Toward true christian anarchy.

by Xavier Wed Jan 18, 2006 05:40

couple of links


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_church

http://jesusradicals.com/

by Paddy Savage - Consistent life ethic(inc animals 0 Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:38 achorusline19 at hotmail dot com

You may wish to read some of my comments i have posted on the "struggle for abortion rights",i am a NON ROMAN catholic,i am a liberation theology anarchist catholic,also queer and vegan,as u mite have guessed from the organisation.

by :-) - iosaf Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:41

I disagree with the your list of "three main religious sects of Europe" which you list as Anglican, Catholic (Roman) and Islam.

It is very important if one is to think about organised religion and Europe to get the true demographic balances right, and thereafter to attempt some sort of "rigorous" examination of their influence or role within state structures, (if applicable) and then to evaluate the influence effected by such groups "without" state structures. This is essential (especially from a libertarian viewpoint) if you are to properly address the big subject "State :+: Church relations". For (& if you are a libertarian you'll understand why) the struggle against the illegitimate or extended power of one ought not mean the support of the illegitimate or extended power of the other. We wish neither a more powerful state nor a more powerful church.

So... In the "Europe" of our usual terms of reference the "€U", we see that the dominant "sect" is indeed Roman Catholic.
But that that group which is the sole religious denomination with "state" status (courtesy of the Holy See and Vatican) holds varying relationships with the 25 states of the EU.
They vary from such states as the Irish, Spanish and Italian where the influence of the prelates, bishops, and RC thought on the public is considered "significant" to such states as Slovakia, Poland, Hungary where the influence is considered "emergent or recurrent". An example of how that scale works, is the presence of organised RC thought in education, other social services and the influence of bishops on fertility laws.

After the RC clear majority, the next groups which obviously influence states in Europe, are the protestant churches. The protestant communions include Lutheran, Calvinist and Prsbytarian. The Calvinist traditions are arguably more influential that the Lutheran,
though both have equal claim to "establishment" being named and specified as the "national religions" of several states (mostly northern European). But the influence of Calvinism (in all its forms) is considered more important as it is mutually atagonistic with RC thought. Thus in the states where clear Calvinist populations are present, theological differences between Calvinism and Roman Catholicism are transformed into other social clashes find expression in other ways. I'd cite the Swiss canton of Geneva, the Scottish city of Glasgow and wee Ulster or northern Ireland as prime examples.

Moving on, we see that the Anglican communions though established in England, is in fact a minority church and one which under its world conference (headed by a Dubliner) is facing schism over several issues "gender and vocation" and "ecumenical posture". Within the UK church attendances show RC and Anglican communions at near parity. And the influence of the RC church on traditional areas of social concern (education) might be higher than the influence of the Anglican church considering that the current minister of Education in the British government is a self professed member of Opus Dei.
But the number of "communicants" of the anglican or episcopalian tradition in Europe is in fact quite paltry. There are less "established" Anglicans than there are registered "kirk tax paying" Lutherans in Scandinavia or Germany.

The clearest "2nd place" (for numbers) goes to the Orthodox communions, with prelatures based in Greece, Kiev, Russia & Serbia. It is impossible to properly assess their influence on state affairs at this moment becuase we have not yet seen how European integration has changed base considerations of life for the citizens of those countries. But we do know that those faiths were important enough for the lifting of state restricitions on their organisation and propogation to be considered key to the transition processes from centralised Socialist regimes to "democracies".

Then we evaluate the non-Christian denominations.
We may not talk of a unified Islam in Europe no more than we may talk of a unified Christianity or even Judaism. All threads of Islam are present in the €U, Shia, Sunni, Wahibi, and Sufi. And just as the traditions of European Judaism - sephardic or ashakanazi can not preclude a political position on the state or politics of Israel, one can not presume the political importance given to "state relations" by members of the Islamic faith groups.

I'd then (coz I do a lot of thinking about the church :+: state thing) have to give additional weighting to religious orientated lobbies or pressure groups of which there are a plethora for all religious beliefs. Some work on very local issues and some on Global.

by Seán Ryan Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:22

I enjoyed your article Xavier.

I don't think their should be any problem reconciling being a chirstian and an anarchist.

Didn't Christ exhibit many anarchistic tendencies himself. Not least of which was tossing the userers from the temple.

What isn't common knowledge is that in those days, the Roman empire controlled Jewish commerce and trade, by insisting that all Jewish money be changed at the temple into Roman money. All external commercial transactions outside Israel, were transacted in Roman currency.

When Christ ejected these money changers, it was an act of social revolution.

Pity he wouldn't come to Ireland and do the same.

Sláinte,
Seán

by James Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:52

And when old Jesus said "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" he was being plain conservative.

"When Christ ejected these money changers, it was an act of social revolution"

Hardly social revolution in any accepted meaning of the term. Jewish control of the foreign trade, and an independent Jewish Kingodm (based originally on slaughtering the previous inhabitants) isn't in the same league as the Slave Revolts, for example Spartacus, or even of Athenian Democracy when it comes to vaguely progessive politics.

"Pity he wouldn't come to Ireland and do the same."

Thankfully he wasn't in Ireland to spout his twaddle about the meek inheriting the earth, turning the other cheek, arrogantly taking the "sins" of others on his back, encouraging submission to Roman rule, and putting forward an insanely inaccurate view of reality (chatting with the Devil! Being the son of God!). It's amazing how childish his world view is considering he's supposed to have created the whole universe.

by Atheist Wed Jan 18, 2006 13:15

Where do you start?
Apparently Jesus was the only son of God and the Big Bang, the formation of the countless galaxies and stars, the evolution of life over billions of years, the dinosaurs, the collision of the asteroid 65m years ago that wiped them out and the Ice Ages, the Roman Empire etc. played their part in his destiny to be born by the Virgin Mary even though she did not have sexual intercourse before she fell pregnant and her hymen remained intact after she gave birth while husband Joseph never consummated his marriage to her nor no other man had sex with her until she was whisked up into heaven rather than her body to be left to decay. She was afterward crowned queen of heaven.
Jesus died for all the sins of humanity so that all their souls would be saved, though at what point the evolution from apes to humans gave rise to original sin and souls is an open question while the he died also for those who lived since and those of us who live today, to save us from our sins whether we will commit them or not into the future.
He rose from the dead after being nailed through the hands and feet and bleeding to death on a wooden cross and also rose into heaven where he sits at the right hand of the father - even though the father, son and some other thing called the holy spirit are the one person. How he could sit at the right hand of himself or die and raise himself to life is not clear.

Jesus has only been known of for 2000 years and most of the population of the world in that time lived and died never knowing about him - presumably they all went to hell or to limbo where those who live good lives go after death but never go to heaven. Limbo is no longer church doctrine so there mus be a lot of homeless souls floating in the spiritual ether. It is only since the development of the telegraph, radio and modern communications and mass production printing of the Bible in that past 150 years that the message of Jesus has the four corners of the earth (the planet is a ball but the old flat earth terminology keeps coming back). Since the development of the radio about 100 years ago it has to be assumed that at the very most the story of Jesus must have reached been broadcast 100 light years into space which is the distance the radio waves would have travelled in that time.
We know that the Milky Way is full of billions of stars and in the universe there are billions galaxies so it is highly unlikely that that the earth is the only planet with intelligent life and that potentially there could be billions or trillions of civilisations like our own in the universe.
But there was only ONE son of God not billions or trillions to preach to the potentially infinite civilisations in the universe so it is presumeably up to us earthlings ALONE to do it for Jesus before he returns again to judge the heavens and the earth.
But nothing can go faster than the speed of light and it takes billions of years for light to cross this Milky Way and literally zillions of years to cross the universe.
If a spaceship did set out at the speed of light to preach the word of Jesus to the nearest habitable planet with intelligent life and after one gets over the language barriers it would take potentially billions of years. By the time they got there the Christians would be dead or their descendents would have evolved into new organisms not to mention the number of reformations and counter reformations their Christian faith would have undergone while they would have forgotten about that blue planet so far away that exploded so long ago.

I therefore believe Christianity is utterly unbelievable as indeed all religion.

by Seán Ryan Wed Jan 18, 2006 14:57

I dunno James, Spartacus made a good film but was a failure in as far as revolts and revolutions are concerned.

Christ on the other hand is still around after a couple of thousand years.

I think Christ would have rebelled against the church that was established in his name, this is part of Xavier's point I think. And if you put Christ in his ancient context, he was indeed a radical, maybe not a "full blown" anarchist, but he approached it.

In as far as the other part about coming to Ireland is concerned; I only meant get rid of the money lenders. We have all the other stuff already.

Now leave me alone. It's not fair to make an athiest, argue the cause of God.

Take care,
Seán

by Mike Wed Jan 18, 2006 15:01

I think it best to consider the influence of Jesus to be that of the MYTHICAL Jesus -- Jesus as Chrisitians in general believe him to have been.

But folks -- James is essentially correct. The reason why it is so difficult to pin down the historical Jesus is that Christians (becuase of the mythology) keep lookign in the wrong places. The radical image comes about because of ignorance of Jewish Law and how other Jewish judges were ruling at that time.

Based upon his rulings as recorded in the Gospels and other rulings recorded in Mishna (early Talmud) Jesus was clearly a "letter of the law" conservative. The reasons for the confusion (seeing these as "radical" decisions) is threefold. In some cases it is not knowing what the case was about (the "Render unto Ceaser" for example -- Jesus was saying NOT to turn over the tithes to the Roman government!) In other cases it was not understanding how rabbinic courts worked, that the decision isn't important in deciding "radical" vs "conservative", just the grounds used (for example, the "woman taken in adultery" -- a rabbinic court of that time period just about never convicted in a capital case -- the "Go forth and sin no more" is NOT doing that woman a favor but removing a technical ground for aquittal should she appear in court again). And finally, Christians haven't a clue of what the decisions of a truly "radical" rabbi looked like (say Hillel, a few generations earlier).

by Atheist Wed Jan 18, 2006 15:16

There is no historical proof whatsoever that Jesus ever existed except in the Gospels which are highly dubious sources crammed with incredible claims about his magical powers. The references to him in Jewish and Roman histories are based on pure hearsay or else they were altered by Christian historians subsequently.
Your attempts to turn Jesus into a proto-marxist are simply ridiculous.

by Devout Wed Jan 18, 2006 15:29

He cleansed the temple because the money lenders had turned the Father's house into a den of thieves. The market is a human arena that must remain outside the house of the Lord. The dwelling of the tabernacle where God resides is a place of solemnity and prayer.
Jesus's message for mankind was to prepare for the coming of the Kingdom of God on earth. This was to fulfill the Law of Moses - the ten commandments -summed up in the Golden Rule - do onto others as you want others to do onto you but also and most importantly you must love God with all your heart with all you strength, with all your mind and your neighbour as yourself.
Society is where you must live justly but only through believing God's merciful love can you receive the grace to live a good life and only through repentance can you reach salvation - not in this world but in the world to come.

Jesus was not just a radical rabbi.
He was the Son of the Most High, God the Father.
To say otherwise is blasphemy.
Does who deny Christ will be denied by Christ for on the Day of Judgement he will say "depart ye cursed to punishment prepared for the Devil and his angels". In hell there will be "weeping and knashing of teeth" and "a fire that shall never go out."

by Seán Ryan Wed Jan 18, 2006 15:49

Jesus was to the letter of the law (if he existed, I dunno whether he did or not). But he also claimed to bring a new law, hardly the aspiration of a conservative.

If we take Jesus outta the picture to analyse it we get and interesting fact. I know it's not fair to remove the subject of the argument, but bear with me.

The bible goes through a radical change (I know Christ was Jewish and that he was supposed to be the messiah) in the jump from the old testement to the new. In that the way the christian God goes through a massive personality change.

In the old testement he's a homocidal psychopath, who has whole villages slaughtered, men, women and children. But in the new testement, he's the original hippy, he loves everyone. And peace be his trip.

Jesus may never have intended christianity, but nonetheless it sprouted from him directly or it sprouted from his legend.

If Jesus was a conservative, you may be able to argue, that Christianity is in fact a branch of Judaeism. But that it is unlikely that a conservative would form a whole new tribe or cause one to be formed. And it might upset some Jewish folks if word got out that Christianity was in fact the original and true Jewish faith.

I think most Christians would argue a more extreme view. That Christianity is a seperate religion. This argues that Christ was a rebel at least.

I think Christ was very political (If he existed), I think most of what appeared to be a conservative stance, was an attempt to rally the people using references to the past as a tool of inspiration.

Then again, maybe I go down the same road as those who seek to brainwash and indoctrinate. It's very easy pick out any particular timeline in the life or legend of Christ, and apply any label that suits the person who needs to make a point.

I suppose the best point I can make of all this is that it stimulates debate, and that's good.

Seán

by iosaf Wed Jan 18, 2006 16:02

I do hate to play the know-it-all, but when I note references to that act of the Christ (who most definitely existed) and the temple and certain comments on money in his time, I feel I have to correct certain misconceptions. There are 9 words used in reference to money at the period, and all those words are used in the greek testaments on which christianity (with the exception of mormonism) are based.
Those words are - from smallest sum to largest - lepton, kodrantes, assarion, denarius, drachma, didrachma, stater, mina and talent. Those words represented sums of money based on precious metals (silver and gold) which were used throughout the Roman Empire and beyond in the associated territories, protectorates and independent trading partners. The terms are greek rather than latin which reflects the fact that greek was the commercial lingua franca for the Empire in general and Mediterranean in particular. What is thought of as the holy land or palestine now, in that period was divided in several administrative regions and because of its geographic position was very rich in trade. In the preface of the seminal publication of 1877 by Samuel Bagster of the Elzevir 1624 and Stephens 1550 texts with supporting readings by greisbach, lachmann, tischendorf, tregelles,alford and wordsworth of the New Testaments in transliterated form, the approximate equivalent values for the 9 monetary sums were estimated at betwen 0.375 of a farthing for a lepton to 193 pounds 15 shillings for a talent.

it is impossible to be sure that the money dealers in the temple were engaged in exchange of any national or ethnic currency. so the assertion of jewish for roman money is utter crap.

by Xavier Wed Jan 18, 2006 16:02

My piece is not about whether or not christ existed etc. It is this, those anarchist s who are also christian need to look at the structures of the religions they belong to, see them for what they are and oppose them. To see the counter revolution of the Roman and Orthodox churches and the churches which sprang from them for what they are.

Regarding the debate as to whether Christ was radical or not, the NT gives numerous examples of his attacks on the pharisees and saducees. Strangely he never condems the third major jewish sect of the second temple era the essenes. This sect were radical in that all property was held in common, they were from an economic point of view, communist. their attitude to gender also differed greatly from the other judaic sects.

http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/delirium/religion/judaism_sects.asp

http://www.thenazareneway.com/

by Seán Ryan Wed Jan 18, 2006 16:25

My point on Jewish temples may indeed be crap. But in fairness it is not crap of my making.

For instance:

At the Great Temple in Jerusalem the annual tax levied on Jews was 1/2 shekel per male. The 1/2 shekel and shekel were not always used in everyday commerce, but were the only coins accepted by the temple.
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/Roman-Coins.asp?e=The_Temple_Tax_Coins&par=828&pos=1&target=105

Anyway it may turn out that you are completely right, but if that's the case, you'll have to admit that the "untruths" I speak, are part of what we consider the norm, and that it might be best to shatter them before ya jump on my head.

On a more serious note, some of what you've pointed out, I've not encountered before and I'm going to check it out.

Thanks
Seán

by James Wed Jan 18, 2006 16:58

“Regarding the debate as to whether Christ was radical or not, the NT gives numerous examples of his attacks on the Pharisees and Sadducees. Strangely he never condemns the third major Jewish sect of the second temple era the Essenes.”

This is probably because the Essenes were a tiny unimportant sect, rather like his own when he was alive. The Sadducees and the Pharisees were the major forces in that period and some Jewish scholars consider it to be one their golden ages. They are distinctly unimpressed by Christian denigration of the religious figures of that period.

The Essenes may have had decent communist politics, but they still sound like they had a loony religious conception of the world. And having an utterly irrational approach to the world is a recipe for disaster as one has handed over one’s capacity to think for oneself to a higher power; not just priest, rabbis or their like, but to God himself. That’s why being a religious anarchist is a contradiction: one can’t be free while there is a master in heaven deciding what is right and proper.
--------------------
Jesus probably did exist. They are independent references to him in Josephus and Tacitus. But clearly there is a big difference between being one of a number religious fanatics in Palestine (then as now) and being the son of God, let alone the creator of the entire universe.
-----------------------
Certainly Jesus’s morality is an improvement on large sections of the Old Testament; but it isn’t that great, and not much of an achievement considering its bloodthirsty teachings. His injunction to turn the other cheek for example is an invitation to become enslaved – and that is very much counter to anarchism. He never he bothered to justify his positions, unlike say, Socrates who was also executed. And in any case there isn’t any need to base ethics on the dubious and ambiguous teachings of Jesus. Actions aren’t ethical because of the decrees of Jesus or God, but because of their effect on other people.
---------------------------
One has to do a lot of creative thinking if one is to see much anarchist thinking in old Jesus’s life.

by Xavier Wed Jan 18, 2006 18:02

James, you speak about freedom. If truth is essential to freedom then the truth of the nature of man needs to be recognised. It is foolish to reduce man to merely an intellect. In order to understand the nature of man it is necessary to adopt a holistic approach, to see the whole. To recognise that man has physical, emotional and spiritual nature as well as intellect. What concerns me is an holistic anarchist approach to man, and particularly to the thorny subject of personal and communal spiritual practices.

Unless you believe that all people can be persuaded to abandon their spiritual nature, and allowing that some will, it is necessary to have some discussion on how spirituality can be accomodated in the anarchist tradition given that there are those of us who are anarchic and wish to practice spiritual practices communally.

by Ray Hanrahan - WSM - pers. cap. Wed Jan 18, 2006 18:33 hanrahanone at hotmail dot com

As a class-struggle anarchist and a radical anti-deist, all this talk of an 'anarchist' religiosity profoundly disturbs me. My personal position is that belief in a God, any god, or gods, is a form of denigration of humanity and humanity's potential for social cultural and spiritual advance.
Belief in a god/gods and the active worship of them implies the subordination of the interests of humanity (or the human believers in question) in favour of those of an entity/entities whose caprices with the lives of people are amply documented in the major religious traditions of this planet. 'Who cares if our kids are starving to death as long as we're on the right side of the cosmic toddlers! More blood! More bones! More food from our own mouths!'
As far as I'm concerned, no matter how you dress this 'Christian anarchism' nonsense up, it's still Christianity. There's still some authority, either human or divine, to which one must subordinate oneself. The Christian tradition (amongst others) is irremediably polluted with authoritarian and anti-human attitudes and practices, with the doctrine of original sin as my prime example. Few ideas have contributed to the destruction of the moral instincts of humankind like that one. It posits that the human individual is in a state of divinely-decreed moral infantilism and therefore must subordinate her/his moral awareness to that of an entity allegedly beyond human designs, understandings and motivations. This breeds passivity and fatalism, two of the most useful tools oppression has ever had. We're usually not in the habit of handing out blank cheques to anyone, so why then is this case different, especially where the posited balance of power and ir/responsibility is weighted so heavily in favour of the deity?
Another thing I resent strongly is the proprietorial attitude that religious types take toward the traditions of moral awareness and action that we all inhabit. Yes, and they only tend to claim the good bits - all the convenient justifications for atrocity are always somebody else's fault. No religious tradition owns up willingly to complicity in mass crime, be it the Crusades through the Holocaust to Sabra and Chatila and southern Sudan. For me the claims of the major religions to the authorship of the contemporary moral awareness are as risible as Fianna Fáil claiming invention of the wheel!
With regard to the supposed 'real' social or political attitudes of Jesus, it's all what-iffery really. We're stuck with the Jesus of authoritarian tradition, and no amount of new scholarship or speculation is going to change that.

by James - WSM (very personal capacity) Wed Jan 18, 2006 18:40

And how are people going to be free if they are relying on others, in this case a messiah or God, to do their thinking for them? That’s the heart of the contradiction between anarchism and Christianity. Bakunin raised back in the day, and his analysis remains accurate. Anarchism is, amongst other things, about overcoming humanity’s superstious past and using your own head to discuss and decide matters for yourself and your community.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It is foolish to reduce man to merely an intellect. In order to understand the nature of man it is necessary to adopt a holistic approach, to see the whole. To recognise that man has physical, emotional and spiritual nature as well as intellect.”

Spiritual often has a very vague meaning: it could mean poetical, generous, that type of thing or it could be taken literally. In this latter sense, the sense which it is used in theology and idealist philosophy, namely that spirit is an entity that exists independently of the body and mind of the person, is the product of an understandable but very wrong turn taken in early history of humanity. In other words it doesn’t exist.
-----------------------------------------------------------

“Unless you believe that all people can be persuaded to abandon their spiritual nature, and allowing that some will, it is necessary to have some discussion on how spirituality can be accomodated in the anarchist tradition given that there are those of us who are anarchic and wish to practice spiritual practices communally.”

People are free to believe all sorts of odd things. That’s the case in a liberal democracy and it’s the case with anarchism. If people want to combine radical politics, including drawing on the anarchist tradition, with Christianity then fair enough. It’s certainly a vast improvement on mainstream institutional religion.

In my opinion however, that’s outside the anarchist tradition – anarchism from Bakunin’s time, the syndicalists up to our own day is simply vastly different to what you’re interested in. I don’t see why you don’t think up some more original name for what is in all honestly a most particular merging of ideologies.

Just my two cents. I know some nuns and priests who got radicalised in South America. Great people though they are (they’re tops), by their mere association with the Church, they are lending credibility to Christianity - and on balance that's pretty negative.

by Guy Wed Jan 18, 2006 19:21

The origins of the tale go back to the legend of Atlantis - there are Chinese maps which are copies of even older maps that existed before the last ice age which was causedby the reallianment of the earth's axis- that show the continent of Antartica before it was entombed in ice. There were a race of Atlantians distinct from the Asiatics races who dominated Asia, the Negroid and Arabians who dominated Africa and the Middle East, the native Americans who lived in North America and the Europeans.
These people reached a level of technological sophistication almost approaching the cusp of an industrial revolution while they had conquered much of the world and built metropolises along most coastal regions.
Then the disaster occurred caused by a civil war between the sons of light and sons of darkness, the primeval war between the angels and ice marched over the face of the earth after which the seas rose and smothered the coastal civilisations all knowledge was lost save for the wisdom of the survivors who travelled the world knowing in time their race would perish or be subsumed into the other populations of the earth.
From the ancient Mayans of South America, to the Egyptians to the ancient Babylonians and Chinese each culture had a flood myth and Gods who provided knowledge of science and technology to mankind. In all the myths they were men dressed in while with hair to their shoulders and full beards. The Egyptians built the pyramids just as the Mayan in South America and worship gods with religious practises which have a common origin in the Altantian culture lost to history except through word of mouth.
Moses, an Egyptian prince who had been initiated into the secret rites and when he commited murder and was exiled he saw his chance to become the ruler of the Hebrew slaves. He built the Arc of the Covenant, a wooden box laminated within and without with gold, the best electric conductor known to man, to produce a capacitor with in which the power of God would be stored - with this carried into battle by the priests who knew how to operate it they could level cities and mountains and destroy whole regions and incinerated whole armies with its power.
The Arc was kept in a room in Solomon's temple an exact cube also lined with gold and none but the holy priest could enter without being consumed to ashes. When it was carried none of the Israelites could look at it because it was draped with an insulating cloth cover.
After Israel was destroyed the knowledge was preserved in the Biblical code and in the secret societies such as the Essenes also called the Nazerites -among whom were Yehosah Bar Joseph and his brother James.
Yehosah was a religious monk, a hunchback because he was "small of stature", that is why Zachiaz had to climb the tree to see him.
Yehosah went through the land revealing the ancient secrets to the ignorant masses who could not hope to understand the ancient knowledge after he was initiated in the desert by the tempters, the teachers of the order who tested new members who had progressed in their mastery of skills such as carpentery and stone masonry. Gabriel, a high priest of the Essene sect, a descendent from the race of the Atlantians who had ruled Egypt as the gods, a faction of which sided with Moses, impregnated Mary in order to produce a worthy member of thw aristocracy who would be taught from birth to be the Messia or King. The High Priests with the other religious organisations were enraged when Yehosah tried to universalise the knowledge of the ages after he was rejected because of his physical imperfection. The High priests sent James and Yehosah's other brothers to try to change his mind but Yehosah said all were his brothers and his sisters and his mothers, meaning all the people of Israel would know the old knowledge. Therefore Judas was paid to betray him and James or Joshua a name similar to Yehosah since they were brothers sparked an uprising knowing he would be arrested. Rumours spread that there were two Sons of the Father or Bar Abbas - one a warrior one a prophet like of old.
The Romans knew of the division and put the choice to the people - Yehosah was crucified and the Bar Abbas was "resurrected" - in the form of the warrior messiah James.
Peter, enraged and outmaneuvered at the death of his leader, fled to Antioch where he met a Roman named Paul. Paul launched the persecution of the followers of the Way until he was challenged by James on the Road to Damascus and blinded. He recovered and he and Peter suitably chastened fled to Greece and Italy spreading their version of the Way to the pagans who had no idea of the true origin.
Meanwhile James and the others finally took their chance and defeated several Roman legions in battle before they were destroyed and along with the temple. Meanwhile the Ark was hidden and the Jews scattered to the four corners of the Roman Empire.
A few survivors burned the city of Rome in order that Nero would mix them up with Christians and persecute them instead.
The official Christian Church became the false church of Paul and Peter - who the followers of James called the Anti-Christ.
For centuries there were secret groups who infiltrated the church and kingdoms of Europe -they were the court jesters and the magicians and adivsors of the Kings who dazzled their masters with knowledge of "wizardry." One group became the Knights Templars who were skilled mercenary fighters who gave their services to the Church to protect the holy places of Jerusalem from the Muslims.
Hidden beneath the ruins of the Temple was the Arc of the Covenant and a horde of gold from the temple itself along with a libary of knowledge - the other libraries were at Qumram where the holiest relics were sealed in jars and hidden until their discovery in 1947 - the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The teasures of the temple "The Holy Grail" were recovered and taken by the Templars to Europe after Saladin defeated them and reconquered the holy land for the Muslims.
The wealth of the Templars transformed them into the bankers of Europe and its was they who borrowed money to the finance wars of conquest for Holy Mother Church especially so that the Holy Roman Empire would dominate and enlightenment would spread to the world. King Henry of Portugal for instance was a knight and he sent ships to the Africa and India and some say to America long before Columbus. However the Papacy and the French nobels were jealous of their power and Pope Clement a homosexual who brought in the law of celebacy and King Philip had the knights all arrested in one night and murdered. in 1314 the last Grand Master Jacques De Molay was burned at the stake. But before he died he was nailed to a door in a parody of the crucifiction and as he lay unconcious and bleeding on a mattress a shroud was thrown over his body producing the image of bearded man with the wounds of Yehosah - the image inspired medieval artists to paint Jesus as a tall man with long hair parted in the middle and with a full forked beard.

England protected the survivors of the Order for many years after with the result that Henry VIII was denied a divorce from Catherine of Aragon. The Anglican Church followed much of Templar teachings until the time of Cromwell when he persecuted their followers among the nobility.
The teachings were the ancient philosophies of Greece parlicularly the teachings of Paramenides who dressed his followers in while robes and used the pentangle as the symbol of their movement.
In the meantime the Order had hidden the Arc and the Grail in Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland. Rosslyn means the "old order of the ages". Eventually the the Pilgrim followers fled aboard the Mayflower to America bearing the Arc with them.
Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and the other founding fathers created the New World and laid out their capital Washington DC according to geometic designs just as Paris was later during the time of Napoleon before he was crushed by the aristocrats of Europe.
Notice that the Washington Monument, an obelisk has its roots in agent Egypt just like the obleisks in Paris.
The Free Masons as they are now called have predominated among American Presidents and it is no accident that the Pentagon and the five pointed star have become the symbols of the American state - Novus Ordo Secorum - the old order of the ages born anew is on the dollar.

A breakaway sect led by Karl Marx created the communist movement. It is no accident that the symbol of the Soviet Union was the five pointed red star opposed to the white five pointed star of the US. They were enemy of the Free Mason cabal because they attempred to ignore the order of degrees of hierarchy developed by the bourgeoise business elite - the successers from the guild system - because trade unionists and marxists attempted to democratise wealth and power away from a leading cabal.

Islam like Christianity according to the Free mason cabal which run America is the enemy of the enlightenment project to recreate Atlantis by reconquering the world before the next slip of the axis which according to the Mayan calender is to occur on Dec 25, 2012.
Christianity inspired by Yehosah and Islam inspired by Muhammed a descendent of those fled Israel to the south the same time Paul and Peter fled to Greece and Rome.

Bush, a life long member of the Skull and Bones, is begining the final battle with Islam.

When Ossam Bin Laden toppled the twin towers he toppled the symbols of the the dollar, two pillars surrounded by a serpent forming forming forming and S over II.

Now America is going to war with Gog and Magog - Iraq and Iran - the two pillars of the opposition to the Anti-Christ. But the Mayans predicted that a king would return just at the end of time to make all things just once again. This is the Mahdi or the King riding on a white horse carrying a sword in the Book of Revelation.

Satan will be a great king who will suffer a wound to the head and survive and all will worship him - Sharon has had a supposed stroke and will recover to lead Israel - the Beast.
America in Iraq - the whore of babylon riding on the beast (israel) will be burned with fire.
The final battle will occur in the valley of Megiddo - Armageddon where the forces of evil will be destroyed.
The nuclear war will kill a third of mankind and topple the earth off its axis on 25 Dec 2012.

Then the cycle will repeat itself once again, the age old battle between good and evil.

by Cormac - Anarchist Wed Jan 18, 2006 19:29

Then I shall blaspheme,whatever the fuck that means anymore,if anything.
To beleive is some chap coming from the skies via a non-sexual conception is utterly ridiculous,but you are entitled to your beliefs nonetheless.

The fact that its noted down on a prehistoric bunch of scribblings that have fallen victim to the chinese whispers of time is unfortunate considering how many people believe this crap and have suspended their natural brain-processes of thought and logic.

Hey maybe Harry Potter will be the new Jesus in 1000 years time-it would be blasphemy to suggest that they did not fly around on brooms and that they did not defeat the evil trolls (of the devil).

Some of the above posters should contact Channel 4 for a copy of "religion-the root of all evil",a very simplistic and straightforward rebuttal of the comical farce that is religious devotion.

Jesus in the year 3006

by shaner - A-FSM Wed Jan 18, 2006 20:42 comandante at speedymail dot org

Anarchism is entirely consistent with Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (FSM). Followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you forever be touched by his noodly appendage) dress as Pirates, a fact not inconsistent with anarchism. All social chains will be broken when we lift the veils from our eyes and see the noodly appendages.

see link for explanation of FSM.

Pirates Dance with the assistance of the invisible appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, may you forever be touched by his noodly appendage

by Seán Ryan Wed Jan 18, 2006 20:48

I'm not going to argue the point with you James (and I know you weren't referring specifically to me), the truth is I mostly agree with you.

I'm not going to start a big argument into the likes of the incredible Bakunin or the equally incredible Nietzche either.

I'm going to stand on my own feet, or maybe sit on my arse.

But I think we have different views on anarchy. I'm sure there's enough room for both of us mind you.

I'm an athiest, firstly. But it's been a lifelong quest for meaning and stuff. I try to learn from everything. And I've come to a conclusion. That faith, is a very important facet of that which is human.

The anarchist must above every ideal and act, have faith in himself, and in his right to do as he sees fit.

And isn't this faith as tenuos and as ethereal an entity as that which passes for God?

Maybe more to the point, isn't the solidness and soundness of the faith, increased by adherence to belief alone. Don't get me wrong nothing substitutes for good logical argument, but something must give this primal argument validity and a base from which to operate, I think that something is a mixture of observation, calculation and faith.

Like you said, Christ didn't qualify a lot of what he said. Maybe, by turning the other cheek he meant to give himself time, and maybe beat a rock off the back of face slapper's head. (joke in case irrate Christians take offense)

I'm not sure an anarchist should follow Christ, but I think it a mistake not to try to learn from him, religion and church politics aside. (Lap dogs of the state, I believe they are called.) I even agree that not everything Christ said and did was either intelligent or that it bettered mankind. My point is about faith alone. I equate faith and sprituality with inner potential and the inner struggle to achieve it. As for the belief in God. Couldn't that be equated by the likes of me suggesting, that there is an incredible creature out there, far greater than I, a creature that I would kneel before. He is me, or who I can be.

I hope you don't take the view that I'm trying to argue that philosophy, and in particular anarchy is in any way a religious substitute. I realise that this is not the case. But I don't see the issue as being black and white with regards to the different labels we apply and associate with faith.

I'd be interested in your view on this.

Seán

by iosaf Wed Jan 18, 2006 21:03

The amount of energy some people put into their disbelief of the Christ really is quite amazing. It is as certain that he lived roughly in the time and places referred to in what is now know as the testaments as other "factoids" of the period, such as the beauty of Cleopatra's nose, the origin of the Caesarian section, &c...
No-one can prove he didn't live, what is the important thing with the man was - "did he die?" and rather more "did he come back from the dead?".
But many people love these arguments probably I suppose because they are not (like me) a classicist who writes encyclopedia pages for a hobby.

The connection of the "temple events" before the crucifixion and "anarchism" are often made, and most ignorantly too. There is in fact another verse of scripture attesting to be "the words" of the man which are better justification for any "anarchistic religious theory". And indeed for manyhundreds of years were central to christian alternative thoughts under various "heretical" labels including (in its most influential late period the european reformation) anabaptism.
Matthew 21:13, Mark 11:15, John 2:13 and Luke 19:45 describe not words but an _act_ of the Christ and his followers and then a quotation is appended. (His "well angry bit").
Its pretty impressive that the incident is recorded in all synoptic gospels, and take my .:. word for it, its in the apocrypha as well.
But the "well angry bit" has been sorely abused throughout history. To justify so many things, including _anti-semitism_ by those who think to use the word "usury" out of any historical context than a "web page".

Religious ceremonies and places of worship used their own tokens or coins throughout history. We may trace the funereal tradition of covering the eyes of the dead body with coins back through ancient Greece to Sumerian civilisation, this being just one example which remains "to our day". Those coins were never used for trade. Most religions still hold "token" value, remember that "mite" offered by the widow in the temple (a lepton in 1877 reckoned to be 0.375 of a farthing itself a quarter of a penny) She really wasn't going to buy much with it was she? Quite. But there was no other money about. Hence she heeded to "buy" a token to make her tribute, since she could afford no dove, lamb.

the actual words used in Mark 11 are :-
"kollubistes" (money changers) and "poleo peristera" (those who sold doves) and the greek specifies that he "threw out" (ekballo) those who "bought and sold" (poleo kai agorazo en hieron). = those who made a "market place" of the temple. Oddly enough it always was a market place. Still you are all mostly barking up the wrong tree. He existed. Its what really happened that's more interesting, its what you didn't read as kids which is more crucial. Other than that you repeat the same errors with only one man which is a bit sad. Why has no-one on this thread (I wonder) not asked did Isaiah really exist? Or did Fatima really exist? Was there really a sultana razia? &c....,

sure you know thats how the story ends...

by Seán Ryan Wed Jan 18, 2006 21:30

Point taken Iosaf. I wonder however, when all the dead sea scrolls have been used to re-translate the bible yet again, will greek still be the order of the day. Maybe Jesus got confused looking at so many greek coins that he mistakenly believed in Roman coinage, and maybe when he looked at Caesar on a coin and did his "render unto" bit, maybe he mistook the Greeks for the Romans?

Let us not avoid common sense.

As for the validity of a discussion on Christ's existence. Lot's of historical facts point to his existence and some archaeological evidence to boot. However the similarities of his story, when compared with other ancients, like Osiris, are very similar and show the development of monotheism. However since Jesus comes last or close to it in the order of this development. Well it argues that he didn't exist, or that he needn't have.

In fairness people believe in God. And usually don't require historical proofs either. My point being that most Christians use the bible, or other associated texts, as a basis of proof for their arguments, when in fact the prime purpose of this media is that they are articles of faith. Not of proof.

We can reason what ever scenario you want for the "upset" at the temple, and believe you me I can post relevent scripture to back up what I say. The only problem being that I don't accept scripture as being an authority on anything. Irregardless as to what degree of hassle was caused at the temple. It had to do with "money changers," and it involved Jesus getting pissed off. And it involved some agro. Check out the logic of this argument, by going into a bank and overturning a table or two, and shouting at the people there.

Have fun

Séan

by Mark Newman - none Wed Jan 18, 2006 21:35 marknewman5446 at hotmail dot com Belfast

There is an interesting article by Irish liberation theologian Fr Joe McVeigh published in The Irish Democrat, an old paper established by members of the Irish Republican Congress during the 1930s in London.
The paper seems to have been revamped. The article highlighted the possiblities of developing a democratic church in Ireland based on the South American model.

by iosaf Wed Jan 18, 2006 22:12

A few points, this article appears to me at least to have been an opinion/analysis piece on the possibility of / feasibility of / need for a christian anarchy. It has a few mistakes, but it expresses an opinon well. I remember (as do we all) when the Iraq war was about to begin. It was a time when organised religion (and one which we in the West seem to not be well versed in) was the focus of many opinions and those who wished to articulate them. Unsurprisingly indymedia uk saw published more articles on religion by believers, and soon enough the result was a decision by uk imc members to create a "faith / spirituality" section in their classification possibilities. It is no longer a classification option. I suppose that this article would have gone neatly in such a category. Where people who are "self-declared" atheists wouldn't have felt the need to add comments. & by doing, bring the comments thread through a re-hash of the "did Jesus exist" question.
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=73698 the question which really only entertains italian kids. & perhaps discouraging others with an interest in the subject material adding extra information or (always possible) finely tuning the ideas expressed.

As it is, I'm pissed off. I'm pissed off because Christianity and Anarchy as a subject merits better commenting, and instead we're talking Jayzhus again. I'm pissed off, because earlier on this page appeared thinly veiled anti-semitism. Oh yes a man called Jayzhus kicked money lenders out of the temple. Maybe coz he was a practising and devout jew. & filling out the social context for ye, he is only reported as talking "seriously" to other people who were very serious about :-
religion (and/or) imperial cohesion. And he only left his "political" territory twice in his whole recorded life. And lets be frank he only got to chinwag imperial cohesion in the "last days". So-
It was against all the jewish rules of the Temple to sell and buy things there, yet no-one seems to reflect on which "nationality" the "kollubises" (money changers) had.
But we are given many clues. & no "usuary" didn't come into it. & yes imperial cohesion did.

Oh you little chomskyites and those of little intellect who in attacking one faith ignore the rigour of comparison with another.

We have the "hadith" of the prophet PBUH as we also have his "fatwas". Just as you have grown up (as the vast majority of Europes people) in cultural traditions based on the "hadith" (sayings) of the Christ. Amongst the points to "compare :+: contrast" between the two are indeed the scope in the transmission of both theologies for exactly what ye ought be talking- @narchism. Instead obvious rebellion against one set of moral imperatives, with very apparant prejudice against equivalent cultural or sociological constructs ruins what could have been a - "scintilating read".

Ah well thats how the story began.

by James Wed Jan 18, 2006 22:25

“The anarchist must above every ideal and act, have faith in himself, and in his right to do as he sees fit. And isn't this faith as tenuos and as ethereal an entity as that which passes for God?”

What is meant by faith?It isn't just belief. It's belief without reason or evidence. And when put starkly like that it's pretty obvious that it's dangerous. It's a recipe for having others do the thinking for you...and hence the deciding...and that's going to be a long way from anarchism.

Having belief in oneself is just different than having faith in the flying spaghetti monster or God the Father. You should at least have some knowledge of yourself for starters and your friends can directly engage with you to further your enlightenment about yourself if necessary. God is somewhat reluctant to engage in any such dialogue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I equate faith and spirituality with inner potential and the inner struggle to achieve it.”

That's the warm fuzzy definition I alluded to earlier. I don't see what doing your best in life has got to do with abandoning your brain. In fact, fulfilling one's inner potential, not a phrase I use much tbh, would require some engagement with critical rational thought. Or in plain English, to think for yourself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

“but something must give this primal argument validity and a base from which to operate, I think that something is a mixture of observation, calculation and faith.”

There are plenty of naturalistic explanations for faith and its inevitable offshoot, religion. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_Explained
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_Boyer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“As for the belief in God. Couldn't that be equated by the likes of me suggesting, that there is an incredible creature out there, far greater than I, a creature that I would kneel before. He is me, or who I can be.”

It could be, but on what evidence is there that such a creature exists? Or that he is you?* And why on earth would anybody want to kneel before any creature no matter how great? That whole line of thought is repulsive and, for anybody believing that last bit, megalomaniac. Again, it's so far
removed from even the most elementary form of anarchism that it barely merits remarking upon.

* “you” being whoever has such weird thoughts. Like Jesus. Apparently.

by shaner - A-FSM Wed Jan 18, 2006 22:33

.

by Seán Ryan Wed Jan 18, 2006 23:07

Gimme a break will ya James.

Faith = belief without reason or evidence.

I have faith in the fact that I'm dealing with a rational and logical human being. Is this faith I have in you unjustified?

It can be taken that for what I said, that faith and belief be considered the same. And yes one should extrapolate backwards, logically, any belief. But all beliefs extrapolate backwards, to a singularity. Ie. at some point logic leaves the building. Hence quantum mechanics, black holes and virtual matter, etc. At some point your iron cast, tested, and practiced version of anarchy, ties back into irrelevency, it is your belief that can change this.

Now in as far as these fuzzy feelings you have, well you must have been having one when you were reading what I said, I at no point suggested you cease cranial function.

As for the bit about me kneeling. It was a description of my worth when compared to my potential worth. Not a description of some masochistic urge. And I suggest that this was fairly easy to see in what I wrote.

I'd suggest you put your theory, to the test and apply some thinking to what you say. Taking cheap shots, are not the product of a thinking man, and do disservice to the nobility of the anarchist's cause.

Seeya

by James Wed Jan 18, 2006 23:25

Sean:
“It can be taken that for what I said, that faith and belief be considered the same. And yes one should extrapolate backwards, logically, any belief. But all beliefs extrapolate backwards, to a singularity. Ie. at some point logic leaves the building. Hence quantum mechanics, black holes and virtual matter, etc. At some point your iron cast, tested, and practiced version of anarchy, ties back into irrelevency, it is your belief that can change this.”

You're way ahead of me there. Anarchy, as I see it. has little to nothing to do with quantum mechanics, black holes and virtual matter (never even heard of them). It's a political ideology (a coherent set of political ideas and practice – for those who dislike the word). It deals with human society. It doesn't need to justify itself in terms of physics as at all. I like reductionism and all, but let's not get greedy!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have faith in the fact that I'm dealing with a rational and logical human being. Is this faith I have in you unjustified?
Then we understand the word “faith” differently. Semantic differences are annoying but no big deal once we're clear about them. You equate it with “belief”, me with “belief without evidence or reason”. I hope my posts display some level of reasoning, and therefore that you've some grounds for thinking that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sean:
“As for the bit about me kneeling. It was a description of my worth when compared to my potential worth. Not a description of some masochistic urge. And I suggest that this was fairly easy to see in what I wrote.”

You've lost me there. I don't see that in the text at all. In any case I was switching between using “you” and “one”. Torn between informality and correctness. I meant “one” for what it's worth. Hence the footnote *
No offence meant!

by Seán Ryan Wed Jan 18, 2006 23:35

And I suppose I should know better than to take offense. It's been a tough week.

My apologies.

And seriously, I meant the kneeling bit the way I explained it later. I should have done a better job. I thought the way I put it allowed me to remove ego as a reason for the argument. I guess my response to you introduced it right back lol.

I live, I learn.

Sláinte
Seán

by Niall Harnett Thu Jan 19, 2006 00:17

Yes, organised religion and political parties are one and the same thing in that they are a lie. Destruction in the guise of construction.

I wouldn’t get too hung up on hierarchicalism, intolerance, or discrimination being the defining faults of religions. Their dangers are much more sinister than that. Their purpose is to deceive.

Catholicism is the most dangerous and demonic cult of all.

To be deceived, in religious terms, is to believe that you’re on the Orient express to heaven when you’re actually on the prison bus to hell.

Rejection of the structure of any or all religious system is not enough to make you a Christian and will not satisfy you. Nor is a return to a ‘Jesus and the apostles’ style of organisation. In fact it’s not really about any form of structural organisation. It’s not just about rejection, it’s more about adoption. And Its about the re-organisation of your will. The rejection of sin in the desire to do the will of God, through faith in the ability of a living Jesus to transform you is what will revolutionize you. A Christian is a follower of Christ. The Anarchist Christian should say … Anarchism serves me, but I serve the Lord Jesus.

Find your Christianity in the bible and start your own church if you have to.

‘I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.’ Philippians 4:13

Important to point out at this stage that, regrettably, Jesus is not the Lord of my life, I am.

by Xavier Thu Jan 19, 2006 01:26

just to remind myself, the last line of the article is:

"Therefore it would appear that there is a need to begin dialogue with other christian anarchists to expand on this proposition. That is the purpose of this post."

To discuss with others who are anarchists and have difficulty reconciling that with communal spiritual practice was the purpose of the article. Whether their is a god/gods/godesses or not is not the point. Those who have the difficulty already believe in some form of spiritual reality. Surely if anarchy is about freedom of thought , then I am entitled to hold whatever spiritual beliefs I choose so long as they dont conflict with the basic precepts of anarchic thought. It is from that point that I start, and through dialogue and self examination I attempt to move forward from that point. To develop an anarchist spirituality or at least attempt to do so. A revolutionary idea, it appears.

There are no bosses in anarchic communities, there is however the discussion and debate of ideas nd a decision making process. If man is to be able to make that process work effectively then there must be truth. Who will tell the truth? Will we all not look firstly to our own interest, before the common good? I suggest that aside from the intellect man has a seperate knowledge of right and wrong, what some call the "conscience". To ignore thousands of years of spiritual teaching that there are techniques for developing ones access to this "conscience" is, I believe, foolish. Just as the intellect is trained through given techniques so is this "conscience". None of this is in conflict with anarchism, so far. The difficulty arises in the communal practice of spiritual practices. This is where relgion comes from. This is the dangerous part, because where there are amny involved there is power and control to be gained, that is what happened with the christian church. It became the state religion of the Roman empire, it became an imperialist church as did those schismatic chhurches that broke from it. It is obvious therefore that anarchists need to oppose the oppression of organised religion or globalised religion if you prefer. This is where the difficulty for the anarchist who is also spiritual arises. How to join in communion with others without creating an oppressive entity. Towards christian anarchy or holistic anarchy might be a better term since it was suggested to give the notion a title. Towards an anarchism that recognises not only the physical, mental and emotional nature of man, but also the spiritual.

by jack white - wsm Thu Jan 19, 2006 01:28

I've never understood the whole Christian anarchist thing. Like some other anarchists and socialists I know I rejected religion before I ever became political.

For me organised religion was the first to go but soon after I turned against the idea of a God too. I've never been too pushed about religion since my early teens though.

Niall said "Find your Christianity in the bible and start your own church if you have to."
Frankly I think anything based on the bible is bound to turn out badly. There's a great pamphlet called the "Heretic's guide to the Bible" online here (http://www.mannaz.mcmail.com/frames/nav.htm). It lists some of the wackier and more disgusting passages from the Bible, Old Testament and New.

by random character Thu Jan 19, 2006 02:41

I often wonder if the 'Kingdom of God' that Jesus allegedly preached is anarchic. Maybe the term itself - the 'Kingdom of God' - contains a hidden paradox. Maybe the second element in the phrase merely serves to contradict, or negate, the meaning of the first element - similarly to the phrase 'lots of nothing'. Maybe the term doesn't refer to a 'Kingdom' at all, but to the _end_ of kingdoms, rulers and government. James wrote ( http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=73849#comment134921 ) : >> And when old Jesus said "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" he was being plain conservative. I don't see much basis for this conclusion. I think he was intelligently avoiding the question, and that there is perhaps an implication that they should attempt to discern for themselves what Caesar deserves or does not deserve. I think he was hinting that they should think for themselves.

by Xavier Thu Jan 19, 2006 02:54

Man lives in a physical reality where decisions must be made on a constant basis. There are those who contend that reason is enough. However this is to ignore the affect of discordant emotions such as jealousy, greed, and other forms of selfishness. These emotions affect the reasoning to an extent where it may become distorted. Xenophobia is a good example of a combination of fear and jealousy cause reason to be abandoned. The spiritual reality, or conscience, is unaffected by either emotion or faulty reasoning. It is seperate and it has been taught for the entirety of mans known existence that there are techniques for developing this conscience. This is what I believe christ meant when he said that "the kingdom of heaven lies within". He meant that access to spiritual reality was possible by looking inward. I as a christian can do this alone, of course it is easier if one has a teacher who can show the spiritual practices to the seeker. What i can not do alone is the rememberance of the last supper, where christ urges the christian, while breaking bread and drinking wine, to do this in memory of him. To be in communion, and to share food as a community.

To those who claim that belief in a higher reality is not compatible with anarchist thought I contend that your claim is based on a misconception. That misconception is that to practice spiritual practice or have religious beliefs automatically one must subject oneself to an outside source of power or control, in this case a god. What christ tells me is that the voice of this god is within me, a part of me, not external. Therefore I do not see conscience as an external force, rather an internal part of my being which I can choose to ignore and be driven completely by reason and emotion with no reference to what is right or wrong.To be truly free is to accept all of the parts of my nature including my conscience. Reason is fine as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. Remember the bumble bee, by all the laws of science the bumble bee cannot fly. So long as we continue to believe that we cannot evolve spiritually , we will not attempt to, that failure to attempt, to be open minded is summed up in the words of Herbert Spencer

" there is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation"

by Flynn Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:14

He said if you love those who love what is that to you what is that to you for surely sinners do that. Then he goes on talking about lending but not asking for interest and forgiving your brother seven times seventy seven for something like that.
Judge not lest your not be judge.
Blessed are the meek.

Ya sure.

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:17 087 918 4552

Toward true Christian Anarchy is an interesting title. There have been a pluralism of christian anarchist (usually pacifism is a factor) experiments throughout history.

The Catholic Worker is often cited by historians as "one of the oldest anarchist movements in North America". The anarchic Catholic Left of the '60's as the part of the New Left with the highest retention rate of activists involved in direct action twenty years later. Christian anarchist pacifism is not a new idea...whether we have arrived at the true one is doubtful.

After 25 years of identifying as a christian anarchist pacifist here's a few thoughts....

-the ethics of anarchy and pacifism are implied in radical christian discipleship not an attempt to marry seperate ideoolgies.

-anarchy and pacifism are both negative definitions. One means without exploitation, one without violence...so they make better questions than tight rote answers. One would think an anarchist is one who lives with the question "how do I live a life without exploitation", a pacifist with the question "how do I live without vioelnce". See Ched Myers "Who Will Roll Awat the Stone - Questions of Radical Discipleship for the First World?", Orbis Press 199? for a presentation of Jesus as the questioner etc. See Ched for contemporary theological discourse that has been helpful for the formation of mnay faith based plowshares communities.

-yep it has always surprised me that some anarchists could be so uptight about folks spirituality. How people come to terms with the existential questions of "what the fuck am I doing here?" and "I'm not going to be here for long?" surely is subjective terrain in no need of an anarch-inquisition! (in my experience this is more a problem in European anarchist scene than North American)

-the thing abut "a trues christain anarchy" bothers me. Jesus was a radical Jew not a Christian, the early Christians were radical dissidents in their own tradition rather than departing to start a new tradition with the naieveity that they wouldn't sell out in a few generations. Reminds one of James Joyce reponse when he left the Catholic church.
Journo "Are you planning to become a protestant?"
Joyce "I've lost my faith not my mind!"

It's the temptations of the desert -wealth, status, power that compromises all dissident movements from christianity to punk rock. So as a Catholic I'd rather stay put as a radical dissident and enter the battle of the myths within my own tradition.
The Catholic tradition remains the church of the poor, universal and pre-literate with an emphasis on sacrament and some impressive scholarshiip.

The future hook ups will cross genres radical Christians will find in struggle more in common with radical Buddhists & anarchists etc than many identifying as Christians. Athiests anarchists will likewise find comrades amongst radical christians more often than conservative individualists identifying as anarchists etc So yep it's important to get an appreciation of the many radical traditions at playin this very pluralist anarchich revolution we are working on.

by James Thu Jan 19, 2006 13:18

Random character:
James wrote ( http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=73849#comment134921 ) : >> And when old Jesus said "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" he was being plain conservative. I don't see much basis for this conclusion. I think he was intelligently avoiding the question, and that there is perhaps an implication that they should attempt to discern for themselves what Caesar deserves or does not deserve. I think he was hinting that they should think for themselves.

Top marks for creative thinking! If Jesus wanted to get that point across why didn't he just say it? And then back it up with reasons. And why dodge the question?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re Xavier:

all emotions, one's conscience are located in a physical body. They exist because they aided the survival of our descendants. The evidence for the existence of “spirit” in addition to any physical body is extremely low.

You give the example of xenophobia: “Xenophobia is a good example of a combination of fear and jealousy cause reason to be abandoned.”

But what on earth has xenophobia got to do with spirit? There are fairly good evolutionary explanations for the existence of xenophobia: we evolved in smallish groups; we're a species with propensity for violence, therefore groups raided rival groups; therefore one would want to fairly careful if you came across some other apes on the savannah. The proto-humans who didn't have this cautions didn't survive to reproduce. The ones who did have it had lots of descedents who were similarly cautious. Therefore there is tendency in human nature to be suspicious of people from other groups. One example of another group is a person from another culture or ethnic background. Hence xenophobia.

But the rivalary of football supporters is well explained in this framework as well. In fact it was noticed in the mid 1990s that previously (and perhaps still) racist football fans often abandoned their racism when a black player was playing for their team. They had become part of their group and that superseded other influences on their attitude towards them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xavier:
“What christ tells me is that the voice of this god is within me, a part of me, not external.”

That sounds perilously close to you hearing the voice of God. Like the naturalistic explanation of xenophobia, there are naturalistic explanations for the existence of the conscience, morality and so on. Being dependent on God as being the source of morality is unjustified and unnecessary.

By the way, picking up on some other of your remarks, anarchism is not against a mass society at all. It's whole point is that it is possible to live in the modern world in a free, egalitarian way.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ciaron:
“yep it has always surprised me that some anarchists could be so uptight about folks spirituality.”

No need to worry on that score. Nobody disagrees that people can be into whatever they like. The debate has revolved around the the existence of spirit, the usefulness of faith, whether Jesus was radical, what the connections Jesus's teachings have with anarchism etc. All fair subjects for a debate. Implying this thread is a anarch-inquisition is just a stock response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ciaron:
“anarchy and pacifism are both negative definitions. One means without exploitation, one without violence...so they make better questions than tight rote answers.”

Anarchy and anarchism are words that mean more than their Greek roots. It's more than just the “absence of rulers”. A good way to come at this is by using the alternative term for anarchism: libertarian communism. That's nice and positive. Freedom and community. Historically, for rhetorical reasons, and partially it was chance, the label “anarchism” was adopted. But it always had the positive references to a free, socialist society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ciaron:
“The Catholic tradition remains the church of the poor, universal and pre-literate with an emphasis on sacrament and some impressive scholarshiip.”

That's an exaggeration. What percentage of China's peasants are Catholic? Of India's? Of the middle east's? And why are many South Americans Catholic? Because the Church was only too happy to help with the European takeover in the first place. Only if you count the decent parts of the Church and ignore the appalling institutional decisions to aid power can you say that it's the church of the poor. The Church that uses the poor to retain credibility as often as not. The alliance with the Constantine and the State didn't end with the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Why do so many decent Christians see the need to remain wedded to such a reactionary institution? Maybe the seductive nature of a long tradition which is all things to all people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ciaron:
“The future hook ups will cross genres radical Christians will find in struggle more in common with radical Buddhists & anarchists etc than many identifying as Christians. Athiests anarchists will likewise find comrades amongst radical christians more often than conservative individualists identifying as anarchists etc”

I agree.

by know all. Thu Jan 19, 2006 14:03

when the Christ and other religious figures in the Judaic tradition referred to the "kingdom of God" they used the word "malkuth" or "malkus" which is the most concrete material manifestation of "elohim" or the God of the old testament erronously referred to by some dingbat types as "jhvh".

I must say I really liked Guy's contribution.
He went from moses was a egyptian initiate (without explaining to us why in the name of Osiris he would want to lead a bunch of ex-slaves into the desert for 40 years and leave behind all the cushy perks egyptian initiates surely got) to "sharon is the antichrist" becuase he has a wound in his head and isn't dead and brought/ brings /will have brought peace to the middle east. I just wonder why didn't that great conspiracy theory not begin before Moses?

Anyway its all great. Oh and Sean (trying hard as ever) suggests that there is much similarity between Osiris and Jesus. Utter crap.
Jesus was born in a stable. Osiris wasn't.
Jesus was jewish and got done by the romans. Osiris wasn't and got done by his brother. Jesus had a great wedding party. Osiris had a really shite wedding party. Then there's the "w-i-l-l-y" question. oh yes there is.

What is in fact similar - is the "worship" patterns of both gods. But that ought not be surprising. All gods get the same kind of treatment especially when they are the centres of religion and occupy a nodal point in cultural transmission.

e.g. Both the king of Nepal (incarnation of Vishnu) and the head of state in exile of Tibet (incarnation of the Buddha of compassion) have glasses, though _none_ of the previous incarnations did, wear funny hats and have big problems with Maoists (yet crucially Mao only appeared in the last two incarnations).

But we don't get people saying they're the same do we? No we don't. Nor do we get people asking who was Mao really?

by Seán Ryan Thu Jan 19, 2006 15:06

Howerya Knowall.
I found your own post every bit as interesting and as entertaining as Guy's.

What can I say about wedding parties?

You plan. Christ's one came close to disaster. Maybe the mishaps concerned with Osiris's wedding, influenced Christ to be more observant and cautious. It did afterall take a miracle, to make it a success.

As for the willy bit, are ya absolutely sure about that?

I know of a bunch of Thomasine Christians, from around Ethiopia, who claim to possess the foreskin of Christ.

It doesn't seem to have fertilised the land mind you, maybe they shoulda took a bit more.

Sláinte,
Seán

by dunk Thu Jan 19, 2006 15:35 fuspey at yahoo dot co dot uk

a few ideas:
writer tolstoy was radical christian of sorts, he very much influenced gandhi, whose successor vinoba Bhave succceeded in getting 4million acres freely to the poor of india, one of his desciples Satish Kumar walked from India to the Russia and the US for peace, Patch Adams playful health revolution, todays homeless revolt

whether jesus's message was been interpreted rightly or wrongly (wrongly in my own opinion), or whether jihacked by political power groups - one could argue that he has been the most successful revolutionary in recorded world history- due to percentage of those humans who state themselves as christians today

it is written, "Tolstoy's suggested means of attaining anarchy were those that have now become well known as civil disobedience and non-violent direct action... Tolstoy advocates unbending moral resistance to authority."
Government is Violence: essays on Anarchism and Pacifism by Leo Tolstoy, http://www.practicalanarchy.org/fnb_crass.html

his writing influenced gandhi, who nehru described as a spiritual anarchist -
"im a muslim, im a hindu, im a christian"
"those that say that religion has nothing to do with politics, do not know what politics is about"

Anarchism and Non-Violence:
http://www.practicalanarchy.org/fnb_crass.html

Gandhism, Optimism and the gandhians
http://www.transnational.org/forum/meet/gandhism.html

Anarchism, Religion and Nature
http://www.religionandnature.com/bron/ern/Clark--Anarchism.pdf

"Gandhi's spiritual heir", Vinoba Bhave led several major campaigns to reclaim land for the poor. In 1951 Bhave and the many workers from Sarva Seva Sangh (Society for the Service of All), started the Bhoodon (land gift) movement. Many felt that Bhave was a saint in the Hindu tradition, and so when he began walking across the country asking for acres of land from landowners, he received land gifts, which were then given to the poor. One and one third million acres (4million according to kumar), according to Shepard, were actual reclaimed by the poor (far more than had been managed by the land reform programs of India's government). Bhave was involved with other projects and campaigns to bring about the "non-violent revolution". Bhave was an anarchist who pushed for 1957 to be the "year of revolution"

At the age of nine, Satish Kumar renounced the world and became a wandering Jain monk. Leaving the monkhood when eighteen, he joined Vinoba Bhave's campaign for land reform, working to turn Gandhi's vision into reality. He undertook an 8,000 mile pilgrimage, walking from India to America without any money, through deserts, mountains, storms and snow.

Walking The World For Peace
An interview with Satish Kumar, by Robert Gilman
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC17/Kumar.htm

he later moved to england and set up schumacher college, an international centre for ecological studies
http://www.schumachercollege.org.uk/index.html
he then went on to set up eco magazine, resurgence
http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/

another person who sees himself as a "non violent revolutionary" is patch adams, the clown doctor who created a free hospital in the states in reaction to the, as he sees it, misdirected medical profession
“We cannot separate the health of the individual from the health of the family, the community, and the world.”
"Please give your life to peace, justice and care."
see his interesting library
heres section on social change
http://www.patchadams.org/patch/library/social_change.html

interesting things happening at present in dublin, especially the homeless revolt
Keep Death Off Our Streets ... And The Guards On Their Toes
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=73193
http://www.streetseennews.blogspot.com/

just a few ideas to add into this interesting pot

by Devout Thu Jan 19, 2006 16:03

"Anyone who causes one of the least of these children is not worthy of me. It would be better were a millstone tied around his neck and that he were thrown into the depths of the sea."

Clearly this prohibits all child abuse including abortion.

by schmuck Thu Jan 19, 2006 20:54

Abysinia or Ethiopia is in fact one of the most fertile regions of northeastern Africa. Famine has always been a result of military conflict.
The fertility of that region allowed the longest continuing national state to exist only comparable to the now defunct throne of Persia/Iran.

And worse of all you nazi apologist troll, the foreskin of Jesus is claimed to be housed in a Tuscan Church in Italy.

by Seamus Thu Jan 19, 2006 21:15

Devout - I would be scared to meet you in a dark alley and scream JAYSUS when I bump into ya. Probably kill me for blasfemy. You are a crack pot indeed.

Enjoyed reading the thread, very entertaining. Just wondering how Iosaf is so sure JC existed. Thought you were an anarchist Iosaf, so whats all this JC belief rubbish?

Thanks for the link 'Jack White' loved the site, anything that slags organised religion is hilarious to read.

Anyone got a good pope joke website?

Slan, may your god go with you, as the late great athiest and comedian Dave Allen used to sign off with,
S

by Niall Fri Jan 20, 2006 00:09

www.vatican.va

by Seán Ryan Fri Jan 20, 2006 00:35

Poor Schmuck,

Don't forget to wash the dummy before you put it back in.

For your information, there are around 13 churches in Europe that claim to have the foreskin of Christ. The church you are on about; do you mean the church in Calcata in the Tuscia region?

If so that one was stolen in 1983. I'd suggest that maybe you took your eye off the ball, but that only having a prehensile brain excuses you from this possibility.

You missed the point of what I was saying (I bet that happens you a lot), I was saying in answer to Know All, that there was a "willy" mystery in the story of Christ, just like there is one in the story of Osiris.

Now about Ethiopia.

Firstly let me make your day by telling you that the Orthodox Ethiopian Church claims to possess the Ark of the Covenant. Note this time you ignoramus that I am not asserting that they have it, I'm saying that they claim to have it.

Are you suggesting areas such as the Danakil desert are fertile? (please note here, that Egypt is largely a desert, and that it is claimed that the "willy" of Osiris lost in the Nile, helps fertilise the desert in the Nile Valley every time it floods its banks)

I see that you have rolled out the apologist excuse for famine. War may have facilitated famine (Amongst other things like the Arms business), but the world just watching it happen enabled it to continue, and enables it to continue.

As for calling me a nazi troll.

Evolution before revolution, you lower order primate.

Get better soon,
Seán Ryan

by Xavier Fri Jan 20, 2006 04:03

Thanks for the links dunk. The whole spiritual/christian anarchist notion seems to be being misinterpreted in my view. It is plain to see from the comments that generally people equate christians with the established church. It is also interesting to read Ciarons comment, I am concerned however that it is impossible to reconcile anarchism and being a member of the R.C church and alliegence to the authority of the pope, for no other reason than the structure and centralisation of power in that organisation. As I said in my article I see it in the same terms as being a member of Fianna Fail.

Developing an holistic anarchism that includes and recognises mans spiritual nature is what intersts me, without participating in the structure of the powers of organised religion.

There is much more written about christ than was allowed in the Roman Empires version.

I don't claim to be an expert but this site I found by googling seems to have a lot of other texts. I cant vouch for their authenticity as I haven't researched into it.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/

"How shall we then, enter the kingdom?" Jesus said unto them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside, and when you make the male and the female one and the same; then will you enter the kingdom." ~The Gospel of Thomas

pretty revolutionary stuff on gender discrimination there if you ask me, especially in Judaic patriarchial society.

by potential convert Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:08

the circimcision which raises such interesting questions as "if he was missing a section of foreskin can he have ascended wholly? or did a littlew cherub put it back on along the way?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce

Are the Indiana Jones movies reliable religious studies material?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_of_the_Covenant

Is the ark really at Mary of Zion's church?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Our_Lady_Mary_of_Zion

Isn't there a very important jewish element to all of this?
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/ that little group with HQ in London's Swiss Cottage (conspiratorial eh?) are also currently sueing Google since December 23rd. (ooooo! maybe the ark is in Hackney)http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/23/jews_for_jesus/

Of course no modern intellectual can even think of approaching these topics without reading the acknowledged global expert, Mr Dan Brown. (and yes he really does wear a black polo neck and battered sports jacket just like a younger Chomsky)
http://www.danbrown.com/

Finally After reading all these comments and comparing them with equivalent threads (of which there have been many over the last 4 years on imc ireland) I have come to the conclusion, that Xavier is arguing for the creation of a new religion. Anarchism as understood in the occidental transmission tradition has found on several occassion common ground with some metaphysical
belief systems. The anarchists who started the free school system, burned the churches of Barcelona in the early 1900s were also members of masonic lodges. Many consider their oaths and passage of initiation (which was _archic_) as well as amply proving their membership of a social elite to be incompatible with organisational principles of _"An_archism" but others dont think the world and people are made in such rigid ways. Just as in more recent years, links have been made between advocates of liberation theology and the "catholic workers" movement and anarchism. But only when individuals are considered in "two seperate ways". But if Xavier is to start a new religion which combines an evaluation of the Christ as a non-heirarchal moral authority and can ensure he doesn't come back to judge us and trouble us with leadership questions, and can organise a social centre where non authoritiarian worship is held, I suppose I'd try and hunt out some old and pretty papyrus to stick on the wall, (as soon as they come back from salamanca) but only on condition that there is proper music. & all you need do, Xavier is write the gospel.... your gospel.
the gospel of Xavier. the book of X. thats how the story will begin.

by Ray Hanrahan - WSM - personable capacity Fri Jan 20, 2006 19:18 hanrahanone at hotmail dot com

Let me clear up one thing - just because I'm antipathetic to the notion of an 'anarchist religiosity' doesn't mean that I'm not prepared to work with people who hold those beliefs (mistakenly in my opinion) when they're doing useful actions against injustice, oppression and state power. The Pitstop Ploughshares 5 are a good case in point. In fact, the vast majority of the support network that has kept them going has been anarchist in political outlook and anarchist organisations and groups have done considerable fundraising and other forms of practical support over the period since their direct action. In contrast, the response of the Catholic church in Ireland has been one of embarrasment and 'don't come near us!' The Catholic hierarchy in Ireland prefers to get on a helicopter and fly offshore to bless a thieving multinational gas wellhead rather than give any morsel of public support to their co-religionists. (I have a question for the Catholic bishop of Killala - was the chopper wearing a surplice and soutane when you were performing that act of anti-human treachery?)
Let's ask a few idle questions:
1. Is there such a thing as Christian Anarchism? No. Jesus is still in charge, and a hierarchy of authority and assertions of revealed truth still remain in place. Christian doctrine (along with the doctrines of other organised religions) is inimical to anti-authoritarianism. Even if you're a Christian and against the authority of living persons, there remains the authority of dead persons (Jesus, etc.) and the authority of books (the Bible). The anarchist sensibility always questions the authority vested in ideas and abstractions. O yeah, and what's that stuff about the kingdom of God?
2. Is a libertarian Christianity possible? Quite possible I suppose, but you'd have to gut the Christian tradition of so much content that is repressive and authoritarian that such a creed would have to reject the Bible in its entirety and start again with a brand-new religion. There would also have to be an honest acceptance of the syncretic (the blending of borrowings - creative plagiarism) origins of the Christian tradition. There would have to be a public admission that no, God didn't speak to the cult leader in a dream, we made up this religion ourselves from carefully-chosen ingredients that already exist.
3. What about faith in God in a libertarian religiosity? If anarchists hold any faith in anything, it is humanity. If I didn't have belief in the capacity of humankind to positively transform the society/ies we live in I'd never have bothered becoming politically active. For me, being an anarchist is a declaration of faith in humanity that precludes and supersedes all other allegiances. My attitude towards deities (at furthest) is a wary scepticism about their existence and their motives. Gods are ever-demanding, and they take credit for everything - just like politicians really. Also, a decision to venerate a deity, or to engage in any type of relationship with deities would have to be open and directly democratic. It's no good for God to talk only to those S/He finds biddable. And no secret covenants or Fatima secrets either, or the next thing we'll be talking about is 'Anarchist Gnosticism'.
4. What does that leave us with? The furthest I'd venture is shamanism, and even there we're often ceding agency to an 'expert' - which is something I'm against. It is the shame of the human individual that most would rather accept the second-hand report of the transcendent moment than live it for themselves, and as far as I'm concerned I've always felt most alive when I'm participating in the life and struggles of a community. For me, no god or gods are required to make me feel alive.
So, that's a short exposition of what I think of religiosity, though it leaves out a lot, especially on the social aspects of religion. I hope it helps to clear up a few things, and avoid the sloppy reasoning and wishful thinking that threatens to make a mockery of my chosen political identity.

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker Sat Jan 21, 2006 17:05

In terms of solidarity with the Pit Stop Ploughshares. Most of the financial support came from the christian anarchist pacifist Catholic Worker network in North America.
There have been individuals in Ireland with a libertarian orientation who have stuck by us for the last 3 years, some of these would be agnoistic/some faith based. There have been libertarian groups, and also members of religious orders & communities, who have initiated and supported fundraisers, offered hospitality/solidarity and come to court with us.

The christian anarchist pacifist Catholic Worker network has been going since 1933. It has been the subject of serious academic study as well as published reflections from within the movement. It is silly to argue that this anarchist current doesn't exist.

I would suggest some reading....
"Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism" by Marshall. Various chapters on faith based anarchism including Christian Anarchism.
Also an older pamphlet by
Nicholas Walter "About Anarchism",
Jacques Ellul's work "Christianity & Anarchism"
Read some Tolstoy.

Check out popular celebrations of the tradition
IWW singer Utah Phillips & Ani Defranco's Celebration of the Catholic Worker Movement
"Anarachy" on "The Past Didn' t Go Anywhere" Album
The Diggers song covered by Billy Bragg celebrating the faith based anarchists of the Diggers movement.

This initial posting suggests a new christian anarchist current emerging, maybe out of the recent anti-capitalist movement? Sounds like it has a different starting point & orientation to the Catholic Worker but hey the more the merrier. I once lodged with a Christian Athiest Anarchist (nonpacifist) in London, you can catch him on a soapbox in Hyde Park every Sunday!

One would think if any movement had the capacity for celebrating pluralism it would be the anarchist movement.

by James - WSM - Pesonal Capacity Sat Jan 21, 2006 19:00

You definitely exist Ciaron!

But it's another question if it makes sense! Both rationally and from the perspective of the anarchist tradition from the 1st International through to today. But whatever the answer, the world is undoubtedly a better place because of the actions of the likes of the Catholic Workers round the world.

In my opinion it would better again to leave the unnecessary and contradictory religious parts. I'm not a major fan of the Marshall book btw.

> I once lodged with a Christian Athiest Anarchist (nonpacifist) in London

You've got me the there!An atheist who believes that Jesus was the creator of the universe and rose from the dead and all that malarkey? Was s/he allright in the head?!!

Anyway, I liked your last line above: “radical Christians will find in struggle more in common with radical Buddhists & anarchists etc than many identifying as Christians. Athiests anarchists will likewise find comrades amongst radical christians more often than conservative individualists identifying as anarchists”

Keep the hair – not the faith!

by Ciaron Sat Jan 21, 2006 19:10

See photo.

The man

by iosaf Sat Jan 21, 2006 19:52

It brought me all over barcelona (where I live) and in one shop the owner and workers recognised me from migrant support demonstrations (the "sin papales" thing). They are hindi. I asked them about their gods which they sell in their shop along with loads of second hand computer and electronic gear. The window of their shop looks a bit odd. Little guady hindi gods with loads of arms doing their thing nestling between dvd's and mp3's and digital camera's.
They confirmed to be that their beliefs or "religiousty" ( a jargon term I hate) had nothing to do with their continude support or our anarchist campaigns.
bless em.

by Xavier Sat Jan 21, 2006 22:25

I think Ciaron is correct that there is an emergant spiritual if not definate christian anarchist trend. Among many other campaigns, his own ploughshares campaign may have something to do with it's development. While I have the utmost regard for the C.W movement and their ongoing work worldwide, I am concerned that it would describe itself as anarchist when in fact it's founders were Roman Catholics as indeed is Ciaron. The endorsement of a patriarchial, hierarchical centralised and undemocratic organisation such as the R.C church(which declares itself to be the only true church) is surely incompatible with even the most watered down anarchism. Having said that, just because I believe that the terms R.C and anarchist are mutually exclusive does not demean the magnificent work of Ciaron and the other ploughshares.

Anyway, I would be interested to know, in a non confrontational way, the logic Ciaron uses to make the reconciliation between the two. Such a contribution would be valuable to this discussion and to those of us in this "emergant trend" (after 2000 years!) who struggle with similar apparent contradictions between anarchy and all centrally organised religions.

by Mon Jan 23, 2006 16:33

Link to online version of God and the State by Bakunin

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/godstate/index.htm

by dunk Mon Jan 23, 2006 16:53 fuspey at yahoo dot co dot uk

listen to an excellent interview with 70 year old US musician, pacifist, anarchist; Utah Philips interview with Amy Goodman
http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/amy_utah_frsc.mp3
from imc-radio
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1359.php

from part of earlier thread
building up the RADICAL radio network

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=71892

and also :
living in the land of sex and sinners
http://easa.antville.org/stories/935634/
looks at how ireland was the most radical state in christendom, monastries the equivalent to todays ibiza, bishops riding nuns and all that.
looks at how paganism was never really killed here, it merely had the new layer of "christianity" placed upon its beliefs and sturcutres
also looks at the spiritual paradigm shift happening in society today from 1920's exploration into structure of atom, fritjof capra and the tao of phyiscs argument
::
"The new emerging worldview is an ecological worldview that is grounded in spiritual awareness. This `rising culture` is growing and becoming a powerful force of social transformation"

by dunk Mon Jan 23, 2006 17:01

religion, making sense of being alive

learn a bit from all
think out your philosophy (bit of christian, taoist, buddhist, ecological......)
then start doing stuff which backs up and strenghtens your philosophy

one last link id like to throw into this, is the stephen mitchell version of the tao te ching, which is the second most widely translated book in the world after the bible, many of us in west dont know of it, takes half hour to read, or a lifetime (typical taoist theme) original book supposedly written by wandering old guy called lao tzu @ 6th century bc- unfortunatley the "cultural revolution" in china managed to make a lot of chinese people unaware of this simple book of poetry, the only reference to god - the tao is older than god

enjoy it, if youve never heard of it
http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html

25:

There was something formless and perfect
before the universe was born.
It is serene. Empty.
Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe.
For lack of a better name,
I call it the Tao.

we live here, odd isn't it

by Observer2 Mon Jan 23, 2006 17:07

and the picture is of only one galaxy among many millions! So the arrow shows the tiny house we occupy in the small town that is the milky way!

imagine.

by redjade Mon Jan 23, 2006 17:08

'I am concerned that it would describe itself as anarchist when in fact it's founders were Roman Catholics as indeed is Ciaron. The endorsement of a patriarchial, hierarchical centralised and undemocratic organisation such as the R.C church(which declares itself to be the only true church) is surely incompatible with even the most watered down anarchism. [ etc ]'

I'm neither christian nor anarchist but have tendencies in that direction. I do not like ideology and think the grey areas in between ideologies is more interesting and informative than the rigidity of orthodoxy that so many on the Left strive for. I see no reason to try to be a '5th level vegan' and it would probably unhealthy to even try.

One thing that I like about the CW movement is that it is perhaps the ultimate idealistic 'lost cause' - an Anarchist reformation of the Catholic Church? Wow - you gotta admire them just for trying! :-)

So much of the Left is ideologically driven - You put a stake in the ground and say 'this is where I am' then you try to defend it or tell people to come over to your little stake in the ground because its better than all the others (this website has a lot of that sort of thing).

I'm more interested in motivations than ideologies. The CWs and other Christian Anarchists are about the original christianity, back when they were palestinians - both jewish and gentile - fighting imperialism and the Paul Bremers of their day, way back before it got bought off and sold out to power and privilege and shameless advocates of hierarchy and war and even before it became the self-appointed bureaucracy between humans and the big guy in the sky...

yeah, I like that idea of christianity and anarchism.

And I can see them being one in the same, within that context. Being a socialist (including anarchism in that broad tradition) means fighting for poor and powerless and against the wealthy and powerful for a free and egalitarian society and world.

But the socialist tradition has a lot of 'patriarchial, hierarchical centralised and undemocratic organisation' and history to overcome as well.

So the CW 'contradiction' is not particularly unique.

by iosaf Mon Jan 23, 2006 17:09

Is it not mysterious how these three leaves may form one wholesome whole?

I'd like to remind many younger or virulently "anti-religion" types, that without the positive asistance of the Society of Friends, or Quakers we would not have been able to kick start a generational rebranding of anarchosyndicalist ideas in Europe at the same time as the mainstreaming of "anti-capitalist" ideas in the USA based on Seattle. I can not count the times that Quakers offered meeting halls to amongst others RTS! critical Mass! Mayday! &c.., And I'd remind all that "quakerism" a christian faith is *non-hierarchial *non-authoritarian *pacifist. And in addition to that support, I look back with genuine affection on a the Roman Catholic Italian church in central London for the simple work it did through the 90s (to this day) in feeding and clothing squatters and punks of the "anarchist political tradition" as much as many anglican parishes in Brixton who opened their halls to allow anarcho-syndicalists discuss the issues of the day - eviction - resistance &c...

Most but not all Christians are united by the nicene creed. (I believe in God, trinity, seen and unseen blah de blah) There is only one line which an anarchist could not accept in "inverted commas", and that is the claim to authority of an "apostolic church" but only if they interpret it to justify the heirarchy of present day churches. The trinity thing claims Paddy style a man (jesus) of one and the same substance as God. For the nihilists thats cool. You don't believe in God there's no Jesus either. But thinking about it would not the that unusual. Its not the first time in "2000 years". Calvinism, presbytarianism rely on the democratic process and understand "apostolicism" as transmitted through their readings of the texts and scripture, maybe they're a wee bit straussian but they certainly developed an interpretation of one line of the "Christian creed" which is mutually anatagonistic to the RC version. Ah!!!! but some might say think about that trinity.

"The Nicene Creed, used "homoousia" (Koine Greek: of same essence). The spelling of this word differs by a single Greek letter, "one iota", from the word used by non-trinitarians at the time, "homoiousia" (Greek: of similar essence): a fact which has since become proverbial, representing the deep divisions occasioned by seemingly small imprecisions, especially in theology."
[wikipedia]

So... we see that "iota" of difference and look at our shamrock again. Soon it will be our imc ireland logo. And on one leaf we have atheist or agnostics, on the other we have greek quoting ipsiphi and the other we have Ciaron and the kathurlick workers. May we not marvel @ our shamrock? After all its not edible and we're not going to war over it.
And at end, no-one is seriously suggesting a move to "synchreticism". Your "faith" is your "faith" if you have it, just as your "political belief" is your "political belief".

sin é.
you can't export that shamrock with the roots on.

by (@/*)+(n) =? Mon Jan 23, 2006 17:30

I still haven't figured out whether or not Francesc Ferrer i Guardia was executed for being the anarchist who burnt the churches of Barcelona or for being the mason who burnt the churches of Barcelona. But I do know that the CNT list his life as "one devoted to liberty".
http://www.cnt.es/fal/Bicel16/21.htm
And that the communists also claim him yet he was politically most certainly an anarchist. Yet by faith he was most certainly a mason. Hmmmmm. And now the Kathurlicks say it was only anarchists who burnt the churches in 1909 and now they on longer complain about his role in the creation of free secular schools.

But I do wonder.... for that iota never goes away.

Seneca a satirist of Rome who lived in the reign of Nero (not long after Christ) wrote "only in dying may a man learn to not be a slave". It is considered by some to be "prophetic" for in AD 65 Nero ordered him to open his veins and kill himself. Which he did. & to this day, we know Lucius Annaeus Seneca was not a slave.


º.:. Help the blind woman's son!

by lazarus Tue Jan 24, 2006 02:22

The atheist position is rather sophomoric...
As are most of the responses to this paper.

In order to say there is no god in the universe you would have to have infinite knowlwedge of the universe....
I'm not convinced.
Agnosticism is a much more informed view.

"Top marks for creative thinking! If Jesus had wanted to get that point across why did'nt he just say it?".......

I take from this statement this individual has had no meaningful encounter with authority, nor political process as it works in the real world. This comment is naive as to the the political climate of that period, along with the motives of those asking the questions, and what Jesus' agenda was.
I would also surmise this person lives in a country where one is not killed for voicing ones opinions.

The religious/spiritual is ubiquitous in human experience. It is not going to go away. By its use humanity has reached nobel heights, by its abuse, unfathomable depths of depravity. On this subject Jesus and the prophets continually comment.

Its abuse has much to do with greed and fear, not god, nor spirituality

Communism has also committed genocidal atrocities in its own name.

Anarchism has been resonsible for its own atrocities through the labor union/mob connections.

The emergent trend within Christianity attempts redefine the Christian Metanarative on postmodern terms and wrest the power from those that put a hierarchical spin on the interpretation of scripture, that supports the abusive power structure that is presently sending the whole of the earth down a road to extinction, not evolution. This was also Jesus' agenda.

To borrow from anarchist thinkers, or socialist thinkers to accomplish this is not plagarization, nor so called sycretism, actually the reverse is true, these borrowed from Christian thought.
Nevertheless, to compare their liturature, along with other cultural expressions of faith,(Greek philosophy found its way into the Christian metanarative in this way) provides a second witness as to what one sees in the scripture..... Within the "Jesus" narrative.... a way to subvert these power structures in a holistic, nonviolent, spiritual way. To call it Christian Anarchy is merely being succint, no need to start a new religion.

With this in mind universalism is less of a threat. Seeing the division in religion as an extention of the xenophobic tendency, along with their proclivity to exclusivity.

Religion is the cultural expression of the individual, familial, communal, spiritual experience.

The western religion of humanism along with its doctrine of evolution refuses to recognize that spritiuality is not a vestigial organ of the consciousness. Conscious maturation by introspection and meditation or contemplative prayer is evolution by spirituality. To negate such endeavors is insipidly anti-intellectual.
To not see the positive effect on the human experience is intentional blindness.
These humanistic proponents also fail to recognize their own hubristic xenophobic and exclusivistic tribal tendancies.

Humanists are equaly guilty of being full of crap, or not, as the case may be.

Evolve?????
How about....."Mature".....
Educate yourself.
Don't be an ignorant reprobate.

by Joe Christian - non denominational church Mon Feb 26, 2007 00:25

How can you be a Christian and not support the church?If you follow Jesus and Him alone you will not be led astray.Jesus said" I will build MY CHURCH and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it."ST.Paul told his fellow Pastors/Shepards to "shepard the church of God." Take a good long look at the Bible and you may change your mind.It is always us sinful people that want to be in CONTROL and CONTROL others thinking and behavior where God always changes us through love and forgiveness.
Thanks,
Joe

by Jay - none Thu Oct 09, 2008 05:04 Spillers36 at hotmail dot com

Wow! I have been getting into to the study of Christian Anarchism lately and believe I am a gradualist anarchist christian. For now government is a necessary evil but as the human race begins to embrace Christ within and walk in the kingdom which is within, the need for any government or hierarchy will vanish. I believe we all came out of God and shall return to him. I don't know if you have heard of Gary Sigler but his teaching is wonderful. One guy that actually makes sense out there. He is a universalist type that teaches we are all manifestations of God on this earth. He speaks out against organized churches to. He doesn't claim to be an anarchist, but I think in his own way he is. go to Sigler.org