Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Lost Religion of Jesus non-religious anarchism

Expand Messages
  • Aaron Fehir
    Jennifer, Not exactly. I probably should have been more explicit in my initial post... First, of all I have a suspicion, a hunch, possibily even some good
    Message 1 of 15 , Feb 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Jennifer,

      Not exactly. I probably should have been more explicit in my
      initial post...

      First, of all I have a suspicion, a hunch, possibily even some good
      reasons to think that atheistic versions of anarchism are incapable
      of providing strong justifcations for themselves whereas versions of
      anarchism that make religious appeals do not suffer from this lack
      of justification. So I am looking for resources to help me confirm
      my hypothesis. I don't mean to pit religion against anarchism, but
      to think through whether religious anarchism is a superior, more
      coherent framework than non-religious anarchism. This is NOT to say
      that atheistic anarchists are completely wrong about everything,
      etc. But just to gesture toward a certain insuffiency. Does that
      make more sense?

      Of course, I could be totally wrong...

      Aaron

      Ps... are there any readers of Kierkegaard here?


      --- In Lost_Religion_of_Jesus@yahoogroups.com, Jennifer Lipka
      <spiritwrestler73@...> wrote:
      >
      > Forgive me for asking for the "breakdown" of what you are asking--
      are you looking for religious views against anarchism? as in
      political anarchism, religion against political anarchism?
      > Jennifer
      >
      >
      > Aaron Fehir <vigilius_haufniensis@...> wrote:
      > Does anyone here know of any good books or articles that
      critique non-
      > religious versions of anarchism from a religious perspective?
      >
      > Aaron
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
      > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
      >
    • David Leon Henise
      Aaron, You might not get anything useful out of this brief reply. Brief (or, well..rather rushed, anyway, or brief as far as philosophy goes) before I rush off
      Message 2 of 15 , Feb 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment

        Aaron,

         

        You might not get anything useful out of this brief reply. Brief (or, well..rather rushed, anyway, or brief as far as philosophy goes) before I rush off to bed so that I can wake up and rush on with my otherwise busy life, I suppose. I’m not sure if that sounds like a good thing. But, please, allow me to continue blabbing so that I may properly put you to sleep with my banter. ;-)

         

        It is currently my opinion that what people generally call “atheism” is in ALL respects weaker than any philosophy or framework which incorporates religion. That is, counter to what some atheists may pose, the frameworks which we call atheism by nature do not account for religion, or even leave open the true possibility of accounting for its existence. So, at this time I have to point out that there can be a difference between the religious aspects of history and daily life on the one hand and the spiritual aspects of philosophy or thought which DOES the incorporating of the religious aspects on the other hand. Given that distinction, I couldn’t conscientiously say that a “religious” view of any philosophy or framework of thought is BETTER than an atheistic framework, after I’ve made such a distinction. In the sense in which I’ve distinguished, it is the incorporation of spirituality into a framework which makes it better, as well as specifically better able to “account for” religion.

         

        In this new sense, rather than speaking about “religion” strictly, it is spirituality which much be incorporated, or more properly which must do the incorporating of things which would otherwise be missing from our philosophical frameworks. So-called atheisms seem to be built on what has largely been called a European “Enlightenment” thinking, which is a way of thinking which rightly questions “christianity,” for example, however does NOT exactly figure out where to go after it is done being critical of existing frameworks. By definition then, “atheistic” frameworks are only half thought through. Their point, if we’re honest I think, is and was never finished. Atheism, then, is rather like an egg which was intended to be boiled solid, but which ended up half-boiled. Some people seem to insist that the half-boiled and soggy egg is finished enough for them. And good for them, I suppose. However, to be seeking after the truth on the matter, we must eventually admit that it is exactly what it is – not solidified – not thought through – and in that sense, not an “enlightenment” or awakening at ALL…only the HOPE of one.

         

        So..this leads me to, vaguely, why I distinguish between the religious and the spiritual in my own particular way, in the first place. That is, the difference between the two terms, in this particular context which can be seen as a historical one, is VERY well described by the difference between the soft egg and the hard egg. To truly “use” (let’s just say) or “fulfill” our spirituality, we must think it through…in essence, we must return it to a more solid form. So while spirituality is something we SEEK (the hard-boiled egg), religion is something which seeks US (just to make it sound cute, I guess, and to correlate with the soft egg, or the earlier point in time, in history). Atheism, in the meantime, attempts to free us from “religion” (again, only when the term is used in the current sense, of course), but it does not very well at all seek after further spirituality. Thus, it is the “half-boiled egg” – the in-between stage that we may try to settle for, but which will neither fake us into thinking that we are truly secure, as religion does, nor evolve us into thinking that we have REASON to think we are secure in ourselves, as does the fulfillment of spirituality or the incorporation of our spiritual longings into our framework of thought (which is “enlightenment,” “true enlightenment” or “awakening”).

         

        As a caveat, I have, in the past, been blamed for trying to talk in my own personal language. In other words, I talk over people’s heads sometimes. But, my intention is not to talk over someone else’s head. To my mind, I am simply talking. Yes, this seems to be cyclical reasoning to those who are obsessed with hyper-interpretations of mis-translations of lingual philosophy or semantic analysis, of whom I’ve met a few in my time.

         

        But I digress. And so, if I’ve talked over your head, forgive me and/or ignore most of what I’ve written. To me, I’m only talking as bluntly as I can or from whatever mood I may be in. It is others who get lost and then, at times, blame me for trying to disturb their (in my country’s case) perfectly grand American lives with the stupidity of Analysis and Logic of their hypocrisies. How dare I, after all! I’m not the most knowledgeable man on earth. And if I were, by some gross standard, there wouldn’t be much point to being so. It’s my thought-processes, rather than my sheer knowledge, that offend people at times. And it’s those same thought processes which remind people that their comfy little lives are not really so comfy – a truth which “they” do not want to admit. And therefore, it’s those same thought processes that have turned me into something of an anarchist or libertarian.

         

        I feel I have to bring some of these issues up sometimes, about how I bring some issues up that may seem off the subject or to some people even completely irrelevant to the whole universe, when I talk to someone in such a philosophical manner as this for the very first time.

         

        So, I guess you can grade me now and let me know how well my experience thus far in life has taught me to communicate my thoughts to almost random listeners…. If I still suck, in your opinion, well that’s ok…. I’ll just keep living life, eh? Like for right now, I think I’ll go to bed with my adorable wife.

         

        Take care, J

        Dave

         


        From: Lost_Religion_of_Jesus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Lost_Religion_of_Jesus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Aaron Fehir
        Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 6:24 PM
        To: Lost_Religion_of_Jesus@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: Lost Religion of Jesus non-religious anarchism

         

        Jennifer,

        Not exactly. I probably should have been more explicit in my
        initial post...

        First, of all I have a suspicion, a hunch, possibily even some good
        reasons to think that atheistic versions of anarchism are incapable
        of providing strong justifcations for themselves whereas versions of
        anarchism that make religious appeals do not suffer from this lack
        of justification. So I am looking for resources to help me confirm
        my hypothesis. I don't mean to pit religion against anarchism, but
        to think through whether religious anarchism is a superior, more
        coherent framework than non-religious anarchism. This is NOT to say
        that atheistic anarchists are completely wrong about everything,
        etc. But just to gesture toward a certain insuffiency. Does that
        make more sense?

        Of course, I could be totally wrong...

        Aaron

        Ps... are there any readers of Kierkegaard here?

        --- In Lost_Religion_ of_Jesus@ yahoogroups. com, Jennifer Lipka
        <spiritwrestler73@ ...> wrote:

        >
        > Forgive me for asking for the "breakdown" of what you are
        asking--
        are you looking for religious views against anarchism? as in
        political anarchism, religion against political anarchism?
        > Jennifer
        >
        >
        > Aaron Fehir <vigilius_haufniens is@...> wrote:
        > Does anyone here know of any good books or articles that
        critique non-
        > religious versions of anarchism from a religious perspective?
        >
        > Aaron
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------ --------- --------- ---
        > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
        > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
        >

      • Jennifer Lipka
        Aaron, I wish I could remember the name of the book I just read, written by a French guy in the 60s, just republished here in the States by Left Bank Books; it
        Message 3 of 15 , Feb 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Aaron,
          I wish I could remember the name of the book I just read, written by a French guy in the 60s, just republished here in the States by Left Bank Books; it was all about the revolution of everyday life, and definately a non-religious look at anarchism. 
          I lived in Seattle before moving back home, and due to protesting the WTO meeting in 1999 I met a lot of the Eugene Oregon anarchists (there was even a 60 Minutes segment on the Eugene Oregon anarchists), and even was invited to a conference in Eugene where I spoke on German Autonomen and Autonomen demonstration tactics...
          Before I ever believed in God I believed in anarchism; the life and works of Mikhail Bakunin are very good.  I think all of anarchism is even more positive in its view of humanity than religion is, because it assumes that every human being is capable of governing their own life without needing other to make major decisions for them, and that would assume that it is in us all to make decisions that are positive for ourselves and society. 
          I wish I could think back ten years or so to the stuff I was reading to give you suggestions, but I would disagree with your premise.  My dad is an atheist/secular humanist, and we share many views in common when in comes to anarchism, and I would say without Christianity, anarchism is still a very positive, legitimate philosophy/way of life.  It is just that a lot of anarchists have no qualms about using violence against the state since the state uses violence against us, and there is the big difference between political anarchists and Christian anarchists.
          I'm rambling....
          Peace and Love,
          Jennifer
          PS:  I love Kierkegaard, even visited his grave in Copenhagen....however, Nicholas Baerdyaev is my favorite Christian existentialist...although Gabriel Marcel's Mystery of Being is pretty good too....


          Aaron Fehir <vigilius_haufniensis@...> wrote:
          Jennifer,

          Not exactly. I probably should have been more explicit in my
          initial post...

          First, of all I have a suspicion, a hunch, possibily even some good
          reasons to think that atheistic versions of anarchism are incapable
          of providing strong justifcations for themselves whereas versions of
          anarchism that make religious appeals do not suffer from this lack
          of justification. So I am looking for resources to help me confirm
          my hypothesis. I don't mean to pit religion against anarchism, but
          to think through whether religious anarchism is a superior, more
          coherent framework than non-religious anarchism. This is NOT to say
          that atheistic anarchists are completely wrong about everything,
          etc. But just to gesture toward a certain insuffiency. Does that
          make more sense?

          Of course, I could be totally wrong...

          Aaron

          Ps... are there any readers of Kierkegaard here?

          --- In Lost_Religion_ of_Jesus@ yahoogroups. com, Jennifer Lipka
          <spiritwrestler73@ ...> wrote:
          >
          > Forgive me for asking for the "breakdown" of what you are asking--
          are you looking for religious views against anarchism? as in
          political anarchism, religion against political anarchism?
          > Jennifer
          >
          >
          > Aaron Fehir <vigilius_haufniens is@...> wrote:
          > Does anyone here know of any good books or articles that
          critique non-
          > religious versions of anarchism from a religious perspective?
          >
          > Aaron
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------ --------- --------- ---
          > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
          > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
          >



          8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
          with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.

        • Aaron Fehir
          The front page of this group claims the following: They are described as Christian anarchists, as they nonviolently oppose all governing powers other than
          Message 4 of 15 , Feb 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            The front page of this group claims the following:
            "They are described as Christian anarchists, as they nonviolently
            oppose all governing powers other than God. They believe the answers
            lie within each individual and not with any earthly authority."

            My suspicion is that the little phrase "other than God" is not
            merely tacked on because you all happen to be Christians in addition
            to being nonviolent anarchists. Rather, the "other than God" seems
            to provide something essential. A nonviolent anarchism that simply
            opposes all governing powers tout court seems to me somewhat
            unstable if not impossible. In other words, I wonder whether it is
            not inevitable that something will function as a sort of de facto
            absolute power for the non-religious anarchist.

            Again, I didn't mean to suggest that atheistic anarchism is not a
            good way of life, etc. I just wanted to raise a question about what
            might be lacking that the religion and/or spirituality supplies. It
            seems to me that the religious opens up as a safegaurd against
            absolutization of all governing powers - "other than God" of
            course.

            Dave, is this perhaps an implication of atheistic anarchism being a
            half-boiled egg? [Also, I didn't intend to raise the question only
            with regard to conceptual atheism, but real, honest atheism as well,
            which is certainly superior to cock-sure Enlightment athism.]

            Aaron











            --- In Lost_Religion_of_Jesus@yahoogroups.com, Jennifer Lipka
            <spiritwrestler73@...> wrote:
            >
            > Aaron,
            > I wish I could remember the name of the book I just read,
            written by a French guy in the 60s, just republished here in the
            States by Left Bank Books; it was all about the revolution of
            everyday life, and definately a non-religious look at anarchism.
            > I lived in Seattle before moving back home, and due to
            protesting the WTO meeting in 1999 I met a lot of the Eugene Oregon
            anarchists (there was even a 60 Minutes segment on the Eugene Oregon
            anarchists), and even was invited to a conference in Eugene where I
            spoke on German Autonomen and Autonomen demonstration tactics...
            > Before I ever believed in God I believed in anarchism; the life
            and works of Mikhail Bakunin are very good. I think all of
            anarchism is even more positive in its view of humanity than
            religion is, because it assumes that every human being is capable of
            governing their own life without needing other to make major
            decisions for them, and that would assume that it is in us all to
            make decisions that are positive for ourselves and society.
            > I wish I could think back ten years or so to the stuff I was
            reading to give you suggestions, but I would disagree with your
            premise. My dad is an atheist/secular humanist, and we share many
            views in common when in comes to anarchism, and I would say without
            Christianity, anarchism is still a very positive, legitimate
            philosophy/way of life. It is just that a lot of anarchists have no
            qualms about using violence against the state since the state uses
            violence against us, and there is the big difference between
            political anarchists and Christian anarchists.
            > I'm rambling....
            > Peace and Love,
            > Jennifer
            > PS: I love Kierkegaard, even visited his grave in
            Copenhagen....however, Nicholas Baerdyaev is my favorite Christian
            existentialist...although Gabriel Marcel's Mystery of Being is
            pretty good too....
            >
            >
            > Aaron Fehir <vigilius_haufniensis@...> wrote:
            > Jennifer,
            >
            > Not exactly. I probably should have been more explicit in my
            > initial post...
            >
            > First, of all I have a suspicion, a hunch, possibily even some
            good
            > reasons to think that atheistic versions of anarchism are
            incapable
            > of providing strong justifcations for themselves whereas versions
            of
            > anarchism that make religious appeals do not suffer from this lack
            > of justification. So I am looking for resources to help me confirm
            > my hypothesis. I don't mean to pit religion against anarchism, but
            > to think through whether religious anarchism is a superior, more
            > coherent framework than non-religious anarchism. This is NOT to
            say
            > that atheistic anarchists are completely wrong about everything,
            > etc. But just to gesture toward a certain insuffiency. Does that
            > make more sense?
            >
            > Of course, I could be totally wrong...
            >
            > Aaron
            >
            > Ps... are there any readers of Kierkegaard here?
            >
            > --- In Lost_Religion_of_Jesus@yahoogroups.com, Jennifer Lipka
            > <spiritwrestler73@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Forgive me for asking for the "breakdown" of what you are asking-
            -
            > are you looking for religious views against anarchism? as in
            > political anarchism, religion against political anarchism?
            > > Jennifer
            > >
            > >
            > > Aaron Fehir <vigilius_haufniensis@> wrote:
            > > Does anyone here know of any good books or articles that
            > critique non-
            > > religious versions of anarchism from a religious perspective?
            > >
            > > Aaron
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ---------------------------------
            > > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
            > > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ---------------------------------
            > 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
            > with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
            >
          • David Henise
            Strangely enough, I was reminded of the pull of youthful anarchism today while listening to a pair of high school students talk about picking locks and blowing
            Message 5 of 15 , Feb 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Strangely enough, I was reminded of the pull of youthful anarchism today while listening to a pair of high school students talk about picking locks and blowing things up. And actually, that part of their conversation started because the talkative male student was telling the female student that he was thinking if he were unable to go into the Air Force and be a fighter pilot, he would want to be a "professional anarchist." I thought it was interesting that that statement immediately led him to the idea of picking locks and blowing things up.
               
              At any rate, that hasn't direcly to do with atheism versus spirituality, in my opinion. I do not think it is necessary to say that atheistic anarchy is REQUIRED to be violent or fatalistic. But the comic books and movies suggest that anarchism IS violent and fatalistic on some level or another, and they appeal to our sense of extreme activism and the desire to learn how to circumvent the normal order of things (in hacking computers and picking locks, etc.).
               
              I agree with a lot of concepts which thoughtful atheists commonly bring out. And I never intend to disrespect the potential the atheism brings to the table in discussions of religion. Atheists are in tune with frameworks from which to challenge formal religions. And that is--dare I say it this way--never a bad thing.
               
              The only, or main, point at which I disagree with atheists period is not on whether or not God exists, actually, for I personally do not believe that "God" "exists" in anything like the Judeo-Christian-Muslim sense which uses God as an excuse for some to hold power over other people in a hierarchy. And on that point, obviously, I agree with many atheists, since many atheists will tout at least large parts of what I just said.
               
              INSTEAD, the point at which I disagree with atheists is very much like the point at which I disagree with a lot of democracy-supporters. That is to say, in theory, I do not disagree with democracy at all. Rather, it is the application of frameworks which become named "democracy" which too often imply or encourage a lax spirit - settling for whatever current form of "democracy" and acting AS IF it is the greatest political structure ever humanly possible, on in to the future, rather than bettering things FOR the future. [As is the semi-conscious thinking, or at least the excuse, behind the tearing apart and restructuring of Iraq, for example.] Likewise, I do not technically disagree with atheism at all. [Or, at least I do not technically disagree with atheism, unless I say I disagree with some of the finer implications of our saying that there simply "is no God" rather than saying that God is the mysterious yet changing Big Unknown(s) to our minds about the origins or the nature of the universe.] However, I do disagree with the point at which atheism can tend to settle out and stop seeking to fulfill the parts of our so-called spirituality or faith or hopefulness that have been left starving by the pre-packaged forms of "religion" which have been fed to us humans by those who seek political power and see these religions as part of their toolset by which to rule and suppress other humans "for their own good."
               
              At any rate, I'd better get going for right now. So..I digress and relent and whatever else for the moment. Until later!
               
              blessings,
              Dave
               


              Aaron Fehir <vigilius_haufniensis@...> wrote:
              The front page of this group claims the following:
              "They are described as Christian anarchists, as they nonviolently
              oppose all governing powers other than God. They believe the answers
              lie within each individual and not with any earthly authority."

              My suspicion is that the little phrase "other than God" is not
              merely tacked on because you all happen to be Christians in addition
              to being nonviolent anarchists. Rather, the "other than God" seems
              to provide something essential. A nonviolent anarchism that simply
              opposes all governing powers tout court seems to me somewhat
              unstable if not impossible. In other words, I wonder whether it is
              not inevitable that something will function as a sort of de facto
              absolute power for the non-religious anarchist.

              Again, I didn't mean to suggest that atheistic anarchism is not a
              good way of life, etc. I just wanted to raise a question about what
              might be lacking that the religion and/or spirituality supplies. It
              seems to me that the religious opens up as a safegaurd against
              absolutization of all governing powers - "other than God" of
              course.

              Dave, is this perhaps an implication of atheistic anarchism being a
              half-boiled egg? [Also, I didn't intend to raise the question only
              with regard to conceptual atheism, but real, honest atheism as well,
              which is certainly superior to cock-sure Enlightment athism.]

              Aaron

              --- In Lost_Religion_ of_Jesus@ yahoogroups. com, Jennifer Lipka
              <spiritwrestler73@ ...> wrote:
              >
              > Aaron,
              > I wish I could remember the name of the book I just read,
              written by a French guy in the 60s, just republished here in the
              States by Left Bank Books; it was all about the revolution of
              everyday life, and definately a non-religious look at anarchism.
              > I lived in Seattle before moving back home, and due to
              protesting the WTO meeting in 1999 I met a lot of the Eugene Oregon
              anarchists (there was even a 60 Minutes segment on the Eugene Oregon
              anarchists), and even was invited to a conference in Eugene where I
              spoke on German Autonomen and Autonomen demonstration tactics...
              > Before I ever believed in God I believed in anarchism; the life
              and works of Mikhail Bakunin are very good. I think all of
              anarchism is even more positive in its view of humanity than
              religion is, because it assumes that every human being is capable of
              governing their own life without needing other to make major
              decisions for them, and that would assume that it is in us all to
              make decisions that are positive for ourselves and society.
              > I wish I could think back ten years or so to the stuff I was
              reading to give you suggestions, but I would disagree with your
              premise. My dad is an atheist/secular humanist, and we share many
              views in common when in comes to anarchism, and I would say without
              Christianity, anarchism is still a very positive, legitimate
              philosophy/way of life. It is just that a lot of anarchists have no
              qualms about using violence against the state since the state uses
              violence against us, and there is the big difference between
              political anarchists and Christian anarchists.
              > I'm rambling....
              > Peace and Love,
              > Jennifer
              > PS: I love Kierkegaard, even visited his grave in
              Copenhagen.. ..however, Nicholas Baerdyaev is my favorite Christian
              existentialist. ..although Gabriel Marcel's Mystery of Being is
              pretty good too....
              >
              >
              > Aaron Fehir <vigilius_haufniens is@...> wrote:
              > Jennifer,
              >
              > Not exactly. I probably should have been more explicit in my
              > initial post...
              >
              > First, of all I have a suspicion, a hunch, possibily even some
              good
              > reasons to think that atheistic versions of anarchism are
              incapable
              > of providing strong justifcations for themselves whereas versions
              of
              > anarchism that make religious appeals do not suffer from this lack
              > of justification. So I am looking for resources to help me confirm
              > my hypothesis. I don't mean to pit religion against anarchism, but
              > to think through whether religious anarchism is a superior, more
              > coherent framework than non-religious anarchism. This is NOT to
              say
              > that atheistic anarchists are completely wrong about everything,
              > etc. But just to gesture toward a certain insuffiency. Does that
              > make more sense?
              >
              > Of course, I could be totally wrong...
              >
              > Aaron
              >
              > Ps... are there any readers of Kierkegaard here?
              >
              > --- In Lost_Religion_ of_Jesus@ yahoogroups. com, Jennifer Lipka
              > <spiritwrestler73@ > wrote:
              > >
              > > Forgive me for asking for the "breakdown" of what you are asking-
              -
              > are you looking for religious views against anarchism? as in
              > political anarchism, religion against political anarchism?
              > > Jennifer
              > >
              > >
              > > Aaron Fehir <vigilius_haufniens is@> wrote:
              > > Does anyone here know of any good books or articles that
              > critique non-
              > > religious versions of anarchism from a religious perspective?
              > >
              > > Aaron
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > ------------ --------- --------- ---
              > > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
              > > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------ --------- --------- ---
              > 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
              > with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
              >


            • Pete Z
              anyone else here like violence? I mean, I don t practice it. and real violence in real life tends to make me sad at times. but I freakin love pulp fiction and
              Message 6 of 15 , Feb 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                anyone else here like violence?

                I mean, I don't practice it. and real violence in real
                life tends to make me sad at times.

                but I freakin love pulp fiction and violent cinema. i
                am not saying that enjoying violence is good.

                i do think that if everyone in the world watched
                violence like i do, but did not act on it. it would be
                a good thing.

                kind of makes me think of japan. japan has REALLY
                VIOLENT PORN. but very low rates of sexual assault.

                hmmm.



                Pax,

                Pete



                “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Proverbs 31:8-9



                ____________________________________________________________________________________
                No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
                with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
                http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
              • Jennifer Lipka
                When I first read this I was a bit appalled--I m too sensitive to even make it through Saving Private Ryan, I can t take violence at all, real or fictional.
                Message 7 of 15 , Feb 2, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  When I first read this I was a bit appalled--I'm too "sensitive" to even make it through Saving Private Ryan, I can't take violence at all, real or fictional.  I also am very not into porn, I don't want to say against it--I think things like prostitution should be legal, I think drugs should be legal, but I don't ever want to watch porn or date someone who does; it's something I always ask guys before dating them, I ask them to discuss pornography and their feelings and thoughts about it in detail.
                  But I have a "dirty little secret" too.  I love verbal cruelty, real zingers to which there is no come back.  The last guy I dated joked when I said something about how he'd have to beat me, and I let him know that if he ever raised a hand to me, I would leave him bleeding, in the fetal position, in the middle of my dirt road.  And I meant that metaphorically, not literally.
                  I work as a Certified Nurse Assistant at the hospital, I take care of a lot of people who are very demented and a lot of "total cares", people who are nonverbal and can't do anything for themselves anymore.  There is one man whose family is doing everything, taking all heroic measures to keep this guy alive; he has had multiple strokes, has Alzheimers, can't move, can't speak, can't toilet himself or feed himself.  From lack of use his muscles are contracted, and because he has the renal failure which comes with old age he is edemic, and a lot of the swelling is where there is no muscle contraction--including his penis and scrotum, which are so swollen the skin splits and weeps.  When he lost the ability to swallow, his family decided they wanted a peg tube put into his stomach to feed him.  The night before his surgery I was turning him (you turn people every two hours to change their position and help them avoid bed sores) he was groaning in pain and I looked into his eyes and said "Tomorrow you are going to get a peg tube, which means you are going to live forever, just like this.  Isn't that grand?  You are going to live forever!" 
                  That is one of the cruelest things I have ever done, and I couldn't resist. 
                  I guess there is something to be said about thoughts and words versus action, watching violence and porn as opposed to acting it out.
                  Jennifer


                  Pete Z <kelticpete@...> wrote:


                  anyone else here like violence?

                  I mean, I don't practice it. and real violence in real
                  life tends to make me sad at times.

                  but I freakin love pulp fiction and violent cinema. i
                  am not saying that enjoying violence is good.

                  i do think that if everyone in the world watched
                  violence like i do, but did not act on it. it would be
                  a good thing.

                  kind of makes me think of japan. japan has REALLY
                  VIOLENT PORN. but very low rates of sexual assault.

                  hmmm.

                  Pax,

                  Pete



                  “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Proverbs 31:8-9

                  ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                  No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
                  with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
                  http://mobile. yahoo.com/ mail


                  Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
                  in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.

                • Jennifer Lipka
                  It s funny how deviant behavior has gotten mixed up with what people consider anarchism. I love the quote from Mikhail Bakunin that to create the new better
                  Message 8 of 15 , Feb 2, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    It's funny how deviant behavior has gotten mixed up with what people consider anarchism.  I love the quote from Mikhail Bakunin that to create the new better world you have to first destroy absolutely everything from this world, you can't just redecorate the old institutions, the whole thing, all of it, needs to be razed to the ground and then you can build new.  And I think all the notions of the revolution and actually fighting the powers that be has gotten mixed up with lock picking and blowing stuff up.
                    Which is sort of like you said about democracy.  I laugh when I think of the US as a democracy, where you are as free as you are rich and only half the eligible population votes anyway....and elections in Iraq and Afghanistan, please!  If you're a woman you have to vote for who your husband tells you to vote for.  Crap, if you're a woman in those countries you can't even envision democracy!  Unless we're talking the old Greek system of democracy for the upper echelon....And in this country, where since Dec. 20 the president signed in the right for the government to open your mail--democracy, schmocracy.
                    And I guess that is how I view everything, religion and atheism and democracy--institutional anything is such a distortion from the ideal. 
                    But I guess we just keep striving for the ideal, eh?  But it is important to see that there is a huge gap between ideal and the reality of the situation if we are to stive in good faith....
                    Jennifer


                    David Henise <dave@...> wrote:
                    Strangely enough, I was reminded of the pull of youthful anarchism today while listening to a pair of high school students talk about picking locks and blowing things up. And actually, that part of their conversation started because the talkative male student was telling the female student that he was thinking if he were unable to go into the Air Force and be a fighter pilot, he would want to be a "professional anarchist." I thought it was interesting that that statement immediately led him to the idea of picking locks and blowing things up.
                     
                    At any rate, that hasn't direcly to do with atheism versus spirituality, in my opinion. I do not think it is necessary to say that atheistic anarchy is REQUIRED to be violent or fatalistic. But the comic books and movies suggest that anarchism IS violent and fatalistic on some level or another, and they appeal to our sense of extreme activism and the desire to learn how to circumvent the normal order of things (in hacking computers and picking locks, etc.).
                     
                    I agree with a lot of concepts which thoughtful atheists commonly bring out. And I never intend to disrespect the potential the atheism brings to the table in discussions of religion. Atheists are in tune with frameworks from which to challenge formal religions. And that is--dare I say it this way--never a bad thing.
                     
                    The only, or main, point at which I disagree with atheists period is not on whether or not God exists, actually, for I personally do not believe that "God" "exists" in anything like the Judeo-Christian- Muslim sense which uses God as an excuse for some to hold power over other people in a hierarchy. And on that point, obviously, I agree with many atheists, since many atheists will tout at least large parts of what I just said.
                     
                    INSTEAD, the point at which I disagree with atheists is very much like the point at which I disagree with a lot of democracy-supporter s. That is to say, in theory, I do not disagree with democracy at all. Rather, it is the application of frameworks which become named "democracy" which too often imply or encourage a lax spirit - settling for whatever current form of "democracy" and acting AS IF it is the greatest political structure ever humanly possible, on in to the future, rather than bettering things FOR the future. [As is the semi-conscious thinking, or at least the excuse, behind the tearing apart and restructuring of Iraq, for example.] Likewise, I do not technically disagree with atheism at all. [Or, at least I do not technically disagree with atheism, unless I say I disagree with some of the finer implications of our saying that there simply "is no God" rather than saying that God is the mysterious yet changing Big Unknown(s) to our minds about the origins or the nature of the universe.] However, I do disagree with the point at which atheism can tend to settle out and stop seeking to fulfill the parts of our so-called spirituality or faith or hopefulness that have been left starving by the pre-packaged forms of "religion" which have been fed to us humans by those who seek political power and see these religions as part of their toolset by which to rule and suppress other humans "for their own good."
                     
                    At any rate, I'd better get going for right now. So..I digress and relent and whatever else for the moment. Until later!
                     
                    blessings,
                    Dave
                     


                    Aaron Fehir <vigilius_haufniensi s@...> wrote:
                    The front page of this group claims the following:
                    "They are described as Christian anarchists, as they nonviolently
                    oppose all governing powers other than God. They believe the answers
                    lie within each individual and not with any earthly authority."

                    My suspicion is that the little phrase "other than God" is not
                    merely tacked on because you all happen to be Christians in addition
                    to being nonviolent anarchists. Rather, the "other than God" seems
                    to provide something essential. A nonviolent anarchism that simply
                    opposes all governing powers tout court seems to me somewhat
                    unstable if not impossible. In other words, I wonder whether it is
                    not inevitable that something will function as a sort of de facto
                    absolute power for the non-religious anarchist.

                    Again, I didn't mean to suggest that atheistic anarchism is not a
                    good way of life, etc. I just wanted to raise a question about what
                    might be lacking that the religion and/or spirituality supplies. It
                    seems to me that the religious opens up as a safegaurd against
                    absolutization of all governing powers - "other than God" of
                    course.

                    Dave, is this perhaps an implication of atheistic anarchism being a
                    half-boiled egg? [Also, I didn't intend to raise the question only
                    with regard to conceptual atheism, but real, honest atheism as well,
                    which is certainly superior to cock-sure Enlightment athism.]

                    Aaron

                    --- In Lost_Religion_ of_Jesus@ yahoogroups. com, Jennifer Lipka
                    <spiritwrestler73@ ...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Aaron,
                    > I wish I could remember the name of the book I just read,
                    written by a French guy in the 60s, just republished here in the
                    States by Left Bank Books; it was all about the revolution of
                    everyday life, and definately a non-religious look at anarchism.
                    > I lived in Seattle before moving back home, and due to
                    protesting the WTO meeting in 1999 I met a lot of the Eugene Oregon
                    anarchists (there was even a 60 Minutes segment on the Eugene Oregon
                    anarchists), and even was invited to a conference in Eugene where I
                    spoke on German Autonomen and Autonomen demonstration tactics...
                    > Before I ever believed in God I believed in anarchism; the life
                    and works of Mikhail Bakunin are very good. I think all of
                    anarchism is even more positive in its view of humanity than
                    religion is, because it assumes that every human being is capable of
                    governing their own life without needing other to make major
                    decisions for them, and that would assume that it is in us all to
                    make decisions that are positive for ourselves and society.
                    > I wish I could think back ten years or so to the stuff I was
                    reading to give you suggestions, but I would disagree with your
                    premise. My dad is an atheist/secular humanist, and we share many
                    views in common when in comes to anarchism, and I would say without
                    Christianity, anarchism is still a very positive, legitimate
                    philosophy/way of life. It is just that a lot of anarchists have no
                    qualms about using violence against the state since the state uses
                    violence against us, and there is the big difference between
                    political anarchists and Christian anarchists.
                    > I'm rambling....
                    > Peace and Love,
                    > Jennifer
                    > PS: I love Kierkegaard, even visited his grave in
                    Copenhagen.. ..however, Nicholas Baerdyaev is my favorite Christian
                    existentialist. ..although Gabriel Marcel's Mystery of Being is
                    pretty good too....
                    >
                    >
                    > Aaron Fehir <vigilius_haufniens is@...> wrote:
                    > Jennifer,
                    >
                    > Not exactly. I probably should have been more explicit in my
                    > initial post...
                    >
                    > First, of all I have a suspicion, a hunch, possibily even some
                    good
                    > reasons to think that atheistic versions of anarchism are
                    incapable
                    > of providing strong justifcations for themselves whereas versions
                    of
                    > anarchism that make religious appeals do not suffer from this lack
                    > of justification. So I am looking for resources to help me confirm
                    > my hypothesis. I don't mean to pit religion against anarchism, but
                    > to think through whether religious anarchism is a superior, more
                    > coherent framework than non-religious anarchism. This is NOT to
                    say
                    > that atheistic anarchists are completely wrong about everything,
                    > etc. But just to gesture toward a certain insuffiency. Does that
                    > make more sense?
                    >
                    > Of course, I could be totally wrong...
                    >
                    > Aaron
                    >
                    > Ps... are there any readers of Kierkegaard here?
                    >
                    > --- In Lost_Religion_ of_Jesus@ yahoogroups. com, Jennifer Lipka
                    > <spiritwrestler73@ > wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Forgive me for asking for the "breakdown" of what you are asking-
                    -
                    > are you looking for religious views against anarchism? as in
                    > political anarchism, religion against political anarchism?
                    > > Jennifer
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Aaron Fehir <vigilius_haufniens is@> wrote:
                    > > Does anyone here know of any good books or articles that
                    > critique non-
                    > > religious versions of anarchism from a religious perspective?
                    > >
                    > > Aaron
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > ------------ --------- --------- ---
                    > > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
                    > > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------ --------- --------- ---
                    > 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
                    > with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
                    >




                    Don't pick lemons.
                    See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.

                  • David Leon Henise
                    Jennifer, As a sort of sidenote, I find it interesting that you have such a distaste for pornography and yet you view marriage as an outdated institution. As
                    Message 9 of 15 , Feb 2, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Jennifer,

                       

                      As a sort of sidenote, I find it interesting that you have such a distaste for pornography and yet you view marriage as an outdated institution. As for me, I suppose I just let marriage slide. I mean, I am married traditionally enough in my view, and mostly because my wife likes it that way. If I married a much more liberal woman, perhaps we both would randomly have lovers on the side, since I really don’t care. But rather like being “an atheist,” I probably wouldn’t technically call myself “a swinger,” even if that were the case…because I think the stigma surrounding “swinging” suggests a practice something like a drug addiction covering for suppressed psychological issues rather than simply enjoying the company of some person. At any rate, children help to pull a family together and keep the possibility of frivolous lovers on the side out of the picture. And then too, there was a time when I fell in love with my first sexual lover deeply enough to have stuck with her and her alone indefinitely, for no other reason that I wanted to, children or not, liberality or not. So, I suppose even though I’m liberal, in one sense, I have also run the gamut a bit.

                       

                      Now…why am I rambling on about this? Oh yeah! I’m supposed to re-cap that I don’t really see how one can completely object to porn, unless one sees it as an affront to women and/or both sexes. But then there is always the argument, “What if there were porn unlike a lot of what exists today, which simply showed real couples?” Or, there is simply the argument that the porn that exists still usually plays on sexuality as a forbidden thing. So, how can we judge something when we aren’t even coming from the right premises in the first place? Because…another truly anarchist statement, methinks, would be that anything not suggested, including reasons why, is something to think about. But anything forbidden is something to try. That’s because as long as you can’t really talk about something openly, the statement, “You never really know until you try” rings entirely true. And that’s something that law makers will never get into their heads…otherwise they wouldn’t be lawmakers.

                       

                      It’s also why teaching and suggestion is, in reality and in practice, a far cry from demand, dogma and destruction (or punishment). The first approach tries to be realistic and open-ended so as to adapt. The second approach adapts only slowly, hardly at all, and pretends as if evil can be eradicated by simply murdering those who perform it, even though noone truly, fully seems to believe that even though they/we pretend that we do.

                       

                      Yeah, I better go to bed. I’m up blabbing again..

                       

                      Peace,

                      Dave

                       

                       


                      From: Lost_Religion_of_Jesus@yahoogroups.com [mailto: Lost_Religion_of_Jesus@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Jennifer Lipka
                      Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 7:09 PM
                      To: Lost_Religion_of_Jesus@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: Lost Religion of Jesus non-religious anarchism

                       

                      It's funny how deviant behavior has gotten mixed up with what people consider anarchism.  I love the quote from Mikhail Bakunin that to create the new better world you have to first destroy absolutely everything from this world, you can't just redecorate the old institutions, the whole thing, all of it, needs to be razed to the ground and then you can build new.  And I think all the notions of the revolution and actually fighting the powers that be has gotten mixed up with lock picking and blowing stuff up.

                      Which is sort of like you said about democracy.  I laugh when I think of the US as a democracy, where you are as free as you are rich and only half the eligible population votes anyway....and elections in Iraq and Afghanistan, please!  If you're a woman you have to vote for who your husband tells you to vote for.  Crap, if you're a woman in those countries you can't even envision democracy!  Unless we're talking the old Greek system of democracy for the upper echelon....And in this country, where since Dec. 20 the president signed in the right for the government to open your mail--democracy, schmocracy.

                      And I guess that is how I view everything, religion and atheism and democracy--institut ional anything is such a distortion from the ideal. 

                      But I guess we just keep striving for the ideal, eh?  But it is important to see that there is a huge gap between ideal and the reality of the situation if we are to stive in good faith....

                      Jennifer



                      David Henise <dave@placeofdave. com> wrote:

                      Strangely enough, I was reminded of the pull of youthful anarchism today while listening to a pair of high school students talk about picking locks and blowing things up. And actually, that part of their conversation started because the talkative male student was telling the female student that he was thinking if he were unable to go into the Air Force and be a fighter pilot, he would want to be a "professional anarchist." I thought it was interesting that that statement immediately led him to the idea of picking locks and blowing things up.

                       

                      At any rate, that hasn't direcly to do with atheism versus spirituality, in my opinion. I do not think it is necessary to say that atheistic anarchy is REQUIRED to be violent or fatalistic. But the comic books and movies suggest that anarchism IS violent and fatalistic on some level or another, and they appeal to our sense of extreme activism and the desire to learn how to circumvent the normal order of things (in hacking computers and picking locks, etc.).

                       

                      I agree with a lot of concepts which thoughtful atheists commonly bring out. And I never intend to disrespect the potential the atheism brings to the table in discussions of religion. Atheists are in tune with frameworks from which to challenge formal religions. And that is--dare I say it this way--never a bad thing.

                       

                      The only, or main, point at which I disagree with atheists period is not on whether or not God exists, actually, for I personally do not believe that "God" "exists" in anything like the Judeo-Christian- Muslim sense which uses God as an excuse for some to hold power over other people in a hierarchy. And on that point, obviously, I agree with many atheists, since many atheists will tout at least large parts of what I just said.

                       

                      INSTEAD, the point at which I disagree with atheists is very much like the point at which I disagree with a lot of democracy-supporter s. That is to say, in theory, I do not disagree with democracy at all. Rather, it is the application of frameworks which become named "democracy" which too often imply or encourage a lax spirit - settling for whatever current form of "democracy" and acting AS IF it is the greatest political structure ever humanly possible, on in to the future, rather than bettering things FOR the future. [As is the semi-conscious thinking, or at least the excuse, behind the tearing apart and restructuring of Iraq , for example.] Likewise, I do not technically disagree with atheism at all. [Or, at least I do not technically disagree with atheism, unless I say I disagree with some of the finer implications of our saying that there simply "is no God" rather than saying that God is the mysterious yet changing Big Unknown(s) to our minds about the origins or the nature of the universe.] However, I do disagree with the point at which atheism can tend to settle out and stop seeking to fulfill the parts of our so-called spirituality or faith or hopefulness that have been left starving by the pre-packaged forms of "religion" which have been fed to us humans by those who seek political power and see these religions as part of their toolset by which to rule and suppress other humans "for their own good."

                       

                      At any rate, I'd better get going for right now. So..I digress and relent and whatever else for the moment. Until later!

                       

                      blessings,

                      Dave

                       



                      Aaron Fehir <vigilius_haufniensi s@...> wrote:

                      The front page of this group claims the following:
                      "They are described as Christian anarchists, as they nonviolently
                      oppose all governing powers other than God. They believe the answers
                      lie within each individual and not with any earthly authority."

                      My suspicion is that the little phrase "other than God" is not
                      merely tacked on because you all happen to be Christians in addition
                      to being nonviolent anarchists. Rather, the "other than God" seems
                      to provide something essential. A nonviolent anarchism that simply
                      opposes all governing powers tout court seems to me somewhat
                      unstable if not impossible. In other words, I wonder whether it is
                      not inevitable that something will function as a sort of de facto
                      absolute power for the non-religious anarchist.

                      Again, I didn't mean to suggest that atheistic anarchism is not a
                      good way of life, etc. I just wanted to raise a question about what
                      might be lacking that the religion and/or spirituality supplies. It
                      seems to me that the religious opens up as a safegaurd against
                      absolutization of all governing powers - "other than God" of
                      course.

                      Dave, is this perhaps an implication of atheistic anarchism being a
                      half-boiled egg? [Also, I didn't intend to raise the question only
                      with regard to conceptual atheism, but real, honest atheism as well,
                      which is certainly superior to cock-sure Enlightment athism.]

                      Aaron

                      --- In Lost_Religion_ of_Jesus@ yahoogroups. com, Jennifer Lipka
                      <spiritwrestler73@ ...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Aaron,
                      > I wish I could remember the name of the book I just read,
                      written by a French guy in the 60s, just republished here in the
                      States by Left Bank Books; it was all about the revolution of
                      everyday life, and definately a non-religious look at anarchism.
                      > I lived in Seattle before moving back home, and due to
                      protesting the WTO meeting in 1999 I met a lot of the Eugene Oregon
                      anarchists (there was even a 60 Minutes segment on the Eugene Oregon
                      anarchists), and even was invited to a conference in Eugene where I
                      spoke on German Autonomen and Autonomen demonstration tactics...
                      > Before I ever believed in God I believed in anarchism; the life
                      and works of Mikhail Bakunin are very good. I think all of
                      anarchism is even more positive in its view of humanity than
                      religion is, because it assumes that every human being is capable of
                      governing their own life without needing other to make major
                      decisions for them, and that would assume that it is in us all to
                      make decisions that are positive for ourselves and society.
                      > I wish I could think back ten years or so to the stuff I was
                      reading to give you suggestions, but I would disagree with your
                      premise. My dad is an atheist/secular humanist, and we share many
                      views in common when in comes to anarchism, and I would say without
                      Christianity, anarchism is still a very positive, legitimate
                      philosophy/way of life. It is just that a lot of anarchists have no
                      qualms about using violence against the state since the state uses
                      violence against us, and there is the big difference between
                      political anarchists and Christian anarchists.
                      > I'm rambling....
                      > Peace and Love,
                      > Jennifer
                      > PS: I love Kierkegaard, even visited his grave in
                      Copenhagen .. ..however, Nicholas Baerdyaev is my favorite Christian
                      existentialist. ..although Gabriel Marcel's Mystery of Being is
                      pretty good too....
                      >
                      >
                      > Aaron Fehir <vigilius_haufniens is@...> wrote:
                      > Jennifer,
                      >
                      > Not exactly. I probably should have been more explicit in my
                      > initial post...
                      >
                      > First, of all I have a suspicion, a hunch, possibily even some
                      good
                      > reasons to think that atheistic versions of anarchism are
                      incapable
                      > of providing strong justifcations for themselves whereas versions
                      of
                      > anarchism that make religious appeals do not suffer from this lack
                      > of justification. So I am looking for resources to help me confirm
                      > my hypothesis. I don't mean to pit religion against anarchism, but
                      > to think through whether religious anarchism is a superior, more
                      > coherent framework than non-religious anarchism. This is NOT to
                      say
                      > that atheistic anarchists are completely wrong about everything,
                      > etc. But just to gesture toward a certain insuffiency. Does that
                      > make more sense?
                      >
                      > Of course, I could be totally wrong...
                      >
                      > Aaron
                      >
                      > Ps... are there any readers of Kierkegaard here?
                      >
                      > --- In Lost_Religion_ of_Jesus@ yahoogroups. com, Jennifer Lipka
                      > <spiritwrestler73@ > wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Forgive me for asking for the "breakdown" of what you are asking-
                      -
                      > are you looking for religious views against anarchism? as in
                      > political anarchism, religion against political anarchism?
                      > > Jennifer
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Aaron Fehir <vigilius_haufniens is@> wrote:
                      > > Does anyone here know of any good books or articles that
                      > critique non-
                      > > religious versions of anarchism from a religious perspective?
                      > >
                      > > Aaron
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > ------------ --------- --------- ---
                      > > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
                      > > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------ --------- --------- ---
                      > 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
                      > with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
                      >

                       

                       

                       


                      Don't pick lemons.
                      See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.

                    • Pete Z
                      but I don t ever want to watch porn or ... ?what? true, some guys watch TOO MUCH porn. it changes their sex lives, they need it, they compare their partners.
                      Message 10 of 15 , Feb 3, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        but I don't ever want to watch porn or
                        > date someone who does;

                        ?what?

                        true, some guys watch TOO MUCH porn. it changes their
                        sex lives, they need it, they compare their partners.

                        but for most men (AND WOMEN) porn is just fun. I have
                        dated 2 women who wanted to watch porn sometimes
                        before we had sex. And I would be fine watching 2 men
                        get it on with her if she wanted too.

                        I don't understand how porn is bad if it makes my
                        partner aroused and me too. but she was comfortable
                        with her own body. and she did not feel threatened by
                        other women.

                        porn is a small portion of my life. I probably look at
                        it less than an hour a week. so you would not date me?

                        that is kinda messed up.

                        now if you mean "I have issues, and so i CAN'T date
                        someone who i know watches porn, then that is your
                        perogative. but that is your deal.

                        porn is normal. pictures and statues of naked people
                        have occured for 1000s of years.

                        now, modern america porn...which idealizes and
                        airbrushes can be totally bad. but not as bad as
                        women's magazines that show twigs as women.





                        Pax,

                        Pete



                        “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Proverbs 31:8-9



                        ____________________________________________________________________________________
                        Never Miss an Email
                        Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started!
                        http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail
                      • Pete Z
                        I am on an email list that is non spiritual related. it is a local group. someone posted a FWD that said that people who don t like the 10 commandments up on
                        Message 11 of 15 , Feb 3, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I am on an email list that is non spiritual related.

                          it is a local group.

                          someone posted a FWD that said that people who don't
                          like the 10 commandments up on the wall are atheists
                          and whiners.

                          me and some others objected. I said things like A)
                          which 10 commandments, and B) i think it is fine that
                          old monuments have them but in a new world we need to
                          think such things through.

                          I did 2 things that pissed people off

                          1) my sig is my sig here, and someone said "it is
                          ironic you say what you say and have a bible verse as
                          a sig"

                          I said I did not think it was ironic. I am not the
                          government, I am not a religious institution trying to
                          force my beliefs on government.

                          someone then said they were offended by my sig. I
                          said,

                          my sig is :

                          “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
                          for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and
                          judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and
                          needy.” Proverbs 31:8-9.

                          so I defended it.

                          2) in my reply, I used the f word.

                          so someone said I was doing christians a disservice. I
                          said:

                          *********
                          I apoligize for if my cussing really
                          bothers you.

                          I don't cuss around my mom for that reason.

                          But i don't think it does Christians a disservice. I
                          think Christians should be real.

                          when I am angry i cuss.

                          I want to be real. When I joined AA, a man told me,
                          "when i get up, I piss and then I pray." I thought
                          that was awesome. I remembered it. It made me more
                          prayerful than someone saying, "you should pray when
                          you get up."

                          a quote from famous Christian minister tony campolo

                          "millions of children starve each month and most
                          christians don't give a damn. and most christians are
                          more upset that I said damn than the fact that
                          children starve."

                          that sums up american religion. "religious people"
                          should not cuss or act like humans. that is stupid.



                          there is profanity, cursing, and blashphemy.

                          profanity is what I use.
                          I don't curse people. I don't call people mean words
                          or wish them ill. I would not call a person a whore or
                          a racial slur.
                          I also try to treat as sacred what others see as
                          sacred. I try not to demean god/allah/jesus.

                          as for my sig, if it offends you, I am sad for you.

                          i do not have a bible verse that says "hey all you
                          atheists suck!" or "Jesus is the only way!"

                          i have one that says to help people.

                          what part of my sig do you think is wrong?
                          should we not stick up for the poor and needy?

                          if you think so, fine. put it in your sig.
                          **************

                          so, am I

                          A) ironic?
                          B) offensive for using a bible verse
                          C) a bad christian for cussing?



                          Pax,

                          Pete



                          “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Proverbs 31:8-9



                          ____________________________________________________________________________________
                          Be a PS3 game guru.
                          Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
                          http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
                        • David Leon Henise
                          Pete, Ironic, no. Offensive for using a bible verse, no. Perhaps offensive to some people for the bluntness of things like what you have brought up about porn
                          Message 12 of 15 , Feb 3, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment

                            Pete,

                             

                            Ironic, no. Offensive for using a bible verse, no. Perhaps offensive to some people for the bluntness of things like what you have brought up about porn and relatively loose sexuality lately on this list. J But…it’s hard for people to say anything logically against what you have mentioned when you’re right about the epitome of western religion – American Christianity. And do you make yourself a bad Christian? A bad puritan, yes. A bad Christian, no. In the sense of theorizing about Jesus, I think not. For while I do not know much about “cussing” in Aramaic, I doubt that Jesus never used strong words or words in strong ways. That would be hard to imagine.

                             

                            On a related and yet unrelated topic, I told my mother just yesterday that we humans do not even follow or understand what Jesus seemed to be teaching. While what we REALLY need to be doing is going even BEYOND what Jesus taught back in the day, we haven’t even caught up with what he DID say, yet. Now, I’m “not a Christian” any longer. And she is one who I try not to cuss around, for instance, just as you said about your own mother. But, because of the way I presented what I had to say, we both had to agree that indeed, we are not even following what Jesus said, and indeed, we are meant to go even beyond what he said. I just have a very different historical perspective and way of saying it than she does at this time.

                             

                            At any rate, “judge not, lest ye be judged.” Many Christians, and humans in general, have yet to understand the bluntness of a statement like that, I think. In Jesus thinking, if I can guess, we have no right to “judge” anyone else formally unless we are seeking to be “sons of god” – with holiness written into our hearts rather than on a page. And if we ARE truly seeking to be sons of god, then we will not have time, or cause, to judge. So, there’s no place for passing judgement – period. I’ve seen may Christians and humans rationalize around a concept like that, turning it into something overly complex, rather than seeing how blatantly true it is. It’s not HALF as “figurative” as we like to think it is. But…anyway, that’s just one illustration or what have you that popped into my head. Blessings..

                             

                            Cheers,

                            Dave

                             


                            From: Lost_Religion_of_Jesus@yahoogroups.com [mailto: Lost_Religion_of_Jesus@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Pete Z
                            Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 8:25 AM
                            To: Lost_Religion_of_Jesus@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Lost Religion of Jesus new topic: cussing and non christians

                             

                            I am on an email list that is non spiritual related.

                            it is a local group.

                            someone posted a FWD that said that people who don't
                            like the 10 commandments up on the wall are atheists
                            and whiners.

                            me and some others objected. I said things like A)
                            which 10 commandments, and B) i think it is fine that
                            old monuments have them but in a new world we need to
                            think such things through.

                            I did 2 things that pissed people off

                            1) my sig is my sig here, and someone said "it is
                            ironic you say what you say and have a bible verse as
                            a sig"

                            I said I did not think it was ironic. I am not the
                            government, I am not a religious institution trying to
                            force my beliefs on government.

                            someone then said they were offended by my sig. I
                            said,

                            my sig is :

                            “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
                            for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and
                            judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and
                            needy.” Proverbs 31:8-9.

                            so I defended it.

                            2) in my reply, I used the f word.

                            so someone said I was doing christians a disservice. I
                            said:

                            *********
                            I apoligize for if my cussing really
                            bothers you.

                            I don't cuss around my mom for that reason.

                            But i don't think it does Christians a disservice. I
                            think Christians should be real.

                            when I am angry i cuss.

                            I want to be real. When I joined AA, a man told me,
                            "when i get up, I piss and then I pray." I thought
                            that was awesome. I remembered it. It made me more
                            prayerful than someone saying, "you should pray when
                            you get up."

                            a quote from famous Christian minister tony campolo

                            "millions of children starve each month and most
                            christians don't give a damn. and most christians are
                            more upset that I said damn than the fact that
                            children starve."

                            that sums up american religion. "religious people"
                            should not cuss or act like humans. that is stupid.

                            there is profanity, cursing, and blashphemy.

                            profanity is what I use.
                            I don't curse people. I don't call people mean words
                            or wish them ill. I would not call a person a whore or
                            a racial slur.
                            I also try to treat as sacred what others see as
                            sacred. I try not to demean god/allah/jesus.

                            as for my sig, if it offends you, I am sad for you.

                            i do not have a bible verse that says "hey all you
                            atheists suck!" or "Jesus is the only way!"

                            i have one that says to help people.

                            what part of my sig do you think is wrong?
                            should we not stick up for the poor and needy?

                            if you think so, fine. put it in your sig.
                            ************ **

                            so, am I

                            A) ironic?
                            B) offensive for using a bible verse
                            C) a bad christian for cussing?

                            Pax,

                            Pete



                            “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Proverbs 31:8-9

                            ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                            Be a PS3 game guru.
                            Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
                            http://videogames. yahoo.com/ platform? platform= 120121

                          • Jennifer Lipka
                            Maybe it s not just watching TOO MUCH porn, it might just be the attitude towards porn. A friend of mine found that her husband had been viewing porn on the
                            Message 13 of 15 , Feb 3, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Maybe it's not just watching TOO MUCH porn, it might just be the attitude towards porn.  A friend of mine found that her husband had been viewing porn on the internet and it really upset and devestated her.
                              Yes, twig women with fake boobs are kind of a downer for the rest of us when guys think that is real.  Or the norm, I guess.
                              I just read a couple of books by Louis Ferdinand Celine, and there were a couple of rather graphic sex scenes, maybe not so much graphic as crude, slightly shocking, described in slang.  But I had to make the words pictures.
                              I don't know, they say guys are more into porn than women, something about how the imagination works. 
                              I don't think I could date you, despite your so called healthy attitude towards naturalist porn.  It's like having another lover in such a weird way, to me.
                              Sorry to crush you so, I knew you were working hard to date me, ha ha ha....
                              jennifer


                              Pete Z <kelticpete@...> wrote:
                              but I don't ever want to watch porn or
                              > date someone who does;

                              ?what?

                              true, some guys watch TOO MUCH porn. it changes their
                              sex lives, they need it, they compare their partners.

                              but for most men (AND WOMEN) porn is just fun. I have
                              dated 2 women who wanted to watch porn sometimes
                              before we had sex. And I would be fine watching 2 men
                              get it on with her if she wanted too.

                              I don't understand how porn is bad if it makes my
                              partner aroused and me too. but she was comfortable
                              with her own body. and she did not feel threatened by
                              other women.

                              porn is a small portion of my life. I probably look at
                              it less than an hour a week. so you would not date me?

                              that is kinda messed up.

                              now if you mean "I have issues, and so i CAN'T date
                              someone who i know watches porn, then that is your
                              perogative. but that is your deal.

                              porn is normal. pictures and statues of naked people
                              have occured for 1000s of years.

                              now, modern america porn...which idealizes and
                              airbrushes can be totally bad. but not as bad as
                              women's magazines that show twigs as women.

                              Pax,

                              Pete



                              “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Proverbs 31:8-9

                              ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                              Never Miss an Email
                              Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started!
                              http://mobile. yahoo.com/ services? promote=mail


                              Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Yahoo! Answers. Try it now.

                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.