Christianity

[Age]

Quite true. Did Man create God or did God create man? Most secularists believe man creates God. You believe that God creates man. I agree. But to make any sense out of it we must pursue deductive reason rather than inductive reason used by science. Deductive reason must begin with the question "what is God?" and work its way down to individual phenomenon and see if it makes logical sense proving an intellectual belief in the source of man and the universe.

Good luck with that Nick! Spinoza did it and very few bother to follow Spinoza's deductive reasoning.

Spinoza was one of those rare ones who understood that everything in our universe is connected. These people do not argue beliefs but try to understand laws which verify meaning.

" Spinoza holds that everything that exists is part of nature, and everything in nature follows the same basic laws. In this perspective, human beings are part of nature, and hence they can be explained and understood in the same way as everything else in nature."

'Human beings' are explained AND understood in that they are made up of the physical, visible, body, AND, the invisible thoughts and emotions. The thinking/feeling part is what the 'being' word means or refers to, and the physical body part is what the 'human' word means or refers to. And, when this is LOOK AT and SEEN from this perspective, then this FITS IN PERFECTLY with absolutely EVERY thing else in FORMING One UNIFIED VIEW and Picture of things.

Einstein wrote:

"Humanity is going to require a substantially new way of thinking if it is going to survive. The basic laws of the universe are simple, but because our senses are limited, we can’t grasp them."

Senses, themselves, are NOT limited. But because the human body, individually and collectively, is minute, relative to the Universe, Itself, the LIMIT to which the physical senses, can sense, is just NOT as far reaching as some might prefer. However, UNDERSTANDING and/or GRASPING 'knowledge' is UNLIMITED, and this is WHY thee One and ONLY True Picture of Life, ALL-THERE-IS can be and has ALREADY been GRASPED, and UNDERSTOOD.

This is NOT to say that ALL there is to learn and know has ALREADY been learnt and known, but, rather, by LOOKING AT 'things' from a, relatively, NEW WAY of LOOKING and SEEING 'things', then a WHOLE DIFFERENT and FULL Picture is SEEN, and thus KNOWN, CRYSTAL CLEARLY I will add.

That's the problem. When contemplation of laws is ignored in favor of arguing beliefs based on ignorance, what is possible other than what we see?

As I continually SAY, if one BELIEVES that they HAVE or KNOW the truth ALREADY, then they are BLIND, and DEAF, to what is ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True. So, instead of 'trying to' argue or fight for what one ALREADY BELIEVES is true I recommend that they instead become OPEN, AGAIN, and REMAIN Truly OPEN, ALWAYS. That way that one can continue LEARNING and SEEING anew, AND more.

The physical, visible, part of the Universe works in just ONE WAY. This 'law' is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to understand and KNOW. In fact WHAT thee Universe IS, EXACTLY, and HOW the Universe works, EXACTLY, REALLY does NOT get much more SIMPLER and EASIER to understand, and KNOW.

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

Simone understood what both Einstein and Spinoza did; that science has the potential to reveal the truths the heart is searching for. But like Einstein suggests, our senses limit us.

Because of WHO and WHAT thee 'I' IS, EXACTLY, the Truth/s are WITHIN, and one only needs to LOOK WITHIN to find the answer/s, which, supposedly, the 'heart' is searching for.

Of course I am partial to Gurdjieff. I would never want to be without the complimentary nature of science and the essence of religion I have been fortunate to learn.

But there are those, past and present, still capable of deductive logic serving the awakening of humanity and freedom from Plato's Cave. There is hope.

HOW to create thee eternal and Truly PEACEFUL and HARMONIOUS 'world', which is about to come, for those of 'you' in the days when this is being written, is one of the most SIMPLEST and EASIEST 'things' TO DO.

'you', adult human beings, JUST NEED TO LEARN a NEW WAY of LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things', and NOT much else.

[Age]

You're back, are you?

I never left, nor said that I was leaving. I just gave up on getting a straight answer out of you in particular. On reflection, though, I've realised that if you are to remain a presence in this thread (which is the only one I've chosen to participate in this time round), and if you are to continue promoting offensively irrational beliefs, and threatening the rest of us with eternal damnation based on those beliefs, then it is necessary for me to hold you to account for those beliefs.

Good luck.

I have YET to get "immanuel can" to back up and support just one of 'its' claims and/or beliefs.

You could see it as a sort of tough love if you like: a certain firmness that is required to cut through your tangled web.

I'd like to talk this through with you

Then start honourably: finally answer directly and honestly the question (as amended) that I've put to you repeatedly. Start with "Yes", because that's obviously the answer you endorse. If, following that, you care to explain your endorsement of an absurd, sick contradiction in terms - of a shameless insult to God - then go ahead and try to defend the indefensible however you choose to, at whatever length you choose to, in whichever manner you choose to. But don't try to engage me in a condescending pseudo-Socratic process of questioning in reverse. Just say what you have to say. Make whatever case you think you can make.

"immanuel can" can NOT, well with NOT being contradictory that is.

And, this is WHY "immanuel can" CHOOSES to USE the "can't be bothered" EXCUSE.

Here the (amended) question is again:

Is it either loving or just to condemn a person, for finite crimes or even simply for mere inheritance of some supposed "original sin", to an eternity of a hell which is, in your own words, "considerably worse than most people can even imagine"?

Again, good luck with getting a straightforward and clear answer from "immanuel can" here.

[Immanuel Can]

...if you are to continue promoting offensively irrational beliefs...

What made them "offensive" and "irrational," Harry, was your misrepresentation of what I believe.

Not that I'm offended: as a Christian, I get used to being misunderstood and wrongly represented. But I can't help but point out that the offensive gloss was entirely yours...and that I"ve refused to authorize it from the very first time you tried it out.

...finally answer directly and honestly the question (as amended)

No, because I don't buy your summary. It cannot be answered "directly," because it's not honest itself.

And you know it. That's why you lay out your plan this way:

Start with "Yes", because that's obviously the answer you endorse. If, following that, you care to explain your endorsement of an absurd, sick contradiction in terms - of a shameless insult to God - then go ahead and try to defend the indefensible however you choose to, at whatever length you choose to, in whichever manner you choose to.

So you want to write me an absurd script, mandate I'm committed to it, call me "dishonest" if I refuse it, then abuse me as if it were mine in the first place.

No thanks.

Here the (amended) question is again:

Is it either loving or just to condemn a person, for finite crimes or even simply for mere inheritance of some supposed "original sin", to an eternity of a hell which is, in your own words, "considerably worse than most people can even imagine"?

And here's the appropriate response: the question's badly framed, on a number of points.

Firstly, it doesn't contain any account at all of human participation or free will. It's as if you've suddenly become a Determinist, or perhaps a Calvinist, and think we should imagine that God has denied people any right to choose their destiny. Secondly, it has no mention of anything God HAS done about this option, as if He's become not only Deterministic, but also autocratic. Thirdly, it has no interest in justice, beyond a passing reference in the opening clause, which has no impact at all on your subsequent claims. Fourthly, it's conception of what "Original Sin" means is not theologically correct, nor Biblically accurate.

So you want me to answer a question that's horribly misshapen on at least four major points, as if it's a fair question, and then to take ownership of your wrong presuppositions myself, and defend them?

No thanks. I'll continue to object.

But you should know this. And I think you really do.

What I can't decide is why you're so angry about such an errant version of a question, especially since your whole point seems to create a reductio ad absurdum type of argument, to misrepresent first, and then to mock the misrepresentation, so as to prevent further clear thought and to head off the possibilty of a serious reply. Since you don't believe in any of it anyway, it seems odd that you're so irate.

You might want to ask yourself why.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Is it either loving or just to condemn a person, for finite crimes or even simply for mere inheritance of some supposed "original sin", to an eternity of a hell which is, in your own words, "considerably worse than most people can even imagine"?

Call to mind that many Evangelicals hang everything on a person “accepting Jesus as personal savior” in what could be, seems to be, one moment of realization. Then, they are “saved”. It is presented as sometime superficial and rather maudlin.

But let’s think spiritual life — existential life — through. It takes much time, much struggle, and willingness to face uncomfortable truths, in life’s process of growing. No matter one’s religious affiliation, or none, that process of growth is realistically all that matters and has value.

And if there is (as I certainly believe and even know) an intelligence that presides over this reality, that intelligence has only seemed to ‘ask’ for just that: cooperation in a process of growth.

Real punishment? Perhaps self-inflicted, is incapacity to grow. When one is thwarted one is sort if dead — or in a hell.

It is true: some people commit those gruesome and serious crimes we’ve mentioned. Those here likely have not. But those who have committed “grievous sins” have to go through a lifetime of dealing with their acts. It never dissolves in a teary moment seeking too-easy absolution.

I do not negate the Christian but moreover the human process of reconciliation. There is no doubt that Christian philosophy permeates our moral and ethical processes. It is part and parcel of our culture.

Seen in this way, the growth of the soul must be God’s central concern. That is if we even have a god-concept.

But to describe and “believe in” a god of torment and torture — it simply cannot be squared with an internal, moral disposition. If that god really exists, moral beings must necessarily be opposed. They would necessarily take that god to task.

If any of what we talk about (god, punishment, reward) is to be regarded as real, it all depends on a soul’s process in this world and a continuing of a soul’s life when physical life has ended. I simply do not think there can be one life only. One span. That idea is inconsistent with an immortal soul.

Thus the limiting Christian notions — in numerous areas — is not an accurate enough picture.

[Harry Baird]

Here the (amended) question is again:

Is it either loving or just to condemn a person, for finite crimes or even simply for mere inheritance of some supposed "original sin", to an eternity of a hell which is, in your own words, "considerably worse than most people can even imagine"?

And here's the appropriate response: the question's badly framed, on a number of points.

So, a simple "Yes" really is too difficult for you, and it's obvious why - but we all know given your threats to us that you do think that condemning a person to hell for eternity is both loving and just, because you think that a fundamentally loving and just God would and will do this to many (most? all?) of us.

There's nothing wrong with the question's framing, but let's examine your four weak protestations:

Firstly, it doesn't contain any account at all of human participation or free will.

Irrelevant, unless you can point to anything that a human being incarnated on this planet for a finite period of time can choose to do with their free will that justifies an infinite, unimaginable punishment.

Secondly, it has no mention of anything God HAS done about this option, as if He's become not only Deterministic, but also autocratic.

What (you claim) God has done is leave this option open - and not only open, but as a "wide gate" and "broad road", thus knowing that many, many will end up in this situation. Deal with that reality. An omnipotent being could easily choose to close this abominable option off, without requiring anybody to join any club.

Thirdly, it has no interest in justice, beyond a passing reference in the opening clause, which has no impact at all on your subsequent claims.

Implicit in that is that eternal damnation in hell is just. Go on then: try to defend that claim.

Fourthly, it's conception of what "Original Sin" means is not theologically correct, nor Biblically accurate.

Tell us what you think the correct conception is then, and, if necessary, I'll again amend the question.

What I can't decide is why you're so angry

"You're all going to burn in hell for eternity, because that's what the loving and just creator of the universe does to people who don't join my club.

"Oh, hey, why are you so angry? I just can't decide."

Give up your game, dude. It's a farce, and you know it.

[Harry Baird]

Great post. I think I endorse everything in it, and on top of that its sane, sensible, and sober spirit, intent, and tone. (I'm only snipping its contents so as not to clog up the thread).

[Age]

...if you are to continue promoting offensively irrational beliefs...

What made them "offensive" and "irrational," Harry, was your misrepresentation of what I believe.

Not that I'm offended: as a Christian, I get used to being misunderstood and wrongly represented. But I can't help but point out that the offensive gloss was entirely yours...and that I"ve refused to authorize it from the very first time you tried it out.

...finally answer directly and honestly the question (as amended)

No, because I don't buy your summary. It cannot be answered "directly," because it's not honest itself.

And you know it. That's why you lay out your plan this way:

Start with "Yes", because that's obviously the answer you endorse. If, following that, you care to explain your endorsement of an absurd, sick contradiction in terms - of a shameless insult to God - then go ahead and try to defend the indefensible however you choose to, at whatever length you choose to, in whichever manner you choose to.

So you want to write me an absurd script, mandate I'm committed to it, call me "dishonest" if I refuse it, then abuse me as if it were mine in the first place.

No thanks.

Here the (amended) question is again:

Is it either loving or just to condemn a person, for finite crimes or even simply for mere inheritance of some supposed "original sin", to an eternity of a hell which is, in your own words, "considerably worse than most people can even imagine"?

And here's the appropriate response: the question's badly framed, on a number of points.

So, 'frame it goodly', or in other words, just FIX the question, to your liking, and then just ANSWER IT.

Firstly, it doesn't contain any account at all of human participation or free will. It's as if you've suddenly become a Determinist, or perhaps a Calvinist, and think we should imagine that God has denied people any right to choose their destiny.

Either God CREATED 'the world', with a PRE-DETERMINED OUTCOME, OR, 'you', human beings, NOW have ABSOLUTE CONTROL.

So, EITHER God is ALL POWERFUL, and thus has ABSOLUTE CONTROL, OR, 'you', human beings, have ABSOLUTE CONTROL. Which one is 'it' "immanuel can"?

Obviously, 'you' can NOT have 'it' BOTH WAYS.

ALSO, and let us NOT FORGET, that if God gave people the right to CHOOSE their destiny, then ANY CLAIM of 'eternal damnation' is completely and utterly 'off the table'.

I suggest "immanuel can" you AT LEAST 'TRY' to speak in a NON contradictory way here, and always.

Secondly, it has no mention of anything God HAS done about this option, as if He's become not only Deterministic, but also autocratic. Thirdly, it has no interest in justice, beyond a passing reference in the opening clause, which has no impact at all on your subsequent claims. Fourthly, it's conception of what "Original Sin" means is not theologically correct, nor Biblically accurate.

LOL "immanuel can" do you REALLY BELIEVE that your VERY OWN INTERPRETATION of what IS, LAUGHABLY and SUPPOSEDLY, 'theologically correct' and 'biblically accurate' is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct?

If you do, then you are MORE MISGUIDED and DISILLUSIONED here than I FIRST REALIZED.

So you want me to answer a question that's horribly misshapen on at least four major points, as if it's a fair question, and then to take ownership of your wrong presuppositions myself, and defend them?

What 'I' WANT is for 'you' to CORRECT what you CLAIM is INCORRECT.

Are 'you' in ANY WAY CAPABLE of doing that?

If yes, then will you do it?

If no, then WHY NOT?

No thanks. I'll continue to object.

On the basis of 'what', EXACTLY?

Your VERY OWN MISINTERPRETATION of 'things' here?

Do you REALLY BELIEVE that that would be a Truly WISE thing to do?

Do you REALLY BELIEVE that that would be some thing that God would REALLY WANT 'you' to do?

But you should know this. And I think you really do.

What I can't decide is why you're so angry about such an errant version of a question, especially since your whole point seems to create a reductio ad absurdum type of argument, to misrepresent first, and then to mock the misrepresentation, so as to prevent further clear thought and to head off the possibilty of a serious reply.

LOL "immanuel can". 'you' say this like 'you' NEVER do this.

Which is even MORE FUNNIER when one reads back at the way you WRITE and TALK here.

Since you don't believe in any of it anyway, it seems odd that you're so irate.

Since you BELIEVE in your OWN VERSIONS and INTERPRETATIONS, it seems odd that 'you' are completely and utterly INCAPABLE of being ABLE to back up and support YOUR CLAIMS and BELIEFS.

Or does this NOT seem odd to 'you'?

You might want to ask yourself why.

'you' might want to RECONSIDER your OWN BELIEFS here.

[Harry Baird]

Here the (amended) question is again:

Is it either loving or just to condemn a person, for finite crimes or even simply for mere inheritance of some supposed "original sin", to an eternity of a hell which is, in your own words, "considerably worse than most people can even imagine"?

And here's the appropriate response: the question's badly framed, on a number of points.

So, 'frame it goodly', or in other words, just FIX the question, to your liking, and then just ANSWER IT.

Yes, that's a very reasonable suggestion. Let's see what IC comes up with.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

It's as if you've suddenly become a Determinist, or perhaps a Calvinist, and think we should imagine that God has denied people any right to choose their destiny.

But determinism is not a synonym for Calvinistic, punitive, predestination.

[Immanuel Can]

And here's the appropriate response: the question's badly framed, on a number of points.

So, a simple "Yes" really is too difficult for you...

Only because a rational question, it seems, is too hard for you at the present moment, Harry. You're certainly capable of more rational speech, as I have seen; but I must confess that I'm not seeing a lot of calm willingness to think through ideas here.

I don't think you're in any frame of mind for a conversation, frankly. Your entire preoccupation at the moment seems to be accusation based on suppostions that are reductios, and false. They simply cannot be conceded.

Your objection that I don't respond to such with a "simple 'yes'" is a function of that. I have responses, but I don't see you're in any frame of mind to hear them, frankly.

Still, I can test that. We'll go back to the last time I was permitted to speak in my own voice in this conversation, rather than you attempting to hand me my suppositions prefabricated, and where you accused me of being too Socratic. We can see if we can make progress from there.

I gave you two postulates concerning God; do they seem to you to summarize the situation adequately?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The long conversation here has been vital for me in numerous senses. Along the way I try to step back and recapitulate what, if anything, I have learned. One core question is: Has it helped or harmed? I am in no sense an *enemy* of Christianity though I have certainly determined that it is not Protestant Christianity that should be paid attention to, or 'studied' if you wish, but Catholicism definitely deserves a thoughtful and careful examination. But to make that case here? Fuggetaboutit.

The most curious thing that I notice, strictly from where I sit of course, is to see that Immanuel, apparently unconsciously, is unaware of how deeply destructive is the reaction he elicits in his amazing charade of 'playing philosopher' when, obviously, he is nothing but an Evangelical religious fanatic. His perversity takes the shape of one who feigns a philosophical frame of mind, on one hand, but the other aspect is the ugliness of his personality; his overt lying; his deeply rehearsed act of playing 'pious Christian' facing the irreverent horde. It is so disgusting, and so disheartening, to attend the performance. So much so that most, I gather, turn away to vomit.

But you know: if the poison doesn't kill you it (technically) makes you stronger. But the question then is brought to the fore: What does stronger mean? Stronger in argumentation and power of discourse to be able to thoroughly dismantle the possibility of having a relationship to Christianity? Stronger in a commitment to the (asserted) vacuity of belief in a divine being? (if understood as 'the origin of us'). Stronger in a turn away from any sort of internal or external practice that had formerly been called worship? (Such as prayer or meditation or participating in liturgical form though the list would go on considerably).

When the horizon is erased -- but what does this mean? We have to start, I believe, from the realization that we approach life itself, we live life itself, we quite literally exist in and through our visualization of what life is. It is the view of *things* that we hold in our imagination. The visualization, historically, has been as varied as people are varied, as historical periods are varied. Again, we all have a metaphysical dream of the world. Even if it is the post-erasure, fractured vision that -- to all appearances -- we live in and through. What defines us is fracturation. And one symptom of fractured people is inability to arrive at agreement or consensus.

In a very real sense I would say that, for example, the Catholic (essentially Christian) visualization of all the events surrounding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is really a tremendous work of art. But I would not deny that other religious visions are not also similar works of art. I do not mean to trivialize a 'metaphysical dream' to being like a nicknack that one hangs on a wall. But it is a 'musical composition' and it is a architectural edifice as well as an 'edifice of meaning' that one can walk into.

Strangely though it is also fragile. It is so easy for discordancies to intrude. And in a very real sense it is in our own minds, in the noisiness in which we live, that extremely vulgar discordancies intrude and, factually, disrupt the *beauty* of the melody and also its theme.

It is true: In the course of this conversation what I understand as my *faith* has been poisoned & killed numerous times. But each time the noxious noise disrupts what I refer to as *the essence* (the allusion) it is just a Picture or a Screen or perhaps a Glass that is shattered. The Picture is not the reality though. But neither is the reality (the artful visualization, the composition) compatible or even commensurate with The World. The world, our material and biological world, is a mechanism (to put it rather crudely). It operates according to laws that cannot change and, to be the world, could never change.

So it seems to me that here is The Key. The vision, the composition, the edifice of meaning, is borne through the metaphysical dream. The metaphysical dream is, in certain senses, more real than the realness of The World (i.e. as Nature) if only because it is our visions that create what we understand as our human world. Our human world is, fundamentally and let's say utterly, a composition and a creation.

If our horizon is erased it therefore means that our Visualization (as a composition of beauty and meaning and value) has been, say, assaulted, attacked, challenged, denigrated, disrespected, undermined. Let's say that there is a work of art that has saved one's life (and I know a woman who told me that certain poems saved her life -- and what could she have meant by that?) but then someone comes along -- a vulgar, loud personage but also an ignoramus (for the sake of my anecdote) who insults it, who ridicules it. It is like a wounding, isn't it?

I am absolutely sure that Immanuel (sorry you old fraud!) has helped many many people destroy and break their relationship with what is connoted by the Symbols and the Pictures that are part of visualizations and those compositions of meaning I refer to. He believes he is doing God's work but 'by their fruits ye shall know them', right?

But this is the very difficult thing: there are extremely ugly ideas, acts, and examples within the very structure of Christianity but really stuff that is part of its origins. I abbreviate this to *Hebrew idea-imperialism*. It has a spirit in it, that is simply part-and-parcel of it, that is totally arrogant and totally intolerant -- and it defines this as a 'good'. When people encounter that, they recoil -- as well they should.

But the disturbing mystery is that there among all of that, and this must also mean also inside of us, are things of tremendous, abiding and eternal value.

No one need believe me of course but I submit, as a form of evidence, Liturgical Prayer: Its History & Spirit as a type of evidence about the nature of the Edifice or the Composition. You -- the reader -- would have to peruse it with some seriousness in order, perhaps, to see what I mean. In any case, it has helped me to understand that *essence* or that *allusion* I refer to, which is hard to communicate.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't think you're in any frame of mind for a conversation, frankly. Your entire preoccupation at the moment seems to be accusation based on suppostions that are reductios, and false. They simply cannot be conceded.

You really are a devil, aren't you? Your entire game is based in psychological subterfuge and manipulation.

[henry quirk]

A kitchen sink post, cuz not a one I'm respondin' to is worth respondin' to individually...

how do you get your potable water, your electricity, phone landline, paper mail and packages?

I pay directly for water, electricity, gas, and garbage pickup. I gets bills every month. Important mail comes to me by courier (a service I pay for on delivery or pick up) and junk comes by way of the The State postal service, which I'm forced to subsidize.

Police services, which I have no use for, I'm forced to subsidize. Fire protection (which here is volunteer) I support heavily.

And all of it -- what I chose for myself, what I'm forced to subsidize; what is worth the cost, what's worthless -- costs too much cuz The State, the glorious State, does such a bang up job of insinuatin' itself into everything.

*

do you need paved roadways or do you prefer a horse or a four-wheeler?

Considerin' how much I've had stolen from me over the years, and the crappy condition of most roads in S. Louisiana, I'd rather ride a horse. Useless roads that go nowhere; substandard garbage that wrecks an undercarriage; vast amounts spent to study with no actual roadwork started. Lucky me to have such a good, expensive friend like The State.

*

what would you do if there were no state vehicle inspection regulations and you rearended some schmuck with no working brake lights?

Been there, done that. And here that put me at fault. I got the ticket, I paid for repairs. So much for the protectin' power of The State.

*

what if you bought gasoline from the arabs down the street and found out it was watered down nonsense?

Like the State-mandated, corn-ethanol laden, crap I'm forced to use is any better. That shit kills an engine way before its time. Yes, my buddy, The State, watchin' my back. At least with the raghead down the street I can take my complaint to him. Who do I shoot now when crap gasoline eats my engine?

*

or if you bought an old ass chicken from the grocery store and got sick as a muhfucka after eating it?

Been there, done that, multiple times. All them regs provided so much solace as I vomited my guts up and shit myself raw. I'm in awe of, and so very thankful for, the oversight The State provides.

*

these are rhetorical questions HQ because i know what you'd do. you'd bring out the bazooka and handle shit.

Fuck you.

*

but u see my point.

If your point is look at me! I'm a shill for The State! yeah, I see it.

*

what you want to say is 'i, henry quirk, am prepared for and would go willingly into, an anarchistic (non)state arrangement....

I am. Unlike dick flashers, pedos, and nutjobs, I ain't on the dole.

*

but seein's how that'll never happen,

Mebbe not. However, there's a better chance you'll see a natural rights minarchy than there is you'll ever see your lil commie utopia.

*

I'll use the county's publically funded resources and utiliti becuz wtf else am i gonna do?'

To the extent possible, I don't; where I have no choice, I'm payin' too much for too little.

Fuck The State.

-----

Nature in no sense offers ‘freedom’. Nature constrains, ropes a given organism into needs & necessities that are inescapable. And Nature insists that every organism will eventually become another organism’s lunch.

Nature gives no ‘inalienable rights’. Except to function, rather like a slave, within the constraints of ecological systems.

Natural rights don't come from Nature. I don't expect a closeted atheist (among other things) like yourself to understand.

Examined more closely, you (and all of us) are both victims of exploitation st exploiters.

You mean we're preyed upon, by folks in high places!? Great Crom, thanks so much for that eye-opener!

*

Yes, you did not create the State. Yet you participate in its existence and benefit, as all do, from it.

No I didn't create it and no I don't benefit from it. I feed it. That's it, that's all.

*

To deny complicity (on so many levels) seems to me a false piety.

Fuck you.

*

What a curious problem we face!

Yes, that bein' shills for The State...like you.

Fuck The State.

-----

Sticking with the theme, here's a hypothetical scenario for the reader - one in particular, who will know who he is - to consider:

Next time, don't be girlishly coy: just call me out.

*

That's a fair assessment, right?

Nope. It's moronic. Men, declarin' they have some claim on my life, liberty, or property and The Creator of the Universe layin' claim to my life, liberty, and property, these are not synonymous. I might give God His due cuz He might have a legit claim, but men? Parasitical men? They got no claim: fuck 'em.

*

Eventually, you end up castrated, owning nothing, and locked up alone in a cell for the rest of your life.

Nope. Somebody dies. Mebbe me, mebbe them. That's it, that's all.

[Immanuel Can]

You really are a devil, aren't you? Your entire game is based in psychological subterfuge and manipulation.

Interesting.

I'm the guy who wants nobody to go to Hell...and I'm "the Devil," am I?

Interesting inversion of values. At most, it seems as if you want to consign everybody to death, or soul-extinction, or endless reincarnated suffering on the wheel of samsara, perhaps? Or maybe you have a greater interest in them paying attention to you now, and it's not so much of a concern what the outcome is for them later; is that possible?

My kindest reading of that has to be that you're so concerned with their present state of tranquility that you would be content to let them go...simply to wherever it is they may go. But either way, I can't see that you have much concern for the disposition of their eternal souls.

But I'm "the Devil," you say?

Strange "devil" that insists that as many people as possible should be saved...

[henry quirk]

I'm the guy who wants nobody to go to Hell...and I'm "the Devil," am I?

Well of course you are, Mannie...

686A5817-F707-4165-B806-A3A58918D92B.jpeg (63.69 KiB) Viewed 535 times

Make no mistake: each of your opponents -- the reformer, the perv, the psych-case, the hippy, etc. -- are deathly afraid of damnation, which is surprisin' since every last claims Hell is hooey.

Closet'd Christians (among other things) raiilin' against that which they publicly dismiss and privately fear is true.