Allow me to introduce myself...

[LMNO]

It seems to me very much a case of Law of Fivesing/Confirmation Bias to me as well, but so does 95% of attempted interaction between religion and political philosophy.

So, perhaps the best way to put it is he self-affirms the spiritual label of Christian, and the political label of anarchist.  No need to try to combine the two.

[Cain]

Well sure.  If you want cognitive dissonance.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It seems to me very much a case of Law of Fivesing/Confirmation Bias to me as well, but so does 95% of attempted interaction between religion and political philosophy.

Well, one of the really interesting things about Jesus was that all of his references to politics were either to stay out of them, or that they weren't relevant to him or his message.

So, obviously, that's a commandment for Christians to push their religion into the political sphere as much as is possible.  Back in the early 80s, Pat Robertson - for one example - DEMANDED a "minimum quote of Christian conservatives in congress".  When one of Reagan's people told him there was a constitutional problem with that, Robertson took Reagan's correction as divinely inspired by Jesus, and dropped the subject...Until 9/13/01, when he and Falwell and some other spag came out with the "I told you so"'s.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It seems to me very much a case of Law of Fivesing/Confirmation Bias to me as well, but so does 95% of attempted interaction between religion and political philosophy.

So, perhaps the best way to put it is he self-affirms the spiritual label of Christian, and the political label of anarchist.  No need to try to combine the two.

Well, if you are a member of the strict interpretation crowd, even that's not kosher.

[emerod]

Hey Emerod. What kind of editing do you do? Me, I do editorial stuff for a textbook publisher.

What kind of culture jamming are you into? Me, I'm a big fan of posters and subtle intrusions into pedestrian reality.

Do you think for-profit and culture-jamming are at odds?

Former textbook editor. I still do journals, but most of my work now is academic book editing.

Posters, OMF notes in stores, etc. Nothing recent, actually.

No, I'm all for small-scale profit enterprises.

[emerod]

Also, what precisely is a Christian Anarchist (Note to everyone else:  No, I'm not going to start the anarchy argument up again, I'm just curious.  So fuck off, you pack of Goddamn hyenas.)

The power structures of this world are irrelevant and they obscure spiritual truth. They will all be destroyed.

See Jacques Ellul and Vernard Eller:
http://www.jesusradicals.com/theology/jacques-ellul/2/
http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/index.html

See also
http://vftonline.org/XianAnarch/homepage.htm

"Christians are heaven-bent on the non-violent overthrow of all Secular Humanist Archies, and the proclamation of the right of Christ to be the world's sole Archist."

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also, what precisely is a Christian Anarchist (Note to everyone else:  No, I'm not going to start the anarchy argument up again, I'm just curious.  So fuck off, you pack of Goddamn hyenas.)

The power structures of this world are irrelevant and they obscure spiritual truth. They will all be destroyed.

See Jacques Ellul and Vernard Eller:
http://www.jesusradicals.com/theology/jacques-ellul/2/
http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/index.html

See also
http://vftonline.org/XianAnarch/homepage.htm

"Christians are heaven-bent on the non-violent overthrow of all Secular Humanist Archies, and the proclamation of the right of Christ to be the world's sole Archist."

Really?  Because looking at Christians these days, most of them have become Tea Party statists.  They're against taxes (that most of them don't actually pay), but they're FOR eradicating the few remaining rights we have.

Not speaking to your case, mind you...I have no idea what your opinions are on the subject.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Please note that I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the concept (Anarchy threads turn brutal and ugly, here), but rather my observations on what most Christians actually seem to be doing.

[Cain]

It seems to me very much a case of Law of Fivesing/Confirmation Bias to me as well, but so does 95% of attempted interaction between religion and political philosophy.

Well, one of the really interesting things about Jesus was that all of his references to politics were either to stay out of them, or that they weren't relevant to him or his message.

That would actually segue into some interpretations of anarchism.  It would also be rather close to the Christian-Buddhist/weak nihilist type Nietzsche talked about in some of his books.

I would also suggest the Bible was in fact carefully expunged of most political commentary, to make it more palatable to a Roman audience.  Jesus did, after all, travel with a guy who was likely a Zealot, and had powerful friends, not to mention previous false Messiahs had often led uprisings against Roman rule (or attempted to, until they got crucified - one of these revolts happened when Jesus was around six, IIRC).

But for the standard interpretation of Jesus, certainly, apolitical would seem a much more plausible stance.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It seems to me very much a case of Law of Fivesing/Confirmation Bias to me as well, but so does 95% of attempted interaction between religion and political philosophy.

Well, one of the really interesting things about Jesus was that all of his references to politics were either to stay out of them, or that they weren't relevant to him or his message.

That would actually segue into some interpretations of anarchism.  It would also be rather close to the Christian-Buddhist/weak nihilist type Nietzsche talked about in some of his books.

I would also suggest the Bible was in fact carefully expunged of most political commentary, to make it more palatable to a Roman audience.  Jesus did, after all, travel with a guy who was likely a Zealot, and had powerful friends, not to mention previous false Messiahs had often led uprisings against Roman rule (or attempted to, until they got crucified - one of these revolts happened when Jesus was around six, IIRC).

But for the standard interpretation of Jesus, certainly, apolitical would seem a much more plausible stance.

Anarchism isn't apolitical, though, so I can't buy that.

[emerod]

Really?  Because looking at Christians these days, most of them have become Tea Party statists.  They're against taxes (that most of them don't actually pay), but they're FOR eradicating the few remaining rights we have.

Not speaking to your case, mind you...I have no idea what your opinions are on the subject.

I call these losers "Galtistas". Galtism is a collectivist fantasy favored by impotent, oppressed middle-class trolls who are completely dependent on society for all their needs. In this scheme, the Galtistas stage a series of mass demonstrations in order to extort ever greater rewards from their government sugar daddy.

[Cain]

While I would tend to agree, since it is virtually impossible to be apolitical, there are some anarchist trends of thought which involve basically ignoring the state, church etc as much as possible and withdrawing from the world.  It's not entirely apolitical, as the choice to not involve oneself in politics is a political choice, but it's fairly close.

And, for obvious reasons, this has a large degree of overlap with the pacifist strands of anarchism and so most varieties Christian Anarchism.

[LMNO]

Really?  Because looking at Christians these days, most of them have become Tea Party statists.  They're against taxes (that most of them don't actually pay), but they're FOR eradicating the few remaining rights we have.

Not speaking to your case, mind you...I have no idea what your opinions are on the subject.

I call these losers "Galtistas". Galtism is a collectivist fantasy favored by impotent, oppressed middle-class trolls who are completely dependent on society for all their needs. In this scheme, the Galtistas stage a series of mass demonstrations in order to extort ever greater rewards from their government sugar daddy.

I like you already.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Really?  Because looking at Christians these days, most of them have become Tea Party statists.  They're against taxes (that most of them don't actually pay), but they're FOR eradicating the few remaining rights we have.

Not speaking to your case, mind you...I have no idea what your opinions are on the subject.

I call these losers "Galtistas". Galtism is a collectivist fantasy favored by impotent, oppressed middle-class trolls who are completely dependent on society for all their needs. In this scheme, the Galtistas stage a series of mass demonstrations in order to extort ever greater rewards from their government sugar daddy.

They're also about 48% of the US population, from what I can tell.

And they aren't demanding rewards, they're demanding tyranny.  Which, I suppose, would be a reward to a certain type of person.

[emerod]

So, perhaps the best way to put it is he self-affirms the spiritual label of Christian, and the political label of anarchist.  No need to try to combine the two.

Well sure.  If you want cognitive dissonance.

As a matter of fact, I do want cognitive dissonance. I find it spiritually refreshing.

The name "emerod", BTW, is an old variation of hemorrhoid. A philistine king was afflicted with emerods because he offended God. In order to relieve himself, he was instructed to make golden images of them, which of course would require him to be completely humiliated.