Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-03-2008, 10:05 AM   #26
Anonymoose
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 95
Godslayer, I like you. You can articulate ideas really well. Nice way of clarifying my point.

I'm being a parrot, but I would say an anarchist nation has no reason to invade other countries with the force of violence. But a free human will always have the right to defend itself.
Anonymoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2008, 06:13 AM   #27
medbh4805
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 34
Mhmmm

This seems a bit picky and choosy to me. How can you say you don't believe in Heaven and Hell and claim to follow Jesus. Luke 16 gives a pretty good description of Hell. And yes, that comes from Jesus, not Paul.

The way I see it, we can either follow the word of god (=the Bible) or we can reject it. Romans 13 clearly states that we should obey civil authority. And remember Paul was writing this when Christians were being persecuted by both the Roman and Jewish authorities. the reason he wrote this was because God had inspired him to do this.

I would be careful in rejecting all scripture that is outside the Gospel. did Jesus not studyand quote from the Old Testament? In rejecting the OT and Pauline Epistles we are drifting dangerously close to Marcionism.

Please realise that I am not the attacking the sencerity of the faith of any Christian Anarchist, but what seems to me a twisted exegesis.

God Bless
medbh4805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2008, 11:55 AM   #28
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
America WAS the living embodiment of anarchy for sometime. No laws, no rules, just the law of the land. Then the Europeans came in, very well organised, and took it from the people who lived nomadic tribal existences.

Much like today, how America berates Arabic nations because they live a very simple existence. Living in a mud hut, herding animals for a living, living off the land itself leaves you open to various forms of invasion from countries who think they can manage your land and resources better for some reason.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 08:10 PM   #29
Anonymoose
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by medbh4805
Mhmmm

This seems a bit picky and choosy to me. How can you say you don't believe in Heaven and Hell and claim to follow Jesus. Luke 16 gives a pretty good description of Hell. And yes, that comes from Jesus, not Paul.

The way I see it, we can either follow the word of god (=the Bible) or we can reject it. Romans 13 clearly states that we should obey civil authority. And remember Paul was writing this when Christians were being persecuted by both the Roman and Jewish authorities. the reason he wrote this was because God had inspired him to do this.

I would be careful in rejecting all scripture that is outside the Gospel. did Jesus not studyand quote from the Old Testament? In rejecting the OT and Pauline Epistles we are drifting dangerously close to Marcionism.

Please realise that I am not the attacking the sencerity of the faith of any Christian Anarchist, but what seems to me a twisted exegesis.

God Bless
I'd rather take the word of Christ over Paul, who THOUGHT he was inspired by god any day of the week. Are you aware of the huge amounts of Pauls we have in this world? Anne Coulture ring a bell?
Anonymoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 08:46 PM   #30
HumanePain
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: the concrete and steel beehive of Southern California
Posts: 7,449
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by medbh4805
Mhmmm

This seems a bit picky and choosy to me. ...
The way I see it, we can either follow the word of god (=the Bible) or we can reject it.

But Jesus Himself was picky and choosy: the Old Testament (written by the Pre-Jesus Jews) says that adulterers and children who disrespect their parents should be stoned to death. In the New Testament, Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" thus invalidating that part of the old testament and replacing stoning with forgiveness, the greatest of all virtues as demonstrated by Jesus Himself as proof of God's forgiveness of mankind by making His Son a gift to us.
__________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKm_wA-WdI4
Charlie Chaplin The Greatest Speech in History


HumanePain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 08:53 PM   #31
Anonymoose
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by HumanePain
But Jesus Himself was picky and choosy: the Old Testament (written by the Pre-Jesus Jews) says that adulterers and children who disrespect their parents should be stoned to death. In the New Testament, Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" thus invalidating that part of the old testament and replacing stoning with forgiveness, the greatest of all virtues as demonstrated by Jesus Himself as proof of God's forgiveness of mankind by making His Son a gift to us.
Thank you. If Jesus had a better idea, then there you have it.

WHY do people want to take what those AFTER Jesus said as on the same level as what Jesus said? The people of the Old Testament were wrong, misunderstood, and nearly beastly. So just because Jesus comes back, you think he would have seriously "possessed" people to continue writing his words like people think Paul did?

Paul was STILL just a man in the end. Fallible, imperfect, and wrong. I respect the words of Jesus. But his followers then and now, I take what they say with a grain of salt.

But that's just me.
Anonymoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 09:00 PM   #32
HumanePain
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: the concrete and steel beehive of Southern California
Posts: 7,449
Blog Entries: 4
You are correct, even Paul said he had been wrong (in Galatians, or maybe Acts I believe): before his conversion he persecuted Christians and tried to destroy Christ's church.
__________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKm_wA-WdI4
Charlie Chaplin The Greatest Speech in History


HumanePain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008, 01:22 AM   #33
Anonymoose
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 95
I think the thing that a lot of people fail to realize is that even post-Jesus teachers and writers were still adhering to the culture and times of the day.

If you take what Jesus has said, it's virtually timeless and applies for the most part, to every time afterwards such as "Those without sin cast the first stone".

Looking at Hebrew laws at the time, you'd realize that a lot of the Jewish faith was also there to augment the laws of the time. When Jesus came, he challenged those laws for better ideas. What he said still challenges those. Hence why in technicality, I can support the idea of Christian Anarchism.
Anonymoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008, 02:30 AM   #34
medbh4805
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymoose
I think the thing that a lot of people fail to realize is that even post-Jesus teachers and writers were still adhering to the culture and times of the day.

If you take what Jesus has said, it's virtually timeless and applies for the most part, to every time afterwards such as "Those without sin cast the first stone".

Looking at Hebrew laws at the time, you'd realize that a lot of the Jewish faith was also there to augment the laws of the time. When Jesus came, he challenged those laws for better ideas. What he said still challenges those. Hence why in technicality, I can support the idea of Christian Anarchism.
Really? He challenged the hypocritical application of the law. Could I ask you to read the verse that starts "Think not that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets..."(Matthew 5:17-20), before you go any further? DO you believe in the teachings of Christ?
Christ's coming was a fulfillment of the Law. "indeed, from his fullness we have, all of us, received - one gift replacing another, for the law was given through Moses, Grace and Truth have come through Jesus Christ." (John 1:16-17)

Quote:
Originally Posted by HumanePain
But Jesus Himself was picky and choosy: the Old Testament (written by the Pre-Jesus Jews) says that adulterers and children who disrespect their parents should be stoned to death. In the New Testament, Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" thus invalidating that part of the old testament and replacing stoning with forgiveness, the greatest of all virtues as demonstrated by Jesus Himself as proof of God's forgiveness of mankind by making His Son a gift to us.
In a sense, you are right. But lets look at that verse in more detail (John 8:1-11)
There are three trials in this verse:
1 Jesus, can the Pharisees discredit him?
2. The woman, should she be stoned?
3. The Men, are they acting out of guilt?
Jesus is talking about hypocritical application of the Law. These men are NOT without guilt, indeed are not clean enough to be acting through God in applying the Law. This verse is not about forgiveness, it is an example of hypocrisy and Jesus rising to the test of the Pharisees. The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant is an example of teaching on forgiveness - this is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymoose
I'd rather take the word of Christ over Paul, who THOUGHT he was inspired by God any day of the week. Are you aware of the huge amounts of Pauls we have in this world? Anne Coulture ring a bell?
What about the the Words of the Beloved Disciple[John?], James, etc? It seems to me you are striving to detach Christianity from its Jewish heritage. hat do you beleive about the nature of Grace? Romans 6-7 give good teachings on Grace and the Law.

I don't livein America, but I've read the Gospels and I know what fits. If you doubt Paul, then its a natural step to start doubting the Acts, and then start doubting the Gospels. I agree that a lot of Paul's teachings came more from his misogyny than God, but you can't deny the pure ethereal quality of some of his writings.
medbh4805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008, 04:40 AM   #35
Anonymoose
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 95
Ya know... I really don't care enough. You're right. Have a nice day.

But if you really need a police or authoritative force to keep you in line, that's on you.
Anonymoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008, 05:19 AM   #36
medbh4805
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 34
Sorry. I can become a real Bible thumper when needs be...
medbh4805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008, 05:49 AM   #37
HumanePain
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: the concrete and steel beehive of Southern California
Posts: 7,449
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by medbh4805
...
In a sense, you are right. But lets look at that verse in more detail (John 8:1-11)
There are three trials in this verse:
1 Jesus, can the Pharisees discredit him?
2. The woman, should she be stoned?
3. The Men, are they acting out of guilt?
Jesus is talking about hypocritical application of the Law. These men are NOT without guilt, indeed are not clean enough to be acting through God in applying the Law. This verse is not about forgiveness, it is an example of hypocrisy and Jesus rising to the test of the Pharisees. The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant is an example of teaching on forgiveness - this is not.
But you are missing "4."
He says to the woman "Go home and sin no more." instead of stoning or otherwise punishing her. That *is* forgiveness.
__________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKm_wA-WdI4
Charlie Chaplin The Greatest Speech in History


HumanePain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 10:50 AM   #38
medbh4805
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 34
You can interpret the Bible what ever way you want.

But if you can present a feasible theological arguement for "Christian" Anarchism, I'd like to hear it.
medbh4805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 12:08 PM   #39
Anonymoose
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 95
If God was meant to appoint the authority, then how come he hasn't come around personally and say that George Bush is our president?

Maybe because if in the spirit of Christian thought that God is the only authority and from what I can gather, he respects his children's autonomy while the world today is SATURATED with what Christians would consider false prophets claiming they know the will of a god that doesn't make its presence literally and physically known.

Plus, Jesus struck me more as a man who embraced companionship and fraternity instead of a man who sought to dominate the minds and lives of the world.

If you're willing to follow the tenets of Christianity to the letter, what need would there be of a king, president, police, or military to tell you what to do?

I think the part you may be missing is the anarchy part. Do you understand what anarchy actually is?
Anonymoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 02:34 PM   #40
medbh4805
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 34
"I have conquered the world" John 16:33

Believe it or not, not all of man's laws are in direct conflict with God's Laws. Romans 13 says we should obey civil authority - that means if we wanted to change the law we should act wthin the law to do so. The hardest thing to do is to live out the commandments not specified in civil law - love your enemy etc

Do you think there is anything on Earth that God doesn't know about? After all, "every hair on our heads has been counted".

I live in Northern Ireland, so don't for a minute think I agree with everything that goes down in government, but I think there are ways of changing it.

I used to be an anarchist, or more specifically a liberation communist. now I've drifted into something closer to eurocommunism or socialism.
I realised that one should modify their politics to fit one's religion - not butcher one's religion to fit one's politics.

The fact is, for such a system to establish itself, violence would have to be used, and their is NO WAY that can be justified under the teachings of Christ. (cf John 14:27)

Anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist communes fail because we as humans, are selfish. Even the Paris commune had to end. We pray for perfection, but in reality none of us are perfect. It only takes one selfish person to ruin it for the rest of us. It is civil law that acts as a regulator.

Christ's teachings apply to EVERY aspect of life (read Matthew 5-7 if you want some examples). I try to let Christ dominate my life, but as a proud human being, that is very difficult.
medbh4805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 02:43 PM   #41
KontanKarite
 
KontanKarite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Harlem
Posts: 6,909
Blog Entries: 1
Anarchy doesn't require violence to come to existence, only the collective and solidification of the working class. IE, willful cooperation of a working class for the common good.

The violence is a result of the rich trying desperately to cling to the idea that profits and ownership are more important than the sovereignty of the individual and the actions of a middle class police force who don't believe in the strength and independence of the middle class.

Sounds to me like you've lost faith in the individual.
__________________
No Gods. No Kings.

Not all beliefs and ideas are equal.
KontanKarite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 02:49 PM   #42
Methadrine
 
Methadrine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by medbh4805
Believe it or not, not all of man's laws are in direct conflict with God's Laws.
Believe it or not but God's Laws was written by Man...
__________________
Wasted forever, on speed, bikes and booze.

"Meow. Mew. Mrow. Maow? Miaox." - Lovely Delkaetre speaks cat.
Methadrine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 02:55 PM   #43
medbh4805
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 34
Hahaha even Marx and Lenin knew a lumpenproletariat revolution would lead to violence.

Individualism is a destructive thing. The "cult of the individual" as perpetrated by Thatcher has destroyed British society because people are thinking about what's best for ME. Not what's best for God, other people or even the State, what's best for ME.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
The violence is a result of the rich trying desperately to cling to the idea that profits and ownership are more important than the sovereignty of the individual and the actions of a middle class police force who don't believe in the strength and independence of the middle class.
Do the words Laissez-faire ring a bell to you? Now there's an individualist concept.
medbh4805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 03:03 PM   #44
KontanKarite
 
KontanKarite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Harlem
Posts: 6,909
Blog Entries: 1
A perfectly free market is an enabler of feudal lords and tyrants. How do you think Corporate America dominated the United States?

Actually, it's not all Corp America's fault. The indifference and non solidarity of the lower classes are also to blame. They were, after all, the larger force yielding to the whims of the elite few.
__________________
No Gods. No Kings.

Not all beliefs and ideas are equal.
KontanKarite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 03:05 PM   #45
medbh4805
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 34
Exactly. That is why I disagree wholeheartedly with [political] individualism!
medbh4805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 03:10 PM   #46
KontanKarite
 
KontanKarite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Harlem
Posts: 6,909
Blog Entries: 1
You'll have to go back and review my previous post. It's not all Corp America's fault.
__________________
No Gods. No Kings.

Not all beliefs and ideas are equal.
KontanKarite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 03:21 PM   #47
medbh4805
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 34
Lets look at the example of Ireland, shall we?

During the Famine there existed a Laissez-faire economic system. When the potato crop failed a very clever man named Robert Peel got around this by importing animal feed (yellow meal) to give to the populace.

in 1846 he resigned and was succeeded by someone called John Russel who appointed Sir Charles Trevelyan, a staunch supporter of free trade, to look after Ireland. He stopped importing the cheap food, so people could only buy flour, the price of which rose five fold inside a year.

1000000 people died in the famine. The people, malnurished, impoverished and tied to their landlords, their lives were a daily struggle to survive. But because they didn't unify it was their OWN fault that they died? It was only through Christain Aid groups that the death toll was not higher.
This is the same thing that is happening with LEDCs and MEDCs at the moment.

Tell me, you're not one of those people who believes a woman who has been ***** deserves it on the basis that she is a woman?
medbh4805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 03:39 PM   #48
KontanKarite
 
KontanKarite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Harlem
Posts: 6,909
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by medbh4805

Tell me, you're not one of those people who believes a woman who has been ***** deserves it on the basis that she is a woman?

No. Not at all. But you do have a point about the people, an inherent conditioned dependency on someone to "save" them.

I'll have to look into it about the famine. So a guy was given the reigns of an operation that people depended on and in turn, made it in such a way to where he benefited off of the suffering of others. So it just makes me wonder... Where was the solidarity? Why didn't the people just TAKE it from him? Obviously, I'm sure there were some that did just that.

As for the **** analogy, that's a little off kilter to the subject. I would imagine that despite the occurrence of the **** in question, some degree of struggle would occur, implying SOME form of self defense, even if it was as minuscule as mentally blocking out what was going on in order to self preserve themselves for a greater outcome.

A victim is someone who have had something bad happen to them. Victims are not helpless, well, rarely are they entirely helpless.
__________________
No Gods. No Kings.

Not all beliefs and ideas are equal.
KontanKarite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2008, 02:27 AM   #49
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by medbh4805
Lets look at the example of Ireland, shall we?

During the Famine there existed a Laissez-faire economic system. When the potato crop failed a very clever man named Robert Peel got around this by importing animal feed (yellow meal) to give to the populace.

in 1846 he resigned and was succeeded by someone called John Russel who appointed Sir Charles Trevelyan, a staunch supporter of free trade, to look after Ireland. He stopped importing the cheap food, so people could only buy flour, the price of which rose five fold inside a year.

1000000 people died in the famine. The people, malnurished, impoverished and tied to their landlords, their lives were a daily struggle to survive. But because they didn't unify it was their OWN fault that they died? It was only through Christain Aid groups that the death toll was not higher.
This is the same thing that is happening with LEDCs and MEDCs at the moment.

If you really want to talk about the famine, then first ye must straighten out a few facts mate...

1,000,000 Irishmen died as result of the famine. There were over 350,000 english troops in Ireland at the time - not one died of starvation. Why is that?

Robert Peel had the troops commandeer food from local villages to feed themselves, leaving women and children to starve while the brit troops ate heartily.

The brit troops routinely took food shipments from all over to feed themselves. The same troops under his command tortured and killed and Irish who stood up to his tactics.

To this day here in Ireland cops are called 'peelers' - a derogatory term which embodies what his troops were and his style of totalitarian leadership, a term that in Ireland is equal to calling someone a 'nazi'.

He is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, including vast amounts of women and children.

Before you use him as an example for anything, you might want to consider using someone else as his reputation is about the same as mussolinis or hitlers here in Europe, with the exception of the british military who consider what he did a gallant act.

My guess is wherever you copied and pasted that tidbit from came from a very pro-british, right-wing, conservative, anti-Irish site.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2008, 02:29 PM   #50
medbh4805
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn

My guess is wherever you copied and pasted that tidbit from came from a very pro-british, right-wing, conservative, anti-Irish site.
*cough* I didn't copy and paste that from anywhere. I wrote that from memory of what I learned from my Irish Nationalist history teacher in my Catholic grammar school in Derry.

NO ONE died of starvation in 1945-6 ( only 1/3 of the potato crop failed. So stop with the bullshit), compared to 46-8 (9-9.5/10 of the crop failed) , when Trevelyan was in charge. Peel was a prick, true, but he had served in Ireland before and his actions prevented many deaths, and Trevelyan was much worse. as far as I am aware he was the one that set up the workhouse scheme and changed the public works scheme so that it operated on a piece-work basis - i.e if you're too weak to work, tough shit.

I am Irish, and in reality you give a very false impression of what people believe. You have a very partisan view of history. Tut tut.

Slan Slan!
medbh4805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:54 AM.