Converting a Statist.

[Kel]

I remember in school I always got a kick out the kids with their What Would Jesus Do? bracelets. What would he do? Well, what did he do? would be a good place to start. You want to know what someone will do, look at what they've done. Want to know where they're going look at where they've been. Of course that was never the point behind those little trinkets. A "Lord and Savior" reduced to a kittycorner novelty item.

[NonEntity]

inertia Wrote:Of course, my fellow (statist) believers say I'm doing damage to scripture by suggesting Jesus was an anarchist.

As a devout atheist, and one who does not even believe that a single person with the attributes assigned to "Jesus" even existed... EVEN I would have to say that this Jesus myth is about as anarchistic as one can get.

BTW, I love the WWJD question. I think the things that are attributed to "him" are quite wonderful, and those who proclaim to be christians in the sense of seeking to do what Jesus would have chosen to do have a big thumbs up from me. I disagree with their claimed history, but applaud their sentiments. But it seems that most don't actually follow their claim.

- NonE

[inertia]

NonEntity Wrote:But it seems that most don't actually follow their claim.

I agree. But if I point out exactly how, I am told that I focus too much on anarchy.

[NonEntity]

inertia Wrote:

NonEntity Wrote:But it seems that most don't actually follow their claim.

I agree. But if I point out exactly how, I am told that I focus too much on anarchy.

Have you considered asking them something along the lines of, "Just exactly how much dishonesty does [your god or your instruction book] allow, and how do you determine when the line has been crossed?" :bootyshake:

I just love the catholic thing where you can do anything you want as long as you go into a magic box and reveal it through a little screen in the wall. Then you're good to go again. I just LOVE that!

Beats the hell out of having to live with the mistakes you've made.

- NonE

[AgoristTeen1994]

NonEntity Wrote:

inertia Wrote:

NonEntity Wrote:I just love the catholic thing where you can do anything you want as long as you go into a magic box and reveal it through a little screen in the wall. Then you're good to go again. I just LOVE that!

Beats the hell out of having to live with the mistakes you've made.

- NonE

Technically in my experience as a Catholic and what I was taught, that's assuming you were genuinely sorry, for what you did, which is something only God can know...the priest is assuming that you are sorry, but only you and God can no for sure whether you are or not. Of course some Catholics do treat it as a "get out of jail/hell free card" which quite frankly disgusts me.

[NonEntity]

AgoristTeen1994 Wrote:but only you and God can no for sure

Indeed.

So... what if you've done something that you feel bad about. Does it matter at all if someone, or some magical being, says it's okay? I must say I don't get it. I have to live with the actions I've taken, regardless of what others may or may not think of them. What is the purpose of bringing others into the equation? It looks like and quacks like a cop-out to me. You've still done whatever it is you've done, and you still have to live with your actions.

I think it's all about the church having control over you and nothing at all to do with redemption and such. Only you can choose to try to redeem your prior actions by choosing better future choices.

Datz what it seems like to me, anyway.

- NonE

[inertia]

NonEntity Wrote:What is the purpose of bringing others into the equation?

James 5:16 Wrote:Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

I John 1:9 Wrote:If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Whether or not the writers of these texts intended for this for control isn't the point. Yes, the tradition that grew out of these texts certainly did use it for control, I'll agree. That's an abuse of the text.

But the purpose of bringing others into the equation is because God's forgiveness is given as soon as we admit our need of it and bear witness of that fact (and the consequences) to others. It is for mutual edification. Community. Which is why the Catholic tradition is a problem. How is it edifying to admit your sins to someone who is just "above it all?"

[NonEntity]

inertia Wrote:

NonEntity Wrote:What is the purpose of bringing others into the equation?

James 5:16 Wrote:Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Yes, I stand corrected. I can certainly see where open confession of one's "sins" to others can begin (or further) the process of healing and growing. For one it represents honesty within one's self and within one's community. (Although here I remember Jimmy Swaggart's pathetic TV schtick which appears to contradict what I just said.)

Of course I don't think that any god has anything to do with it, but that's just me. I certainly see the benefit of the process.

inertia Wrote:But the purpose of bringing others into the equation is because God's forgiveness is given as soon as we admit our need of it and bear witness of that fact (and the consequences) to others. It is for mutual edification. Community.

I would ask you to consider if there is any difference in the above process if you remove all the stuff about a god. It seems to me the benefit is in the individual's taking responsibility for his actions and honestly revealing himself to his community. My personal take on it is that the god part of it is both a cop-out AND a failure to recognize one's own actions in the process. If you say it's "god's will" you are copping out and not being responsible for your own choices, and if you give "god" the credit then you are also negating your own ability to be a responsible human being. I just don't see the point. If you like the philosophy, fine, but failure to take responsibility for ones actions, both positive and negative, is a cop out.

But I (taking responsibility for my actions) can see that I've wandered way too far into the religious side of this conversation as regards Marc's request to avoid religion on this board, and so I will say that I respect your choice to believe whatever it is you wish to believe as long as you treat me with similar respect, and then I will suggest we just drop this line of discussion. I must say I do appreciate the conversation and your attitude and respect.

- NonE

[Kel]

Why practice religion? That's not what Yeshua ("Jesus") taught. Nobody hates religion more than God :biggrinblue: They're neither synonomous nor interchangeable. It's not even apples and oranges...it's like apples and office chairs. But I digress

[NonEntity]

Kel Wrote:They're neither synonomous nor interchangeable.

Referents? "They" = what things/items/subjects? "Practice" and "religion?"

- NonE

[inertia]

NonEntity Wrote:I would ask you to consider if there is any difference in the above process if you remove all the stuff about a god. It seems to me the benefit is in the individual's taking responsibility for his actions and honestly revealing himself to his community. My personal take on it is that the god part of it is both a cop-out AND a failure to recognize one's own actions in the process. If you say it's "god's will" you are copping out and not being responsible for your own choices, and if you give "god" the credit then you are also negating your own ability to be a responsible human being. I just don't see the point. If you like the philosophy, fine, but failure to take responsibility for ones actions, both positive and negative, is a cop out.

I can certainly understand that point of view. God seems like a tag-along in all this. I think this is seated in the notion that mankind is essentially good. I don't hold to that point of view. I believe people are essentially evil. And yet I am an anarchist. How does that work? Seems like a liability of either my philosophy of the (un)goodness of mankind or my anarchist view that we can come together in spite of it. Anyway, that's a different discussion.

Since I think people are essentially evil, good can only come externally, thus I credit God for that good. That's what it boils down to for me, correct or incorrect. So from my point of view, it's a cop-out to not credit God for the good.

Yet, I can also understand how people can conclude that mankind is essentially good. When someone points out an evil, people recoil. How can people be essentially bad if they automatically recoil from evil?

If you're interested, I can explain that. It's the difference between "total depravity" and "utter depravity." Total depravity is similar to an otherwise clean glass of water with a single drop of sewage. Utter depravity is a glass of sewage. Both are unfit to drink. But one has the appearance of good.

I think mankind is mainly summed up with total depravity, with instances of utter depravity from time to time. So someone who is considered "good," like Martin Luther King, still has total depravity while someone who is obviously completely evil, like Hitler, has utter depravity.

Like I say, I could be wrong about all this, but that's how I see it at the moment.

NonEntity Wrote:But I (taking responsibility for my actions) can see that I've wandered way too far into the religious side of this conversation as regards Marc's request to avoid religion on this board, and so I will say that I respect your choice to believe whatever it is you wish to believe as long as you treat me with similar respect, and then I will suggest we just drop this line of discussion. I must say I do appreciate the conversation and your attitude and respect.

I would agree that it is best to avoid religious rationale as a basis for "evidence" supporting or denouncing the state. I've gotten in plenty of trouble for saying the Bible supports anarchy. It's exactly like saying the Bible supports a representative form of government or a dictator. As far as that's concerned, I think it's a lousy basis to form any argument on the topic and should certainly be avoided.

I do have my personal theories about how to support my belief of inerrancy. But they don't really matter. The bottom line is should products or services be provided under threat of violence. I think scripture can support that easily enough. It takes real hermeneutical gymnastics to say otherwise, but people do it all the time.

[NonEntity]

inertia Wrote:Since I think people are essentially evil...

I think mankind is mainly summed up with total depravity, with instances of utter depravity from time to time.

I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way. I hope maybe someday you'll no longer do so, but that is not up to me. I think that people are people. [strike]They[/strike] We do some things which end up being very hurtful to others. True. This does not imply evil. Ignorance and fear (even if chosen) do not necessarily imply "total depravity." WWJsay? :winkwink:

But the thing that I find really funny/confusing/contradictory/weird is that it seems that those who proclaim to believe in this "god" thing also proclaim that this "god" thing made man in "his" image. :wacky:

- NonE

[AgoristTeen1994]

I agree with Inertia in the above post, to a point...I disagree that people are inherently good or evil, I believe that people as a whole, are neutral, but have an immense capacity for wonderful goods e.g. Mohandas Gandhi, or Mother Teresa, or horrifying evils, e.g. Hitler or Osama Bin Laden. Though I suppose to describe my belief to say "neutral" wouldn't be exactly accurate..more "neutral with a tendency to do stupid, evil, and/or selfish things" So then you may ask, how can I be an anarchist? Well for one I believe that if people aren't inherently good, then it is the height of stupidity to give some people power over others, and if people are inherently good then, government is obviously unnecessary (though I already believe it is unnecessary) Plus I take the Adam Smith's idea of the "Invisible hand" i.e. that people inadvertently help others, even if they're only looking out for their own interest, as long as they aren't actively trying to those other people, I take that idea, and embrace it because to me, it seems logical. Thus even if people aren't inherently good, and have a tendency to do stupid, evil, and/or stupid things, that an anarchist society, is the one that maximizes the incentive to "play nice" and minimizes the incentive to be an asshole.

[NonEntity]

Ya know, the thing that has mostly conundrumifried (new word, no copyright claim made for it, use it as you will) my mind is the idea of self defense.

On the one hand I firmly believe that violence begets more violence.

On the other hand it appears to me that self defense has been made not only illegal but a capital offense so that people are regularly kidnapped, beaten, even killed without so much as an attempt to stop the aggressor. Looking at this from a "survival of the fittest" perspective it would seem to indicate that we are breeding a class of parasitic predators. My gut says these people need to be stopped regardless of the consequences to them. On the one hand, violent self defense would certainly send a message and have a strong tendency to "civilize" those who are maybe borderline and eliminate those who are "over the line."

But then there is the first point above about breeding more violence. I really am conundrumifried on this issue. :frown:

Somehow or other this thread seemed like a place where maybe this comment should be dropped, stinking, into the punch bowl.

Doesn't it sorta follow that anyone who is unwilling to stand up for himself deserves whatever he gets? I mean, otherwise it is as if you are saying that someone ELSE is obligated to care after my rights and life and general well being. Which, it seems, is how we got exactly where we are right now.

- NonE

[Kel]

NonEntity Wrote:

Kel Wrote:They're neither synonomous nor interchangeable.

Referents? "They" = what things/items/subjects? "Practice" and "religion?"

- NonE

My apologies. They = God and Religion.