) so benign.

I believe very strongly that without a creator we would not be having any discussions at all, there would be nothing to discuss, nothing to discuss it with, actually nothing at all.  And I feel happiest when worshipping the creator, praying to the Christian God.  Mainly because he has proved (to me at least) to be totally faithful.  He has always answered my prayers and solved problems and situations that I've asked him to.

However, I have a problem with the (I was going to say "modern" but some have denied that it is just a modern interpretation and claimed that it is very longstanding, but I'm sure that I heard of it only as an example of how tyrannical political leaders get their way, in history lessons, before the last 10 years or so) interpretation of Roman 13.

I feel so stongly about this that I have stopped going to church, because I cannot find a church that preaches that Romans 13 is one of the most badly misinterpreted pieces of scripture ever.   I left a church I had been going to for a long time when one of the pastors took me aside and said "I want to talk to you about obedience, specifically Romans 13" then he proceeded to talk about God "appointing government employees" - I couldn't get out of there fast enough.   There is a church not far from here where the Pastor said that the interpretation of R13 is generally left up to the individual and his personal view is the same as mine but he just doesn't mention it because he doesn't want to alienate people.   I go to this church once every three months or so, and my grandchildren were "dedicated" there.

I really want a church that preaches FREEDOM from the pulpit, but sadly I don't think there are any of those here, so I have concluded that I can believe what I want to believe but I don't have to go to church.

I think that religion is just about essential for someone to believe in true freedom.  We all need something to believe in
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on December 06, 2010, 02:58:49 pm
I think that religion is just about essential for someone to believe in true freedom.  We all need something to believe in

I would have to ask you to provide evidence for this, not only will you not find it I will say that the exact opposite is actually true.

You also are an atheist in a way.

Do you believe in:

Odin
Horus
Jupiter
Yu-huang
Quetzalcoatl
Shiva

Many of us just believe in one less on the long list...

The evidence is stacked on the side of non-believers, in fact no belief is the default position biologically.

Recently proof that morality is actually a function of biology has been published from several sources.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on December 06, 2010, 03:15:17 pm
Did you ever try to convince someone to eat Limburger cheese who didn't want to eat it? Would it matter why they didn't want to eat it? Or try to convince someone who hates cats that they should love them? Not likely.

One person's "proof" or rational reasons means nothing to some others. If one is content in their own mind, what difference does it make to anyone else? Each one is free to believe or not, as suits them, by whatever criteria they choose.

To thine own self be true, and let everyone else do the same.

I believe that the sun will come up in the east tomorrow. I get at least that one right every single day.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on December 06, 2010, 04:08:31 pm
Did you ever try to convince someone to eat Limburger cheese who didn't want to eat it? Would it matter why they didn't want to eat it? Or try to convince someone who hates cats that they should love them? Not likely.

One person's "proof" or rational reasons means nothing to some others. If one is content in their own mind, what difference does it make to anyone else? Each one is free to believe or not, as suits them, by whatever criteria they choose.

To thine own self be true, and let everyone else do the same.

I believe that the sun will come up in the east tomorrow. I get at least that one right every single day.  :rolleyes:

Everyone has the right to personal ideas - I do not deny that nor would I deny the individual that right.

No one has the rights to “personal facts” - facts are facts many of them contradict many personal ideas, that is life not fantasy, life is real fantasy is not.

You can stand on your own ideas as long as you want, but you do not have the right to stand on irrational, illogical, or incorrect facts as a pillar of logic to preach from.

Preach all you want, but be prepared to justify or defend, otherwise the words are energy uselessly expended.

Stubbornness does not replace logic and fact, expressed as logic and fact it becomes dangerous.

The rights of the individual end at the rights of the other - even individual anarchists believe this, yet even this concept must be defended and justified as a concept.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on December 06, 2010, 04:11:52 pm
Sorry, RF, but I can believe anything I want to, for any reason or no reason and there's not a darn thing you can do about it. You keep coming up with this stuff, but it's silly.

I don't have to prove or justify my belief to you or anyone else, ever. Get over it.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on December 06, 2010, 05:14:54 pm
Sorry, RF, but I can believe anything I want to, for any reason or no reason and there's not a darn thing you can do about it. You keep coming up with this stuff, but it's silly.

I don't have to prove or justify my belief to you or anyone else, ever. Get over it.

You never had to win that argument (I already was an convert long ago), I am sorry you don’t understand.

You and any other individual can believe anything you please, I would not deny that...

You on the other hand cannot deny my right to ask for justification - you do not have to give one of course, but you cannot deny my right to question....

In your words, Get over it!

You want to win converts, cough up some reasons, you don’t want to cough up any reasons that is your right, do as you wish and I can walk away forming my thoughts based on the evidence. Want to convince someone cough up some reasons, if they do not understand or are not convinced - what did you expect?

I also do not have to respect any others ideas, I respect the right to them but I do not have to respect anything and will not without justification that is my right.

You cannot have a right without the right of rejection - it is that simple and I am sorry you do not understand or do not agree.

And as polite as I can - you cannot do anything about my questioning your reasoning, logic or lack of it, or evidence or lack of it - so in your words - get over it!
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on December 07, 2010, 06:56:38 am
Well then, we agree. Good deal. :) For the record, I never had any desire to convert or convince you of anything.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Rarick on December 07, 2010, 07:15:18 am
I had a Roman Catholic Grandma.  She was thoroughly stepped in the tradtions of that faith and was convinced that my parents were living in sin because they hadn't been married by a priest with the link to St. Peter.   There were rules that she followed fanatically, including the one about not going to other church's services.  On sundays we could go with the family or grandma and we routinely followed our mood.  Mom and Dad simply wanted us grounded with a sense of "wonder" about creation and that there just might be something larger than the universe out there.  They were definately about us choosing what we found fitting and being very definite about any religion with a bunch of taboo's.  They regarded it as a way of simply exerting control, and lots of it, epecially where those taboos required a clergy to make them right.  Especially where taboos made strangers something other than human, and strangeness of any kind a sin. 

The Inquisition, Crusades, Jihads, and other actions done in the name of most gods were some og the most barbaric and vile acts.  Good never comes from that, so we were raised to literally pick between the "good" and "Evil" religions of Good and Evil adherents in the same religion.  It was usually judged as "Power with each other in God, ignoring those who chose not to partake" Vs. "Power over others under God and woe to the unbeliever"  That sums up a lot of my take on religion.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on December 07, 2010, 07:24:21 am
Indeed, Rarick. My mother was a lot like your parents that way. I never did do well with any sort of taboo beyond non-aggression. :)
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Scarmiglione' on December 07, 2010, 01:09:50 pm
Indeed, Rarick. My mother was a lot like your parents that way. I never did do well with any sort of taboo beyond non-aggression. :)

 
 
  Especially arbitrary rules and taboos that they can't show any good reason behind , the food laws as being set forth in Leviticus 11 being one good example , the RCCs ridiculous stance on birth control being another.
 
  By the way since I'm blaspheming anyway , Lot should have picked up his wife and toted her along , salt was money back then......



But it wasn't kosher.





/aisle seat on the express train, please.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on December 07, 2010, 02:18:25 pm
But it wasn't kosher.

And no doubt VERY heavy.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Rarick on December 08, 2010, 06:21:58 am
I remember a discussion my dad was having with some "cut your own" customers.  One said something about Blaspheme (I looked it up later...) and my dad said, "no that is Damn cussing, now swearing by the well worn cooze of mary would be blaspeming.  I talk how I want on my own property.  No sale and get the hell outta here....."  They went with the woman almost fainting..........  Incidemtally we lost about 4 more all from the same church, glad to not have to deal with that lot anymore.........  We picked up some others to replace them no problems.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on December 08, 2010, 09:45:43 am
And yet they all - we all - have free will after all. Nobody is usually holding a gun to their heads. The religion can't do anything to them or with them unless they cooperate and allow it. Each and every one of them has full personal responsibility for their choices and actions, regardless of whether or not they recognize it or accept that responsibility.

They might like to think so, but "the devil" doesn't MAKE anyone do anything. They can be fooled, but they can't be forced to choose evil.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on December 08, 2010, 10:10:07 am
This second batch actually had me post because of one reason:

The arrogant assumption by Christians in particular that morality has some supernatural source - as and atheist and anti-thiest I call BS on that one...

The question is more common than you would think... “where do you get your morals without god as a source”...

I don’t know - where would Buddhists get morals?

And for that matter I cal moral superiority to over 50% of all Christian adults - one wife, never divorced, never cheated, don’t abuse my kids in any way, never cheated anyone out of money or other in business or personal life, that is enough by itself.

If the threat of god is the only reason someone is not killing, raping, stealing, and abusing children - that is a sorry, pathetic, dangerous individual.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on December 08, 2010, 10:44:32 am
  Exactly correct. But they fail to see the evils in their own choices , or usually they don't , and accept responsibility for their own actions , you've gotta be kidding me , that's a foreign concept , egad but I got tired o hearing " God moved me to......." and the one on the flipside " I'm sorry but the Devil was in me and I........" , what a frigging copout that is.
 

I just see no point in discussing it with any of them... or really, much of anyone. I'm quite content with my own decisions and choices, and I'm perfectly happy to leave them all with theirs.

Only had one JW come to the door here... and he took one look at the big, black .45 on my belt and went away without a word. Wimp. LOL
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on December 08, 2010, 03:41:50 pm
Oh boy . don't even get me started on that can of worms , some of the most immoral and unethical people I've ever met were 'fine upstanding members of the Church' , they couldn't put quite the same sort of pressure on me that they did you but they damn sure tried , didn't much care for the result though , they really don't like it when someone is really blunt with them.
 
Course I probably contributed to the subsequnet events , since I wouldn't back down and when they screwed with me I screwed with them back , eventually had to move clear across the damn country to get away from them though. And one reason why I still live behind locked gates.

It’s a damn sorry state of affairs when even a Christian or a church member has to resort to that to get away from "fine upstanding members of the Church.”

Imagine living as an atheist family, the threat of witch burning and thumb screws for heretics is only a few lost meals away from standard operating procedure for 99.99% of most Christians.

It was like exchanging with Lenny - I did not actually have to make that many points - he as a true believer made them all for me... I use our exchange to point out the problems with Christianity to others and the eventual reaction is “holy crap - that is in the Bible” and “dang, that IS where this all leads to” I don’t need to create issues I only have to drag them out.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on December 09, 2010, 01:46:06 pm
RF,

I don’t have a problem with your questioning! :)

But, I do have a problem with your insults. It’s bewildering that you want others to acknowledge that all your personal beliefs are superior to what others hold dear. Or at least you want others to respect your rights to your own held beliefs. Yet, you do not extend the same courtesy to others. I think it takes some pretty big matza balls to mock other’s beliefs on this board.

You’ve been faithful to your wife and have not abused your children? Fantastic! Go stand in the line that’s handing out trophies for that responsible behavior. You’ll be surrounded by Jews, Christians, Muslims, agnostics, hippies, politicians, dentists, waitresses, pilots, stay-at-home Moms, and teachers to name a few who are waiting for their reward, too. Not one belief system has cornered the market on morality.

I do not understand how the actions of some are supposed to account for the beliefs for all. If a nurse messed something up should all nurses be disparaged? If one parent abuses their child should all parents be criticized? If one spouse is unfaithful should all spouses automatically be considered untrustworthy?

I used to find that your posts motivated some critical thinking for me. Now I find more and more of your posts sounding like an insolent child at best or a grown man with a serious ax to grind at worst. I think you could have some views worthy of consideration. However, your utter contempt for my beliefs and your inane drive to offend speaks volumes about your character.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on December 09, 2010, 04:08:50 pm
Merry Christmas wishes to you Moonbeam...

RF,

I don’t have a problem with your questioning! :)

But, I do have a problem with your insults.

Imagine living in a world where your fitness to live is questioned each day, living in the bible belt and then forced to move to the west to escape...

Quote
It’s bewildering that you want others to acknowledge that all your personal beliefs are superior to what others hold dear.

I am not concerned, in fact I only point out what should be clear - flaws in a system.

Quote
Or at least you want others to respect your rights to your own held beliefs.

I could care less about respect, I want only to be safe, secure, and not made a target - something I could not get in a Christian community of “good people”.

Quote
Yet, you do not extend the same courtesy to others. I think it takes some pretty big matza balls to mock other’s beliefs on this board.

You are kidding, right... this board is nothing if not the playground for critical examination of personal thought, while some may tread lightly around religion, roastings of statist thought are the BBQ of the day here...

And this is ONE thread in a larger set of boards, in fact I am shocked that we have so many divisions an not one dedicated to the comparative and critical eximanation of faith - just this one thread.

Quote
You’ve been faithful to your wife and have not abused your children? Fantastic! Go stand in the line that’s handing out trophies for that responsible behavior.

What? you want a prize for doing the right thing? - Nope, well actually I do - I have it - a loyal wife and family, while we tend to sound off in dealing with daily bills, troubles and other I am very happy I don’t have to deal with the regular crap I see posted about here and in other places - I got lucky.

Quote
You’ll be surrounded by Jews, Christians,

Less than 50% of both groups - got the curve beat on that one.

Quote
Muslims,

Cannot find many statistics on that group.

Quote
agnostics,

Similar to atheists - much lower divorce than the religious.

Quote
hippies,

The particular brand of that subculture here is not one I would want to place in this statistic, making even Christian families look good past the smoke of all the dope.

Quote
politicians,

Like McCain, Gingrich, Foley, Haggard, Craig, Allen, Murphy, Sanford, Vitter, Inouye, Frank, Kennedy (all), Clinton, Condit, McGreevey, Hart, Goldschmidt, Edwards, I have to stopp at what I can remember, when I looked it up on-line it would take a month to list them all.

Quote
Not one belief system has cornered the market on morality.

No, in fact that is the actual point - but Christians will boast endlessly that the belief in the particular texts followed do by whatever reason make more moral people, statistics prove otherwise.

Quote
I do not understand how the actions of some are supposed to account for the beliefs for all. If a nurse messed something up should all nurses be disparaged? If one parent abuses their child should all parents be criticized? If one spouse is unfaithful should all spouses automatically be considered untrustworthy?

If they are proposing that by the very nature of the position or system promoted encourages or contains the “secret” or “the way” or “the one true god the source of all morality” then YES.

Quote
I used to find that your posts motivated some critical thinking for me. Now I find more and more of your posts sounding like an insolent child at best or a grown man with a serious ax to grind at worst. I think you could have some views worthy of consideration. However, your utter contempt for my beliefs and your inane drive to offend speaks volumes about your character.

If you intended to be offensive I would say it may work on some - I have had a lot worse, my positions are based on the constant abuse received, I learned a long time ago to simply not reveal religion unless I have expended some time personally. Here on the boards, I tend to use them as a sounding board, I started off using it to evaluate my thoughts on government and found more than a few lacking and challenged by others - even when offended.

This is the trick, the most offensive are often the most useful, sad you cannot see  that, if it cuts too close and anger results THAT is the time to be most critical of yourself.

You are using the tired old argument - you are just angry at god and rebellious like a child.

If you cannot instantly see the fallacy in that typical religious argument, I don’t know what to say.

Rebellious angry children do not keep a family, work for an income, work at relationships, or reject self-centeredness, that thought then fails under examination. If it were true where is your condemnation or your brethren, for examples only look to the churches, televangelists, religious leaders, and the very text itself.

Evaluating my “character” on-line like this speaks volumes for your willingness to remain stubbornly faithful NOT critical. My unwillingness to bow to someones mythology does not dictate how I help and deal with people on a day to day basis, if you think it does then I feel remorse for you. I would also have to point out that I find that typical of Christians.

So you are better than 50% of your brethren, join the club. I don’t and have not intended to attack you personally - you on the other hand just did... and many Christians to without even thinking that is the result of the typical arrogant willful ignorance typical of religion in general.

Quote
insolent child at best or a grown man with a serious ax to grind

Insolent child is offensive, you assume I have to submit to some mythological figure to be respectable, I reject that.

Axe to grind - how the hell could I not? There are several human monsters out there that are not inspecting tree roots only because I have enough restraint to not aid in that career opportunity.

I prep so I will not be stealing anyones food, if the SHTF from how many of your brethren will you and I have to defend ourselves, how many will I be forced to defend my family from when the shackles of society are removed from the texts and believers in same?

Do you actually think that when the shackles are removed that your brethren will not use the texts to do exactly as I have warned about?

I for one would support the mass conversion to the Jefferson Bible, but I don’t see that happening...
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on December 09, 2010, 06:29:36 pm
It was like exchanging with Lenny - I did not actually have to make that many points - he as a true believer made them all for me... I use our exchange to point out the problems with Christianity to others and the eventual reaction is “holy crap - that is in the Bible” and “dang, that IS where this all leads to” I don’t need to create issues I only have to drag them out.

You seem to have a rosy memory of past conversations: at no point did you surprise me with the contents of the Bible; I'm quite familiar with them thanks. Including the genocide, slavery and all the rest.

But to take off my funny three-cornered Bible hat and put on my mathematics PhD hat, I'll reiterate that the ZAP is a conviction that cannot be derived rigorously from anywhere: empiricism doesn't support it; and deducing it from axioms will always turn out to be circular. Believing in the ZAP is a pretty rarefied religion--one that, like Buddhism, doesn't involve god or gods--but it is, nevertheless, a religious conviction. An atheist libertarian is to that extent religious. Most atheists are statists, though, which is also a religion. An appallingly evil religion, but a religion nonetheless.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lookingup on December 09, 2010, 06:46:53 pm

Actually, ZAP can be derived from simple pragmatic desire for reciprocation.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on December 09, 2010, 07:00:14 pm
Actually, ZAP can be derived from simple pragmatic desire for reciprocation.

And where do you derive that reciprocation matters worth a damn? Obama, Bush, Stalin, and pretty much every ruler in history hasn't given a damn about reciprocation, and pragmatically things turned out pretty damn well for them.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lookingup on December 09, 2010, 07:05:07 pm
Actually, ZAP can be derived from simple pragmatic desire for reciprocation.

And where do you derive that reciprocation matters worth a damn? Obama, Bush, Stalin, and pretty much every ruler in history hasn't given a damn about reciprocation, and pragmatically things turned out pretty damn well for them.

So? ZAP is an individual philosophy. And reciprocation 'matters worth a damn' to me.

Your mileage may vary. That's your business.

Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on December 09, 2010, 07:08:55 pm
So? ZAP is an individual philosophy. And reciprocation 'matters worth a damn' to me. Your mileage may vary. That's your business.

Which is exactly what I said: ZAP is a religious conviction. Welcome, brother! Communion is at six.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on December 09, 2010, 08:17:57 pm
It was like exchanging with Lenny - I did not actually have to make that many points - he as a true believer made them all for me... I use our exchange to point out the problems with Christianity to others and the eventual reaction is “holy crap - that is in the Bible” and “dang, that IS where this all leads to” I don’t need to create issues I only have to drag them out.

You seem to have a rosy memory of past conversations: at no point did you surprise me with the contents of the Bible; I'm quite familiar with them thanks. Including the genocide, slavery and all the rest.

But to take off my funny three-cornered Bible hat and put on my mathematics PhD hat, I'll reiterate that the ZAP is a conviction that cannot be derived rigorously from anywhere: empiricism doesn't support it; and deducing it from axioms will always turn out to be circular. Believing in the ZAP is a pretty rarefied religion--one that, like Buddhism, doesn't involve god or gods--but it is, nevertheless, a religious conviction. An atheist libertarian is to that extent religious. Most atheists are statists, though, which is also a religion. An appallingly evil religion, but a religion nonetheless.

And again I could not ask for better examples than you provided, I refer to them often - I loved the arguments with you Lenny, you are without a doubt one of the best sources for my anti-thiesm. The exchanges gems, but this all comes from the idea that you don’t win an argument you learn... even the most heated exchange is great for communication - some just don’t like exchanges like that.

I did not think our exchanges were “rosy” just illuminating, does not get better than that.

Yes we agree statism is a religion - something I cannot get leftist college pukes to understand, one thing we can agree on fully, could be from different perspectives, the agreement remains. What does mathematics have to do with religion or zap?

Quote
at no point did you surprise me with the contents of the Bible; I'm quite familiar with them thanks. Including the genocide, slavery and all the rest.

I expected as much, it was never the point, the exchange was, the response was - it was helpful and illuminating.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Bennie on December 10, 2010, 01:48:21 am
Quote
hippies,

The particular brand of that subculture here is not one I would want to place in this statistic, making even Christian families look good past the smoke of all the dope.

Have you been abused by hippies?  ^_^

Most atheists are statists, though, which is also a religion.

I would have never figured that one. I did not know that about atheists. I would have thought the opposite from my personal experiences. But then I don't hang out with many statists so I don't know. I am, however, surprised by the seemingly high number of anarchists & libertarians who are so strongly religious.
------------------------

What an interesting thread for me to read over the weeks.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on December 10, 2010, 04:00:47 am
Quote
hippies,

The particular brand of that subculture here is not one I would want to place in this statistic, making even Christian families look good past the smoke of all the dope.

Have you been abused by hippies?  ^_^

Most atheists are statists, though, which is also a religion.

I would have never figured that one. I did not know that about atheists. I would have thought the opposite from my personal experiences. But then I don't hang out with many statists so I don't know. I am, however, surprised by the seemingly high number of anarchists & libertarians who are so strongly religious.
------------------------

What an interesting thread for me to read over the weeks.


Hippies? abused, no... but I think hippie exterminator Cartman episode was written after talking to my wife and I (kidding). I have a below zero tolerance for drug use and less for the stupid justifications of recreational use... and I support legalization - go figure.

Quote
I am, however, surprised by the seemingly high number of anarchists & libertarians who are so strongly religious.

Only here, I am often taken by surprise after all the years, this is the only place I have ever seen even a significant number of religious among the anarchists & libertarians, I think it could be historical or the sites that link here.

Quote
Most atheists are statists, though, which is also a religion.
I would have never figured that one. I did not know that about atheists.

Sadly, and it is particularly high in proportion on the west coast and “triangle of doom” (NY, Philly, DC) areas - where many atheists are new college punks prone to leftist statism in the first place.

Most who come to anarchism or libertarianism via. objectivism are atheists.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on December 10, 2010, 07:07:28 am
Most who come to anarchism or libertarianism via. objectivism are atheists.

...except for their worship of the One True Rationality™, and Ayn Rand is his prophet. You know, the "rationality" that teaches us that we must smoke, and that Rachmaninoff is objectively better than Beethoven, and that a woman can't be President...

On the whole, Objectivists I've interacted with suck at logic, but are really good at rationalizing their whims as objective truth. But yes, they're usually atheists.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on December 10, 2010, 09:49:03 am
Merry Christmas wishes to you Moonbeam...

Thank you! I wish you and yours a most joyous Winter Solace :)

I have no quarrel with your atheism or your questioning of theology. But, I do take issue with your impertinent fanfare. Stating that I couldn’t possibly be offended by something that doesn’t exist isn’t an intellectual conversation. In my view, you might as well have written, “Moonbeam, you ignorant slut” at the end of that. I have sincerely enjoyed the provocative debate in this thread. Using “insolent child” was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were unaware of your continued rudeness. But, we both know that you’re an astute guy who chooses his words carefully so you know darn well what is offensive. I find it difficult to show consideration for someone’s views when they methodically offend, especially in a forum where liberty-loving folks can ideally gather to share concepts without the concern of being debased for their personal beliefs.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on December 10, 2010, 09:49:32 am
BG - I don’t quite understand how I’m equated to the nasty folks who ostensibly did nasty things to you because I opined “insolent child” and “ax to grind?” That was a pretty high pedestal you had me on! I’m so surprised that little old me with my little old opinions could ruffle the feathers of a big, tough, grown man. Specially when considering the personal insults you’ve let fly. But, for what it’s worth, I think it was really sweet that you came to the defense of Mr. Flyer :)
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on December 10, 2010, 09:50:16 am
Is chocolate a religion?!  :laugh:
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on December 10, 2010, 10:08:15 am
Is chocolate a religion?!  :laugh:

Only to some. They want ritual and justification to enjoy it.

The rest of us will simply take it whenever and however we can get our hands on it.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Lenny on December 10, 2010, 12:00:43 pm
BG - I don’t quite understand how I’m equated to the nasty folks who ostensibly did nasty things to you because I opined “insolent child” and “ax to grind?”

Ignore him--you'll spare yourself some wasted time. I'm not sure what his problem is, but he clearly has one; and for some reason, it makes him feel better to treat Internet chitchat as if it were some sort of contest.

As for his ostensible sufferings, there's no knowing how true it is. "Christians" can certainly be nasty, especially when they're in the majority in some sleepy Bible-belt town, but then again his tendency to react to the silliest things as if someone kicked his dog leaves one wondering how much of his trouble in life is self-inflicted. Acting like a nut-case is certainly a good way to isolate yourself in any community.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on December 10, 2010, 12:25:43 pm
And ruffle my feathers? Sweetie you couldn't ruffle my feathers on your best day , you're too dime a dozen. And you came up with the usual quite predictable response...

Your long-winded, impassioned replies would indicate otherwise. But, bless your heart, you keep making my point of using insults instead of maturity to have a conversation
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on December 10, 2010, 12:30:54 pm
Ignore him--you'll spare yourself some wasted time...

That's true... I'd much rather spend my limited time on here learning about liberty and prepping. Well, since BG already thinks I'm damned: what's the difference between BG and my two 2 1/2 year olds? He's potty trained  :laugh:

EDIT: I'm sorry BG... I do not wish you any ill-will... And just 'cause I think that was funny doesn't mean you would, too (((HUGS)))
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Klapton Isgod on December 10, 2010, 01:11:00 pm
I've seen almost nothing but the same four people screaming at each other for several pages now.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on December 10, 2010, 01:23:53 pm
I've seen almost nothing but the same four people screaming at each other for several pages now.

Yeah... sort of reminds me of the time I was visiting my sister and she was watching a bunch of women roller skaters fighting and bashing their way around a track. Don't remember the name of the program - Roller Derby? Entertaining in some respects, if you didn't watch too long.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on December 10, 2010, 01:40:35 pm
Kinda the point I was making... No screaming/roller derby from this gal. I don't know how much clearer I can make it: the only beef I had was the insults. I cannot see how it further's one's points along or how I am supposed to seriously consider/respect someone's view when they throw insults... When the discussion comes back to freedom then maybe there will be some merit worth mulling over...
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on December 10, 2010, 02:32:47 pm
Merry Christmas wishes to you Moonbeam...

Thank you! I wish you and yours a most joyous Winter Solace :)

I have no quarrel with your atheism or your questioning of theology. But, I do take issue with your impertinent fanfare.

One thread moonbeam in all of the boards, and a few fleeting comments here and there... I don’t get it?

Well within the topic, clearly stating problems and then what - did you expect that questioning a core belief for you and others would not stick in your craw?

Do you not see how it is from the other side? Simply I could take your words change a few identifiers and it would sound the same just from the other side.

Quote
Stating that I couldn’t possibly be offended by something that doesn’t exist isn’t an intellectual conversation
.

No, what I was pointing out was that you were attempting to measure from a position and system rejected, that was not logical and certainly not neutral. From the atheist position arguing for the comparison from the religious position is “stacking the deck” - in the end it comes down to personal revelation, if you have it (from whatever source) and believe it that is just fine, but that cannot be used nor would ever be valid for anyone outside of that particular individual.

Quote
In my view, you might as well have written, “Moonbeam, you ignorant slut” at the end of that.

I was pointing out where you were disingenuous, haughty, and arrogant - it is an arrogance from faith. Faith at it’s core is simply a strong conviction based on desire with no correlating evidence, proof, or logic... If you cannot see that then we are at an impasse and it will continue.

Do you give deference to the Hindi, or the Muslim for the belief, respect for the mythology used for that base?

Quote
I have sincerely enjoyed the provocative debate in this thread. Using “insolent child” was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were unaware of your continued rudeness.

I am aware you find some of it rude, but in the end the “intensity knob” only has so many marks on it before it hits “off” - what you may not recognize is that to be completely inoffensive to the religious it has to be all the way “off” and that is as useful as “like it or lump it”...

Quote
you know darn well what is offensive.

And you know that the arrogant religious position is inherently offensive, so the question is - where is the floor, the base for the conversation? If you faith is offended by the very disbelief and my empiricism is offended by faith’s measure of “good” is there even a “base” to start with?

Quote
I find it difficult to show consideration for someone’s views when they methodically offend

You understand that methodical is the only way to participate with any hope of communication, in this conversation with believers this is the standard procedure, you have to imagine bombarded by endless reference to scripture, often (over 80%) the opening is with the logical fallacy of Pascal's Wager, the use of “so when did you last beat your wife” as an opening would only be slightly less offensive.

Some young college puke who has not been exposed to the litany of typical arguments may be engaged, like BG I am far far past any of the silliness you would see from pulpit parasites like William Lane Craig.

Quote
especially in a forum where liberty-loving folks can ideally gather to share concepts without the concern of being debased for their personal beliefs.

Come on now, do you think you would use this argument with a “racist” who is a prepper, and there have been a few who post here, not counting the possible posters who are agents for .gov not everyone is all that “freedom loving".

How about a “statist” who wonders onto the boards - you think that others not involved in this particular thread would pass on that?

Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Klapton Isgod on December 10, 2010, 02:41:02 pm
I've seen almost nothing but the same four people screaming at each other for several pages now.
   Yet you read it.

I've been skimming very lightly, waiting to see if something interesting shows itself.  There has been some interesting stuff here, I'm sure there will be more eventually, once you guys run out of piss and vinegar.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on December 10, 2010, 03:52:31 pm
RF -

Some of the questions that have been posed in this thread I simply cannot answer. Frankly, I do not know if there are any satisfactory answers that would ever bring contentment for some. I understand that the conversation is going to deviate, but I admit that I cannot always keep up with the rabbit trails – I have my hands full with the twins so I cannot devote the time this heavy topic probably deserves to have scrutinized. Add the drive-by insults by some and I’m frustrated trying to sort through the psychological poppycock to get to the sincerity of it all.

Your questions have me delving deeper into my beliefs, and like I said before, that’s a good thing!

I do have faith like a child – and sometimes I cannot find the words to accurately explain why I love G-d. My love for Him just is. I think it was ML who said that each side can go back and forth (with proof) for why they think that G-d does or doesn’t exist. And if that’s the case here, then perhaps we’re chasing our tails.

As far as you and I are concerned, I’m not sure how to jump over this hurdle. So I have standards – don’t most of us? My standard is: okay, if you want to have a discussion about G-d please stop referring to Him as “Sky Daddy” for example. I don’t think that would be any different than asking someone to stop calling my children, “Blankety-blank retards” if they wanted to talk about children. I tend to see the continual insults like this: I’ve asked someone not to dangle bugs in front of my face, but they continue to do so. I think that says more about that person’s character than it does about my temperament.

Though I do not hold the same disdain that some here do for certain traditions, institutions, and beliefs, I have learned much from those I disagree with on different issues. It’s incredibly beneficial to have my mental power sharpened by folks who can no doubt outwit me.

I have been quite content to watch who I think are two incredibly smart guys (you and Lenny) have a remarkable discussion regarding ZAP, freedom, etc. I’m just saddened when I try to engage that I’m belittled. It’s also unreasonable, in my opinion, to be lumped in with every religious individual who may have acted in an egregious manner. I cannot account or make up or apologize for their actions: it’s their onus.

So if we can get the discussion back on track without the condescension from some then I would really like to attend class!

:)
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on December 10, 2010, 03:53:13 pm
... once you guys run out of piss and vinegar.

I will never run out of P & V  :wub:
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on December 10, 2010, 05:24:23 pm
As far as you and I are concerned, I’m not sure how to jump over this hurdle. So I have standards – don’t most of us? My standard is: okay, if you want to have a discussion about G-d please stop referring to Him as “Sky Daddy” for example.

This is where I was confused, we had this exchange and I even reviewed the last few weeks, and have not used that to refer to any god or gods after we had our exchange about what was “bugging” you the first time. So after the initial exchange about that why are you bringing that up again, did we not fix that or do you have a new request based on something that happened in the last few days?

I have to draw the line at using the word mythology as it is not only accurate it is not offensive but descriptive and universal, my position as an anti-theist is that all religions are equally unprovable using empirical methods.

And I reviewed the g dash d thing with GD,PKL and now you are doing it, I have to ask why are you doing that now? (I spend lots of time with a particular religious group for business reasons so I am familiar with the source).

Quote
I don’t think that would be any different than asking someone to stop calling my children, “Blankety-blank retards” if they wanted to talk about children. I tend to see the continual insults like this: I’ve asked someone not to dangle bugs in front of my face, but they continue to do so. I think that says more about that person’s character than it does about my temperament.

Again I am wondering what you are finding offensive this time - I am trying to work with the faithful here, throw me a bone...

Quote
Though I do not hold the same disdain that some here do for certain traditions, institutions, and beliefs, I have learned much from those I disagree with on different issues. It’s incredibly beneficial to have my mental power sharpened by folks who can no doubt outwit me.

This is not an issue of outwitting anyone, it is a process of learning, look someone comes up with real reliably repeatable empirical evidence for the existence of the supernatural I will be among the first to investigate and willing to review for personal spiritual fulfillment.

Quote
I have been quite content to watch who I think are two incredibly smart guys (you and Lenny) have a remarkable discussion regarding ZAP, freedom, etc. I’m just saddened when I try to engage that I’m belittled.

You may be mistaking the pressing for material as belittling, I am not, I am just as susceptible to reactionary responses as is any human, but I am not attempting to call you “an ignorant slut” you are quite mistaken in that view, if you think that is the case it was not my intent.

Quote
It’s also unreasonable, in my opinion, to be lumped in with every religious individual who may have acted in an egregious manner. I cannot account or make up or apologize for their actions: it’s their onus.

Yes and no... it is the dilemma every religious sect must deal with, even Lenny had to admit that the textual content existed and even had an apologist response I was able to find the originator of that particular apologist thought.

Quote
So if we can get the discussion back on track without the condescension from some then I would really like to attend class!

You do realize that this type of exchange was once what was taught in colleges to initiates? No longer is logic and introduction to logical fallacies a regular part of college education, if anything it has changed to “High School II” with more emphasis placed on “grammar statism” and conformity than content.

Lenny and I are alike in ways, pain has shaped our lives, we are people in transition, I have placed myself in a state of permeant transition because I think that is the only logical way to live (at least as an empiricist). Lenny’s pain is almost palatable, and I have a “chip on my shoulder” hell far beyond a simple chip, I fly the black flag on a tall pole!

And it all ties back into the original question - "what makes Faith and Freedom either hostile to one another, or indeed, partners?”

If the faithful claim a particular text, then the bind is to the text and to justify, explain or reject the texts...

To say that freedom has a hostile competitor in religion then the text are to be examined, to say that faith is not hostile then the identifying texts have to be defended or rejected, at least if you want to add anything to the conversation...
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on December 10, 2010, 05:44:58 pm
...for whatever reason, Christianity seems to be their bugaboo, Islam or Hinduism or whatever, always receives a pass. Which is fine by me.

Not just no, but hell no...

Lenny touched on a very interesting phenomenon that the two coasts have a particularly high number of liberals/statists who are atheist or atheists that are liberals/statists.

My personal path did not flow from that direction, in fact my upbringing would have likely prevented that.

I think this is a function of political correctness in that the majority of atheists who are liberal reject criticism of cultures viewed as predominantly “minority” it blinds them to even simple logic - youtube is rife with US and British atheists who are textbook reactionary PC liberal statists...

Christianity is safe for them because it is viewed as WASPy and that is the enemy, I have seen them backpedal from criticizing black christian preachers because of the race taboo imbedded in the PC thought.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on December 10, 2010, 07:10:36 pm
Even my compliments are eschewed, eh? ;)

I appreciate you clarifying that you are not belittling me. And I believe you. In a strange way, I’ve kinda enjoyed bantering with you, because I know that you can handle my musings :)

BG has accused me of all kinds of nifty things and I initially thought he was off his rocker. But, then I thought, alright, Moonbeam have you been mean-spirited to RF? So if I have done/said what he has conjectured please let me know. Of course, I imagine you too want to move beyond this mamby-pamby stuff and get to something you can sink your teeth into.

I can respect your position of: as “an anti-theist is that all religions are equally unprovable using empirical methods.” But again, I fail to understand how I can have a discussion with you about G-d (and I guess by extension of Him, religion) when you do not believe He exists?

Quote
It’s also unreasonable, in my opinion, to be lumped in with every religious individual who may have acted in an egregious manner. I cannot account or make up or apologize for their actions: it’s their onus.

Yes and no... it is the dilemma every religious sect must deal with....

Now, this is interesting to me on many fronts… No wise-guy question here: How am I responsible for the actions of others?

Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on December 10, 2010, 08:09:43 pm
Even my compliments are eschewed, eh? ;)

Narcissism is a creeping problem for humans, pleasantries are best for defusing situations when needed. Personality types have quirks mine is both opposed and competitive with the narcissist. It would make an interesting thread in itself, personality interaction that is...

Quote
I appreciate you clarifying that you are not belittling me. And I believe you. In a strange way, I’ve kinda enjoyed bantering with you, because I know that you can handle my musings

The issue is to make sure you understand that I will pick apart anything, most of the benefit is for myself, dissecting, learning, thinking - and of course digesting and putting forward more communication for more input.

Quote
BG has accused me of all kinds of nifty things and I initially thought he was off his rocker. But, then I thought, alright, Moonbeam have you been mean-spirited to RF? So if I have done/said what he has conjectured please let me know.

BG is an extremely perceptive individual, obviously a different personality type all together. He is an excellent source of information and perspective, blunt at times I will give you - something some are unable to understand or work with. My father was that personality type and it is possible to use his knowledge for your personal benefit you just have to understand how to flatten the situation. Often that takes the “dead” approach it is something you have to learn to do. It is something I have to do to accomplish what I do for a living, you cannot fix management problems without possibly upsetting some people, I get paid to fix things - emotion is useless, facts are everything and perspective is always questionable. Personalities like BG are my best resource, knowledgeable and willing to state issues up front often to the chagrin of others. It is easier to evaluate when personal emotion is flattened - so I failed, or that was wrong, now where do we look?

If you have not caught it yet, he has a very deep understanding from the christian theological world - a perspective that takes years. Pain, again, this is from experience and makes individuals have a perspective that can be unique.

Quote
Of course, I imagine you too want to move beyond this mamby-pamby stuff and get to something you can sink your teeth into.

I’m up for anything.

Quote
I can respect your position of: as “an anti-theist is that all religions are equally unprovable using empirical methods.” But again, I fail to understand how I can have a discussion with you about G-d (and I guess by extension of Him, religion) when you do not believe He exists?

And that is or could be the base - Lets say you believe, why? What supports that, personally, and then if you have no external support (texts, etc.) why is it so important and how are you sure it is connected to one system or set of texts?

Quote
Quote
It’s also unreasonable, in my opinion, to be lumped in with every religious individual who may have acted in an egregious manner. I cannot account or make up or apologize for their actions: it’s their onus.

Yes and no... it is the dilemma every religious sect must deal with....

Now, this is interesting to me on many fronts… No wise-guy question here: How am I responsible for the actions of others?

If you know someone is acting as a parasite why is the general community not willing to expel them? How can the christian community stand to have parasites like Ted Haggard or Eddie Long and not run them out on a rail, rather than continue to embrace the parasitic nature. (This could be said of politics also, look at Gingrich, and McCain two despicable individuals who ruined spouses, why are they accorded ANY respect?) The communities should be “self cleaning” don’t you think?

Did you know that money collected by churches in the US is used to support African Christian churches that abuse, burn, and kill the imaginary “witches” and that is covered up and encouraged by textual believers.

And you did not answer the  g dash d question - I am trying to figure out why that is expanding...
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Rarick on December 11, 2010, 07:54:52 am
Sigh, I'm not even gonna try and figure out what you folks did to each other again over religion........it looks like 20 hours have blown thru 6 pages?!  I guess I skip this one for a while.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on December 11, 2010, 10:17:03 am
I, of course, see it slightly different. Every time I read one of his posts I feel like I fell asleep on the Round Up and when I wake up I am in Bizarro World. Everything he’s accusing me of doing – he is doing. It isn’t so much what he says, but the vicious tone he chooses to use. I truly believe that if I was in the same room with him that he would physically harm me. Seeing him become quite unhinged by his own perceptions - I find that kind of hostility unsettling. And if he’s as insightful as you’re implying, then it’s a shame he continues with nonsensical attacks. It’s like seeing a person who peaks your interest, then they open their mouths and you’re immediately disenchanted. Insinuating that I brought all this unwarranted assault on is disingenuous – as if the person sniping back has no control over their keyboard. “Sorry I hit you, Babe. You made me do it.” I’ve been around enough bullies in my life that I don’t need to patronize one on the internet.

Quote
Pain, again, this is from experience and makes individuals have a perspective that can be unique.

Yes, and it can – and often does, skew one’s perception. When people wallow in their own hurty feelings and the injustices they believe they’ve suffered, or cling to their victim status they are not likely to leave the nice little niche they’ve made for themselves. Pain can easily define a person. As someone here eluded to many, many pages back, no one or no thing can have power over you unless you allow it. I find it ironic that those who have an almost pathological problem with Christianity make it their cross.

I hope that you don’t feel obligated to defend or explain his irrational behavior. Not because I’m trying to control the conversation, but because I would much rather move on to more relevant things. I know I sound like a broken record when I say my time is limited. I don’t care to muster my precious energy just to get on here and witness a grown man having a temper tantrum. I’d like to ponder on the other fascinating things that have been discussed previously so the 'Ignore' button will be activated. I do have some thoughts on the questions you’ve raised, but cannot share at the moment. We’re taking the kiddos to the Town Square then later to a book sale. I cherish my weekend family time :)

BTW, I do use God, G-d, or GOD – just a variation much like I vary my own name from time to time.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on December 11, 2010, 11:28:32 am
Anybody else think this thread died a violent death and needs to be locked/abandoned/something? I don't see any real purpose in a continued and increasingly nasty pissing match. But it's up to the rest of you.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Lenny on December 11, 2010, 12:46:27 pm
Anybody else think this thread died a violent death and needs to be locked/abandoned/something? I don't see any real purpose in a continued and increasingly nasty pissing match. But it's up to the rest of you.

Works for me.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on December 11, 2010, 02:08:05 pm
Anybody else think this thread died a violent death and needs to be locked/abandoned/something? I don't see any real purpose in a continued and increasingly nasty pissing match. But it's up to the rest of you.

Works for me.

I guess we are going to just gather wood for the witch fires - big **sigh**...
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Lenny on December 11, 2010, 02:14:47 pm
I guess we are going to just gather wood for the witch fires - big **sigh**...

There've been some decent points made along the way, but this thread has given off far more heat than light. As for the thread's topic, we've known the answer all along: some do; some don't. It's the same for Christians, Jews, atheists, and every other -ist in the Homo sapiens family. We evolved to live in small tribes, follow the golden rule by default, and break it whenever the benefits outweigh the costs by enough.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on December 11, 2010, 02:21:31 pm
Quote
Pain, again, this is from experience and makes individuals have a perspective that can be unique.

Yes, and it can – and often does, skew one’s perception. When people wallow in their own hurty feelings and the injustices they believe they’ve suffered, or cling to their victim status they are not likely to leave the nice little niche they’ve made for themselves. Pain can easily define a person. As someone here eluded to many, many pages back, no one or no thing can have power over you unless you allow it. I find it ironic that those who have an almost pathological problem with Christianity make it their cross.

You missed it completely, and you are assuming that pain causes a reaction you may have with other personality types - it is a common mistake, you also are making the mistake from a feminine position v. male - and YES that makes a difference and the results and processes are quite different. Wallowing and clinging are both signs of some specific personality types don’t mistake pity, disgust and hate for wallowing or clinging.

Watch the word pathological in this context, would not the defense of christian zionism, or doctrinal disputes be described as pathological? A firmly held belief based on actual experience is not a pathological problem it is the rational response to actual events.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on December 11, 2010, 02:23:42 pm
I guess we are going to just gather wood for the witch fires - big **sigh**...

There've been some decent points made along the way, but this thread has given off far more heat than light. As for the thread's topic, we've known the answer all along: some do; some don't. It's the same for Christians, Jews, atheists, and every other -ist in the Homo sapiens family. We evolved to live in small tribes, follow the golden rule by default, and break it whenever the benefits outweigh the costs by enough.

I guess in the end twinkies and fruitcake are more the speed and in demand.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: MamaLiberty on December 11, 2010, 03:09:09 pm
I guess in the end twinkies and fruitcake are more the speed and in demand.

Seems to me we've had some profound discussions in those two threads over the years... and not always peacefully either. But they have avoided devolving into ugly shouting matches that just won't end.

Seems Lenny put his finger on it. There is no one size fits all answer. We each must find our own answer and strive to be part of the larger solution rather than be part of the problem. But we each have to decide for ourselves what that is and how we'll go about it.

Those who wish to continue this "discussion" can certainly do so - either here or in private. I think I'll just ignore the thread then.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Klapton Isgod on December 11, 2010, 03:16:01 pm
I guess in the end twinkies and fruitcake are more the speed and in demand.

Certainly more useful and nutritious.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on December 11, 2010, 03:59:23 pm
I guess in the end twinkies and fruitcake are more the speed and in demand.

Certainly more useful and nutritious.

And witches, being made of wood, make good coals for BBQ...
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Klapton Isgod on December 11, 2010, 04:06:13 pm
My view on Romans 13

Some day we will look back on coercive government the same way we do slavery.  We will ask ourselves and one another, "My God!  How did we EVER put up with this horrific practice?!!?!"  And just like slavery, we will note that the slavers used the Bible to justify their enslaving their fellow humans.

So how does a post-government anarchotopian Christian explain this little problem?  The same way current Christians explain away the slavery stuff.

Paul's exhortation for people to obey the government was the same as his exhortation for slaves to obey their masters.  NOT because it is a good thing.  Rather because it was the best way for the Christian in that predicament to live in peace.  He DID encourage people to gain their freedom if they could.  But if they could not, they should be obedient to their masters.

I say the same for government.  If we can get FREE of the damned thing, we should.  But if we cannot, and we want to live a peaceful life without being harassed, persecuted, imprisoned, etc. then play along.  Pay your stupid taxes, and avoid the bastards however you can.

And of course, we cannot ignore several places where Christ and/or His apostles deliberately DISOBEYED government officials, when obeying them meant disobeying God.  So obviously, the exhortation to obey the government from Romans 13 is NOT meant to cover every and all circumstances one might find themselves in.

Anyway...  There's my 2 cents on Romans 13.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Klapton Isgod on December 11, 2010, 04:07:43 pm
I guess in the end twinkies and fruitcake are more the speed and in demand.

Certainly more useful and nutritious.

And witches, being made of wood, make good coals for BBQ...

And what is your point in quoting me, and saying something like this?  Is there some example from this thread of me condoning intolerance of any sort, religious or otherwise? 
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on December 11, 2010, 04:46:36 pm
It isn’t so much what he says, but the vicious tone he chooses to use. I truly believe that if I was in the same room with him that he would physically harm me.

You are severely misreading the personality type, when the SHTF hope several of your neighbors are of the same type, that type is often the most trustworthy, willing to choke before breaking “the word given” it was a personality type that was abandoned after WWII (slowly) as the need for that diminished as statism increased. Many of that type died on the beaches of Normandy, Okinawa, and the chaos of Luzon.

Much of what I have to do day to day is fix problems caused by incompetent management, setting personalities in the most effective positions is important, I deal with all 16 personality types daily, I decided long ago to try and enjoy what I do as best I can, I only have one type I will not deal with and when I identify it I remove it or identify the issue to the client and abandon that section.

Quote
Seeing him become quite unhinged by his own perceptions - I find that kind of hostility unsettling.

I have to ask, if that is hostility, what are you going to do when the SHTF? Are you going to reject the most valuable allis because of perceived gruffness.

Frustration - something again I deal with every day, would you rather have a passionate worker who’s frustration can be eliminated to become productive or a batch of “get alongs” - I will let you in on a secret, I, not just once or twice, but almost every time find that the frustrated/passionate will in one individual carry the work-load of 10 to 25 “get alongs”. I can form a team of five passionates that will out produce a team of 50 “standard workers” in just about any setting.

Quote
And if he’s as insightful as you’re implying, then it’s a shame he continues with nonsensical attacks.

If you perceive it that way, you may be missing things. Look, Lenny was capable of even making me shake my head, but that did not negate things I found valuable.

Quote
It’s like seeing a person who peaks your interest, then they open their mouths and you’re immediately disenchanted.

Welcome to my life, my disenchantment is with stupidity, willful ignorance, and stubbornness, something that I see in over 80% of all the projects I have to work with.

Imagine dealing with this problem, “I am having problems with our genetic tracking program with our plant development” - my answer “are you developing a system to handle the statical anomalies and how that fits within Mendelian inheritance or Non-Mendelian inheritance?” - the response "How do you know about our problem with mismatch repair”...

It is like asking your teacher how he or she knew that the homework was not finished because of video games while wearing a shirt promoting “grand theft”...

Quote
I hope that you don’t feel obligated to defend or explain his irrational behavior. Not because I’m trying to control the conversation, but because I would much rather move on to more relevant things.

I mention this not because I think I am important, I see thousands of folks who do much the same thing I do every flight I take and look at the other travelers. What I do know is that some things are useful and valuable, I provide some of that and I think the perspective of a “road warrior”, and I am one, is different (possibly twisted).

I think it may well be relevant, and of course I am viewing things from another perspective - I get more out of conflict and even posters like Lenny than I would from for example ML who wished not to participate.

Quote
I know I sound like a broken record when I say my time is limited. I don’t care to muster my precious energy...We’re taking the kiddos to the Town Square then later to a book sale. I cherish my weekend family time

I am trying to take some time off, and of course last night I had to have an emergency web conference in my bunny slippers that lasted until 2 am - help me!

Quote
BTW, I do use God, G-d, or GOD – just a variation much like I vary my own name from time to time.

I find that interesting because it is so important to so many, including a small minority community I work with regularly.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of vie
Post by: Radio Flyer on December 11, 2010, 04:57:46 pm
I guess in the end twinkies and fruitcake are more the speed and in demand.

Certainly more useful and nutritious.

And witches, being made of wood, make good coals for BBQ...

And what is your point in quoting me, and saying something like this?  Is there some example from this thread of me condoning intolerance of any sort, religious or otherwise? 

Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Scene 5: 'Burn the witch!’

CROWD:
     A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We've found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch! A witch! Burn her! Burn her!
     Burn her! We've found a witch! We've found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch!
VILLAGER #1:
     We have found a witch. May we burn her?

BEDEVERE:
     How do you know she is a witch?
VILLAGER #2:
     She looks like one.
CROWD:
     Right! Yeah! Yeah!
BEDEVERE:
     Bring her forward.
WITCH:
     I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch.
BEDEVERE:
     Uh, but you are dressed as one.
WITCH:
     They dressed me up like this.
CROWD:
     Augh, we didn't! We didn't...
WITCH:
     And this isn't my nose. It's a false one.
BEDEVERE:
     Well?
VILLAGER #1:
     Well, we did do the nose.
BEDEVERE:
     The nose?
VILLAGER #1:
     And the hat, but she is a witch!
CROWD:
     We burn her! Right! Yeaaah! Yeaah!
BEDEVERE:
     Did you dress her up like this?
VILLAGER #1:
     No!
VILLAGER #2 and 3:
     No. No. 
VILLAGER #1:
     Yes. Yeah, a bit.
VILLAGER #1:
     She has got a wart.
BEDEVERE:
     What makes you think she is a witch?
VILLAGER #3:
     Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEVERE:
     A newt?
VILLAGER #3:
     I got better.
VILLAGER #2:
     Burn her anyway!
CROWD:
     Burn her! Burn! Burn her!...
BEDEVERE:
     Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
VILLAGER #1:
     Are there?
VILLAGER #1:
     What are they?
CROWD:
     Tell us! Tell us!...
BEDEVERE:
     Tell me. What do you do with witches?
CROWD:
     Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
BEDEVERE:
     And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1:
     More witches!
VILLAGER #3:
     Shh!
VILLAGER #2:
     Wood!
BEDEVERE:
     So, why do witches burn?
     [pause]
VILLAGER #3:
     B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?
BEDEVERE:
     Good! Heh heh.
CROWD:
     Oh, yeah. Oh.
BEDEVERE:
     So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1:
     Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE:
     Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #1:
     Oh, yeah. 
BEDEVERE:
     Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #2:
     No, it floats! It floats!
CROWD:
     The pond! Throw her into the pond!
BEDEVERE:
     What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1:
     Bread!
VILLAGER #2:
     Apples!
VILLAGER #3:
     Uh, very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1:
     Cider!
VILLAGER #2:
     Uh, gra-- gravy!
VILLAGER #1:
     Cherries!
VILLAGER #2:
     Mud!
VILLAGER #3:
     Uh, churches! Churches!
VILLAGER #2:
     Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR:
     A duck!
CROWD:
     Oooh.
BEDEVERE:
     Exactly. So, logically...
VILLAGER #1:
     If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE:
     And therefore?
CROWD:
     A witch! A witch!...
VILLAGER #4:
     Here is a duck. Use this duck.
     [quack quack quack]
BEDEVERE:
     Very good. We shall use my largest scales.
CROWD:
     Ohh! Ohh! Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Ahh! Ahh...
BEDEVERE:
     Right. Remove the supports!
     [whop]
     [clunk]
     [creak]
CROWD:
     A witch! A witch! A witch!
WITCH:
     It's a fair cop.
CROWD:
     Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn! Burn!...
BEDEVERE:
     Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?
ARTHUR:
     I am Arthur, King of the Britons.



And yes I am a geek and yes it was funny...
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on December 11, 2010, 04:59:40 pm
My view on Romans 13

Some day we will look back on coercive government the same way we do slavery.  We will ask ourselves and one another, "My God!  How did we EVER put up with this horrific practice?!!?!"  And just like slavery, we will note that the slavers used the Bible to justify their enslaving their fellow humans.

So how does a post-government anarchotopian Christian explain this little problem?  The same way current Christians explain away the slavery stuff.

Paul's exhortation for people to obey the government was the same as his exhortation for slaves to obey their masters.  NOT because it is a good thing.  Rather because it was the best way for the Christian in that predicament to live in peace.  He DID encourage people to gain their freedom if they could.  But if they could not, they should be obedient to their masters.

I say the same for government.  If we can get FREE of the damned thing, we should.  But if we cannot, and we want to live a peaceful life without being harassed, persecuted, imprisoned, etc. then play along.  Pay your stupid taxes, and avoid the bastards however you can.

And of course, we cannot ignore several places where Christ and/or His apostles deliberately DISOBEYED government officials, when obeying them meant disobeying God.  So obviously, the exhortation to obey the government from Romans 13 is NOT meant to cover every and all circumstances one might find themselves in.

Anyway...  There's my 2 cents on Romans 13.


 
 
  Very nice summation , and yes I agree with much of it , I'll answer at some length a bit later.
 
   And Klapton? we may have been at loggerheads a time or two , but seriously I say thank you for the above.
 
  Mayhap additionally we can get to the Mosaic Laws and exactly who they applied to and the Old Covenant/New Covenant controversies too at some point.

There, so the question remains what do we do with the objectionable textual content?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Moonbeam on December 11, 2010, 05:28:29 pm
Sorry RF, from my perspective - no mistakes. For now, I do have a choice in what I want to weigh in on, and with whom.

Quote
If you know someone is acting as a parasite why is the general community not willing to expel them?... (This could be said of politics also, look at Gingrich, and McCain two despicable individuals who ruined spouses, why are they accorded ANY respect?) The communities should be “self cleaning” don’t you think?

There are many things in life I cannot provide a satisfactory answer for: why is it windy on garbage days?; why do movies show people using the bathroom or dropping the “F” bomb every 30 seconds?; why do I have the uncanny knack of picking the check-out line that has someone who doesn’t begin to fill out their check until the cashier tells them their total?; why do some guys wear their pants around their knees? Just about the only thing I can control in those examples is my reaction.

While there may not be a public outcry that we see, perhaps there are many, many instances in which pastors or the pastorial staff is condemned. I remember the pastor at my church in the ‘80’s condemning Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart. For every church or spiritual leader who gets it wrong, there are many more who get it right. As for politicians, your guess is as good as mine. I still can’t figure out how these weasels keep getting re-elected. (I would also add that’s it’s sickening to me to see the sports figures and entertainers who are rewarded for their misdeeds, too.) I’m sure you’ve heard the verse from Hosea 4:6, “My people perish for lack of knowledge.” That has echoed in my mind countless times. I don’t think you have to be a Bible thumper to agree there is truth to that.

I’d like to think there are universal evils we can all agree upon. But, the reality is we each decide what we will and will not tolerate. What is reprehensible to me may not even make someone else flinch. I do not have the means to take on every wrong-doing in the world. Nor do most people. So I focus on what I can do. No scratch that. I focus on what I want to do.

I do not like some of the doctrine of Catholicism – so I’m not a Catholic. I do not like some of the doctrine of Mormonism – so I’m not a Mormon. I think you get the drift. I choose instead to have a personal relationship with the Lord. While it can be great to fellowship at a church, it can be just as enriching to seek Him on your own in my opinion.

Quote
Lets say you believe, why? What supports that, personally, and then if you have no external support (texts, etc.) why is it so important and how are you sure it is connected to one system or set of texts?

I’ll have to address this when I have more time…
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Klapton Isgod on December 11, 2010, 06:49:21 pm
My view on Romans 13

Some day we will look back on coercive government the same way we do slavery.  We will ask ourselves and one another, "My God!  How did we EVER put up with this horrific practice?!!?!"  And just like slavery, we will note that the slavers used the Bible to justify their enslaving their fellow humans.

So how does a post-government anarchotopian Christian explain this little problem?  The same way current Christians explain away the slavery stuff.

Paul's exhortation for people to obey the government was the same as his exhortation for slaves to obey their masters.  NOT because it is a good thing.  Rather because it was the best way for the Christian in that predicament to live in peace.  He DID encourage people to gain their freedom if they could.  But if they could not, they should be obedient to their masters.

I say the same for government.  If we can get FREE of the damned thing, we should.  But if we cannot, and we want to live a peaceful life without being harassed, persecuted, imprisoned, etc. then play along.  Pay your stupid taxes, and avoid the bastards however you can.

And of course, we cannot ignore several places where Christ and/or His apostles deliberately DISOBEYED government officials, when obeying them meant disobeying God.  So obviously, the exhortation to obey the government from Romans 13 is NOT meant to cover every and all circumstances one might find themselves in.

Anyway...  There's my 2 cents on Romans 13.


 
 
  Very nice summation , and yes I agree with much of it , I'll answer at some length a bit later.
 
   And Klapton? we may have been at loggerheads a time or two , but seriously I say thank you for the above.
 
  Mayhap additionally we can get to the Mosaic Laws and exactly who they applied to and the Old Covenant/New Covenant controversies too at some point.

There, so the question remains what do we do with the objectionable textual content?

You either say, "It's just a book, written by men, and this passage is supposedly Paul, aka Saul of Tarsus.  He was a man of his time, when slavery and government tyranny was commonplace."

Or you attempt to explain it away like I did above so you can keep believing that the Bible is God's Word.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it's not so easy.  That's why I am WAY less ballistic on these topics than I was about 20 years ago.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Blueghost on December 11, 2010, 07:19:14 pm
Sorry RF, from my perspective - no mistakes. For now, I do have a choice in what I want to weigh in on, and with whom.

[

 
 
  Nope , your 'biggest mistake' was in choosing *me* to run your attempted game of vilification , and that's exactly what is is to you , a GAME.
 
  Sorry but it isn't such to me , and where I come labeling someone as a woman beater is a REAL f***ing serious thing , it's well beyond the pale , as is all the rest of your bullshit.
 
  Pathological? Who the hell was that was pathological again? Going to those depths of attempted character assassination is quite pathological in nature. See contray to appearance I'm very seldom pissed off within the context of one of this encounters , THAT however DID piss me right the hell off , and relegated you to the ranks of the dishonest , disengenous , anything whatsoever to get their way slime.
 
  And the fact that you're enough of a coward ( like Lenny) to continue to slag me off by proxy rather than directly says a great deal about your personal lack of morals and ethics.
 
  Attempted control and domination of another human via such tactics marks you as NOT being a Christian , despite your claims to the contrary. You're too busy worshipping your smug self to worship God.
 
     I've already stated this a couple of times , maybe ya oughta be bright enough to see the connection , if you're going to slag me off and attempt to portray me as something I'm not via proxy I'll continue to take you to task , don't like then shut the hell up about me.
 
  It's a really simple equation , and franikly there may be an ACTUAL discussion developing , your sniveling is going to detract from any fruitful discussion.
 
   And like many of your ilk , you came roaring spoiling for a fight , started a fight and now you're gonna snivel about the results. No sympathy from here on that one and as long as you keep attempting to make *me* the subject there will be NO quarter given. If you're too braindead to figure the conflict resolution on this one , it's not on me. And if you think you're gonna dominate *me* via the approach you've chosen you've got some severe delusions as to your own abilities and importance.
 
  I've made an attempt to foster discussion and let this diffuse several times , but nothing will do you but you're gonna keep running your yap about me and attempt to make me into the boogieman.
 
  You've pretty much hit rock bottom in the hole you're in and are showing signs of digging for oil.
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: Radio Flyer on December 11, 2010, 08:06:57 pm
Sorry RF, from my perspective - no mistakes. For now, I do have a choice in what I want to weigh in on, and with whom.

Everyone does. Your choice as is mine.

Quote
Hosea 4:6, “My people perish for lack of knowledge.” That has echoed in my mind countless times. I don’t think you have to be a Bible thumper to agree there is truth to that.

Willful ignorance is the tool of the parasite - for daily examples watch Benny Hinn or any “prosperity doctrine” parasite or of course daily politics.

Quote
I do not like some of the doctrine of Catholicism – so I’m not a Catholic. I do not like some of the doctrine of Mormonism – so I’m not a Mormon. I think you get the drift. I choose instead to have a personal relationship with the Lord. While it can be great to fellowship at a church, it can be just as enriching to seek Him on your own in my opinion.

I see no evidence for Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hindi traditions, Sikhism, Voodoo, Wicca, or the supernatural so I am not a believer in any of them.

My original problem remains - the texts... all the mythological texts.

It is this simple for me - where is the information in any of the texts about the simple things, germs, cancer, chemistry, cosmology, and others. We don’t know much, but we as a species have discovered things that stone, bronze, and early iron age man had no concept of and of course it shows.

Literature? honestly the abrahamic religions have nothing on Buddhist, or Hindi stories...

Life guides? Honestly don’t you see that as an issue?
Title: Re: Why or is Christianity or any Religion opposed to a Freedomista point of view?
Post by: padre29 on December 11, 2010, 08:23:16 pm

 
  Ok , Romans 13. Here's *my* problem with Romans 13 ( though as Klapton pointed out it was likely 'wisdom on how to avoid trouble for the times.&quo