jesus is an anarchist

Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by marketsurfer, Dec 31, 2003.

  1. Funny watching someone make a case using their interpretation of what the words in the New Testament say.

    People have been using selective interpretation and selected use of passages from the New and Old Testament since those books became available.

    The premise of the author is entirely absurd and lacking in any reasonable foundation. Anarchy as commonly understood is the lack of law and order:

    Main Entry: an·ar·chy
    Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
    Date: 1539
    1 a : 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
    2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>

    In is incontrovertible that Jesus preached following God's law and order, therefore he was not an anarchist. Anarchists believe in no law and order. So Jesus was not an anarchist.

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

    He preached that all people are God's subjects, subject to God's Heavenly Government, and should follow God's laws. He did not reject the 10 commandments, a set of laws and order, but simply added love to them.

    Conveniently the author left out the following passage attributed to Jesus:

    (Matthew 22:15-22 NKJV) Then the Pharisees went and plotted how they might entangle Him in His talk. {16} And they sent to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth; nor do You care about anyone, for You do not regard the person of men. {17} "Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?" {18} But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why do you test Me, you hypocrites? {19} "Show Me the tax money." So they brought Him a denarius. {20} And He said to them, "Whose image and inscription is this?" {21} They said to Him, "Caesar's." And He said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." {22} When they had heard these words, they marveled, and left Him and went their way.

    Really, how drunk were you when read this article and posted it?


  2. this response is typical of rougetrader when he get into a corner. he resorts to ad homien attacks without basis and bizarre interpretations designed to booster his twisted opinions.

    i was not "drunk" when the article was posted. your accusations are as accurate as your views on this matter.
  3. I countered the author's argument, you focus on me.

    Not a surprise.

    Try rebutting my counter argument. If you post the thoughts of others to support your opinions, then it really is up to you to properly defend them.

    I gave you the benefit of being drunk, not just plain dimwitted.


  4. the article posted rebutted your argument quite nicely.

    you don't like your worldview being shook up, do you ?

    you of all people should understand that "heavenly government" is not synonomous with 'earthly government'.

    you are an agent provocateur and a mismatcher, as your ad homiem attacks continue and become more pointed.

    you need to chill out, and open up to alternative views.


    surfer :)
  5. You did nothing to counter my rebuttal.

    Why is that?

    Did you even take the time to read my rebuttal? Do you understand what a rebuttal is? Do you understand the debate process and method of argumentation?

    Why would Jesus say ""Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" if he were against law and order, or against the state of Rome???

    Jesus's words are not the words of an anarchist.

    You are well known for making statements without supporting evidence or ability to counter arguments against them.

    "you are an agent provocateur and a mismatcher"

    Would the preceding qualify as ad hominem?

    "you need to chill out, and open up to alternative views."

    I could just as easily counter, you need to start thinking, and open up to accepted reasonable understanding. Just because someone is alternative doesn't mean they have made a good case to support their alternative thoughts.

    Please, try engaging in the debate process....that is if you are capable of doing so.

    I have my doubts.

  6. bobcathy1

    bobcathy1 Guest

    Guys, why do you keep starting these things?
    Do you LIKE to argue?
    Men are just plain weird.
  7. it must suck to be ART (wrong about everything).
  8. Cutten


    ARogueTrader - you are just getting your terms mixed up. An "anarchist" is not someone who advocates "anarchy" (i.e. chaos) but someone who advocates "anarchism", which is a political doctrine, not the absence of law and order. At no point in the article does the author defend "anarchy" - please point to the bit in the article where "anarchy" is even mentioned.



    An advocate of or a participant in anarchism"


    1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished
    2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
    3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority

    The doctrine or practice of anarchists.

    n : a political theory favouring the abolition of governments"

    So basically you have correctly defined anarchy, but unfortunately no one was talking about it - they were talking about someone being an anarchist, i.e. a believer in anarchISM.
  9. Okay, surf, thx for lobbing the grenade into a crowded room! I, for one, will throw my body on top of it. :)

    Here's where I think he makes his fundamental break in logic:

    1. This guy pointed out a number of scriptures that said things like "honor the king", "respect the authorities", "render to Ceasar", etc.
    2. Then he pointed to examples of civil disobedience from Peter, Paul and Jesus.
    3. From 2 he concluded that 1 could not be true unless "Ceasar", "authorites" and "kind" referred to Satanic dominions.

    There is another interpretation which is the one that virtually every Christian that I know follows: we are generally obligated to follow the government (#1) unless the government asks us to something non-scriptural that would violate our conscience (#2). Then we are to obey God and not man.

    Example: I just talked to someone who practiced civil disobedience at an abortion clinic in SoCal. They had to discontinue because the police broke fingers on the men and did "cavity searches" on the women. But my point is that none of these Christians were trying to overthrow the government but rather overturn a specific law to which they disagreed.

    Consider a few questions:
    1. If Jesus really wanted "anarchy", why didn't He just say it? Why would he hide it as the author claimed in the "render Ceasar" passage?
    2. If Jesus really wanted "anarchy", why did all His early followers have little to nothing to do with government?

    Also, consider one of the author's main arguments: basically that no government can be perfect, i.e. it cannot never follow the Golden Rule and therefore must be overthrown. If this were really true, then would Jesus want all modern corporations overthrown. After all, they're often very authoritarian and can't follow the Golden Rule. (I think they follow the Dilbert Rule...)

    My opinion: our founding fathers did the best job of distilling the principles of the Bible into a working document and political philosophy. And we, as a nation, have thrown most of those principles out. It will be interesting to see where it leads us...
    #10     Jan 1, 2004