ddombrowsky

And there is my answer. As Stefan has said, A Jew cannot have a reasonable conversation with a Nazi who thinks the Jew should not exist. You view me as participating in poisonous thought, therefore I must be reeducated. Obviously there is no discussion to be had. For the record, I too had an epiphany many years ago regarding Noah and the ark, also regarding the sheer biomass of the number of insects on the earth. It was then that I realized that "all" doesn't always mean "all things in the universe" and that "the earth" doesn't always mean "the entire face of the planet." It expanded my faith from blind belief in fantastic stories to real events that happened to real people. Finally, to answer your questions: yes, I am probably different from other religious persons who have dared post here. And yes, anarchy + sovereign god does seem to be a contradiction. If anyone wishes to explore these ideas further, there is contact info in my profile. It was worth a shot, I guess.

1. Thinks debt is a Good Thing and necessary to get ahead in life. 2. Says she can't read a map and expresses no interest in trying (this is a learned skill ladies, everyone's gotta do it). 3. Yells at or scolds you in public. From the post so far, my wife sets off none of these flags (maybe "spirituality," but in common parlance that usually means something other than the dictionary definition). So... yay for us!

Okay okay, maybe we need to step back for a moment here. All I did was ask: if some theistic religion created a foundation out of which flowed the same ideas advocated by Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio, would not that religion be tolerated? I then stated that I am a Christian. From that, I was called non-human, a bigot, and a other non-constructive hostilities. Perhaps it was the somewhat facetious way I opened my questions. For that I apologize. I don't actually think anyone here wants to murder me and my family. Though it is fact that Stefan thinks I want to murder him (said in "Talking with Christians without losing your will to live"), and thus might think himself justified to cause harm in some preemptive strike, but that's a stretch. It still seems to me that my voice is not welcome in this board's collective definition of a "free society" simply because I have faith in the unseen, even though we can agree on the conclusions of the vast majority of arguments. I'm asking if that is true. Second, my example of "the blind cannot will themselves to see" was simply a statement of fact, not an accusation that anyone here is "blind." My point is I am not going sit here and try and to convince anyone of the existence of god, because I believe such an act to be impossible. Lastly, I've heard it said here that it is impossible for religion and philosophy to be compatible (https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43260-am-i-still-welcome/#entry396132). I don't think this is true. I am perfectly capable of justifying almost all of my beliefs without relying on any rule of faith. Also, I have so far found no incongruence between rational philosophy and the tenants of my faith (a statement many here might scoff at, which is perhaps the conversation I'm seeking). Yes, there are some which are incompatible by definition (e.g. what is the chief end of man?), but the importance of those usually presuppose belief in deity and an afterlife. Remove those, and it seems a pointless disagreement to care much about. Why can't we focus on convincing the masses of the importance of freedom, self-determination, intellectualism, critical thought, challenging the status quo, free markets, competition, and societal evolution? Why can't I simply be tolerated as a minority opinion, where the small amount of divergence that exists is almost completely irrelevant to the construction of a free society?

I'm watching the FDR channels, listening to the podcasts, and so much of what is said resonates well with me. The ideas of liberty, freedom, self-determination, all fit nicely into my worldview, doctrine, and faith (a fact which might shock some people). But then, in many of Stefan's videos, and certainly in most posts in this forum, the conclusion ends up being something like, "and that's why anyone with faith in the unseen is a bane to society and should be drug out into the street and shot." Huh? I'm an evangelical Christian of the Calvinist tradition. I'm a member of a church in the Presbyterian Church in America denomination. I won't go into detail about what I believe regarding theology, since that would be largely pointless, but I will say that I and my church believe that salvation and even faith in God is not something that I can import onto anyone else. That is an act only God can do (i.e. the blind cannot will themselves to see). With that said, I have 2 questions: 1) It seems that most of these discussions presuppose that is atheism very much a requirement in a free society and it must be enforced with an (ironic) religious-like fervor. Is this true? and 2) If it were true that the moral foundation supplied by a religion were in complete accord with one suggested by reason, logic, universally preferred behavior, non-aggression, etc., then wouldn't that religion be just as good a foundation for members in a free society?

I think invoking the long-running (and on going, I might add) destruction of native populations in North America is a very good comparison to the current invasion crisis we see in the U.S. Any mass migration of peoples with no intention of assimilation is indistinguishable from invasion. Similar results will also occur.

I was in a meeting this afternoon where we were discussing some of the "old" methods of parking control used in a major US city. The person was constantly referring to the law enforcement as "pure capitalists." I'm not positive, but I don't think that means what he thinks it means. I don't usually use that term to describe myself, even though it might be apt. It's a marxist term, and a derogatory one at that. This person was using it in that way, to mean "making money at any cost, including theft and deception." That is not "capitalism" in my opinion. My definition is to risk one's personal property in an investment, in hopes of making more capital in return, and in the process supplying a demand from the marketplace in a mutually beneficial transaction. How would you define it (in 2 sentences or less)? -dave PS: Hello everyone. This is my first post. I trust people here are open minded and here for discussion and enlightenment.