THE INFAILLABILITY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH THROUGHOUT THE CENTURIES(BY SDQA)

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

anti-bush

you seem an intelligent guy and you seem to understand the way things go in society and politics,but you are certainly not aware of the deeds of the RCC(roman catholic church)throughout the centuries

440-461- pope leo suppressed the manichaenism,a christian sect

590-604 pope gregory the prohibition of alphabetism 955-963 john IX rape,vandalism and robery,condemned by otto I in 962 for incest,adulatery and murder

1032-1048 benedict XI 'a shame towards the chair of peter' according to the catholic encyclopedia : murder,homosexual orgies,...

i'm not gonna post all the misdeeds of the popes because then i would be busy till tommorow...

some papal laws:

innocentius III: the deliberato: claimed he has the right to say who can be a king and who not,forbids that the bible would be red in latin

innocentius IV 1252: extirpanda advertention: aresstations of all 'heretics' and torture till they confess heresy

john XXII 1320: it was considered as heresy to say that jesus and the apostels had no possesions

sixtus IV 1479: he approved the spanish inquisition

paul IV 1550: cum nimis absurdum: he created the jewish ghetto in rome because he suspected them that they helped the protestants and forced them to wear yellow hats

john XXII : sactatissmo uti cumine: if you would wear the scapular of mary till the death,she will personally escort you to heaven the first saturday after your death

things that gregory I sold:

a feather from the angel gabriel,parts of the thorned crown of jesus,the scull of the holy lawrence,the rest of the clay which god used to create adam,two sculls of peter,clothes of mary...etc...etc

not to speak about all the crusades,indulgences,scapulars,inquisitions etc...etc...

it wasen't a period in the RCC,it was all the time like that

they made of peter the first pope so that it fits to the verse in the bible:'peter would be the rock upon which i would build my church'

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ARE NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF GREEDY LIARS AND MANIPULATORS WHO HAVE BEEN AROUND ALL THIS TIME ONLY FOR THEIR OWN PROFITS AND POLITICAL REASONS

and then they say they give charity...

what charity?

how can charity help if the whole system doesn't work?

charity makes only things worse

for example: there is a hunger,they give people food,no more hunger,people have to many kids,=>too little food for too many people,hunger again

i wonder how much profit they all took for this tsunami **** now...

a part of the money to the state,a part to the organisation,a part to the people that work in the organisation,a part for the telecommunication companies ...etc

every day people die in africa,asia and south america and they don't give a ****

and now suddenly they wanna help asia...

if they would really wanna help,then they'd take away their debts...

and the ****** USA gave to this tsunami disastar as much one day of war in iraq costs...

and there was so much invested in campaigns for promoting condoms and to avoid std's

and then your RCC comes without any responsibility and says that it's evil without ANY reference to the bible

...such a shame

abortion is wrong because it's murder and murder is also wrong according to the bible(although i don't believe in the bible)

but in cases when we speak about zygotes and embryos that don't have a life,which we can't call a human being yet,who have no similar charachteristics developed with full grown human beings,who can't feel pain nor suffer,it isn't wrong

an animal can feel more pain and suffer and has more 'things' developed than these little groups of cells...

the RCC should maybe think about the consequences of their teachings

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 10, 2005.

-- PUNKER (GREG_PISAHOV@HOTMAIL.COM), January 11, 2005

Answers

The title of this thread should be "Popes are sinners", a fact that every Catholic realizes, since they are men just like us. There isn't one line in the above diatribe that has the least relevance to the indicated subject matter, papal infallibility. Infallibility does mean that the Pope cannot sin. He is a man like us, and therefore a sinner. Infallibility doesn't mean the Pope cannot make poor administrative decisions. It doesn't mean that the Pope cannot approve excessive means of dealing with enemies of the faith. Some of the above stuff is really to ridiculous to comment on (an angel feather?? yeah, right LOL). But the point is, infallibility pertains ONLY to the official promulgation of doctrinal teaching binding on the universal Church. Nothing in the above expression of personal bigotry refers to any such official doctrinal teaching.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 11, 2005.

"greg", "sdqa", and "PUNKER" need to post under one and only one username. Faith too.

I do believe that any continual misbehavior should be done away with. The rules, people, the rules.....

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 11, 2005.


Ooh! so now all Christians should abandon their Christianity because of Jim Jones and Jimmy Swaggert? No, of course not.

Oooey! Benny Hinn........Ah! Benny Hill!!

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 11, 2005.


I think they might all be roomates using the same computer.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), January 11, 2005.

Who? Benny Hinn and Jimmy Swaggert?

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 11, 2005.


Humm?! Interesting, Jim. Could they be posting from some Bible college??

....................



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 11, 2005.


Why did my name come up in this thread rod? I haven't posted under any other name since I was discussing Creation Science.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 11, 2005.

Oh Faith come on. I figured it out. We could go and open up a can of worms, if you wish. But, let's be real men and women about this. Either the rules allow for multiple usernames or they don't. We need to draw a line and decide once and for all what the rules will allow or not.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 11, 2005.


If you say that you have not posted incognito after your last time, I guess I would have no choice to believe you. But, have you posted under another name within the last month? It seems like it.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 11, 2005.


There are no rules against using a different handle rod.

This is an anonymous discussion board and even Faith is not my real name.

This isn't a chat room. We are here to discuss topics, not the poster. Sometimes it is necessary to post as someone else in order to get a serious response that isn't biased against the poster.

And it isn't the moderator's job to reveal a poster's identity to other board members unless something devious or illegal is being done.

Get over it.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 11, 2005.



So, you've broken the rules again. The moderators have not revealed anything to me. I am capable of doing my own search. I do have email information of every post that is emailed to me. If you have ever investigated any of my emails to you, you will find all the info regarding IP addresses. It's there.

BTW, you will more than likely find at least 3 different IP addresses for me.

You once said that you could post under a different name without having anyone detect that it was you, "Baloney". We know you well enough to know better, Faith. Get over what? Deception? I wish I could.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 11, 2005.


Look what happened with TC, Faith.

The Multiple Names Issue.

Remember??

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 11, 2005.


rod, drop it.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 11, 2005.

"THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ARE NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF GREEDY LIARS AND MANIPULATORS WHO HAVE BEEN AROUND ALL THIS TIME ONLY FOR THEIR OWN PROFITS AND POLITICAL REASONS "--(From a poster with multiple names?)

It's the message that matters? The righteous man steps into the light; he does not hide in the darkness and throw stones at others. How can any person find credibility from the troll under the bridge? Liars are deceivers; they hide in the darkness.

Now, can the poster substantiate his assertions against the Church or just "hit and run"?

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 11, 2005.


Zarove. You are trying to correct me while allowing the rules to be broken, fine. I shall then be allowed to post with multiple names just the same as those who are free from correction.

I shall "drop it".

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 11, 2005.



yes jim we all are roommates and we all use the same computer

punker just moved in a couple a days ago

i thought punker or jerry explained this already once?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 11, 2005.


I noticed that PUNKER does the posting for you. Interesting. Now, sdqa, would you care to prove your assertions or delete your initial post about the Church???

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 11, 2005.


Rod, im not allowig the rles ot be broken. But Faith hsnt broken the rule sin a wile, and any breach is met when she does. I keep a close eye. but you personally antagonisign her over it needlessly is what Im callign you on, as that too is a breach of conduct, and will caus eonly problems int he future... AS I want to avoid problems, I ask you not to make this sort of correction yourself. email me or Elpidio if the ruels ar ebroken and we will handle it, not you. OK?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 11, 2005.

sdqa

You can start by deleting or proving your accusation:

1. "THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ARE NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF GREEDY LIARS..."

(You do have time to recant or run. It would be best just to recant and start all over with a opened mind about these things. You could learn much from the posts found in this forum. We have many good believers here.)

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 11, 2005.


That sound reasonable, Zarove. But, since when do I follow reason??

BTW, Faith irritates Catholicism.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 11, 2005.


all these things that i posted are historically proven facts,we even learn this at school......

i can give you references for these things i've written but the site is in dutch so i don't know if it will be of any use for you

punker probably saw this text on the catholic or the anarchy 2 forum and copied it to the ask jesus forum....

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 11, 2005.


Well, sqdq are you making a case against the sins of man or the Church. The two are not one. Just as a Christian is not swayed by the evil deeds of Jim Jones, the Catholic has faith in God's Church, not the evil deeds of mortal humans. So, which is it? Are you out to get the popes or the Church?

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 11, 2005.


It would seem that Faith, and the querky-ness of her logic, would side with me. It isn't the messenger, it is the message that matters. It is the Truth in the Church that matters.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 11, 2005.


Surely, Faith, Zarove, sdqa, and everyone can see the argument present by Faith about basing our arguments on the post, not on the poster. Just re-read her comments above. There is always a method to my madness, Folks.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 11, 2005.


PROOF THAT JESUS OR GOD NEVER ESTABLISHED A CHURCH BY SDQA:

'The word “church”meant (and still means) the body of believers. Back then, there was only one way to believe, the Roman Catholic Church. They knew what to believe because the Apostles knew Jesus personally and learned from him. This knowledge remains unchanged to this day. But somewhere along the line, Pride reared its ugly head, and humans started their own “churches” with their own beliefs. You see, “church” started out meaning “The Roman Catholic Church” because it was the one instituted by Jesus, and the only one around. You can’t broaden the meaning to include all churches after the fact. Humans made their own churches and broadened the meaning of Jesus’ words to justify their new churches. If you are such a champion against “manmade-ism” then you would realize that. '

[yes church meant the body of believers,but there was no RCC in the time jesus spoke about 'his church'!!!,there were only people that believed in him,and you said it yourself that church mean the body of believers,so when jesus was talking about 'his church' (the rock upon which he would build his church=>peter) he meant church metaphorically=>the body of believers like you said;but later ppl from the RCC saw these writings(if these writings are true? but i am not going to discuss this...)and they thought he was talking about them ?or what i think just took this from the scriptures and misintrepeted it so that they can say that jesus established their church and ppl believe and attend their church]-sdqa

"The word “church”meant (and still means) the body of believers"

A: That definition is insufficient because it is incomplete. The word "Church" meant (and still means) the body of believers "in the truth". It doesn't mean the body of all who hold some beliefs of their own choosing about Jesus Christ. There is no such body, for a body cannot be composed of believers in conflicting and contradictory doctrines, for such conflicts in belief divide a body and create new bodies, as we plainly see in denominational religion. Therefore, inherent in the term "the Body", or its synonym "the Church", is the necessity of uniformity of belief, without which there cannot be fullness of truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 05, 2005.

'The word "Church" meant (and still means) the body of believers "in the truth". It doesn't mean the body of all who hold some beliefs of their own choosing about Jesus Christ.'

[out of this definition that we all do agree on we can conclude that jesus wasen't talking about the RCC when he talked about 'his church',he was talking about the body of believers "in the truth"]-sdqa

michael,i don't think you got what i've meant;the catholics claim the jesus established the RCC en refer mostly to the passage when jesus says simon would be the rock on which he would build his church and other passages when jesus is talking about his church

well i posted that that is a misinterpretation and that that is supposed to be taken metaphorically and that the meaning of church is 'body of believers' and everyone here agreed with that,if church means body of believers,then jesus wasen't talking about the RCC in the passages,nor he established it,in fact he wasen't talking about any church as a religious institution,he was talking about his followers,the body of believers

one other thing:

peter did not establish the catholic church,nor was he a pope

peter was the leader of the community of the early christians before the RCC even existed,later other people established the RCC which certainly is NOT the same thing as peter's community of christians

and peter was no pope,he didn't came with the title of pope,nor jesus did,the later establishers of the RCC did and gave peter the title of the first pope because he was the first leader of christians after jesus's death]-sdqa

THESE ARE MY ARGUMENTS----SDQA

catholics claim that their church is the only right one,that jesus christ established their church and that their church is the original christian church and that she has been given full authority...etc

they base these statements on verses in the new testament where jesus spoke about 'his church'

people on the forum(paul m,cameron...)told me that church means the body of believers "in the truth" ...like i always thought

now if church means the body of believers in the truth,then jesus was talking about the body of the believers in the truth instead of the roman catholic church

this means that jesus didn't establish the catholic church,and neither was peter the rock upon the RCC would be built

this we can also see later,that peter's COMMUNITY of christians wasen't called the catholic church and wasen't even close to what the catholic church will be

peter wasen't a pope,he was a leader;he can't be the pope if that title has come to use many years after him,it doesn't mean if the pope's function is to be the leader and peter had also that same function that he's automatically a pope

now for you catholics these things don't really matter,but for us non-catholics and non-catholic christians it does matter;it is direct proof that jesus didn't establish the RCC,that he never even talked about it! he only talked about the body of the believers in the truth,and to be part of that body,you don't have to be part of the RCC;i'm not refering now to certain forms of protestantism that are in conflict with the bible,i'm just denying all the catholic statements with which i have started this post

the body of the believers in the truth doesn't equal the RCC,i know that this is very difficult for the most of you to understand,cos i assume that you all are devouted catholics

everyone who trully accepts and believes in jesus and lives by the way he taught it is part of this body,NOT everyone who is catholic

AND ONCE AGAIN I REPEAT:

JESUS DID NEVER TALK ABOUT THE RCC,NOR ABOUT ANY OTHER CHURCH IN A LITERAL WAY,SO YOU CAN'T SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO BE CATHOLIC TO HAVE TRUE FAITH

actually catholicism hasen't the true interpretations of the scriptures

because they are telling that jesus gave them the authority to make their own commands

because they are telling that jesus established their church and that they are the only true church

WHEN JESUS DID NEVER TALK ABOUT THEIR CHURCH

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 11, 2005.


a church as an institution***

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 11, 2005.

sdqa,

Your argument is based on an assumption, which is just your opinion. It's not proof your assertion is true.

now if church means the body of believers in the truth,then jesus was talking about the body of the believers in the truth instead of the roman catholic church - sdqa

Your assumption is that the Catholic Church is not true. Based on this assumption you state that Jesus could not have been talking about the Catholic Church and then use it to prove that the Catholic Curch is not true. I think this is called circular reasoning.

BTW - if you really believed the words of Jesus spoken in Scripture, why don't you believe Him when he says "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins." [John 8:23]?

Or when he says "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin." [John 8:34]?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 11, 2005.


Oh, but the Baptist, Methodists, Prebyterians, etc., etc., and on and on were mentioned by Christ?

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 11, 2005.


i agree with most of his teachings about morality between people,i reject his citates of being the son of god and i don't believe in his miracles,i even doubt that he ever said such things or did any mircales

people have tendencies to make up myths and legends for certain things they cannot explain

and the RCC put the bible together.....that could explain everything...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 12, 2005.


no they weren't mentioned also

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 12, 2005.

sdqa

So, your issues are not truly with the Catholic Church, unless you view the Church as directly involved with God's will, but the whole Christian movement. If you do not believe in Jesus Christ, it is irrelevant that any "institutionalized" religion is the real issue.

So, why would the world hold Jesus on such a divine foundation of faith/religion if He were not what people say He was/is? Is it purely a fabrication based on folklore?

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 12, 2005.


BTW, SDQA, your existence is ruled by the laws of nature: health, sickness, diseases, the four winds, gravity, solar and lunar effects, the earth's rotation and orbit, temperature, human interactions, etc. You may choose not to obey such authority, but your outcome will suffer. How do you work around such realities?

Then, you will have to deal with God, as if you already hadn't.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 12, 2005.


we can never be completely free in this life because we are phyisically bound to many things like you said rod...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 12, 2005.

How do you interact with God The Supreme Authority,SDQA?

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 12, 2005.


i don't see god as authority,at least not in a negative way

i see him rather as a friend

but people aren't god and shouln't be 'playing' god

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 12, 2005.


Well, yes. People shouldn't play God or try to be God. But, we still have the realization that everything that was created was created by God. When people go against God's nature or authority, things will tend to go bad eventually. I do not view God's authority as being "bad"; His authority is order, which is absolutely Good. Can you accept such a truth?

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 12, 2005.


but i do not believe in god as god is defined in the bible,so this order can differ between you and me rod

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 12, 2005.

Then place the Bible back on the shelf and have a look at common sense. Do you believe that good and evil exist? Sure you do. Your idealism is a reaction to that good and evil. Yet, it is a confused ideal/belief.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 12, 2005.


If you truly believe in God The Supreme Divinity/Creator, you must admit to order in the total existence of everything. Chaos goes against order. Anarchy falls where?

Lunch, later.........

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 12, 2005.


you don't seem to understand that a society with rules and laws but without authority is possible

rules can be authority if they take away your freedom

but rules can also give you freedom

i have my freedom and it borders to someone else's freedom,my freedom isn't freedom anymore if i become a threat for someone else's freedom with my action

i can do everything i want,as long as i don't harm anyone else with it

rules should be based on this principal

somebody can enforce the rules and control if people live by the rules,and if they don't prevent them from taking someone's freedom=>so put them in jail

you can say that this is authority,but the person 'in charge' doesn't stand above anyone and doesn't command anyone and doesn't have any individual power,he just controls if everyone is being 'good' by the laws that are made,he makes freedom possible

you got the meaning of anarchy wrong like most people do

anarchy comes from the greek an-archos and means without ruler

throughout the centuries people thought that a society/place without ruler is also without rules and made the conclusion that anarchy=chaos

but anarchy itself is one big rule: no authority

so if i steal something from you brian,i'm practicing authority

if i bomb some place,i'm practicing authority

because i put my own needs above your freedom and your needs and i take your freedom away,i'm placing myself above you and i am enforcing power to get what i want no matter what stays in the way

all REAL anarchists are against violence and are certainly convinced that rules are the foundation that any society can't function without

but,just like in christianity there were people who misinterpreted or used anarchy as an excuse and as a reason for their non-anarchistic actions

http://anarchy.be/anarchie/teksten/anarchyfaq.html

i suggest you go to this site for more information and actions

i certainly wouldn't always link punk to anarchy,there are many fake punks today that have no real idea what punk is supposed to be about and don't know nothing about society and this world and anarchy

anarchy is not chaos

authority causes chaos and is the biggest cause of problems in general

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 12, 2005.


SDQA, your above hypothesis is flawed on its face because human beings are sinful and they will continually hurt each other whether they have a secular government or not. They WILL commit crimes because they are bent TOWARDS IT.

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 12, 2005.

off course human beings will continue to hurt each other but we need good laws to prevent crime in as much as possisble and to provide freedom instead of taking it away,there is an urgent need for big changes in general in society because this way it's going straight to hell

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 12, 2005.

and who are people to stand above god's creation?

who are people to stand above nature?

who are people to stand above each other and *play* god?

who are people to decide who shall live and who shall die?

to flith the planet? did they maybe create it?

who are those bunch of retarded ******* to rule OUR country? to decide FOR US?

who are they to kill all those innocent iraqi's?

if you are stronger,that means that someone else is weaker,if you are up,someone else is down,if you win,someone has to lose...

people are too ignorant and don't really care much to think about these things,anarchy is being presented as chaos,while the main cause of problems is authority,any form of authority(not talking about god),any kind of power and any lack of equality

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 12, 2005.


My main point is that anarchy of any flavor does not exist because God is the Supreme Authority, even if one does not recognize such authority. Therefore, anarchy is not existent. We may try to build a government that may escape the arms of tyranny, but it is a man- made tyranny that we may dance around from. We can never escape God's Authority. Everyman may interact with God's Authority in either a positive or negative way. It isn't God's hand, but man's hand that determines good or evil in that Authority. We either go with the flow or go against it. Anarchy doesn't have a hold on right and wrong, yet it too will have adverse effects while thinking that it is doing right by its followers. There is always a response to stimuli. No stimuli is impossible.

When every man submits to God's Authority in His Truth and Will, every man will live in Order and Goodness. Such a concept makes much sense.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 12, 2005.


I hear and understand your view, SDQA.

Do you believe that Evil is supreme over those who wish to do only good?

I tend to believe that there is the time for all believers to stand up against Evil. Why should we allow Evil to triumph over the weak? Your main point is that society suffers over institutionalized "religion". My understanding is that when Evil is left alone, Evil festers into an uncontrollable epidemic. Evil then becomes the Authority of us all. Good shall prevail, not Evil. Anarchy, by its nature, cannot have a desired affect on Evil. If anything, Anarchy makes for Evil's bedfellow. Anarchy frees the responsibility of maintaining God's will. It brings forth complacency when action must be taken. Violence is not the only answer to oppression. There is compassion; there is faith.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 12, 2005.


you don't seem to understand that a society with rules and laws but without authority is possible

No its not. The ruels coem form soemwhere lad...

rules can be authority if they take away your freedom

but rules can also give you freedom

The problem is that all riels are cconsidered "authoritative". the torible here is you seem to associate the word "authority" withhte word "Tyrant", which is nto true.

Authority oesnt mean " One who takes away your freedom", it only means one who has the ability or power to speak or act.

In a demoracy, the peopel are the authorty and each cutesen has the right to speak and act.

This si why I fight so hard agsint "Hate seach" laws and such. They undermine MY authority, and everyone elses, in favur of psecial nterest groups.

Authority can be good though. Its not a word synonymous with tyrant, as you seem to beleive.

i have my freedom and it borders to someone else's freedom,my freedom isn't freedom anymore if i become a threat for someone else's freedom with my action

Thats a nice basis of authority, but by syaignthis yo invoke the authority of individual autonomy. ( I did not invent the rterm.) You still have an autority wihtin society, a basic rule y which regulates all other rules. Thsi rule becomes a central authority in that it is the premise by which all oher rles flow in your vision...

Thus you still lack a society with no authority.

i can do everything i want,as long as i don't harm anyone else with it

Define harm? You advocate rpemarital sex, which clinical and psycological studies repeatedly show as harmfu to emntla and physical health and wellbeing... so you obviosuly dont car emuh for peopels long trm happiness and health.

And, by the way, by impoisng this rule on your hypotherical society, you are now makign yourself an authority. And if you whr out fo t pictue, the rule itsself becomes the authority by which all actuosn are measured...

rules should be based on this principal

Thus makign this principle the central authority for your hypothetical society "without authoiity". what you relaly eman is that this rule BECOMES the central authority.

Much like the United states cnstitution is the AUTHORITY by which all laws n the federal Government are based...

This rule beocmes th AUTHORITY by which all other rules ar emeasured agsint and flow form...

Strange that you don relaise this...

somebody can enforce the rules and control if people live by the rules,and if they don't prevent them from taking someone's freedom=>so put them in jail

so now you are implacign a police orce and presumabley a judiciate of soem sort. ( Possibley merged into a signle unit, I odnt kow, seems yo havent relaly thoguht this out.)

woudl these judges andolice offecers need to use descresion, proffesional training, and expeirnce to tell when someone is voilating a rule an when not? and dosn this mean they need to be vested with soem power to execute there functions? this by default makes htem "authority", even if everyone i vested withthis power...

you can say that this is authority,but the person 'in charge' doesn't stand above anyone and doesn't command anyone and doesn't have any individual power,he just controls if everyone is being 'good' by the laws that are made,he makes freedom possible

Basiclaly, what we have now... a society in which the public ofifcials r enot treated as above the law...

you got the meaning of anarchy wrong like most people do

No, you have ht emenaing of "Authority" wrong. You think authoirity means soemone in tolal cotroel rather you lie it or no whose above the rule of law. all authority means is oen vested with power to speak or act on certain things. The "Peacekeepers" if I can dyb them so in your Utopian society ARE authority figures, rather you liek it or not. This dispite the fac that they arent baove the law. They are authority because they are vested with civil powers.

The rule you wat ot base the societies laws on itself is an authoirity since all others must bow to it.

anarchy comes from the greek an-archos and means without ruler

No, it means "without rule", not "without ruler". BIG diffeence.

and, sicne you have alreayd given a rule of law, you arent a ture anarchist.

Since the authority in your own society IS this one principle rule, and everyhtign is sturctuted around it, then this rule is effetivley the soverign principle imposed on all. a true anarchist woudl automaticlally be opposed since osme peopel may not liek this rule " If it dosnt hamr anyon else you are fre to do it." some may want ot ham people...

why stop them?what authority can stop them? If you cliam this rule isnt an authrity, then its worhtles as it has no power. If on the other hand all laws are base don this principle, then you have set this rule up as an auhtority.

And once you have doen this, you admit you will place peopel in roles to make sure the rules are kept, a police force if you will.

You say these peoel arent authirities becaue hey are just like everyone else, they only enforce the rules. But this still makes them an auhtority in interpretign the rules, and in decidign who has and has not broken them. They also have the power to detaine people.

so you STILL havent given a "Society without Authirity but with rules", you have mad h rue the authirity and vested authoritive pwoers in a select few... namely this hypothetical police force.

Congratulations, you have just created the Soviet Union...

throughout the centuries people thought that a society/place without ruler is also without rules and made the conclusion that anarchy=chaos

No, on concludes thst the term anarchy means "without rules" because its defined as such. But to be fair the first "Amarchists" whenre elay for the overthrow of LL RULES, JUST THE ABOLITION FO THE LCASS SYSTEM AND A "dICTATORSHIP OF THE pROLITERATE". tHEY STARTED IN SPAIN AS THE cOMMUNIST PARTY, AND TRIED TO DEPOSE THE kING AND PARLEMENT AND START A SOVIET STATE,A ND WHERE CRUSHED BY bINITO fRANCO.

Aferward the rmenant setled in france. The logo and banner was picked up by rockers later onm who, like tou, lack knwoeldge intot heorigins of the movement.

Just as you seemto lack knwledge as to what consititues an authority.

but anarchy itself is one big rule: no authority

fuy, form official anarchy Mazazines, "the only rule is no rules"... not " No rulers or authorities."

and as observed alreayd, you have mae the ruels themselves auhtorities, and given peopel specual civil powers to enforce the social rules, makign them auhorities...

so if i steal something from you brian,i'm practicing authority

No, if you steal it form him, you are practicing theft. Authority doesn tmean "Take what I want", it only emans " Power to act or speak on a given matter."

if i bomb some place,i'm practicing authority

No, this is a wanton terrorist act, NOT "Practicing authority". One woidl have to ask, what authority are you ptacticing?

Really you have a warped sence of what the word "Authority" means...

because i put my own needs above your freedom and your needs and i take your freedom away,i'm placing myself above you and i am enforcing power to get what i want no matter what stays in the way

But not all auhtority does this. Indeed, many authority figures we ahv honoured have placed there subjects before them.

You define authority as " someone placign themselves above others". Then you say we don knwo what anarchy means...

Authority does NOT mean " One who places his own interest and needs above others". Authority means " One who is capable of speakign or acting on certain matters, one who has been vested with power to negotiate, deliniate, or decide."

By vestign a police orce withhe pwoer to enfoce civil riles, youmake them authirities, even IF they are ALSO held accountable tot he laws you make... becuae they are vested with pwor to act.

This is WHAT authirity is and means, NOT " One who sets himself and his interests an needs above others".

all REAL anarchists are against violence and are certainly convinced that rules are the foundation that any society can't function without

The first group of Anarchists n the mdoern genre whre militants tryign to overthrow the psanish Givenrment and lead direcly rto beneti franco's coup de tat becaue he did not want htem to turn psain into a soviet satilite.

Most real anarchists are for violnce, sicne Anarchy means there is no rule agaisnt violence. ( and yes, anarchy means there ar eno rules...)

but,just like in christianity there were people who misinterpreted or used anarchy as an excuse and as a reason for their non- anarchistic actions

You mean lie you misrepresent the concet of "Authority"?

http://anarchy.be/anarchie/teksten/anarchyfaq.html

i suggest you go to this site for more information and actions

Woudl you go to a few sites I show addresses for?

i certainly wouldn't always link punk to anarchy,there are many fake punks today that have no real idea what punk is supposed to be about and don't know nothing about society and this world and anarchy

beign a Punk is just beig one who hads a dislie and aversion to authority. ( which doens mena an aversion to popel who thinkthere better than eveyone else.) Bign an anarcist means beleivign no rules shdl ever be applied...

simple relaly. cant see how they dotn get it...

anarchy is not chaos

In eithe rncarnation, either soviet or Direct, it is...

authority causes chaos and is the biggest cause of problems in general

HAHAHAHAHA f you defien Authority as selfihs peolel yes. But if you deifne it as everyne else ont he p;anet, as the measure of law or else thoe in power to interrpet ad mplement law, then no, its not. en in your "Authoirityless " society, you have peopel makign rules and enforcign them, thus toy have authority. Rater yo admit it or not.



-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 12, 2005.


http://anarchy.be/anarchie/teksten/anarchyfaq.html

i suggest you go to this site zarove and read about what anarchy really means and what's it all about

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 12, 2005.


and who are people to stand above god's creation?

Is that even possible? We are to take care of God's creation and use it to the best of our abilities.

who are people to stand above nature?

I'm not sure what you mean.

who are people to stand above each other and *play* god?

We must take care of our brothers and sisters, but we do not "play" God. God judges, not man.

who are people to decide who shall live and who shall die?

God decides who shall live and who shall die. But, I presume that you are speaking about war. I think man must eventually fight against his evil oppressors and terrorists.

to flith the planet? did they maybe create it?

Well, if we dirty it up, we must clean it up. If we create a toxic environment, it is our fault.

who are those bunch of retarded ******* to rule OUR country? to decide FOR US?

When a faithless nation votes, we all get short chainged. When a society is faithful to God, our government reflects God's will.

who are they to kill all those innocent iraqi's?

War is hell. Our innocent people have been killed, too. While you cry for the Iraqis, cry for ours, too. Evil must be stopped one way or another.

if you are stronger,that means that someone else is weaker,if you are up,someone else is down,if you win,someone has to lose...

Who says that a stronger person must submit to being oppresive? That's what happens in a faithless society. It takes a higher moral code of conduct to avoid being tempted to corruption and terror. It takes having faith in God's Authority over all men.

people are too ignorant and don't really care much to think about these things,anarchy is being presented as chaos,while the main cause of problems is authority,any form of authority(not talking about god),any kind of power and any lack of equality

Zarove hit it right on the nail. It is all about the true meaning and purpose of Authority. Things fail when society no longer understands or accepts Authority in its true nature--God.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 12, 2005.


SQ, I have a masters in journalism and have taken two seperate Philoopy classes and a general govenrment class.

I know Anarchy. The problem is your DEIFNITION OF AUTHORITY.

You deifne autority as " Someone who alces there needs and interests above others and oppresses others to get it."

thats not what any dictionary I have ever read uses as he definition for hte word "Authority".

Your whole premise is flawed.

Likewise, when you say our society has "No autority" you don rellay eman it. Not only do you have a rle of law, becaue you make the law BINDING on everyone, you also vest soem members of spciety wiht the power to enforce the law. wich makes THEM authoriies.

It doesnt matter that they arent above the law. t dont mtter if the law applies o them as well. what matters is that they aregiven pwoer to enforce the rules of society.

an the sovegien rul is that of ndividual autonomy provided no direct harm to others is invovled.

Thus you have a central premise acting as a unifiing point, this makes it an authority asicne all laws made must be subsereint to it, and since all peopel are to obey this central tenet.

why is this NOT an authority? AND NO TELLIGN ME AUTHORITY MEANS PEOPLE WHO OPPRESS THEOSE WEAKER THAN THEMSELVES, USE THE REAL DEFINITION.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 12, 2005.


we create our own demons and evil...

if evil/satan as a person exists,i don't think it can stand in our

i suggest you go also to the site i meantioned to zarove rod

see anarchy like this: a direct democracy where everyone has his freedom and where everyone decides for theirselves and where the people rule the country and where all people are equal

the 'authority' of god isn't equal to manmade authority

people=people

but people aren't equal to god

so these things go beyond of anarchy

anarchy is a thing between people,not people and god ,anarchy is to create equality among the people, how could you ever make equality between people and god?

it's logical that god stands above us,he's perfect...

people aren't...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 12, 2005.


did you go to the site zarove and rod?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 12, 2005.

and i thought you were Phd in psychology zarov?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 12, 2005.

Man is only equal in that he has an equal chance for Salvation in the eyes of His Creator. Man is not equal in society. Sure, he may have equal rights, but no man is ever equal in intelligence, health, etc.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 12, 2005.


Try answerign my objections. namely that our society still has operative authorities...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 12, 2005.

i cannot discuss anarchy with you while you don't know what anarchy is

for the third time:

GO TO THE SITE!

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), January 12, 2005.


I'm not allowed access to your web page. It is blocked from my location. I'll have to view it from home.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 12, 2005.


So a govenment class and two philospphy classes, and a term paper on anarchy, means Im igorant of the hteory ?

Again, this sin about "anarchy' as much as yout stupid. purile, and bviosuly wrong definition of uthority as " Peopel who opposess other peopel and use orce to get there way".

Your own rule is auhtority in and of itsself.Rather you liek it or not. So os your proposed police force to enfore th rules.

By the way, the AnaBaptists where anarchists.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 12, 2005.


http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=1897

Here you go rod. The theory in a Nutshell.

Thanks to Yahoo.

-- ZAR (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 12, 2005.


Thanks, Zarove. The Authority blocks the website for our kids' sakes.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 12, 2005.


Ah! so how does Anarchism avoid becoming an irony or paradox?

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 12, 2005.


what do you mean rod?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 12, 2005.

aybe he is alluding to my aforementioned point.

If the rules are Honoured by akl, an enforced by some, then you have authority. The ruels themselves becem auhtirity, and htoe who enforce the uels are also autority.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 12, 2005.


Exactly, Zarove. It is like my New Year's Resolution. I made a resolution not to make any resolutions.

It is impossible to live in a society without an authority figure, human or conceptual.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 12, 2005.


If we can agree that Anarchy rejects Authority and we understand that a society cannot exist without Authority, then we can conclude that Anarchy, by nature, is flawed. If Anarchy is a flawed system of government, we know that it is not true. Anarchy goes against all of nature, logic, and truth. Just as we should abandon fitting a square peg into a round hole, Anarchy should also be abandoned. Social order and Anarchy do not fit together.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 12, 2005.


society is possible without authority in the classic way...

people who are put in charge to see if the rules are being followed shouldn't have any form of power exept that they must control who obeys and who disobeys the rules and give a fair punishment for that,a way to prevent that it happens again

this may be a form of authority,but this form is needed to prevent the dangerous forms of authority

the person that is the supervisor should have no other power beside that the laws gave him,beside doing his job...

so lets put things this way:

if you want to have no authority above you,don't take away nobody's freedom

we just want a fair society where people can be happy and where life can be much more than it is today

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 13, 2005.


If those who lead you say unto you: Behold, the Kingdom is in heaven, then the birds of the heaven will be before you. If they say unto you: It is in the sea, then the fish will be before you. But the Kingdom is within you, and it is outside of you. When you know yourselves, then shall you be known, and you shall know that you are the sons of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you are in poverty, and you are poverty.(jesus christ-gospel of thomas verse 3)

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 13, 2005.

Think of the richest man in the world. Does he have power? He can make changes in the world through his craft. He can make the laws. How can an anarchist change his world? The computer you are using is a result of that rich man's power. That computer can be used to help and hurt others. We live in a world where natural events happen.

If I am driving another person in my car, I am the authority. If I drive recklessly, my passenger has several options to his fate. He can sweet talk me into driving safely, he can wrestle control from me, he can jump out of the moving car, or just sit there and hope for the best. Society is pretty much like riding in a car. The power is in the people; they can make change in the world. History has proven that.

Of course, we want authority to be fair. But, the minority will more than likely go without a voice. Until, things become unfair when the minority receive favoritism over the majority. Things cannot ever be fair in a man-made government. I can't see how Anarchism could ever remedy such a problem with man-made governments. How would an anarchist drive a van loaded with passengers with varying destinations? Who should arrive on time? Who should be favored to arrive at their destination when all must give-in or forfeit their schedules? Whose priority is master? The passengers' or the anarchist?

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 13, 2005.


many anarchists believe that the human nature is good,but ignorance and other things can come across

wisdom(or knowlegde) and love (also health off course) are the most important things according to me

if everyone was trully aware about all the **** in this world and society and if everyone had enough love empathy for all those who have to suffer because of this,the world will be changed (and we all suffer once in a while...)

i don't say that anarchism is the answer to all the problems,it's just something that will make many things in society and life better and will bring up the best in people

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 13, 2005.


Well, it seems that we are on common ground. The basic ideals you've mentioned are the basic ideals of Christianity, when we speak of social contracts and stuff. The only Authority that is truly worthy of acceptance is not man. Sure, obedience to a man-made government would be useful, until things start going bad we change the government.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 13, 2005.


to good manmade laws that provide us freedom

not to a governement

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 13, 2005.


society is possible without authority in the classic way...

What do you mean by "The classic way"? The way you se it, if I stal somethign Im excersising authority. you define authority as always bad because it means I plac emy own interestsd above others and take what I want. hats wha makes me an auhtority. By extnesion, authority is always bad because ti always wrs ths ay.

as noted though, this has never been the definition of the term "Authority". Authority merley emans one who has beem given power to act.

Your own system has "Authoity in the clasic way". Authority of law, since you have one law that is sovering,the law of individual autonomy and personal repsncibility, then you HAVE an authority.And in the classic way.

Likewise, you make other rules, and those ules are authority.

Then you appoin peopel to enforce these rules. That makes them auhtority.In the classic way.

Then you say its not relay authority becae the peopel appoitned to enforce the rles are subject to them, ignotring that that is modern legal theory to begin with, and IS what we live in already.

and ognorign the auhtrity of the rules htmselves.

do you realise any of this? Or can you just repeat " we can have a society with rules and no auhtority" and ac tlike everyn e on this baord is syupid but you?

people who are put in charge to see if the rules are being followed shouldn't have any form of power exept that they must control who obeys and who disobeys the rules and give a fair punishment for that,a way to prevent that it happens again

congratulatons, you just relaised Modern legal theory. tis concept even extens as far back as 1215 and the ingin of th Magna Carta, wich made th Kin subject tothe law.

In Modern society, the rulers of soiety, th leaders, are subject tot he law, the same as everyone else, and only rellay have the powers hat you describe.

Its the basis for modenr legal theory and western democracy as a whole.

this may be a form of authority,but this form is needed to prevent the dangerous forms of authority

the person that is the supervisor should have no other power beside that the laws gave him,beside doing his job...

And this diverges form Modern dmocracy how? Last I chekced, Modern democratic leaders whee NOT above the law and codl NOT take away freedoms at a whim. Granted, we seem to loose frredoms lately, but the overall basis of he law makes that relaly agaisn the intent of the origional laws.

ad even in your own system, which mirrors the origional intent of the Union of soviet socialist republics, you must factr in the corrutability of Humanity.

Afte all, when Lennon took over Russia in the Oktober Revolution, the origional result was " A dictatorship of the Proliteate" in which there was no class system, and the governing ody existed soley to make sure everyone got fair reatment. They did not exist above th law, and only served to enford th will of the peple.

we all know what dirction that went in a Hurry.

whats to stop your " Not clasical" authority from also becmign corurpt and begnnign to excesise powers they didnt origionally have?

why not read orwell's "Animal Farm" and see what Im actually tlaking about.

do that before we all start chanting " two legs bad, four legs good."

so lets put things this way:

if you want to have no authority above you,don't take away nobody's freedom

spoken like a true Cmmunist, and like your Communist forbarers, how can yo assure us tha the ones placed in auhtrity to enforce the rules based on " If it doesnt harm anyone lse yu are fee to do as youplease' won't work to slowly permutate this "Govenrment with no authrity" into a dictatorship where eveyone servesthe central state?

Have you no grasp f History? Youridea ha beenimpleented before, and has proven disasterous.

we just want a fair society where people can be happy and where life can be much more than it is today

But by establihsing a prleterate regime, you virtually ensure slavery.

Again, you may think that the authorities you olace will never try to take more pwoer than they are gien, but without governign mechanisms to prevent otherwise, there is nothig to stop those in autority form gin beyind thee origional mandate of controling those who obey and dont obey th rules and meetign ut punishments frm expandign there power base and ensnaring all ofsociety, controlign them to there own will.

The curent Goverment al stsrem in the United states protects my rights by having a constetution,a dn even now we hav to bedilignt or loose our freedom, byt htey ar protected.

In mos european countries they have no direct eqivolent, but the laws are written down for a reason.

In yor system, they seem not to bave this, and the peopel who establish hat is and is not a rles violation can use there posiiton to enfrc there own worldveiw. and will.

many anarchists believe that the human nature is good,but ignorance and other things can come across

Then amny anarchists have no real grasp pf te multiplicity of uman nature and the ocmplexe strucutres of Human thoughts. f mankind wa abasically fgood, and only the instetutions of society caused evil, as most anarchists presume, then why did htis good humanity invent the evil instetutions ot begin with?

Humans are subject to evil and corruption, jut as tey are capable of great nobility.

The issue of Humanity is not clear cut, but o overlook the tendancies toward evil you sortchange your teory and make it imposibl to take seriosuly, espeiclaly in lijgt of rcent worl history.

wisdom(or knowlegde) and love (also health off course) are the most important things according to me

Thouhg related, wisdom and Knwledge are no the same thing. Gid is wsdom, an the love of God is where wisdom lies.

The Bible said htis of wisodm, it is my favuite pasage in all the bible.

Proverbs 4

1. Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding.

2. For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law.

3. For I was my father's son, tender and only beloved in the sight of my mother.

4. He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live.

5. Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.

6. Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee.

7. Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

8. Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to honour, when thou dost embrace her.

9. She shall give to thine head an ornament of grace: a crown of glory shall she deliver to thee.

Bet you didnt know this was in there, did you?

The toruble is that true wisdom coems not by the world means you advocate, such as sex beign OK outside of marirage and no rules. wisdm coems from knwoeng and obeying the wya thigns shduk be,a nd kowing and obeying God.

Proverbs chapter 14, verse 12, speaks t you as tyou write these ideas.

Just because you htink yor ways are wise, doesnt make them so, and just becaue you htink you are wise, doesnt mean you are.

Shodl you one day tirn to God, you will grow in wisdom. If you trn away form your vauge ideas that lead only to tin if implemntaiton i ever given, will you begin to undersand what th owrld i relaly like.

Otherwise,you way seems right to you,bu the wyas of them are death.

if everyone was trully aware about all the **** in this world and society and if everyone had enough love empathy for all those who have to suffer because of this,the world will be changed (and we all suffer once in a while...)

I concure, but I htinkif you truely understood the way of the owrld and of the spirit, yourown veiws woidl change, and if eveyoe fllowed suit, we woudl have a better world.

The wy you advocate is folly, for it leads to poverty an coruption.

i don't say that anarchism is the answer to all the problems,it's just something that will make many things in society and life better and will bring up the best in people

But you arnet an anarchist. thats the thing. You beleive we shoudl ahve pepel to enforce the rules. ( and wo makes the rules anwyay?) Theruels themselves are authroity,a nd those who enfrce hem ar authrity,a nd int he classic way.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 13, 2005.


i understand what you mean zarove,but(correct)rules and laws can only be seen as authority if you are intending to do something bad

i already said that rules and laws are needed to provide us freedom by protecting us

and we do NOT live in a democracy

there are political parties that make up their own program between which we must/may choose

in a real democracy the people should make this program

politicians are a corrupt bunch of scum who are only intrested in their own profits(we have a pretty good example in the current us governement),this is why politicians should have no power and every law or descision should be decided by the people

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 13, 2005.


i understand what you mean zarove,but(correct)rules and laws can only be seen as authority if you are intending to do something bad

This is false. You are still definign authority as " that which ipprresses and outs it sown interests abov othes."

sicne auhtority actulaly emans that wich has pwoer vested in it, then no matter wat the rules are, thy are authoritative. they have auhtority that binds on all of osociety.

Understand that the term authority does NOT mean oppresison, auhtority just means that it is gven power to decide, spea, or act on a certain topic.

when I say Michio Kaku is an authirity in hysics, that doesnt man he has the ability to warp time an sapce to his will for his own interests. it means he is knwoeldgable n the eild and shoudl be litened to.

Authority is poorly defined by you to mean somethign it doesnt rellay mean, all the whike you adovcate authority, but a poor auhtority.

i already said that rules and laws are needed to provide us freedom by protecting us

Then you admit the need for authority. Rules and laws ARE authority.

And not just if they ar eintended to do soemthign bad, as you said. anyhtign with vested power is an authority. rules and laws by deifnition have vested power. if they had no power, they woudl not be rules or laws.

Thus your "Authority free" society HAS authority.

and we do NOT live in a democracy

In thr United states its a federal rpeublic, but its what we clal democracy in the loose form of the word.

there are political parties that make up their own program between which we must/may choose

as opposed to your system in hwihc the laws themselves represent a soverign authority. You stil havent answered where he laws come form. who, exaclty, makes the rules?

in a real democracy the people should make this program

which woidl be imposisble ot do wth a large population. and what you mean is in a DIRECT democracy. we liv ein a true democracy now, just not a direct one.

politicians are a corrupt bunch of scum who are only intrested in their own profits(we have a pretty good example in the current us governement),this is why politicians should have no power and every law or descision should be decided by the people

1: Not all politicians ae that bad.

2: have you rely thuht through the practical ramificatiosn of this lad? try geting over 500 million people to sitat a table and discuss an issue fairly, and see hwo far it goes...

all you are dign is tryign to be another Vladimire Lennon.

And it widl cllapse the same way.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 13, 2005.


sdqa is right about this

there is no future for us all with this kind of system

and it's john lennon,not vladimir lennon and he had nothing to do with communism,he was just against the war in vietnam

anyway i am convinced that communism is good but people made abuse of it because it was hierarchal communism

communism can only function with anarchy

communism without anarchy is indeed a disaster

-- jerry(communist,1/2 russian,orthodox christian) (doofykorn@hoitmail.com), January 13, 2005.


"anyway i am convinced that communism is good but people made abuse of it because it was hierarchal communism "--Jerry.

Well, of course, any sytem of government will work in theory, but just as your communism falls apart in practicallity, so does any stagnant system of government. History shows that Communism cannot stand the test of time. Just remove the individual person from Communism and it works! Name one communist nation or society that has survived and not crumbled. Even Scriptures tells of the problems with communal living, which would point to the Communist Ideaology.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 13, 2005.


sdqa is right about this

{nO HES NOT. HE CANT EVEN ANSWER WHY AUTHORITY MEANS BAD.}-Zarove

there is no future for us all with this kind of system

{If you are referign to SQ, your right, his system is insane. Our own ystem has problems, htu ti works much betterthan what he proposes...}- Zarove

and it's john lennon,not vladimir lennon and he had nothing to do with communism,he was just against the war in vietnam

{no, its Vladimire Lennon. Im not tlakign about the Beatle star, Im talkign abouthth eorchestrator of the Oktober Revolution. as a russian I have to tell you htix? The englishman has to tell the russian who Vladimire Lennon was? The man whose body is STILL preserved in russia for all to see?

The man who lead the ar agaisnthe Tzars and made the entire soviet Union Possible?

Also spel,ed lenin, or linin. ( english as not how his name was spelled, there are vsreints.)

Below are a couple of sites for you.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=27697

http://www.soften.ktu.lt/~kaleck/Lenin/

He had everyhtign to do with communism.}-Zarove

anyway i am convinced that communism is good but people made abuse of it because it was hierarchal communism

{communism is good except it is uttelry and totlaly insane, and doesnt reflect human nature, or the real world, very well.

Other than ignorign the Human tendancy to dominate, the ease n which a Human midn is corrpt, and how personal ownership and terretoriality is an inante instrinct hat cnanot be overcome by education, Communism also fials beause it ultumatley has no central barrier between the ocunsil of soviets and the rles beign enforced. wich si the same issue we see problems wiht in SQ's arguments, such as they are. who watches the watchers, as the syaing goes?}-Zarove

communism can only function with anarchy

{No, cmmunism demands that a civil obedience exists n order fr corporate sharign to exist. There cna be no anarchy if everything is subordenate tt he state for redistrebituon, as is demande in Communist theory. The two systems of thoguth ar eincompatable.}-Zarove

communism without anarchy is indeed a disaster

{and communism with anarchy is a paradox that cannot exist int he real world. Have you acutlly STIUDIED communism?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 13, 2005.


it's vladimir LENIN,not lennon

off course i know him

people think he was cool but i don't think so

do you also know pjotr kropotkin and mikhail bakunin?

they were cool guys

not all russians are evil

-- jerry (doofykorn@hotmail.com), January 13, 2005.


jesus was a communist

he taught us about sharing and loving

-- jerry (doofykorn@hotmail.vom), January 13, 2005.


and what do you say about the exploiting kapitalism?

-- jerry (doofykorn@hotmail.com), January 13, 2005.

I don't understand the anarchist. They reject authority, yet they cling to humanism. On the other hand, they "believe" in God, yet admire the atheist view.

Forget Anarchism, let's just call it "Paradoxism".

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 13, 2005.


i don't like you

and you type strange

-- jerry (doofykorn@hotmail.com), January 13, 2005.


I presume that it is Zarove that you dislike, Jerry.

Jesus was more of a true humanist in that His purpose was to offer Salvation to all who accepted Him. Humanism then became corrupted by mortals with a different agenda than God's. Humanism has become a bad word, it seems.

I like Zarove. Yes, he types funny, but the messages are valuable.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 13, 2005.


it's vladimir LENIN,not lennon

{tHE NAME IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SPELL IN NGLISH,AND HAS MANY VARIENTS, INCLUDING lENNON. Noethelsss, the name shoidl have relaly strck you at soem point lad...}-Zarove off course i know him

{Thats nice.}-Zarove

people think he was cool but i don't think so

{Good. You arent completley insane then.}-Zarove

do you also know pjotr kropotkin and mikhail bakunin?

{yes, Ive heard.}-Zarove

they were cool guys

{why?}-Zarove

not all russians are evil

{And I said all russians are evil when? I just said vladimire Linin was...}-Zarove

jesus was a communist

{No, he was a Jew...}-Zarove he taught us about sharing and loving

{ Communism isnt abitu "Loving and sharing", its about the state redestribitign the wealth to eliminat ehte lcass system and to ensure everyone gets equel amounts of everyhting. Jesus was a Moral and ethical philosoppher, who taught prvate ethics, not sate run and enforced redistribuiton of the wealth... He alo spoke of the "Kingdom of God", so he want rellay or the abolition fothe class system either...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 13, 2005.


Strange that an anarchist would be concerned with the different type- set of another individual's. It seems that some sort of conformity is expected from the other poster. I sense a hint of authority and weak/power struggle about to arise.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 13, 2005.


"...exploiting kapitalism?"--Jerry.

That is very wrong. If I fix your car, I would expect payment. That's how a family is fed. If I fix your car when you are penny- less, I could wait for payment or just do it for free. Things will workout. You too have a family to feed. That's how things should work, even in the bigger picture. But, they don't always work that way. So, what is it that we really need in the first place? Well, we need just enough to live without going looney.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 13, 2005.


See rod, ocne we all agree we will be free to be whatever we want, so long as we do everytign the way the state, er, SQ jerry and all, say...

Isnt communism, er, anarchy grand...

Ill start designign the new Soviet flag withthe big A symbol on it.

Remember, we are a dictatorshipof the Proliterate...

-- COMerade Zarove. (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 13, 2005.


Ah! ďđč˙ňĺëü Zarove, my comrad! Mi casa es tu casa, mi caballo es tu caballo, mis dinero es tu dinero. Hey, what's yours is mine too!

BTW, those characters by your name (if they show) means "friend" in Russian.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 13, 2005.


i don't speak russian because my father is russian and he was too lazy to teach me russian but i think that friend in russian is kamarad instead of comrade

and i think you were confusin lennon with lenin zoroff and now you try to cover it up

-- jerry (doofykorn@hotmail.com), January 13, 2005.


Jerry. I spelled the name Lennon. een if this is a mispellign of the name, the firts name Vladimire shuid;l have been a dead givaway of who I was referign to.

Obviously I was not referign to John Lennon the Beatle, wen the discusisonw as bout communism.

How COULD I covder this up? I eman, any sane, thinkgn person woidl know who I was talking about. spellign aside.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 13, 2005.


MAN YOU TYPE WORSE THAN PUNKER

YOU ARE NOT MAYBE FRENCH LIKE ME?

-- PUNKER (GREG_PISAHOV@HOTMAIL.COM), January 13, 2005.


you want to cover it up with your bad spelling

anyway

john lennon was a great guy

such a shame the cia killed him

-- jerry (doofykorn@hotmail.com), January 13, 2005.


1: im dyslexic.

2: The fact that I used the terms " Cmmunisim" "Oktober revolution" and the name "Vladimire" tells you I wasnt talkign abut John lennon.

3: The CIA didnt kill John lennon, an obsessed fan of the Beatles did. This was because he Married Yoko Ono and broke up the Beatles...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 13, 2005.


THE CIA KILLED HIM BECAUSE HE WAS INFLUENCING PEOPLE AGAINST VIETNAM WAR

-- PUNKER AND JERRY (GREG_PISAHOV@HOTMAIL.COM), January 13, 2005.

Prove it.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 13, 2005.

www.justiceforkurt.com

HERE IT IS

-- PUNKER (GREG_PISAHOV@HOTMAIL.COM), January 13, 2005.


Cheap consoiract websites can be fodn anywher eot he web, but arent creidble eidence...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 13, 2005.

GO READ THE SITE

-- PUNKER (GREG_PISAHOV@HOTMAIL.COM), January 13, 2005.

I did, now I want to forget it.

Unless yourwllay want me to tar it all apart...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 13, 2005.


LAZY

-- PUNKER (GREG_PISAHOV@HOTMAIL.COM), January 13, 2005.

yup.

-- Zar (Zaroff3@Juno.Com), January 13, 2005.

you don't know what you are talking about dude

you even confuse lenin with lennon

russians dont have double letters as far as i know so it is impossible that his name was lennon,it was lenin and then you try to cover it up with your bad spelling

the only argument you have against anarchy is sdqa's definition of authority,well let me put this one straight sdqa meant:anyone who stands above someone else and has the right to have more power,rights,privileges,social status or anything else that makes them unequal;it doesn't matter if it is the complete correct definition of authority when you know what sdqa is talking about

so i suggest you give concrete arguments to that and not come up with things like :'you don't know what authority is'

i explained now what sdqa meant with authority,don't refer anymore about his wrong/incomplete terminology because this isn't usefull for the discussion because we all know now what sdqa meant because i just explained it

so zaroff,would you please give concrete arguments why anarchy and communism don't work and why kapitalism does work?

also you say john lennon wasen't murdered,you asked for evidence,punker gave you and you don't give a **** and don't even read the site

you really expect us to take you as a serious person?

-- jerry (doofykorn@hotmail.com), January 14, 2005.


The purist form of Communism is still oppressive. Captitalism is also oppressive. It is natural that people become divided by power. The strongest and smartest will always dominate the weakest and docile. Those who are in the upper class shall always continue to be higher. Both systems of government/economics will exhibit such nature. Why? Because man is that way that he will exploit his fellow man. Anarchy may make attempts to correct such nature, but while taking action they become the same power structures they are against.

Communism does not work. It will and does finally decay into social chaos. The individual is sacrificed and the entire social progress becomes stagnant. The government--elitism-- becomes the voice of the people. That is the converse of the people--pluralism--being the voice of the government. Capitalism works. It allows the individual to become powerful enough to generate progress in social change. Capitalism can fluctuate and become Socialism. I suppose that Communism can do the same, but I think that Capitalism is better equipped to support society with more ease, until it becomes Capitalism again.

I guess the main thing about Communism is that it rejects the freedom of the individual to move up the hierarchy of lifestyle and financial stability. Capitalism allows for that freedom. But, in reality, there never really is a "pure" "ism" of government.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 14, 2005.


you don't know what you are talking about dude you even confuse lenin with lennon

Yeah I thoght that star of the Beatls started Communism in Russia...or else I msispelled the name... obviosily I didnt just make a spellign error, I clearly confused the tweo, yor so smart to pick up on that...

Granted, I did use the name "Vladimire", but oh well...

russians dont have double letters as far as i know so it is impossible that his name was lennon,it was lenin and then you try to cover it up with your bad spelling

So it cant possibely be that I misspelled the name, it has ot be tha I confeused the two?

Realisticalysicne I used the name " Vladimire" and the term "Oktober revoluiton" it became clea rin most posters mind who I was speakign about, even IF I got the me wrong. I dddint confuse the personJohn Lennon with Vladimire Lennon, I just cnfised the spelling.

You can say I was rellay confused and tryign to cover it, but relaly who is goign to beelive you on this mater?

the only argument you have against anarchy is sdqa's definition of authority,well let me put this one straight sdqa meant:anyone who stands above someone else and has the right to have more power,rights,privileges,social status or anything else that makes them unequal;it doesn't matter if it is the complete correct definition of authority when you know what sdqa is talking about

1: SQ's definition fo authority itsself is flawed, thus causing his whlle theory to be flawed. He doesnt have a soiety wihout authority but with rules, the rules are autrity. worse still, he has elevated peopel to pubic office to enfroe the rules, makigm them authority.

My argument is aisnt what SQ claims Anarchy is, and it stands.

He doesnt clealry define how thos ein power ( Those enforcign the rules) arrive athte rules to begin with. who makes the rules? And even though they arelimited by the rules, fi they make the rules that cna change them in ther faour. wiht no safety cap to prevent otherwise, the enforcers of th rules owil become slavemasters in the end, the reuslt woidl be social chaos.

we know becaue htis IS what happeend in the Oktober revolution, which is the largest poin we are making.

By te way, popel beign given power to decide soemhing isnrt all bad. Not all peopel wth such power abuse it. Likewise, those givent he pwoer can be kept in check if othes likewise have this power. Its why most systems of Govenrment have a system of CHecks and Ba;ances.

This prevents one person or grou pf persons form assuming total power and changiugn peopels rights.

everyone can have equel rights and still be bound to an authirity.

Inded, the only way TO secure equel rightsis to bound people to SOME authority which safeguards tose rigths. Nothign in tis system gives special rights to thos ein power.

so i suggest you give concrete arguments to that and not come up with things like :'you don't know what authority is'

I did.

1: anyhtign you set up that is bondign is an auhtority, thus negatign the argumet that a society wiht rules but no authority is possible.

2: Those selected to enforce the rules have to learn the rules soemwhere, who makes the rules? what proccess is it?

3: Those designated to enfore the tutules, if left tot her own evices, cna manipulate the law to gain there ends, and if thy ar ethe oens who likewise make the ruels, this coidl spell disaster, tis dictatorship in the making.

3-A: If the peopel make the laws, by vite, the system will stall, and i the inerum the laws will be decided by the enforcers, who may decide to manipulate any law to fm a pwoer base to create the same type of oppresion that is disliked y SQ and htat prompts his system in the firts palce, makign his whole attmept uterly useless and ultmatley self defeating.

Fair enough yet?

i explained now what sdqa meant with authority,don't refer anymore about his wrong/incomplete terminology because this isn't usefull for the discussion because we all know now what sdqa meant because i just explained it

explain to me this then. we have no authority, as SQ defines it. That being, nothing has pwoer over anythgin else.

Yet we have laws.

The law, in order not to be an autority, can have no pwper over ayone. So, I can ignore the law if I want, because it has no binding power over me.If it did have a binign pwoer over me, it becoems an autirity over me. Since it is nto an authority, and we live in a ocity with no auhtority, I have the riht to ignore the laws and g on raping and pilaging all I want. whyh? Because the law is not sometign that limits my actions, as it is not binding, it has no power ove me, and it is not an authority.

so zaroff,would you please give concrete arguments why anarchy and communism don't work and why kapitalism does work?

whoever said I was a CAPITOLIST? There are more than two optiosn you know.

In addition to the above already concrete arguments, I offer you the Hisotry of the Union of soviet Sovcialist republics, Cuba, and the Peoples republic of China.

Those are ocncrete examples, and htus excellent aegumets, woidln you Agree Comrade? well, of coruse yu wont, but it is true nonethelss.

also you say john lennon wasen't murdered,you asked for evidence,punker gave you and you don't give a **** and don't even read the site

I di rezd it, then left it alone. its just more consiracy mongering that I outgrew already and one day you will too.

you really expect us to take you as a serious person?

Not until I have another stoke or get hooked on speed or fry my brian wiht 200 volts of electricity, then I shoidl be on your level...



-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 14, 2005.


1: anyhtign you set up that is bondign is an auhtority, thus negatign the argumet that a society wiht rules but no authority is possible.

[i already said,if you are good,there will never be any authority above you,if you are bad towards others in a way that you become a threat for their freedom you practice a certain form of authority--i think it's very logical that we need to prevent anyone taking anyone's freedom away,so authority over this person is needed because it's the only way how to prevent him to harm anyone.respond to kindness with kindness and respond to evil with justice(confucius)i think it's obvious that authority in this case can be justified]-sdqa

2: Those selected to enforce the rules have to learn the rules soemwhere, who makes the rules? what proccess is it?

[everything that you do is free,unless you cause harm to others with it;my freedom reaches to your freedom--this is what laws should be based on,further the people should choose the laws and the political actions that should be undertaken=>direct democracy,the only true democracy,the rest are just illusions]-sdqa

3: Those designated to enfore the tutules, if left tot her own evices, cna manipulate the law to gain there ends, and if thy ar ethe oens who likewise make the ruels, this coidl spell disaster, tis dictatorship in the making.

[how can they manipulate the laws if the only 'power' they have is to enforce those laws? this is possible with little,pretty irrelevant things,but on big scale i can't see how in a fair system someone can manipulate the laws?]-sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 14, 2005.


1: anyhtign you set up that is bondign is an auhtority, thus negatign the argumet that a society wiht rules but no authority is possible. [i already said,if you are good,there will never be any authority above you,if you are bad towards others in a way that you become a threat for their freedom you practice a certain form of authority--i think it's very logical that we need to prevent anyone taking anyone's freedom away,so authority over this person is needed because it's the only way how to prevent him to harm anyone.respond to kindness with kindness and respond to evil with justice(confucius)i think it's obvious that authority in this case can be justified]-sdqa

{tHIS IS IRRATIONAL NONSENCE. HOW DO YO DEIFNE "hARMING SOMEONE":? THAT ALONE WOIDL TAKE UP PAGES OF LEGAL PRECEDENT.

Liekwise, the ruels must exost BEFORE the person cab be held acocurable for brealign them, so you must deifne what hurts people, how much hurt us allowed, when tis appropriate, and what consititutes ""Hurt".

Then you have to detemrine rather or not someone is keeping it.

You cant say the law abiding have no authority over them, they are still expecte to pbey the rules. Thus the riles ar ebidnign voer them. if they lek the way thigns are, they may want ot obey, but tis not liek they ad a choice if theydidnt...the authrity is alreayd over them. if the authriry isnt over them, and they act in a way you dont liek or that "Harms someone" then you automaticlaly lost, sicne you cant try them as no authority was over them to prevent this harm form happening, you place the authority ove rhtem after-the-fact...

Based on preexistant truels no less...

This means they wher eunder hte authority to begin with and are beign punished for breakign the law...}-Zarove

2: Those selected to enforce the rules have to learn the rules soemwhere, who makes the rules? what proccess is it?

[everything that you do is free,unless you cause harm to others with it;my freedom reaches to your freedom--this is what laws should be based on,

{It is what the law is based on lad, take a legal course soemtime, you may learn soemthing...}-Zarove

further the people should choose the laws and the political actions that should be undertaken=>direct democracy,the only true democracy,the rest are just illusions]-sdqa

{Direct democracy is impossibel n a large scale, since it woidl render a society imposisble to coordenate, and no focus coidl be granted because every day a enw social issue and a new eleciton woidl have to take palce afte rlenghty discussiomns... imagin that in a room of 5000, then try to impose it on a cope million...}-Zarove

3: Those designated to enfore the tutules, if left tot her own evices, cna manipulate the law to gain there ends, and if thy ar ethe oens who likewise make the ruels, this coidl spell disaster, tis dictatorship in the making.

[how can they manipulate the laws if the only 'power' they have is to enforce those laws?

{They can be selective in the enforcement, liekise, whose task is it to intepret the laws? I presume theres sicne they ar eht eonly oens that exist. And who made the laws int h irts palce, and is thre an amendment proccedure?}-Zarove

this is possible with little,pretty irrelevant things,but on big scale i can't see how in a fair system someone can manipulate the laws?]-sdqa

{ The soviet Union started out withthis very thought...then got nasty. I siggest in addition to a legal coruse, you pick up a hisotry book.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 14, 2005.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ