CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Jesus an anarchist?

by taekwondave · 11/23/2010

Sponsored Advertisementad content
T
taekwondave
Schmoe wrote:
I've never said anything about black helicopters about you or anyone else, ever.


Really? You're probably right. It was probably Mars :lol: Sorry.



But really. This thread is about this article. If you don't want to read it you don't have anything to say. It's like if I said, "I read this particular portion of the Koran. Obviously I'm Mormon and I prefer the Standard Works, but I think it made an interesting point. What do you think?" And then you come on here and rant about Mohammad and terrorists or something. You truly can't judge a book by its cover, you know that. So why judge a thread by its title? It's usually just a ploy to pique your attention anyway.
G
Guest
I have found a couple of problems with the article which makes the entire argument null and void.






the article wrote:
Earthly, mortal governments are firmly under the control of Satan




The Prophet of God:

1. WE believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society...

7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all acitizens in the free exercise of their religious bbelief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

8 We believe that the commission of crime should be apunished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public bpeace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing coffenders against good laws to punishment

(D&C 134:1,7-8)


the article wrote:

it is impossible for any actual government to actually abide by the Golden Rule even in theory, let alone in practice. All governments must of necessity violate the Golden Rule, otherwise they would not be governments but would be something else instead.






Russel M. Nelson, Apostle of Jesus Christ:

The commandments to love God and neighbor are interrelated. We cannot fully love God without loving our neighbor. We cannot fully love our neighbor without loving God. Men really are brothers because God really is our Father. Nevertheless, scriptures are studded with stories of contention and combat. They strongly condemn wars of aggression but sustain obligations of citizens to defend their families and their freedoms. 24 Because “we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law,” 25 members of this Church will be called into military service of many nations. “We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.” 26



During the Second World War, when members of the Church were forced to fight on opposing sides, the First Presidency affirmed that “the state is responsible for the civil control of its citizens or subjects, for their political welfare, and for the carrying forward of political policies, domestic and foreign. … But the Church itself, as such, has no responsibility for these policies, [other] than urging its members fully to render … loyalty to their country.”



--



As Kitic said, it is almost understandable that someone who is relying on the crutch of human understanding would miss the mark so fully, but we have the added insight of a more perfect record of Christ's people as well as modern revelation with a Prophet and Apostles on the earth today who can speak to these issues.
M
Mars


New board rule:

Automatically lock all threads started by tkdave.
A
ABYUFAN
I read the article and was not impressed. His reasoning on the render to ceaser that which is ceaser's is wrong. He claims that the Savior..whom we know to be perfect was using a subterfuge to stay alive longer. Sorry, that's not how one obtains perfection - by tricking people.



And his dismissal of the significance of the Savior's miraculous payment of tax is laughable. Basically he concluded that because the Saviour used "supernatural powers" to pay his taxes - he was furthering his ruse.



The guy is plainly wrong.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
A
ABYUFAN
Oh... and he couldn't have been more wrong with his premise that Jesus' life "started in an act of defiance" to the government. It actually started in an act of deference to the Government. His parents paying their taxes. The defiance occoured about 2 years after his life started so we know this guy is playing fast and loose with his facts.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
Sponsored Advertisementad content
T
taekwondave
Here's my take on his write-up.



Assertion #1 - Jesus life began in an act of Defiance to Government.



Yeah, not quite. I know of two examples of his PARENTS' attitudes towards laws and governments, but not his. The first was Mary and Joseph taking him to the temple in adherence to Jewish law. The second was them taking him out of Bethlehem and into Egypt in an act of blatant disobedience to Roman law (Herod's word was law). One COULD argue that Jesus' PARENTS were partial to laws of God and that THEY didn't see the laws of God and the laws of men as totally congruent...but that argument can hardly be made of Jesus himself, as he was just a baby at the time. (It may be noted, however, that Joseph claims that an angel told him to disobey the Roman edict. That seems to indicate the possibility of God not being in favor of all of men's laws or obedience to them...The wise men ALSO obeyed an angel of God rather than Herod in not returning to see him, but going back to their country by another way. Again we see an angel sent from God that tells them to disobey the ruling powers of the region and the day.)



Assertion #2 - His life ended in defiance of government



I could see this argued both ways. In one sense he appears to submit entirely to the wills of the governing body, even allowing them to take his life. One might argue that he was supporting earthly governments in doing so. I could see that argument.



However, Gandhi ALSO submitted himself to the punishments of earthly governments, citing Jesus as his example, in an effort to fight what he deemed to be unjust laws of his day. He publicly disobeyed laws he believed did him and his countrymen violence and peacefully submitted himself to the authorities for arrest, prosecution and imprisonment, not to demonstrate that governments had power over him -- but that they didn't. He believed this non-violent RESISTANCE (not acceptance) of any government or law it created that does not truly protect people equally, was NOT inspired of God and should be exposed for what it was.



Martin Luther King, Jr., the Christian preacher, cited....Gandhi as HIS example, believing that this non-violent method, first demonstrated by Jesus, was the power God gave them to free themselves from violence and oppression brought about by unjust governments and laws as well.



I would argue that Jesus, Gandhi, and MLK, as well as Joseph Smith, believe that governments are TOLERABLE and MAY INDEED BE INSPIRED, so long as they obey certain principles. Like the section from D&C that has been cited many times today says, "We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do NOT believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy."



So what is to be done if a government DOES trespass that line? I think Jesus, Gandhi and MLK taught us what was to be done. Openly and willfully disobey the unjust law or disobey the unjust system, and if they choose to use physical violence to force you to obey do not resist them. By not resisting them you gain power over them and you sway public opinion in your favor. Like the words of Christ read, "And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross...And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me..." (3 Ne. 27:14-15)



I don't think Jesus said nothing in his own defense to Pilate and to Herod because he RESPECTED them as having governing power over him. When he DID speak he asserted that was NOT the case..."My kingdom is not of this world." No, I think Jesus submitted himself to their VIOLENCE and refused to do them violence in return because he knew that doing so would draw all men unto him. Doing so would be a supreme act of love which alone had the power to pierce men's hearts.



It was reported by many ancient records that Pilate himself converted shortly thereafter and that even Herod came to profess that he must have been a God to have done what he did. Jesus was actually fighting AGAINST earthly governments in his act of submission to them is what I would argue. Governments FORCE you to obey by threat of violence (arrest, imprisonment, fines, etc) and Jesus taught to do unto others NOT as they do unto you, but as you would have them do unto you. So Jesus did no violence to the governing authorities...and the Jews rejected him for it, thinking he was supposed to be a great military leader and work miracles to free them from slavery like Moses had. Oops. A greater than Moses had arrived.



Assertion #3 - All governments must of necessity violate the Golden Rule, otherwise they would not be governments but would be something else instead.



I think it's hard to argue with that point. Here's how he backs it up: "Government (i.e., a State) is that organization in society which attempts to maintain, and is generally successful at maintaining, a coercive regional monopoly over ultimate control of the law (i.e., on the courts and police, etc.)--this is a feature of all Governments; as well, historically speaking it has always been the case that it is the only organization in society that legally obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion."



He continues, "It is here where we find why it is quite impossible for any government to actually abide by Jesus's ultimate commandment. The reason quite simply is because all governments do to their subjects what they outlaw their subjects to do to them (or each other)."



I agree with that statement. Here's a phony conversation that shows why:



Can you collect taxes from your government?



No. They collect taxes from you.



Can you refuse to if you choose?



Sure. But you'll have to go to jail.



So I have no choice but to pay taxes?



Sure you do. You just go to jail if you don't.



What if I refuse to let them take me to jail?



They'll probably wrestle you to the ground and hand-cuff you. If you're TOO much of a problem...they'll probably shoot you on the spot.



Hm. Well...what if I don't want to buy a service from you? Will I go to jail then?



I sure wish such was the case. Then my success will be guaranteed.



But what if you FORCE me to buy a service from you at the threat of physical violence, like the government does? What is that called?



Um....Aggravated robbery and assault.



But our government can do it?



Of course.



Gotcha.



Anyway. Like I said, his write-up is VERY long. I won't cover every point but those first few intrigued me and I have to say I mostly agree with them. Continue your opinions. They've been really good so far.
T
taekwondave
ABYUFAN wrote:
Oh... and he couldn't have been more wrong with his premise that Jesus' life "started in an act of defiance" to the government. It actually started in an act of deference to the Government. His parents paying their taxes. The defiance occoured about 2 years after his life started so we know this guy is playing fast and loose with his facts.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">


That's a good point. I hadn't remembered that. They did go to Bethlehem to be counted and taxed. That could be argued they showed a deference to human governments and laws. But then they turn right back around and disobey them when an angel told them to. Perhaps then we could argue that its only okay to disobey men's laws if an angel appears to you and tells you to? I could see that argument.
T
taekwondave
Mars wrote:


New board rule:

Automatically lock all threads started by tkdave.


:roll: Nobody is forcing you to read them, Mars.
S
SpiffCoug
taekwondave wrote:
Oh... and he couldn't have been more wrong with his premise that Jesus' life "started in an act of defiance" to the government. It actually started in an act of deference to the Government. His parents paying their taxes. The defiance occoured about 2 years after his life started so we know this guy is playing fast and loose with his facts.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">


That's a good point. I hadn't remembered that. They did go to Bethlehem to be counted and taxed. That could be argued they showed a deference to human governments and laws. But then they turn right back around and disobey them when an angel told them to. Perhaps then we could argue that its only okay to disobey men's laws if an angel appears to you and tells you to? I could see that argument.

I fail to see how moving is an act of anarchy or avoiding the law. Mary and Joseph moved. They didn't disobey the law. Parents were not to execute their children. What law did they break? But, yes, I would support the notion that if an angel tells you to disobey a law of the law and you know it is a true messenger, then you're probably okay.
T
taekwondave
kitic77 wrote:
ABYUFAN wrote:
Oh... and he couldn't have been more wrong with his premise that Jesus' life "started in an act of defiance" to the government. It actually started in an act of deference to the Government. His parents paying their taxes. The defiance occoured about 2 years after his life started so we know this guy is playing fast and loose with his facts.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">


That's a good point. I hadn't remembered that. They did go to Bethlehem to be counted and taxed. That could be argued they showed a deference to human governments and laws. But then they turn right back around and disobey them when an angel told them to. Perhaps then we could argue that its only okay to disobey men's laws if an angel appears to you and tells you to? I could see that argument.

I fail to see how moving is an act of anarchy or avoiding the law. Mary and Joseph moved. They didn't disobey the law. Parents were not to execute their children. What law did they break? But, yes, I would support the notion that if an angel tells you to disobey a law of the law and you know it is a true messenger, then you're probably okay.


That's another good point. I'll read it again and see what I think. But even if so, like I stated in my argument above, it wouldn't matter even if THEY did. You can't lay that to Jesus' charge. He was just a baby at the time. He wasn't ordering his parents around. So whether THEY broke the law or not is still irrelevant. The argument that this guy made on this point was weak. His life, whether or not his parents were defying government right at his birth or not (they appear to have not been) wouldn't count for or against Jesus on this point either way. "...for our own sins and not for Adam's...."
Sponsored Advertisementad content
B
BroncoBot
kitic77 wrote:
kitic77 wrote:
No, Christ is not an anarchist. He believes in an absolute monarchy where you either follow the King or are banished from the Kingdom.

Thanks jerk. There goes that discussion. ;)

Sorry, But the Savior clearly believes in the rule of law and of following the law. He believes in the rule of law so much that he gave his life willingly satisfy the demands of justice. He believes so completely that there must be punishment for those who break the law that he volunteered to be punished for everyone who would accept him being punished for them.



Now, he does set conditions for that acceptance, but the price must be paid. He has basically said, you can have me pay the price or you can pay it yourself.



But he is not an anarchist. He may believe in a higher law which some interpret as him not believing in the rule of law, but this is simply a misinterpretation.

HA HA, I was basically saying you were exactly right. I understood completely where you were coming from. I just thought I would be funny, call you a name, and state that your post should have ended the discussion. Nothing else needs to be said about it. kitic wins. I haven't read the rest of the thread, buy you were exactly right.
B
BroncoBot
Ok, I just got done reading the rest of the thread. I understand where TKD is coming from and I agree that not all laws are good laws. Some laws and governments are much closer to the plan of satan (soviet union, North Korea, Iran etc) than the plan presented by Christ himself, and in those cases I believe that anarchy may be appropriate and necessary in order to overturn tyranny. If that was not true, why do we consider the founders of the USA to be inspired leaders.



But Christ certainly believes in order and obeying laws. Ultimately, THOSE laws and THAT government are all that matters. The closer we come to making our man made laws mirror those laws that govern the kingdom of God, the better off we'll be.



I also believe that while anarchy may be at times necessary, it should be a temporary necessity. Establishing laws that the majority of people agree with is beneficial to everyone.
S
Schmoe
But The Founding Fathers were acting with the rest of the future United States as one cohesive unit to break away from England, not as anarchists. A rebellion and anarchy are two very different things. While anarchy can be a form of rebellion and can overthrow a government, most rebellions are not anarchy.
S
SpiffCoug
declocoug wrote:
declocoug wrote:
No, Christ is not an anarchist. He believes in an absolute monarchy where you either follow the King or are banished from the Kingdom.

Thanks jerk. There goes that discussion. ;)

Sorry, But the Savior clearly believes in the rule of law and of following the law. He believes in the rule of law so much that he gave his life willingly satisfy the demands of justice. He believes so completely that there must be punishment for those who break the law that he volunteered to be punished for everyone who would accept him being punished for them.



Now, he does set conditions for that acceptance, but the price must be paid. He has basically said, you can have me pay the price or you can pay it yourself.



But he is not an anarchist. He may believe in a higher law which some interpret as him not believing in the rule of law, but this is simply a misinterpretation.

HA HA, I was basically saying you were exactly right. I understood completely where you were coming from. I just thought I would be funny, call you a name, and state that your post should have ended the discussion. Nothing else needs to be said about it. kitic wins. I haven't read the rest of the thread, buy you were exactly right.

My response wasn't really to you. I didn't take any offense to "jerk" and was just further explaining what I initially said in two sentences. Given the discussion we wound up having, I probably should have just left it at those two sentences.
C
CougarPeasant
How could anyone for a minute accuse the Savior of being the AntiChrist, what a preposterous and outrageous claim.



Oh, uhh, he's an anarchist? Oops, I read the title wrong, but still the idea is just as silly.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
T
taekwondave
CougarPeasant wrote:
How could anyone for a minute accuse the Savior of being the AntiChrist, what a preposterous and outrageous claim.



Oh, uhh, he's an anarchist? Oops, I read the title wrong, but still the idea is just as silly.


I really can't blame you. But it's not an accusation. It's a question. Anarchy carries with it SUCH a negative connotation. I always imagine blood in the streets when I hear it. But this guy is arguing that a more correct definition of anarchy would be "a voluntary society"; a society where people deal with each other on a completely voluntary basis. If you ask me, this Anarchy of which he speaks sounds an awful lot like the United Order of which we speak so often.



When asked about the core difference between the United Order and Communism what do you answer? Coercion/force vs. willing/voluntary participation, right? Well, he's arguing that ALL governments exercise SOME degree of coercion/force, and isn't he right? He is advocating a voluntary society, but since he calls it anarchy....we all think of blood in the streets. Well then, let's hope the United Order never shows its ugly head.
T
taekwondave
Schmoe wrote:
But The Founding Fathers were acting with the rest of the future United States as one cohesive unit to break away from England, not as anarchists. A rebellion and anarchy are two very different things. While anarchy can be a form of rebellion and can overthrow a government, most rebellions are not anarchy.


I would argue that rebellion is a form of anarchy, not the other way around. It's the resistance to being controlled by another. That's the basis of anarchy: the belief that you are free and that no other man has authority to force you to do what you know is bad for you or harmful to another. Anarchists say: I will work with you if you give me a good reason to. If I want to. Not because you threaten me.



The ultimate anarchist says, "Not only will I not do what you say if I don't want to, but if you physically threaten me I won't even fight back. I will let you push me. I will let you imprison me. All that will do is attract support to the cause of freedom which you threaten. All that will do is let you know you truly have no power over me; that I am free forever. I will not back down. I will let you kill me and will still not back down. But I will never harm a hair on your head. Doing this will win your heart and your mind. Doing this will save us both."



It could be argued that Jesus, Gandhi and obviously Martin Luther King, Jr were anarchists when given that light on things. Most certainly.
S
Schmoe
An organized rebellion by people who have chosen to follow someone else is not anarchy. The people still have a governing person/body/entity, police force, judges, etc. That is not anarchy, it is simply choosing a different government. Anarchy is without leadership, without government, without order. This does not describe the American Revolution (or any other revolution I can think of), Gandhi, Christ, Marting Luther King Jr., etc. What you described is not an anarchist, I don't know how you came up with that definition of anarchy, but it is incorrect.
A
ABYUFAN
Schmoe wrote:
An organized rebellion by people who have chosen to follow someone else is not anarchy. The people still have a governing person/body/entity, police force, judges, etc. That is not anarchy, it is simply choosing a different government. Anarchy is without leadership, without government, without order. This does not describe the American Revolution (or any other revolution I can think of), Gandhi, Christ, Marting Luther King Jr., etc. What you described is not an anarchist, I don't know how you came up with that definition of anarchy, but it is incorrect.




Funny, I always thought that it meant the rule of some lady named "Ann." At least that's what my mom always said...hey... her name is Ann.....
M
Mars
Schmoe wrote:
An organized rebellion by people who have chosen to follow someone else is not anarchy. The people still have a governing person/body/entity, police force, judges, etc. That is not anarchy, it is simply choosing a different government. Anarchy is without leadership, without government, without order. This does not describe the American Revolution (or any other revolution I can think of), Gandhi, Christ, Marting Luther King Jr., etc. What you described is not an anarchist, I don't know how you came up with that definition of anarchy, but it is incorrect.

What, you mean George Washington wasn't an anarchist? ;)



+1
Page 3 of 5
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.