What are your thoughts on Christian Anarchism? [Archive]

View Full Version : What are your thoughts on Christian Anarchism?

The Man

18th March 2011, 04:16

Christian Anarchism is the dumbest thing I could possibly ever think of. I mean seriously, it might be dumber than "Anarcho"-Capitalism. The reason I say this is because there was a small "Anarcho"-Christian protest in my town today, and they were screaming words out of their nice little fiction book. Isn't Anarchism the freedom from the oppression of Religion? Atleast, that's what Emma Goldman said. Religion is the most authoritarian thing has ever existed. I loved it when they had signs up saying "No War! No Violence!" Yet religion has killed 10s of millions of people.

Your thoughts on Christian Anarchism?

Property Is Robbery

18th March 2011, 04:33

I think most Christian Anarchists are opposed to organized religion in a sense. They are egalitarian so that's the difference from Anarcho Capitalism obviously. I hope you weren't the one spewing that rant because it gives a bad name to leftists in my opinion. Putting down fellow leftists and calling them worse than An-Caps. Of course they say "God is their only authority" or whatever, but they are just like communal hippies talking about the peaceful aspects of Jesus' teachings. So I don't think there is anything wrong with them.

The Man

18th March 2011, 04:37

It is from this little magazine I got when I ordered my Anarcho-Syndicalist flag :D

Property Is Robbery

18th March 2011, 04:40

Ok well then what do you think about it?

PhoenixAsh

18th March 2011, 04:46

I like christian anarchism...its like a little baby brother all cute and nice...but really doesn't know any better.

They actualy are opposed to church hierarchy and dogma and to the church being an intitution in itself or institutionalised...

THAT is not what makes them weird or silly....and I generalize here (because there are a lot of different forms of CA)....but they want to end the state...without ending the state.

Problem is...they believe in God. And God has given legitimacy to government....and his disciple Paul tells people to repect their government. This leads to some very schizophrenic argumentations. The most coherent one is that Paul is true to Gods word...except for when he says you need to submit to authority. And deviates from Gods message.

Second...is they are strict pacifists who argue to abolition of authority...through peaceful means which exclude any form of violence or resistance to violence...and for some groups resistance also means not following orders

Note...that this applies to the philosophy...and does not necessarilly reflect the individual believes or practices of Christian Anarchists (though I know a couple who do hold these views) or anarchist Christians.

The Man

18th March 2011, 04:51

Ok well then what do you think about it?

I think it is as silly and ridiculous as "Anarcho"-Capitalism

PhoenixAsh

18th March 2011, 05:02

here is a nice quote from Ellul

What seems to be one of the disasters of our time is that we all appear to agree that the nation-state is the norm. [...] Whether the state be Marxist or capitalist, it makes no difference. The dominant ideology is that of sovereignty.

....o...and he is one of their big thinkers....and goes on later to say he does not want an anarchist society at all because it can not work and would make nobody better or happier than in any other society....can't find the quote though.

Chelchiky

The man who obeys God needs no other authority

Property Is Robbery

18th March 2011, 05:09

I think it is as silly and ridiculous as "Anarcho"-Capitalism
But how would Christian Anarchists dominate others? That's one of the obvious problems of Anarcho-Capitalism, they would exploit the working class. That's why I see any non-egalitarian "Anarchism" as bullshit. In my mind though this doesn't include Christian Anarchism. I think they could just be Anarcho-Communist/Syndicalist Pacifists and don't think they should necessarily use that title but that's what they call themselves.

here is a nice quote from Ellul

I would look at Tolstoy if I were you, IMO he's like a tame Christian version of Kropotkin

The Man

18th March 2011, 05:25

But how would Christian Anarchists dominate others? That's one of the obvious problems of Anarcho-Capitalism, they would exploit the working class. That's why I see any non-egalitarian "Anarchism" as bullshit. In my mind though this doesn't include Christian Anarchism. I think they could just be Anarcho-Communist/Syndicalist Pacifists and don't think they should necessarily use that title but that's what they call themselves.

Throughout history, religion has killed millions, dominated millions, ruled millions, and will control millions, until it dies off. Religion is the reason this world is crazy with wars and stuff. That's why it dominates, in my opinion.

PhoenixAsh

18th March 2011, 06:55

I would look at Tolstoy if I were you, IMO he's like a tame Christian version of Kropotkin

I looked at Tolstoy...most I agree with.

For the rest...its a perfectly nice ideology. Christianity and no sex are definately not my cup of tea...but as far as political and philosophical thought goes its really nice and gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling...

It is however complete and utterly useless when it comes to revolution and opposing burgeoisie rule.

Property Is Robbery

18th March 2011, 07:04

I'm aware of both of your critiques and agree with them. Just playing the devil's advocate.

Agent Ducky

18th March 2011, 07:11

It seems to me like they have good intentions, but by being Christian-Anarchists they contradict themselves and therefore are misguided. But they sound pretty harmless... Anarcho-capitalists aren't harmless. I don't see how they're worse persay, just misguided.

hatzel

18th March 2011, 14:22

Throughout history, religion has killed millions, dominated millions, ruled millions, and will control millions, until it dies off. Religion is the reason this world is crazy with wars and stuff. That's why it dominates, in my opinion.

Lolzer. Ever stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, when this or that, for example, Christian country went to war against this or that Muslim country, under the banner of religion and the Crusades and all that jazz, it was actually all just a big ol' excuse which had nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with the king claiming land and power and riches for himself, whilst excusing it by claiming that it wasn't so that he could be a personally wonderful and powerful king, but because he's only fulfilling the divine will? Soon we'll be saying the war in Iraq was actually anything to do with WMD's and altruism and protecting the Iraqi people. Brilliant, just brilliant...still, I think you and I both know that Christian anarchists are, almost exclusively, hardcore pacifists, so what wars are they going to be waging, exactly? And who are a bunch of anarchists who accept or acknowledge absolutely no Earthy authority going to be dominating or ruling over? :confused: I don't think you're actually talking about Christian anarchism at all, and hardly even talking about religion, you're just blowing breeze based on little if any understanding of what you're talking about...

It seems to me like they have good intentions, but by being Christian-Anarchists they contradict themselves and therefore are misguided.

I'm going to assume that you, like Lycanthrope, aren't particularly clued up on the nuances of Christian anarchism, but I won't hold it against you, because you weren't at all obnoxious about it (:rolleyes:), and it's a pretty understandable gap in knowledge, as it's hardly the must-know information around the left :laugh: Anyway, to what you had to say...it's only a contradiction in as far as the image of Christianity forwarded not only by the Church but also by atheists who have never in all their life actually dedicated any time to looking at the scriptures and thinking about their teachings and relevance is, indeed, incompatible with anarchism, that's true. Christian anarchists, however, do not advocate anything remotely resembling that image, are often vehemently opposed to the organised church (one could argue even more so than atheist anarchists, as it concerns something that they hold very close to their heart) and cannot be compared to church Christianity at all...very few of them would even consider the teachings of the Church to be Christianity at all, in the same way many leftists wouldn't consider bourgeois democracy to be democracy. Thus it's important to know what Christian anarchists mean by 'Christianity', rather than just attacking Christianity as forwarded by the church, as much as attacking anarchist direct democracy by pointing out the weaknesses in bourgeois representative democracy would be equally stupid, even though both are claimed by somebody or other as forms of 'democracy'.

I guess it also relies on falling back on the old fallacy, that 'no gods, no masters!' is some kind of suggestion that gods are inherently masters. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of Christian anarchists who would refute that statement...and what if it were the case? Why exactly would it matter to an atheist who doesn't believe in the existence of any god(s) if this or that person has their god(s) as their master? Surely that means that there is...wait for it...no master? As far as I can tell, this whole idea relies on the idea that god(s) could exist, and therefore having them as your master (which isn't necessarily inherent to Christian anarchism) constitutes the existence of a master. Ah well.

Amphictyonis

18th March 2011, 14:26

If Tolstoy had been in Rome Nero would have fed him to the lions with the other Christians (just had that thought).

They'd be useless at worst and at best tolerable in an advanced communist society so long as they don't have some centralized church and or push their pious views on society at large. You want to be a Christian? Great, now fuck off, leave me alone and go be one quietly without forcing your bible on my reproductive parts, my morals, my work place etc.

bcbm

19th March 2011, 07:33

i don't think christin anarchism is that bad, there is plenty in christianity that is for an egalitarian life and really christianity at its bases is an apocalyptic, egalitarian religion seeking a rupture in much the same way anarchists do, its just "judgement day" instead of "the revolution"

Revolution starts with U

19th March 2011, 08:44

bcbm

19th March 2011, 08:57

i didn't say that they believe they could actually bring it, just that it is a central point of their theology; christianity is millenarian. i think the numerous examples of both egalitarian living and attempts at bringing the apocalypse by christians (wasn't the guy who wrote revelations exiled because of participation in a revolt against rome?) offer a counter to the picture of it as a singular hierarchical church. there are definitely scriptures advocating for egalitarian life, the verses about the disciples holding all things in common off the top of my head. are there other viewpoints? sure. just as in anarchism there are anti-semitic misogynists held up as great theorists. christianity and its history is complex, but i don't see why people holding christian and anarchist views is offensive, there is overlap and i think its a much more positive tradition than fred phelps or pat robertson christianity or even catholicism, all of which are probably further from the original ideal than christian anarchism

Black Sheep

19th March 2011, 16:44

Ocean Seal

19th March 2011, 17:26

I don't understand this sentiment that Christians who are leftists pick and choose what they want to hear out of the Bible. That they cannot be both Christians and leftists. The Bible has a very strong leftist teachings even for the time. Jesus Christ was not only a revolutionary preacher but he was revolutionary in his life.

He was
A friend to women often speaking to them about religion or politics when such things were not allowed at the time
An enemy to Roman imperialists (to the extent that he was crucified) not all that different from Che.
An ally to the sick and hungry. He fed 5,000 according to the book in one day (now even if you don't believe that acknowledge that the teaching itself is indeed progressive).
A friend to improving the lives of many. Teach a man to fish...
An enemy to the ruling class
A lover of the poor and oppressed

If the man did not claim to be the son of Christ the Left would call him the greatest revolutionary in history. The man was crucified instead of a murderer simply for challenging the authority of the Roman Empire. In the same way that following Karl Marx's death revolutionaries used his teachings to insurrect against capitalism, after the death of Christ, the corrupt practices of the Roman Empire fell under the attack of the teachings of Christ.

To those leftists who believe that the left and Christianity are incompatible and to those who think that we cherry pick our teachings I ask this.

Why is it more infuriating to have a leftist Christian than a reactionary Christian?
Someone willing to fight and die for revolution is a comrade regardless of whether s/he is a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Deist, or Atheist.

Second why do you demand that we incorporate everything in the Bible into our philosophy literally?
Would you prefer Christians to abstain from damning homosexuals or would you like it for every Christian to start a crusade against them?
This kind of ideological purity is not only silly but it is also dangerous. You demand that every Christian be a fundamentalist.

I do not follow pacifism, instead I look to establishing a new society. One based on equality, justice, and abundance. In that society I would be a Christian and you would be free to choose your faith as I have chosen mine. Long live the working class, long live communism.

Throughout history, religion has killed millions, dominated millions, ruled millions, and will control millions, until it dies off. Religion is the reason this world is crazy with wars and stuff. That's why it dominates, in my opinion.
First, I would like to say that replace religion with communism and you will get the typical conservative Reganist analysis on why communists are bad.
Second, religion never did any of this: Feudalism and Capitalism are the culprits; religion merely happened to exist at the time.

Comrade J

19th March 2011, 18:14

I don't understand this sentiment that Christians who are leftists pick and choose what they want to hear out of the Bible. That they cannot be both Christians and leftists. The Bible has a very strong leftist teachings even for the time. Jesus Christ was not only a revolutionary preacher but he was revolutionary in his life.

Bollocks.

Firstly, Jesus didn't exist, or if he did he certainly didn't wield the influence the Bible would have us believe. The great literary age of Augustus, but somehow everyone else (including the Roman occupiers) forgot to write anything about this man.

Secondly, even if he wasn't a fictional entity, the character of Jesus was a pacifist, and I very much doubt a man who supposedly told people to turn the other cheek would be regarded by any true Marxist or Anarchist as "greatest revolutionary in history".

First, I would like to say that replace religion with communism and you will get the typical conservative Reganist analysis on why communists are bad.
Second, religion never did any of this: Feudalism and Capitalism are the culprits; religion merely happened to exist at the time.Indeed feudalism and capitalism are the culprits, but you can't just dismiss religion as "merely happening to exist at the same time". It was (and still is) a facilitator of oppression. It allows people to cope, which some people think is all fucking lovely and marvellous, but it isn't. If people are coping with unfair labour conditions, class oppression and so on, rather than learn of alternatives and implement them to change their situation, they turn instead to a 2000 year old book and think "fuck it" cause when they die they're gonna go live on a cloud and learn to play the harp and shit.

Also, as for Jesus standing up against the Roman Empire, this is nonsense. He willingly allowed himself to be caught and executed by the Romans, and despite his apparent stronghold of supporters, nobody gave a shit when he died and the occupation lived on. Furthermore, the Bible endorses subservience to one's authority, such as in Romans 13 which I have quoted below.

Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God.
Rom 13:2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment
Rom 13:3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation,
Rom 13:4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer.
Rom 13:5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities but also because of your conscience.
Rom 13:6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants devoted to governing.
Rom 13:7 Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

L.A.P.

19th March 2011, 18:23

Comrade J

19th March 2011, 18:30

Christian forms of radical left-wing ideologies have a better understanding and more accurate interpretation of what Jesus actually believed in than any institutional Church, and this is coming from someone who's been a strong anti-theist since age 7.

They don't; you just prefer this interpretation of Christianity from all the others. As I said in my last post, Jesus was a pacifist and Christianity is inherently subservient to authority.

L.A.P.

19th March 2011, 18:43

They don't; you just prefer this interpretation of Christianity from all the others.

The institution of the Church and the Bible are not inherently combined with Jesus himself, they are two separate physical things. What the Church says goes against the words of Jesus himself, so I'm not preferring one interpretation of Christianity over another because I'm not speaking in regards to Christianity. And what Jesus said was really not all that vague, he was pretty solid on what he said.

As I said in my last post, Jesus was a pacifist and Christianity is inherently subservient to authority.

So what if he was a Pacifist? That doesn't mean someone who follows his ideas should either completely follow all of his ideas or completely disregard all of them. I'm not a big fan of his pacifist ideas but there are a lot of other qualities about him. It sometimes seems like an anti-theist can be more dogmatic about Christianity than an actual Christian.
Even though he is a pacifist, that doesn't mean he was necessarily subservient to authority. He was executed for questioning the power of the Roman Empire, pacifist or not, that's not subservient to authority.

Lord Testicles

19th March 2011, 18:46

When I hear about Christian anarchists I think of this Bakunin quote:

This contradiction lies here: they wish God, and they wish humanity. They persist in connecting two terms which, once separated, can come together again only to destroy each other. They say in a single breath: "God and the liberty of man," "God and the dignity, justice, equality, fraternity, prosperity of men" — regardless of the fatal logic by virtue of which, if God exists, all these things are condemned to non-existence. For, if God is, he is necessarily the eternal, supreme, absolute master, and, if such a master exists, man is a slave; now, if he is a slave, neither justice, nor equality, nor fraternity, nor prosperity are possible for him. In vain, flying in the face of good sense and all the teachings of history, do they represent their God as animated by the tenderest love of human liberty: a master, whoever he may be and however liberal he may desire to show himself, remains none the less always a master. His existence necessarily implies the slavery of all that is beneath him. Therefore, if God existed, only in one way could he serve human liberty — by ceasing to exist.

then I laugh and carry on with my day.

PhoenixAsh

19th March 2011, 18:51

No. Christianity (I say *anity, as opposed to *ians because some christians believe this, but the scripture rules out the possiblity) does not believe you can actively bring about the rapture. You have to wait for it. So it's nothing like anarchism except that large systemic change is in both of them.
And it doesn't advocate egalitarianism. It seeks to make us all slaves to God, Jesus, and the Angelic aristocracy. Spare me...
Jesus the man may have been an egalitarian. There is nothing egalitarian in theistic christianity tho.

Woh...no, no....they do not believe in dogma, nor do they believe that they are allowed to convert others.

Look...whatever they believe...it stresses the personal relationship between the individual and God. Which I think is a completely valid argument.

Its absolutely silly considering that they cherry pick and that they try to make a symbiosis between to opposing believe systems...and there is a lot, a lot of irrational rationalization in the philosophy. But lets face it...whjat religion is NOT a construct of human immagination and a social construct?

But CA is not a bad one....

Its a useless one in case of revolution.

after the revolution...I think they are a wonderfull addition to society...misguided but harmless.

hatzel

19th March 2011, 18:53

As it turns out, Bakunin was hardly a well-read theological expert, rather a clearly biased individual with his own atheist agenda to forward, so why exactly should anybody accept his far from nuanced understanding of god(s) and religion as authoritative over, say, that forwarded by somebody who has as their primary vocation the study of religion, the divine and the supernatural? :confused:

Comrade J

19th March 2011, 19:20

RGacky3

19th March 2011, 19:21

They don't; you just prefer this interpretation of Christianity from all the others. As I said in my last post, Jesus was a pacifist and Christianity is inherently subservient to authority.

You don't see a little hypocricy there?

Also its not absolutely up to interpritation, a lot of the gospels and what Jesus said was pretty damn black and white.

Revolution starts with U

19th March 2011, 19:27

i didn't say that they believe they could actually bring it, just that it is a central point of their theology; christianity is millenarian.
Then how is it in any way comparable to anarchism? Muslim fundamentalists want massive change to the system too... are they anarchists now?

i think the numerous examples of both egalitarian living and attempts at bringing the apocalypse by christians (wasn't the guy who wrote revelations exiled because of participation in a revolt against rome?) offer a counter to the picture of it as a singular hierarchical church. there are definitely scriptures advocating for egalitarian life, the verses about the disciples holding all things in common off the top of my head. are there other viewpoints? sure. just as in anarchism there are anti-semitic misogynists held up as great theorists. christianity and its history is complex, but i don't see why people holding christian and anarchist views is offensive, there is overlap and i think its a much more positive tradition than fred phelps or pat robertson christianity or even catholicism, all of which are probably further from the original ideal than christian anarchism
Everyone living in equal squalor is not leftist egalitarianism. Even if the political advocacy is for egalitarianism it still subjects you to the heirarchy of God and the angellic aristocracy.
Im not saying christians cant be anarchists. Im saying "christian anarchism" is silly. Maybe atheist christians can claim they are anarchistic (yes, they exist). But no theist can claim to be an egalitarian.

I don't understand this sentiment that Christians who are leftists pick and choose what they want to hear out of the Bible. That they cannot be both Christians and leftists. The Bible has a very strong leftist teachings even for the time. Jesus Christ was not only a revolutionary preacher but he was revolutionary in his life.

If you consider primmies revolutionary, sure.
He was

A friend to women often speaking to them about religion or politics when such things were not allowed at the time

Dionysian mysteries?

An enemy to Roman imperialists (to the extent that he was crucified) not all that different from Che.

Would Che say "render unto Roosevelt what is Roosevelt's?

An ally to the sick and hungry. He fed 5,000 according to the book in one day (now even if you don't believe that acknowledge that the teaching itself is indeed progressive).
JP Morgan contributes to tons of charities.. he's a revolutionary now?

A friend to improving the lives of many. Teach a man to fish...
Im not remembering that in the Gospels.

An enemy to the ruling class
Render unto Ceaser....

A lover of the poor and oppressed
So are american democrats and the Dalai Llama.

If the man did not claim to be the son of Christ the Left would call him the greatest revolutionary in history.
In anarchism there can be no "greatest revolutionary in history." The only greatest revolutionary is the people at large.

The man was crucified instead of a murderer simply for challenging the authority of the Roman Empire.
Actually Pilate didnt want to crucify him. He was punished for challenging the Jewish authorities. Which is good on it's own. Don't get me wrong, I think Jesus was a pretty great guy. But he wasn't the enemy of Rome you're trying to make him out to be.

Why is it more infuriating to have a leftist Christian than a reactionary Christian?
Someone willing to fight and die for revolution is a comrade regardless of whether s/he is a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Deist, or Atheist.

I agree here tho. If you want to join the revolutionary cause, good. But don't pretend your scripture draws you to it. Unless you're willing to admit you are cherry picking things out of it.

Second why do you demand that we incorporate everything in the Bible into our philosophy literally?

I don't as long as you don't pretend you do.

Would you prefer Christians to abstain from damning homosexuals or would you like it for every Christian to start a crusade against them?
This kind of ideological purity is not only silly but it is also dangerous. You demand that every Christian be a fundamentalist.

No, we demand every christian be honest about his/her scripture and his/her interpretation of it.

Second, religion never did any of this: Feudalism and Capitalism are the culprits; religion merely happened to exist at the time.
Feudalism and capitalism didn't do it either.
In fact, feudalism and capitalism were/are merely the method of oppression. Religion/christianity has been the justification.
But you're right. Religion doesn't kill people, people do.

Comrade J

19th March 2011, 19:29

You don't see a little hypocricy there?

Also its not absolutely up to interpritation, a lot of the gospels and what Jesus said was pretty damn black and white.

I'm not inclined to take pointers on hypocrisy from people who can't spell it.

And you're totally right about not everything being open to interpretation, it was pretty clear what Jesus meant when he said to turn the other cheek. It was pretty clear what Paul meant when he instructed people to obey their authority.

Also on a side note... an Abe Lincoln sig, seriously?

PhoenixAsh

19th March 2011, 21:21

I'm not inclined to take pointers on hypocrisy from people who can't spell it.

And you're totally right about not everything being open to interpretation, it was pretty clear what Jesus meant when he said to turn the other cheek. It was pretty clear what Paul meant when he instructed people to obey their authority.

Also on a side note... an Abe Lincoln sig, seriously?

Yes...and that is exactly what it is: PAUl =/ Jesus.

Thats their point.

La Comédie Noire

19th March 2011, 21:26

Tolstoy rocks. That's all I have to say about that.

The Man

19th March 2011, 21:37

First, I would like to say that replace religion with communism and you will get the typical conservative Reganist analysis on why communists are bad.
Second, religion never did any of this: Feudalism and Capitalism are the culprits; religion merely happened to exist at the time.

9/11
Theocracy in Iran
Zionism/Israel
Religious hierarchy in Feudal times
Roman Empire
Israelite Conquest of Canaan
Islamic expansion
The Thirty Year's War
The French Revolution
Lord's Resistance Army
Lebanese Civil War
Algerian Civil War
The Taiping Rebellion
Night of the Murdered Poets
Yellow Scarves Rebellion
Human Sacrifices (Aztecs)
Panthay Rebellion
Khmer Rouge Repression

Those were caused by Capitalism?

psgchisolm

19th March 2011, 22:20

Oh,please give me a break...
Christian anarchists are either not true christians or not true anarchists.
If they're true christians,then they oppose violence,they turn the other cheek, their morality is absolute and not class-based, etc

If they're true anarchists, they accept whatever means lead to workers' emancipation,they recognise that class struggle and society determine morality, they refuse to turn the other cheek to oppressors,etc

:cursing::cursing::cursing::cursing:

Don't mix together incompatible ideologies into pet-philosophies that you "like", ignoring the GAPING CHASM of incompatibility.
Who gave you the right to decide who is and isn't an anarchist? Just because they don't fit into your interpretation of anarchism doesn't mean they aren't an anarchist. Besides as I've pointed out before leftists cherry-pick like hell also. These things aren't a left/right thing. It's all a matter of interpretation. You have Marxists that don't follow everything Marx said. Same with other ideologies. It's not do EVERYTHING exactly like X Y and Z said.

Most,i reckon, pick n choose the shiny stuff from christianity and BAPTISE THEMSELVES AS CHRISTIAN ANARCHISTS GOD DAMN IT'S INFURIATING
You sound like Tom Sawyer. "It's not regular Huck it HAS to be regular or it's wrong." You don't even have PROOF that they cherry-pick. You just "reckon" they do. Hey, I'll openly admit I've never met one. I also don't start "reckoning" about what other people might do.

Woh...no, no....they do not believe in dogma, nor do they believe that they are allowed to convert others.

Look...whatever they believe...it stresses the personal relationship between the individual and God. Which I think is a completely valid argument.

This^.

Comrade J

19th March 2011, 23:07

Yes...and that is exactly what it is: PAUl =/ Jesus.

Thats their point.

Sorry, I didn't realise their attorney was present for this.

As for Paul =/= Jesus, you're right but they're nonetheless so interconnected that to doubt the word of one is to doubt the other.

As everybody knows, Paul was converted on the road to Damascus when Jesus spoke to him from the sky. He told him to get his ass down to Damascus where's he receive instruction on what to do. Later, in the Book of Acts, we find out that Paul received instruction from a disciple of Christ, who was divinely inspired by Jesus.

Now if we are to question the words of Paul (and suggest it goes against the teachings of Jesus) then we're suggesting either he is lying or the disciple was lying. If he was lying then we can know that whatever else features in the Bible is also completely untrustworthy, as a character so integral to Christianity has still become such a focal point of the Bible.

If the disciple was lying, then how are we to believe anything about what he wrote about Jesus?

You simply cannot discount the words of Paul without basically concluding that the whole thing is a load of bullshit. You take none of it, or you take it all.

Revolution starts with U

19th March 2011, 23:27

=/ and/or =/= != does not equal
(you say != to say something doesn't equal something else)

Revolution starts with U

19th March 2011, 23:30

Who gave you the right to decide who is and isn't an anarchist? Just because they don't fit into your interpretation of anarchism doesn't mean they aren't an anarchist.
I can sort of agree with this. But

Besides as I've pointed out before leftists cherry-pick like hell also. These things aren't a left/right thing. It's all a matter of interpretation. You have Marxists that don't follow everything Marx said. Same with other ideologies. It's not do EVERYTHING exactly like X Y and Z said.
Leftism is not a religion. And we certainly don't hold Marx up to be god incarnate, the reflection of perfection on the terrestrial plain.
Many leftists aren't even Marxists, such as myself.

You sound like Tom Sawyer. "It's not regular Huck it HAS to be regular or it's wrong." You don't even have PROOF that they cherry-pick. You just "reckon" they do. Hey, I'll openly admit I've never met one. I also don't start "reckoning" about what other people might do.

Do we really have to list all the disgusting murderous things the Bible commands you to do? Hasn't this topic been hashed out enough?

psgchisolm

20th March 2011, 00:14

Many leftists aren't even Marxists, such as myself.

Which is why I said,
Same with other ideologies. I know there are many other leftist ideologies. I was pointing out that it's not a black and white picture with religion. How many different types of churches are out there? How many practice their religion different types of ways? It's a not you're either Protestant or Catholic or your not Christian type thing.

Leftism is not a religion. And we certainly don't hold Marx up to be god incarnate, the reflection of perfection on the terrestrial plain.
Understood, I'm just trying to point out that cherry-picking happens everywhere. If he's going to get on christians he also needs to get on leftists. I understand that were all human and can't be held to the same standards as someone recognized as a god or savior, but we can't expect other humans not to cherry-pick. Cherry-picking has happened by more than religious people.

Do we really have to list all the disgusting murderous things the Bible commands you to do? Hasn't this topic been hashed out enough?
Some consider it a bunch of fairy-tales. Others consider it a book to be upheld as a sacred vessel. I've heard it be called both. Are there murderous things in the bible? Yes. How the individual upholds it and interprets it is different in each aspect of religion. I'm not saying Christianity is all good, but it's not all bad either.

Comrade J

20th March 2011, 00:41

=/ and/or =/= != does not equal
(you say != to say something doesn't equal something else)

Wow, really insightful, glad you made it to the party.

PhoenixAsh

20th March 2011, 01:19

Sorry, I didn't realise their attorney was present for this.

I am very much underpaid :(

:)

As for Paul =/= Jesus, you're right but they're nonetheless so interconnected that to doubt the word of one is to doubt the other.
Thats correct. And his writings has huge influence on the expansion of Christianity and the missonary works of the church.

However...the CA state that he has deviated from the true message of God for political and selfish reasons (obviously the explanation they give is a little more complex...but this is what it comes down to).

As everybody knows, Paul was converted on the road to Damascus when Jesus spoke to him from the sky. He told him to get his ass down to Damascus where's he receive instruction on what to do. Later, in the Book of Acts, we find out that Paul received instruction from a disciple of Christ, who was divinely inspired by Jesus.THe CA point this out too...basically saying that humans can err.

Now if we are to question the words of Paul (and suggest it goes against the teachings of Jesus) then we're suggesting either he is lying or the disciple was lying. If he was lying then we can know that whatever else features in the Bible is also completely untrustworthy, as a character so integral to Christianity has still become such a focal point of the Bible. Exactly....either wilfully or unknowingly.

If the disciple was lying, then how are we to believe anything about what he wrote about Jesus?Exactly....as has been pointed out by several biblical scholars in the past...the differnt apostles often contradict each other or tell the same story a bit differently. So its possible to falsify information from the different parts of the Bible.

You simply cannot discount the words of Paul without basically concluding that the whole thing is a load of bullshit. You take none of it, or you take it all."No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." Matthew 6:24

The basis or rejecting government controll over life....it also directly contradicts Paul.

The Bible is full of these contradictions. The basis for believeing the Bible is a correct representation and the acceptance that its many,.many incongrenuities are somehow all true is based on the fact that in the Bible it states its the representation of Gods word and the only source for them.

Many CA argue that a book can not hold authority above God himself. And thet since it has been written and interpreted by man, and translated many times over, it is fallable.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

20th March 2011, 01:29

Barn Owl are awesome. They seriously wrote a song about Jesus and black blocs. If you can't get behind that, you're a poser. Srsly.

hatzel

20th March 2011, 02:25

And you don't think that somebody whose primary vocation is the study of religion, the divine and the supernatural has an agenda at all?

There are plenty of non-believers who study comparative religion, as are there many people who may be believers, but study other religions. I, for instance, know a fair bit about Islam and Hinduism, despite being neither a Muslim nor a Hindu...their agenda may be more to document the teachings, in the same way as somebody who studies the literature of Jane Austen and decides to write a load of essays on it. As far as I'm aware (though correct me if I'm wrong), Bakunin had not spent many years reading hundreds of books, historical manuscripts and other texts from the various denominations of Christianity, Gnosticism and other belief systems before he went off spouting his stuff. So I ask again: why should I take what he has to say on this topic as authoritative or even accurate? Or is it okay if I now decide that I'm going to give some quote, to be cited through the ages, about how the Harry Potter series of books is diabolical and suitable for use only as toilet paper, despite the fact that I have never read a single word from any of the books, or even read a summary of the story, and know only what I have managed to glean from people talking about and clips from the films shown on TV? Because that would be an absolutely crazy idea, and I would hope that we would all much sooner accept the opinion of some literature critic who had actually read the books before deciding they were diabolical and suitable only for use as toilet paper. To me, that seems logical...

Still, though...how about leaving it up to people who actually claim to follow a certain religion to tell you what their religion means, and the nature of their relationship with their god(s), rather than running around saying "sorry to tell you this, but I, speaking an atheist who maybe read a Wikipedia article once but didn't really think about it all, have heard something that suggests that actually you're wrong, and the understanding you have of your relationship to your god(s) totally isn't what this priest (who you consider to have perverted your religion) once said, so therefore you must be totally wrong about what you think, because I am the one who declares what everybody has to think or feel if they are going to be a 'true' Christian", because that's pretentious as fuck, particularly from somebody who is yet to show any real understanding of anything advocated by Christian anarchists. Hindsight20/20 is obviously clued up on the situation, but you, my friend, have a lot more reading to do before I'll be willing to listen to anything else you have to say on the matter. Though, of course, I don't expect you to do any of that reading, which is good, as it saves me having to bother to listen :lol:

Tim Finnegan

20th March 2011, 02:38

Christianity is inherently subservient to authority.
Heh. Essentialism. Cute.

Revolution starts with U

20th March 2011, 08:54

Which is why I said, I know there are many other leftist ideologies. I was pointing out that it's not a black and white picture with religion. How many different types of churches are out there? How many practice their religion different types of ways? It's a not you're either Protestant or Catholic or your not Christian type thing.

I have said I personally am ok with this, as long as one is honest about their position. You're either corresponding to observable reality, or you're not. The more you do that, the closer we all get to real social science (as opposed to social science; ie, social scientific philosophy).

Understood, I'm just trying to point out that cherry-picking happens everywhere. If he's going to get on christians he also needs to get on leftists. I understand that were all human and can't be held to the same standards as someone recognized as a god or savior, but we can't expect other humans not to cherry-pick. Cherry-picking has happened by more than religious people.

Correct. As long as one realizes objective morality is a phantom, this is no problem. It's when the theist attempts to create an objective world view based on little more than faith that the problem comes about.
And we can be spared the "this is what the elites have to say." Frankly, I don't give a damn. I'm far more interested in the common person.

Revolution starts with U

20th March 2011, 09:01

So I ask again: why should I take what he has to say on this topic as authoritative or even accurate?
Why should we take St Augustine's word? Or even Sidhartha?

Or is it okay if I now decide that I'm going to give some quote, to be cited through the ages, about how the Harry Potter series of books is diabolical and suitable for use only as toilet paper, despite the fact that I have never read a single word from any of the books, or even read a summary of the story, and know only what I have managed to glean from people talking about and clips from the films shown on TV? Because that would be an absolutely crazy idea, and I would hope that we would all much sooner accept the opinion of some literature critic who had actually read the books before deciding they were diabolical and suitable only for use as toilet paper. To me, that seems logical...

What's illogical is assuming MOST atheists and anti-theists did not grow up in religous households/communities and have an intimate interaction with religous people on a daily basis. It's especially illogical when you realize that the vast majority of people are not atheists or anti-theists.

Still, though...how about leaving it up to people who actually claim to follow a certain religion to tell you what their religion means, and the nature of their relationship with their god(s), rather than running around saying "sorry to tell you this, but I, speaking an atheist who maybe read a Wikipedia article once but didn't really think about it all, have heard something that suggests that actually you're wrong
Once again, most athiests are intimately familiar with religion. Most that I now have done far more study than just wikipedia and can quote specific verses from various religions.

hatzel

20th March 2011, 13:02

Why should we take St Augustine's word? Or even Sidhartha?

Well, both of these are religious people, and I specifically mentioned non-religious scholars. There are plenty of people on my comparative religion course at university who are pretty staunch atheists, who call all religions 'nice little fairy tales', but they still study these fairy tales, and could still tell you the difference between the interpretations of the god(s) of Catholicism, Protestantism, Greek Orthodoxy, Gnosticism, not to mentioned between these Christian denominations and Jewish, Islamic or Hindu understandings. As it's their vocation to study it, there's something that makes me think that they would be more trustworthy in their statements than somebody who operates on pure hearsay. But still, why should anybody take anybody's word? Except for the word of one individual who says 'for me...', because you can't debate with that, so if a Christian anarchist says 'for me, Christianity is...', nobody else has the right to tell them they are wrong :) So sure, for Bakunin...that stuff he said, but that doesn't make it a universal truth or even relevant to anybody other than him.

What's illogical is assuming MOST atheists and anti-theists did not grow up in religous households/communities and have an intimate interaction with religous people on a daily basis.Well, most people seem to have read Harry Potter, and they swarm like flies, talking about this or that book or film or whatever! :lol: And then I'm just like ':confused:'

Once again, most athiests are intimately familiar with religion. Most that I now have done far more study than just wikipedia and can quote specific verses from various religions.AAAAARGH!!! Memories are coming back to me from Gustav Landauer's Revolution, something like...

The humans of the Christian world were overwhelmed; they were overwhelmed by soul and awe and metaphysical anticipations that concerned the meaning of the world; a meaning that goes beyond earthly life and experience. [...] In the century that Hutten called a pleasure to live in due to the awakening of individual spirits, the spirit of the Christian era began to disappear. Christendom lost its immediate connection to people's lives. It became a school, a [I]faith, as a consequence of having turned unbelievable. One got attached to the letters because the spirit was lost. As long as spirit is alive, the tradition needs no letters. [...] It was only church and theological teachings that began to distinguish between letters and symbols and robbed Christendom of its life by focusing on the latter and insisting on literal interpretations of the traditions and dogmas. This is how all true Christians turned into mystics, heretics and then revolutionaries - whilst stupidity took hold of the church.

...so forgive me if I'm not all that impressed by people with no connection to the faith quoting this or that line as authoritative :rolleyes: We can all do that. Still, I'm sure that there are plenty of atheists who can quote from the texts and give a basic overview of what the priest or rabbi or imam or whoever else claims if he is asked what his religion entails, which is (perhaps) a start. Though we might be best to think of Upton Sinclair's words here: 'it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it' :)

Still, I'm not actually cluster-bombing atheists here, I'm launching a specific targeted drone (:laugh:) at Comrade J, who doesn't seem willing or able to engage with Christian anarchists according to their understanding of Christianity, rather he concerns himself exclusively with Church dogma, which, as we all surely know, Christian anarchists hardly approve of. There's no substitute for actually feeling the connection, of course, but...as an example, the last time I was in Christian anarchist company (which happens quite a lot, I'll be honest), we were having a discussion of the mystical teachings of Meister Eckhart. I can only assume that Comrade J hasn't read much Eckhart (though I'd be more than happy to be corrected there :rolleyes:), so if these Christians find Eckhart's interpretation of Christianity particularly inspirational or something, Comrade J won't be able to engage with them by just attacking the strawman that is 'Christianity as advocated by the current Pope', as that would be as stupid as debating with an anarchist by trying to debunk loads of stuff in the writings of Lenin. "Yeah, I know he said that, but just because we're both socialists, doesn't mean I actually have to agree with anything he says about anything...in fact, I agree with you that he was very wrong in this respect" :)

That's the issue more than anything else. The issue isn't whether one knows this or that about Christianity, the issue is when one effectively starts playing the roll of the Catholic Church, running around calling people heretics (this is the effective meaning of "As for Paul =/= Jesus, you're right but they're nonetheless so interconnected that to doubt the word of one is to doubt the other [...] You simply cannot discount the words of Paul without basically concluding that the whole thing is a load of bullshit. You take none of it, or you take it all"). I'm not in the business of calling people heretics, I'm not in the business of telling people what they are supposed to believe, and what is the 'correct' way to follow their religion. In this respect, Comrade J is little different from the church:

The conception of one church only arose when there were two sides divided and disputing, who each called the other side heresy, and recognized their own side only as the infallible church.

Strange, somebody who isn't even a Christian is running around claiming to represent the infallible church, and calling those with other opinions heretics...such a confusing situation...:confused:

greenwarbler

20th March 2011, 16:28

It certainly has more room for human emotion and horizontal social relations than, say authoritarian state capitalism..?

The sole meaning of life is to serve humanity by contributing to the establishment of the kingdom of God, which can only be done by the recognition and profession of the truth by every man.
Revlefters reading Tolstoi reminds me of French intellectuals discussing the moral implications of Zadie Smith...

bcbm

20th March 2011, 17:06

.
Christian anarchists are either not true christians or not true anarchists.

given the historically proven flexibility of both ideologies, i don't think speaking of "true christians" or "true anarchists" makes a lot of sense.

Most,i reckon, pick n choose the shiny stuff from christianity and BAPTISE THEMSELVES AS CHRISTIAN ANARCHISTS GOD DAMN IT'S INFURIATING :cursing::cursing::cursing::cursing:

i really don't think its anything to get that worked up over. i'd rather have christian anarchists or catholic workers or w/e than the moral majority

the character of Jesus was a pacifist

the same one who "did not come to bring peace but a sword" and assaulted the money-changers in the temple?

It was (and still is) a facilitator of oppression. It allows people to cope, which some people think is all fucking lovely and marvellous, but it isn't. If people are coping with unfair labour conditions, class oppression and so on, rather than learn of alternatives and implement them to change their situation, they turn instead to a 2000 year old book and think "fuck it" cause when they die they're gonna go live on a cloud and learn to play the harp and shit.

religious content was present in almost every insurrection in the middle ages. there are the obvious ones like the muntzer and the peasants war and the levellers and diggers, even the brotherhood of the free spirit, but there are almost endless examples of vagabond prophets/messiahs/preachers rolling into town and stirring up violence against the rich. norman cohn's "the pursuit of the millennium: revolutionary millenarians and mystical anarchists," while from a reactionary perspective is still illuminating. vaneigem has touched on the subject as well.

Then how is it in any way comparable to anarchism? Muslim fundamentalists want massive change to the system too... are they anarchists now?

its comparable because both seek a fundamental rupture resulting in human egalitarianism.

Everyone living in equal squalor is not leftist egalitarianism. Even if the political advocacy is for egalitarianism it still subjects you to the heirarchy of God and the angellic aristocracy.

look i don't think its a perfect match but i don't see anything all that wrong with it and most christian demands for egalitarianism have had nothing to do with "equal squalor" (weird when revolutionaries recycle reactionary arguments against internal enemies...), muntzer straight called for a communal holding of all goods. i think point out "well there is still the hierarchy of god" is a bit of a cop-out that ignores the content of arguments for the creation of an egalitarian world by christians.

Render unto Ceaser....

i don't think this means what you think it means.

No, we demand every christian be honest about his/her scripture and his/her interpretation of it.

why? "scripture" is not something set in stone, even within mainstream christianity there are disagreements about what constitutes correct scripture, to say nothing of those outside the mainstream or the christian groups that existed before there was a unified scripture (a political creation by the early church).

hatzel

21st March 2011, 00:13

Revlefters reading Tolstoi reminds me of French intellectuals discussing the moral implications of Zadie Smith...

Hold up hold up hold up...are you trying to suggest that Tolstoy isn't worthy of our attention...?! :cursing: Or Zadie Smith, for that matter...I think she's pretty good...:lol:

Revolution starts with U

21st March 2011, 00:19

Well, both of these are religious people, and I specifically mentioned non-religious scholars. There are plenty of people on my comparative religion course at university who are pretty staunch atheists, who call all religions 'nice little fairy tales', but they still study these fairy tales, and could still tell you the difference between the interpretations of the god(s) of Catholicism, Protestantism, Greek Orthodoxy, Gnosticism, not to mentioned between these Christian denominations and Jewish, Islamic or Hindu understandings. As it's their vocation to study it, there's something that makes me think that they would be more trustworthy in their statements than somebody who operates on pure hearsay. But still, why should anybody take anybody's word? Except for the word of one individual who says 'for me...', because you can't debate with that, so if a Christian anarchist says 'for me, Christianity is...', nobody else has the right to tell them they are wrong :) So sure, for Bakunin...that stuff he said, but that doesn't make it a universal truth or even relevant to anybody other than him.

I have no problem with this. It's only when people try to claim there book as some definitive truth on the nature of reality that study must be undertaken. It is in my experience that religous arguments fail to match up with observable reality at almost every turn.

Well, most people seem to have read Harry Potter, and they swarm like flies, talking about this or that book or film or whatever! :lol: And then I'm just like ':confused:'

I don't understand your point. My statement still stands. Most atheists are familiar with religion, and even probably grew up religous. It's very disengenous for the religous types to just throw the claim out there that they are not whether or not they know anything about the person they are attacking.

...so forgive me if I'm not all that impressed by people with no connection to the faith quoting this or that line as authoritative :rolleyes:
Once again, they probably have a connection to the faith. And forgive me if I'm not that impressed by some apologetic intamately biased by his connection to the faith.
Disengenous appeal to ignorance with no actual evidence to back it up.

We can all do that. Still, I'm sure that there are plenty of atheists who can quote from the texts and give a basic overview of what the priest or rabbi or imam or whoever else claims if he is asked what his religion entails, which is (perhaps) a start. Though we might be best to think of Upton Sinclair's words here: 'it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it' :)

Methodological individualism or GTFO

There's no substitute for actually feeling the connection, of course, but...

I've found the connection to be a substitute for knowing said connection probably doesn't exist.

That's the issue more than anything else. The issue isn't whether one knows this or that about Christianity, the issue is when one effectively starts playing the roll of the Catholic Church, running around calling people heretics (this is the effective meaning of "As for Paul =/= Jesus, you're right but they're nonetheless so interconnected that to doubt the word of one is to doubt the other [...] You simply cannot discount the words of Paul without basically concluding that the whole thing is a load of bullshit. You take none of it, or you take it all"). I'm not in the business of calling people heretics, I'm not in the business of telling people what they are supposed to believe, and what is the 'correct' way to follow their religion. In this respect, Comrade J is little different from the church:

I would only disagree with this if the person in question claims there truth to be a definitive truth on the nature of reality. If they do that, they cannot discount Paul without contradicting Jesus.

L.A.P.

21st March 2011, 00:22

While I do agree that religion has always been a scapegoat to do some of the most horrible things done in history, a lot of these things listed off were caused more by capitalism and bourgeoisie politics than religion.

9/11

I thought it was well known among Leftists that the War on Terror and the Islamist groups was more politically motivated than religiously? The horrible events that took place on 9/11 would have happened anyways (maybe not in the same nature) because the Western countries would still fund Osama Bin Laden to fight the Soviet Union and Osama Bin Laden would still want to remove Western influence from the Middle East. And the only reason why there is Western influence in the Middle East is because of capitalism. Don't be such an idealist, look at the material conditions.

Theocracy in Iran

Alright fine, had it not been for Islam the growing Marxist and labor movements in Iran, which had been viewed as more of a threat by the Imperial State of Persia at the time thus the Islamists driving the revolution was a big surprise, probably would have been the driving force of the Iranian Revolution.

Zionism/Israel

The Holocaust would have still happened thus Jewish people wanting a homeland, and then the West giving Jewish people Palestine and in turn making the State of Israel a US client state. US making Israel a client state was due to capitalism/

Religious hierarchy in Feudal times

It may have not been caused by capitalism, but that's only because capitalism didn't exist yet. But it was caused by the same economic forces of inequality that cause capitalism to be the way it is. Therefore, it was neither capitalism nor religion but feudalism.

Roman Empire

What about the Roman Empire? Be specific. Whatever it was, it was caused by the material conditions of Rome at that time. And again, was neither religion nor capitalism because both didn't exist at that time (at least not in its modern form, in religion's case).

Israelite Conquest of Canaan

For the third time, capitalism nor religion.

Islamic expansion

It was more politically motivated than religiously and capitalism didn't exist then. So for the fourth time, capitalism nor religion.

The Thirty Year's War

Not sure.

The French Revolution

It's actually the other way around. The French Revolution caused capitalism. So it was caused by feudalism, therefore it was neither religion nor capitalism for the fifth time.

Lord's Resistance Army

Can't say.

Lebanese Civil War

Yes, I can say that was caused by capitalism.

Algerian Civil War

Most likely.

The Taiping Rebellion

Definitely.

Night of the Murdered Poets

Caused by racism.

Yellow Scarves Rebellion

Of course that was caused by capitalism.

Human Sacrifices (Aztecs)

No, I'd say that was religion.

Panthay Rebellion

Yes.

Khmer Rouge Repression

Yes.

[/QUOTE]

Revolution starts with U

21st March 2011, 00:26

look i don't think its a perfect match but i don't see anything all that wrong with it and most christian demands for egalitarianism have had nothing to do with "equal squalor" (weird when revolutionaries recycle reactionary arguments against internal enemies...), muntzer straight called for a communal holding of all goods. i think point out "well there is still the hierarchy of god" is a bit of a cop-out that ignores the content of arguments for the creation of an egalitarian world by christians.

I'm no ideologue. The charge that equaity could mean equally poor is correct. And leftism seeks equal prosperity, not equality for equality's sake.

i don't think this means what you think it means.

It means pay your fucking taxes. Unless you have some newfangled interpretation of that....?

why? "scripture" is not something set in stone, even within mainstream christianity there are disagreements about what constitutes correct scripture, to say nothing of those outside the mainstream or the christian groups that existed before there was a unified scripture (a political creation by the early church).

That's my point. If you can say "the Bible is not God's infallible word, then who cares? It both makes your Bible irrelevant (as far as divining definitive truth) and is an honest stance to take.
No problems here.
But you know as well as I that MOST PEOPLE do not see it like that. If you don't know that you're delibarately blinding yourself.

Magón

21st March 2011, 00:31

bcbm

21st March 2011, 00:44

I'm no ideologue. The charge that equaity could mean equally poor is correct. And leftism seeks equal prosperity, not equality for equality's sake.

and there have been christian revolutionaries pushing for that...so...

It means pay your fucking taxes. Unless you have some newfangled interpretation of that....?

um there are actually quite a few interpretations of this statement, not all of them friendly to rome.

That's my point. If you can say "the Bible is not God's infallible word, then who cares? It both makes your Bible irrelevant (as far as divining definitive truth) and is an honest stance to take.

i don't think christianity necessarily has to rely on the bible, certainly it didn't for several hundred years (or more if you include the largely illiterate feudal peasant masses who used it as inspiration to kill the rich).

But you know as well as I that MOST PEOPLE do not see it like that. If you don't know that you're delibarately blinding yourself.

appeal to belief...

hatzel

21st March 2011, 00:48

Most atheists are familiar with religion, and even probably grew up religous. It's very disengenous for the religous types to just throw the claim out there that they are not whether or not they know anything about the person they are attacking.

My claim was based more on the fact that the arguments against Christian anarchism have been based on the personal opinion of a given individual on the Christian faith, which may have been the religion of their family, the religion taught to them by the church, none of which match up with the religion followed by Christian anarchists. That's the only issue...that it reveals a lack of understanding of the beliefs of Christian anarchists, and instead just focuses on their idea of Christianity, which is probably just mainstream Protestantism, potentially Catholicism, maybe even the headline-grabbing extremes of Christianity, but definitely something different than the religion Christian anarchists follow. And that was pretty clear from the points raised...so sure, an atheist being familiar with religion is one thing, but to then turn around to an individual Christian anarchist and say that they are wrong, or that they are not true Christians, or anything like that? That strikes me as a little...well, I don't know the word :lol: It's not a positive word, though! But, as I said, it's almost playing the role of the church, creating for themselves a definitive truth, a form of Christianity that is the single infallible interpretation. Even if they don't believe in the faith, they're still assuming that all Christians must agree with their form of Christianity, and failure to do so makes them quasi-heretical, or not a true Christian. Me no likey that! :(

Once again, they probably have a connection to the faith. And forgive me if I'm not that impressed by some apologetic intamately biased by his connection to the faith.
I dunno, Landauer was a Jew, so he might not have had all that much connection to Christianity :laugh: Nah, but that's actually the point here. He's following quite a Tolstoyan line there (unsurprisingly), and it remains the line followed by the majority of Christian anarchists. That's the same issue as that I've outlined above, the one of saying 'Christianity (according to this or that church) teaches this', when that's totally unrelated to the topic at hand, which is Christian anarchism. It's just a massive strawman, attacking Christian anarchism by attacking mainstream Christianity...and I really don't know where people get off on challenging other peoples' understanding of their religion, there's something, somewhere, that makes me think that's not the good leftist line to take. Particularly when this is all framed as an argument to say 'Christian anarchists fuck off, we want nothing to do with them', and I'm yet to see a real reason for why they're so terrible yet, when all the arguments are based around trying to claim that they aren't Christians. I have no idea whether the intention of this is to try to convince Christian anarchists to either drop their Christianity or drop their Anarchism, but the former is just being obnoxious, and the latter hardly strikes me as in the best interests of the left as a whole :confused:

Tim Finnegan

21st March 2011, 01:14

Christian Anarchism is just another branch of the equally backward AnCap movement, just obviously on the religious scale. Neither make sense, but they're fun to hear when people say they're one or both.
What are you talking about? The Christian Anarchist movement is uniformly collectivist. You've clearly just been talking to some ill-informed cretins who've appropriated the label, and allowed them to define your entire understanding of it.

Magón

21st March 2011, 01:16

What are you talking about? The Christian Anarchist movement is uniformly collectivist. You've clearly just been talking to some ill-informed cretins who've appropriated the label, and allowed them to define your entire understanding of it.

I meant they're just apart of one another.

PhoenixAsh

21st March 2011, 01:36

To set some very wrong conceptions of CA straight:

01). They oppose capitalism
02). They oppose the state in the sense they do not find the state a necessary concept.
03). They oppose laws. Saying people of morals and faith do not need them to govern their lives. They will try to do good because they believe that is the right way.
04). They oppose the church authority over religion
05). They oppose the absolute truth of the Bible as a universal religious and unfallable law
06). They favour personal autonomy and responsibility
07). They oppose any form of authority over any other person by another person
08). They believe in God
09). They think religion is between the individual and their respective god(s), think all religions should be accepted, and everybody is free to make their choices. They may disagree but its not their place, or the place of anybody on this earth to judge any other person.
10). They believe in strict non-violence
11). They oppose taxation...but some do submit as it requires violence to reject them.
12). They believe in altruism and social cooperation between all induviduals

So yeah...there are silly things and there is silly thinking within the ideology. It may sound like cherry picking...but that does not negate the very strict rules and living standards they place upon themselves....and it in no way means its an ideology which has no place in society or can be in any way shape or form equated to Anarcho-Capitalism.

The one tries very hard to lie and deceive....only aplying anarchism on part of society. The other tries very hard to find a way to combine belief and ideology in a honest idea of building a better society.

Both may be silly...but one is vile and dangerous...and the other is mostly definately not.

The Man

21st March 2011, 01:40

Tim Finnegan

21st March 2011, 01:52

I meant they're just apart of one another.
Re-phrasing an inaccurate assertion doesn't make it any less inaccurate.

Summerspeaker

21st March 2011, 02:05

Tim Finnegan

21st March 2011, 02:16

I have a fair number of Christian anarchist (or nearly so) comrades. Equating them with anarcho-capitalists strikes me as unfair. As an example, the former tend to generously share resources while the latter fantasize about shooting punks with the temerity to touch their [usually expensive] stuff. The notion of anyone revering any text as oppressive as Abrahamic scripture frightens me in theory, but I can't ignore the symbolic power of religion in current society. Orienting this force toward revolutionary ends benefits the species. To the extent that religion can be employed to justify anything, it's valuable to get it on your side. I'd be pleased to see anarchists emerge for each and every existing spiritual tradition.
There's as much in there about emancipation as about oppression. They're just not the parts that church authorities have, traditionally, chosen to broadcast.

I believe Tony Benn described the Bible as the story of struggles between the "kings who had power, and the prophets who preached righteousness", and I think that there's at least some truth to that.

Sosa

29th March 2011, 18:17

hatzel

29th March 2011, 18:33

So what is the difference between Christian Anarchism and an Anarchist who is a christian? It seems like Christian Anarchism isn't even anything outside the realm of traditional anarchism, they just happen to have a personal belief in god.

The minute they cite anti-authoritarian sections from the Bible, then you know it's Christian anarchism :lol:

Seriously, that's about it. You're bang on there, Sosa. They might be anarcho-communists, they might be anarcho-syndicalists, perhaps even mutualists or collectivists, a not insignificant number are primmies, but they're all under that same umbrella term, 'Christian anarchism', just because they justify their anarchism from Biblical teachings, and claim that the society they advocate is fulfilling divine will etc. etc.

gnonstic

6th June 2011, 05:54

its a tough one, and you will hear absolute bollocks on both sides of the arguement.
first lets take a little look at the old style authoritarian answers.
god ordained kings and monarchs?
REALLY? no, men did that. when the hebrews asked for a king god was most cheesed-off with the lot of them, and gave them king to teach them a lesson. did they learn? no.

even an apostle who many modern folk have a problem with, st paul, said some very revealing things. we, he implies, make our world through agreement, or word. in the beginning was the word. and where ever two or three come together and agree, then so it shall be made into being, or its a waste of time.
also when we see the new testament say god IS love, god IS truth, and realise the "spirit" isnt this supernatural, (in the sense it has become to mean) thing but real qualities which can live in anyone open to them, (love, truth, justice, grace, all real qualities) and these are our authority, our "spirit", then much of religion becomes rather thin.

the bible gives many rules, but here is a quote from an answer to some show in the US which though tongue in cheek, is very revealing:
"""Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by an east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,
Jim"""

wasnt that funny and very clever! so simple!

although jesus seems to have been a member of an aramaic sect, sometimes known as the na'senes (spelling?) sometimes known as nasri (spelling?) his message does certianly relate to a more communal/socialist/anarchism. with the principalities of this world laid low.

he did actually confront rome, however he had to play it wisely or die before the apparently appointed time.

further more, traditional christianity, or CHURCHIANITY, has god/jesus as an idol. in revelations the person receiving the vision sees a being like unto the son of man, and this divinity tells the visionary to stand and not worship because he was simply a servant of the most high just as he was. a co-heir!
also within revelations (interestingly the book foretelling the beginning of a great new golden age) god is seen symbolically as having a name not understood by any man/woman/human yet on is coat/garment, were written many names. (why must it be taken for granted that this refer only t christian names?) so no one has a distinct claim on living spirit.

the point i am clumsily circling around, and i hope eventually working out here, is that its only religion and about traditional authority if thats the kind of people you choose to hang out with and agree with. and kings and earthly authority is only authority if you choose to believe so, or show it any grace (a key word in "the kingdom").

also within the new testament community all folk held all things in common (i dont see that ANYWHERE in a church, do you?) and we certainly see written that capitalism is a great beast with its way of turning everything into a consumable quantity. again its leaning towards anarchism as the eventual sensible outcome. almost as though what we see around us is simply to teach us NOT TO DO IT.
we are told within genesis that we were designed to eat vegetation, and to respect and be stewards of the earth, so here we even have a form of "green anarchy". and to eat all the plants and herbs and green things of the earth.

i mean we can all plainly see what religion and the love of religion has done and is doing to the earth. it dosnt work. yet the core christ spirit DOES work, and not in the way the church would have us believe. "many will come before me on that day and say 'did we not cast out demons in your name...., and i will say to them, get away from me you evil-doers"

it appears also that christ may have been married! does this contradict the bible? certaily not, and being a rabbi, or teacher within his community it would have been very taboo for him not to have been married. most likely candidate? mary magdalene.

the church seems also to create superstition, for eg, lazarus. we are told by traditionalists that he was raised literally from the dead, however, when christ was on his way nearing the garden (which belonged to a relation either os his or mary magdalene's) he and lazarus were shouting back and forth. (interestingly the council of nicea cut tis part out! (FACT). when we look closer into some of the traditions of that time, we find that lazarus had been excomunicated from his sect, and where the miracle was, was in the fact that jesus did not yet have the full authority to perform his re-election, or rebirth into the community, ie lazarus had been excomunicaated, hence spiritully "dead" to that community, unless the right ceremonies had been conducted and he be reborn into that community. so i wonder why that was obscured?

and as far as i know, in the marriage at cana, when christ was asked to provide wine, the only person who would have performed that duty would be THE GROOM. so we cant always take the churches word for everything. we must form our own spiritual maturity and authority or relationship to spiritual truth. again something that anarchy alone helps with.

other religions? well, even the bible says WHO SO EVER| CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD shall receive him (on his garment arw qritten many names). not just anyone in the christian gang.
also god, in new testament and in places in the old (a latter part of proverbs is written by a non hebrew, and not only that, but is actually the stories told him by his mother) that who so ever has love has god, who so ever has grace has god, again we go back to living qualities that are available to anyone irespective of creed, colour, race, class, rank, or bank account, or sex. and i would even suggest, sexuality. again GRACE. it is our honesty to be our selves and accepting each other in love that makes the diference, not torture by strict rules. also we are to be friends of god. "who so ever gives even the smallest cup of water to any of these little ones, does so to me".

it is authority IN a matter, not authority over. the valleys raised, and the mountains laid low.

i could go on and on, but it is a difficult matter that i feel inside, and believe the only way to universally grasp christ is to realize an anarchist society till we learn how to help make a better world.

i would however suggest, religious or even atheist, to read dave andrews excellent little book "christi-anarchy" and how he has actually realized this type of community in australia. a very moving and gut wrenching biography from hands-on knowledge.
thanx for giving me the chance to say all this. just wish i could be more clear in any of it.:crying:

Inquisitive Lurker

6th June 2011, 15:00

As long as this thread is being necro-ed, I'd like to say I am fascinated by Christian Communism, specifically the Hutterites, which exist in the tens of thousands, if not an order of magnitude more. Communal ownership, no private property, no possessions, communal living. Governance is done by a three man council.

I'd love to go live with them for a month and interview them about their views on property and possessions, to see if there is anything that can be cleaned for the movement as a whole.

ZrianKobani

8th June 2011, 00:34

I've read some of their work, Shane Claiborne and Leo Tolstoy mostly, and they seem to be both serious in their politics and seriously opposed to mainline Christendom. I'm not an Anarchist but I think a good deal of their arguments are valid and radical enough to be welcomed into the Anarchist camp. New Monasticism especially needs recognition.