Can a Christian Be an Anarchist?

There's no such thing as an Anarcho-Christian

unless of course you're talking about long bearded white zz top looking white men sitting around thinking up a long list of shitty ideas and just simply thinking the world away under some mind doogly trip

mainstream Christianity maybe., maybe that's who you may be referring to as anarchist., 
those that just let their imagination run wild, and never really grasp what the Good Spirit teaches

the good Ole Book only prescribes "order" and ~>  "good governance" in CHURCH AFFAIRS as in all things

"free will" and "voluntary interaction" ~> a.k.a. "anarchism" as it is defined in this video posted is erroneous
because it is defined as simply ~> another one of those type of world political "isms" 
but ANARCHISM is far from the order of things prescribed in the Apostle letters (Biblical Epistles)

the failure of "ethics and values" ~ same as the failure of "politics" of any kind, including "anarchism"
leads to the failure of any type of "order"

including mainstream Christianity order., therefore,  TRUE Christians can not be anarchists., 
because true Christians need to adhere and observe ~> "order ; whether is earthly or universal., there is an order to things created!

Unless of course you're talking about those long bearded old rebel norse viking protestant psycho "liberal theologians" types who have no orthodoxy in their hearts, and lack any true firm understanding of what the Bible teaches!

wolfman wrote:There's no such thing as an Anarcho-Christian

unless of course you're talking about long bearded white zz top looking white men sitting around thinking up a long list of shitty ideas and just simply thinking the world away under some mind doogly trip

mainstream Christianity maybe., maybe that's who you may be referring to as anarchist., 
those that just let their imagination run wild, and never really grasp what the Good Spirit teaches

the good Ole Book only prescribes "order" and ~>  "good governance" in CHURCH AFFAIRS as in all things

"free will" and "voluntary interaction" ~> a.k.a. "anarchism" as it is defined in this video posted is erroneous
because it is defined as simply ~> another one of those type of world political "isms" 
but ANARCHISM is far from the order of things prescribed in the Apostle letters (Biblical Epistles)

the failure of "ethics and values" ~ same as the failure of "politics" of any kind, including "anarchism"
leads to the failure of any type of "order"

including mainstream Christianity order., therefore,  TRUE Christians can not be anarchists., 
because true Christians need to adhere and observe ~> "order ; whether is earthly or universal., there is an order to things created!

Unless of course you're talking about those long bearded old rebel norse viking protestant psycho "liberal theologians" types who have no orthodoxy in their hearts, and lack any true firm understanding of what the Bible teaches!

You've got plenty of things wrong here.


First, the fact that the two men in this video happen to be white is completely irrelevant.


Also, libertarian anarchism is not meant to be another religion. It is a political philosophy based on Non-Aggression.

The idea is that some believe Christianity is more compatible with this political stance then let's say, authoritarian statism which is the political philosophy adhered to by the mainstream parties out there (republicans and democrats).

Being in favor of free will and voluntary interactions isn't the same as being against order or condoning every action a person takes with their free will.

An anarchist can either  approve of or disapprove of someone who uses their freedom to, let's say , engage in "sinful" behavior. The main thing is the anarchist doesn't believe that it is okay to use violence against that person unless in cases of self defense.

Anarchist isn't against ORDER or even forms of governance. Anarchism is against aggression with the use of physical force/violence as a political philosophy. Anarchism is against "governance" based on theft/robbery and statism.

In my opinion there exist some excellent literature making the case for Christians to be anti state. This video isn't the best as the two speakers became a bit repetitive but I'll dig some better stuff up later.

3 Man Forum wrote:

wolfman wrote:There's no such thing as an Anarcho-Christian

unless of course you're talking about long bearded white zz top looking white men sitting around thinking up a long list of shitty ideas and just simply thinking the world away under some mind doogly trip

mainstream Christianity maybe., maybe that's who you may be referring to as anarchist., 
those that just let their imagination run wild, and never really grasp what the Good Spirit teaches

the good Ole Book only prescribes "order" and ~>  "good governance" in CHURCH AFFAIRS as in all things

"free will" and "voluntary interaction" ~> a.k.a. "anarchism" as it is defined in this video posted is erroneous
because it is defined as simply ~> another one of those type of world political "isms" 
but ANARCHISM is far from the order of things prescribed in the Apostle letters (Biblical Epistles)

the failure of "ethics and values" ~ same as the failure of "politics" of any kind, including "anarchism"
leads to the failure of any type of "order"

including mainstream Christianity order., therefore,  TRUE Christians can not be anarchists., 
because true Christians need to adhere and observe ~> "order ; whether is earthly or universal., there is an order to things created!

Unless of course you're talking about those long bearded old rebel norse viking protestant psycho "liberal theologians" types who have no orthodoxy in their hearts, and lack any true firm understanding of what the Bible teaches!

You've got plenty of things wrong here.


First, the fact that the two men in this video happen to be white is completely irrelevant.


Also, libertarian anarchism is not meant to be another religion. It is a political philosophy based on Non-Aggression.

The idea is that some believe Christianity is more compatible with this political stance then let's say, authoritarian statism which is the political philosophy adhered to by the mainstream parties out there (republicans and democrats).

Being in favor of free will and voluntary interactions isn't the same as being against order or condoning every action a person takes with their free will.

An anarchist can either  approve of or disapprove of someone who uses their freedom to, let's say , engage in "sinful" behavior. The main thing is the anarchist doesn't believe that it is okay to use violence against that person unless in cases of self defense.

Anarchist isn't against ORDER or even forms of governance. Anarchism is against aggression with the use of physical force/violence as a political philosophy. Anarchism is against "governance" based on theft/robbery and statism.

In my opinion there exist some excellent literature making the case for Christians to be anti state. This video isn't the best as the two speakers became a bit repetitive but I'll dig some better stuff up later.

Anarchism is just another form of an undefined political entity that terms itself as a non-political-entity
 
Yet, it is simply a disorder ~> one political force without order
 
Every which way is fine as long as you don’t intrude on mine `> is their thinking
But best believe that once another mind steps on your way of thinking, then you will either step back be pushed aside, or, YOU WILL USE FORCE to counter the intrusion in any real world scenario.
 
You take for instance the vast many types of anarchist factions happening in present times Greece. They’re all against fascism, and they’re all against the current State of governance, but they’re also not completely in tune with each other, and they really can’t offer any viable alternative solution to the state of economic and socio-political affairs; thus, they all run every which way like a chicken without a head, so there it is, the true face of anarchism, a non-order, and just simply just another type of “political manifesto” ~> just another “ism” like state”ism -- communis”ism” -- capital”ism” -- fasc”ism” – republican”ism” – viking”ism” – israel”ism” – mexican”ism” – amerikan”ism” – african”ism” – you name the “ism” and anarch”ism” is right there besides it., it is just simply another type of philosophy that benefits some and disregards the needs of others.
 
YOU MIGHT AS WELL BECOME A JEHOVA’S WITNESS – WATCH TOWER SOCIET”ISM” ADHERENT
 
 
And yes, you go and dig out some more videos or reading material on whether or not Christians can be considered anarchists., Start out with the Church at Jerusalem, then follow it up through the first 3 centuries until the first councils before the Church got together with the State., then come back and tell me whether you found the True Church to be ORDERLY under scripture, or became ”ISMS” under the great many philosophies of the world.,
 
I’m sure that you will come to admit the fact that ORDER IN ALL THINGS prevails in scripture, as opposed to every-which-way-a-man-thinks-and-feels under ANARCHISM!
 
And just exactly, what would you define what is acceptable “self defense?”

I don't know much about the anarchists in Greece. But let's make clear what kind of anarchism I'm pushing for- Libertarian Anarchy. True, there is all kinds of different anarchist factions out there, and historically, anarchism was a term used by Leftists, Communists/Marxists. Some of these anarchists tend to be less philosophically grounded and are more prone to senseless violent behavior. Many of them do not have a viable alternative solution to the current economic and political affairs because they are ignorant, not well read on history, philosophy, and economics. Contrast that with the Libertarian anarchists, those who spend enormous amount of time researching history, economics, philosophy,organizing and strategizing. You can't compare the two. The only thing we have in common is the term "anarchism."




Ok let me try to simplify this.

This is what Libertarian Anarchism comes down to.  It all comes down to this simple and basic question.

When is it okay to shoot somebody?

Or better yet, when is okay to use physical violence or aggression against someone?

Now I'll ask any Christian on here this question: should Christians not ask themselves this question too?

Take the example of drug use. Me personally, I don't support drug use unless it's for a good medical purpose. I don't want to be around people snorting drugs or shooting up heroin. I don't even like the idea of people smoking weed. I think drugs take a terrible toll on too many people's lives, and I have seen it ruined people's lives completely. I can go on and on the negative effects of drug abuse. 

But still, the question remains:

When is okay to shoot somebody? Or when is it okay to use physical violence against another human being?

Should a person who smokes weed be shot? Should a heroin addict be shot? Should a drug addict be kidnapped against his/her will and be put into a cage?

Would JESUS shoot somebody for being a drug addict? Would Jesus support robbing one man to give to another?
 
It's a serious question BTW.

The new quote system on here is fucked up.

I think those are horrible examples of questions used to strengthen your argument, haha. They do nothing to provoke thought, would Jesus shoot a drug addict??? Really? Look, you can twist anarchy into anything you like to fantasize the idea of some type of order amongst disorder, but the reality is, if there were anarchy, life as we know it would be different. No job, no internet, no electricity... You cant have a little anarchy and not topple the powers that be, the holders of commodities like energy and food... All those systems are owned by large corporations, and to revolt against them, and the systems of privilege that we live with on a daily basis, to revolt against ourselves and our paradigms, to eliminate what is and start over, that's anarchy. And it's a lot of hard work. That means that people who are fat and lazy and dont like to get their asses up, would have to completely change in order to adapt. You don't think that people who aren't well grounded and critical thinkers, which are the majority populace of the planet, or at least this country, are going to be blessed with critical thinking skills overnight. They will side with the system they are, that we are, because we are the system. Critical thinkers like ourselves know and understand that we are the enemy, the enemy lies within, and if you choose to go against the evil amongst ourselves, we become the minority. In our country, we can have these debates and discussions because we live in a system of privilege. Our poor are richer than most people on the planet as long as they have a roof over their heads, a refrigerator ran by electricity, food in that fridge, fresh water to drink, hot and cold water to shower, electricity to watch tv-cable, internet wi-fi, smart phones. Were one spoiled ass nation who got here by gang banging on other countries for the last 50-150 years. We use and waste the most resources out of any country in the world, and so what! We complain about what we do, yet we don't leave. Were spoiled kids to afraid to leave the nest, instead we take from the nest while complaining, being ungrateful, yet unable to do it by ourselves. Shit move to another country and compare the two, go somewhere else where you can identify with whatever political ideology they have, and if its better, stay. Switzerland maybe???

Point is, a Christian can be an anarchist if you define anarchist loosely.  MLK can be considered an anarchist on a loose definition because he fought the system and the law of the land for civil rights even though many clergy members felt he should have been more neutral, he didnt need to be such a rabble rouser and incite such violence. But he did what was right and used the bible for his logic. Are we not all God's children, Christians, Muslims and Atheists alike? He challenged the status quo, and riots and murders and all kinds of other atrocities were commited. Imagine if those things happened today in this country? People would think that a state of anarchy was amongst us.

But real anarchy isn't fighting the white house, its fighting the institutions that control the white house. Desired anarchy would be recreating democracy by giving back the power for the people and by the people to the people. Which is basically trying to get back where we started...


Anyway, I shall carry on further later

I wasn't defining anarchism loosely. I made a clear definition for the kind of "anarchy" I support. "Radical Libertarianism." Meaning, all laws would stem from the non-aggression principle. This is where the "When is it okay to shoot somebody?" Question comes into play. Because from here, you can figure out where a libertarian stands on any issue.

And I think it is perfectly legitimate to ask Christians the same question. I am no biblical expert, but I did go to Christian school for a short while as a kid, and I remember them asking the question of ''What would Jesus do?" as a way to deal with life.

I don't think it's a silly question at all. I think people dismiss it because it forces you to face the inherent evil within the system we live under and forces us to see clearly how we treat other human beings.


As far as complaining about the country and not going somewhere else. The problem with that line of thinking is the misunderstanding of why this country was better than most other places. The US had more freedom compared to many places in the world. Freedom is a rare thing in human history and it can be lost at anytime. Some people like myself would like to promote it and expand it to the maximum instead of letting it slip away. Because in reality,  more people WILL die when freedom is lost. That's the sad and ironic reality. We can speculate on the idea that people wouldn't survive in a radical libertarian society but the truth is we know people WILL die under more statism.   According to RJ Rummel, over 200 million deaths in the last century alone were due to people being killed by their own government.


Btw, the US didn't get rich or gain much from gangbanging on other countries. Only the top corporations did. The elite bankers, weapons makers, and some government employees gained from all the senseless wars. The average person was made poorer by these polices(if not killed or knew someone killed). That's another big myth that should be crushed. The idea that the wars, in some way helped the country.

I was being an ass. Anyway, you can't have a certain types of anarchy, because that's not real anarchy. You can call something anarchy but it doesn't necessarily mean that its true. Its like Christians who don't want to help the poor and believe in the death penalty, yet they are Christians. Those issues go against Christian principles, but people still identify as Christians. They identify with Christian beliefs, but they aren't living up to the principles of Christianity, and in essence aren't real Christians, they are wannabe's. The same with Muslims and any other religion of peace whose members promote violence. Ones identity or thought process doesn't constitute the actual essence of something. Rick Ross the rapper, is not really FWY Rick Ross, he just plays one on MTV.  A kid claiming a gang or a neighborhood doesn't mean that they are actually from that entity, they can easily be wannabe's. And those from neighborhoods who end up ratting or doing their hood dirty, weren't really with it in the first place, even if in their mionds they thought they were. Radical Libertarianism is not anarchy, although its opponents would like to paint a picture as such. Radical Libertarianism is a political ideology that can only exist on a "large scale" through big government. Someone needs to ensure that the rules of Radical Libertarianism are being followed equally throughout the nation and that other people aren't being taken advantage of. Anarchy is chaos and disorder. The literal meaning is "absence of a leader", but imagine if the US didn't have leaders, there would be no United States. There would be no need for the United States, it would be protect your own at all costs because if your weak no one is going to save you or your family but yourself. 

As for the go to another country remark, ponder it. I was being literal, not if you dont like it leave, more like move to another country and compare them to us, tell us why they are better or worse. But realistically, one with the means to do that research probably likes the US govt the way it is anyway you know and will most likely not share the same types of views as lets say you and I would have, but that is me being very judgmental!

As for us gang banging on other countries, those corporations are us my boy, no doubt! That's why anarchy is so scary. That's who we have to go up against. The white house is our farce, and through the white house, we can create change, but its still within the same system that keep others around the world oppressed. Face it, you wake up everyday and you are a murderer just like me. If we wake up in this country, and make a choice to buy something or get a job and get taxed, or go to school or utilize anything than we are part of the system.

Change is what we need, but are we willing to give up everything for something that might make things worse???

That's the question!

"its like Christians who don't want to help the poor and believe in the death penalty, yet they are Christians. Those issues go against Christian principles, but people still identify as Christians. They identify with Christian beliefs, but they aren't living up to the principles of Christianity, and in essence aren't real Christians, they are wannabe's"




Well that is pretty much the point of this entire topic. To make people dig a bit deeper, challenge their old way of thinking and hopefully be more consistent with their beliefs.


We can get into a long debate on the semantics of words like "Anarchy" and what it truly is, but it would be pointless and way besides the point of the underlying questions being raised. I've defined Libertarian "anarchy" already, but we can call it voluntaryism, anti statism, and whole bunch of other names but switching up terms changes nothing.



"Radical Libertarianism is a political ideology that can only exist on a "large scale" through big government. Someone needs to ensure that the rules of Radical Libertarianism are being followed equally throughout the nation and that other people aren't being taken advantage of. Anarchy is chaos and disorder. The literal meaning is "absence of a leader", but imagine if the US didn't have leaders, there would be no United States. There would be no need for the United States, it would be protect your own at all costs because if your weak no one is going to save you or your family but yourself. "


No, big government and liberty are at odds. The people to ensure rules are being followed are us, the people. The society we want is the society we will get. There's no magic man or people as good as angels out there that can be put into power to ensure anything. That's the myth of government being the watchman. Who watches the watchman though? The people? See it makes no sense. People just have to give up the superstition of government. We have to stop believing that using mob rule and violence is the answer to every problem we face. 






"but imagine if the US didn't have leaders, there would be no United States. There would be no need for the United States"



But is there any reason to believe that there needs to be a United States? Is there something sacred about the US being around? It's just another empire in history, another land ruled by a state according to arbitrary borders. States come and go, none of them last, and neither will the US. The US will be long gone eventually. The world will go on.




"it would be protect your own at all costs because if your weak no one is going to save you or your family but yourself." 



Just an assertion. There will always be a demand for protection. Somebody will supply it, simply because most people don't want to live in a society where "only the strong survive" or whatever.






"As for the go to another country remark, ponder it. I was being literal, not if you dont like it leave, more like move to another country and compare them to us, tell us why they are better or worse. But realistically, one with the means to do that research probably likes the US govt the way it is anyway you know and will most likely not share the same types of views as lets say you and I would have, but that is me being very judgmental!"


We can be judgmental all day. Me, I'm all for radical separation of powers and secession. I like the idea of the United States(as one example) breaking up into many different smaller countries, all with totally different ideologies. I have no delusions about the entire US somehow turning libertarian all at the same time. If we're lucky, one small state somewhere in the Union will gather enough like minded people to make it happen, while the other states can do their own thing. I have no desire to force my ideology on people, especially at the point of a gun(the way statists do).


We can get into the practical side of things and go on forever, which is fine. But the original topic was more philosophical based.


I still say there's a good argument to be made on the idea that Christians can reject the modern State, can reject the welfare-warfare state, and all that comes with it.

"But is there any reason to believe that there needs to be a United States? Is there something sacred about the US being around? It's just another empire in history, another land ruled by a state according to arbitrary borders. States come and go, none of them last, and neither will the US. The US will be long gone eventually. The world will go on."

Of course their needs to be a United States, that's my country, that's my neighborhood, that's my barrio. The US isn't perfect, but it has literally shaped everything about my paradigm to this day. You see, I grew up with access to free education and clean water. Not everybody on this planet has the same luxuries afforded to me since birth because of the United States. For all of its imperfections, it's still my country. It's my family, and yours too. Just like in a family, people can rebel, but they are still family. I doubt that you would truly want the United States to part ways, because in my mind, you make it seem like a secession will be done in peace. 

All I know that if the US suffers, we all suffer. Period! Whether its us being drafted to war, going through a huge depression, anarchy chaos and violence in the streets on a large scale... In any of those situations, the fear  for my children's safety increases exponentially. Will my children still be guaranteed an education? I know you and I may see differently here because maybe you think that the public education system is shot anyway, but I support it and I have two kids in that system.

Further, because this is also your country, you have the right to feel however you need to, just like if it was your family, it is your right. But lets not forget, everything that you have taken from this country since birth has allowed you the opportunity to feel this way. We have immigrants coming to this country on the daily because of the opportunity here, and they become successful. This country is great, although  I am afraid of the big brother direction that we are heading. It might be inevitable if there are powers that be that use the white house as more of a puppet show to deceive us. Either that or as a society we are advancing so quickly with technology that it is bound to happen anyway... Scary times coming ahead I tell ya...

You seem to be caught up in what the US used to be as opposed to what it is becoming. Like you touched on at the end of your post, scary times are ahead indeed.

There's no doubt that the US, for the most part, has been the best place to live in the last 100 years or so compared to most other countries. But the important thing to ask yourself is: "WHY?"

You said of course we need the US around. So what made the US so great? Was it because there was exactly 50 states? Was it the way the different state territories are divided up? Is it because the US has a cool flag? Is it because the soldiers are brave? I doubt it. Other countries are proud of their flags and I'm sure they have brave soldiers too.

Is it because of so called "free" education and running water? Doubt it. Many other countries have running water and compulsory taxpayer funded schooling. So it can't be that. Not to mention that students here perform nowhere near the level of many other developed countries. So what is it? Well the conclusion I've reached is that the US started out with far more freedom than other places in the world, and that's what made it so far advanced. That's what brought up our standard of living and our way of life. It's also how we became spoiled. Now, we've lost our way. This generation and the last few generations have no clue as to why we got here, so now we're headed down a different road. So we can go on and on about how great the US is, talk about immigrants that want to come here, etc etc, but we'd be living in the past. Hell, even less people from Mexico want to come here now. A lot of Americans with money are trying to leave and I think eventually even more people will be desperate to leave.  There's a reason why the Feds have such harsh tax laws on Americans who decided to move away to another country. They're doing their best to stop people from leaving the sinking ship. The people that still want to come here are those that are thinking of the old US and don't see the signs of where it is headed.

The idea that secession must  happen with a big violent war is pretty common. But there's no real reason for some kind of secession to be violent. Of course, it can be violent if one group of tyrants is unwilling to let people peacefully secede, but there's examples in history of places seceding without any violence or war.The Soviet Union collapsed and divided up without a big war, why can't the US? The US is a bankrupt country living off borrowed money that it can't ever pay back, and is also living off its old image of what it once was, but the world will wake up eventually and see the US isn't what it was. So because I believe it was freedom (although the US was never totally free due to the slavery issue and other things but it was very free compared to other places in the world) that made this a good place to live and raise children, I support the idea of building a much freer society, even if that means the US must be dissolved and divided.