Jesus an anarchist?

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:
The golden rule is not the ultimate law, it's not the highest law of God, it's not even that great a rule.

Interesting. What makes you think any of those things?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I wouldn't want someone to sentence me to go to prison, so if I followed that rule it would make me a very bad judge. I wouldn't want to be arrested, so if I followed that rule I'd be a lousy police officer. Etc, etc, etc. Also, just because I want to be treated a certain way, doesn't mean that everyone does. People have different needs and wants, especially when it comes to the way they are treated and/or paid attention to. To follow the golden rule is to assume that everyone has the same wants and needs that I do, which is not true. There are many times in life, probably on a daily basis, that I treat others differently than I would like to be treated, because they are not me and I've learned that they like to be treated differently. It's a very narcissistic way to look at the world to assume that everyone is just like you.



That's all I'm going to say about it, I already know that the ideology that I follow is VERY different from the one that you do and you will probably not agree with me. Still, I've gotten sick of seeing you cite the golden rule as the ultimate law when it is not.

Haha, okay schmoe.



So I take it you didn't read the article either?

taekwondave wrote:
OH! Hawks here. Time to wrap it up, everybody. ;)



By the way, has anybody actually read the article on Christ and anarchy yet or are we just going to continue to disagree with the title and premise without hearing the argument?

Because the premise is wrong. I don't need to hear someone argue an incorrect premise.



Let me expound, in relatively short manner. If someone wrote an article, essay, opinion piece answering the question, "Was Christ the Son of God?" it would not matter how convincingly they made the argument that he was not the Son of God, it wouldn't change the fact that he WAS the Son of God.



Christ was not an anarchist. So there is no point in debating the issue.

kitic77 wrote:

However, Jesus was put to death CONTRARY to the laws of his land. So by going along with the BREAKING of the laws of his land, what was he professing?

I believe the Romans were legally allowed to put the guilty to death. Christ was found guilty and the punishment affixed was death by crucifixion. Treason was punishable by death. The Jews accused him of inciting a revolution against Pilate. He was found guilty and killed. The law was followed, albeit speciously.

Interesting twist.

kitic77 wrote:

OH! Hawks here. Time to wrap it up, everybody. ;)



By the way, has anybody actually read the article on Christ and anarchy yet or are we just going to continue to disagree with the title and premise without hearing the argument?

Because the premise is wrong. I don't need to hear someone argue an incorrect premise.

Sounds like a concrete recipe for learning. Maybe I'll try it sometime. The next time I hear a premise that I'm already so sure couldn't be true, I'll shut it down right there and hear nothing of it. I know what I know after all. Thanks for the tip.

Come on guys! Stop arguing with me! If you want to read the thing, read it. Then tell me where you think he's wrong and we can discuss it. I didn't write the article I didn't even say I agreed with it. I just said it was interesting and that he had some good points. If you don't want to read it then why comment on the thread?

taekwondave wrote:

taekwondave wrote:
OH! Hawks here. Time to wrap it up, everybody. ;)



By the way, has anybody actually read the article on Christ and anarchy yet or are we just going to continue to disagree with the title and premise without hearing the argument?

Because the premise is wrong. I don't need to hear someone argue an incorrect premise.

Sounds like a concrete recipe for learning. Maybe I'll try it sometime. The next time I hear a premise that I'm already so sure couldn't be true, I'll shut it down right there and hear nothing of it. I know what I know after all. Thanks for the tip.

When it deals with the Savior and the revealed word of God through his authorized officials then, yes, by all means adopt it.



If it about other subjects, like physics, language, BYU football, then no, it's it probably not the best approach. But when the subject at question has revealed truth, then it is best to go those authorized to reveal truth. When wanting to learn about the Savior, go to the revealed word. Go to those who testify of His divinity and mission. Not to someone seeking to engage in philosophical discussion which do not.



Arguing if Christ was an anarchist does not bring people to Him, but might serve to lead people away from him.

taekwondave wrote:
Come on guys! Stop arguing with me! If you want to read the thing, read it. Then tell me where you think he's wrong and we can discuss it. I didn't write the article I didn't even say I agreed with it. I just said it was interesting and that he had some good points. If you don't want to read it then why comment on the thread?

I will read it and won't comment again until I have.

taekwondave wrote:

taekwondave wrote:

The golden rule is not the ultimate law, it's not the highest law of God, it's not even that great a rule.

Interesting. What makes you think any of those things?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I wouldn't want someone to sentence me to go to prison, so if I followed that rule it would make me a very bad judge. I wouldn't want to be arrested, so if I followed that rule I'd be a lousy police officer. Etc, etc, etc. Also, just because I want to be treated a certain way, doesn't mean that everyone does. People have different needs and wants, especially when it comes to the way they are treated and/or paid attention to. To follow the golden rule is to assume that everyone has the same wants and needs that I do, which is not true. There are many times in life, probably on a daily basis, that I treat others differently than I would like to be treated, because they are not me and I've learned that they like to be treated differently. It's a very narcissistic way to look at the world to assume that everyone is just like you.



That's all I'm going to say about it, I already know that the ideology that I follow is VERY different from the one that you do and you will probably not agree with me. Still, I've gotten sick of seeing you cite the golden rule as the ultimate law when it is not.

Haha, okay schmoe.



So I take it you didn't read the article either?

What I said had nothing to do with whether Christ was an anarchist or not. Not sure why you're asking me about the article.

kitic77 wrote:

Come on guys! Stop arguing with me! If you want to read the thing, read it. Then tell me where you think he's wrong and we can discuss it. I didn't write the article I didn't even say I agreed with it. I just said it was interesting and that he had some good points. If you don't want to read it then why comment on the thread?

I will read it and won't comment again until I have.

THANK GOODNESS!!!!

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:
The golden rule is not the ultimate law, it's not the highest law of God, it's not even that great a rule.

Interesting. What makes you think any of those things?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I wouldn't want someone to sentence me to go to prison, so if I followed that rule it would make me a very bad judge. I wouldn't want to be arrested, so if I followed that rule I'd be a lousy police officer. Etc, etc, etc. Also, just because I want to be treated a certain way, doesn't mean that everyone does. People have different needs and wants, especially when it comes to the way they are treated and/or paid attention to. To follow the golden rule is to assume that everyone has the same wants and needs that I do, which is not true. There are many times in life, probably on a daily basis, that I treat others differently than I would like to be treated, because they are not me and I've learned that they like to be treated differently. It's a very narcissistic way to look at the world to assume that everyone is just like you.



That's all I'm going to say about it, I already know that the ideology that I follow is VERY different from the one that you do and you will probably not agree with me. Still, I've gotten sick of seeing you cite the golden rule as the ultimate law when it is not.

Haha, okay schmoe.



So I take it you didn't read the article either?

What I said had nothing to do with whether Christ was an anarchist or not. Not sure why you're asking me about the article.

You're not sure? Because it was the PURPOSE of the thread. I read something that intrigued me. I wanted to know what you guys thought about it AFTER you'd read it. But you're drawing me out into other issues prematurely. The guy in this article, in my opinion, was off-base in a few things and he's a little rough around the edges, but he legitimately had some good points.



Now, the idea of anarchy is generally one that brings about a knee-jerk reaction, so NATURALLY I, TAEKWONDAVE, THE MOST UNLOVEABLE AND CONTROVERSIAL POSTER ON THIS BOARD....was drawn to it. But don't let the title steer you away so fast! It's a REALLY good writeup. Really. Made me look at anarchy a whole new way. It actually caused me to redefine it a little bit. So take a look if you wish. If not...then why comment on a thread intended to address it?

I'm "drawing you out to other issues" because it's something you say in almost every thread, it's wrong, and it annoys me. Get over yourself.

Schmoe wrote:
I'm "drawing you out to other issues" because it's something you say in almost every thread, it's wrong, and it annoys me. Get over yourself.

Oh gosh. Schmoe...it's...a....DISCUSSION FORUM. Don't try to get this thread shut off by getting personal again, please. If you don't want to discuss the topic of the thread you don't have to.

I got through the first few paragraphs and stopped. The article is indeed arguing that Christ is an anarchist, which He's not. The author also does not have access to enough information when formulating his argument. He is missing important and pertinent data when writing about the Savior, namely, the Book of Mormon and the revealed words of the latter-day prophets.



His reasoning further is flawed. Because this author does not know the Savior or have a true understanding of who He is, he cannot properly make his argument. Instead, he is both defining the argument and making the argument. The problem is that he is ignorant that the definitions of who Christ truly is, is not what he is defining Him to be.



Christ was not and is not an anarchist. He follows the law of the Father to the utmost.



For instance, in one part of his argument, the author states that "But in actual fact Paul never does tell us in above excerpt from Romans 13 to submit to government!--at least certainly not as they have existed on Earth and are operated by men." But the author does not know that a prophet of the Lord has indeed told us to be "subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."



The author lacks an understanding of modern revelation. His logic and arguments may be sound, but they are defeated by further revelation than he had/has access to. If he read the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price and then studied the words of the prophets - especially Joseph Smith - he would change his mind and come to the complete opposite conclusion than he does in this essay. He would have more information and more correct information than he currently has.

For those interested, here's a link to the article:

http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



TKD, can you verify that this is the article, so I know we read the same one.

taekwondave wrote:

I'm "drawing you out to other issues" because it's something you say in almost every thread, it's wrong, and it annoys me. Get over yourself.

Oh gosh. Schmoe...it's...a....DISCUSSION FORUM. Don't try to get this thread shut off by getting personal again, please. If you don't want to discuss the topic of the thread you don't have to.

"Hahahaha" and "oh gosh," any other condescending phrases you'd like to throw at me since you're SO much smarter and open-minded than me? I guess you don't want to discuss what I brought up? Why not?



Anyway, if you presented me with an article that said "Jesus was gay" I wouldn't read it, because I know it's not true, just like this one. I don't have to eat dog crap to know that it will taste bad.

kitic77 wrote:
For those interested, here's a link to the article:

http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



TKD, can you verify that this is the article, so I know we read the same one.

That is the correct article. Kitic, I guess I should thank you for trying.



I have access to all of that revelation you spoke of and yet I have come to different conclusions about it than you.



It does not seem to me to run contrary to the word of God in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law, if the law that the presidents, rulers, and magistrates adhere to is actually the law of God. You seem to think that regardless of the nature of a law of man that it is still God's law. I do not think that to be the case, but since I won't chant I know, I know, I know....I guess the spirit won't seep through the computer and convince you that I'm right like it did when you did so for me. ;)

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:
I'm "drawing you out to other issues" because it's something you say in almost every thread, it's wrong, and it annoys me. Get over yourself.

Oh gosh. Schmoe...it's...a....DISCUSSION FORUM. Don't try to get this thread shut off by getting personal again, please. If you don't want to discuss the topic of the thread you don't have to.

"Hahahaha" and "oh gosh," any other condescending phrases you'd like to throw at me since you're SO much smarter and open-minded than me? I guess you don't want to discuss what I brought up? Why not?



Anyway, if you presented me with an article that said "Jesus was gay" I wouldn't read it, because I know it's not true, just like this one. I don't have to eat dog crap to know that it will taste bad.

I say hahahahaha, because you are FUNNY. Like that bit about dog crap. Funny stuff. I would LOVE to discuss what you want to discuss. How about you start a thread about it?

I've tried to discuss something that you said here, and in other threads, but you've dismissed it and somehow found it laughable, so I'll leave it at that. I won't throw in my $0.02 about the anarchist thing, because I won't read the article, and you don't want to hear any POV from anyone who hasn't, that's fair enough.

Schmoe wrote:
I've tried to discuss something that you said here, and in other threads, but you've dismissed it and somehow found it laughable, so I'll leave it at that. I won't throw in my $0.02 about the anarchist thing, because I won't read the article, and you don't want to hear any POV from anyone who hasn't, that's fair enough.

Schmoe, the problem I generally experience with you is that you have good thoughts and ideas but you unintentionally disrespect those of others if they're different from yours. You've frequently called me names and thrown black helicopters at me as part of your arguments. I have little choice but to laugh at that as to do otherwise would probably lead me to personally insult you in return. You're better than that so I don't know why you keep doing it. I'm just fine with you disagreeing with me. I don't take it personally when you do. But you seem to when I do with you. Leave that part of it out and I'll be happy to talk to you about anything, anytime, anywhere, all day long. I'm not employed right now, so I have plenty of time :whistle:

I've never said anything about black helicopters about you or anyone else, ever.