Jesus promoted Anarchism

[Cognitive Dissident]

If you must obey him, how is he not a ruler?  If you have a ruler, how are you anarchist?

True many people consider atheism a part of anarchism..  
But everyone has rules for themselves in some fashion and if you write down these rules you are following a book.

So is a book your ruler? And isn't following Christianity essentially just following a book and/or how you perceive your world and "morality" in "light" of the book?

Because if Yahweh actually talks to someone and forces them to do things (with threats like a ruler).
Then that person should take it very seriously and find out what's going on; like maybe go to get brain scans.  

Didn't really understand that last bit.

I think there's a difference between following rules you agree to (natural law, essentially) and following rules that were given you by someone who will punish you if you don't.  Once again, it's the difference between being self-governing and being ruled.

[Alex Libman]

The Book Of Alaric  [...]

That's very interesting.  I've moved my reply to my Satanism thread, because the mandatory quota of hijacking in the hijack-free-zone has been fulfilled.  

Libmanian Satanism says: leave the Jesus folks alone to do their thing.

[lucidhawk]

Didn't really understand that last bit.

I think there's a difference between following rules you agree to (natural law, essentially) and following rules that were given you by someone who will punish you if you don't.  Once again, it's the difference between being self-governing and being ruled.

 "Christians" agree to follow the Bible. A "Christian" who follows the Bible because they fear punishment isn't a Christian. Unless a "Christian" wants to come forward and disagree with me on that?

[Cognitive Dissident]

Didn't really understand that last bit.

I think there's a difference between following rules you agree to (natural law, essentially) and following rules that were given you by someone who will punish you if you don't.  Once again, it's the difference between being self-governing and being ruled.

 "Christians" agree to follow the Bible. A "Christian" who follows the Bible because they fear punishment isn't a Christian. Unless a "Christian" wants to come forward and disagree with me on that?

...or they burn in hell...hell has a purpose...to make people behave...if not, why would there "be" a hell?  I'm still seeing a ruler (the term "King" makes it pretty obvious, and surely that's a big part of "father" too.)

Christians aren't Christian because they "follow the Bible."  They "agree" to keep the ruler's commandments (and if they don't...)  They famously cannot.  They're Christian because they accept Christ.  It's sorta like getting a pardon from the Governor (once again, ruler.)

Even then, you can't do the 10 things, you must do the one thing...still a ruler.

[Amazing Richard]

First of all....everything I have read from you in this thread comes across as pure semantic bullshit. You are basically saying nothing, cuz you are to much of a pussy to say what is really on yer mind.

You think you are really smart, and think you can mess with people with all this semantic nonsense. I have never read such crap in my life, Lucidhawk. Your crap is a pure abuse of the english language!

This is disgusting!

What do you want with us, "Lucidhawk"????

Instead of addressing even a word of the content of what I'm saying directly, you give more useless babble. Perhaps you should replace your icon with one of these:

Like I said, there is no content to address. You are writing pure gibberish.

It also does not surprise me at all that WTFK is into yer crap and wants to debate you. Ken thinks this is all "intellectual" stuff, and wants to get in on it ...but Ken is what you call a "pseudo-intellectual".

This is the most revolting thread I have ever seen on this BBS.

[lucidhawk]

......Christians aren't Christian because they "follow the Bible."  They "agree" to keep the ruler's commandments (and if they don't...)  They famously cannot.  They're Christian because they accept Christ.  It's sorta like getting a pardon from the Governor (once again, ruler.) Even then, you can't do the 10 things, you must do the one thing...still a ruler.

Ok WTFK, I was wrong. Your statements here seem logically sound. Christ is their "ruler" (They even use the word king) because people believe their ruler exists and that they can go to hell..
People can choose to define anarchism close to the phrase "No gods, no masters" and that does seem more consistent..

I don't hold any special love for the word anarchism. I typically just define it as "Without government." (A physical human governance)

Replace my instances of the word anarchism with voluntaryism or something similar.

I tend to call what I've been describing as "Christian Anarchism" and not voluntaryism because it relies on the Bible and not simply the nonaggression principle to come to the belief that to have government is not preferable.

[lucidhawk]

Which would you say is more difficult and divisive , persuading a Christian to go Atheist (or anarchist "No gods. No masters") or persuading a conservative Christian to go to accept voluntaryism?

I don't think the Bible overtly promotes the idea of human governance at all. I would rather convince Christians first and foremost of the virtues of voluntaryism than the virtues or validity of atheism or agnosticism.

I generally don't have a problem with religious people as long as they don't try to force their way around.

[Turd Ferguson]

Which would you say is more difficult and divisive , persuading a Christian to go Atheist (or anarchist "No gods. No masters") or persuading a conservative Christian to go to accept voluntaryism?

Neither

I always try to convince people to believe in themselves and to admit to themselves that it is impossible to know 100% for sure either way that there is, or is not a god running things. Enjoy life and quit wasting your time trying to figure it out.

Ride that fuckin' wave till it either takes you to shore, or crashes you into the rocks in a bloody mess and dont concern yourself so much what created the wave in the first place.

Takes all the fun out of surfing it.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Like I said, there is no content to address. You are writing pure gibberish.

It also does not surprise me at all that WTFK is into yer crap and wants to debate you. Ken thinks this is all "intellectual" stuff, and wants to get in on it ...but Ken is what you call a "pseudo-intellectual".

This is the most revolting thread I have ever seen on this BBS.

WTFK knows something about this topic, and Dick 3 apparently doesn't so Dick 3 strikes out in anger at WTFK.

......Christians aren't Christian because they "follow the Bible."  They "agree" to keep the ruler's commandments (and if they don't...)  They famously cannot.  They're Christian because they accept Christ.  It's sorta like getting a pardon from the Governor (once again, ruler.) Even then, you can't do the 10 things, you must do the one thing...still a ruler.

Ok WTFK, I was wrong. Your statements here seem logically sound. Christ is their "ruler" (They even use the word king) because people believe their ruler exists and that they can go to hell..
People can choose to define anarchism close to the phrase "No gods, no masters" and that does seem more consistent..

I don't hold any special love for the word anarchism. I typically just define it as "Without government." (A physical human governance)

Replace my instances of the word anarchism with voluntaryism or something similar.

I tend to call what I've been describing as "Christian Anarchism" and not voluntaryism because it relies on the Bible and not simply the nonaggression principle to come to the belief that to have government is not preferable.

Fair enough, I think.  If you want to say Jesus of Nazareth sold the NAP, I don't think I have a problem with it.

Interestingly enough, by calling it Christian Voluntarism (or whatever), it seems to separate voluntarists into two groups unnecessarily.  If christians think what Jesus was selling was voluntarism, and non-christians are into voluntarism, why can't they all be happy they're into voluntarism and drop the adjectives (athiest and christian?)

[youtube]OnxkfLe4G74[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxkfLe4G74

Consolidated two responses

[cavalier973]

It shouldn't be a problem to acknowledge God's rulership over the universe, based on the homesteading principle.  By virtue of having created the universe through His own abilities, He has ownership over it.  And, just as if I had to obey the rules of someone who owns the property at which I currently reside (or leave his property), so I must obey the rules of the Owner of the universe.

"Hell" is separation from God.  It is God giving the unbeliever exactly what he asks for--to have no further association with God.  Of course, that means that the unbeliever cannot enjoy the benefits of "heaven", which is eternal relationship with God.  The torment of "Hell" is self-inflicted, as the unbeliever spends eternity in bitter remorse over trading away the eternal gifts of God in exchange for the temporal pleasures of sin.

Good discussion.  How would you address the counterarguments, lucidhawk, that bring up Jesus' mandate to "render to Caesar the things of Caesar's, and to God the things of God", as well as the whole "Romans chapter 13" argument?

[velojym]

If you occupy a piece of land, and the owner NEVER presents himself to you, does it really matter?

http://vimeo.com/5288627

[blackie]

If you steal something, and no one ever notices that thing was stolen, does it matter?

[velojym]

If you steal something, and no one ever notices that thing was stolen, does it matter?

If you even realize you're stealing it, it's obvious you know the owner exists. So, a more intellectually honest parallel would
involve picking an apple on land that doesn't seem to be owned or occupied by anyone. In other words, your scenario involves
a victim. The other involves some fictional character.

[blackie]

I'm not trying to draw a parallel, I am asking an honest question.

Say you pick an apple from an orchard.

Or say you take a rock out of someones yard.

Most likely the owner will never know you stole their property, so does it really matter?

It seems like stealing something that no one would miss is less bad than stealing things that someone would miss.

I've stolen rocks from people's property. I don't think they know or care.

[The ghost of a ghost of a ghost]

What did you do with that rock?
Smoke it Or pet it?