Open Letter to Bully Peter Joseph

[EoC]

http://conspirituality.org/peter-joseph/

 

I hope I've posted this on the right board.

 

Thanks

 

Charlotte Ward

[fractional slacker]

I am robot a from the future here to debunk criticism of your future leader: PJ the honorable prophet Robot Master.Please proceed to the nearest word salad buffet and repent for past and future transgressions.

[P. Mason]

By all means Mr. Joseph use any voluntary means at your disposal to make those robots.

[James Dean]

If I am correct in thinking that you are the author of both the article in question and the open letter to Jeter Poseph, do you, as of yet, have the plan or intention to talk with Stef in some capacity? I found both your article and the open letter (the latter being extra tasty) interesting reads and would enjoy seeing a discussion between you and Stef.

 

Also, I know that Stef has, at one point or another, agreed with TZM in their criticisms of Christianity but I understand your position to be pro christian, or at least more accommodating and less critical than atheist sites like this one or maybe TZM (I am uncertain to what degree TZM and Jeter Poseph are vocal about atheism now). You appear to decry this 'anti-christian' stance but site Stef in your open letter and post the link here on the board. As far as I know, and for as long as I have been listening to the FDR podcasts and posting on the boards (not all that long I grant you) Stef has been nothing but fair to Christians and never uses ad-hom or any of the other snarky and rapacious BS in which Jeter Poseph is emulsified, so perhaps this is the dividing line, I'm just curious as to the attitude of yourself, and the EoC page, towards atheism, as I don't think it was entirely clear. I've always been interested in learning more facts about the 'shadow government' and conspiracy theories and theorists, and as a clear communicator yourself, your site seems like a tremendous resource but the spirituality stuff stokes my apprehension. I guess this is a long winded way of asking, appropriately in the context of your letter, the attitude of EoC towards such a broad criticism of half of its tenants. 

 

(ps, yes the spoonerisms are on purpose, they are a sign of disrespect towards Jeter. )

[incubusfan]

would have liked to see a discussion between stefan and jacque fresco

[EoC]

James

 

Yes I am the author of the letter. Thanks for your interest. I try not to believe anything, prefer to observe. That's why I like my work to be grounded in fact. I'm not pro-Christian as such but I am pro respect of others and sensitivity towards their (well-meaning) work - live and let live. I write well but I'm not an intellectual: I'd have nothing substantial to contribute as far as Stefan is concerned, although thanks for your support. I felt, however, that I was speaking for more than a few people in writing to Jeter Poseph like this: he broke all the rules. Now I guess I'm waiting for the avalanche of TZM supporters to rattle into my inbox.

 

Thanks again

 

Charlotte

[dsayers]

I'm not pro-Christian as such but I am pro respect of others and sensitivity towards their (well-meaning) work - live and let live.

 

Problem is that their well-meaning does NOT include live and let live. It includes killing and threatening the defenseless for conformity's sake. Not worth tolerating and in fact worth obstructing.

[James Dean]

Problem is that their well-meaning does NOT include live and let live. It includes killing and threatening the defenseless for conformity's sake. Not worth tolerating and in fact worth obstructing.

 

Right. That sentiment was at the heart of my question, thanks for stating it in a more concise way, Dsayers. I am all for being pro-tolerance of others but then that would necessarily mean you were anti christian because they, by definition, are intolerant of others. 

 

Principals are a bitch, sometimes. 

[AustinJames]

Thank you for posting.  I was considering submitting an essay as part of TZM's 'challenge,' but after considering the feedback of the board, and the content of this letter, I have decided it would be a waste of time.  Thanks to you, and others on this board, I will have saved myself a lot of time and effort.

[EoC]

^{That's a shame, Austin James - I bet we would have enjoyed reading your essay. Are you sure you won't reconsider?}

 

^{Everybody, I couldn't agree more on Christianity (indeed, all religions). I said I was a conspiracy theorist - I observe that religion has been set up to divide and control us}. And look how it's so effectively dividing us even now.

 

(Excuse my font sizes - I can't seem to correct them.)

 

To solve the problem we must adopt a higher level of consciouness than the cause of the problem (ref Einstein - can't remember the quote).

 

That's what I think, anyway.

 

Charlotte

[dsayers]

And look how it's so effectively dividing us even now.

 

Those willing to initiate the use of force and those who will not is a meaningful divide though. In fact, I think it's the only way to divide people in a meaningful way.

 

@James: Thank you for feedback. I just wanted to clarify that being intolerant isn't the same thing as initiating the use of force against another person. Though it can certainly manifest in that manner.

[EoC]

Thanks for your reply.

 

Fair enough, but we could also divide Christians into forceful and non-forceful. And governments.....

 

I can't stress enough that I am not pro religion but take as an example the Jewish Christian Romanian Pastor Richard Wurmbrand. He is still one of the most popular and respected historical figureheads in Romania and other countries - for Christians and non-Christians. He was incarcerated in two sets of camps, imprisoned 30ft underground in a black cell for 3 years and tortured repeatedly. He ran the underground Church. But not once was he verbally or physically violent towards anybody, even his torturers.He was a source of support to his fellow inmates, Christian or not.

 

It was the atheist GOVERNMENTS who were initiating force then - and not the Christians!

 

Maybe we should stop having a go at the Christians and look a little more closely at (shadow) government? Or ourselves, even! But sorry - I 'm a conspiracy theorist.

 

(Sorry - a check informs me that the Nazi's weren't atheist but I think we can agree that they initiated force.)

[dsayers]

Fair enough, but we could also divide Christians into forceful and non-forceful. And governments.....

 

If I'm reading this correctly, I have to disagree about the potential for non-forceful government. It's like saying non-forceful rape; The moment that violence is out of the picture, it's no longer called rape/government.

 

Also, I'm skeptical of the potential non-forceful Christianity. The book they believe in is full of commands to kill various people. They perpetuate threatening eternal hellfire to prevent theft (or the eating of meat on certain days) when universalizing self-ownership is more effective, empowering, and peaceful. If nothing else, it passes off the unsubstantiated as fact and claims anti-rationality to be a virtue. The list goes on.