# Jesus Is an Anarchist



## TheBishop (Jun 5, 2014)

http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

Long read, but the guy makes a good case. 



> It is for this reason that anyone that takes Jesus's ultimate ethical commandment seriously must of necessity advocate the abolition of all Earthly governments wherever and whenever they may exist, as governments are necessarily incompatible with Jesus's ultimate ethical commandment and diametrically opposed to it. In passing, it's important for me to distinguish "Earthly governments" from what is sometimes called the "Kingdom of God" or the "Kingdom of Christ." In the above discussion I have been analyzing governments as they are operated by men here on Earth--but as I will show, the "Kingdom" which Christ is to establish on Earth will be the functional and operational opposite of any kingdom which has ever existed on Earth before, i.e., it won't actually be a government in the sense in which I defined above and will in fact be perfectly consistent with the Golden Rule.


----------



## Throwback (Jun 5, 2014)

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=619790&highlight=athiest


T


----------



## PopPop (Jun 5, 2014)

TheBishop said:


> http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html
> 
> Long read, but the guy makes a good case.



So are you sayin you are a Jesus freak too?


----------



## Balrog (Jun 5, 2014)

I do not see why anyone would spend time thinking much about this.

Jesus and God are basically inseparable parts of the trinity, and it would be a stretch to think that the force behind a rigid government such as that of the Jews would have been an anarchist..


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 5, 2014)

PopPop said:


> So are you sayin you are a Jesus freak too?



I find it odd that so many profess devout faith in this character, who is supposedly the purveyor of peace and forgiveness, take such a cavalier attitude tward the violence and coercion of others. The article, wich no one will undoubtedly take the time to read, lays a pretty good explanation why government is counter-intuitive to an individual following the principals of peace, understanding, and forgiveness.

I am a Jeffersonian christian.  I am believer in the man and the wisdom, not the miracles.  As far as principals go, the man was pretty spot on when it comes to peaceful, mutual, and hope filled existence.  Force was not his modus operandi.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 5, 2014)

Throwback said:


> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=619790&highlight=athiest
> 
> 
> T



Good thread. I've learned alot since then. It's nice to be reminded that we can all change a little, and it doesn't hurt all that bad. You should try it.  You might find liberty more compelling, than having the power to lay dominion over other men.


----------



## PopPop (Jun 5, 2014)

TheBishop said:


> I find it odd that so many profess devout faith in this character, who is supposedly the purveyor of peace and forgiveness, take such a cavalier attitude tward the violence and coercion of others. The article wich no one will undoubtedly take the time to read lays a pretty good explanation why government is counter-intuitive to an individual following in the principals of peace and forgiveness.
> 
> I am a Jeffersonian christian.  I am believer in the man and the wisdom, not the miracles.  As far as principals go, the man was pretty spot on when it comes to peaceful, mutual, and hope filled existence.  Force was not his modus operandi.



Well I went in for the full monty, myself. But that's just me, and I understand the conflict between Christian principles and Government, the difference between you and I is not that I don't understand and even in large portions agree, it is just that I know people better I guess. 
The Society you envision will come, Jesus told me so.


----------



## Balrog (Jun 5, 2014)

TheBishop said:


> I am a Jeffersonian christian.  I am believer in the man and the wisdom, not the miracles.  As far as principals go, the man was pretty spot on when it comes to peaceful, mutual, and hope filled existence.  Force was not his modus operandi.



Well, except that whole Armageddon, final battle between good and evil, thing.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 5, 2014)

PopPop said:


> Well I went in for the full monty, myself. But that's just me, and I understand the conflict between Christian principles and Government, the difference between you and I is not that I don't understand and even in large portions agree, it is just that I know people better I guess.
> The Society you envision will come, Jesus told me so.



The problem you don't understand is I don't envision a society.  I see it happening all around you, and me.  We are interacting peacfully, at work, at the mall, and at turner field, not becuase we are forced too, but becuase we choose too.  I know people too. I work with different people in public everyday. Like, mtr333 said, we are naturally patternable and predictable.  If we were bass, we'd b lunch. We want to interact. We want to be accepted, we want to be a part of society. We choose, to obey the law, just as we choose to break it. Our freedom is natural, it is our government that is unnatural.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 5, 2014)

Balrog said:


> Well, except that whole Armageddon, final battle between good and evil, thing.



What traits would you have me believe that jesus constituted as good? Would not someone that has never initiated aggression or coercion agianst others be considered as good?


----------



## PopPop (Jun 5, 2014)

TheBishop said:


> The problem you don't understand is I don't envision a society.  I see it happening all around you, and me.  We are interacting peacfully, at work, at the mall, and at turner field, not becuase we are forced too, but becuase we choose too.  I know people too. I work with different people in public everyday. Like, mtr333 said, we are naturally patternable and predictable.  If we were bass, we'd b lunch. We want to interact. We want to be accepted, we want to be a part of society. We choose, to obey the law, just as we choose to break it. Our freedom is natural, it is our government that is unnatural.



I was in a training program that dealt with writing employee rule books, it was based on a study that indicated 97% of people will do the right thing, in the absence of any rules. It also acknowledged the damage the remaining 3% could do to any process, group or society. That is where your model breaks down. It is also the seed of Tyranny.


----------



## mtr3333 (Jun 5, 2014)

TheBishop said:


> http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html
> 
> Long read, but the guy makes a good case.



I don't see where he made a good case where you quoted. I must have missed something.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 5, 2014)

PopPop said:


> I was in a training program that dealt with writing employee rule books, it was based on a study that indicated 97% of people will do the right thing, in the absence of any rules. It also acknowledged the damage the remaining 3% could do to any process, group or society. That is where your model breaks down. It is also the seed of Tyranny.



So we should subjugate the remaining 97% for the three percent we can't force to behave if all 97% were the police, and give less 1% arbitrary power as a result? That doesn't sound like the pinnacle of human achievement. 

I have no model. Stop saying that. My "model" is your everday interactions.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 5, 2014)

mtr3333 said:


> I don't see where he made a good case where you quoted. I must have missed something.



That is just 1 paragraph in a pretty lengthy dissertation. I can't verify all the bible stuff but it seems his passages are fairly accurate.  Is his interpretations good? I'll let you decide. They are like opinions, everyone has one.


----------



## PopPop (Jun 5, 2014)

TheBishop said:


> So we should subjugate the remaining 97% for the three percent we can't force to behave if all 97% were the police, and give less 1% arbitrary power as a result? That doesn't sound like the pinnacle of human achievement.
> 
> I have no model. Stop saying that. My "model" is your everday interactions.



Of course, you are correct.
On another note, did you hear the news out of Nigeria today?


----------



## Balrog (Jun 5, 2014)

TheBishop said:


> What traits would you have me believe that jesus constituted as good? Would not someone that has never initiated aggression or coercion agianst others be considered as good?



Jesus did initiate aggression.


----------



## Backlasher82 (Jun 5, 2014)

Balrog said:


> Jesus did initiate aggression.



The money changers would agree.


----------



## tell sackett (Jun 5, 2014)

TheBishop said:


> I find it odd that so many profess devout faith in this character, who is supposedly the purveyor of peace and forgiveness, take such a cavalier attitude tward the violence and coercion of others. The article, wich no one will undoubtedly take the time to read, lays a pretty good explanation why government is counter-intuitive to an individual following the principals of peace, understanding, and forgiveness.
> 
> I am a Jeffersonian christian.  I am believer in the man and the wisdom, not the miracles.  As far as principals go, the man was pretty spot on when it comes to peaceful, mutual, and hope filled existence.  Force was not his modus operandi.



Hmm, I never read about one of those in the Bible.Either you are or you aren't.

If Jesus was an anarchist, why did He teach that we are to obedient to the gov't in Romans 14, 1Peter2, and Matt.22? If you want to be technical about it, Jesus is a theocrat.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 5, 2014)

tell sackett said:


> Hmm, I never read about one of those in the Bible.Either you are or you aren't.
> 
> If Jesus was an anarchist, why did He teach that we are to obedient to the gov't in Romans 14, 1Peter2, and Matt.22? If you want to be technical about it, Jesus is a theocrat.



You should read the article. The author addresses that.


----------



## tell sackett (Jun 5, 2014)

Thread title tells me all I need to know.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 7, 2014)

> All one has to do to realize just how literal and true Satan, Jesus and Paul were being when they made the above statements is to consider that more than four times the amount of non-combatants have been systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by their own governments within the past century than were killed in that same time-span from wars. From 1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes killed from 3,500,000 to over 4,300,000 of its own Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other Christians. Communist governments have murdered over 110 million of their own subjects since 1917. And Germany committed genocide against some 16 million people--6 million of them Jews. (The preceding figures are from Prof. R.J. Rummel's website: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills.) Over 800,000 Christian Tutsis in Rwanda were hacked to death with machetes between April and July of 1994 by the Hutu-led military force after the Tutsis had been disarmed by governmental decree in the early 1990s, of which disarmament decree the United Nations helped to enforce. On several occasions, United Nations soldiers stationed in Rwanda actually handed over helpless Tutsi Christians under their protection to members of the Hutu military. They then stood by as their screaming charges were unceremoniously hacked to pieces. This massacre happened one year after the United Nations helped to put in a national ID card in Rwanda, and it was that very national ID card system which the Hutus used to track-down and identify the Christian Tutsis. Needless to say, all of the subject populations of the above mass murders had been disarmed beforehand.
> 
> The wars and mass murders which the mortal governments routinely engage in are literal human-sacrifice orgies that the Earthly rulers of those governments offer up to appease their God Satan, a.k.a. Lucifer!





> *Government, throughout all of recorded history, has been the most methodical and efficient human-meat grinder to ever exist. It is a purely Satanical machination masquerading as humanity's salvation, but has always been--and forever will be so long as it exists--the scourge of mankind and its decline. *



It seems quite reasonable that if there was a benevolent being, government would not be a blessing from him.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 7, 2014)

tell sackett said:


> Thread title tells me all I need to know.



Heaven forbid you make an attempt to broaden your horizon.


----------



## MudDucker (Jun 8, 2014)

The quoted article and discussion here shows very little understanding of the Gospels and Jesus' teaching.

The only aggression he showed was in the temple, which he claimed as God's.  It had been built and dedicated to God.

Outside of the temple, he preached to be a citizen of the government so long as what was required of you was not against God's teachings.  Even if it was against God's teachings, he preached non-violent re-actions.

His whole message is that your life on earth is temporary.  We need to repent from our sin, believe in him and we will be admitted to life everlasting in Heaven.  He preached that on earth we should just learn to live while learning to be closer to Him.


----------



## Slewfoot (Jun 8, 2014)

*Creator*

Regarding the comments about Rwanda and other atrocities (how about millions of aborted babies as well) committed and God seems to be silent:

I have looked at the multiple arguments for many years about this and that, whether it being the great flood or a virgin birth.   

But years ago, I came to the point that if you decide to follow Christ, you must follow and live by faith.   I choose to believe that our creator is a God of love and the wickedness and evil will persist until he sets things straight...there will be ultimate justice. 

The bottom line is this:  God is God and He has mercy upon those who he wants to.

Exodus 33:19   The LORD replied, "I will make all my goodness pass before you, and I will call out my name, Yahweh, before you. For I will show mercy to anyone I choose, and I will show compassion to anyone I choose."


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 8, 2014)

Slewfoot said:


> Regarding the comments about Rwanda and other atrocities (how about millions of aborted babies as well) committed and God seems to be silent:
> 
> I have looked at the multiple arguments for many years about this and that, whether it being the great flood or a virgin birth.
> 
> ...


Probably off topic but I'm curious, and this question is for anyone -


> For I will show mercy to anyone I choose, and I will show compassion to anyone I choose."


So when God said "anyone" did he mean "ANYone" that he chooses?
Anyone Definition
dictionary.search.yahoo.com
pron. 
1.Any person.


----------



## tell sackett (Jun 8, 2014)

TheBishop said:


> Heaven forbid you make an attempt to broaden your horizon.



Since this was moved from the pf, I'll break my ban and give you a reply. 

First, my horizons are fine thanks. 

fyi, I did read the part of the article that had to do with the scriptures that I referenced. I found what I expected, a person with little or no scriptural knowledge twisting scripture to fit a political agenda.

Like I said, the thread title told me all I needed to know.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 9, 2014)

I have not yet read the article. My initial reaction to the thread title was "can one be King and Anarchist at the same time?"


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 9, 2014)

MudDucker said:


> The quoted article and discussion here shows very little understanding of the Gospels and Jesus' teaching.
> 
> The only aggression he showed was in the temple, which he claimed as God's.  It had been built and dedicated to God.
> 
> ...



Actually the article does an excellent job of backing up its claims with scripture.  He seems quite knowledgeable and in a way the whole case is made around your last comment.  

I can see why it is unconfortable for most in here.  He makes a strong case why statism is contrary to christianity.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 9, 2014)

tell sackett said:


> Since this was moved from the pf, I'll break my ban and give you a reply.
> 
> First, my horizons are fine thanks.
> 
> ...



Care to rebutt? I hear his side I would like to hear yours.


----------



## Israel (Jun 9, 2014)

Navigating in liberty is very different. It affords one, frees one, even, from the need to rebel.
The disciple soon recognizes much wrong with the world and its ways.
His first reaction may be that the pleasing of God is accomplished in his manifest resistance to all that he sees of man at every turn.
Yet with further discipline he may learn, at times, his action is not the Lord's action, his motives, not the Lord's motives. He may come to the place of even doing what might appear as a submission of sorts, to unrighteousness.
That "might appear" is what contains all the significance in the above.
He may discover the principle of rebellion must be overcome in himself, that desire by which he "uses" either the scripture, or his relatively unformed revelation of the Lord, as a means to this end.
If one were to consider the matter of the temple tax, the Lord's exposition on the liberty of the children, his means of securing the tax, and his explanation of its payment, one might begin to see this.
It's a completely new experience for man, to have a Monarch so concerned with him. 
Indeed, the experience in that life is always new.
I know a man whose pursuit of understanding and favor in the sight of God became a compulsion of sorts to "root up" at every turn the corruption he thought he encountered in every construct of man's authority and false governance. In a fashion this man was eventually faced with this question:

If you believe I am pleased with the hatred of man's will and ways now that you see them...do you hate "your own" with the same fervor?

And that man began to see, in some small measure, how, what is allowed of so much contradiction of truth, so much rebellion of heart "out there" might be allowed a man that he might see himself "in there", and repent.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 11, 2014)

So.....all the political forum folks dropped in for this thread?

OP, I generally agree with the idea that Jesus was not about coercion where faith is concerned.  In general, a society which would live according to the golden rule does not need laws.  But, as one poster said, a small amount of folks can do a lot of damage.

Do we go against Jesus' example and force people to live as Christians, or, do we follow his example, and let people freely choose their faith and create a civilized framework of rules?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 17, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> So.....all the political forum folks dropped in for this thread?
> 
> OP, I generally agree with the idea that Jesus was not about coercion where faith is concerned.  In general, a society which would live according to the golden rule does not need laws.  But, as one poster said, a small amount of folks can do a lot of damage.
> 
> Do we go against Jesus' example and force people to live as Christians, or, do we follow his example, and let people freely choose their faith and create a civilized framework of rules?



JB, your post sparked a question. (For Bishop)

Do we force people to live in a society with government, or, do we force people to live in a society with no government?

It's seems force is the driving factor either way.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 19, 2014)

TheBishop said:


> http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html
> 
> Long read, but the guy makes a good case.



Sorry Bishop, but I couldn't get past the second sentence



> If you are a Christian and find the above title at all hard to believe then you of all people owe it to yourself to find out what the basis of this charge is, for if the above comes as news to you then *you still have much to learn about Jesus and about the most vitally important struggle which has plagued mankind since the dawn of history: mankind's continuing struggle between freedom and slavery, between value producers and the violent parasitical elite, between peace and war, between truth and deception. *


.

I think that if one reads the Bible and comes away with that as it's central tenet, then there's a problem somewhere.

Sounds like another attempt to co-op Jesus into another one of our ideologies ie
Liberation Theology.   Just my .02 cents


----------



## hawglips (Jun 21, 2014)

TheBishop said:


> I am believer in the man and the wisdom, not the miracles.




How could someone believe in a man and his wisdom, as recorded in a book from long ago, but not believe in what that record says about him and what he did?  Seems to me that one either believes in the whole man and his miraculous divinity, or does not.  Otherwise it is merely a belief in the principles taught in a fairy tale.  We can't have it both ways - to believe and to disbelieve.  Seems to me that one cannot be a Christian while not believing in Jesus the Christ.


----------



## Lead Poison (Jul 1, 2014)

hawglips said:


> How could someone believe in a man and his wisdom, as recorded in a book from long ago, but not believe in what that record says about him and what he did?  Seems to me that one either believes in the whole man and his miraculous divinity, or does not.  Otherwise it is merely a belief in the principles taught in a fairy tale.  We can't have it both ways - to believe and to disbelieve.  Seems to me that one cannot be a Christian while not believing in Jesus the Christ.



Amen. Jesus IS Lord!


----------

