You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Anarcho-Christian Monarchism
I think that a religious cult like Christianity, which has a firm hierarchy, isn't really compatible with true anarchy. Eliminating the power of a state, but keeping the power of a religion still makes you a slave to a master, or higher power.
And so I don't think Christianity is compatible with true freedom. The idea that you have "the freedom to sin (or else)" or something, isn't very logical, so at its heart, if you're a Christian, you need to follow the rules (or else), which means you need to follow a lot more than the NAP or golden rule.
This defeats the purpose of trying to be free.
Heretickitten: You are defining Christianity by the people who attend state corporations commonly called churches. Easy mistake to make. You are also assuming that the state religion started by Rome represents Christianity...and that was their game plan. But the first Christians were called atheists precisely because they had a welfare network that functioned outside of the elohim/gods/rulers of the centralized state.
In fact, Christians were accused of robbing the temple of Diana at Ephesus which was the central bank for at least 127 countries. How would they do that? By being exempt from paying into the centralized social welfare system because they had their own system that operated in parallel.
One must first be clear about what religion is. James 1:27 provides that: "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."
That word "world" is translated from the word "kosmos" which simply means "an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government."
In other words, the official religion of every US Citizen is the US Government because that is the system by which the needy cared for. So-called "atheists" are worshiping the same elohim (rulers/judges) as churchians...because both groups are using the same mystical definitions brainwashed into them by government indoctrination camps called "schools" and state corporations called "churches" lead by state-licensed agents called "ministers."
Dare to take a look at the bible with fresh eyes and you might find it is one of the best textbooks ever written for anarchy. Bastard's Summary of the Bible
That's a very interesting perspective. The Bible is definitely full of anarchist ideas. I plan to write a future post on that subject, particularly the organizational structure of the Israelites in the time of the judges and God's warning to the Israelites through Samuel when they asked for a king. If 1 Samuel 8 isn't a warning against statism I don't know what is.
Thank you for commenting. First of all, the power of the state is not comparable to the power of a religion. The state uses force or the threat thereof to impose its will on people. The Christian religion is a voluntary organization, and people are free to leave. The reason why we oppose the state is because it violates the NAP by its very nature. The same cannot be said of religion. The anarchist, or at least the anarcho-capitalist, is not opposed to hierarchy per se. He is opposed to the use of force. Legitimate authority does exist, such as an authority in the field of mathematics or physics. People can recognize legitimate authority and choose, voluntary, to recognize it. Illegitimate authority is imposed by force. A legitimate hierarchy is similar; authority is earned and voluntarily recognized.
As to your second point, it comes down to whether or not Christianity is true. If it isn't, then having the "freedom to sin" does not result in any consequences in an afterlife and is indeed freedom in the sense that I believe you mean. If it is true, however, then the "freedom to sin" is the same as the freedom to jump off a cliff. Anarchists in particular, as opposed to socialists, believe that we are free to act but we are not free from the consequences of our actions. Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. If Christianity is true, then I am no more free of the consequence of sin than I am the consequence of jumping off a cliff. It is a fact of the world as presented to us to grapple with.
But again, if Christianity is not true, it simply means that those consequences don't exist. The institution of religion, in so far as it does not use force against you, is not a violation of freedom. The truth or falsehood of its claims, however, have bearing on how we exercise our freedom in the world with discretion. Neither point is a violation of freedom.
Christianity would also violate the NAP.
You compared sin to choosing to jump off a cliff, right?
The power of a state is comparable to the power of a religion, because both use some type of force to compel people to obey. For you, your compulsion to obey is because you think that not obeying is "choosing to jump off a cliff". This is completely absurd, and I'm not sure why you can't see the massive logical error there. Until we deal with that, we can't move on.
If there's a leader at the top of a religion, be it a god or a priest, then that creates an "archy", not an "anarchy", and if that leader says "if you do something I say is wrong, it's like you jump off a cliff" then that violates the NAP. Pushing someone off a cliff and saying they jumped is dishonest.
It's like a police officer saying "You choose to go to jail when you choose to smoke weed". When the reality is that in a just world, you could smoke weed without going to jail, if only the police officer wouldn't arrest you.
Here's the difference: The priest does not decide what rules you must follow, and he does not send you to hell, nor does he propose to. In a stateless society, a natural law, private-property-based common law would emerge in a decentralized manner. Private arbitrators, voluntarily hired for the purpose of decision-making on a case-by-case basis, would use their knowledge of precedent and legal theory to make wise and informed decisions. The customers can choose to abide by the decision or not. This is the difference between law in a state of anarchy and law under a monopolist State. Similarly, in a church structure, the priest is merely imparting his knowledge of God's law to his fellow man. They are free to believe him or not, and to act on his advice or not. The priest does not follow you to your house, point a gun to your head, and make you say Grace before every meal.
But again, I have to point out: If you don't believe the claims of Christianity are true, then in your opinion there is no God to pass judgement on you. If that's the case, then what's the problem? All you have is some people over here who believe something (falsely, in your opinion), and they're not forcing you to do anything. The only reason you might have a problem with it would be because you believe that it IS true, and you don't agree with the situation you're in. The reason I liken it to the forces of gravity is because if God exists, and He created everything, then the laws he put in place, both natural (like gravity) or moral (don't steal, don't kill) must be taken as facts of the reality that He created, and we must grapple with the facts of nature and consequence in this world. The moral law is simply the path to God. If you don't wish to choose that, then you're free to do so. You'll get exactly what you chose. Hell is not a punishment in the sense that most people think. It's the absence of God. You're free to choose it. You just might not like it, though. But if you want to move toward something good in the afterlife, then there are steps to take and steps to avoid. I am free to smoke, drink, and eat junk food. But if I get fat and cancerous and diabetic, it would be ridiculous to say "You mean if I want to be healthy, I can't do these things? That wasn't much of a choice. That's not freedom."
Once more, to be perfectly clear, it is not the religion itself that is doing something to you, or restricting you. It is your belief about the nature of existence that restricts your actions. And if you don't believe God exists, why would you feel restricted in this way? And why would others' belief in the existence of a God you don't believe in restrict your freedom in any way?
One more thing: I think it's important to clarify here who you believe is violating the NAP. An ideology cannot violate the NAP. Only people can. So a person or group who claim to hold a particular ideology, a religion, say, can violate the NAP. Humans are fallible, and yes, that would be wrong. But it's not the ideology acting independently from man. So are Christians violating your right to not be aggressed against? If not, is it then God who is violating the NAP? If God does not exist, then He cannot violate the NAP. Is my supposedly erroneous belief in God a violation of the NAP? If so, then who am I violating? Am I violating myself, in believing something that is, in your opinion, false? That seems like a stretch. If I choose to believe something and act in accordance with it, am I not exercising self-rule? Please indicate where the violation lies.