22 votes

Anarchy in the Royal Family

What do you think of the word "anarchy"? Does it have a negative or even evil connotation in your mind? Are you a Christian? Have you ever said "No King but King Jesus?" If so, and if you really mean it, then you are probably more of an anarchist than you realize.

Anarchy simply means "without a king". The context of anarchy is generally in a human sense, not a spiritual one, and the philosophy supporting it simply claims that no person has the right to claim ownership to another person. Kings claim ownership, often by divine right, always by force and coercion to not only your property but also to you. It is through this claim that they justify their right to levy taxes, make rules and enforce them with guns, conscript soldiers and slaves, and confiscate property.

In a Kingdom there are serfs, lords, and then there is the Royal family. The serfs are the population whose lives and property are the property of the king, they are not part of the Royal family and are not politically well connected enough to be a Lord. Serfs pay homage to the king via taxation, and are subject to the king's laws and decrees at the threat of violence. The Lords are the friends of the King who he has given land or privilege to, lords can also collect taxes on their lands and subject the serfdom on their lands to their laws. And then there is the Royal family, which should need no additional explanation, this is the king and his family.

That's all real interesting, but we live in America, we don't have a king, right? Well here's a test. Are you free to use your property as you see fit? How about your car, who needs those pesky tags right? Or your life? Are you free to not pay the taxes levied on the fruit of your own labor via the income tax if you don't agree with the policies of the government? Of course not. You are a serf. The Federal Government is the King, and the power brokers behind the scenes are the Royal family. Quite often the power brokers are literally families that have been in power for decades if not centuries who control the political and economic forces that are used to control us. In this kingdom the Lords are the corporations, who are given special privileges and access to the royal treasury and to the royal guard in order to protect and expand their property. We are the serfs, subject not only to the laws and decrees of the king with regards to taxation, conscription into military service, and obedience to untold number of regulations (decrees), but we are also subject to the will of the Lord's (corporations) as they use their special privileges to force us to accept their will in regards to the products and services we are given the choice to live by. This entire kingdom is predicated on the assumption that you are the property of the Federal Government. A powerful elite has set themselves up on the throne of God almighty and assumed ownership of you.

The word "anarchy" has been derided and redefined through our public (royal) education system, and through the mass media (royal propaganda), because it is a dangerous idea to the underpinnings of fraudulent kingdom you are being forced to participate in. If you were to consider the possibility that you belong to yourself, and that no other person has the right to claim ownership of you or your property, then you may experience what is called "cognitive dissonance" when your mind attempts to reconsile the idea of self ownership with the demands of your king to pay taxes, buy car tags, renew licences (what are we pets?), or participate in any other "mandatory" activity. Anarchist see the individual as not only owners of themselves, but also sovereign, and this sovereignty is in direct conflict with the sovereignty the government claims over you. In fact this is evidenced by the fact that they must use violence, or the threat of it in order to coerce you to obey their decrees. Violence and fraud are particularly repulsive to an anarchist because these kinds of acts are violations against the victims property and sovereignty. It is better for the "kings" if you remain ignorant, or even repulsed by the words and ideas of self ownership, because of where these ideas may lead your thinking.

Many Christians may shy away from the anarchist ideology because of the concept of self ownership. We are taught that we were purchased by Christ, and that we belong to God. But a closer examination of this idea will lead you to some interesting conclusions. We need to build a bit of a foundation to get there so lets take a look at these verses:

  • Exodus 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them;"

It is clear that God establishes himself as the only God. We should place no other God (or King) before him. Nor shall we bow down to any idol, or symbol that is either representative of him, a human king, an animal, or any other thing. On this premise alone the claim of ownership upon you by a human King must be rejected.

  • Revelation 21:3 :And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

The intent of God is to dwell with us, not to exist distantly separated from us. That he will live with us and be our God, and that his tabernacle will be with us.

  • John 4:24 "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

God is a spirit, and must be interacted with as such. Our interaction with him must be according to his nature (spirit) and it also must be accurate (truth). Idolatry is wrong because it is an interaction with God via the physical, not the spiritual, it is neither spirit nor truth. Legalism is wrong because it is an intellectual interaction with him, it is truth, but not spirit. Mysticism is wrong because it is only a spiritual interaction, spirit but not truth.

  • Luke 17:20 "Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” "

The kingdom that God rules over cannot be seen because it is spirit, like Him. If you can see the kingdom you are subject to, that is a pretty good indication that it is not God's kingdom and you are practicing idolatry.

  • 1 Corinthians 6:19 it says: "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."
  • 1 Corinthians 3:16 "Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?"

Here is the establishment of God's ownership of us. An anarchist would cringe at this prospect. But as a believer we understand that God doubly owns us. He created us, and then he also purchased us at the Cross. This is how he established the Kingdom that we are able to live in with him. Our bodies are His tabernacle, and his dwelling place is not only among us, but within each one of us. He is "among" us because he is "within" me when I am near you, and you me.

  • Galations 4:4 "But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir."

And now we see the radical departure of the traditional kingdom model. There are no serfs or Lords in the kingdom of God, only Royal family. God adopting us and and making us heirs. God's very nature living within and among us, our bodies serving as the physical location of his throne and temple. This is difficult to equate in terms of human government. Even if a human king were to adopt you and make you an heir, the human king still could not use your body to locate his kingdom, because the human king is human, physical, not spiritual.

As a Christian if I identify with the word "anarchist" I don't see how I can be violating any Christian principles, in fact, in order to be able to prepare my body to become the dwelling place of God, one of the first things I must do is deny any recognition of ownership by any other human being or object or idol. In fact if God not only owns me, has made me his son, and also dwells within me, to live as if my body were the property of any other power seems quite ridiculous.

Living life in this paradigm should radically change how we behave and interact with others. When we view others as tabernacles of God we can instantly see why the principles of anarchy become very important in our control of our physical bodies. Every individual is the physical manifestation of the spiritual presence of God. If a person commits an act of violence or fraud, or makes a false claim of ownership to another person or their property, they are in reality putting themselves in the place of God himself.

"No King but King Jesus?", yes, but you can't get there without embracing and understanding anarchy.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Hi, shuleba. Yeah, this

Hi, shuleba. Yeah, this word's meaning, as any word should have, is in the word:

an-: no; not; without; against.

arch: arch; arc; something above.

When alone, arch is pronounced arch, sounding how it does in parchment.

When arch is a word part, it's pronounced arc.

:)

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

Disagreement

with premise: "(an)-arch-(y)" suggests 'rule', rather than 'regal' kingdom
http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/anarchy

btw I endorse civil law with prerogative choice over anarchy, and have formed a new political Party accordingly

Info here
http://facebook.com/FreeDominionPoliticalParty

I was told that Anarchy is

I was told that Anarchy is when hoodlums dress in black to destroy property and we need government to save us? : /

most people respond emotionally to two political . . .

words--

anarchist

communist

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Anarchy would produce mafia?

Last I checked the biggest mafia in the US is the government... Shakedowns? IRS branch of the mafia. Extortion? Property tax collectors. Monopoly on the use of deadly force? Local, state, and federal law "enforcers." Would the world be worse off if we eliminated this grandest of all mafias? Methinks not. But who knows? I say we give it a try. It couldn't be any worse then our present state.

Flashback! 10 ways mafia better than government

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IErlI34-0so

OK, and I am adding this off the wall comment because this is where I am sitting. I have Mike Rivero on the radio in another tab, and as I sit the topic of medical marijuana came up and his phones lit up. I never realized how down on pot he was, but he was talking to young callers and being kind of "I used to, but I'm better than that now" about it... When one guy started citing the cancer-inhibiting properties, he gave him the bum's rush with a "your breaking up, I've got to go..." The last caller was an old man, telling him to watch "Run From The Cure, The Rick Simpson Story." It almost shut him up for a minute - it was pretty funny.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Thanks for sharing! Every

Thanks for sharing! Every single last point was true. I honestly would prefer mafia-rule over authoritarian government rule, sad (or happy?) to say

I love this video, it's

I love this video, it's great!

Your populism is staggering

Communists also preached to proletariat that the latter has nothing to lose except chains from capitalists. In turn, with a socialist revolution, working class will own everything.

I remember you mentioned that it took you 15 years to understand how capitalism works. I remember I replied that you need another 5 years. My suggestion stands.

One of us has memory problems.

It could be me, I tend to blow off stupid comments, but since it did not take me "15 years to understand Capitalism" I don't really think I said that. Anyway, I have not said a word against free markets. When you say "capitalism" what are you defending? Corporatism?

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

The answer is

into examining how private security firms, private arbitrations and private insurance companies operate without universally accepted rules and without police/courts appointed/hired by elected politicians. If you are focused, you will understand why mafia will step in. I will just give you a hint to start: In the first year of anarchy, middle class people without children are robbed and killed; no heirs to spend money to hire private detectives. In the second year, people who have poor children are robbed and killed; children now are afraid to protest - who will pay to investigate their murder?

thank you, this had to have

thank you, this had to have taken some time

What anarchy looks like:

A group of people working together when they have a common goal, and keeping to themselves if they don't have anything they want to work with others on.
It is like Bilderberg meeting, everyone is on equal footing.
It is like the UN, where everyone in the room is respected as Rulers of the Realm, only the realm is just our body.
What we have NOW is chaos, where death and destruction are the tools employed to herd the masses. Giving the agents of chaos a badge and gun does not make what they do lawful or orderly.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Anarchy sounds

as a good Utopia on paper. In reality, it would quickly deteriorate into mafia controlled despair. Despair would continue until the majority is able to restore some type of government to fight the mafia. But by that time, mafia would be well organized. Short of another Homeland Security nothing would help...

I'd take mafia over

I'd take mafia over government any day

See above

What we have now is mafia controlled despair. Wake up and smell the fascism, and don't fear the liberty.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Anarchy sounds like Nestor Makhno: kill the landowners

Anarchy sounds like Nestor Makhno: kill the landowners, marry the cow if ya want, and hey -- why's everyone robbing and stealing and starving?

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

it only sounds that way to those who do not understand it

and settle for what the media says.
Self governance. That is "anarchy." It is me being queen of my life, you being king of yours.
I have a VERY reasonable offer for proponents of government. I volunteer to be YOUR queen, too. It is not a job I want but if it makes you feel better being "governed" I'll be your queen. You say you don't want me to be your queen? Well, that is how I feel about everyone else.
My Creator put me in charge of my life. You offer me a ruler who can add a moment to my life, and I will be impressed. All you offer is rulers who will shorten my life if I object to their rule.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

terminological problem

I apologize for not reading your whole long post. I just don't have the time. But I wanted to mention that anarchists like Larkin Rose seem to have a problem with pitching self-ownership. When he says "You own yourself," that turns off people for whom the assertion "God owns you" comes to mind (and either they believe that or they think they believe that). On the other hand, the positive assertion "You own yourself" really resonates with people who have rejected the idea that God owns them.

More generally, I think some of Larkin's vocabulary is a bit unnaturally limited. Maybe it's possible to have non-authoritative government, for example. That issue aside, perhaps the main point he wants to get across is that neither government nor society has any legitimate rights of ownership over you. Though that's a negative assertion, it's one that many more people can accept at face value.

I did address this issue

I did address this issue toward the end of the article :)

I only know one thing

Muslims can rationalize why they get virgins in paradise while Christians can rationalize why the same muslims are denied virgins in hell.

Arguments are solid: start with rational thinking, then stop, cite a miracle, quote a written paragraph taken as the truth out of blind belief, then return to rational thinking. Pathetic. If you said that Jesus visited you last night and informed you that idea of anarchism pleases him, that would be also real and logical. Don't we believe in miracles?

I am a Universal Unitarian

I am a Universal Unitarian Diest or something like that. Something we must know is that humans have twisted anything possible in religion. I find it better to have open discussion like this and private inquiry on what it means; not what someone else thinks it means.

So you feel

okay that other Christians condemn you and Libertarian muslims to hell? Okie-dokie then.

scawarren's picture

My 2003 Webster's vest pocket

My 2003 Webster's vest pocket dictionary defines anarchy as
"the absence of governmental authority"
so with that definition in mind it seems more positive every passing day.

It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. – Mark Twain

Time for a new dictionary. The Greeks said it 2500 years ago.

Origin:

from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos, from an- 'without' + arkhos 'chief, ruler'

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/anarchy?q=a...

Free includes debt-free!