30 Oct 2009, 8:37 pm
30 Oct 2009, 8:56 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I think Jesus was a left-libertarian/anarchist.
1) I don't think calling Jesus a monarchist is appropriate.
Mat 17:25-26 He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?" (26) And when he said, "From others," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free.
This verse seems to show that Jesus considered monarchist tax laws to be somewhat unjust.
2) I do think it is appropriate to say the Jesus was anti-government to some extent though.
Luk 4:5-8 And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, (6) and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. (7) If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours." (8) And Jesus answered him, "It is written, "'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.'"
As in this verse Jesus is tempted by all the offer of the governments in the world, and he rejects them, which says two things: 1) he isn't accepting the governments meaning that he isn't accepting government as his own(which favors an apolitical interpretation) and 2) the governments of the world are owned by the devil, Christ's enemy.
3) Not only that, but Christ and his disciples seemed to dislike the idea of a court settling cases, preferring to handle those themselves.
Luk 12:57-59 "And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right? (58) As you go with your accuser before the magistrate, make an effort to settle with him on the way, lest he drag you to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the officer, and the officer put you in prison. (59) I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the very last penny."
Mat 5:38-41 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' (39) But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (40) And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. (41) And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
1Co 6:1-7 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? (2) Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? (3) Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! (4) So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? (5) I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, (6) but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? (7) To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?
and frankly, most of the commands in the NT are not commands to be implemented by a government, but rather commands for the disciples of Christ to follow, which causes me to question the extent to which one can call Christ "socially conservative" as if this applies to a government. I mean, one can say that there is social stricture, but I am not sure an official apparatus is what is desired.
4) Christ and his disciples were willing to reject some of the pre-existing hierarchy to favor what is ultimately good.
Including family.
Mat 10:34-37 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. (35) For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. (36) And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. (37) Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Including elements of social class, with some questions about the morality of being very wealthy
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Mat 19:23-24 And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. (24) Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."
Mat 6:24 "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.
Finally, given the previously mentioned questioning of the morality of wealth and other verses, which I will place, Christ seemed somewhat big into equality/giving/helping the poor/etc.
Luk 12:33 Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys.
Mat 22:39 You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (a claim throughout, even cited by Paul as fulfilling all moral claims Gal 5:14, Romans 13:9-10)
Act 2:44-45 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. (45) And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.
Mat 25:34-40 Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. (35) For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, (36) I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' (37) Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? (38) And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? (39) And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' (40) And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'
Now, I will admit that this theory doesn't perfectly fit all facts. For example, Paul didn't contest slavery but rather accepted it on the grounds that "masters be nice". Also, for the issues of submitting to the state, I could make the argument that Jesus was trying to accomplish a political end through non-political means as there is nothing in scripture about contesting who is actually in power, only in trying to change the workings of the social structure, while still trying to respect all people, but this seems to be a hard sell in some ways. Certainly some might say that Christ tells people to honor their parents, which I'd say reconciles in favor of rejecting their authority, but others might contest that. However, I think this rough sketch really does fit the facts to a good extent, particularly since "left libertarian" likely didn't exist to a great extent as a formed philosophy at the time. Also, I do reject to some extent the degree to which Paul may have disagreed with Jesus, as I don't think the difference is fundamental.
1) I don't think calling Jesus a monarchist is appropriate.
Mat 17:25-26 He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?" (26) And when he said, "From others," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free.
This verse seems to show that Jesus considered monarchist tax laws to be somewhat unjust.
2) I do think it is appropriate to say the Jesus was anti-government to some extent though.
Luk 4:5-8 And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, (6) and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. (7) If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours." (8) And Jesus answered him, "It is written, "'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.'"
As in this verse Jesus is tempted by all the offer of the governments in the world, and he rejects them, which says two things: 1) he isn't accepting the governments meaning that he isn't accepting government as his own(which favors an apolitical interpretation) and 2) the governments of the world are owned by the devil, Christ's enemy.
3) Not only that, but Christ and his disciples seemed to dislike the idea of a court settling cases, preferring to handle those themselves.
Luk 12:57-59 "And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right? (58) As you go with your accuser before the magistrate, make an effort to settle with him on the way, lest he drag you to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the officer, and the officer put you in prison. (59) I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the very last penny."
Mat 5:38-41 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' (39) But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (40) And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. (41) And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
1Co 6:1-7 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? (2) Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? (3) Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! (4) So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? (5) I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, (6) but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? (7) To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?
and frankly, most of the commands in the NT are not commands to be implemented by a government, but rather commands for the disciples of Christ to follow, which causes me to question the extent to which one can call Christ "socially conservative" as if this applies to a government. I mean, one can say that there is social stricture, but I am not sure an official apparatus is what is desired.
4) Christ and his disciples were willing to reject some of the pre-existing hierarchy to favor what is ultimately good.
Including family.
Mat 10:34-37 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. (35) For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. (36) And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. (37) Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Including elements of social class, with some questions about the morality of being very wealthy
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Mat 19:23-24 And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. (24) Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."
Mat 6:24 "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.
Finally, given the previously mentioned questioning of the morality of wealth and other verses, which I will place, Christ seemed somewhat big into equality/giving/helping the poor/etc.
Luk 12:33 Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys.
Mat 22:39 You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (a claim throughout, even cited by Paul as fulfilling all moral claims Gal 5:14, Romans 13:9-10)
Act 2:44-45 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. (45) And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.
Mat 25:34-40 Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. (35) For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, (36) I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' (37) Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? (38) And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? (39) And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' (40) And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'
Now, I will admit that this theory doesn't perfectly fit all facts. For example, Paul didn't contest slavery but rather accepted it on the grounds that "masters be nice". Also, for the issues of submitting to the state, I could make the argument that Jesus was trying to accomplish a political end through non-political means as there is nothing in scripture about contesting who is actually in power, only in trying to change the workings of the social structure, while still trying to respect all people, but this seems to be a hard sell in some ways. Certainly some might say that Christ tells people to honor their parents, which I'd say reconciles in favor of rejecting their authority, but others might contest that. However, I think this rough sketch really does fit the facts to a good extent, particularly since "left libertarian" likely didn't exist to a great extent as a formed philosophy at the time. Also, I do reject to some extent the degree to which Paul may have disagreed with Jesus, as I don't think the difference is fundamental.
Pfft, the Bable is a Rorschach test of the human mind. You can find whatever you're looking for in there. It should be re-named "The Great Book of Mutiple Choice".
30 Oct 2009, 9:07 pm
30 Oct 2009, 9:18 pm
30 Oct 2009, 9:29 pm
ChrisHitchens wrote:
Pfft, the Bable is a Rorschach test of the human mind. You can find whatever you're looking for in there. It should be re-named "The Great Book of Mutiple Choice".
Yes and no. The New Testament is a collection of historical documents representing the beliefs of the early Christian church, and the Old Testament is a collection of historical documents representing the beliefs of the Jewish people before then.
Do people project theories into the Bible? Sure, a lot of theology is reading things into scriptures. Does this mean that all readings of the Bible are wrong? Not at all. Even an atheist could accept the notion that the Bible means specific things. Often atheists will say that the Bible represents different groupings of people, and shows theological conflicts within it's pages(for example the Paul-James split is often perceived to be a theological disagreement rather than a hard to reconcile agreement), but that is also a matter of interpretation.
Really though, I don't see much reason to even dispute my claims much on secular grounds. I mean, it seems clear that the Bible was written with lower class interests in mind and with some clear antipathy towards Roman authority in the background as well. This will result in an egalitarian and anti-government book.
(also, I hate the sunglasses smiley, this does not apply to you but rather to my earlier posts that reference scriptures)
leejosepho
Veteran
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
30 Oct 2009, 9:43 pm
Giftorcurse
Veteran
Joined: 13 Apr 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,887
Location: Port Royal, South Carolina
31 Oct 2009, 2:38 pm
31 Oct 2009, 2:54 pm
31 Oct 2009, 2:58 pm
31 Oct 2009, 8:41 pm
31 Oct 2009, 8:57 pm
01 Nov 2009, 12:35 am
01 Nov 2009, 1:39 am
sartresue
Veteran
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 71
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism
01 Nov 2009, 6:25 pm
