Re: Death of Zoya Krakhmalnikova

++ <friend@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:

> >>Why should a civilization seek anarchy? 

Catawumpus <kimmerian@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:

>>      Why would you change the subject?  Never mind.  Rhetorical
>> question.  Autocracy is very uncivilized, nothing more than 
>> the law of the jungle with a pretentious crown tottering on its
>> head.  Ditto other social hierarchies:  piles of monkeys
>> fighting to be on top.  So for civilized life in any meaningful
>> sense, anarchism is the choice.

++:

> And why should you make generalizations not sup****ted by historic record

> and then condemn Orthodoxy? 

     Why are you making foolish, unsup****ted accusations?  They
go nicely with your topic-changing, so I'd guess the 
motivation is the same:  defensiveness about the cozy relations
between Church and State.

     By the way, you're on-record confusing my remark about the
preaching in Romans 13:1-6 with a claim about history.  I 
pointed out those verses demand obedience to the powers that be
without any limitation to Orthodox rulers, calling down 
damnation on those who choose to resist the reigning 
authorities.  No room there to decide which rulers you'll rebel
against and which you'll follow.
 
> If someone makes a point, like the 
> Theodosian Code not having been enforceable and the Code largely 
> rewritten in many aspects, you just ignore it.

     Now you're descending into dishonesty.  I answered clearly
and directly when you said that "the Theodosian Code was 
superceded by the Justiniac" by reminding you what you tried to 
overlook.  First, the Theodosian Code shows that the 
alliance of Church and Crown dates back to antiquity regardless
what happened later in time.  Secondly, the Justinian Code 
does the same:  it insists on the assertedly "saving revelation 
of our mighty Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" and rejects 
heresy, puni****ng dissenters in various ways:  their assemblies
are banned, ditto their books, they're forbidden to have "a 
house of wor****p, or a place of prayer," blasphemy is penalized
with death, etc.

     You didn't claim the Theodosian Code was unenforceable, so
I couldn't possibly have ignored you.  I agree dogmatic 
assertions don't carry much weight, but to say the Roman Empire
was unable to apply any of its laws against heresy is 
nonsensical.  You might just as well claim that Christians were
never persecuted by Rome.

> The fact that my comment actually was relevant and not caught by you 
> does not turn it into changing the subject, it only puts it in the 
> category of being categorized by you.  Your arguments are generally non 
> sup****ted.

     Are you generally a liar, or are you celebrating a special
holiday?  I've sup****ted my arguments about the scriptures 
with chapter and verse, I've backed up my observation about the
Justinian laws with examples and quotes, same for my 
statements about the Theodosian Code, and where I gave readings
or offered judgments, I usually explained my reasoning.  
You've answered by waving your arms while shouting hysterically.

> There are different kinds of system that might be consideree, in some 
> respect, autocratic.

     Obviously.  And like I said, the autocratic ones are a bad
example of civilized life, since they're nothing more than
jungle-law with pretensions:  the biggest monkey enthroned with
a crown balanced on his head.

> generalization and value judgement

     No ****ing joke.  That's precisely what you requested when
you asked "Why should a civilization seek anarchy?":  a
question about civilization in general and the value of certain
social arrangements.

> Anarchism is never a choice. 

     Not a popular one, certainly, but still a choice alongside
others -- so far as there are any.  "Men make their own 
history, but they do not make it as they please."  Truth, since
history is often unpleasurable.

> Think about it

     Done.  Now you try.
   
>>      Also gets some sup****t in the NT.  Not an argument for its
>> value, of course, merely an observation.  The end-times 
>> prophesy in 1 Cor. 15:24 says Jesus will "put down all rule and 
>> all authority and power" in the world -- not exactly 
>> flattering to Constantines, Alexanders, Putins or Bushes -- and
>> over in the Gospels Jesus teaches against calling anyone 
>> "father" on this earth, restricting that title to God in heaven
>> and similarly arguing there's only one master, viz. the 
>> messiah:  an obvious rejection of earthly authority (this is in
>> Matthew 23:8-10) followed by a prediction that the social
>> order will be overthrown:  the exalted will be humbled, and the
>> humble will be exalted.

> Have you a small problem with schizophrenia.  Do you find yourself 
> muttering to yourself?  Do you actually expect people to listen to this 
> stream of consciousness , unsup****ted generalizations and value 
> judgements and somehow give it credence to some purpose.

     You have a problem with reading.  Above I showed anarchism
-- the topic you raised -- is sometimes sup****ted in the 
canonical NT, backing up my claim by offering chapter and verse 
from the Gospels and Paul.  I also threw in a reference to
revolution:  the overturning of the social order Jesus predicts
in several places.

-- Catawumpus