CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Jesus an anarchist?

by taekwondave · 11/23/2010

Sponsored Advertisementad content
U
UVACoug
taekwondave 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.


Where are you getting your definition of anarchy? I don't think that is the way most people understand that concept.
T
taekwondave
Since Hawk has apparently not read my post yet and banned me, I will address your questions, as I have always done. I'll get right to it.
T
taekwondave
ABYUFAN wrote:
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.


I think everybody has "and agenda" when they open their mouth to speak or put their pen to some paper or fingers to a keyboard. The question is whether that agenda is appropriate or not. I like to look at what their possible motivations are. It would appear to me that this guy's agenda is to show evidence that less government = more freedom. Thus he carries it even further saying that no government = complete freedom. I didn't see anywhere on his site to buy his book or anything. I don't know what kind of BAD agenda he could have had, other than to make a case for no man-made government (which typically tends to have a bad agenda, in case you didn't notice). I see nothing wrong with that. Was his logic flawed? Certainly. I think he could have made a much better case had he attempted to be more honest, but I think his belief is sound; that less man-made government = more freedom, so I understand his line of thinking for anarchy. Now, I understand that you all think of anarchy as NO government, but I think it's more appropriate to say no MAN-MADE government. Am I changing the definition? I don't think so. I think that is really what is meant when the dictionary states "government". If you looked up the word I don't think it would include "heavenly government", so to distinguish between the two I think saying MAN-MADE before it is appropriate.


ABYUFAN wrote:
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.


Again, I don't think I changed the definition by clarifying it any more than Nephi changed the definition of "river" by calling it "a river of water". God forbid someone assume he meant a river of urine or a river of blood.


ABYUFAN wrote:
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...


Then you didn't read what I said. I made it very clear that a person is entitled to an opinion. But Kitic does not apparently understand how to phrase something as an opinion. He states things as indisputable facts. You know the difference. It's small, but significant, and anyone interested in making use of conversation would be foolish to forget it. Stating that Jesus "believes this and doesn't believe that" is not stated as an opinion. To disagree would immediately sound like I was arguing. That's not what I'm after. Had he changed the structure AT ALL to indicate that was his perspective and maybe cited a scripture or reason for thinking that way, then he not only would not have gotten a non-response from me, but he might have convinced me! Go through my posts and my responses and tell me I never admit I hadn't considered something or that I was wrong. I do it. Not often, but I do it.


ABYUFAN wrote:
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


False. I decry his position because he has threatened to silence me. He is asking me to STOP talking because he disagrees with me. THAT is not a position. THAT is a threat. I have NO problem with Hawk disagreeing with me and then sticking around to hear my response to him and then responding to me again. But Hawk didn't do that. He said this would be the last time he posts and the last time he reads and then told me not to bring any of this up again. But he couldn't help adding his two cents about the discussion first. That was what most people would call a cheap shot.




ABYUFAN wrote:
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%">


I do not see a double standard. I am snarky with Kitic because, like I explained earlier, Kitic is not interested in discussion. He is interested in belittling the whole argument by stating his opinions as facts. There is a difference. I love Kitic's thoughts. But when he feels like he's in over his head, he resorts to quoting an authority and pretending that should end the discussion, when all it does is really add fuel to the fire. Kitic is VERY smart. He thinks of things I NEVER do. But he phrases his statements in an unanswerable manner. He should know better.
T
taekwondave
kitic77 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.


That is unfortunate that you are pulling the same cheap shot that Hawk just pulled. I understand that you don't want to continue this further, but it would have been more appropriate to say so BEFORE throwing in your last two cents. But do as you will. I can't force you to post. Never did in the first place.
T
taekwondave
CougarPeasant wrote:
A question. Who is he anarching against?!!!


:) I don't know. That's really the first time I've heard that used as a verb.




CougarPeasant wrote:
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.


That's an interesting statement. I am curious where you got that. And would "ruling themselves" automatically include "ruling others by force"?


CougarPeasant wrote:
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.


I agree.


CougarPeasant wrote:
He always showed deference to the government and never suggested that there be any overthrow of the OverLords.


Agreed.


CougarPeasant wrote:
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.


Agreed.


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


I think I like that statement but you'll have to forgive me. I'm not sure I understand it. Could you rephrase?
Sponsored Advertisementad content
T
taekwondave
UVACoug wrote:
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.


Where are you getting your definition of anarchy? I don't think that is the way most people understand that concept.


I think anarchy can easily be defined as a rejection of man-made authority and man-made governments. However, I think an anarchist is still very much an anarchist by believing in the authority of personal conscience (the spirit?) and the personal responsibility of governing of one's own soul. Some are arguing that an anarchist doesn't believe in authority or government PERIOD, but I don't think an anarchist would say that. They simply believe that no man should rule over another in any manner.
C
CougarPeasant
It is well settled in LDS theology that God has decreed that government is good for man, but that men will be held accountable for how they govern. IF they govern well, they will be judged accordingly. If they govern as a tyrannt, they will be condemned. The Book of Mormon made it clear that a benevolent, righteous King is the best form of government, but that a single ruler is too often corrupted so a better option is to be governed by the voice of the people tempored by judges, which is essentially the form of government we have in the United States.



Christ taught that it is as a man thinks and acts that is his measure, not what others do to him. This would include it doesn't matter what government an individual is born under, but how he acts towards his fellow man. An anarchist, as I understand your definition, is one who wishes to be left to govern himself. You have added the Golden Rule as a temporing factor. I would proprose that Christ taught we are to be Christians, which is that along with worshipping God, that we look to help one another, regardless of circumstances. To me, Christ is the embodiment of love and obedience, which are anathema to anarchy.



To sum it up, you want libertarianism on Christian/Charitable steroids. Christ wants Christian virtue and behaviour regardless of government form because ultimately, he will rule over us.



As to my last comment, it was to answer my initial question. To speculate that Christ might have been an anarchist is a waste of time. Christ is the King of Kings and ultimate ruler of this earth and gave the laws for joy and happiness, there is no anarchy in his mortal life and can be no anarchy as he would only be rebelling against God the Father. Suggesting that he was fighting a battle for political control of the individual overlooks the true purpose of his mortal ministry, which has always been to bring man back to God.




taekwondave wrote:
A question. Who is he anarching against?!!!


:) I don't know. That's really the first time I've heard that used as a verb.




CougarPeasant wrote:
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.


That's an interesting statement. I am curious where you got that. And would "ruling themselves" automatically include "ruling others by force"?


CougarPeasant wrote:
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.


I agree.


CougarPeasant wrote:
He always showed deference to the government and never suggested that there be any overthrow of the OverLords.


Agreed.


CougarPeasant wrote:
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.


Agreed.


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


I think I like that statement but you'll have to forgive me. I'm not sure I understand it. Could you rephrase?
U
UVACoug
taekwondave wrote:
taekwondave 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.


Where are you getting your definition of anarchy? I don't think that is the way most people understand that concept.


I think anarchy can easily be defined as a rejection of man-made authority and man-made governments. However, I think an anarchist is still very much an anarchist by believing in the authority of personal conscience (the spirit?) and the personal responsibility of governing of one's own soul. Some are arguing that an anarchist doesn't believe in authority or government PERIOD, but I don't think an anarchist would say that. They simply believe that no man should rule over another in any manner.


Why can't you answer my question? Where are you coming up with this definition? It sounds like you are pulling it out of thin air in order to advance your position. Most people would not define anarchy the way you do.
T
taekwondave
UVACoug wrote:
Why can't you answer my question? Where are you coming up with this definition? It sounds like you are pulling it out of thin air in order to advance your position. Most people would not define anarchy the way you do.


I'm sorry, I thought I DID answer your question. Where am I coming up with this definition? This is my opinion of what the definition should be. Is that hard to understand? As I understand the definition from the dictionary that others have posted here, I thought a clarification was in order. So I added the term "man-made". I thought that was appropriate because I'm sure it could be rightfully assumed that was what the term "government" was referring to in the definition of anarchy. Was that wrong to assume? Did you think that the dictionary definition of anarchy intended to include NON-MAN-MADE/RUN governments?



I did not say most people WOULD define it this way. I said, "I think anarchy can easily be defined as..." Meaning that it was my opinion that such an addition would not fundamentally change the meaning of the current dictionary definition, but clarify it. What answer are you looking for?
T
taekwondave
CougarPeasant wrote:
It is well settled in LDS theology that God has decreed that government is good for man, but that men will be held accountable for how they govern.


Based on the statement in Doctrine and Covenants, "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" it is clearly true that Joseph Smith believed that, and it is probably true also that other presidents believed that or they would not have included it in the Doctrine and Covenants. So yes, I agree that it is a settled doctrine in our church. I obviously do not believe it is true though, so you'll have to forgive me.


CougarPeasant wrote:
IF they govern well, they will be judged accordingly. If they govern as a tyrannt, they will be condemned.


Alright. No problem here.


CougarPeasant wrote:
The Book of Mormon made it clear that a benevolent, righteous King is the best form of government, but that a single ruler is too often corrupted so a better option is to be governed by the voice of the people tempored by judges, which is essentially the form of government we have in the United States.


Careful when you say, "The Book of Mormon says..." You may do well to distinguish WHO said what you are referring to and what were the circumstances. I assume that you are referring to King Mosiah II in this case. I agree that Mosiah was a great man and did MUCH to spare his people from suffering but I think it is obvious that it was largely irrelevant WHAT form of government existed in the Book of Mormon, whether a monarchy or a democracy/republic, each form of government was readily the CAUSE of all of the ills of the Nephites. I think that regardless of what Mosiah's opinion on the matter was, the recorded history of the Nephites clearly proves that ANY government is a BAD government.


CougarPeasant wrote:
Christ taught that it is as a man thinks and acts that is his measure, not what others do to him. This would include it doesn't matter what government an individual is born under, but how he acts towards his fellow man. An anarchist, as I understand your definition, is one who wishes to be left to govern himself. You have added the Golden Rule as a temporing factor. I would proprose that Christ taught we are to be Christians, which is that along with worshipping God, that we look to help one another, regardless of circumstances.


Agreed. No problem here.


CougarPeasant wrote:
To me, Christ is the embodiment of love and obedience, which are anathema to anarchy.


I think you mean antithesis, not anathema. They're not really the same. But I WOULD agree with you here if I thought you meant obedience to God's laws. But since some of men's laws run contrary to God's, I do not see Jesus as one who was obedient to such. So I disagree with this statement.


CougarPeasant wrote:
To sum it up, you want libertarianism on Christian/Charitable steroids.


Cute. I don't think libertarianism NEED christian/charitable steroids. It IS christian/charitable steroids :)


CougarPeasant wrote:
Christ wants Christian virtue and behaviour regardless of government form because ultimately, he will rule over us.


I think Christ WILL rule over us, but I don't think we have the same idea of what that means. I think Christ ruling over us will be VERY different than any other king, and not JUST because he'll "know everything and be perfect". No. I think it is something entirely different than most of you seem to be imagining.


CougarPeasant wrote:
As to my last comment, it was to answer my initial question. To speculate that Christ might have been an anarchist is a waste of time. Christ is the King of Kings and ultimate ruler of this earth and gave the laws for joy and happiness, there is no anarchy in his mortal life and can be no anarchy as he would only be rebelling against God the Father.


Again. It's as if I'm talking to a wall. I have made it clear that I do not believe that anarchy must rebel against God in any way, but against the forced coercion of other men. Take Gandhi, a man who broke MANY of man's laws, and tell me that man doesn't get it. He got it. And he changed the world. And saved many souls from the hate and ignorance of their own hearts through his non-violent civil disobedience. There was nothing more Christian than that.


CougarPeasant wrote:
Suggesting that he was fighting a battle for political control of the individual overlooks the true purpose of his mortal ministry, which has always been to bring man back to God.


Political control of the individual? I don't even know what that means. I don't know how I could be arguing that when I don't even know what it means. I agree that his mission was to bring man back to God though. But again I think that what you think that means is very different than what I think that means.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
B
BigCougsFan
Dave-

Who makes the rules? Who makes the laws?



It will be either one of two possibilities -- God or man.



Who do you follow? This author of this article you want everyone to read -- has made it very clear he follows man.



I didn't read it all -- no need too -- because it's basically garbage. It's like an Islam trying to preach to a Mormon. We(Mormons) know what is right by the power of the Holy Ghost. Why would we listen to some Islamist preach to us, that you should smoke tobacco? Especially when we have the Word of Wisdom and we already know it's wrong.



I can see what you are trying to do. Trying to spark a debate. Trying to learn from others. Trying to grow your testimony AND most of all, trying to understand God's mysteries -- BUT -- you go about it in a wrong way. Have you followed through with Moroni's promise? Have you studied this article -- prayed about it -- asking if it is true??? I'm going to go on a limb and say you have not, because if you had... Then this article wouldn't even be on your mind.



Don't let things pollute your mind. Line upon line, precept upon precept.
M
Mars
taekwondave wrote:
Yes, I agree that it is a settled doctrine in our church. I obviously do not believe it is true though, so you'll have to forgive me.

I don't have to. That right there explains why you are on the wrong board seeking discussion on false matters and refusing to accept the truth.
S
snoscythe
Yet another thread has run its course.



Let's please not make these kinds of threads a fixture. We put up with them occasionally as coming with the territory of a BYU oriented site, but (a) this is becoming a pattern I don't care to see go forward, and (b) I have little patience with threads that start with a question that the OP thinks he has the only answer to and refuses to let anyone answer contrarily. There are sites dedicated to this kind of tomfoolery. This is not one of those, not even the Lounge.
Page 5 of 5
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.