Go ahead, /pol/, find a flaw. Im waiting.
It's spooked.
This shit is getting as bad as muh pronouns.
>>68189288
The only acceptable form of anarchism imho. Still silly but rooted in healthy ideals.
Zao is cool though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlNp38EcUQU
Wouldn't it be theocracy with a fancy name
Christian
>>68189288
Have you ever read Ivan Illich?
http://www.davidtinapple.com/illich/
More on the anti-consumption / luddite end of the spectrum
>Then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him. But I would have you consider, Crito, whether you really mean what you are saying. For this opinion has never been held, and never will be held, by any considerable number of persons; and those who are agreed and those who are not agreed upon this point have no common ground, and can only despise one another, when they see how widely they differ. Tell me, then, whether you agree with and assent to my first principle, that neither injury nor retaliation nor warding off evil by evil is ever right. And shall that be the premise of our agreement? Or do you decline and dissent from this? For this has been of old and is still my opinion; but, if you are of another opinion, let me hear what you have to say. If, however, you remain of the same mind as formerly, I will proceed to the next step.
with no central government, there's nothing to stop people independently forming non-christian states and conquering everyone else with the strength of allah.
>>68190093
Not much. Mostly Tolstoy and Dorothy Day. Thanks for the suggestion
>>68189288
So like Dorothy Day or something?
>>68189288
I'd wave that flag.
>>68189288
How does this even work?
>>68191963
He who obeys God needs no other authority.
>>68189288
two juvenile belief systems rolled into once.
should be a hit with the edgy 10-14 demographic.
>>68193434
Christianity is inherently monarchistic and it is inherently aristocratic.
Hierarchy and law&order are aspects of Christianity that shall always be.
Therefore from a Christian standpoint, you cannot in good faith be an anarchist.
>>68193646
Can you expand on this? I dont understand how the messages in the New Testament are inherently aristocratic. I do understand that the history of Christian communities is, but not necessarily the belief system itself.
>>68193646
I would go further and say that you cannot be a revolutionary of any kind and obey the moral law.
>>68193939
First, you must understand the Old Testament and the New Testament are both from the same God, the God who doesn't change and is always the same.
Now then let me post some passages.
After the passages I'll use logic/reasoning
(Note I personally believe the most compatible belief system is fascistic in nature)
1 Peter 2:13-15
"13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men"
Or
"13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people."
Romans 13:1-4
"13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer"
It should be understood that God's law supersedes man's law.
1/?
>>68194677
Acts 4:18-19
"again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges!"
Therefore it is evident according to the scripture that man should obey the law and order, that he should obey the government until it goes the commandments of God.
Now then let us use logic and reason, we can first reflect on how heaven is arranged.
The spiritual is usually arranged in this manner.
God
(With the Father having a role of authority over the son, the actual relationship between the trinity and the trinity's nature and the like being different as according to sect so we shall not discuss this to length)
The redeemed
The Angels
the Demons
Normal man.
In heaven the hierarchy is even more exact with the positioning of elders, archangels, seraphim and cherubim.
Each having a specific place in hierarchy each directly under or over another.
Now let's look on earth, which system of governance has God promoted and has always promoted? It has always been Kings guided and anointed by priests.
Hell if you study the context of the Old Testament and why us Christians don't and shouldn't follow it, you'll find that large portions of the Old Testament and its laws are effectively about nationalism. Separating the Jewish character from the rest of the world or making it not stand out to protect it.
So now we can clearly see in heaven and on earth which system is most often endorsed in the bible, and we can see that the bible clearly endorses all governoring bodies until they go against the will of God.
Because of all these, I cannot find a reason why logically a Christian should be an anarchist based on his Christianity.
>>68193939
To go further on the aristocracy, politically speaking what would you correspond the redeemed as?
God is clearly the monarch, the redeemed are the aristocrats.
("Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?" - 1 Corinthians 6:3 )
The Angels are the military, servants, serfs and what have you.
The Demons are powerful foreign enemies, finally the average unsaved man is effectively a foreigner who can apply for citizenship into the KINGdom of heaven if he so chooses.
>>68189288
I don't quite understand. Christianity assumes God is the authority, which is a theocracy. How can one be simultaneously anarchist and theocratic at the same time?
>>68195918
It's anarchism using Christianity as a fashion statement/identity politic.
>>68195918
>>68195918
Distinguishing from heavenly and earthly authority.
>>68196095
I don't comprehend. Does this mean God only has authority after death?
>>68189288
You watched to much GoT fag
>>68196250
Only if you're a heretic like a Christian Anarchist. God is sovereign over all.
>>68189288
Not just being a free market anarchist
>>68194677
>>68195380
>>68195804
Thank you for an actually well cited and thoughtful response. I concede that as Christians we are tasked and encouraged to be subjects to earthly law, that much is clear. But our own Lord defied and broke many laws when He walked, going unwashed into prayer, eating unclean things, attacking moneychangers etc. Was this a demonstration of his divine responsibility? Should we not defy laws that are ungodly?
I do agree that the structure of Heaven perfectly reflects a monarchy and that the rhetoric of Gods divine rule places Jesus on a literal throne as a literal king. But doesn't His lowly birth serve to break the hereditary structure of rule and deny aristocratic families their bloodright?
>>68195918
A theocracy is ruled by priests, not by God.
>>68196250
It's basically an anarchist system that relies on teaching (but not enforcing) Christian values. They wouldn't say their Christianity disagrees with their anarchism because of a distinction they make between earthly forces trying to rule over another and God who innately rules over all things.
They would, on the opposite end of that logic, deny that anarchism requires existentialism.
Also >>68196835
>>68196250
There's something too many Christians ignore, this single thing can solve so many problems against theology and the like.
This.
Isaiah 45:7
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things"
This alone solves so many problems and gives such a greater depth to the understanding of God and the bible, because it speaks of the fullness of God's supremacy.
People don't understand this supremacy, for instance they assume the book of job is about a gamble between God and the devil. However when in context its actually just showing what's satan's day to day job is, and how he reports to God and asks permission from God before doing anything.
>>68196760
Not that guy but Christ was born of the line of King David. He was of noble birth.
>>68196835
Ok, technically speaking according to what I'm reading, this is correct. But still, the idea is that God still is the ruler who enacts rules of living, yes? Anarchism is lack of authority in general. God is an authority, so you cannot logically be a God believer and an anarchist at the same time. It's contradictory unless you believe in a God with no authority.
>>68189288
I desperately wish it could work in the world..
Reading Tolstoy in my early twenties changed my life so much for the better.
>>68189288
Anarchism and Christianity are directly opposed to each other? No Gods, No Masters, right?
Am I falling for b8 here?
flaw: dead in a week.
>>68197016
This is true, but my argument is premised upon Joseph not having actually sired Jesus.
>>68197494
True enough. I forget the passage but Christ is to be of the line of David. Maybe it was through Mary. I'm gonna go look.
>>68196760
>But our own Lord defied and broke many laws when He walked, going unwashed into prayer, eating unclean things, attacking moneychangers etc. Was this a demonstration of his divine responsibility? Should we not defy laws that are ungodly?
Once again, God supersedes government, yet God establishes all government ultimately.
For example were it illegal to be Christian or it was law that you should sacrifice your first child to moloch clearly the Christian thing to do would be to not do these things and break earthly law in favor of heavenly law.
However here is the words of Christ.
Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marvelled at him.
Clearly then we can see, the government should not pervert or corrupt religion as was the case that caused Jesus to use violence.
>But doesn't His lowly birth serve to break the hereditary structure of rule and deny aristocratic families their bloodright?
Actually, the bloodline of Christ is directly royal.
You can check the genologies in both Matthew and Luke.
Further we can also clearly see that the actual father of Christ was the Father God.
(Note do not mistake the term prince of peace as meaning Christ is only a prince. The term prince more accurately meant/means one who controls/dominates something utterly. In this fashion Christ is the one who utterly dominates peace)
>>68197494
The common understanding is that Matthew is the royal legal lineage of Christ through Joseph while the royal lineage in Luke is that of Mary.
>>68197806
Then we should stop paying taxes to a government that funds abortions and wars, right? What about when I had to sign up for the draft? In some interpretations, following the laws of my land directly contradicts the laws of my God.
>Actually, the bloodline of Christ is directly royal.
>>68197494
To be honest, I'll completely concede the imagery of royalty and monarchic rule in this to you. You're completely right on this, but as the teachings go, Mary, the only human parent of Christ, was a peasant.
>>68198277
>>68198482
whoops looks like youre right and im a retard. disregard.
>>68197688
Both Joseph and Mary could trace back their lineage to David.
>>68198482
>peasant
The two main schools.of thought for Mary's lineage are priesty through Aaron or Royal through David. I prefer Aaron but only for aesthetics.
Her lineage is given in Luke 3 as I recall
>>68198613
I actually wonder whether red hair has a connection to this or if it's just a myth
Hmm. For this to work, you'd have to smash the Catholic Church and gas the Pope and most of the cardinalate (as well as the episcopate, just to be sure).
I like it.
>>68199015
1 Samuel 16:12
Keyword: ruddy
>>68198482
>Then we should stop paying taxes to a government that funds abortions and wars, right? What about when I had to sign up for the draft? In some interpretations, following the laws of my land directly contradicts the laws of my God.
I'd say that requires a good amount of prayer to decide.
Again God creates all good and evil, and it is no small statement that the actions of Rome were quite sinful and during the sinful nature of Rome Christ clearly say render unto Caesar what is caesar's.
This is directly talking about taxes in the context.
Personally I find that this is enough justification that Christians should pay taxes.
As extreme as this sounds, I believe there SHOULD be radical Christian groups that cause great change so as to remove the evilest aspects of government, in this fashion allowing our taxes to be right both by God and man.
But this is my own viewpoint.
In any case it seems to me it is right to pay taxes.
>Mary, the only human parent of Christ, was a peasant.
This is incorrect, the genealogy presented in Luke is usually considered by scholars to be the genealogy of Christ through Mary.
Through this genealogy it is clear and evident that Mary is of the royal davidic line.
It was common tradition legally to say the name of the father in law of a man in such circumstances at the time period instead of the mother when tracing a man's genealogy.
>>68198925
Isn't her connection to Aaron through Elisabeth, a relation of marriage? The nature of their relation is unclear -- some say cousin, kinswoman, etc
>>68198611
It's fine, better to ask the question and be corrected/have contrary evidence presented no?
In any case I really think you should consider the implications of Christ saying man should render unto Caesar which was literally a reference to paying taxes.
>>68189288
Romans 13
1 Peter 2
>>68189901
No, it's more like Christian collectivism. There is no state or church mega structure.
Somewhat similar to the amish really (though there is no relation)
>>68199412
Cousin to Elizabeth. Elizabeth was married to a priest implying Elizabeth was at least Levite. Which implies Mary also had at least some Levite ancestry.
>>68195380
this post is where you go wrong
Christianity is not nationalistic. Notice how the NT doesnt tell Christians how to govern, but how to be governed? It is not for this world. Christianity is supposed to be decentralized. It's a permeating grassroots movement.
>>68199612
>amish
you mean Shakers. Shakers should come back. I'd join a Christian anarchist commune any day
>>68199509
Its actually one of the passages that I've went back and forth on the most. There are so many ways of interpreting it. No doubt its extremely important considering the state of affairs many of us live in today. Definitely never imagined having such a fulfilling conversation here. Thank you.
>>68199770
I did not say that Christianity/the New Testament is nationalist, I said the Old Testament in a lot of parts is.
Well specifically ethnonationalism, sure this dissolves INSIDE of Christ.
But outside of Christ difference clearly exists, outside of Christ the Jews SHOULD be ethnonationalists.
This is clear with any real study of the Old Testament and why we Christians do not follow all of the restrictions.
In any case the point is, monarchism+aristocracy is clearly advocated by God, and outside of Christ ethnonationalism is advocated for the Jews.
>>68189288
The Jew stick in the top left
>Jacques Ellul recounts that at the end of the Book of Judges (Judges 21:25) there was no king in Israel and everyone did as they saw fit.[4][5][6] Later in the first Book of Samuel (1 Samuel 8) the people of Israel wanted a king to be like other nations.[5][7] God declared that the people had rejected him as their king. He warned that a human king would lead to militarism, conscription and taxation, and that their pleas for mercy from the king's demands would go unanswered. Samuel passed on God's warning to the Israelites but they disregarded him and chose Saul as their king.[5] Much of the subsequent Tanakh chronicles them trying to live with this decision.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_anarchism
Romans 3:20
>(20) Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 4:15
>(15) because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
Romans 9:19-24
>(19) You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" (20) But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" (21) Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? (22) What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, (23) and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, (24) even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
>>68200228
Definitely something to consider, my own method usually is to study the language of any particular subject I am studying and try to find the oldest theologians/philosophic thoughts on the matter.
Then compare it to the newer and contemplate and throw some prayer in there for good measure.
Maybe this will help yeah? Prayer and proper study is always key.
Oh and not a problem, I enjoy when /pol/ goes beyond the memes and actually involves serious discussion.
>>68194677
>>68195380
truth
>>68200239
>this dissolves INSIDE of Christ.
>
>But outside of Christ difference clearly exists
no, we are to inhabit the world the same way that Christ did. We are not supposed to be aristocratic. That's entirely an outside assertion you're making by stating that the methodology of Jewish tribalism carries over to Christianity. That's not true at all. In fact it's one of the major points of Christ; bring God to the Gentiles destroys the power of the Tribe. It no longer exists. Christians are forever to be meek and submissive on this earth. In this we die to ourselves and become more like Christ
>Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
>>68189288
>Christians start living anarchically
>A group of Muslims in this stateless world found their Caliphate
>With its superior organisation it quickly takes over all the Christians
>>68189288
Pacifism is bad. Self defense is legitimate
>>68201039
Good. We aren't meant to conquer this world, otherwise Jesus would have done it.
>>68200618
>no, we are to inhabit the world the same way that Christ did. We are not supposed to be aristocratic.
We are to be like Christ, but aristocratic in heaven. This is clear due to the way the redeemed humans are treated and the power they hold in heaven.
As to earthly governments, all forms are created/ordained by God. I am not saying that Christians should seek to be aristocrats on earth, simply that this is the role man has once in heaven. That this is clearly a reflection of the system we call aristocracy.
As to there being no tribe and Christians should make no destiction or judgement, this is a perverted doctrine.
2 Corinthians 6:14
"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"
What this ultimately means is this, those inside of Christ are of Christ and there is no division.
However when outside of Christ for example in the case of the Orthodox Jew viewing another, the most logical and best option which is promoted is clearly ethnonationalism.
You do know just how many of the Old Testament laws WERE to protect the Jewish identity right?
>>68201155
>aristocratic in heaven
yes, but not on earth
I guess I misunderstood you. Keep on being salt and light brother.
The most retarded thing I've ever seen. Great job /pol/, I'll have to get a check up for brain cancer because of you.
>>68201994
I mean it's a nice idea I guess, I personally don't find the appeal but I could see the appeal.
It's definitely not the worst thing I've ever seen on /pol/
>Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (1890 – 20 January 1988) (Pashto : خاں عبدالغفار خاں,) was a Pashtun political and spiritual leader known for his non-violent opposition to British Rule in India. A lifelong pacifist, a devout Muslim,[3] and a close friend of Mahatma Gandhi, he was also known as Badshah Khan (also Bacha Khan, Pashto: lit., "King Khan"), Fakhr-e-Afghan (pride of Afghans) and Sarhaddi Gandhi (Urdu, Hindi lit., "Frontier Gandhi").
>Ghaffar Khan's Muslim pacifism was based on the anarcho-pacifist ideas of Henry Thoreau and Leo Tolstoy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_Islam
>Along with the book mentioned above, in 1908 Leo Tolstoy wrote A Letter to a Hindu, which said that only by using love as a weapon through passive resistance could the Indian people overthrow colonial rule. In 1909, Gandhi wrote to Tolstoy seeking advice and permission to republish A Letter to a Hindu in Gujarati. Tolstoy responded and the two continued a correspondence until Tolstoy's death in 1910 (Tolstoy's last letter was to Gandhi).[167]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi#Tolstoy
>Gandhi was a self-described philosophical anarchist,[215] and his vision of India meant an India without an underlying government.[216] He once said that "the ideally nonviolent state would be an ordered anarchy."[217] While political systems are largely hierarchical, with each layer of authority from the individual to the central government have increasing levels of authority over the layer below, Gandhi believed that society should be the exact opposite, where nothing is done without the consent of anyone, down to the individual. His idea was that true self-rule in a country means that every person rules his or herself and that there is no state which enforces laws upon the people.[218]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi#Swaraj.2C_self-rule
>>68202738
As a Christian who has studied world religion and spirituality, especially the esoteric aspects I must say I have absolutely no respect for Gandhi.
If Gandhi's involved I want no part of it.
And honestly speaking, India would have probably been better off if it was still under British rule.
>It is my firm conviction that if the State suppressed capitalism by violence, it will be caught in the coils of violence itself, and fail to develop nonviolence at any time. The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence. Hence I prefer the doctrine of trusteeship.
>The fear is always there that the State may use too much violence against those who differ from it. I would be very happy, indeed, if the people concerned behaved as trustees; but if they fail, I believe we shall have to deprive them of their possessions through the State with the minimum exercise of violence.
>That is why I said at the Round Table Conference that every vested interest must be subjected to scrutiny, and confiscation ordered where necessary with or without compensation as the case demanded.
>What I would personally prefer would be not centralization of power in the hands of the State, but an extension of the sense of trusteeship, as, in my opinion, the violence of private ownership is less injurious than the violence of the State. However, if it is unavoidable, I would support a minimum of State-ownership.
>While admitting that man actually lives by habit, I hold that it is better for him to live by the exercise of will. I also believe that men are capable of developing their will to an extent that will reduce exploitation to a minimum.
>I look upon an increase in the power of the State with the greatest fear because, although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of the progress.
>We know of so many cases where men have adopted trusteeship, but non where the State has really lived for the poor. (MR, October, 1935, p412)
http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap26.htm
>>68189288
You can't ban abortion and your culture will be corrupted by the neighboring pagans. Trust me, I tried to reconcile my Catholic beliefs with anarchism for 9 years. I wish they could but the two can't mix.
>Day encountered anarchism while studying in university. She read The Bomb by Frank Harris, a fictionalized biography of one of the Haymarket anarchists.[97] She discussed anarchy and extreme poverty with Peter Kropotkin.[14] After moving to New York, Day studied the anarchism of Emma Goldman and attended the Anarchists Ball at Webster Hall.[98]
>Day was saddened by the executions of the anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti in 1927. She wrote that when they died, "All the nation mourned." As a Catholic, she felt a sense of solidarity with them, specifically "the very sense of solidarity which made me gradually understand the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ whereby we are all members of one another."[99]
>Discussing the term anarchism, she wrote: "We ourselves have never hesitated to use the word. Some prefer personalism. But Peter Maurin came to me with Kropotkin in one pocket and St. Francis in the other!"[100]
>Day explained that anarchists accepted her as someone who shared the values of their movement "[b]ecause I have been behind bars in police stations, houses of detention, jails and prison farms, ... eleven times, and have refused to pay Federal income taxes and have never voted", but were puzzled by what they saw as her "Faith in the monolithic, authoritarian Church". She reversed the viewpoint and ignored their professions of atheism. She wrote: "I in turn, can see Christ in them even though they deny Him, because they are giving themselves to working for a better social order for the wretched of the earth."[101]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Day#Sympathy_with_anarchists
mixing religion and politics is retarded.
we have seperation of church and state for a reason you are literally no better than fucking muslims
>To want to impose an imaginary state of government on others by violence is not only a vulgar superstition, but even a criminal work. Understand that this work, far from assuring the well-being of humanity is only a lie, a more or less unconscious hypocrisy, camouflaging the lowest passions we posses. ~ Leo Tolstoy
>>68203918
>anarchism
>talking about separation of church and state
>when there's no state
>>68189288
It's an oxymoron.
heretic
