jesus is an anarchist

Quote from Cutten:



"Anarchism
n.

1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished

Jesus did not support abolishment of all forms of government.

2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.

Jesus was not actively resistant nor a terrorist.

3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority

Jesus did not reject all forms of coercive control and authority. He recommended rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar's. This is not the doctrine of someone who stands in opposition to "coercive control", i.e. taxation, nor the authority to levy and collect taxes.

You state: So basically you have correctly defined anarchy, but unfortunately no one was talking about it - they were talking about someone being an anarchist, i.e. a believer in anarchISM.

Neither in deed or word did Jesus say:

1. That all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished, nor did he say he supported those who did think that way.
2. That he supported active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists, nor did he say that he supported those who did think that way.
3. That people should practice rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority, nor did he say that he supported those who did think that way.

The author is an avowed anarchist (http://www.anti-state.com/) and twists the words of the New Testament to fit his perspective.

Common practice for people to use selected scripture and avoid other scriptures that counter their message.

It is also very common for people to take something Jesus said which was likely a spiritual message, and twist it to fit their material agendas.

It may be his opinion that Jesus supported anarchism, but his opinion is not supported on a factual historical basis, the author is demostrating speculation and bias.

No Biblical scholars that I am aware of would take his point of view.

This author, James Redmond is a not a balanced person in my opinion. All you have to do is read his other ideas, and you can see that he is not rowing with two oars.

But, you can decide for yourself. Read his stuff here:

http://anti-state.com/user.php?user_id=47

Here is but a brief excerpt of "his logic."

First of all, the police do not exist to protect you: the police exist to protect the Government from you. The police don't actually directly protect anybody except politicians and maybe movie stars, as well as themselves. For the rest of us they're just highly paid garbage collectors who show up after the damage is already done to collect evidence. In fact it is simply physically impossible for police to personally protect anyone unless they are there with them. Unless you have a police officer or bodyguard at your side, then only You can protect You. Indeed, the police aren't even legally required to lift a finger to help you if you are being raped to death on the side of a street--even if they are at your side (see Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A. 2d 1 [1981]).


He is not sound in his thinking, my opinion.
More...
 
Another passage: Paul asks for believer to "pray" for the king so that they can "live a quiet life" and "work with their hands". Again, if Paul was so interested in anarchy, why wasn't he arming all his disciples?

As a historical sidenote, if Paul had armed his disciples and fought the state, Christianity might have been crushed (or close to it) in its early stages. However, as I'm sure you're aware, all the apostles including himself were martyred. Far from dying with a sword in their hands, they allowed themselves to be killed by the state.

Here's what I'm getting at: by the third century A.D. secular scholars have noted that between a tenth and a third of the Roman Empire was Christian! Of course imo Jesus knew exactly what he was doing: neither politics nor violence was the answer. And Christianity has always grown faster through non-violence.

The time that the Church was violent - the Crusades - a stumbling block was created that lasted for centuries...
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:
Neither in deed or word did Jesus say:

1. That all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished, nor did he say he supported those who did think that way.
More...

Here's another reason I can't agree with the anarchy idea:

From what I have read, the political thinking of men such as our founding fathers was based on ideas such as:

1. The Old Testament passages where God tried to talk Israel out of the idea of wanting a king. All the neighboring nations had a king and God warned them against it. They had a disastrous situation with Saul in this regard. Anyway, from this they concluded that God is extremely wary of authoritarion forms of govt.
2. What did God want for Israel in place of a king? They assumed He wanted a leadership system based on what Moses did with the groups of 50's, 100's, etc. The Founding Fathers took this as splitting up govt as much as possible to limit its power. And that's why the original emphasis was on the state's power, i.e. get the federal govt out of the state's business. Of course, this philosophy is the opposite of what American stands for today imo.

But, again, notice that God did allow them to have a king in spite of the fact they were not listening to Him...
 
In is incontrovertible that Jesus preached following God's law and order, therefore he was not an anarchist. Anarchists believe in no law and order. So Jesus was not an anarchist.

1. Anarchists preach non law and non order.
2. Jesus preached following and abiding by God's law and order.
3. Jesus was not an anarchist.
More...

That's not the strongest argument because it relies on the fact that anarchy applies both to man's government as well as god's government, which I don't believe the word "anarchy" was intended to cover. At any rate you end up arguing semantics. But why argue semantics when the weight of evidence is clearly on your side?

And marketsurfer does have a legitimate point about the ad hominem attacks since you started with them, while attempting to accuse him of doing the same after your first volley. I see this as a recurring debate tactic.

There are plenty of examples where Jesus had a chance to disobey the law of the land, yet he submitted to it or he counseled others to do the same.

A great example was when Jesus had just exited the garden of Gethsemane and Judas came to betray Jesus with a group of Roman centurions. Peter draws his sword and cuts off the ear of one of the Romans. Jesus then heals the ear and tells Peter to put up his sword. He then voluntarily gives himself up to the authorities and submits to the law without offering any defense.

Such is hardly the activity of one who seeks to oppose or destroy the government. If anything, they are actions of someone whose actions show that following the law was important, even when doing so was not convenient.
 
thanks for the cogent responses. just trying to open up debate and show their may be other ways to look at the same thing.

happy new year !

surfer:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top