Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[ChristianAnarchist]

Not only have I had nothing to do with enslaving anyone but I'm being extorted by the IRS (men with guns) every day.  They take what they don't even need just because they can.  It's no wonder those cult members in the cult of "government" keep trying to spend more and more each day.  That's how the keep the "rabble" like us slaving away to be able to have something left over to eat with after their extortion...

[ChristianAnarchist]

The new "jews" in society will be those pesky "freedom" advocates.  Just a short time ago on the GCN news at the top of the hour they stated that some guy they have arrested (read framed) for "terrorism" would not stand for the judge initially.  So here it comes you "freedom advocates".  You are now the new "jew" ready to be loaded into cattle cars and sent to concentration camps for not standing for the judges.  Of course you must be a "terrorist"....  This guy is a "terrorist" and he won't stand for the judge...

LET HANG ALL THOSE DAMN TER-RISTS WHO DARE TO NOT STAND FOR OUR HIGH-PRIESTS IN BLACK ROBES  !!!!!

[cavalier973]

"You don't think blacks are as intelligent as asians, so if you had to hire a mathematician, you are going to look for an asian first, which is fucking stupid, because now you aren't giving a black person a chance, which is inherently racist."

According to Malcom Gladwell in his book Outliers, the reason asians are so good at math is that their language facilitates mental calculation.  Their words for numbers are shorter than English equivalents, and follow along the lines of "3 tens 4, plus 4 tens 5, equals 7 tens 9", instead of our "Thirty-four plus forty-five equals seventy-nine."  With asians having this advantage in the language of numbers, it makes sense to hire them for jobs requiring strong mathematical skills.

On the concept of anarchy in general, I would like to say that I leaned toward Mark (the show's host) and his ideas about anarcho-capitalism rather than Ian's.  I would think that an-cap is a great idea--in theory--but practically unworkable.  "Show me any examples of an-cap working" I would mentally argue with Ian.  Now, I have purchased a book that almost makes Ian's argument for him.  In "33 Questions You're Not Supposed to Ask about American History", by Tom Woods, it discusses the "Wild" West days, and how relatively tame those days were.  Apparently, there are more crimes committed in a single year in a modern American city than there were in the whole Wild West Days, in the whole Wild West.  What's further, many of the individuals who lived in that time and place did so without government supervision.  They dealt with each other on a voluntary basis, setting up more-or-less private institutions to deal with establishing property boundries and for adjudicating crimes.  As one scholar was quoted as saying, "When everyone has a gun, people tend to avoid confrontations."

[cavalier973]

You should give me a little elevator pitch I can give to my girlfriend. She's Christian but not anarchist.  Shes actually not really that into political philosophy much but I am. This is something she could perhaps like.

Some arguments may work better than others, depending on her denomination. You could argue from the Book of Judges and 1st Samuel that the entire era of the Judges is described as one in which "everyone did what was right in his own eyes", because there was no king in Israel.  The phrase is one of opprobrium, and yet, when the people of Israel finally gather together to demand Samuel to appoint a king, God gets angry.  He gives Samuel a list of horrible things that the children of Israel will bring on themselves by demanding a king.  He tells Samuel that the demand for a king is a rejection of Himself.  In short, He much prefers to deal with us as individuals, even with all our failings and foibles, than have a situation where people are pushed around by a strong central government.


Also, you could point out that, though Jesus never compromised Truth, He also never forced it on those unwilling to accept it.

[anarchir]

Stick around cavalier, you're cool. There is another pdf out there on the wild west I havent gotten around to reading yet but it looks interesting:

http://invisiblemolotov.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/an-american-experiment-in-anarcho-capitalism/

And my personal favourite:
http://invisiblemolotov.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/laws-of-the-jungle/

[anarchir]

Bump for my above post. But to provide some content, check out the following bible verses:

Stupidity:
Leviticus 19:23-31
In sum: DONT cross breed cattle, eat fruit from a tree younger than 5, eat rare meat, plant 2 types of seeds, wear clothing that has been mixed with wool and cotton, read horoscopes, see a psychic, listen to a fortune teller, cut your beard, get a tattoo, etc.
Leviticus 20:6-21
In sum: Various forms of sleeping around result in ostracism and death.

A note for some christians:
Leviticus 19:34.  About loving illegal aliens.

[cavalier973]

There are certainly parts of the Bible that are inscrutable to me; part of it is that I haven't grown up in the culture where the Law was given.  The Law which forms the basis for the Old Covenant had a specific purpose; while theoretically by following the Law one could get into a right relationship with God, we learn from Paul that it is impossible for anyone to please God by keeping the Law, because it is our nature to fail in the attempt.  The Law's purpose, therefore, was to instruct us in how incapable we are in living up to God's standards.  (an aside: it's not that God is some white shoe prude that averts His eyes at even the mention of evil.  His nature is such that evil is automatically banished from his presence.  That makes it hard for Him to have a relationship with the creature he loves (man).  So He had to develop a way to reach man without man being destroyed in the process.  His solution was to become a man  and, as man's new Representative, pay the fine, so to speak, that He Himself levied against man for irreparably marring the universe God created.)

So the Old Testament Law, and especially the rituals, does not apply to the Church Age believer.  The rituals were for making one physically and psychologically clean in preparation for worship in the temple.  Because of Christ's sacrifice, the Christian's body is the temple of God, and he can worship at anytime.  Bringing this rather rambling post around to the original thread question by Christian Anarchist, it is this direct access to God that should make all Christians prefer anarchism (absence of government, not chaos), because they no longer have to prove themselves faithful to God.  There is no mandate for Christians to take over a government and run it according to "Biblical principles"; the only mandate we have is to share the gospel and make disciples (and I may be splitting hairs, here, but I notice that it does not command us to make converts, just to disciple those who come to belief).

I like that last verse about illegal aliens; I could never really get worked up, angry, about illegal immigration, mostly because every immigrant I have ever met seems to work three times harder than natural-born Americans.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

If the 5 Books of Moses don't apply to Moses, then why the big deal about the 10 commandments?  I guess they only apply to Jews if that's the case.

[cavalier973]

If the 5 Books of Moses don't apply to Moses, then why the big deal about the 10 commandments?  I guess they only apply to Jews if that's the case.

The Ten Commandments are popular with conservative Christians, I think, because of the cultural aspect rather than any sort of theological reason.  There's an idea, due to the work of David Barton, et al, that the Constitution is somehow related to the 10 Commandments, and that the Constitution is given legitimacy because of that supposed link.  There is also a sense of loss that accompanies the removal of old symbols and institutions once taken for granted.  If I could quote T.H. White from Once and Future King: "...few people can hate so bitterly and so self-righteously as the members of a ruling caste which is being dispossessed."  Of course, it's silly for Christians to think of themselves as being dispossessed, since our possession is Christ Himself.  Everything else is temporal, including America.

[ChristianAnarchist]

And my personal favourite:
http://invisiblemolotov.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/laws-of-the-jungle/

I too, love that one.  Never seen it before though. 

As to the laws of the old testament, I don't put much stock in them other than to show us how hard it is for us to follow "laws"...

[ChristianAnarchist]

I mentioned Romans 13 on the show the other night so I thought that it would be a good idea to look into the meaning behind these verses (as I understand them).  I certainly do not think that "the authorities" referred to in this chapter has anything to do with the "Roman authorities" or any other civil "authority" before or since...

"In Verse 1, the Interlinear text reads, "Let every soul be subject to authorities above him." The word translated authorities, or powers in the King James version, is the Greek word exousia. (Strong's #1849) The most crucial question in this study is, "Who are the exousia or authorities that Paul was referring to in this verse?""

Link: http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/spiritualauthority.htm

My belief is that these "authorities" are those who are spiritually an "elder" to you.  Someone you look to as your teacher in the way.  Someone who has more wisdom than you.  This is certainly the impression that I get when later on Paul states (verse 4) that this "authority" is a servant of God.  That pretty much rules out any people in power that I can think of.  It would be hard to present Bush, Cheney, Nero, or Hitler as a "servant of God". 

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

So is God still mad at queers for being fashionable and shit?

[cavalier973]

If God is mad at "queers", it's not because of their fashion sense, or even their homosexuality.  It would be because of their unbelief.  The sacrificial death of Christ can cover any sin, but the propitiatory effect of that sacrifice is denied to those who will not believe.

[ChristianAnarchist]

If God is mad at "queers", it's not because of their fashion sense, or even their homosexuality.  It would be because of their unbelief.  The sacrificial death of Christ can cover any sin, but the propitiatory effect of that sacrifice is denied to those who will not believe.

Actually my view of "grace" includes those who do not presently accept the sacrifice.  I believe that Christ's sacrifice is the be-all and end-all for sin.  All sin has been crucified on that cross, past, present, and future.  I do not accept a literal "hell" - at least not for humans.  I think that all such references to an "eternal damnation" can be legitimately explained away as either complete errors in the text, or misinterpretations of a "torment" that we bear when things happen to us in this life...

I feel that people will be able to re-evaluate their positions after death (and some scripture does support this view at least for those who were living before Christ) and what rational being would not accept such a wonderful gift as eternal life if presented to them after death?

And yes, this means that Hitler, Stalin, and every other "bad guy" you can think of would be given the opportunity to accept the gift of redemption... 

[Rillion]

I feel that people will be able to re-evaluate their positions after death (and some scripture does support this view at least for those who were living before Christ) and what rational being would not accept such a wonderful gift as eternal life if presented to them after death?

I guess it depends on the terms.