An #askNostr question for anarchists who are also Christians (or other sorts of belivers-in-god): why do you reject the idea of an Earthly ruler but welcome the idea of a supernatural one?
does your welcoming of _only a certain kind of ruler_ make you more sympathetic to Statists who want _a certain kind of State_?
If you reject human tyrants there's no reason for you don't reject celestial tyrants either
I would mean there can not be an anarchist, that believes in God, as a leader or ruler.
Just since it is contradicting in the definition. Since to be over us there needs to be a hirarchy. And since anarchy is to opposite of a hirarchy, someone can not support both systems.
there is a difference between being ruled and being guided
What would happen if I don't accept being guided by this god?
Then you need to find your way on your own.
The defnition of "god" as an angry man in the clouds is pretty absurd.
is it more or less guaranteed that you will have a bad outcome if you act exactly opposed to the guidance?
if so, who set up the rules of the universe which prescribed that your bad ourcome results from breaking the guidance?
- the pursuit for individual and social well being imho is intrinsic for us as a species
- you cannot break physical laws
- if you try to live against human nature as a social being it probably have a bad outcome, e.g. if you murder or steal it might have a backlash sooner or later
- religious rules were usually developed for thousands of years, and would not have survived that long if they had not at least a little benefit for most, individually and/or socially.
Many are outdated, though following some routines as a structure or frame of living seems to keep a human being happy
statistically, religious people are in average happier than non religious people.
I personally think that daily routines and basic rules comply with or even are a necessity for the human nature as a social being.
Imagin a world without gravity or without fix points for orientation. people need to live and die for something
Nihilist do not.
I can also accept, that life just is. And I can find all orientation within happines and helping others and myself acchieving it.
orientation is the key word in your post
I've lived both ways. Have you? Most of the religious people I meet are overwhelmed with constant anger that others don't live the way they want them to.
I'm not a full anarchist, so maybe I don't qualify to answer (yeah, that would seem problematic).
But, I am opposed to abusive or corrupt forms of authority. Since I don't believe God is corrupt or abusive, I welcome that form of authority... one that has my best interests in mind.
Democracy might be a good counter-system to a fallen humanity in terms of governance, but it also has huge issues when it gets manipulated, or people aren't well-educated or even well-intentioned. It simply becomes a people-centric version of 'might makes right.'
Its why they call it faith, bro.
Yes, though keep in mind that a proper definition of faith, is more akin to trust (vs 'wishful thinking' as it is sometimes portrayed).
for trust to make any sense you have to be certain the thing is there to begin with. that's why people usually mean "wishful thinking" when it comes to religion, because it involves the element of uncertainty.
like when you tell someone a secret, you know for sure they know it and you trust them that they'll keep it safe. if someone breaks into your house and you're not sure if they read your diary, you _hope_ and wish they didn't, you don't **trust** they didn't.
the certainty is the difference. believers claim to have that certainty (which is why they insist on the "trust" meaning), while us nonbelievers maintain that you can't be certain, thus "faith" can only mean "hope".
sure you can trust the burglar didn't read your diary... but you might be wrong and it has nothing to do with your trust being broken, it has to do with your assumptions being wrong.
The thing is, I am as certain as one can be (excluding alternate reality stuff like the Matrix, or non-reality type Eastern religions).
First, I have had what is, to me, a convincing supernatural experience (it was highly personal, so I won't go into detail... though it was shared/confirmed by another person, so not just some kind of hallucination). I obviously don't expect you to place much weight on such a thing... outside whatever weight you'd apply to such testimony.
Second, the evidence is such that I see no way for there to be no creator god. The question then becomes, which religious view is the correct one, if any.
This is where the faith/trust step comes in. The God of the Bible and revelation of nature/character via Jesus, is convincing to me that this God is worthy of trust and worship. It is possible for me to be in error on that point, because a being that powerful, would have the capacity to deceive me (if that is possible to coincide with the nature of such a being).
But, doing otherwise would be bit like not trusting your spouse. I suppose they could be a serial killer who has been tricking you for decades. But, as you know them deeply in every possible way, your trust/faith that this is not the case, becomes well justified.
Jesus brings liberation. The Truth sets you free. Anything that imprisons you is from Satan. That often includes the earthly church and other Christians. How many atrocities have been committed by these Satanists? They are very confused - they believed lies. Christ isn't in the churches. Those hateful people cannot possibly harbor Christ within them. It is simply impossible.
I'm an anarchist who has seen evidence a god exists, but not Jesus
If god exists he's an actual ruler and probably benevolent
If a person becomes an actual ruler by being benevolent, I don't see a problem, except it might not be possible in the real world because so far, humans have downgraded the concept of leadership to figureheads, instead of upgrading leaders into benevolent rulers
