Anarchism = Classless society or Even Just Like the Original Doctrine is Marxism.Thus, an anarcho capitalism that does not exist.Capitalism = money hijerarhija
@gulbirk He did both, just because he didn't make a whole manifesto doesn't make him invalid. Plus he certainly was NOT a capitalist. He threw the moneychangers out of the temple and called them theives. They were just ordinary businessmen in a laissez-faire economy.
@snakebitgoat And how do you know he was a communist? How do you know he wasnt just against corruption and sneaky busines men?
""He did both"". Sorry, he did neither. There is no mention in the bible of labor theory, capitalism being a source of exploitation and the neccesity of the removal of the private market or plan based economies.
You have posted 3 comments (exluding the recent one). First one was the claim. Second one was another claim. And third one was a logical fallacy. You havent provided any proof.
"""He threw the moneychangers out of the temple and called them theives"" That is the only thing you have stated which is correct. And that does not make him a communist.
@gulbirk I will send you a link to a communist that actually believes what I believes regarding Jesus being a communist who is actually an atheist. He can provide you with a less ham-handed statement and proof
In regards to the subtopic, how do you distinguish between the religion and the state for Medieval Crusaders? As they subscribed to the Divine Right of Kings, they did not see a distinction between the two. Is your point simply that without the State to dictate what is and isn't Christian, Crusades wouldn't happen? How do you account for Islam containing so many radical elements despite having no central authority? Take the State away from a religion, and it can still produce radicals.
@Friendough Sorry, but what Crusaders do you even mean? The lay nobles? These didn't exact religious authority. The spiritual orders? Well, yes, they did, but when they had land to rule over (like the Teutonic Knights), they did not apply canonic law to secular matters (neither did ordained rulers in the Holy Roman Empire). State and religion and church, while intertwined in many ways, were not identical during the European Middle Ages.
@FirstChurchOfCthulhu Addendum: Also, lesser nobles were bound to their superiors by virtue of oaths (and personal relationship), not religious decree. And up until Absolutism, "Divine Right" did not mean that a particular ruler was unassailable (otherwise, the Middle Ages would have been a much more peaceful period).
Well, the oaths they swore did have religious significance. Do you think, though, that this strengthens or weakens the argument the Crusades were an artifact of the State? If Christianity can be separated from the state, then the impetus for religious action doesn't have to come down through a religious institution. How else would we judge something as being religious, if the state and religion are considered separate?
@Friendough "Well, the oaths they swore did have religious significance" Irrelevant. This doesn't turn obeying the Lord's command (or swearing fealty in the first place) from a political action into a religious one. You are conflating practice and ideology.
As for your question: Since the Crusades were *wars*, they could not have happened without any sort of state-like entity. The question is: What was the motive of political actors to heed the call of the Pope?
Which falls under the heading of religion, practice or ideology? If they are both part of a religion, then does it make sense to separate them from discussions of that religion? Without the religious language that goes into oaths, are they oaths? Do you find that the swearing of oaths held no religious significance to the people of the time? My position isn't that it's one not the other, but that it's both.
@Friendough I think there's a misunderstanding here. Perhaps an example can clarify: Public officials (in the U.S. and elsewhere) take oaths and are therefore "bound before God". Does that mean that being a public official is religious? Is everything they do to uphold that oath (protecting the interest of... serving the good of... blablabla) a religious action? Hardly.
Sure. But then again, we don't execute people for witchcraft any more, either. Is putting some to death for heresy purely religious, or purely political? I would say it's both, and demonstrates a lack of separation between the two at that time. Perhaps I have a prejudice here, though. The reason I asked my question was to see where Snakebitgoat draws the line. I am certainly open to have some knowledge dropped on me, though.
@Friendough I think we should approach "actions" analytical, as motive (why is someone doing this?), content (what is someone doing) and justification (how does he justify his actions in discourse). If you mistake justification for motive or even content, than you are conflating ideology and practice.
As far as Snakebitgoat is concerned, I would say that he is *not* Theocrat. Theocrats act politically with religious motives and justifications. He seems to want to get rid of politics altogether.
Can we get rid of politics? I would contend that any group of more than two people has politics. Regardless, though, I am curious what you think on the subject of Theocracy. Is there anything wrong with being a Theocrat, the way SkepticalHeretic is using the word? Or do you think he is playing a word game?
I see your points. But I think there was a sense of God being the active force in every motive experience and a part of every decision passed down by an authority. It wasn't as if God sat in one magisteria, and the king in another. It was holistic, both parts of the feudal system. I am in interested in how the two can be separated, religion on one side and state on the other, in a reading of the history.
@Friendough Yes for the majority of the time. I do think sometimes Satan masks himself as God as the bible said so I'm not saying fundamentalism isn't motivated by secularism alone.
Its all about how small the scale is. I view the crusades as a war for land, not religion. While I view women who kill their child because "God" told them to as act of fanaticism and being led by Satan.
Well, as I advocate separation of church and state, I can't say that I disagree. Combining secular and spiritual concerns is a bad idea. On the subject of fundamentalism, to what extent do you think it might be people who honestly believe they are doing the right thing, just plain old human flaw?
@FriendOregon A little bit of both, but mostly the former. I think Christians can be anarchists its just a more individual idea than say An-caps or An-Synchs.
@snakebitgoat Ah okay so your not actually proposing christain rule replacing the rule of government. It is more like secondary guidance thing. That self determinism in the society for all individual of different creeds in still the prime goal?
Well that being the case I don't really think your a theocrat. I think being a theorcrat would almost certainly suggest to you believe in ordered religious government of some sort.
Well, how would this work then? There is no state, but there is a church... so whatever the state does now is handled by the church, minus whatever you think the state should never have done in the first place. Three main questions:
1. Whose land would you use to set up this state?
2. How do you plan to convince more than a few dozen people to go along with this style of government?
3. Do the residents of this country have freedom of religion? (If you aren't Christian, do you have to leave?)
@Zaunstar 1. Any land that wants to take it up. God is no respector of persons :)
2. Volenteerism, just lke most stateless societies, they want to join go ahead
3. You don't have to leave if you're an atheist, muslim, pagan or anything else, but you have to be comfortable being with a Christian majority. Most Christian anarchists are pacifists so stoning wouldn't be allowed.
As admirable as the ideal is, of returning to early church intentions are, IE more walking with the carpenter-less racketeering, if you are replacing secular state, with theology, that is by definition theocracy. And if this commune has any children in it, sorry, that's the nail in the coffin of any argument. No child should be forced (as in by being a member of a state) to choose being ostracized or dead, if they refuse indoctrination. The concept is an oxymoron.
@DonQuixotedeKaw Depends on how dogmatic the Christianity is (hence why I stated it emphasizes more on teachings than dogma), most of Christian Left are Unitarians which are more or less "whatever floats your boat". I do see your point though. I enjoy your insight Don
@snakebitgoat omg.....NO IT DOES'T DEPEND ON HOW DOGMATIC THE CHRISTIANITY IS. If you are essentially replacing government with religion that's a theocracy. I mean when I saw skepticalheratics video I thought they might be something subtle going on here. Nope, it's just you.
Christianity and divorce = servility,opium for the poor.
A left-wing enlightened atheist!
TheBuzzo01 1 month ago
Christan Anarchism? Very very oximoron....
TheBuzzo01 2 months ago
@TheBuzzo01 anarchism is basically anti-state not anti-authority despite what most people claim.
snakebitgoat 1 month ago
@snakebitgoat
Anarchism = Classless society or Even Just Like the Original Doctrine is Marxism.Thus, an anarcho capitalism that does not exist.Capitalism = money hijerarhija
TheBuzzo01 1 month ago
you have 2 likes
Xendrio 2 months ago
If you are going to be a communist. At least read Marx.
gulbirk 2 months ago
@gulbirk Jesus was the first communist :P
snakebitgoat 2 months ago
@snakebitgoat Oh. Where does Jesus speak about the value of labor? Where does jesus hypothesise the exploition of capitalism?
Where does jesus advocate a community plan based economy?
It doesnt make a person a communist just because they dont like rich people, and help poor people.
gulbirk 2 months ago
@gulbirk He did both, just because he didn't make a whole manifesto doesn't make him invalid. Plus he certainly was NOT a capitalist. He threw the moneychangers out of the temple and called them theives. They were just ordinary businessmen in a laissez-faire economy.
snakebitgoat 2 months ago
@snakebitgoat And how do you know he was a communist? How do you know he wasnt just against corruption and sneaky busines men?
""He did both"". Sorry, he did neither. There is no mention in the bible of labor theory, capitalism being a source of exploitation and the neccesity of the removal of the private market or plan based economies.
gulbirk 2 months ago
@gulbirk Not repeating myself, seriously just because "capitalism is evil" isn't in the bible doesn't make it non-communist.
snakebitgoat 2 months ago
@snakebitgoat Ah, replacement of burdon of proof. You claimed that communism is in the bible, which means the burdon of proof is on you to show that.
By the logic you used, I could say that anything is in any book, as long as the opposite isnt there.
gulbirk 2 months ago
@gulbirk I provided proof, you denied it. Not my fault
snakebitgoat 2 months ago
@snakebitgoat """I provided proof, ""
You have posted 3 comments (exluding the recent one). First one was the claim. Second one was another claim. And third one was a logical fallacy. You havent provided any proof.
"""He threw the moneychangers out of the temple and called them theives"" That is the only thing you have stated which is correct. And that does not make him a communist.
gulbirk 2 months ago
@gulbirk I will send you a link to a communist that actually believes what I believes regarding Jesus being a communist who is actually an atheist. He can provide you with a less ham-handed statement and proof
snakebitgoat 2 months ago
In regards to the subtopic, how do you distinguish between the religion and the state for Medieval Crusaders? As they subscribed to the Divine Right of Kings, they did not see a distinction between the two. Is your point simply that without the State to dictate what is and isn't Christian, Crusades wouldn't happen? How do you account for Islam containing so many radical elements despite having no central authority? Take the State away from a religion, and it can still produce radicals.
Friendough 2 months ago
@Friendough Sorry, but what Crusaders do you even mean? The lay nobles? These didn't exact religious authority. The spiritual orders? Well, yes, they did, but when they had land to rule over (like the Teutonic Knights), they did not apply canonic law to secular matters (neither did ordained rulers in the Holy Roman Empire). State and religion and church, while intertwined in many ways, were not identical during the European Middle Ages.
FirstChurchOfCthulhu 2 months ago
@FirstChurchOfCthulhu Addendum: Also, lesser nobles were bound to their superiors by virtue of oaths (and personal relationship), not religious decree. And up until Absolutism, "Divine Right" did not mean that a particular ruler was unassailable (otherwise, the Middle Ages would have been a much more peaceful period).
FirstChurchOfCthulhu 2 months ago
@FirstChurchOfCthulhu
Well, the oaths they swore did have religious significance. Do you think, though, that this strengthens or weakens the argument the Crusades were an artifact of the State? If Christianity can be separated from the state, then the impetus for religious action doesn't have to come down through a religious institution. How else would we judge something as being religious, if the state and religion are considered separate?
Friendough 2 months ago
@Friendough "Well, the oaths they swore did have religious significance" Irrelevant. This doesn't turn obeying the Lord's command (or swearing fealty in the first place) from a political action into a religious one. You are conflating practice and ideology.
As for your question: Since the Crusades were *wars*, they could not have happened without any sort of state-like entity. The question is: What was the motive of political actors to heed the call of the Pope?
FirstChurchOfCthulhu 2 months ago
@FirstChurchOfCthulhu Having just consulted LexMA, I may have to partly revise my position. Just stay tuned for the video. ;)
FirstChurchOfCthulhu 2 months ago
@FirstChurchOfCthulhu
Which falls under the heading of religion, practice or ideology? If they are both part of a religion, then does it make sense to separate them from discussions of that religion? Without the religious language that goes into oaths, are they oaths? Do you find that the swearing of oaths held no religious significance to the people of the time? My position isn't that it's one not the other, but that it's both.
Friendough 2 months ago
@Friendough I think there's a misunderstanding here. Perhaps an example can clarify: Public officials (in the U.S. and elsewhere) take oaths and are therefore "bound before God". Does that mean that being a public official is religious? Is everything they do to uphold that oath (protecting the interest of... serving the good of... blablabla) a religious action? Hardly.
FirstChurchOfCthulhu 2 months ago
@FirstChurchOfCthulhu
Sure. But then again, we don't execute people for witchcraft any more, either. Is putting some to death for heresy purely religious, or purely political? I would say it's both, and demonstrates a lack of separation between the two at that time. Perhaps I have a prejudice here, though. The reason I asked my question was to see where Snakebitgoat draws the line. I am certainly open to have some knowledge dropped on me, though.
Friendough 2 months ago
@Friendough I think we should approach "actions" analytical, as motive (why is someone doing this?), content (what is someone doing) and justification (how does he justify his actions in discourse). If you mistake justification for motive or even content, than you are conflating ideology and practice.
As far as Snakebitgoat is concerned, I would say that he is *not* Theocrat. Theocrats act politically with religious motives and justifications. He seems to want to get rid of politics altogether.
FirstChurchOfCthulhu 2 months ago
@FirstChurchOfCthulhu
Can we get rid of politics? I would contend that any group of more than two people has politics. Regardless, though, I am curious what you think on the subject of Theocracy. Is there anything wrong with being a Theocrat, the way SkepticalHeretic is using the word? Or do you think he is playing a word game?
Friendough 2 months ago
@Friendough As an atheist and secularist, I'm opposed to Theocracy and would call Theocrats my political opponents, if that answers your question.
FirstChurchOfCthulhu 2 months ago
@FirstChurchOfCthulhu
It does, thank you.
Friendough 2 months ago
@FirstChurchOfCthulhu
I see your points. But I think there was a sense of God being the active force in every motive experience and a part of every decision passed down by an authority. It wasn't as if God sat in one magisteria, and the king in another. It was holistic, both parts of the feudal system. I am in interested in how the two can be separated, religion on one side and state on the other, in a reading of the history.
Friendough 2 months ago
@Friendough I would like to prepare video on that topic. May take a few weeks though.^^
FirstChurchOfCthulhu 2 months ago
@FirstChurchOfCthulhu
Sounds good. I look forward to it.
Friendough 2 months ago
@Friendough Can they still produce radicals? Yes would they be motivated by a secular power and therefore flawed? No.
snakebitgoat 2 months ago
@snakebitgoat
Do you think that secular motivation is what causes religious radicals to be dangerous?
Friendough 2 months ago
@Friendough Yes for the majority of the time. I do think sometimes Satan masks himself as God as the bible said so I'm not saying fundamentalism isn't motivated by secularism alone.
Its all about how small the scale is. I view the crusades as a war for land, not religion. While I view women who kill their child because "God" told them to as act of fanaticism and being led by Satan.
snakebitgoat 2 months ago
@snakebitgoat
Well, as I advocate separation of church and state, I can't say that I disagree. Combining secular and spiritual concerns is a bad idea. On the subject of fundamentalism, to what extent do you think it might be people who honestly believe they are doing the right thing, just plain old human flaw?
Friendough 2 months ago
Oh Jeez, you're getting it now too. Don't people realize that there are sub populations within any ism? or ideology?
GirlonFilm1969 2 months ago
@GirlonFilm1969 exactly
snakebitgoat 2 months ago
Are you just an anarchist that happens to be a christian or are you someone who is proposing rules of religion in as supposed to government?
FriendOregon 2 months ago
@FriendOregon A little bit of both, but mostly the former. I think Christians can be anarchists its just a more individual idea than say An-caps or An-Synchs.
snakebitgoat 2 months ago
@snakebitgoat Ah okay so your not actually proposing christain rule replacing the rule of government. It is more like secondary guidance thing. That self determinism in the society for all individual of different creeds in still the prime goal?
Well that being the case I don't really think your a theocrat. I think being a theorcrat would almost certainly suggest to you believe in ordered religious government of some sort.
FriendOregon 2 months ago
@FriendOregon Exactly
snakebitgoat 2 months ago
Well, how would this work then? There is no state, but there is a church... so whatever the state does now is handled by the church, minus whatever you think the state should never have done in the first place. Three main questions:
1. Whose land would you use to set up this state?
2. How do you plan to convince more than a few dozen people to go along with this style of government?
3. Do the residents of this country have freedom of religion? (If you aren't Christian, do you have to leave?)
Zaunstar 2 months ago 5
@Zaunstar 1. Any land that wants to take it up. God is no respector of persons :)
2. Volenteerism, just lke most stateless societies, they want to join go ahead
3. You don't have to leave if you're an atheist, muslim, pagan or anything else, but you have to be comfortable being with a Christian majority. Most Christian anarchists are pacifists so stoning wouldn't be allowed.
snakebitgoat 2 months ago
As admirable as the ideal is, of returning to early church intentions are, IE more walking with the carpenter-less racketeering, if you are replacing secular state, with theology, that is by definition theocracy. And if this commune has any children in it, sorry, that's the nail in the coffin of any argument. No child should be forced (as in by being a member of a state) to choose being ostracized or dead, if they refuse indoctrination. The concept is an oxymoron.
DonQuixotedeKaw 2 months ago 3
@DonQuixotedeKaw Depends on how dogmatic the Christianity is (hence why I stated it emphasizes more on teachings than dogma), most of Christian Left are Unitarians which are more or less "whatever floats your boat". I do see your point though. I enjoy your insight Don
Peace
snakebitgoat 2 months ago
@snakebitgoat omg.....NO IT DOES'T DEPEND ON HOW DOGMATIC THE CHRISTIANITY IS. If you are essentially replacing government with religion that's a theocracy. I mean when I saw skepticalheratics video I thought they might be something subtle going on here. Nope, it's just you.
TheAnimeAtheist 2 months ago
I agree. I was actually formerly a christian anarcho-capitalist awhile ago (no, it's actually not a contradiction).
fountainherz 2 months ago
@fountainherz Thanks :)
snakebitgoat 2 months ago