In partial response to Francois Tremblay
Apr. 12th, 2011 02:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
marjaerwinFrancois Trembley has again denounced Christian anarchism:
http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/why-i-reject-christian-anarchism/
My point here is not to defend Christianity, or anarchism, but merely to debunk Francois Tremblay's arguments that they are incompatible. I think this is the core of Tremblay's position:
First, let's deal with the obvious:
We shouldn't. The Bible is not a rulebook. If it were, it would reflect badly on its supposed authors. As it is, the history/propaganda sections often reflect badly anyway.
What is the substantial difference between a womon who obeys the authority of a cobbler and a womon who obeys the authority of a king? The one asserts her own reason, and her reasoned trust. The other surrenders her own reason.
Okay, so are there certain ways free men go down on each other, and certain ways they don't? I'm rather unfamiliar with men's sexuality.
[I think Francois Tremblay is straight. But the wording was so male-centric, the old joke came to mind. :p ]
Well, all of these are going to depend on one's concept of G'd. I am a theist but it seems best to try to avoid too much judgment about specifics. There are two main lines of argument, often used together:
One argument focuses on G'd as a separate being or group of beings. This argument focuses on G'd's supposed omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence. This argument asserts that one can put unlimited trust in G'd's rational authority and benevolence.
Another argument focuses on G'd as a being present in all humanity. It strongly associates the Holy Spirit with one's conscience. This argument focuses on uniting the human with the divine, and tends to emphasize the distinction between autonomy and heteronomy.
I don't think the idea of eternal damnation - if it is coherent enough to qualify as an idea at all - is compatible with a benevolent deity.
http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/why-i-reject-christian-anarchism/
My point here is not to defend Christianity, or anarchism, but merely to debunk Francois Tremblay's arguments that they are incompatible. I think this is the core of Tremblay's position:
Like all Christian arguments, it is based on a Special Pleading fallacy. Why should we obey God, and not any other person? Why slavishly follow the Bible, and not any other book? What is the substantial difference between a man who obeys God and a man who obeys the State? In both cases, what we see is a man on his knees, not a free man.
First, let's deal with the obvious:
Why slavishly follow the Bible, and not any other book?
We shouldn't. The Bible is not a rulebook. If it were, it would reflect badly on its supposed authors. As it is, the history/propaganda sections often reflect badly anyway.
What is the substantial difference between a man who obeys God and a man who obeys the State?
What is the substantial difference between a womon who obeys the authority of a cobbler and a womon who obeys the authority of a king? The one asserts her own reason, and her reasoned trust. The other surrenders her own reason.
In both cases, what we see is a man on his knees, not a free man.
Okay, so are there certain ways free men go down on each other, and certain ways they don't? I'm rather unfamiliar with men's sexuality.
[I think Francois Tremblay is straight. But the wording was so male-centric, the old joke came to mind. :p ]
Like all Christian arguments, it is based on a Special Pleading fallacy. Why should we obey God, and not any other person?
Well, all of these are going to depend on one's concept of G'd. I am a theist but it seems best to try to avoid too much judgment about specifics. There are two main lines of argument, often used together:
One argument focuses on G'd as a separate being or group of beings. This argument focuses on G'd's supposed omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence. This argument asserts that one can put unlimited trust in G'd's rational authority and benevolence.
Another argument focuses on G'd as a being present in all humanity. It strongly associates the Holy Spirit with one's conscience. This argument focuses on uniting the human with the divine, and tends to emphasize the distinction between autonomy and heteronomy.
But how does the Christian even have this breadcrumb of free will? If he is threatened by eternal damnation for making the “wrong choice,” then in no way can we say that there is the possibility of consent.
I don't think the idea of eternal damnation - if it is coherent enough to qualify as an idea at all - is compatible with a benevolent deity.
