Gideon, my dear chap,Apparently you are REALLY wound-up this time. Calm down, it's no big deal, only discussion.
: Robert, who defines the term "anarchist"? It comes from the theorists who invented the idea. Any other usage is simply incorrect.
Gideon, those who have actually lived in real-world anarchy are those who have had continual anxiety and perhaps unceasing threat to their lives during those times. It is one thing to theorise, regardless of the codification of the defined term, and another to live with the ramifications of those actions whether they be intended or otherwise. When anarchy reigned in France, Russia, and Federal Yugoslavia clearly it was not a holiday at Disney World. It was pure terror for those involved.
: If you seek to define a term by the gloss that the opponents put on it, then I'm entirely justified in calling you a "genocidal reactionary supremacist bigot", since opponents to Christianity have used those terms (with some justification!) to describe the Christian Church.
I don't tend to gloss over anything. I (like in the evolutionary debate) always prefer to weigh actual evidence / practice over theoretical speculation.
As for name calling, I think you realise by now that I have developed rather thick skin in this regards and the inuendo and smear tactics don't work.
: So, Robert, if I were to use your own (faulty) logic against you, I would be entirely correct in calling you genocidal (check the last 1800 years of Christian history), bigoted (ditto), narrowminded (ditto) and so on.
I'm not aware that I've lived for 1800 years. It would be your own faulty logic to hold me responsible for historical events that old.
: To which, of course, you would respond "oh, but that's not Christianity; it's not what Jesus taught"; so how is Floyd any more responsible for those who have misused the idea of anarchism than you are for those who misused the teachings of Christ?
Firstly, (and read carefully since I've said this before) the equating of Christ to the mistreatment of people (ie. inquistion, etc.) is the work of man, not God.
Secondly, It never was my purpose to hold Floyd responsible for any "misuse" of his anarchistic theory. I'm not sure I even understand his theory, to be quite frank. He asked me (better he demanded of me under the threat of ridicule) to back up my original reply to him with evidence. In a kind reply to his demand I simply provided three anarchistic examples, two historical and one contemporary, to illustrate my understanding. Even you would admit that these examples, however flawed as you view them, are more than anyone else has provided in this thread. All other anarchism has been pure textbook theory, not actual practice. You know yourself as a scientist that classroom work is insufficient, field work is necessary. So criticise if you must.
: Anarchism is not inherently violent. If you define a term by the bias of its opponents, then you belong to a murderous cult. Take the beam out of your own eye, Robert...
Anarchy itself, however, is terrifying in its violence. Just ask the people who have actually lived through anarchistic times.
Moreover, any murderous cult cannot be equated with God, it would solely be the work of man. God says, "Thou shalt not murder".
: (who visited the Church of the Holy Sepulchre last Saturday; possibly the most tasteless building I've ever seen in my life. Really. The word "tacky" doesn't begin to do it justice. But you can hire crosses outside, if you want to carry them around for a bit...)
Actually, you bring up a good observation here. You are right, there is nothing "sacred" about these types of buildings. They are merely the work of man, nothing special. I've always tried to convey this to many people. As Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world", so to look for him in a physical sense is futile. His Kingdom is the Kingdom of Grace and can be found in the joy and happiness of the Holy Spirit, not in carring wooden crosses or old buildings. Otherwise, enjoy your holiday, and cheer up. Perhaps we'll cross paths someday. God Bless.
Robert
