Dose any one know anything about fire worship? I have tryed to find something on it but i cant i am trying to practice some form or another of fire worship but noothing sounds apealing i have however made my own form of praise but i want to get into part of a real religeon whos focuse is on fire or somekind of piro god/godess any help would be deaply aprecciated.

Is there any particular reason that you want to worship fire?

It would add a cooler edge to his attention starved pseudo-rebellion is my guess.

It is kinda cool, fire is like the fist. It is capable of so much creation and destruction. I believe thats why its usually used to symbolize the divine and its energies.

Webster sez:

Fire Worship - the worship of fire, which prevails chiefly in Persia, among the followers of Zoroaster, called Chebers, or Guebers, and among the Parsees of India.

Don't forget your Zippo.

Water better

the reson i want to worship fire is because it is capable of so much it has created almost all that you see in some round about way and it has cripeled empires and i think that for that it needs its due respect

How about worshipping something that science doesn't already have a logical explanation for, like dark matter.

Worshipping things isnt very anarchistic.

I think it's kinda interesting that one wants to worship fire, you don't get that alot..

On the other hand I find it pretty lame; I mean the reaction where oxygene binds itself with some other atom. That's like worshipping a huge burning gas ball that we call the sun. So primitive.

does anyone understand how anarchism could ever actually possibly work? I need this to be explained to me, it seems like we'd just be setting ourselves back a few thousand years.

just simply, anarchism is where all social arrangements and agreements are entered voluntarily by the individual. To ensure equitable distribution of goods and services, it is proposed that ownership of property and currency be abolished, so that one may only own what he can use.

it has nothing to do with burning stuff or fire or setting back the course of civilisation 2000 years. its all really based on the idea that power corrupts, so stop giving it to people.

it is not anti-technology, as no one in thier right mind would refuse technology that makes life easier without a very good reason.

basically, if people didn't have to make more than is needed to feed people without profits, then peoples lives would not revolve around work.

there would not be a massive diffrence, there would be order and people would still be respected. there would not, however, not be some fucker 2000 miles away telling everyone to go and die on some foriegn battle field for the idea that white hetrosexual christians are the only people who are allowed to live happily.

I worship cats, like the Egpytians.

I know what anarchism is, but, realistically, I want to know how it would ever work.

Seems like it would just end up with someone seizing power and forcing everyone to do what they want.
would I be right to say that Anarchism would be vaguely reminiscent of Communism?

its more like socialism. libertarian(sp?) socialism is another name for it.

the thing with that is, if no one has power, and then someone does, people are going to notice and do somethng. its not like communism where power is just extended a little bit and then a little bit more, where it isn't noticed till it would be too late. its a massive diffrence thats against all the founding principals, that people would pick up on and fight. and if the mass of people resist, then they cannot be forced to do anything.

how it would be actaully implemented in real life is something that is debated alot amongst anarchists. depending on who you ask you would get diffrent answers. the anarchist faq is considered fairly accurate with the majority of social anarchists thinking.

what about law enforcement? if no one has power who is going to make sure people don't just go around killing each other?
How would there be laws if there is no one in power saying what you can and can't do?

crime would drop, as the majority of crime is cause by poverty and inequality, but there still would be crime.

there would be a court type system to sort out disputes between people, but there would be no milita type force unless it was deemed necessary. there would be no permenent milita members, as that has potential for corruption, but it would work as a rotation. things like investigations would be carried out by intrested parties and / or an appointed group.

the causes of crime are the things that would be treated, not just shoving people how act on those causes in jail. i mean, in our society if someone steals something, they get put in jail, and the issue of inequality that made the person steal is totally ignored. the society is structured so that social pressure is high to do what is collectively known as right, and wrong things are not treated lightly. everyone knows right and wrong, unless theyve been told diffrent. things like ostracising an offender would be a natural reaction for people upsetting things.

there would be hard core phsycopaths for who restraint would be the only way of keeping them out of trouble. here the general consensus seems to be the mental hospitals for those people. there would be no prisions however, as they, do not work, as anyone can tell by looking at repeat offender rates and the like. if a society needs prisions then the society is not a healthy one.

(the thread might feel more at home in politics)

I don't know if I like that majority thing, a couple months ago a large majority of people were asking for a nuclear strike on Afghanistan

So what would happen to the repeat offenders who were not deemed wrong?

(I noticed that too, but I guess this is as good as anywhere)

"I don't know if I like that majority thing, a couple months ago a large majority of people were asking for a nuclear strike on Afghanistan"
that is the result of decades of fear mongering and propaganda, and i really doubt if that was the majority anyway. it was vocal, but any right minded person would know better. people need to decide what to d themselves, right or wrong. having someone tel you what to do isn't the way that anyone should live.

"So what would happen to the repeat offenders who were not deemed wrong?"
i don't get it. if people were doing things that were 'bad' but with good motives?

I thought you said that the crime wouldnt souly be based on the fact that they did something wrong, the reason that they did it would be taken into account

like if a guy was caught stealing to feed his children

Anyone who could, would share and eliminate the mans need to steal until he could fully support his family again. maybe.

I like capitalism. It works in my favor, and I'm selfish. read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

"Anyone who could, would share and eliminate the mans need to steal until he could fully support his family again. maybe."

thats about the jist of it. although they wouldn't be starving in the first place as there would be enough to go around and there would be no price on it. food and all other items would be freely availible to whoever could make use of them.

there is enough food in our world to feed everyone, but the price put on it is too high for half of the world to afford. that would not be an issue in an anarchistic society as there would be no payment needed, or all you would have to do is your best. this is another grey area, but some anarchists belive in communism style non transferable labour notes others belive in a full fledged economy, while most belive in no money at all.

You all seem to be contradicting yourselves. I have come to understand that Anarchy basically means "no government". I understand the points to the theory. I understand that the U.S. government has done a lot of shitty things over the years. What I don't understand is how Anarchy would be a reasonable answer for things. It is a lot like Communism. It looks great on paper, but humans will act like humans, and something will go wrong. Then you say "Well there will be organizations which would give a hearing and find out the punishment for certain wrongdoings". That right there is government in itself. Government is just a set of rules to hold order in a group. There is no life without any government. When there is no government, there is no one to regulate anything, therefore, people will act on humanly instincts, and get greedy, and start killing other people for various reasons, and so on... You can't live without rules and regulations. No matter what you say, there is no reasonable way to think that the world could live without someone to lead it. A bunch of stones can't just fall into the shape of a house, there has to be a foundation, and someone to build the building.....

Johnny

"You all seem to be contradicting yourselves."
....?


i) in a different society, people act differently. that is obvious. our society is run of fear. the fear of having no money, the fear of being different etc. etc. people react to that fear, they become stressed, they give up trying, they just simply can't cope, they lash out, there are many symptoms.

its like lord of the flies (ive never read the book so i might be wrong about this, but i don't really care the idea is the same). they went to the island place but they still acted like they had authority to rebel against. they killed each other and did everything they couldn't back at home. eventually after all that shit they recreated 'home' in their new society so they could cope. they believed that they needed this system, and so they did. If they forgot everything about �home�, ie, the fear and the repressed feelings, they wouldn�t have needed to recreate it. I hope ive got my point across, but im not going to get sidetracked about it.


there would be a tighter social group so actions of the individual would affect the society and the repercussions would be more effective. getting locked away in jail with other criminals is different, from say, everyone in a society cutting you out of things.

Lets say you woke up tomorrow to find that the US government (or wherever you are) had being dissolved, or wiped out or something, wait, that's a bad example because the old system would still dictate your actions. You would might exact revenge, or more probably loot. That is the way that our society is structured. Without the standing hierarchy, people no longer have any guidelines to follow, and not being used to think for themselves, would just basically act out what they were not allowed to do before (more correctly, what they wanted to do). People in an anarchist society would not consciously react to a capitalist society. There would be people who cannot let go of the old system of repression, fear and exploitation, and those who could not/would not be able to think for themselves. They would be the ones who go mental with a chain saw, and that is not due to the anarchist society itself, but because the change in system does not register, and all they see is that they can now do what they want, seemingly without any consequences.

The way I see it there are a few types of crimes.

I) crimes of passion. These cannot be eliminated in any society, as things like love quarrels and personal conflicts and the like would never be (and should never be) eliminated.

II) thuggery. This is just people displaying power over an individual or group. Except in childhood, this would basically be eliminated, because there would be no power to exploit, and no means to exploit it through. Physical thuggery is something that could never be irradicated as people do have physical and mental advantages over each other, although there would be no channel through which mental advantages could be exploited.

III) crime for gain. This would be eliminated because, simply there would be nothing to gain from killing another person.

IV) hardcore crime. I see this as crime for the sake of crime. For example, throwing rocks at cars on a freeway. There is no real reason, (except the need to rebel for teenagers) and there is nothing to gain. This would partly drop, because of parents having more time to parent, and they would be less stressed over their future etc, and because there would be no authority to rebel against.

Unless im forgetting something, all crime could be classed into those 4 broad types, most of which would be eliminated. The change to an anarchist society is something that people need to be educated about, and told about.

�You can't live without rules and regulations.�
I think that that is bullshit. People do not need to be told what to do, at least not those people who actively think for themselves. The evidence of our history has, I think, shown us a something.

People who cannot accept the reality of a situation need to make up things to make it bearable. Like people inventing government because they couldn�t think for themselves, and people inventing the idea of an supreme being or a purpose. (just as a side note, I see government as an inevitable step (evolutionary, if you want) for humans. They went from having to fight for everything themselves, then a surplus was made, but the owners of the surplus didn�t want it to be shared. A system was needed to keep the surplus in the hands of those who �own� it, and to stop people from attempting to take it for themselves, or their collective clan or family. The system is capitalism and Christianity. Now, take away the surplus that is owned by an individual or cooperation, and there is no need for the systems. Its like, imagine that everyone stored all their food in a big barn. There is more than enough for all, and one person starts to hoard it. That person would feel pretty damn stupid, and would probably throw it all in. But don�t take the primitivism example as an example of anarchism.)

Back to the original quote, there would be rules and regulations, like, no stealing everything and attempting to sell it back to the people (ie. Capitalism) but the consequences would not be handed out by a designated force, but as a society acting as one. But yes, if people are not faced with rules, they would survive.


If anything is a bit unclear just point it out and ill elaborate.

Oh, and I don�t get the parralells with communism. The only similarity between commiunism is that worker control the good that they make and how they make it. Communism has a very strict and enforced heirachy, and there is equality in it, despite attempts for their not to be. The workers in communism don�t even get control over thier own destiny. in anarchism there is not even a distinciton between worker and non worker.

raovq, raovq, raovq.

are you aware why we have laws?

laws are not passed and then people break them just to break them.

murder doesn't happen because there's a law against it, there's a law against it because murder happens.

how i wish we were mature enough to live in anarchist society, let me put some realism into the ideals you don't understand why other people won't get.

I) crimes of passion-or personal vendettas, not necessarily because of love.

rape could fall under this category.

in a true lawless society you are basically telling women, maybe you will, maybe you won't.

should you pass a law against it, there goes anarchy.

II) thuggery-ahh, but there would be power to exploit. you work for a boss, you are physically stronger, you now work for yourself with no repercussions.

this is why man technological level was stagnant for so long, mental abilities did not win out over brute strength.

and it is also how mental advantages could be exploited, since you know this about that, being physically stronger i could force you to use that knowledge for my benefit and at your expense.

III) crime for gain, come one, try a little bit of realism here, that is the whole entire reason laws were established in the first place.

people who couldn't build shelter killed those who could.

people who couldn't hunt stole from those who could.

IV) is simply ridiculous as well.

for one that's not hardcore crime.

how would an anarchist state handle abortion?

would you allow the women to choose, and those who were against it to vandalize abortion clinics or kill abortion doctors?

or would you pass a law against it, thus ending anarchy.

the only way anarchy could possibly work is if everybody had the same ideals, the same morals, the same standards, the same way of life.

i don't want to live in pleasantville.

rape isn't about sex, its about power.

laws do not negate anarchy. there would have to be rules and consequences, except punishments are not handed out by a central organisation, they are handed out by the society as a whole.


"how would an anarchist state handle abortion?"
simple. if people want an abortion, they can have it. its better to 'kill' a foetus than to bring up a child in an enviroment that doesn't want it or can't handle it. there is no ethical debate. people own there own bodies, and they can do whatever they want to themselves.

"IV) is simply ridiculous as well.
for one that's not hardcore crime."
going into semantics doesn't help. i made up the term. i really don't give a fuck if its the right term, its the idea i was getting at.

"i don't want to live in pleasantville."

pleasantville was a highly restrictive society in which many things are socially taboo or against the law. the people were ignorant about themselves and about others. pleasantville was the ultimate society in which people are kept under control. doing anything else excpet working and contributing to the state never simply occured to the people, the ultimate goal of the government. to have people who work, retire, then die without hassles.


you obviously have no grasp of the ideas im trying to put forward. you cannot think of this in terms of capatilism.
"being physically stronger i could force you to use that knowledge for my benefit and at your expense."
there would be NO benifit for being stronger or smarter. yes, intelligence would be utilised, but not rewarded. there would be no channels through which to exploit anyone. you could not force them to do work for you, there would be nothing to gain. (except personal things, like personality conflicts and stuff)

Rape isn't always about power. It is possible to be done out of pure instinctual sex drive, but more often than not it is a power thing.