: Floyd, dear one,: : Robert, my best enemy;
: Always happy to see that I endear myself with others (sorry, apparently you're not amused).
What makes you think that? I'm quite often amused by the things you say (although often not when you intend me to be amused).
: : ...I mean seriously, I could say "before Abraham was, I am" but doing so does not answer my questions about extra-dimensionality. Don't believe me? Try to get a doctorate in physics using this as an argument.
: Floyd, since we are back to the original question, perhaps nothing would qualify as evidence in your mind.
No, many things qualify as "evidence" to me, but they are exclusively material, physical things, not immaterial, "spiritual" or philosophical things.
:Perhaps I'll leave you with Pearce's ISBNs for Evidence for Truth: Archeology, ISBN 0863472648, and Evidence for Truth: Science, ISBN 086347263x. Pearce is a an Oxford PhD, who spent his early years as an understudy to Melaart at Catal Huyuk. They are both good reads, whether you agree or not.
I'm actually familiar with this work, and it is what we in the sciences call "nonsense." Sorry, pal, perhaps you'd be interested in reading some real archaeology?
:
: Shift to WTO topic.
: :...The only thing all the protestors had in common that you can reasonably assume from their attendance was their dislike for one or more aspects of the WTO and/or their agenda.
: This is perhaps true. On closer inspection, there seemed to be two groups of anarchists who attended the fest. One was the peaceful group who were gassed, beat, and arrested. The second group was in the background, wearing ski masks and causing all sorts of violence. They seemed to get off scott free.
You're lumping all the "peaceful" protestors together as "anarchists," when in fact that is incorrect. The people who have been called "anarchists" by the statist media were in fact much as you describe, punk thugs who were just interested in smashing things. They were not anarchists in any real sense at all, since anarchism inherently opposes coercion, and violence is always coercive. Many of the non-violent protestors were not anarchists, in fact, most were not. All of the violent protestors were NOT anarchists, but revolutionary statists. There is a huge difference, which I've explained before and need not repeat.
: This latter group reminds me of the brown-shirts of the 1930's who sped around the streets of Germany hurling bricks through windows and creating chaos. Their actions in Seattle were documented as being well coordinated and planned (International Herald, 3 December). So I can sympathise with your being around them, (hopefully you don't own a ski mask).
I was not involved with those people. I do not trust those people. I do not now, nor will I ever, have anything to do with those people. I strongly suspect that they were agents provocatuers, but if not, they were transformed into such by the media labeling them "anarchists." Their behavior was inexcusable, and if they were'nt deliberately trying to make anarchism look bad, then they were used by the media to do so. Either way, as I mentioned, they were not anarchists.
:
: : Most of the protestors opposed a lowering of real wages and labor standards and/or a softening of environmental protections. The protestors were not in any position to make global treaties, only the people inside the convention center could do that. The protestors were the "average blokes" that you accuse us of trying to oppress. Yes, I would like it if my children are able to earn a livable wage and drink clean water, and yes, I will work to make this the case. Yes, this may mean imposing restrictions or sanctions on capitalist multinational corporations, but the people who own these businesses are not "average blokes," Robert, they are oligarchs who are each doing a lot more to oppress the "average bloke" than all the protestors combined could ever manage.
: So you don't want a global treaty or some legislation. I think you do.
The fact that you think something does not make it true. I frankly don't care if you think I want a global state. I've tol;d you several times that this is not the case, and you just refuse to listen, so I will no longer try to convince you. There are lots of other brick walls out there for me to bang my head against. Think whatever you want.
: OK, so you get your global treaty. Who will enforce it? A global police? A global cop? A global state? Remember the treaty is not worth the paper it is written on if it is not ENFORCABLE.
Irrelevant blather, since, as I said, it's based on a false assumption.
: Ironically, the same kevlar-clad bloke who thumped you on the head and whom you villified a few weeks ago may, one day, be your hero
Now you're back to calling me a nazi? I thought we were past that. Oh well, think what you want.
:when he hauls some poor fisherman to jail for accidently snagging a sea turtle. So enforcement comes with force. Treaties require enforcement. Global treaties require global enforcement. Is this conspriacy talk to you?
No, it's irrelevant twaddle to me since, as I said, I do not support the creation of a global state. Your paranoia is showing.
: What you are doing Floyd is, replacing the nation-state with the global-state. No freedom will be gain through that. Neither will your much vaunted individualism.
Irrelevant twaddle and false assumptions again...ZZZzzzzzz...
: Perhaps the greatest anarchy to the WTO would be strong nation-states. They wouldn't know how to break them down.
That's just plain hilarious! The multinationals already control the powerful nation states. Why do you think McSpotlight exists? Why do you think the McLibel trial happened? Your understanding of global economics is rivaled only by your knowledge of modern science.
:
: : By the way, I was wondering something. You argue that there is such a thing as "fake Christianity," and that the believers of this "fake Christianity" think they are practicing real Christianity (i.e. they don't knowingly believe something that is not true). Given this, how do you know your approach is not also "fake Christianity?" You believe it is true, and that is one of the symptoms of "fake Christianity" is it not? In other words, how can you tell "real" from "fake" versions?
: : I'm honestly curious.
: : Thanks for writing.
: Floyd, you are quite welcome indeed. Good question.
: I think Paul answered this in Galations 5:4-5. "...you who attempt to be justified by the law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith."
: Psuedo-Christianity requires SOMETHING of you. It requires you to build an earthly kingdom, social policies of some sort or another, abiding by a lot of do-do's and don't do's, and on and on, unt so weiter. It is action before faith.
So, why do you oppose communism? Since communism is "of this world," it strikes me that you wouldn't care if the commies took over, since you are not interested in this world. Also, why do you try to convince people of the validity of your beliefs? People are also "of this world," and only their supposed "souls" or "spirits" are important in your philosophy, so why bother? Surely their solus or spirits already "know the truth," so your attempts to convince people are simply blowing air around, aren't they?
: Moreover, it seeks a fleshly kingdom, not God's Spirit Kingdom. They trade in God's Kingdom of Grace for man's Kingdom on Earth. They are rooted in earthly goals. Jesus said, My Kingdom is not of this world.
: On the other hand, Christ's Salvation requires NOTHING of you. You can do absolutely nothing for Christ, you are indeed helpless. His Salvation is based wholely on unmerited favor (His Grace). Your Kingdom is Spiritual not earthly.
: The differences are like night and day.
: As for my testimony, I thank God for His Grace. There are no list of do's, or don't do's attached. Nothing that I've done in my entire life merits any favour with Him. He's given me a Free Pass. Praise His Holy Name. God Bless.
: Robert
Fine, explain to me why, if there are no lists of "do's and don'ts," you oppose the things you oppose and support the things you support. I assume that you oppose communism because communism will, in your opinion, make the world a worse place. Since you've stated that you are not interested in this "fleshy kingdom," why do you care whether or not there is communism? If there is no reason to try to make the world a better place, then there is no justification for your opposition to alternative economic or political systems. It doesn't make a lot of sense, Robert, you have to admit.
In any case, Happy New Year.
-Floyd
