I don't know what that project is and I'm on my phone so I can't look it up

I seem to recall you offering a pretty good challenge to me before, so I appreciate what ever sharp wit I can get out of you. I kinda want to be talked out of the idea or emboldened.

Going with the assumption it's a proactive Christian project:

I am hoping the project will be no more appealing to Christians than any other religious sect, or for that matter people who don't think of themselves as religious at all.

one of the things I find most common among Christians would be, following and/or enforcing particular verses of the Bible while ignoring other verses, even from the same book or letter.

I don't wish to address Christianity or it's literature in particular, but the Free Press Bible project does promote a process referred to as "self canonization" where an owner/user is encouraged to include, exclude or modify content based on whether or not they find it worthy of keeping in their collection. If the user wants to pray about the content of their collection because they believe in god, that's up to them. Some users may view the project as purely secular or "non-religious" and I expect people of that disposition to think of "self-canonization" as a philosophical endeavor.

For one, because they already understand that improving one's own ideology, or philosophy, or religion is a wiser focus than attempting to influence others to improve theirs. Another reason would be because they want to see tools that promote self guided philosophical development, and expanding intellectual liberty, outmode instructional methods that are seen as too centralized or authoritarian. Early on though I expect that the metaphorically challenged, and those who have a habit of quickly jumping to conclusions won't be much interested at all, and I see that as a good thing.

FORWARD

_____________________________________________________________

The FREE PRESS BIBLE is a special sort of Bible. It is in a very important sense non-religious. It is emphatically non-sectarian, and by virtue of it's promoting owner/users to modify it in whatever way they desire, it is in essence authentically non-denominational. It differs from predominate collections in that it was designed specifically to be modified, continually updated and personalized by ordinary people. It is meant to inspire readers and owner/users to collect, create and prioritize their most valued texts, documents, and recordings how they see fit. It is meant to be useful to people who think of themselves as anti-religion or simply have no particular religious affiliation, as well as those who do consider themselves religious. It is meant to contain articles that the owner/user wishes to identify with, and also articles that show aspects of ideologies they are opposed to and fighting against. It is meant to contain symbolic expression of strongly held sentiments and philosophical ideals, prioritized in a unique way by any individual who works to adapt it to their purposes. It is meant to be published in such a format that derivative and competing works can be easily made by anyone so inclined. It is meant to be not only a book, binder and journal, but also a set of tools that encourages and better enables people to respectfully and safely compare their strongly held beliefs with each other. It is meant to promote the preservation and expansion of intellectual rights. It is meant to help owner/users become and remain philosophically self critical. It is meant to provoke open controversy and debate on as broad a scale as possible. It is meant to be criticized. It is meant to become a catalyst for cooperation and collaboration among people that have common values. It is an expression of faith in symbolic language's usefulness and intrinsic goodness. It has been put together collaboratively utilizing peer influence. It is meant to be entirely non-sexist. It is a joint product with a software based content creation/selection and archiving system, operating freely and openly according to creative commons, open source and GPL standards and principles as both a personal binder, (Bible) and personal media management tool.

I hope you find this approach as inspiring as I have and to meet you soon as an opponent.~ atypican

additional content to be incorporated to this section follows:

This publication is designed to make it easy to maintain and develop:

1. A printed collection and/or

2. A privately and/or publicly stored digital media collection

It consists of a printed product (perhaps you're holding it now) which is an heirloom quality journal binder with replaceable pages. And a software product which is a bundle of Open-source/GPL computer software tools that make managing/building a rich collection a breeze. Besides the software product and the binder, there is a promotional website http://www.freepressbible.net

This website is where the promotional release is developed. The whole point of the Free Press Bible Project is to stimulate self guided instruction. The layout and articles chosen for the promotional release were chosen with that in mind. It is however impossible to create a publication that doesn't reflect the biases of it's authors. In it's defence however. Free Press Bible contains no content that isn't easily removed or modified by owner/users who may find it objectionable.

Besides being able to Change the content of your own collection, Any owner/user (and the public at large) can express concerns about how the promotional release might be improved. Articles contained in the promotional release are on display in an open public debate forum where objections to the content can be brought up and addressed, and new articles can be presented for consideration. There is no need to visit www.freepressbible.net unless you are interested in helping to develop the Free Press BibleTM product, or you want to safely store articles in the public archive. There is no Free Press Bible organization to join. Nevertheless, if you have ideas that you think can broaden the appeal of the “self-canonization process” please share them.

The Free Press Bible Project is designed to make use of the latest developments in information sharing technologies. Free Press Bible's aim is to make apparent the unprecedented opportunities emerging as our ability to share information continues to develop.

The Free Press Bible Process is designed to be enhanced by but not require internet access, or a computer.

Build your collection from anywhere in the world and keep it safe even if your primary copy is lost or destroyed. Possible without ever accessing a computer.

The Free Press Bible forums are accessible from anywhere in the world and exist for one purpose. So that improvements to the promotional release can be continually made by exposing proposed improvements to public scrutiny, critical review, and thoughtful perspectives and input.!!!

(no forums other than to leave PR open to pub scrutiny...too much risk of becoming a sect rather than a pub)

The article selection process for the promotional release of Free Press Bible is to have open ended debates during which articles in question (officially all of them)can be independently evaluated in light of various perspectives. It's up to you which you find most valuable and/or convincing, (if any at all).

Free Press Bible is essentially a way for you to freely and easily keep and maintain a collection of personally valuable recordings. It's easy to recognize that the making of a recording is an attempt to improve upon our natural memory function.

The value in that lies in the promise of being able to better learn from history.

The most important set of recordings are those in your own mind. Should they be of poor quality, or arrangement, they won't serve you as well as they would if they were refined and prioritized through deliberate thought. Free Press Bible is largely about the kind of thoughts YOU want to give priority to.

This collection is for improving yourself and the way you think in a self guided manner.,,no need to use FPB unless you'd like to help promote it (the underlying self guided process) and you think the FPB brand is still effectively doing that. Many people already get the gist of it and have been “compiling their own collection” all along. Some in a more accountable sense than others

Free Press Bible asserts and makes use of historically unprecedented intellectual rights (such as the right to freedom of religion) only recently being realized as electronic information technology develops.

The process of maintaining a collection of valuable recordings is a continually evolving ancient tradition with deep roots traceable in every culture.

Free Press Bible is not an ordinary publication. It is a fully customizable set of tools. The most basic of these tools is the printed product which can be used either independently, or in conjunction with is digital media based counterparts.

I won't disagree that the root cause is parents. Or that it's a sad subject. Care to comment on why you disgree with the statement that "Violence never serves the cause of justice"?

Anyone who agrees with what?

Clarify what you don't agree with specifically.

You equate standing up for yourself with violence? violence of what?

As to your statement "It must have been so improper of us to take down Hitler"

Well if we had been more clever we could have done it without killing so many innocents don't you think? Is it unrealistic to have non-violence as a goal?

The point I am making is that responding with dangerous or even deadly force isn't violence unless you are violating a right the person has. For example we could say that people generally have the right not to be shot at. My thinking is that they lose that right if they begin shooting at others.

Can you understand my frustration with how difficult it is to make this simple point? Check the debate description...am I that unclear? I stand by my observation that most people view violence as meaning "use of dangerous force"....I think that that way of interpreting the word is suboptimal.

HOW TO USE THIS BIBLE

Being an owner/user of Free Press Bible, you are required to decide whether you will be using all, some, or none it's features.

Since the Free Press Bible process is by it's very nature a self guided process, please do not look for any sort of official guidance as to what specifically is worth keeping in your collection, as that would essentially defeat the purpose.

If you are inclined to use only the tangible printed product, the directions for use are most simple and straight forward:

Remove the cover and you will notice binding screws that hold the pages of your bible together. Loosen and remove the screws with a screwdriver and your bible can be disassembled for adding or removing pages.

The pages of Free Press Bible are half-letter sized. This means that suitable pages for your collection can be made by folding an ordinary piece of paper in half, punching holes into it, and assembling it into your book.

The Free Press Bible Process, also referred to as “Self-Canonization” is essentially a self guided process.

This particular collection belongs to:____________________________

Who began self-canonization on: __________________________________

The contents of this collection (if it belongs to you) are to be accepted, rejected or modified. The articles are printed in a gray color. Darken in black articles you accept, Blot out articles found not to be worth inclusion. Highlight articles, relocate articles, note your own thoughts next to those who have influenced you.

Consider what is more or less important to include. Though modern technology allows easy creation of libraries of considerable size, a collection printable within the confines of a single book requires a much more discerning approach.

Some possible sources for content for your collection are

3. Your own memory and imagination

4. Conversations you have

5. Public and Private Libraries

6. The Internet

Getting started is easy. Start by filling the various sections with articles that you either strongly agree, or disagree with. Place the articles you feel most strongly about at the forefront of the section you've categorized them in. This task can be done in complete privacy for however long you like. Attractive articles can be found all over the place, and building a collection of favourites is a good way to start. The things you find attractive, reveal important aspects of your personality.

Content for your collection can come from anywhere. Any material that can be printed on a piece of paper, you are free to include in the bible that you hold in your hands. Just as no law can justly stop you from committing to memory the things you read and witness, no law can justly prevent you from utilizing tools like Free Press Bible to develop your personal philosophy. What some might call religion.

The act of self-canonization involves prioritizing some articles ahead of others. This is a great way to refine the way you think.

Start with a blank collection, a collection you already value, or the promotional publication if you so choose.

If you choose to build your collection from the promotional publication, please keep in mind that it was not compiled with any hope or expectation that owner/users would wholeheartedly agree with and accept every portion. Much of the content is included only because of it's controversial nature.

It may well be that you will prefer not to base your collection on active and open public controversies, debates and discussions like the promotional release is.

How closely, you choose to involve others in the development of your collection is up to you. You will find that without being stimulated by others, progress will be painfully slow. Conversations with other people are very useful for helping to challenge the way you think, and for finding more effective ways to express the way you think.

Important conversations are worth keeping a record of. There is a section entitled “suspicions”. This section is for material of suspect, or potential value. Things you want to look through, consider, “distill” or “mine” valuable content from.

There is no need to limit your collection to printable material, unless for some reason you do not have access to the internet or a computer.

Since the directions for how to use the digital media based features are different for different computer systems the how to use sections for those can be found either at:

http://www.freepressbible.net/htu.html

or on the Free Press Bible DVD

There is more than one way that the Free Press Bible product can be acquired and used.

For users who have no interest in buying a copy, they are free to download one. All the current content of the promotional release, (including all the software included on the Free Press Bible DVD) can be downloaded from http://www.freepressbible.net/download/

If you want the snazzy Free Press Bible binder and it's accompanying DVD though you'll have to purchase it at http://freepressbible.com,.

If for some reason you cannot get a copy through the website, please write to:

FPB

type new address here

I like the way you put it. It adresses a hierarchy of rights that I think needs to be considered. ( I don't do that as well in my definitions)Here are some other candidates for discussion.

"Use of dangerous force without due regard for the rights of others" (that's a new one shaped by your influence)

"The intentional breaching of rightful boundaries."

Upon reflection, I don't think you and I will have much trouble settling on a definition. Much content in the official release is related to promoting a philosophy of non-violence. I will be satisfied to include only one usage definition.(the one dealing with interpersonal activity)

In my personal collection, in the section titled "convictions", I have the statement

"Violence never serves the cause of justice" .

Right now I am thinking about paraphrasing your statement for the definition's example sentence.

I haven't read all the arguments, and this is my first posting here. So excuse any misunderstandings.

Welcome. Nice to meet you. In my estimation our dialog has begun with a couple of pretty important understandings.

You are the first person (as far as I know) that I have recorded dialog with that understands how I view violence. I am glad you have tagged your argument "defining violence"

I would like to end this dialog to work together with you to create Free Press Bible's glossary entry for violence. If you are up to it let me know.

Thank you for your interest. Only with help can Free Press Bible be continually improved.

You might guess that my sentiments concerning violence are strong. I have already been convinced that "Violence is never justified" needs to be rephrased. I am looking for a simple statement that better makes the underlying point which I still hold a strong conviction about.

Meaningful discussion about this subject requires that we come to terms regarding the meaning of violence. To be frank, I am not concerned with it's common use definition. For the purpose of this project the current definition of violence is : The intentional breaching of rightful boundaries

Since every portion of this work is open to debate, you are welcome to criticize the glossary entry for violence and explain why we ought to modify our definition.

So please consider how we are interpreting the word differently and how that effects the logic we use to defend and promote the philosophy of non-violence.

What it seems like to me is that the word "violence" in most of your arguments could be readily replaced with "use of dangerous force." I do not think that violence and use of dangerous force mean the same thing.

So according to the way you (and most others me thinks) interpret the word, your arguments are sound. You are welcome to interact as a critic if you disagree with fundamental (or any) principles promoted by Free Press Bible.

Obviously I am interested in considering opposing viewpoints or I wouldn't be here. But so you know, I am more immediately interested in articulating agreements for a small team (The first Free Press Bible Canonization Group) to build upon.

Thank you for contributing your thoughts, I hope to read more of your comments.

I want to find out if we agree that logical defenses of violence are usually based on a commonly accepted definition of violence that is suboptimal.

I would like to expand this discussion to the glossary entry for violence. Considering your comments about aspects of violence, I am most immediately interested in pursuing : Violence is at the expense of reason. (expandable, but inferrable)

right now I am only getting online every so often. So.... slow for now:)

Demoting violence is a great way to start.

Thank you. I hope you will read through the following debate and comment about my assertion that the popular definition could use some refining.

http://freepressbible.createdebate.com/debate/show/Violence_is_never_justified

validating the claim 'violence is never justified' may be hard to do.

If you notice in the debate linked to above, I was convinced to reprhase the debate. After all, violence is justified all the time is it not?

Can you think of a more succinct and easily understandable way to make the point?

OR be the cause of the violence

You argue that it is in some cases just to initiate or cause violence? I disagree. If you won't directly address the points I bring up (or if I ignore what you say) what is the use of dialog?

I don't think I disagree with the underlying sentiment. I just don't think instances of defensive behavior (defending rights) you described should be thought of as violent. I ask you, what right is violated in the defensive action you describe?

Is this your proposed definition of violence?

No my definition is one of the first posts to this debate on the agree side. "Violence = The intentional breaching of rightful boundaries." What you pasted was an attempt I made to clarify. So much for that :)

What constitutes a violation?

A rightful boundary being intentionally breached.

Just making effort to answer all your questions.

You didn't answer my question

Thanks for pointing that out.

Who is in the right and who is in the wrong?

The one (to paraphrase my definition) who intentionally breaches a rightful boundary. In this case it would be the vagabond, who instead of being forthright about his "need" (perhaps deluded by a notion of false scarcity) decided to obtain his bread through violence. even you typed that Preemptive violence is never justified, as that would be a failure to communicate.

the shopkeeper in return in violating the bum by denying him the food he needs to survive.

I submit that wee do not have a right to eat at someone else's expense. So in accordance with my definition, the shop keeper is not violating any rightful boundaries by refusing to give away food.

This is a simple concept portraying why justice and order requires violence.

I am not following your logic here. I hope you will patiently break it down for me.

In a perfect system there would no reason not to give him the bread because it is in abundance and nobody would benefit from withholding it.

Somehow I imagine that in this perfect system you imagine, there would be no selling of bread and we would all just eat manna falling from the sky. The truth is that the foods we are accustomed to eating require work to produce, and no one has a right to force someone else to toil and work so that they may eat without working. There needs be an equitable negotiative relationship. I support a critical look at the relationship between real value and legal currency, but I am not sure that a monetary economy deserves the root blame for greed and delusions of false scarcity. The vagabond could have scooped up some bugs and ate them if he weren't too spoiled. :)

What is the cause of most crimes? I will contest that most if not all crimes and violations are the result (directly or indirectly) of monetary issues.

"tied to" I will concede but "result of" is a bit of a stretch if you ask me.

"everybody wants to live life of kings and queens, but nobody wants to stay and plow the fields" ~Michael Franti

This dillema long predates robust monetary systems. Do you think I have made a respectful if not valid argument here?

watch the full version on google video.

I would love to have a conversation with the creators of that video. Since I don't expect that to happen any time soon, perhaps I can provoke you.... I assume you think that Zeitgeist is a well made movie, worthy of respect. In the interest of a healthy balance, I challenge you to offer some critical comments about the movie.

I will defend myself and my home against violence with violence.

Seems like you have your mind made up already. What if there were a non-violent option?

If you have truly understood my point about how the initiator of an attack DOES NOT retain the right to not be attacked then you will be able to see that using forceful or even lethal methods in self defense does not necessarily make those actions violent.

I am arguing for the philosophy of non-violence, which IMO could use to be better articulated.

Just admit that the better a system works the closer it adheres to fundamental principles of non-violence and I won't be forced to relentlessly debate you. :)

violation could be used subjectively.

It could, and is. But does that effect the validity of the proposed definition?

Someone must violate someone else in order for order to be maintained.

Will you please explain how you come to this conclusion?

In a perfect system where there is no money, where there is no "incentive" to be productive or do the right thing, I don't think violence would be necessary or even fathomable.

I am not sure what you are trying to convey here. I don't think we need a pefect system in order to recognize that violence is unnecessary. If you will notice, in my proposed definition I included intention. It is possible, even within this, our current imperfect system to have pure intent. We cannot avoid accidentally causing harm.

But since we have a monetary economy and everyone is brainwashed to think that they need money more than anything, people will be violated.

A little more on how you came to this conclusion would be helpful.

It is the nature of the false scarcity that a monetary system creates.

A little more on how you came to this conclusion would be helpful too.

I maintain that in today's world, justice requires violence.

I disagree with you here. Perhaps you could give an example of justice requiring violence we could debate this.

I hope that isn't the case forever.

What kind of hope? wishful hope or genuine discontent?

I hope that people don't regard police so high that they rule out self defense options simply because of their [The police's]position of authority.

I am seeing a pattern on this debate, that is the inability to differentiate acts of violence from violent acts.

Do you mean Violent events as opposed to violent human behavior? I think they merit a separate usage definitions.

Something like : "Sudden, forceful or dangerous activity" would describe violent events not necessarily involving human behavior.

But that is not the violence that one can be religiously opposed to. So to clarify, the first usage definition I wish to address with this debate is the one addressed by the following:

2 Action intended to cause destruction, pain, or suffering. ~Wiktionary

1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse ~ Merriam Webster

And your definition, Violence is that which causes harm. which common usage definition do you find that your definition states more clearly?

Considerations (about your definition) to account for, if you will:

1.)Accidents cause harm

2.)Harm is subjective. Harm to what?

Utter torture! you have my sympathy.. Running into instances where established societal rank trumps your basic rights is bad enough. Add a life and death situation involving your own daughter! You must have been insane. I can relate that to a hospital experience with my daughter when she had asthma

If you were able to go back and behave differently what would you do differently? Did you have a close relationship with a family doctor before this incident? Do you have one now?

I guess it's off topic but whatever I like to discuss primary root causes for dilemmas like you experienced. I will try to frame it as a debate. :)

Are all aggressive acts necessarily violent acts........?

short train of thought - please critique

Violence must violate something.

That "something" that violence violates is rights

certain [violent]behavior forfeits certain rights.

an attacker gives up their right to not be attacked whenever they initiate an attack

therefore a defensive attack is not necessarily violent

make any sense at all?

The defense of rights.....that's what comes to mind off the top of my head. I could probably better refine it with some thought. I think it [justice]is a useful concept with merit.

please provoke.