Comments on: Again.

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:49:54 +0000

“But I don’t know what the proper usage of gov’t is and if we can actually achieve it well enough to validate the use of it.”

Not to keep harping on the same thing, but the government does a better* job at providing for the underprivileged than the church, better job at supporting the arts than the church, etc. So… if we going to abandon** something because it doesn’t do its job, it seems like church is the more appropriate institution.

* I have no idea how I am defining better here
** Not that I’m advocating that

By: Michelle

Michelle — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:48:49 +0000

oh, and that little blurb at the top of the page that says ““It is for for freedom Christ has set you free!”” drives me nuts…could you fix that other “for”? haha!

By: Michelle

Michelle — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:44:36 +0000

I think being in a capitalistic government confuses this a little for Christians… We all look to the scriptures for authority and guidance, but the government which New Testament Christians found themselves in was one where they had no choice. It seems that by virtue of having an emperor kept them out of the role of government to a degree. Yet we have a choice. We can’t just “render to Caesar what is his” and be done with it. The threads of government are deeply penetrated into our churches and our roots… But I guess we DO live in a nation which was founded for the purpose of religious freedom – so perhaps it’s a natural outcome of sorts, that the “religion” has become too intertwined with the “government”…

What did the early Christians do in terms of government? Obviously we all know about the catacombs, but that was during persecution. It seems things get a little hazier when Christianity is “legalized” under Constantine, thus making Christianity a government thing… are we just repeating Rome and looking towards the same fate?

Those are just random thoughts from an uninformed girl, severely lacking in any government and economic knowledge – so don’t judge me if I’m totally off base

By: plukevdh

plukevdh — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 05:04:18 +0000

this has been a great discussion btw.

By: plukevdh

plukevdh — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 05:04:03 +0000

I don’t know. The anarchism I am gravitating towards is one that simply decides to work apart/separated from gov’t, not necessarily against it. I’m not sure one can avoid the kinds of compromise gov’t seems to bring in most cases. I agree that “the misuse of a thing does not invalidate its proper usage” But I don’t know what the proper usage of gov’t is and if we can actually achieve it well enough to validate the use of it. That’s why I struggle with a Christian involvement with gov’t right now.

By: derek

derek — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:28:02 +0000

i still just dont see the point in adopting a christian anarchist position. cant christians avoid some of these pitfalls without resorting to anarchism. is that really such a pure option? doesnt christian anarchism also have its problems?

By: derek

derek — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:21:13 +0000

“ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia”

By: Josh

Josh — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 18:05:50 +0000

But I don’t see why government *requires* those things. Sure, those in government may dumb-down their religion or treat it as a religion, but why think that’s required? It’s not at all surprising that people misuse government–misusing things is what people do. But oh well. There’s some clever Latin phrase that I wish I could remember that basically says, “the misuse of a thing does not invalidate its proper usage.”

By: plukevdh

plukevdh — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:24:55 +0000

Dudes, but his closing? Its great. Maybe a little non sequitur, but I totally agree with what he’s talking about when he says government either requires a dumbing down of religion in order to for its followers to participate, or it becomes a religion of sorts itself. I think he’s right saying that gov’t must take the position of trying to universalize and “singularize” its society. And I think because of that, I’m still a fan of the Christian anarchist position, which says begone with government. Does that tie together without more explanation? Thoughts?

By: Josh

Josh — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 03:29:46 +0000

And reading it again, I’m not convinced he’s not just trying to sound smart. Seriously, who uses words/phrases like “cognitive dissonance”, “quixotic”, “panegyrical”, “denizens”, “parochial”, “adumbrated”, and “refulgent” all in the span of a couple sentences? Yay, he has a thesaurus. What is his target audience that they’re expected to know what “panegyrical” means?