phoenix
Second Lieutenant
This has all just gotten so bizarre and pointless...
Posts: 80
|
Post by phoenix on Feb 23, 2010 23:44:22 GMT -5
Stephen or Stephen Dale, would you identify yourselves as pure anarchists? I will give a basic definition of anarchism here: "Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state to be unnecessary, harmful, or otherwise undesirable, and favour instead a stateless society or anarchy". This is a fairly generic definition of the term that can be found here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism. Hey! An Intelligent question! Yes Kevin. I would. However, I do not believe it is a practical worldview in these days we live in. There are too many governments and too many systems in place to truly have the genuine peace anarchy could bring. Going anarchist overnight would have a horrible effect because someone still has nukes somewhere and that's where the power goes next. So, I go about my business every day and put forth an effort to shrink government in the most effective way I can. ;D
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Feb 23, 2010 23:46:45 GMT -5
Stephen do you believe it was wrong for evil men to fly planes into the World Trade Center and kill thousands of Americans?
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Feb 23, 2010 23:50:18 GMT -5
terrorist –noun 1.a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism. Unless we know what terrorism is, it is impossible to identify who advocates it. Will you please define terrorism? Unless you are suggesting that people in Afghanistan and Iraq are not afraid of the US bombers and tanks that have killed thousands of them, that definition is equally condemning to us.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Feb 23, 2010 23:51:24 GMT -5
From every angle? Really? So from Hitler's angle he wasn't evil. From Satan's angle, he's not wrong he should be ruling the universe instead of God. This is sounding like you've fallen down the path of moral relativism. I hope that's not the case and I'm misunderstanding you. You are.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Feb 23, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Stephen or Stephen Dale, would you identify yourselves as pure anarchists? I will give a basic definition of anarchism here: "Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state to be unnecessary, harmful, or otherwise undesirable, and favour instead a stateless society or anarchy". This is a fairly generic definition of the term that can be found here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism. Hey! An Intelligent question! Yes Kevin. I would. However, I do not believe it is a practical worldview in these days we live in. There are too many governments and too many systems in place to truly have the genuine peace anarchy could bring. Going anarchist overnight would have a horrible effect because someone still has nukes somewhere and that's where the power goes next. So, I go about my business every day and put forth an effort to shrink government in the most effective way I can. ;D You are right that it is not a practical worldview. In fact it is not rational. Anarchism could never lead to genuine peace. God doesn't say that in His Word. In fact He teaches us the opposite. We will have an eternity of NO anarchism. Why do you suppose it would be what He wants today for the world?
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Feb 23, 2010 23:55:40 GMT -5
you're basically saying we have to accept your view that all government is wicked or we are not examining our faith and we're only believing propaganda. That is absolutely, totally false. I said no such thing. On the contrary, I have repeatedly and explicitly said that whether anyone agrees with me is irrelevant. I have asked only that Michael examine his beliefs and seek truth as scripture commands.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Feb 23, 2010 23:58:17 GMT -5
I have no problem defining a terrorist. Then do so.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Feb 23, 2010 23:59:37 GMT -5
terrorist –noun 1.a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism. Unless we know what terrorism is, it is impossible to identify who advocates it. Will you please define terrorism? Unless you are suggesting that people in Afghanistan and Iraq are not afraid of the US bombers and tanks that have killed thousands of them, that definition is equally condemning to us. What about the rest of the definition? Why did you not respond to it? The rest of it said: "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerrorismStephen, is it your position that the US military DELIBERATELY disregards the safety of non-combatants or civilians?
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Feb 24, 2010 0:00:50 GMT -5
you're basically saying we have to accept your view that all government is wicked or we are not examining our faith and we're only believing propaganda. That is absolutely, totally false. I said no such thing. On the contrary, I have repeatedly and explicitly said that whether anyone agrees with me is irrelevant. I have asked only that Michael examine his beliefs and seek truth as scripture commands. And are you willing to do the same? To abandon this whole anarchy view if it's shown to be against God's Word?
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Feb 24, 2010 0:02:54 GMT -5
From every angle? Really? So from Hitler's angle he wasn't evil. From Satan's angle, he's not wrong he should be ruling the universe instead of God. This is sounding like you've fallen down the path of moral relativism. I hope that's not the case and I'm misunderstanding you. You are. Good. I'm glad. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Feb 24, 2010 0:06:31 GMT -5
Stephen or Stephen Dale, would you identify yourselves as pure anarchists? No. But I believe you would. The state is obviously "unnecessary" since God created the world without it, "harmful," since it killed over 100 million people in the last century alone, and "undesirable" since the it is the antithesis of God-given liberty and I do not desire it. That probably does not satisfy the entire definition as you offered it, but since anarchy generally has a negative connotation and since it partially applies to my position, you will surely not miss the opportunity to so brand me.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Feb 24, 2010 0:10:32 GMT -5
All you are doing is setting up strawman arguments that can be defended if your particular worldview is not used to define terms. That is why you answered my statement by harkening back to a demand to meet your definition. It will wind up being circular and the underlying worldview (i.e. the purpose of government and why God created it) is the real problem. If you cannot define a terrorist, you have no means of accurately identifying one and no moral grounds for making the attempt. And if you could define the term in a manner that did not condemn your own statements, you would not be afraid to discuss it. Until you can present something rational and reasonable, do not fault others for calling it what it appears to be... mindless propaganda. Stephen I've never been afraid to discuss anything. You know that. I have always sought to be at peace with a brother in Christ that I love and respect. So I do admit I've avoided debating the topic over the years. But I'm definitely not afraid to discuss it. That's silly. I've presented lots of rational and reasonable stuff to you not just in this conversation but over the years. I'm sorry you don't see it that way, but I believe the root problem is that you're looking at things through tainted glasses, and this causes you to miss out on quite a bit of evidence that defeats the views you hold. I still maintain the root problem here is a lack of understanding as it relates to God's criminal justice system and how it should be enacted. I am tired for tonight as I had a long night and I am in the midst of a big exam in school. But I'll try and get back on some more as the week goes on. God bless you!
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Feb 24, 2010 0:13:49 GMT -5
Stephen or Stephen Dale, would you identify yourselves as pure anarchists? No. But I believe you would. The state is obviously "unnecessary" since God created the world without it, "harmful," since it killed over 100 million people in the last century alone, and "undesirable" since the it is the antithesis of God-given liberty and I do not desire it. That probably does not satisfy the entire definition as you offered it, but since anarchy generally has a negative connotation and since it partially applies to my position, you will surely not miss the opportunity to so brand me. Stephen Dale already said he WOULD define himself as an anarchist. I wouldn't "brand" you. I asked you a question because I wanted to see if you would identify yourself as an anarchist or not. I didn't know the answer to the question, that's why I asked it. I'm not asking you loaded questions.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Feb 24, 2010 0:14:21 GMT -5
Stephen do you believe it was wrong for evil men to fly planes into the World Trade Center and kill thousands of Americans? I believe it is wrong to initiate force against another. I do not believe it is wrong to react in self-defense against an aggressor. I believe you would agree. So the functional question here is: who is truly initiating force against the other? My honest answer is "I don't know." There are two prevalent opinions: 1) The USA is obviously an innocent victim who never initiated any force against anyone and I know this because my government said so, or... 2) there is considerable evidence to indicate that the USA initiated force against others and that these attacks are defensive in nature, and I am sincerely and genuinely seeking the truth by actively researching available material as best I can. I subscribe to the latter.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Feb 24, 2010 0:16:07 GMT -5
Stephen or Stephen Dale, would you identify yourselves as pure anarchists? No. But I believe you would. The state is obviously "unnecessary" since God created the world without it, "harmful," since it killed over 100 million people in the last century alone, and "undesirable" since the it is the antithesis of God-given liberty and I do not desire it. That probably does not satisfy the entire definition as you offered it, but since anarchy generally has a negative connotation and since it partially applies to my position, you will surely not miss the opportunity to so brand me. Anarchy (like any worldview), has many different possible positions. I have no doubt that you have SOME anarchist views. I just didn't know if you guys would actually identify with that view and consider yourself an anarchist.
|
|