Jesus an anarchist?

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.

Whether an individual decides he will be his own government or a group of people get together and elect one another to those positions it's the same the thing. In both cases they have decried the current governmental body. They have said, "You're not the boss of me anymore." All revolutionaries have a degree of anarchy in their hearts because they all start out by saying, "I'm not being treated fairly and I'm not going to take it anymore." Mince words if you want, but it appears to me that you still think of anarchy as a bunch of people running around in loin cloths killing each other. I don't anymore.

I grew up on punk rock, I spent time with people who claimed to be anarchists, I read anarchist philosophy and debated with these people. Your definition of anarchy is not in line with anyone I knew who followed anarchist ideology either casually or otherwise. Obviously I don't believe that anarchy is the strawman that you have implied, but it is rejection of ALL government, not just A government.

Schmoe wrote:
Anarchy is without leadership, without government, without order.

I would argue that it may have all of those things, but is without coercion. Leaders arise naturally. But in a voluntary society where all are equals, leaders are not bosses, but friends with good thoughts. In Anarchy, there would be a government. The golden rule is the governor. Where your concern comes in is how people will have justice levied upon them for their crimes. I understand that concern. I think the answer is obvious: They will pay the natural consequences for them. And if that includes someone taking revenge on them out of their ignorance then THAT person will ALSO pay the natura consequences for them. In anarchy, people would soon realize that nobody else is going to fight their battles for them, so they would take responsibility for themselves. In anarchy, each person would need to realize that in order to receive the treatment from others they desire, they most first dole out that treatment.



There's a valuable part of the golden rule that is left out of our current Bible (and since Joseph used our current Bible to translate Biblical portions of the Book of Mormon, it's missing from there as well). As it now reads in the New Testament, Jesus gives us the Golden Rule, but does not give us THE REASON FOR KEEPING IT. Finding it elsewhere gave me a new appreciation for it (as is evidenced by my many posts on it). The REASON that Jesus gives in these ancient versions for doing unto others as ye would have them do unto you is because AS YOU DO UNTO OTHERS SO SHALL IT BE DONE UNTO YOU.



THAT'S the secret to it. THAT'S why anarchy would work. But until mankind (or even our own church) understands that secret of the Golden Rule, they will live in fear and create governments out of that fear to instill a manufactured fear in others of doing them harm, and these governments that they create will always grow too large and overstep their bounds and trample on the very freedoms they were created to protect....out of fear. But when Christ (love, the golden rule) comes again, and our understanding of this gem of doctrine is enlarged, governments will melt away and the glorious United Order or...Anarchal Order...if you will....will be humanity's blessing to enjoy. There SHOULD be government, yes. But not government made by men out of fear of other men, but love itself should govern, and when it does, you will feel no need to have men in robes and wigs or men with badges and guns to protect you, but the love you hold in your own heart and the way you treat all around you will protect you far greater than men with badges and sirens ever could.



So here's to Anarchy. Here's to love which dispelleth all fear...and governments based on it.

Schmoe wrote:
I grew up on punk rock, I spent time with people who claimed to be anarchists, I read anarchist philosophy and debated with these people. Your definition of anarchy is not in line with anyone I knew who followed anarchist ideology either casually or otherwise. Obviously I don't believe that anarchy is the strawman that you have implied, but it is rejection of ALL government, not just A government.

Okay. Then what I have described may not be anarchy. You may be right. Because I DO believe in A government. But that government is not man-made. It is a government of the heart itself and is born there of understanding. That understanding is of the magic and power of the doctrine of the Sermon on the Mount. Were men to understand that and fill their hearts with love they would dispel all fear of other men and feel no need to create man-made governments to control them.

Schmoe wrote:
"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.

I am curious how many of those "etc's" you could come up with that were NOT government jobs. Your argument isn't very strong citing those two examples considering that I am arguing against man-made governments BECAUSE of those very examples. I just argued that man-made governments have judges and police officers which do violence to others and I don't think they should and then you basically agree with me by saying that those men don't follow the golden rule. I know. That's what I was saying.

Schmoe wrote:
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.

The golden rule doesn't mean that since you're a girl who likes ribbons, you go around giving people ribbons when you know they don't like them. You go around doing unto them what you think they would like; what you think would make them happy. That's all you want people to do to you so you do so to them. You've clearly misunderstood the principle if you stand by this statement.

Schmoe wrote:
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.

There you go! THAT'S the golden rule! That was the point I JUST made! You do unto others as you wish others would do unto you...and what is that? Well, whatever you think they want done to them! It's like this: You're a husband and you want your wife to cook dinner. You don't go cook her dinner because you want her to cook you dinner. You take her to a movie she wants to see and then maybe she'll cook you dinner! It's giving to others what they want and need and then being amazed as they give you what you want and need. THAT'S the golden rule. Geez. No wonder you can't stand it when I bring it up. If I thought that was what it meant I'd want to punch me too!

Dave's form of Anarchy:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434

ABYUFAN wrote:
Dave's form of Anarchy:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434

I am now a happier person. It's been too long since I've watched that.

In fact, Schmoe. I was thinking about this concept we're discussing about the golden rule. I can totally see where you would see a flaw in it.



I think you would agree that it might be better read thus: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...if you were them. Huh? I think that clears it up nicely.

Back to the original question of the thread, the article is flawed because he is changing the definition of anarchy to fit what he wants the Savior to be.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Definition of ANARCHY: 1a: absence of government; b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority; c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government; 2a: absence or denial of any authority or established order; b: absence of order : disorder

None of those definitions fit the Savior. He does not believe in an absence of government. He does not believe in a state of lawlessness or political disorder. He does not believe a Utopian society without government (back to the absolute monarch thing). He does not deny or want the absence of order. And he certainly does not want disorder.



The author's argument is flawed because he lacked critical research on the Savior. It is flawed because he does not properly understand what anarchy is. He choose a poor word for the concept he is trying to argue. I think we should let prophets and apostles tell us who the Savior is and leave idle speculation alone.

kitic77 wrote:
I think we should let prophets and apostles tell us who the Savior is and leave idle speculation alone.

Funny that you would begin that statement with "I think" at all :whistle:

kitic77 wrote:
He does not believe in an absence of government. He does not believe in a state of lawlessness or political disorder. He does not believe a Utopian society without government (back to the absolute monarch thing). He does not deny or want the absence of order. And he certainly does not want disorder.

Is there anything else you would like to definitively state that Jesus believes? I mean, he's not here right now so I figure you're the next best thing.

taekwondave wrote:

He does not believe in an absence of government. He does not believe in a state of lawlessness or political disorder. He does not believe a Utopian society without government (back to the absolute monarch thing). He does not deny or want the absence of order. And he certainly does not want disorder.

Is there anything else you would like to definitively state that Jesus believes? I mean, he's not here right now so I figure you're the next best thing.

Ya know Dave, you've kinda pulled this tone with Kitic a few times, and I'm proud of how well he's handeled it. If you disagee say so; don't be all snarky and not say whether you disagree or agree. What you are doing here is saying "you may or may not be right, but you shouldn't be so sure of yourself" to him.

"I am curious how many of those "etc's" you could come up with that were NOT government jobs."

I wouldn't want someone to report me breaking the law, so I'd be a bad neighbor. I wouldn't want someone to convict me so I wouldn't be a good juror. I WOULDN'T WANT ANYONE TO DENY ME ANYTHING I WANT, SO I'D BE THE ULTIMATE ENABLER. That basically sums it up.

Dave, I'm going to share something with you from the heart, and I hope you take it in the heart that I share it. After this post I will never again respond to one of your religious threads.



The Gospel is like a grand piano, with which you can play a beautiful symphony. However, if you become fixated on a single key you are no longer capable of playing the symphony, but instead create nothing but an annoying racket by endlessly pounding that key. You have become fixated on the Golden Rule. It is a key piece of the Gospel, but only a piece. God is not the Golden Rule, anarchy is not the golden rule, the government is not Satanic.



The ultimate key of the Gospel is the atonement of Jesus Christ, everything else in the Gospel is merely an appendage to that. Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, given the only power and authority to act in his name in his day. That authority has passed down from Prophet to Prophet to today where Thomas S. Monson now holds it, and he alone has the power and authority to receive revelation for the entire world.



I've said before that this is not a forum for proselytizing or developing religions. I feel like I've allowed your religious posts extreme amounts of leeway, but I never intended this site to harbor that kind of a religious discussion. I would hope that you'd be willing to respect that.



As I said, I will no longer be reading any of your religious posts and ask that you find another forum for them.

hawkwing wrote:
Dave, I'm going to share something with you from the heart, and I hope you take it in the heart that I share it. After this post I will never again respond to one of your religious threads.



The Gospel is like a grand piano, with which you can play a beautiful symphony. However, if you become fixated on a single key you are no longer capable of playing the symphony, but instead create nothing but an annoying racket by endlessly pounding that key. You have become fixated on the Golden Rule. It is a key piece of the Gospel, but only a piece. God is not the Golden Rule, anarchy is not the golden rule, the government is not Satanic.



The ultimate key of the Gospel is the atonement of Jesus Christ, everything else in the Gospel is merely an appendage to that. Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, given the only power and authority to act in his name in his day. That authority has passed down from Prophet to Prophet to today where Thomas S. Monson now holds it, and he alone has the power and authority to receive revelation for the entire world.



I've said before that this is not a forum for proselytizing or developing religions. I feel like I've allowed your religious posts extreme amounts of leeway, but I never intended this site to harbor that kind of a religious discussion. I would hope that you'd be willing to respect that.



As I said, I will no longer be reading any of your religious posts and ask that you find another forum for them.

Nice analogy. The gospel IS a grand piano. And the golden rule IS just one key. And yet, I have grown so tired of listening to people skip over it, ruining every song they play, I feel perfectly fine pounding away in the hopes it might be remembered.



You bang away at the "a GA said" drum, forgetting that THEIR words are ALSO interpreted differently by every soul whose ears they reach. I may not be a member of your church in your mind Hawk, but you're a member of mine. You pick and choose which prophets to believe just like everybody does. You screamed like a child who'd had his ball stolen when I quoted Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to make my points. I quote scripture, same as you. I quote latter-day prophets, same as you. But since their words have different meanings to me you can't tolerate it and make outrageous claims about "startin new religions".



I realize that you didn't intend for someone to come on this site whom you didn't agree with in such gigantic ways, but would you REALLY ask me to stop now that I'm here? Every person on this site may disagree with me but they POST. They READ and they POST. What does that tell you? No Hawk I DON'T respect your wishes on this. I WON'T stop posting what I feel are interesting and important (albeit religious) topics and asking people what they think and challenging them to think again. Not if you let me stay a member of this site I won't.



You'll just have to kick me off for not minding you, because I don't. I don't mind you one bit. You're just one more mind I can sharpen mine against and if I'm not going to post here anymore it's going to be because YOU pulled the trigger and kicked me out. I'll talk about Jesus and God and Joseph Smith and Thomas Monson and you and me and anything and everything that comes to my mind, cause it suits me. If you don't like it then kick me out but I won't stop talking just cause you said so. So go ahead and pull the trigger, Hawk cause I'm tired of you sqawkin cause you don't like my tune.

ABYUFAN wrote:

kitic77 wrote:
He does not believe in an absence of government. He does not believe in a state of lawlessness or political disorder. He does not believe a Utopian society without government (back to the absolute monarch thing). He does not deny or want the absence of order. And he certainly does not want disorder.

Is there anything else you would like to definitively state that Jesus believes? I mean, he's not here right now so I figure you're the next best thing.

Ya know Dave, you've kinda pulled this tone with Kitic a few times, and I'm proud of how well he's handeled it. If you disagee say so; don't be all snarky and not say whether you disagree or agree. What you are doing here is saying "you may or may not be right, but you shouldn't be so sure of yourself" to him.

Yeah, you see, usually it's not possible to DISCUSS anything with Kitic. Sorry you haven't noticed. On this particular thread he blew through the door with categorical statements that made it very clear he wasn't open to other possibilities. His mind was made up about what anarchy was and about what the savior was and before ever reading ANYTHING in the article or in they post he stated EXACTLY what he thought of what was going on here when he had nothing more to go off of than the title.



I was impressed that at the least he LOOKED UP the article which was the topic for this thread EVENTUALLY, but he IMMEDIATELY came away from the first two paragraphs of it claiming it was all wrong because it didn't agree with his interpretation of a scripture. It's very difficult to deal with someone who has already made it clear you're not entitled to a different opinion by the way he states things.



If he WANTED this to be a successful discussion and if he were OPEN to learning ANYTHING at all, (which I am. you guys teach me things all the time and at the very least, I learn things by trying to get you to understand ME) instead of assuming I'm here to pick a fight with him, the last posts he posted about the Savior would not have been so definitive. "The Savior believes this, the Savior doesn't believe that" but would AT THE VERY FREAKING LEAST been prefaced with, "It doesn't seem to me that the Savior believes this and here is a scripture that makes me think so. What do you think?" No. Not for Kitic. He's a TESTIFIER. I guess I'm just supposed to feel the Spirit seeping through my computer keys as he does so? Whatever, man.

Just to be clear dave. discussion isn't always about gaining knowledge. The article you gave us doesn't read like an article designed to share ideas for the sake of wisdom, it reads like it was written by someone with an agenda. That person massaged the facts to try to fit that agenda. Even you have to agree that the only way that you can claim Christ to be an anarchist is to use a definition of Anarchy that is not widely accepted, and mostly of yor own creation. Don't be disapointed that you'll not gain a ton of support in your ideas when you have to change the definitions of words to make your ideas even plausible.



In your response to me about kitic, it sounds like you've got a problem discussing things with someone who doesn't agree with you. Sorry but the alternative is discussing things with nobody at all - and that's the road down which you are headed...



Step back and reread your answer to hawkwing and then to me. In your reply to hawkwing you decry the fact that he's takign his position because he doesn't agree with you; and to me you say that you can be snarky to kitic because you don't agree with him. Don't you see the double standard?

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

taekwondave wrote:
Yeah, you see, usually it's not possible to DISCUSS anything with Kitic. Sorry you haven't noticed. On this particular thread he blew through the door with categorical statements that made it very clear he wasn't open to other possibilities. His mind was made up about what anarchy was and about what the savior was and before ever reading ANYTHING in the article or in they post he stated EXACTLY what he thought of what was going on here when he had nothing more to go off of than the title.

I can't help it if I'm right all the time! 8)

taekwondave wrote:
I was impressed that at the least he LOOKED UP the article which was the topic for this thread EVENTUALLY, but he IMMEDIATELY came away from the first two paragraphs of it claiming it was all wrong because it didn't agree with his interpretation of a scripture. It's very difficult to deal with someone who has already made it clear you're not entitled to a different opinion by the way he states things.

I did loook up and read the article and it was clear after two paragraphs that the article was going to reach the conclusion that Jesus was an anarchist. Which he simply is not. Now, if you want to change the definition of anarchy and then make it fit the Savior you can do it. You'll just be wrong. And I didn't state the author was wrong because he disagreed with me. I said he was wrong because he didn't have enough information. He used no modern revelation. He did not use the Book of Mormon. He did not use all the texts available to him. His research was poor and his premise flawed.

taekwondave wrote:
If he WANTED this to be a successful discussion and if he were OPEN to learning ANYTHING at all, (which I am. you guys teach me things all the time and at the very least, I learn things by trying to get you to understand ME) instead of assuming I'm here to pick a fight with him, the last posts he posted about the Savior would not have been so definitive. "The Savior believes this, the Savior doesn't believe that" but would AT THE VERY FREAKING LEAST been prefaced with, "It doesn't seem to me that the Savior believes this and here is a scripture that makes me think so. What do you think?" No. Not for Kitic. He's a TESTIFIER. I guess I'm just supposed to feel the Spirit seeping through my computer keys as he does so? Whatever, man.

There's not anything to learn from this article. Would you like me to provide scriptures backing up my opinion that the Savior believes in the rule in the law? Do we need to look further than the presentation of the plan of salvation. The Savior, before the world even was, defended the rule of law. Lucifer wanted to change the plan, the law, the way that would be put forth for us to return home. The Savior defended the original law/plan (wait did I just change the definiton of law/plan to fit my argument?)



In this discussion, I haven't thought you were picking a fight with me. My last post I shared what the definition of anarchy was. It was not the same definition the author was using. This author's article was the very defnition of mingling scriptures with the philosophies of men.



This author does not believe in the divinity of the Savior. He does not believe in the atonement. This author does not bring men to Christ.



I will not post in this thread again.

taekwondave 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.

A question. Who is he anarching against?!!! He is the Creator and Redeemer of the world and its rightful Master as the King of Kings. He has decreed that men should rule themselves in his absence. Importantly, his mortal mission was not to rule, but to redeem. The Jews were expecting a political Messiah, not a Spiritual Messiah. Therefore, it's understandable how some might want to construe selected events in the Savior's life as being political in nature. They were anything but.



He always showed deference to the government and never suggested that there be any overthrow of the OverLords. He has his harshest condemnation for the Pharisees and Sadduccees, who were the relgious and political House of Israel bodies that were misleading his Chosen people. Yet, his condemnation against them was because of their perverting the Gospel such that it blinded the people to his true ministry.



Any intellectual excercise that he was or could have been an anarchist is stillborn given his Celestial role and earthly mission.

taekwondave wrote:

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.

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?

You don't want to discuss anything. You want to shut down anyone that disagrees with you.