General

Re: Believing in religion [today] and being an advocate of a stateless society...

Merlin — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 20:43:11 GMT

Mtn Dew:
Of course not, but I do think it's interesting that the most well known atheists are also huge statists.

As I argued earlier, that is probably because some people transfer their psychological need of a "father figure" from God to the State. Basically, there still is in the west this market competition between church and state, at least in the minds of people.

Re: Believing in religion [today] and being an advocate of a stateless society...

Mtn Dew — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 20:27:01 GMT

Of course not, but I do think it's interesting that the most well known atheists are also huge statists.

Re: Believing in religion [today] and being an advocate of a stateless society...

Merlin — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:48:18 GMT

Re: Believing in religion [today] and being an advocate of a stateless society...

Merlin — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:48:12 GMT

Mtn Dew:
Better to be wrong about religion being legitimate and for the NAP than an atheist statist.

Hey, what the hell, of course! Even a rather staunch atheist as myself would not think a second over that. Much better to be fundamentalist something and anti-state than atheist statists. But could one try to have both? Is it so impossible? Unthinkable even? Religion is of course a matter of personal interest, and the thread, at leats from my point of view, is purely a personal discussion, but I think the possibility of being atheist and anarchist cannot be equated with zero.

Re: Believing in religion [today] and being an advocate of a stateless society...

Mtn Dew — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:34:09 GMT

I think it's interesting to use Christopher Hitchens to demonstrate how stupid religion is in a thread like this when Hitchens is a huge statist.

Better to be wrong about religion being legitimate and for the NAP than an atheist statist.

Re: Believing in religion [today] and being an advocate of a stateless society...

William — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:28:14 GMT

Esuric:
There are many "Christians" today who support theft (taxation), murder (war), and who bear false witnesses against their neighbors.

The word "Christian" has no real meaning unless put in context. The Bible is worthless to talk about unless put in very specific context, this also holds true for God, gods, etc. This thread and the countless others only confirms this. Just starting a thread and talking about the nature of a deity or the content of a very ancient book in relation to modern political theory is nothing short of daft.

Re: Believing in religion [today] and being an advocate of a stateless society...

Mike — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:05:55 GMT

I am a non- believer – but am really bothered by the people who feel it to be their life’s work to destroy religion.

Look at Europe for the parallel in the rise of socialism and the decline of Christianity.

America is the most religious western country and also (as of today) the most individualist/free market. Coincidence? I think not

I would take the religious over the statist any day. So all you haters, please direct your energy in the right direction, against the most evil creation of all, the state, PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Believing in religion [today] and being an advocate of a stateless society...

Jesse — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:17:52 GMT

Chris:
To the people who believe that Christianity goes hand in hand with statism, I think you should drop the interpretation of Christianity you get from hearing the Pope or whomever speak and read the New Testament and then form your own opinion. I think you are grossly misinformed.

You sound like a protestant :)

Re: Believing in religion [today] and being an advocate of a stateless society...

Andius — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 07:30:49 GMT

CrazyCoot:
Well then it's implied that Satan does have control over the Earthly kingdoms?

I could care less if he did or not. Either way, Satan's challenge here is transformed as irrelevant to Jesus, because in the long run, it is the Father (God) who calls the shots on the Earth on who reigns and who doesn't, which was the whole point of the challenge that was going on there, to demonstrate that Satan's offers = are worth squat. (it's equivalent of when confronted with the Challenge of the Riddle of Sphinx, instead of answering the riddle, you blow the Sphinx herself sky high with a RPG Launcher you brought along, making the Challenge irrelevant to you ;) ).

CrazyCoot:
Hitchen's point is valid; the God as we know it is a totalitarian dictator.

It fails as a valid point for the following difference: Totalitarian Dictators obtain subordinates by force and intimidation. God on the other hand, has never done such a thing. To enter under God's patronage is your own free choice, and you will never get that kind of deal with oppressive totalitarian dictators (And you can leave this patronage whenever you wish to! You can't get anymore free than that).

CrazyCoot:
That idea doesn't sit well with some people; call it a strawman or whatever. But what else do you call an omnipotent force that determines where you spend eternity.

I call it, an omnipotent force that respects your free will decision on where do you wish to spend your eternity. Your leaning upon an emotional argument, especially one that assumes that God owes you something.

It's really not too different in regards a company that is the one that ultimately decides wether to hire an individual or not to work for a company. Companies (and ultimately the forces of the free market of demand) determine the destinies of many individuals all the time, and we are talking about individuals that willingly work for them, and have decided to submit themselves to those forces to insure their individual well-being. The individual chooses wether to work and escape poverty and debt, or to be a sloth and accumulate debt, and starve himself for making such a stupid for picking a slothfull lifestyle. The company is under no obligation to insure the well being of individuals that do not wish to work for that company. Is not the company free to hire those they see fit and voluntary seek it? why should God be the exception?

Why should God be obliged insure the well being of individuals in their eternity, when those very same individuals freely choose to back off from Him, reinforced with their acts that essentially tell God "This is my life! Mind your own damn business!". This be all part of the package of free will Crazycoot. You do not want to work for a company? Fine, then neither is the company obliged to pay you or grant benefits, and insure that you won't starve to death. You do not want enter God's patronage? That's fine, then neither is he obliged to insure you benefits after you've kicked the bucket, it's that pure and simple.

Re: Believing in religion [today] and being an advocate of a stateless society...

Chris — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 07:07:53 GMT

I feel like I've posted on this same topic like five times on this site already but I will do so again. I'm a Christian anarchist. I'm officially a confirmed Catholic and attend church weekly. Having said that, I don't condone the beliefs of the church but rather derive my beliefs from my own reading and interpretation of the Bible. I really don't understand how anybody can read the New Testament and claim that Jesus Christ's teachings condoned the existence of a State. Look at the Ten Commandments, "thou shalt not steal" -- OK, so how is a State formed when you're not supposed to steal? As others have brought up I believe, when Jesus said to "render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" and also when the Israelites wanted a king and God essentially warned them they would regret it. Satan has domain over the world and tempt's Jesus with it although the Lord resisted. "Love thy neighbor as you love thyself" is also not compatible with "stick a gun in your neighbor's face and demand tax money". The teachings of Jesus are love, forgiveness, charity, kindness, and peace. The State is the symbol of violence, murder, evil, oppression, etc. They are polar opposites. God must be pretty libertarian to give people free will as well!

My church unfortunately says statist things during mass when the congregation prays for things (when they say something like this I remain silent). They have advocated war, the redistribution of wealth/resources, etc. Some really Marxist nonsense. One night I approached one of the priests outside and I asked him who writes the prayers, and then asked him something to the effect of "If the government has to steal everything it has, and Jesus was against stealing, how can Christians pray for the government do something?" He just kinda laughed and said he hoped the church wasn't doing anything anti-Christian. I think I caught him by surprise and I left it at that.

To the people who believe that Christianity goes hand in hand with statism, I think you should drop the interpretation of Christianity you get from hearing the Pope or whomever speak and read the New Testament and then form your own opinion. I think you are grossly misinformed.

Re: Believing in religion [today] and being an advocate of a stateless society...

Andius — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 06:52:09 GMT

G8R HED:
Were Adam and Eve NOT given the choice whom to serve - God or themselves?

Naturally! The structure of blessings that God is delivering in the narratives in Genesis 1 and 2 fits the structure of a contract of the type found not only in the other contracts that he did with Noah, Abraham, Israel, David, the Church, etc. You have the benefits/blessings: (You are lord of the land, eat any fruit you wish save for one) and the conditions/commands (Be fruitful, Maintain and work the garden, stay off the Fruit of Knowledge). Although the words "This is my covenant with you" are absent, it doesn't need to be mentioned, because by virtue of it's word structure and the "Here's the deal" tone of God when he spoke to Adam, the context will dictate that it be a covenant, and one that by it's nature, is voluntary. Adam and Eve were perfectly free to refuse the deal, but that will also mean that God is not obliged to grant them His benefits (a choice they did the moment they listened to the Serpent, failing in their end of the bargain, winning their exile and an arduous existence that would soon be followed by death). And in the mind of the ancient Hebrew, this is the worst thing that can happen, a separation from God.

G8R HED:
Were the Christian groups and the inherent accountability which you claim existed voluntary or involuntary?

They were voluntary of course! And this reinforced by the missionary model found throughout the entire New Testament, where Peter, Paul, Timothy, etc. won converts not by the sword, but by appeal to facts and argument. The Narrative in Acts 2 is one of those examples (You will notice that at the end of that chapter, the crowd in Jerusalem, after hearing the speech of Peter, converted to Christianity).

Re: Believing in religion [today] and being an advocate of a stateless society...

Andius — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 06:21:48 GMT

Jesse:

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

And it be my very good honor that you heard me out. :)

Jesse:
I'm not convinced. The Israelites demanded a king, and God (through Samuel) warned them about the evil that would follow. Israel had no state prior to this. More interestingly, God recognized this demand for a State as a rejection of him. (Is this not reason enough to demonstrate that anarchism is the Christian position?)

True that Israel had no "State" prior to the installation of a human monarch (I have to confess to you, I tread lightly inserting the term State in a place and era where the concept did not exist, let alone describe accurately what Ancient Near Eastern Realms were like, but States is not the correct description. I am contextual nutcase, and anachronisms is something I highly loath.).

Nonetheless, I don't deny the use of this verse for as a legitimate basis for Christians who follow anarchist leanings. But neither does it support the absence of lordship of some sort (wether it be from God, or your very own employer). I have a particular understanding of anarcho-capitalism, where I recognize that even if States disappear, rulership and heirarchies amongst men will still remain.

Jesse:
Agreed. God is the only final authority that a Christian needs.

Excellent, such is the correct posture of a true and devoted Christian.

Jesse:
Maybe I was a little bit strong in saying that it is a central message, but I will maintain that it is a major one. Read chapter 9 of the Westminster confession. I understand that "free will" as we commonly understand it isn't taught in scripture. I agree with chapter 3 of the Westminster confession; nobody is free from the decrees of God. In discussing "free will" in chapter 9, the freedom attributed to humans is only with respect to nature (i.e., our actions are not determined by the things in nature).

Ah! A follower of the Westminster Confession! This is definitely a Confession I highly admire and respect. I read through it, and I for one have no problem with it, and it definitely is consistent with Scripture. After all, I for consider that just because Scripture makes no talk about it regarding Freedom, it neither denies it, and one can deduce it from the use of our God given reason.

Jesse:
I would argue that in view of this sort of freedom, political freedom should follow, and anarchism should follow from that. (I refer to the Westminster confession somewhat authoritatively, because I think it is the most accurate summary of scripture ever written.)

I have no problem with you having the Confession as one of your creeds (It it be consistent with Scripture, it be a legit creed ). Mmhhh, so from this freedom, political freedom must be achieved, and after that, anarchical societies? Mmhhh, okay, I see your point here. , and I will cede to it. I just have this one reserve though:

Despite my leanings of Anarcho-capitalism, I must never forget that we, as Christians, already belong to a realm called the Kingdom of Heaven, and with an effective ruler in it of course. In the ultimate sense, the Kingdom of Heaven is not anarchist in it's social compisition. But it be a Kingdom that you, like me, willingly served under our own our own free accord, we were never coerced to become part of the Assembly of God, and he has never done no such thing (And I for one, would kill for a world where one joins a nation under your free will, to actually have true social contracts for every nation/dominion on Earth. The ancient world was actually like that. In most kingdoms, individuals actually had the choice of freely choose which king and peoples to serve, an ideal that only exists nowadays in private companies and firms).

Jesse:
But shouldn't a Christian, having the advantage of God's word, know better? I would like to think so. Such is not necessarily the case, though.

Well, when you got verses that say that the authorities (arkos) are the agents of God in administrating justice (Rom. 13:6-7 or 1 Peter 2:13 ), and making it an absolute for all times, you will naturally get Christians that declare that it be lawfull to have the existence of the State. Many Christians are not awares that those verses were written in letters during the time period when Nero was still a sane and relatively decent emperor, and should not be surprised that Paul is extorting to them to respect their authority and to pay their taxes. But all that changed the moment he went berserk, and the armies of Rome began hunting down Christians. The verse, along with a great deal of issues that were particular for newly converts in Rome, had to be dealt with, and the tax one, is definitely one (It's really no different from someone telling you, pay your taxes to a government that is not doing too bad at all for the sake of staying out of trouble). But absolutize those verses, especially in the wake of verses like Acts 5:29, declaring that we ought to obey God instead of men (And Acts was writtern AFTER Nero went berserk).

Besides, the word for authorities, (arkos), applies to any kind of authority, not just the ones from coercitive governments as described specifically in Romans 13. Besides, I don't find it problematic if the governors and emperor at that time period were in accord with God's will during that period of time (reference to the verses where God declares that the authorities, he instituted himself).

Jesse:
It seems like it's more than a coincidence that an angel with a flaming sword was introduced to the world immediately after sin was. Why weren't there angles with swords before the fall? Answer: force wasn't necessary to adjudicate disputes. As far was we can tell, there were no disputes. After the fall, force becomes necessary. This is a devastating punishment. This force has traditionally taken the form of a State, but I (as an anarchist) would argue that it does not have to.

You definitely are right on the matter that the matter of the absence of violent enforcement was not necessary before Eve and Adam took a bite of the forbidden fruit. It be no different in the case when I was a little kid, in my household, there were no rules and enforcement that declared that I was not allowed to play soccer in the house, but the Dont Break Anything was in effect. The moment I played soccer, and broke one of the tables, you bet that the institution of a new rule and force became necessary (the force, me getting whipped with my Dad's belt on my bare buttocks, ooooyy, it hurt! But I learned my lesson that day). However, why would State be the only form that this form of punishment has had in manifestations. Violent regulation for the sake of safeguarding order, peace, property, loved ones, happens all the time in private dominons as well. Haven't you ever seen the of the "Trespassers will be shot" signs that many landowners have in their lands?

Re: Believing in religion [today] and being an advocate of a stateless society...

Bert — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 05:41:28 GMT

CrazyCoot:

Andius:

CrazyCoot:

I've heard some convincing arguments to be made for the notion that the Render unto Caesar passage was a lot more radical in terms of anti-statism than most folks think .

Truth be told, the expression "Render unto Caesar what belong's to Caesars and to God what belongs to God" was hardly an anti-statist expression (That's the modernist reader inserting values that did not exist in that time period). The expression is declaring, to put it in our terms, "Because this coin has the face of the Caesar, lets get rid of this coin and be rid of it's image amongst us!" An answer that cleverly satisfied Judaic separatist notions, yet at the same time, did not incur the wrath of Rome either, and in effect, leaving his questioners who challenged him with the question looking like idiots.

There was no such thing as Separation of Church and State in that era, or to put it in their terms (I hate anachronisms), no Separation of a religious system and a domain of a lord.

CrazyCoot:
I don't know; part of me believes that religious institutions can provide alternative institutions to the state and they can give people some moral fiber while resisting the state.

Some people do that.

CrazyCoot:
But another part does acknowledge that their record of supporting the state, equating opposition to the regime with opposition to God, living off taxpayers' dollars, and for the most part preaching the notion (as Hitchens put it) of a deity who has a lot in common with Kim Jong-Il.

Many do so so, your point? Pfftt, that comparison that Hitchens pulls off be nothing more than a Strawman of God, typical of Fundamentalist Atheists like Hitchens.

CrazyCoot:
The part of the New Testament that strikes me as the most pro-anarchist is the one where the Devil promises Jesus reign over all the kingdoms of the Earth. Perhaps he was lying and did not have the power to give away the crowns. But what if he were telling Jesus the truth?

There is nothing pro-anarchist regarding Jesus' rejection of lordship of the world, that's you reading your own modernistic values and understanding in a text where no such values existed in it's time period. Satan was not lying when he offered every kingdom on Earth, but what Satan did was the equivalent of offering a dime to a person that already owned billions and billions of dollars (It in effect, portrays Satan as a fool.). It's a Shame and Riposte challenge, one that Satan lost miserably in the narrative. There is nothing anarchist about it (Jesus, as King, is going to retake the world either way by establishing his kingdom on Earth, making Satan's offer all the more silly).

Well then it's implied that Satan does have control over the Earthly kingdoms?

Hitchen's point is valid; the God as we know it is a totalitarian dictator. That idea doesn't sit well with some people; call it a strawman or whatever. But what else do you call an omnipotent force that determines where you spend eternity.

I came across an interesting piece of left-hand path material that went over God, Satan, and nature. The context depicted God not just in a Biblical way, but in more of a universal, spiritual unity type of way. It went along the lines of: if you are one with God, and God is one with the universe, and/or the creator of the universe, then obviously Satan must be God's pawn of God created nature and Satan is part of nature, but this is not true. The workings of Satan are outside of God's hands because he does not control Satan (or possibly God is not really the creator). It eventually went down to your mind not being one with nature, and what's in your mind cannot be controlled by a godly entity. If you were one with God, and God is the sole creator and owner of the universe and nature, than surely so is Satan, but as we know Satan's actions are of his own free will. (God and Satan were not just being depicted in a Biblical way, but metaphorical).

Re: Believing in religion [today] and being an advocate of a stateless society...

EternalMind — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 05:03:45 GMT

People need to read more Soren Kierkegaard.

Re: Believing in religion [today] and being an advocate of a stateless society...

wilderness — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 04:37:33 GMT

Esuric:
Here's a real debate.

I can't do two things at once with that debate. That is a real debate. A lot of intellectual strength put forth there. The terminology and thus the knowledge was extremely sharp.

I'll have to bookmark that just to hear to people talk with such intellectual vigor for the heck of it.

Thanks.