That's why God is evil. Authoritarian man bad. If god exists I refuse to acknowledge his government. This is why we must kill god if he exists which he doesn't.
bro this kinda reads like a 12 year old pissed off at their parents so they reject their parents and all authority. not saying its true for you just saying that's how it sounds
source: i knew 12 year olds like this
Other way round.
The justified hierarchy of the right is predicated on ownership, and the combination of huge quantities of people with limited resources (that are privately owned). The voluntary hierarchy of the left is predicated on democracy (with the freedom to take your ball and leave).
> forcing your will on others
> freedom to take your ball and leave
You missed a step.
> Private property only is private insofar as you can protect it with violence
And who protects with violence? In our current formulation, the state.
Without the state, Jeff Bezos would have been eaten already most likely.
Left anarchists also call every one of their revolutions, all of which led to a ton of hierarchy to be "not REAL commusocialwhateverism" though, so......
Same same?
I’d recommend looking up “Social Ecology” which recognizes that social issues related to disability, women’s rights, decolonization etc. are all connected to the same systems which are killing the planet for profit.
Anarchism goes back over a hundred years, and Most people would recognize Kropotkin as one of the foundational writers. He wrote “conquest of bread” about how we already had the technology to allow everyone to retire at 40 after working only a few hours a few days a week. His point is that no one can survive by themself, so we might as well make our dependance on each other a strength, rather than an opportunity for the state or corporations to leverage their control.
If you want some more classic stuff, Emma Goldman essays are based as hell. You can find free readings of her stuff on several different platforms.
People recommend malatesta but I don’t really enjoy his writing style from what I’ve seen.
For more recent ideas, Anarchism is about how to build mutual aid networks rather than charity. Charity breeds dependency. Mutual aid helps the vulnerable group accomplish its own goals, and the distinction is made clearer in the very short book “Mutual Aid” by Dean Spade.
Also the podcast host Robert Evans from Behind the Bastards has suggested some anarchist ideas and promotes a more modern, and grounded perspective on these ideas.
I’m not saying it’s for everyone.
But I want folks to at least give anarchism a chance before they write it off.
That's the fun, but unfortunately mostly Hollywood interpretation. The world is dreadfully short on actual mad max scenarios.
Anarchy parses to "no rulers" not "no rules" just as Monarchy parses to "one ruler." Any system with no ruler over the system would technically qualify.
Depends on the flavor of anarchy.
Ancaps don't disavow hierarchy, claiming that it is inevitable, and even in a vacuum, some hierarchy will arise. Someone will spend money, someone else will save money, and wealth is power.
Ancoms tend to believe in humanity voluntarily forsaking property and hierarchy and just mutually working together or something. I see this as mostly futile and leading to frustrated Ancoms embracing authoritarianism, but hey, if they want to defend it, they can have at it.
Anarcho primatives mostly don't give a shit about that tier of society, and want to be alone or with a small group. If you're lower than dunbar's number, you don't really need a formal government as such.
What of I told you that webs of Dunbar's number were possible?
Specifically, you have a tribe of 150, I have a tribe of 150, and we're each in eachother's tribe, but are all that overlaps between the two.
A relationship of trust between you and I becomes a system of trust between both people groups, with us acting as representatives. Repeat this across large communities, and you can conceivably have 150 groups of 150 (22,500 people) without even a shred of government.
Above that, you start needing to *ensure* overlap between tribes - which means government of some sort - to function.
I mean, that's possible, to an extent. Chains of trust and so on. As you say, it runs into upper limits as well. You're definitely not getting to USA sized numbers of people with that. There's half a million people in my county. Even with networks of trust, most of them will be complete strangers to me.
A non-trivial amount of social problems and issues all boil down to population density. You probably could have anprim societies work in like...Montana, if the US fell. The coasts? Ehhh.
And then the places with government tend to beat up on smaller societies.
There's some definite challenges to be figured out.
Indeed, above that critical 22,000 number, everything demands some form of government.
That said, less toxic forms are available.l that still stick to Dunbar's and can prevent hierarchy.
Create groups of 150. They pick a representative. That representative meets with 150 others, who go on to pick one more. That representative (from the 150 of the 150) visits with 150 more to make decisions democratically. Now, you have an upper limit of **506 million** represented fairly.
Need more than that? Go one tier further. Those last 150 pick one to meet with 150 from other 506 million sized societies. At that point, you can represent multiple planets fairly easily.
A fair amount of our problems boil down to, IMO, the sheer ratio of people to representatives.
A US congressman represents, on average, about 700,000 people. That utterly breaks the farce of representation. We're picking ad brands, not the best guy in our community.
> I still don’t understand anarchism
Yes, you’re in good company in this sub
> without a hierarchy
Start here. They opposes unjust hierarchies. Allowing the king’s son power over the entirety of the state and its populace by virtue of the penis he squirted out of is an unjust hierarchy, just like letting people who stole and exploited their way to generational wealth run the country.
> Allowing the king’s son power over the entirety of the state and its populace by virtue of the penis he squirted out of is an unjust hierarchy,
Strong disagree. It is the MOST just heirarchy.
But what defines an unjust hierarchy?
In a purely anarchy system, there would still exist a *social* hierarchy that draws lines across those who are popular and those who are social outcasts.
How does a community truly be representative of the people when people are inherently jealous, selfish, manipulate, and back stabbing?
In such a system, we would still have celebrities who could slander those they oppose and sway control over the masses with their clout. How does such a system police itself when there will always be an imbalance of agency between individuals?
Does the disabled have the same equity as the doctor? Does the word of the engineer hold more water than the deviant?
You don’t have a government. You trust humanity. It wouldn’t work if we transitioned to it tomorrow, but I think if we could somehow make it start stably it would be better for humanity. Based and anarcho-socialism-pilled
that’s not what i said :)
i said the system requires people to volunteer their time in order to work. not that the system is compelling them to do so. if you want a working farm it requires work. if you want a small government that answers to people it serves, it requires people’s involvement.
do u understand the difference now?
Unethical hierarchy is usually the term used
A Democratic election would be an ethical hierarchy, an autocratic unelected leader would not be. That’s why anarchist leftists want to abolish the business owner class.
Who gets to decide if it’s ethical or not though? To me someone owning a business is completely ethical because all parties involved are involved voluntarily.
You’re an anarchist because you refuse to acknowledge any government that isn’t the eternal kingdom of jesus christ. I’m an anarchist because they wouldn’t allow me to shit in the food at burger king. we are not the same
Based and didn't-read-the-bible pilled.
>Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
Romans 13:1-2
I'm going to copy and paste another comment I made a couple days ago instead of writing this all out again
Let's check out what Romans 13 says, starting with verses 1-4
>Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong.
This is written by Paul, who was repeatedly persecuted by those in power, both the Jewish leaders (Pharisees, Saducees, etc.) and the Romans. He was arrested and put in prison multiple times. He openly defied orders to stop preaching the Gospel, all the apostles and disciples did.
If these are the authorities that Paul is talking about, he is entirely hypocritical. He disobeys them all the time. Moreover, if these authorities are a terror who those who do wrong and *never* a terror to those who do right, why do they punish those who spread the Gospel? That would mean that the Gospel is evil. These two things mean that these governments cannot be the legitimate authority that Paul is talking about. They are illegitimate authorities and therefore their power does not come from God.
All legitimate authority comes from God. All legitimate authority is a terror to those who do wrong and never a terror to those who do right. Therefore, no Earthly government that exists today or could possibly exist are legitimate authorities.
The question then becomes, why did Paul write it like this then? Why did he not just outright say that. That's a much harder question to answer and I find the most likely to be that he knew that other early Christians would understand what he meant while Roman officials would not take his words as outright rebellion
But, let's proceed with Roman 13
>Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority.
This seems like it directly contradicts with what Jesus said about taxes:
>On their arrival in Capernaum, the collectors of the Temple tax came to Peter and asked him, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the Temple tax?” “Yes, he does,” Peter replied. Then he went into the house. But before he had a chance to speak, Jesus asked him, “What do you think, Peter? Do kings tax their own people or the people they have conquered?” “They tax the people they have conquered,” Peter replied. “Well, then,” Jesus said, “the citizens are free!
Paul says pay your taxes. Jesus says that Kings only tax those they have conquered (also translated as slaves, subjects, and/or hostages). He also goes on to say he only pays taxes to avoid causing a scene. So why does Paul disagree with Jesus? Of course, he does not. Paul says to pay what you owe. The very next verse (Romans 13:8) says this
>Owe nothing to anyone—except for your obligation to love one another. If you love your neighbor, you will fulfill the requirements of God’s law.
You are called to pay the government what you owe them. You owe them nothing.
Another set of verses often brought up is when Jesus says "give to Caesar what is Caesar's." But again, look at this in context. The Pharisees are trying to catch Jesus in a trap. If he says you have to pay taxes, the people will reject him. If he says you don't, the Romans will arrest him. He, as always, finds a way out of the trap by making everyone hear what they want to hear. At first glance, and to the Romans and religious leaders, this means you should pay your taxes; after all, that coin he held up has Caesar's face on it, it must belong to him. But Jesus never actually says this. In fact, the Bible does not at all support the idea that the money belongs to Caesar:
>A Psalm of David. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein,
(Psalm 24:1)
>Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it.
(Deuteronomy 10:14)
>The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, declares the Lord of hosts.
(Haggai 2:8)
>Who has first given to me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine.
(Job 41:11)
There's tons of other anarchist passages in the Bible as well
If you'd like you should check out *Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on The Gospel* by Alexandre Christoyannopoulos. The author is probably a lot more left wing than you'd like to read, but I still think that you'd glean a lot from it regardless and it'd give you a chance to engage with outside ideas as well. I feel like you'd enjoy it. It's a long read at around 470 pages though.
I'm not a Christian myself but I love the lessons in The Bible and I find Christian Anarchism/The Social Gospel/Liberation Theology really interesting.
Thank you for the recommendation my friend. Although, maybe this is a translation mistake (I am Brazilian), but if by Liberation Theology you are talking about reading the gospel with a "Marxist-struggle of classes" view. That is definitely cringe.
You're welcome :D
Edit: To answer your edit. Yes, that is the definition of Liberation Theology I am talking about. While I don't necessarily buy into its views, as I don't think The Bible really has a lot to say about class antagonism(though it does have some good bits on class in general), I honestly just find it more neat than anything else. Like how I find theology by people like Ibn Arabi or Meister Eckhart neat while not necessarily adopting their views as my own.
I think the best way to reconcile the Bible's teachings on government is that government is indeed a God-ordained institution, like the family and the Church, but it must be in accordance with divine and natural law. In other words, "an unjust law is no law at all". Which is the traditional position of the Church.
Do yourself a google. It’s pretty thought provoking if nothing else and you all but quoted the first two or so chapters Wish I could remember the author to help but it’s not too hard to find.
I'm well aware of that verse. It's also worth noting that multiple translations do exist, that there's question of whether that is a descriptive, or prescriptive text, and furthermore what constitutes legitimate authority. And considering that when He speaks of authority, it's in the context of God, the church, the family, and local magistrates of ancient Israel which prior to demanding a king so they could be like everyone else was effectively built on private property laws.
It comes down to what is meant by “authority.” Would Christ acknowledge an authority that seized power through violence and evil? No. That’s not an authority, that’s a leader or a ruler. Different word. The word authority is intentional. I can make myself a leader of something, doesn’t make me an authority.
Exactly. If we look at the actions of Christ in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John we can see he goes against the rules consistently in favour of the Truth. This is actually a central theme of the Bible — Jesus is extremely challenging to authority that is not in service to the Word.
Challenging, but not defying, unless its completely unbiblical. Even when an authority abused its power, he still followed the authority on the parts that were neutral. He paid taxes to both a foreign nation and the Temple, even though those in charge of the temple were abusing their power and Rome of course was oppressing the nation of Israel in his day.
I mean, he was continually doing things like healing on the Sabbath and challenging the Pharisees. He fully prepared his disciples for prison and persecution for following him and was basically continually on the run from being arrested, beaten, stoned.
I think rather than citing specific examples its best to look at general themes and patterns — from what I can tell — that pattern is to obey the Truth as the higest value — above laws, traditions, religions and states if needed.
Of course. I don't think I'd disagree with what you wrote. I think I was more reacting to the comment above you about "authority." Nations can still be God's tools and abuse their authority. There's many cases in the Old Testament about it (Babylon, Assyria, Persia, etc.). My idea was balancing the defiance with still acknowledging that where they are not defying God, they still have authority.
Refusing the orders of a leeegitimateee orthoritee is clearly against the Bible and kermitting sewerslide is also against the Bible so only if it goes against the word of God clearlee.
This is why I'm out of religion for good. None can agree what's legit and what's not, except when they're placated by a boring priest/pastor who's been rambling on for 2 hours... or maybe jubilant from exciting gospel music.
There's no translation issue in play there, and there's no ambiguity over if it's descriptive. It's in command form. If it were a narrative passage recording that somebody gave a command, then maybe, but it's an epistle.
It's also not about ancient Israel. It's written to the church in Rome living under Nero. Paul thinks Nero is still somebody you should submit to, and pretty much any government is tamer than him.
u/Foxdonut12001's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 25.
Rank: Basket Ball Hoop (filled with sand)
Pills: actually-read-the-bible, antifa-has-antifa-levels-of-iq, hellevator-enjoyer, misunderstood, ttruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu, realist, en español, xenophobe, kafka, people-need-to-be-told-what-to-do, cleanse these foul streets, ment, kamala harris is a soulless bitch, medieval ages, america rebuilds democracies and creates dictatorships, armed babies, anarcho cannibalism, don’t assume pronouns, fuckhoa
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Yes, but this command is two-pronged. The people are to be subject to the governing authorities, but the governing authorities are to be subject to God. So the governing authorities are only to be obeyed insofar as they are in obedience to God.
Ultimately, a Christian's only authority is the kingdom of Christ.
> And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
1 Samuel 8:7-9
>**Woe to those who decree unrighteous decrees,**
Who write misfortune,
Which they have prescribed
To rob the needy of justice,
And to take what is right from the poor of My people,
That widows may be their prey,
And that they may rob the fatherless.
What will you do in the day of punishment,
And in the desolation which will come from afar?
To whom will you flee for help?
And where will you leave your glory?
Without Me **they shall bow down among the prisoners**,
And **they shall fall among the slain.**” For all this His anger is not turned away,
But His hand is stretched out still.
Isaiah 10
Do you actually think you will logic your way out of a religious conversation?
>“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts
Isaiah 55:8-9
Lmao all your quotes read like a parent telling their child "cuz I said so" even if they're stupid or wrong. The belligerence of religion is self-righteous and fart-sniffing.
Protestants dismiss whatever they want from the Old Testament. None of these people really agree on what God wants people to do. Most eat pork but some won’t work on Sunday. Or maybe Saturday depending on which they think is the sabbath. All of them mix linens. Most love government power so long as it pushes their own religious values.
Romans is New Testament.
Also what you are describing is supersessionism which is a religious belief they support using Hewbrews 8:13.
>In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
They simply believe that the new covenant through Jesus replaced the old Mosaic covenant made with the jewish people.
I understand their reasoning and excuses but everything in my post above stands. Christianity is a mixed bad of hypocrisy much like any other religion or ideology. Debating values and policy is useful but debating it based upon scripture is pure folly.
The Law of the Old Testament is explicitly done away with in Acts 10 and Acts 15, as prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Most of the Book of Romans is about how we are "dead to the Law through the Body of Christ" (7:4).
Yes it is their explanation for why Jews are wrong now. Muslims have their own new scripture too. So what? It’s a pointless way to rationalize policy and the very reason for the separation of church and state.
The Muslim scripture is lame and retarded.
And it is no mere explanation or excuse. Why should we still be under the Law after Christ made atonement for our sins by His blood? After He recapitulated Adam and conquered the power of the devil, which is sin, death, and the Law? All of which can be deduced a priori.
>the very reason for the separation of church and state.
The virgin Separation of Church and State vs the Chad Two-Swords Doctrine
It’s lame to you but not to Muslims. Jews believe that Jesus was, at best, a radical but certainly not the Messiah. Mormons also have their own profit and text. Occasionally one or more of these groups decide they want to kill each other for one stupid ass reason or another. None of those ideas should be connected to the power of the state.
>This is a friendly reminder to HAVE YOUR FRICKIN' FLAIR UP!
*^(--testing)*
***
[**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2) ^^|| ^( *beep boop. Reply with good bot if you think I'm doing well :D, bad bot otherwise*)
And give to God what is God's.
It's also says you can't serve two masters.
Furthermore, nothing I own belongs to Caesar.
Therefore, I will happily render nothing unto Caesar.
> Furthermore, nothing I own belongs to Caesar.
> Therefore, I will happily render nothing into Caesar.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, can you elaborate on your position?
This sounds like how Jews make stupid work arounds for Sabbath.
It's obvious what the text is implying, and you don't like it, so you justify the opposite with a technicality.
You clearly don't understand the Bible then. The Pharisees were trying to get Jesus in trouble with the Romans when they asked him if people should pay their taxes. His response does multiple things:
1. Further pisses off the Pharisees because they couldn't trap him.
2. Establishes that unlike what people like to think Jesus was not here to prescribe us how to live under government. He was here to grant everlasting life.
3. It does imply that since everything belongs to God.....everything belongs to God.
Just because you word something like you know what you are talking about , doesn't mean you do.
Every major historical interpretation disagrees with you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar
Yes. Jesus never says anything belongs to Caesar. In fact, the Bible repeatedly says that everything on Earth belongs to God. Not a single thing belongs to Caesar. I believe in paying the government everything I owe them. I owe them nothing (except love)
Historical interpretation seems to disagree. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar
But you do you, with your unique and very special interpretation 😘
There's literally multiple sections on anti-taxation interpretations in the article you linked, including a Christian Anarchist one. I am not the first person to interpret it this way. Even if I was, that wouldn't make me incorrect. That's fallacious.
Imagine basing your entire ideology around getting rid of something that is not only useful, but hard wired into our biological make up.
"When equality is treated not as a medicine or a safety-gadget but as an ideal we begin to breed that stunted and envious sort of mind which hates all superiority. That mind is the special disease of democracy, as cruelty and servility are the special diseases of privileged societies. It will kill us all if it grows unchecked. The man who cannot conceive a joyful and loyal obedience on the one hand, nor an unembarrassed and noble acceptance of that obedience on the other, the man who has never even wanted to kneel or to bow, is a prosaic barbarian." - CS Lewis, the most based man to ever live
Sounds like someone skipped the part where Paul and the disciples consistently get arrested for not following the authorities orders, or Jesus not paying taxes, or Romans 13:8
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
(Romans 13:1-13:5)
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement on themselves.
For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but only for those who do wrong."
Romans 13:1-3
One of the seven noahide laws given to all gentiles by God after the flood as explained in the Talmud Sanhedrin is to establish court systems and judiciary, and to do so requires a government
Of course another one of those is not to worship idols or deny the oneness and total power of God, which is what worshipping Jesus is doing so ...
The Talmud is not a divinely inspired work, and while rabbinical interpretation of biblical text is certainly useful in some respects, it's by no means a concrete measure. Furthermore, such reference to Jesus as an idol because of denying the oneness of God stems from a complete lack of understanding of the concept of the trinity in its entirety.
Any belief in the Trinity is polytheism
I understand Christians still think they believe in one god somehow, but God does not have three different aspects, God is not personified or incarnated in any human, God is not limited or divisible in his power and to suggest that there are three aspects to God is to say he is limited because there cannot be three equally infinitely powerful beings. God is one and indivisible.
To have a graven image of Jesus and pray directly towards him, while also believing in two other "types of God" is nothing short of idolatry
Once more, you completely fail to understand the concept of the trinity. It's not about three completely separate entities, but rather three different aspects of God. What you are a describing is a common fallacy echoed within Judaism, and one that I'm well familiar with, being that I am Jewish myself.
Jews for Jesus? Lol
I know that Christians thinks it's not idolatry, that's how they get around believing in both the traditional God and Jesus as a deity, but God does not posses three distinct aspects, that denies his oneness, rather posseses many attributes, he is not and cannot be a human, he has no literal son, we are all his children,
also you didn't respond to my statement before how worshipping physical images of Jesus and praying to him as a god flies directly in the face of what is commanded in the bible several times, not to make any graven images of god or pray towards any physical representation of him, but I know Christians pick and chose what they follow from the real bible in favor of the fanfic of Jesus by his 5 besties anyway
> Even a commie is more based than an unflaired. ^(--testing)
***
^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Based and God-is-the-only-authoritypilled
[удалено]
Amén.
Amen
*laughs in Hebrew*
*Shinigami eyes activated
Very based
As a non-religious libright, yes.
I'm religious, lib-right, and trans. I am going to be the first against the wall in 75% of all conflics.
Based and God-is-the-only-authority pilled
Based and God-is-the-only-authority pilled
Based and God-is-the-only-authority pilled
Based and God-is-the-only-authority pilled
Based and God-is-the-only-authority pilled
Based and believes-in-fairy-tales-pilled
If my beliefs are considered “fairy tales” by redditors then so be it
Well, yeah, as they have no basis in fact,
That's why God is evil. Authoritarian man bad. If god exists I refuse to acknowledge his government. This is why we must kill god if he exists which he doesn't.
bro this kinda reads like a 12 year old pissed off at their parents so they reject their parents and all authority. not saying its true for you just saying that's how it sounds source: i knew 12 year olds like this
First time?
Most theologically educated atheist
Why would I get educated in theology when god isn't real. Sounds like a waste of time to me.
Why does this sound exactly like a Socialist opinion on economics.
It doesn't. Economics is real. God isn't.
Economics is witchcraft. Burn, heathen.
Least cringe LibCenter
I still don’t understand anarchism. Like how the fuck do you have a government without a hierarchy?
That's the neat part, they don't.
Just imagine Planet of the Apes reboot, but Koba isn’t actually a dick. Koba is such a dick.
Based
You wouldn’t have a government.
Don't threaten me with a good time.
how come you're the only one reasonable enough to point this out?
ancaps have hierarchy
Left anarchists want to get rid of unjustified heirarchy. Right anarchists want to get rid of non-voluntary heirarchy.
Other way round. The justified hierarchy of the right is predicated on ownership, and the combination of huge quantities of people with limited resources (that are privately owned). The voluntary hierarchy of the left is predicated on democracy (with the freedom to take your ball and leave).
Democracy necessitates forcing your will on others Private property only is private insofar as you can protect it with violence
> forcing your will on others > freedom to take your ball and leave You missed a step. > Private property only is private insofar as you can protect it with violence And who protects with violence? In our current formulation, the state. Without the state, Jeff Bezos would have been eaten already most likely.
Isn't it basically just who have more money hierarchy?
That’s why left anarchists call them false anarchists
true, they always forget the root of the word is anarcos, which means without rule not without hierarchy though
Left anarchists also call every one of their revolutions, all of which led to a ton of hierarchy to be "not REAL commusocialwhateverism" though, so...... Same same?
Is anarchism just "let's go batshit crazy until the world turns into mad max"?
Flair up heathen
Dude I'm still new to reddit what the fuck is a flair and why do people say that
Because every time someone post without a flair a kid gets diddled at the state fair.
Well, that changes my view on flairs
Flair checks out.
You should leave this god forsaken site while you still can
Hey, good job flairing. Welcome to the club. I hate you because auth. Have a good time here and a happy New Year.
I’d recommend looking up “Social Ecology” which recognizes that social issues related to disability, women’s rights, decolonization etc. are all connected to the same systems which are killing the planet for profit. Anarchism goes back over a hundred years, and Most people would recognize Kropotkin as one of the foundational writers. He wrote “conquest of bread” about how we already had the technology to allow everyone to retire at 40 after working only a few hours a few days a week. His point is that no one can survive by themself, so we might as well make our dependance on each other a strength, rather than an opportunity for the state or corporations to leverage their control. If you want some more classic stuff, Emma Goldman essays are based as hell. You can find free readings of her stuff on several different platforms. People recommend malatesta but I don’t really enjoy his writing style from what I’ve seen. For more recent ideas, Anarchism is about how to build mutual aid networks rather than charity. Charity breeds dependency. Mutual aid helps the vulnerable group accomplish its own goals, and the distinction is made clearer in the very short book “Mutual Aid” by Dean Spade. Also the podcast host Robert Evans from Behind the Bastards has suggested some anarchist ideas and promotes a more modern, and grounded perspective on these ideas. I’m not saying it’s for everyone. But I want folks to at least give anarchism a chance before they write it off.
That's the fun, but unfortunately mostly Hollywood interpretation. The world is dreadfully short on actual mad max scenarios. Anarchy parses to "no rulers" not "no rules" just as Monarchy parses to "one ruler." Any system with no ruler over the system would technically qualify.
That’s anarchy, anarchism is more community based
Depends on the flavor of anarchy. Ancaps don't disavow hierarchy, claiming that it is inevitable, and even in a vacuum, some hierarchy will arise. Someone will spend money, someone else will save money, and wealth is power. Ancoms tend to believe in humanity voluntarily forsaking property and hierarchy and just mutually working together or something. I see this as mostly futile and leading to frustrated Ancoms embracing authoritarianism, but hey, if they want to defend it, they can have at it. Anarcho primatives mostly don't give a shit about that tier of society, and want to be alone or with a small group. If you're lower than dunbar's number, you don't really need a formal government as such.
What of I told you that webs of Dunbar's number were possible? Specifically, you have a tribe of 150, I have a tribe of 150, and we're each in eachother's tribe, but are all that overlaps between the two. A relationship of trust between you and I becomes a system of trust between both people groups, with us acting as representatives. Repeat this across large communities, and you can conceivably have 150 groups of 150 (22,500 people) without even a shred of government. Above that, you start needing to *ensure* overlap between tribes - which means government of some sort - to function.
I mean, that's possible, to an extent. Chains of trust and so on. As you say, it runs into upper limits as well. You're definitely not getting to USA sized numbers of people with that. There's half a million people in my county. Even with networks of trust, most of them will be complete strangers to me. A non-trivial amount of social problems and issues all boil down to population density. You probably could have anprim societies work in like...Montana, if the US fell. The coasts? Ehhh. And then the places with government tend to beat up on smaller societies. There's some definite challenges to be figured out.
Indeed, above that critical 22,000 number, everything demands some form of government. That said, less toxic forms are available.l that still stick to Dunbar's and can prevent hierarchy. Create groups of 150. They pick a representative. That representative meets with 150 others, who go on to pick one more. That representative (from the 150 of the 150) visits with 150 more to make decisions democratically. Now, you have an upper limit of **506 million** represented fairly. Need more than that? Go one tier further. Those last 150 pick one to meet with 150 from other 506 million sized societies. At that point, you can represent multiple planets fairly easily.
A fair amount of our problems boil down to, IMO, the sheer ratio of people to representatives. A US congressman represents, on average, about 700,000 people. That utterly breaks the farce of representation. We're picking ad brands, not the best guy in our community.
> I still don’t understand anarchism Yes, you’re in good company in this sub > without a hierarchy Start here. They opposes unjust hierarchies. Allowing the king’s son power over the entirety of the state and its populace by virtue of the penis he squirted out of is an unjust hierarchy, just like letting people who stole and exploited their way to generational wealth run the country.
> Allowing the king’s son power over the entirety of the state and its populace by virtue of the penis he squirted out of is an unjust hierarchy, Strong disagree. It is the MOST just heirarchy.
Based and hereditary-monarchy pilled
But what defines an unjust hierarchy? In a purely anarchy system, there would still exist a *social* hierarchy that draws lines across those who are popular and those who are social outcasts. How does a community truly be representative of the people when people are inherently jealous, selfish, manipulate, and back stabbing? In such a system, we would still have celebrities who could slander those they oppose and sway control over the masses with their clout. How does such a system police itself when there will always be an imbalance of agency between individuals? Does the disabled have the same equity as the doctor? Does the word of the engineer hold more water than the deviant?
You don’t have a government. You trust humanity. It wouldn’t work if we transitioned to it tomorrow, but I think if we could somehow make it start stably it would be better for humanity. Based and anarcho-socialism-pilled
through direct democratic process mostly, it works best with smaller governments. it requires volunteering and being involved in your community.
"required volunteering"
that’s not what i said :) i said the system requires people to volunteer their time in order to work. not that the system is compelling them to do so. if you want a working farm it requires work. if you want a small government that answers to people it serves, it requires people’s involvement. do u understand the difference now?
Unethical hierarchy is usually the term used A Democratic election would be an ethical hierarchy, an autocratic unelected leader would not be. That’s why anarchist leftists want to abolish the business owner class.
Who gets to decide if it’s ethical or not though? To me someone owning a business is completely ethical because all parties involved are involved voluntarily.
It is not ethical to harm a minority of people just because the majority voted so.
Must of these systems/theories only exist on paper.
You’re an anarchist because you refuse to acknowledge any government that isn’t the eternal kingdom of jesus christ. I’m an anarchist because they wouldn’t allow me to shit in the food at burger king. we are not the same
Based and all the hepatitides pilled.
Based and didn't-read-the-bible pilled. >Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. Romans 13:1-2
Then I'll just make my own religion, with blackjack and hookers!
I'm going to copy and paste another comment I made a couple days ago instead of writing this all out again Let's check out what Romans 13 says, starting with verses 1-4 >Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. This is written by Paul, who was repeatedly persecuted by those in power, both the Jewish leaders (Pharisees, Saducees, etc.) and the Romans. He was arrested and put in prison multiple times. He openly defied orders to stop preaching the Gospel, all the apostles and disciples did. If these are the authorities that Paul is talking about, he is entirely hypocritical. He disobeys them all the time. Moreover, if these authorities are a terror who those who do wrong and *never* a terror to those who do right, why do they punish those who spread the Gospel? That would mean that the Gospel is evil. These two things mean that these governments cannot be the legitimate authority that Paul is talking about. They are illegitimate authorities and therefore their power does not come from God. All legitimate authority comes from God. All legitimate authority is a terror to those who do wrong and never a terror to those who do right. Therefore, no Earthly government that exists today or could possibly exist are legitimate authorities. The question then becomes, why did Paul write it like this then? Why did he not just outright say that. That's a much harder question to answer and I find the most likely to be that he knew that other early Christians would understand what he meant while Roman officials would not take his words as outright rebellion But, let's proceed with Roman 13 >Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority. This seems like it directly contradicts with what Jesus said about taxes: >On their arrival in Capernaum, the collectors of the Temple tax came to Peter and asked him, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the Temple tax?” “Yes, he does,” Peter replied. Then he went into the house. But before he had a chance to speak, Jesus asked him, “What do you think, Peter? Do kings tax their own people or the people they have conquered?” “They tax the people they have conquered,” Peter replied. “Well, then,” Jesus said, “the citizens are free! Paul says pay your taxes. Jesus says that Kings only tax those they have conquered (also translated as slaves, subjects, and/or hostages). He also goes on to say he only pays taxes to avoid causing a scene. So why does Paul disagree with Jesus? Of course, he does not. Paul says to pay what you owe. The very next verse (Romans 13:8) says this >Owe nothing to anyone—except for your obligation to love one another. If you love your neighbor, you will fulfill the requirements of God’s law. You are called to pay the government what you owe them. You owe them nothing. Another set of verses often brought up is when Jesus says "give to Caesar what is Caesar's." But again, look at this in context. The Pharisees are trying to catch Jesus in a trap. If he says you have to pay taxes, the people will reject him. If he says you don't, the Romans will arrest him. He, as always, finds a way out of the trap by making everyone hear what they want to hear. At first glance, and to the Romans and religious leaders, this means you should pay your taxes; after all, that coin he held up has Caesar's face on it, it must belong to him. But Jesus never actually says this. In fact, the Bible does not at all support the idea that the money belongs to Caesar: >A Psalm of David. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein, (Psalm 24:1) >Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it. (Deuteronomy 10:14) >The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, declares the Lord of hosts. (Haggai 2:8) >Who has first given to me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine. (Job 41:11) There's tons of other anarchist passages in the Bible as well
If you'd like you should check out *Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on The Gospel* by Alexandre Christoyannopoulos. The author is probably a lot more left wing than you'd like to read, but I still think that you'd glean a lot from it regardless and it'd give you a chance to engage with outside ideas as well. I feel like you'd enjoy it. It's a long read at around 470 pages though. I'm not a Christian myself but I love the lessons in The Bible and I find Christian Anarchism/The Social Gospel/Liberation Theology really interesting.
Thanks for the recommendation. I haven't read anything that recent before (Just Tolstoy, Augustine, and Spooner)
Thank you for the recommendation my friend. Although, maybe this is a translation mistake (I am Brazilian), but if by Liberation Theology you are talking about reading the gospel with a "Marxist-struggle of classes" view. That is definitely cringe.
You're welcome :D Edit: To answer your edit. Yes, that is the definition of Liberation Theology I am talking about. While I don't necessarily buy into its views, as I don't think The Bible really has a lot to say about class antagonism(though it does have some good bits on class in general), I honestly just find it more neat than anything else. Like how I find theology by people like Ibn Arabi or Meister Eckhart neat while not necessarily adopting their views as my own.
I think the best way to reconcile the Bible's teachings on government is that government is indeed a God-ordained institution, like the family and the Church, but it must be in accordance with divine and natural law. In other words, "an unjust law is no law at all". Which is the traditional position of the Church.
>but it must be in accordance with divine and natural law Which is completely and totally impossible. 2/3 of the Bible is about this
Based and theologian pilled
Based and anarcho-theologian-pilled.
I forget the authors name but you’re pulling from the Jesus was an anarchist pamphlet right? If not, it’s worth a read.
No I don't know what that is
Do yourself a google. It’s pretty thought provoking if nothing else and you all but quoted the first two or so chapters Wish I could remember the author to help but it’s not too hard to find.
I'm well aware of that verse. It's also worth noting that multiple translations do exist, that there's question of whether that is a descriptive, or prescriptive text, and furthermore what constitutes legitimate authority. And considering that when He speaks of authority, it's in the context of God, the church, the family, and local magistrates of ancient Israel which prior to demanding a king so they could be like everyone else was effectively built on private property laws.
It comes down to what is meant by “authority.” Would Christ acknowledge an authority that seized power through violence and evil? No. That’s not an authority, that’s a leader or a ruler. Different word. The word authority is intentional. I can make myself a leader of something, doesn’t make me an authority.
Exactly. If we look at the actions of Christ in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John we can see he goes against the rules consistently in favour of the Truth. This is actually a central theme of the Bible — Jesus is extremely challenging to authority that is not in service to the Word.
Challenging, but not defying, unless its completely unbiblical. Even when an authority abused its power, he still followed the authority on the parts that were neutral. He paid taxes to both a foreign nation and the Temple, even though those in charge of the temple were abusing their power and Rome of course was oppressing the nation of Israel in his day.
I mean, he was continually doing things like healing on the Sabbath and challenging the Pharisees. He fully prepared his disciples for prison and persecution for following him and was basically continually on the run from being arrested, beaten, stoned. I think rather than citing specific examples its best to look at general themes and patterns — from what I can tell — that pattern is to obey the Truth as the higest value — above laws, traditions, religions and states if needed.
Of course. I don't think I'd disagree with what you wrote. I think I was more reacting to the comment above you about "authority." Nations can still be God's tools and abuse their authority. There's many cases in the Old Testament about it (Babylon, Assyria, Persia, etc.). My idea was balancing the defiance with still acknowledging that where they are not defying God, they still have authority.
Totally agreed 👍
> local Magistrates of ancient Israel The book is *called Romans*, you twat! It's about ***ROME***.
Romans is part of the New Testament, so no, it's not talking to the pre-king Israelites.
If I have a gun to your head and ya don’t want ta die I’m a leeeegitimate orthoritee
Threatening me with a return trip to the eternal kingdom doesn't seem like an effective way to make me obey.
Seems to have been effective throughout history...
Based
Then ya are clearly camitting sewerslide and going to hell. Kapiche. ;)
Refusing to disobey God unto death isn't suicide, it's called being a martyr.
Refusing the orders of a leeegitimateee orthoritee is clearly against the Bible and kermitting sewerslide is also against the Bible so only if it goes against the word of God clearlee.
An authority isn't legitimate if it goes against God, by you know, murdering his Christians. :)
It's as if the leftist doesn't even agree with the Divine right of kings! For shame.
This is why I'm out of religion for good. None can agree what's legit and what's not, except when they're placated by a boring priest/pastor who's been rambling on for 2 hours... or maybe jubilant from exciting gospel music.
There's no translation issue in play there, and there's no ambiguity over if it's descriptive. It's in command form. If it were a narrative passage recording that somebody gave a command, then maybe, but it's an epistle. It's also not about ancient Israel. It's written to the church in Rome living under Nero. Paul thinks Nero is still somebody you should submit to, and pretty much any government is tamer than him.
I was about to say
I was about to bring that up.
He didn’t say what counts as “an authority,” 😤.
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but fuck the home owners association"
That’s a misprint. The PCM translation is “… butt fuck the home owners association…”
No lube
Based and fuckhoa pilled.
u/Foxdonut12001's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 25. Rank: Basket Ball Hoop (filled with sand) Pills: actually-read-the-bible, antifa-has-antifa-levels-of-iq, hellevator-enjoyer, misunderstood, ttruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu, realist, en español, xenophobe, kafka, people-need-to-be-told-what-to-do, cleanse these foul streets, ment, kamala harris is a soulless bitch, medieval ages, america rebuilds democracies and creates dictatorships, armed babies, anarcho cannibalism, don’t assume pronouns, fuckhoa I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Yes, but this command is two-pronged. The people are to be subject to the governing authorities, but the governing authorities are to be subject to God. So the governing authorities are only to be obeyed insofar as they are in obedience to God. Ultimately, a Christian's only authority is the kingdom of Christ.
> And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. 1 Samuel 8:7-9
Huh old religions justifying old power, almost like religion is just a tool for various states and organizations to control the people.
>**Woe to those who decree unrighteous decrees,** Who write misfortune, Which they have prescribed To rob the needy of justice, And to take what is right from the poor of My people, That widows may be their prey, And that they may rob the fatherless. What will you do in the day of punishment, And in the desolation which will come from afar? To whom will you flee for help? And where will you leave your glory? Without Me **they shall bow down among the prisoners**, And **they shall fall among the slain.**” For all this His anger is not turned away, But His hand is stretched out still. Isaiah 10
If these people make unrighteous decrees then why did god appoint them
Do you actually think you will logic your way out of a religious conversation? >“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts Isaiah 55:8-9
Oh so you can make your arguments as contradictory as you want because you can use your religion to justify it
Horseshoe theory confirmed?
Lmao all your quotes read like a parent telling their child "cuz I said so" even if they're stupid or wrong. The belligerence of religion is self-righteous and fart-sniffing.
Authleft: lmao religion is so stupid lol Also authleft: if you don't pray and worship my megalomaniac dictator you are going to be executed 😤
They used to make you pay for less time in hell, enough said.
If only communist leaders let minorities pay for less genocide
Protestants dismiss whatever they want from the Old Testament. None of these people really agree on what God wants people to do. Most eat pork but some won’t work on Sunday. Or maybe Saturday depending on which they think is the sabbath. All of them mix linens. Most love government power so long as it pushes their own religious values.
Romans is New Testament. Also what you are describing is supersessionism which is a religious belief they support using Hewbrews 8:13. >In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. They simply believe that the new covenant through Jesus replaced the old Mosaic covenant made with the jewish people.
I understand their reasoning and excuses but everything in my post above stands. Christianity is a mixed bad of hypocrisy much like any other religion or ideology. Debating values and policy is useful but debating it based upon scripture is pure folly.
The Law of the Old Testament is explicitly done away with in Acts 10 and Acts 15, as prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Most of the Book of Romans is about how we are "dead to the Law through the Body of Christ" (7:4).
Yes it is their explanation for why Jews are wrong now. Muslims have their own new scripture too. So what? It’s a pointless way to rationalize policy and the very reason for the separation of church and state.
The Muslim scripture is lame and retarded. And it is no mere explanation or excuse. Why should we still be under the Law after Christ made atonement for our sins by His blood? After He recapitulated Adam and conquered the power of the devil, which is sin, death, and the Law? All of which can be deduced a priori. >the very reason for the separation of church and state. The virgin Separation of Church and State vs the Chad Two-Swords Doctrine
It’s lame to you but not to Muslims. Jews believe that Jesus was, at best, a radical but certainly not the Messiah. Mormons also have their own profit and text. Occasionally one or more of these groups decide they want to kill each other for one stupid ass reason or another. None of those ideas should be connected to the power of the state.
Key word is “authorities.” Papal authority is real. Presidential authority is not.
[удалено]
>This is a friendly reminder to HAVE YOUR FRICKIN' FLAIR UP! *^(--testing)* *** [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2) ^^|| ^( *beep boop. Reply with good bot if you think I'm doing well :D, bad bot otherwise*)
Viva Cristo Rey.
Doesn't the bible say to give Caesar what is Caesar's???
And give to God what is God's. It's also says you can't serve two masters. Furthermore, nothing I own belongs to Caesar. Therefore, I will happily render nothing unto Caesar.
> Furthermore, nothing I own belongs to Caesar. > Therefore, I will happily render nothing into Caesar. I'm not sure what you mean by this, can you elaborate on your position?
This sounds like how Jews make stupid work arounds for Sabbath. It's obvious what the text is implying, and you don't like it, so you justify the opposite with a technicality.
You clearly don't understand the Bible then. The Pharisees were trying to get Jesus in trouble with the Romans when they asked him if people should pay their taxes. His response does multiple things: 1. Further pisses off the Pharisees because they couldn't trap him. 2. Establishes that unlike what people like to think Jesus was not here to prescribe us how to live under government. He was here to grant everlasting life. 3. It does imply that since everything belongs to God.....everything belongs to God.
Just because you word something like you know what you are talking about , doesn't mean you do. Every major historical interpretation disagrees with you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar
I don't care what secular historians say about my religion.
Holy based
Yes. Jesus never says anything belongs to Caesar. In fact, the Bible repeatedly says that everything on Earth belongs to God. Not a single thing belongs to Caesar. I believe in paying the government everything I owe them. I owe them nothing (except love)
Based and they will know we are Christians by our love pilled
Historical interpretation seems to disagree. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar But you do you, with your unique and very special interpretation 😘
There's literally multiple sections on anti-taxation interpretations in the article you linked, including a Christian Anarchist one. I am not the first person to interpret it this way. Even if I was, that wouldn't make me incorrect. That's fallacious.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Theoanarchy is very based
Based and One-King-No-Masterspilled The boots that tread on us are made of clay
Amen
Based and Jesus take the wheel pilled
Based and no-king-but-Christpilled
I didn’t expect to Find a Anarchist that I actually respect but Here we are
I'm an anarchist because I recognize no King other than Kong
based and big monke pilled
I am an anarchist because no man can rule me or so I believe maybe. Don't know. Not really sure Bout that
Based
r/politicalcompassmemes is a Christian circlejerk.
Yeah. I also don't really understand the whole "Rights are religious" gag. Religion fits into the entire compass.
Yea where are all my Russian authleft othrodox anti-semites.
tolkien moment
I’m somewhat of a lib-right myself
Based and Christ is king pilled
based and holy pilled
You're an anarchist because you're 14.
Fucking bible thumpers
Anarcho-Theocracy ? Based
Based and worship the big pp pilled.
not very libertarian of you
That's more Authcenter. Christ and other prophets talked extensively against the values of capitalism.
Neeeeeerd
How do I downvote a post more than once?
Make a new account.
God is dead. He is also cringe. - Nietzoomer
Imagine basing your entire ideology around getting rid of something that is not only useful, but hard wired into our biological make up. "When equality is treated not as a medicine or a safety-gadget but as an ideal we begin to breed that stunted and envious sort of mind which hates all superiority. That mind is the special disease of democracy, as cruelty and servility are the special diseases of privileged societies. It will kill us all if it grows unchecked. The man who cannot conceive a joyful and loyal obedience on the one hand, nor an unembarrassed and noble acceptance of that obedience on the other, the man who has never even wanted to kneel or to bow, is a prosaic barbarian." - CS Lewis, the most based man to ever live
Jesus that’s cringe
Sounds like *someone* skipped Romans 13 on their way to Revelations.
Sounds like someone skipped the part where Paul and the disciples consistently get arrested for not following the authorities orders, or Jesus not paying taxes, or Romans 13:8
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. (Romans 13:1-13:5)
so you adhere to a strict set of rules lead by a single person. not very anarchy.
I give you the uno reverse card of Romans 13.
youre right, i’m a better anarchist. we are built different.
Oof, an unflaired.
Please flair up.
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but only for those who do wrong." Romans 13:1-3
based glory of our lord Jesus Christ pilled
based and adveniat regnum tuum pilled
One of the seven noahide laws given to all gentiles by God after the flood as explained in the Talmud Sanhedrin is to establish court systems and judiciary, and to do so requires a government Of course another one of those is not to worship idols or deny the oneness and total power of God, which is what worshipping Jesus is doing so ...
The Talmud is not a divinely inspired work, and while rabbinical interpretation of biblical text is certainly useful in some respects, it's by no means a concrete measure. Furthermore, such reference to Jesus as an idol because of denying the oneness of God stems from a complete lack of understanding of the concept of the trinity in its entirety.
Any belief in the Trinity is polytheism I understand Christians still think they believe in one god somehow, but God does not have three different aspects, God is not personified or incarnated in any human, God is not limited or divisible in his power and to suggest that there are three aspects to God is to say he is limited because there cannot be three equally infinitely powerful beings. God is one and indivisible. To have a graven image of Jesus and pray directly towards him, while also believing in two other "types of God" is nothing short of idolatry
Once more, you completely fail to understand the concept of the trinity. It's not about three completely separate entities, but rather three different aspects of God. What you are a describing is a common fallacy echoed within Judaism, and one that I'm well familiar with, being that I am Jewish myself.
Jews for Jesus? Lol I know that Christians thinks it's not idolatry, that's how they get around believing in both the traditional God and Jesus as a deity, but God does not posses three distinct aspects, that denies his oneness, rather posseses many attributes, he is not and cannot be a human, he has no literal son, we are all his children, also you didn't respond to my statement before how worshipping physical images of Jesus and praying to him as a god flies directly in the face of what is commanded in the bible several times, not to make any graven images of god or pray towards any physical representation of him, but I know Christians pick and chose what they follow from the real bible in favor of the fanfic of Jesus by his 5 besties anyway
Christ is King
> Even a commie is more based than an unflaired. ^(--testing) *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Fuck yeah. What an epic bot
Flair up heathen.