The notion of patriotism by Khyron

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Citizen here made a very apt analogy.

Patriotism IS love. It is love for your country and the people in it.

It is what causes you to feel outrage and sorrow when our soldiers die.

It is what causes you to feel charitable when New Orleans is flattened by Hurricane and Flood.

It is what makes you cheer when Insurance companies are forced to pay policy holders on a far-off coast.

It is what makes you care when decisions are made which cause others to view your nation in a negative light.

It is what makes you vote for initiatives that you think will benefit the nation, and against initiatives that you feel will harm it.

Patriotism is what makes you care about things outside your personal sphere.

Without patriotism, there would be no 'Us' and 'Them.'

It would be just 'Me' and 'Everyone Else.' And that's not an improvement.

Patriotism is just another sphere of love. You love your family. You love your friends. You love your neighborhood. You love your City, your State, your Country.

And if the arguments over Global Warming are anything to go by, you love your World.

Patriotism is a circle of love bigger than family, but smaller than the planet.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 29, 2007 3:21 PM

Nicely said, Anthony, and a very enlightening concept of that viewpoint.

I, for one, do not share it, mind you, being an Anarchist.

To me it's just "us" - a whole species of people on this tiny ball of muddy water, and "Our Planet" is about as narrow a distinction as I ever wanna make, and that subject to change should we manage to get off it.

I am of the mind that nations and governments cause war, and thus slaughter on a grand scale, often perpetuated by folks with no real stake in the cause, effect or outcome.

Think on that for a while.

I wanna see humanity grow up, and while not real sanguine about their chances most days, I guess I can hold out hope, right ?

Nationalism is a boat anchor when you view it from a whole planet/species aspect.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 29, 2007 3:42 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Anarchy sounds better and better every day...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 29, 2007 3:46 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
"I am of the mind that nations and governments cause war, and thus slaughter on a grand scale, often perpetuated by folks with no real stake in the cause, effect or outcome.

Think on that for a while."

Thanks for the compliment, Frem.

I read this bit a couple of times. You're right that a sense of patriotism can cause an unreasoning charge into a conflict based on emotion-wrecked logic. Once riled up, people can perpetuate a conflict unnecessarily, and bring great harm and misery to the world.

But I think that patriotism also works the other way. The same people who love their country and get riled up over its wellfare are capable of seeing a costly no-win conflict. I think these patriotic people can then turn their efforts to ending a bad thing.

I think we're seeing that now. The flip side of the patriotic coin. The Love that makes Patriots want to embrace our boys and girls and bring them home, for the good of the country.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 29, 2007 9:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
That seems a fairly one sided view. Perhaps love is an outdated outmoded concept, people kill for it and sometimes it forces you into loyalties and allegiances that are un-reciprocated and only harm you personally.

Don't get me started on the banality of love...

Btw, one-sided views are the best way to provoke people into a response. Haven't you noticed how most people who start a thread only give one side of the argument?

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 7:43 AM

patriotism and nationality stand in the way of a centralized global government, so in that regard they are vital. we have the right as sovereign beings to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".. which are rights that can only be maintained among a local population; if we remove nationalism, we then get small elements of society(the elite) micromanaging our lives from some remote location, too far removed to be empathetic of ones social/geographical circumstances

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 7:44 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Btw, one-sided views are the best way to provoke people into a response. Haven't you noticed how most people who start a thread only give one side of the argument?

Indeed, it's a shame, though, that many here are utterly incapable of anything but one side in everything, not you though.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:32 PM

CHRISISALL

Most patriotic I ever felt in my life was during the President's speech.....in Independence Day.

No, REALLY Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:36 PM

Fake Presidents are always better than the real thing and he had nicer hair.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:40 PM

CHRISISALL

Harrison Ford was a GREAT President!

A guy always knew where he stood with him Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 1:02 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Bill Pullman was the greatest fake president in the history of fake presidents. I would so vote for him in a fake election, especially if aliens were going to attack.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:20 PM

Quote:
if we remove nationalism, we then get small elements of society(the elite) micromanaging our lives from some remote location, too far removed to be empathetic of ones social/geographical circumstances

And this would effect any *noticeable* change from our current situation exactly... how ?

As far as "Best Fake President" goes, imma go with Bulworth.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:17 AM

Quote:
posted by Frem-

And this would effect any *noticeable* change from our current situation exactly... how ?

well.. the opposite of a global centralized authority(government) would be complete individual freedom; but since that is impossible in this age, the next best thing is local/state/federal sovereignty(to give communities control of their destinies). since these 'old world' practices are being deliberately phased out in the interest of the 'new world order', naturally resisting this trend creates opposition to the type of social micromanagement that we're talking about

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:27 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Most patriotic I ever felt in my life was during the President's speech.....in Independence Day.

No, REALLY Chrisisall

I'd have to agree.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:03 PM

The only way to achieve "personal freedom" is to not associate with other people. The moment you have to take account of other people's opinions and rights your freedom is impinged. The more people that are involved the worse it gets. AntiMason, there is a shack in Montana with your name on it, all the personal freedom you could ever need.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:51 PM

Quote:
Fletch2-

The only way to achieve "personal freedom" is to not associate with other people. The moment you have to take account of other people's opinions and rights your freedom is impinged. The more people that are involved the worse it gets.

i agree.. conceptually. the problem, speaking as a christian, is that in this age, man is incapabable of being free without 'imping'ing on others freedoms; we're not animals in harmony with an ecosystem, but fallen, conscious beings with material desires. the bible says that it was against Gods will that man created government- because since government would have the same imperfect frailties as man, it would become inherintly power hungery and tyrannical. my point about national sovereinty is, a global government sounds good, on paper, no bounderies, no racism, one currency.. we're all one people, so it makes sense; accept when the control is handed to this one authority, it will epitomize all that is horrible about man, and have subsequently removed any recourse or alternative path in its creation. if we must have government, its got to be limited to almost non existence

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:54 PM

That's a mutant strawman/ad-hominem hybrid, good grief, did the landers eat all your humans or what ?

The path to personal freedom is the simple act of taking it, and being willing to deal with the consequences of doing so.

The Law is not a physical thing, nor is Respect of other people, neither can *physically* stop someone determined to defy either one - the only real limit on human behavior is the person themself, and those limits are determined by a persons nature and ethics.

Example: if you WANT to cross a busy street in the middle instead of using the crosswalk, there's no physical force to stop you from doing so.

Sure, you could get hit by a car, you could get ticketed for jaywalking, but if you wish to do it in spite of those risks, there's nothing stopping you but your own good sense, something admittedly in short supply these days.

Laws, Rules and Regulations are not magical forces, they cannot be depended on to actively protect you, nor can they be depended on to actively defy you if you wish to ignore them.

Something to think about, is all.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 1:22 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
patriotism and nationality stand in the way of a centralized global government, so in that regard they are vital. we have the right as sovereign beings to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".. which are rights that can only be maintained among a local population; if we remove nationalism, we then get small elements of society(the elite) micromanaging our lives from some remote location, too far removed to be empathetic of ones social/geographical circumstances

“...we believe that power should be exercised as close as possible to the people it affects.”

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
The only way to achieve "personal freedom" is to not associate with other people. The moment you have to take account of other people's opinions and rights your freedom is impinged. The more people that are involved the worse it gets. AntiMason, there is a shack in Montana with your name on it, all the personal freedom you could ever need.

Not sure about that, large bears have a way of restricting personal freedom. They have been known to enact quite repressive policies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 1:32 PM

Frem, that's rubbish. If you walk across the road away from a crosswalk and a cop sees you then you end up in jail. The law is not a physical fence but it is enforced with physical bars, physical hand cuffs and physical night sticks.

Now a more reasonable question is why is there a law about jay walking? If I'm out here in rural Texas and I cross a local FM road on foot nobody is going to write me a ticket for Jay walking. That only happens in cities. Why? Because cities choose to put the free movement of cars ahead of the free movement of people. They don't want the flow of traffic disrupted by people crossing the road where they like when they like. So the law exists to regiment the pedestrian, forcing him to cross only where the city wants and a time the city allows. The difference is people. Crossing my rural road probably doesnt effect anyone else and if it did it might effet maybe 2 or 3 people. Cross a busy street in a city and I delay several dozen. The city determines that the 2 dozen people's right to be home 30 seconds earlier trumps my right to cross when and where I want.

That's the thing that I find interesting about America. As a European I was born, grew up and lived most of my life in far closer proximity to my fellow man. The American concept of "personal" freedom -- ie you being free to do whatever you like whenever you like is basically unknown. If the right to swing your arms ends with the other guys nose there is a lot less arm swinging going on if there are more noses in range.

I believe this also effects the voting patterns in the US. If you are rural you have to be self sufficient and you have all the arm swinging space you could want. Thus the illusion of personal freedom is common. Live in urban areas where you have to reign back on what you do to coexist with your neighbours and you end up with a more social perspective, because everything you do is impacted by the people around you you try to fix issues at a social level, wheer as folks out in teh boondocks are more free to take a personal initiative.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 1:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Not sure about that, large bears have a way of restricting personal freedom. They have been known to enact quite repressive policies.

Humm, a few years ago there was a shooting outside my office building. One guy cut another off at an intersection so the cut off guy followed him to work and shot him. I will take my chances with bears.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 2:11 PM

I think ya missed the point, Fletch - all I was sayin is that the law isn't a magic bullet, just a set of rules.. words on paper, if it comes to it.

Just offering a different perspective on the real, actual limits of human behavior vesus the *perceived* limits of human behavior.

That perception gap is responsible for jackass things like restricting folks right to CCW, while largely ignored by criminals who have no respect for the law in the first place, you see ?

Just trying to illustrate a gap between perception and reality, is all.

As for Bears...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2061209

I have several cats, heheh

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 2:19 PM

CHRISISALL

I get ya, Frem.

Percieved as Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 3:37 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
"Now a more reasonable question is why is there a law about jay walking? If I'm out here in rural Texas and I cross a local FM road on foot nobody is going to write me a ticket for Jay walking. That only happens in cities. Why? Because cities choose to put the free movement of cars ahead of the free movement of people. They don't want the flow of traffic disrupted by people crossing the road where they like when they like. So the law exists to regiment the pedestrian, forcing him to cross only where the city wants and a time the city allows. The difference is people. Crossing my rural road probably doesnt effect anyone else and if it did it might effet maybe 2 or 3 people. Cross a busy street in a city and I delay several dozen. The city determines that the 2 dozen people's right to be home 30 seconds earlier trumps my right to cross when and where I want."

It's funny, but I never saw it that way.

I always imagined that the (virtually un-enforced) laws against jay-walkers were to protect life. You know, like the law about wearing a seat-belt. The government feels the need to legislate against stupidity.

'Cause if you cross the middle of a busy road a car might make you into street-pizza, or it might swerve and hit another car and start a 15 car pileup.

To me, jaywalking isn't about convenience or minor delays. It's about turning people into paste and cars into crushed tin cans.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 4:38 AM

I would consider that a good argument except for three facts. First the crossing time for pedestrians at controlled crosswalks is tiny compared to the time given even for protected left turns for drivers. You would imagine that if the safety of the pedestrian was a primary importance then the light would not be flashing before you got halfway across the road. Second and related, controlled crossings often share the window with protected left turns travelling in the same direction. If pedestrian safety was a primary issue their crossing time should be unique with no cars allowed right of way at that same time.

Finally, at least in this state, a driver can chose to right turn if his way is clear even if the light is red -- in effect saying he has a right of way under his discression--- where as a pedestrian can be arrested for jaywalking even if crossing does not constitute a hazard.

Since even in the case of a "legal" crossing the walker's safety is compromised in favor of traffic flow and given the brief period a pedestrian gets to cross compared to almost every other vehicle's exclusive use of the right of way, I believe the true intension is apparent.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 5:26 AM

CHARLIETHEBLOODY

can you really be arrested for not using a crossing? how odd.

I don't understand patriotism, I've never really felt it and it freaks me out when I'm around it because it's often not just saying I like my country but rather my country is better or more deserving than others, and manifests in arrogance, aggression and at it's worst racism

that's just my experience.

--------------------------------------
"I'm an artist, with an e and a beret."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 5:54 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I would consider that a good argument except for three facts. First the crossing time for pedestrians at controlled crosswalks is tiny compared to the time given even for protected left turns for drivers. You would imagine that if the safety of the pedestrian was a primary importance then the light would not be flashing before you got halfway across the road. Second and related, controlled crossings often share the window with protected left turns travelling in the same direction. If pedestrian safety was a primary issue their crossing time should be unique with no cars allowed right of way at that same time.

Finally, at least in this state, a driver can chose to right turn if his way is clear even if the light is red -- in effect saying he has a right of way under his discression--- where as a pedestrian can be arrested for jaywalking even if crossing does not constitute a hazard.

Since even in the case of a "legal" crossing the walker's safety is compromised in favor of traffic flow and given the brief period a pedestrian gets to cross compared to almost every other vehicle's exclusive use of the right of way, I believe the true intension is apparent.

1) Flashing Light: It doesn't mean 'Your time is up' but rather 'If you haven't started walking yet, you probably aren't going to make it.'

2) Protected Left Turns/Rights on Red: You are now not stepping in front of a car travelling at 40+ miles per hour. You are stepping in the path of a car that was at a standstill, and now has to execute a 90 degree turn.

Your alternative is apparently to cross wherever, whenever. I'm not sure how that's an improvement for pedestrian or non-pedestrian safety.

The reason jaywalking isn't important on remote rural roads is because there are A) few cars, B) few jaywalkers, and C) usually a long, unimpeded line of sight.

I'm not sure what kind of pedestrian/automobile relationship you see as preferable?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 5:58 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Anarchy sounds better and better every day...

But who will pick up the trash?

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 6:04 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Anarchy sounds better and better every day...

But who will pick up the trash?

H

Easy. You burn it in a big steel barrel in the back yard. And if you're like many people I know, you dump your used chemicals/auto oil onto that unwanted tree in the back yard.

Then when you take a long drink of tap water, you can enjoy the idea that every swallow is a gamble.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 6:57 AM

Quote:
But who will pick up the trash?

Great bit of empirical data for ya on that one.

I lived in a big city (Baltimore) ghetto without bottle return, and a very substantial percentage of the litter was empty beer and soda bottles, they were everywhere, piled up in the corners, strewn about the curbs, carpeting the alleys, and it really contributed to the grungy, trashed out look of the neighborhood.

Detroit has bottle return - wow, no empties littering the streets cause any wino can get his fix by pickin up fiften of em or so.

Solution: Make the trash WORTH SOMETHING, and it'll disappear right quick.

That's an easy one.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 7:38 AM

In Europe we take personal responsability for crossing the road and the driver has the responsability to be aware of his surroundings and responsive to pedestrians. Anyway this is an aside to the basic point I am making. the closer packed people are together the more individual rights get curtailed because of social impact. This I believe has impacts on social behavior that explain many of the political and cultural differences we see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 12:45 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by charliethebloody:
I don't understand patriotism, I've never really felt it and it freaks me out when I'm around it because it's often not just saying I like my country but rather my country is better or more deserving than others, and manifests in arrogance, aggression and at it's worst racism

Yeah, but we are better than the French.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 1:34 PM

Quote:
posted by Frem-
The Law is not a physical thing, nor is Respect of other people, neither can *physically* stop someone determined to defy either one -

i read that youre an anarchist..is that right? im only curious.. the drawback IMO seems to be that it lacks any spiritual or moral standards, or laws, which would substitute traditional government, and still allow the citizens of this utopia to self govern (without manifesting the immense negetive flaws of human nature). does Anarchism(?)have a spiritual message? id be curious to know what it is(i noticed the anarchist symbol is often referenced in occult iconography). i believe anarchy will only work when man is redeemed by God from his immortal, fallen state, and not until then; this is also why a one world government would become the final empire of man, because it would destroy everything in its wake, and assume absolute control over individual freedom and sovereignty

the Bible says that Israel(not modern day Israel, Gods followers) originally had no government- but demanded a King(ruler) like the 'other nations', the pagan nations which had been enslaved by the fallen angels(gods) and their occult practices. this has been the trend throughout history, using knowledge from the ancient world, passed down through secret societies and royal bloodlines, which the elite have used to enslave populaces from the beginning. i posted a quote from Samuel, where God warns what kings throughout history would do

1 Samuel 8:4-19

Quote:
So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. they said to him, "You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have."

But when they said, "give us a king to lead us", this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. and the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected ME(the LORD) as their king. As they have done from the day i brought them out of Egypt, until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."

Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. he said, "this is what the king who will reign over you will do; He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. he will take your daugthers to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. he will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. he will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own. he will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will becomes HIS SLAVES.

when that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.
But the people refused...

.. its some insight into the nature of government, from the beginning.. but heres another quote which sums up the point

Quote:
for our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, aginst the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

Ephesians 6:12-

Quote:
Frem-
the only real limit on human behavior is the person themself, and those limits are determined by a persons nature and ethics.

that may be true in seclusion, but socially, people believe so many things that what is a religious fundemental to one person, could be completely reletative or irrelevant to another. the way i look at it is, either you have God given rights to life, and everything neccessary therein, or your rights are dictated by men, according to their own discretion(or personal ethical standards); in which case you have no rights, but privelages, and you are not a free being. to go a step further, governments who attempt to remove the influence of GOd, by proxy or intent, remove God given rights aswell; which is why the UN and the global centralized government is literally Satanic, because those are actually its admitted aims

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 4:07 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Antimason,

I can tell you are a religious person, but I think you misunderstand the nature of the Biblical God.

There aren't any 'God given rights.'

Your only right is the right to do what God says or suffer horrible consequences.

A person of faith trusts that the omniscient Dictator, our God, knows what is best.

But no believer should feel 'free' to do what they please. Any freedoms a believer has are within a narrowly defined scope that can be amended at whim by the desires of the Creator.

We serve because we believe Father knows best. We beg for forgiveness when we go astray. We seek an approving nod and the warmth of His love.

But while we are Free of will, we believe that our actions can have dire consequences if they go against His will.

Worship of the Biblical God is a surrender of oneself to willing slavery, an acknowledgement that our own capacity for reason is so flawed that we should sublimate our Will and our Desires to the Father.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 5:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Antimason,

I can tell you are a religious person, but I think you misunderstand the nature of the Biblical God.

im sorry, but you misunderstand the nature of God

Quote:
There aren't any 'God given rights.'

well first id like to know your worldview.. are you an athiest? if you believe we evolved from nothing, then we are entitled to nothing, are subject to our environment, with the golden rule of 'survival of the fittest'. the God of the bible says that all men are createdly equally. if God does not exist, then empirical human rights do not exist, and morality is relative to the individual. if im a slave to morality, then you are a slave to men, and the descretion of their own satanic consciences

Quote:
Worship of the Biblical God is a surrender of oneself to willing slavery, an acknowledgement that our own capacity for reason is so flawed that we should sublimate our Will and our Desires to the Father.

thats what Marx said too.. do you want to go down that path? without God, the state grants you your rights.. this is why they chose athiesm, because it benefitted their communist system. what youre saying is knowledge and reason should dictate morality, but there are no distinct principles to structure people, so the majority decision becomes rule, whether its ethical, irrational, or purely emotional. without a GOd, you can only be a slave to the state, which is as imperfect as man, and are not truly sovereign and free but merely *temporarly privelaged

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 7:38 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Antimason,

You've made some staggeringly flawed deductions.

I believe in God. And everything I said about the Biblical God is true.

And since you've not really refuted my statements, but argued against atheism, I see that you understand and agree.

To worship God, to follow God, is to sublimate your desires, your actions, and your life, to serve His Will.

Willfull Slavery, trusting in the superior Father to guide us to a better destiny than we ourselves are capable of.

Or do you disagree on any particular point?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 8:17 PM

you did say that there were 'no God given rights', which i disagreed with; i think the absense of God is the absense of rights

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 9:02 PM

Hey Khyron.

I normally don't do this, but all I have to say is FUCK YOU.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 9:08 PM

?

Care to elaborate?

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 10:04 PM

Okay. I think I would.

Minus any biblical references and mentions of God, because I am undecided on these issues and it would be hypocritical of me to mention them, I happen to think very much along the lines of Antimason, and minus complete Anarchy, because sadly I don't believe that it would work, I happen to agree with Frem as well.

The fuck you was because you seem very much in favor of a one world, centralized system of government and I don't want any part of it. This is the centralizied system that is dictating to me what is healthy and what is not healthy and has decided that it should cost me $7.00 for a pack of cigarettes and then wants to try to tell me that I cannot smoke them unless I'm in a sealed and filtered closet in my own damn home.

This concept was why I love the show Firefly so much, and even some parts of that movie. While the government wants to kick your face into submission until you admit that everything they say is right and good for you, A lot of people just want to be left alone and don't want to be a part of that larger group.

If you read any of my posts, you might suspect that I am an anarchist myself. I have been inappropriately labeled one before. (No offence Frem, I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I like anarchists) I certainly have no love for our government or this bullshit war we're in. As I have said before though, I believe there is a very distinct difference between patriotism and love for one's government and standing behind their decisions.

I love John Lennon's song Imagine. It would be great if everyone in the world could just join hands and sing "It's a Small World", but that's just not how it would work.

We already have too much Government here in this country. I'm all for small, localized governments. State and county and city. This way, if citizens from city or county A decide that they don't want smoking, there is always the option for people who enjoy smoking to move to city or county B, or at least visit there when they want to go to the pub. What our bullshit, Federalized government has done, along with the media and, more importantly, the interactivity of the internet is that they have begun the process of systematically eliminating your ability to do this anywhere. They aren't stupid.... they won't come out on a Federal level and illegalize cigarettes like they did with marajuana because there are enough of us who would be outraged at such a severe Federal mandate.

This doesn't only go for smoking. They put mandates on all businesses and do not allow them to run as they see fit. They have banned Trans Fats. They take 25% of our income every year (without adding the other 25% that's taken for other various taxes). Then they never spend it on what you would want it to be spent on.

The Bible did bring up this eventuality when it was written however long ago. Whether it really is the voice of God or just some really inventive men, there is no denying the ability for someone all the way back when to determine that if mankind were ever to unite as one whole, then the absolute worst of humanity would be what it embodied. Of course there will be some good there, but it will always be overshadowed by the collective evil of man.

I consider myself a patriot in the true sense of the word. I think your definition of patriot is much different than mine is. It seems to me that you believe that patriotism is the attitude of "right or wrong my country". That's bullshit. I'm always hearing that shit from somebody who works with me and was in the Army. He keeps telling me "yeah, whatever anarchist. Who's going to pick up your trash?" Patriotism is ideals which happen to mean a lot to me. Patriotism is not at all what our government is about, and that is not due to the current administration. That is do the the centralization of Government and would only be exponentialized with the lowering of boundaries and the centralization of world government.

The government would probably have you believe that I was guilty of treason when the media probe and psychiatrists got through with their probe of my posts and my thoughts.

Sorry about the Fuck You...... That was very out of character of me and though I will agree with you that Government is bullshit, I won't stand for people attacking patriotism.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 10:14 PM

Oh, sorry about the misunderstanding, I definitely do NOT propose one world government. I wasn't questioning the fact that we have countries, I was questioning the fact that we're expected to unconditionally love our home countries.

I don't have the time now, so I'll give a more detailed response to your post later.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Sorry about the Fuck You...... That was very out of character of me

Apology accepted. Yes it was out of character.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 10:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Apology accepted. Yes it was out of character.

I'm glad. I look forward to your detailed response.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 2, 2007 4:20 AM

Response to AntiMason

Quote:
i read that youre an anarchist..is that right? im only curious.. the drawback IMO seems to be that it lacks any spiritual or moral standards, or laws, which would substitute traditional government

I wouldn't say that, as most folk have their own moral standards, admittedly different from each other, sure - but some things are pretty universal, among them treat other people decent.

Converse of this, and to think about, is that there is also no law PROTECTING folk who mistreat fellow folk, either - which tends to lead to rapid self-enforcement.

Consider how many people have done ill unto you because the law can be manipulated to defend them from the consequences, and consider the effects of the removal of that barrier.

Quote:
does Anarchism(?)have a spiritual message? id be curious to know what it is(i noticed the anarchist symbol is often referenced in occult iconography)

"Officially" no, lol... mainly cause there's no such thing as an "Official" position for a concept that's based on the LACK of such things.

As a general assessment, I would have to say most Anarchistic types tend to favor a Taoist or Diest viewpoint, with a hefty helping of Atheist and Agnostic folk - my own beliefs are Malthetistic in nature and unusual, in that I am actively antagonistic towards the Christian belief, especially when it's pushed at me.

Don't take that wrong mind you, what you believe matters not one whit to me, but what you DO matters a hell of a lot, and the bulk of Christianity is antagonistic towards my own beliefs as a general rule you see.. if left alone, I leave alone.

As far as nonviolence goes, a great part of Anarchic types are pacifists, I am NOT one of them for the reason that it's against my nature and principles, and when it comes to a crunch I won't defend a pacifist from imminent harm, they understand that.

Quote:
that may be true in seclusion, but socially, people believe so many things that what is a religious fundemental to one person, could be completely reletative or irrelevant to another.

So ?
What's inherently WRONG with that ?
I respect folks beliefs long as they don't step on mine, and I don't go steppin on other folks beliefs whether I agree with em or not.

As far as man-given rights/god-given rights and religiousity, it's neither my concern nor interest - the entirety of any form of ethics is humanly created and thus fallible, and the philosophy behind it isn't worth my time beyond the concept of not harming others for personal gain.

Response to Jack

Quote:
I have been inappropriately labeled one before. (No offence Frem, I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I like anarchists)

None taken, that's the literal beauty of Anarchy, no concensus is REQUIRED - you want something done, you go do it, and if it's too big for you, get some likeminded folk to do it, or trade with them, or what have you.
And if someone asks you to assist on something that you disagree about, you just shrug and say no and they ask someone else.

As I've said before, human social nature is hardwired to helping other folk in all but a small percentage of folks who are to one degree or another... "broken", and many of them will STILL work with you for reasons of their own beyond even that hardwiring.

Experiment: Pick some passerby at work who you do not know or at least do not know well and ask them to hand you something - what is their first, basic REFLEX reaction ?
"Sure, here."

Most arguments for human nature being vile come from religions that distort or suppress the humanity of people in various ways, sexual, moral, etc - and wind up with twisted and distorted people, it's not the nature of humanity, it is the denial of humanity that creates the distortion, to deny and defy what we are makes us less than what we could be.

Quote:
if mankind were ever to unite as one whole, then the absolute worst of humanity would be what it embodied. Of course there will be some good there, but it will always be overshadowed by the collective evil of man.

That being part and parcel of my argument against that philosophy... you see.
ONE person, by themself can kill... erm, how many folk ? a thousand maybe, over a lifetime ? at best/worst ?

How many people can a Government kill in ONE year ?

Sure, yer gonna have evil, yer gonna have evil people, but it's a petty evil, without government, without organisation, you simply can NOT perpetuate evil on the grand, massive scale that it exists today.

And that my friends, is the best argument for anarchy ever.

Gimme all the little evils, they sure beat the big ones.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
(Edited: Clarity Edit)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 2, 2007 5:21 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
you did say that there were 'no God given rights', which i disagreed with; i think the absense of God is the absense of rights

Well Antimason, the problem with 'God given rights' is that they aren't static. God's laws for mankind have changed over time, and likely will change again in the future. Revelations suggests that 'new books will be opened' and thus our way of life and our understanding of things will change.

The only 'God given right' that hasn't changed is our right to choose.

But keep in mind that even that right is severely limited. For, should we choose incorrectly, we have a high price to pay.

It is knowing these things, understanding the 'Because I Said So' nature of the Father, and surrendering to him anyway, that I believe marks an 'eyes open' worship of God.

Because an understanding of God is an acknowledgement that he can and has asked people to do horrible, awful things. Things that would cause you or others to suffer greatly. Things that truly seem to be against any just or moral standard at the time they are requested.

Things we are expected to obey, unquestioningly, and trust that they are for the ultimate best.

That's a tough road to follow. It's not a road glittering with freedom.

The only real static God Given Right outlined in the Bible is the right to Choose God or Suffer.

Eyes open, mate. God knows best, but it can be a rough road to the end. Don't be so judgemental of atheists. It is entirely sane for them to want to avoid the reality I describe.

To the average critical thinker, God sounds as bad as the Devil.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 2, 2007 8:51 AM

I was in quite a rush earlier and didn't read all of your post up until now, and it seems like I maybe misunderstood exactly what it is that you misunderstood regarding my take on this. No matter.

I apologise in advance for ending a couple of paragraphs in questions. I thoroughly dislike rhetorical questions in a debate, that's why I want to point out that not all the questions I ask are rhetorical, even if they may seem that way. And those that are rhetorical... well, I think they're valid questions to ask.

So let me respond to some of your points:

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
The fuck you was because you seem very much in favor of a one world, centralized system of government and I don't want any part of it.

Where did you get this from? Don't see how anybody could interpret anything I've said anywhere in this way.

Quote:
If you read any of my posts, you might suspect that I am an anarchist myself.

I didn't suspect that.

Quote:
... I believe there is a very distinct difference between patriotism and love for one's government and standing behind their decisions.

Agreed.

Quote:
I love John Lennon's song Imagine. It would be great if everyone in the world could just join hands and sing "It's a Small World", but that's just not how it would work.

I like the song for its melody. The lyrics are too sentimental for my liking.

Quote:
We already have too much Government here in this country. I'm all for small, localized governments. State and county and city.

For the most part, I agree with this, in that the federal government seems to have too much power. Hmmm, with so much agreeing on topics other than the thread topic going on, I've totally forgotten what this argument is about...

Quote:
I consider myself a patriot in the true sense of the word. I think your definition of patriot is much different than mine is. It seems to me that you believe that patriotism is the attitude of "right or wrong my country".

Ah yes, patriotism. Okay, let me start by emphasising that this topic is about patriotism. Not government, not this administration, not Bush, not Iraq, not freedom to smoke. Just the concept of patriotism. And I guess, upon further reflection, American-style patriotism in particular, although I most definitely didn't originally intend to make this about American-style patriotism.

Since you didn't give your definition of patriotism, here's mine, which is what I think most people consider the standard: "Love of and devotion to one's country."

I don't object to this, I just find it fatuous, outdated and hypothetical. Taking "love" in this context to mean "intense emotional attachment" and using that phrase as a disambiguation for "love" (I don't want to argue about different definitions for "love" depending on what particular aspect is being discussed), I fail to see how this can realistically come about. Maybe this is because I fail to see how one can "love" something by extension. One can certainly have an intense emotional attachment to, i.e. love of, one's community, and one can have an intense emotional attachment to places one has been to that evoke pleasant memories. But how does this intense emotional attachment transfer the whole country itself? And why does it stop at the borders?

Thinking about this from a different aspect, what is a country? What it comes down to is that a country is a division of the planet's crust that forms a cohesive political and administrative entity. So why this intense emotional attachment to something that is nothing more than a political and administrative entity?

One can appreciate the fact that one's country gives one a decent quality of life, opportunities to further oneself and live the life one wants to live.
One can be glad that one's country isn't some third-world country with third-world problems, or France.
One can have respect for or be fond of personalities from one's country who excel in their chosen profession.
One can like and be supportive of particular aspects of the government's policies.

But these positive emotions can be felt in lots of countries, and to have an intense emotional attachment to one's own country because of any of these things just seems kind of emotionally, well, for the lack of a better word, undeveloped.

I can, however, see why government would want the people to be patriotic, since it serves a purpose similar to that of religion up until a couple of centuries ago (and in many cases, still), namely to have some peaceful means to subdue the masses and keep them in line. They do this by turning the country itself into an abstract concept that has an almost quasi-religious appeal, and I think few countries in the world, if any, are better at this than the US, where being unpatriotic is seen in the same vein as being blasphemous.

Quote:
... and though I will agree with you that Government is bullshit,...

Well, I never said government is bullshit. It's really quite necessary, even though it extends its power too far in many cases. Although administrations or cabinets may be bullshit.

Quote:
... I won't stand for people attacking patriotism.

Now this statement I find interesting. Why shouldn't one be able to criticise patriotism? I feel that this is part of the American-style patriotism that I at first thought wasn't directly my target, but now realise that it probably was. I don't understand why unconditional devotion to one's country is seen as being such a virtue, and why the validity of this virtue shouldn't be questioned. Just like "god-fearing" is still seen as a virtue in the US and shouldn't be doubted as being a virtue. It's just quaint.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 2, 2007 2:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Well Antimason, the problem with 'God given rights' is that they aren't static. God's laws for mankind have changed over time, and likely will change again in the future.

how have they changed? the ten commandments, Jesus' teachings, are they not constants? other religions and ethics of mankind have changed, but i dont believe Gods rules have

Quote:
Revelations suggests that 'new books will be opened' and thus our way of life and our understanding of things will change.

if thats true, then i am unaware, youll have to show me the scriptures so i can study them.. i was under the impression from John(REv 22:18) that anyone who adds or takes away to the prophecies in his book will not be spared by the plagues of the end times

Quote:
The only 'God given right' that hasn't changed is our right to choose.

even that right has been taken away.. is a fetus allowed to 'choose' that its life be spared? there are places where people cant 'choose' how many children they want to have. God gives all rights.. and then men take those rights away

Quote:
Because an understanding of God is an acknowledgement that he can and has asked people to do horrible, awful things. Things that would cause you or others to suffer greatly. Things that truly seem to be against any just or moral standard at the time they are requested.

what are your examples?

Quote:
Things we are expected to obey, unquestioningly, and trust that they are for the ultimate best.

do not steal, do not murder, do not covet, love your neighbor as yourself.. theres no question those are for peoples own good

Quote:
That's a tough road to follow. It's not a road glittering with freedom.

we're not expected to be perfect, but to atleast make an effort.. there IS freedom in knowing that this world does not own me, and that i am not subject to the will of mens consciences, which are imperfect; the Russians under Stalinist communist suppression couldve used that message. if you believe in GOd, remember that he said Lucifer is the prince of this world, this age.. so moral 'freedom' to Lucifer is sinful bondage and slavery to God

Quote:
Eyes open, mate. God knows best, but it can be a rough road to the end. Don't be so judgemental of atheists. It is entirely sane for them to want to avoid the reality I describe.

im not judging anyone

Quote:
To the average critical thinker, God sounds as bad as the Devil.

then that particular "critical thinker" doesnt understand the difference between Lucifer and God; like most freemasons and ordinary citizens dont

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 2, 2007 7:34 PM

Quote:
Frem - As I've said before, human social nature is hardwired to helping other folk in all but a small percentage of folks who are to one degree or another... "broken", and many of them will STILL work with you for reasons of their own beyond even that hardwiring.

...you want something done, you go do it, and if it's too big for you, get some likeminded folk to do it, or trade with them...

Have I got a great story for you to read Frem. It has taken me about 2 hours now at work to find it again. I read it in a short story collection called Science Fiction: The Great Years, edited by Fredrik Pohl and his wife Carol from back in 1973. It had a lot of great stories which were written by other Sci Fi greats and is well worth a read if you can find it somewere. The story that got me was called "And Then There Were None" by Eric Frank Russell. I'm thinking you may have even read this at some point, but if you haven't it's a must read. And look at this.... I even found a link to the full story so you can read it at your leisure: http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.htm

Trust me... very much on topic with your above quote. I didn't even have many political beliefs at all back when I read this 6 or 7 years ago but I remember getting butterflies in my stomach at certain points because it just sounded so damned good.

Quote:
...Gimme all the little evils, they sure beat the big ones.

I'm in total agreement with you here. The centralization of everything is bad. For us to give so much power to so few people in the center controlling it all..... we must be mad. Things can only get worse if the power isn't divided more. Man lacks the knowledge to hold such power.

Quote:
AnthonyT: "To the average critical thinker, God sounds as bad as the Devil."

You're probably right here, but keep in mind the average critical thinker is not really a critical thinker at all and comes into it with such baggage and useless information and biases that they have already made up their mind before it started. Humans, in my experience, are generally stupid and stubborn and virtually unable to think critically by their very nature. children on the other hand.....

Then you also have to consider the fact that everything that the devil would have you do either feels really good or tastes really good, and living the path of God is not very pleasant. The ones who believe, see this as what you have to endure to find paradise. Those of us in between usually have dismissed religion altogether or, like me, are pretty much torn on almost every subject. To me, the most important question IS wheather or not there is a God and I can't answer that either way. It makes it very hard for me to blindly believe anything the government tries to tell me, be it scientific discoveries, happenings in the world, the war, etc....

A scientist, in particular, is nobody to me. The so called experts don't have any answers. They're just guessers like me with fancy toys and fancy degrees. They still haven't even made up their minds if milk from a cow is good or bad for me.

Khryon..... I will try to get to your post tonight. I've been writing this in between goings on where I'm at and it's been a mess here at work so I can't give it the time it diserves. I'll try to post leter.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 2, 2007 9:14 PM