the anarchist's God

[Manco]

Recently I' ve been skimming through my university books when I saw this quote by Bakunin:

A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished.

While the quote itself has more to do with justifications for a stratified society, it got me thinking. What if a man values his freedom and free choice so much he would refuse to bow down to any god(s) or acknowledge a greater being (and possible inferred lordship) than him, regardless if he's benevolent or not. Note also that in this view, the question whether God exists or not is mute, if he doesn't exist one certainly mustn't acknowledge him as a lord; if he does exist one would refuse to 'kowtow' to him.

I was wondering now if this 'anarchist' view as I call it, has been more eloquently and flat-out better described by someone?

[Chaigidel]

its called by other names

shameless pomposity
conceit
pride
ignorance
foolishness
stupidity

if you refuse to bow to the lord you are simply without any mind. probably not even human.

[gambit]

its called by other names

shameless pomposity
conceit
pride
ignorance
foolishness
stupidity

if you refuse to bow to the lord you are simply without any mind. probably not even human.

Now sir! I may be mindless but I am a human!

Truthfully I do believe there is a God (or gods) out there or some form of a creator and if it is the Christian god, then I will not bow to him as I disagree with the way he works, as a God. Is it worth it in the end? Not in any logical way but I'm still gonna stand for what I believe and if God has a problem, well we can settle this with the good ol fist and cuffs.

[roy34543]

Well ordering freedom from everything is in itself a kind of outright stubbornoss that leads nowehre .
But then i can see how the concept is interesting.

[Chaigidel]

I was just trying to say something inflammatory

i fully encourage resistance to the icons presented as god, but when you know god truly you will kneel before it, not because it demands but because you demand.

[gambit]

I was just trying to say something inflammatory

i fully encourage resistance to the icons presented as god, but when you know god truly you will kneel before it, not because it demands but because you demand.

You lost me at the end. Because I demand freedom? justice? purpose?

[Manco]

i fully encourage resistance to the icons presented as god, but when you know god truly you will kneel before it, not because it demands but because you demand.

But still, you kneel to it. Why should I, even if it's voluntarily, kneel to him and submit? Suppose there is a God, did he create me and my peers so we would at all times be less than him, even inferior, and therefore should/must/will submit to him?
From this standpoint, believing in equality and freedom, that's surely unacceptable. No being should kneel to another.

[Chaigidel]

it is beyond words suffice to say

[Chaigidel]

not a him -- and you misunderstand the nature of the thing--- but I will not try to explain it further, it is as it is; we are all equally nothingness before god, equally meaningless and inferior in every way--- pride blinds the young, submission is the only design of those who see the face of god.

[gambit]

I think what Chaigidel is trying to say (if not then I am) is that submission is more of an acknowledgment that God is well God, the all mighty force that created us, everything we know and everything we do not know. Without him we are nothing and would always be nothing etc. After all if you were a God then created a species, the world they live on and the rules they live by, you'd be pretty pissed if they denied your existence. But I'm not defending God himself but the 'occupation' of Gods in general. Plus I have never spoken to God, nor do I believe anyone has, so I think it's impossible to say why he wants us to kneel before him.

[Chaigidel]

exactly im talking about respect for the Office !

[gambit]

Well I would never quite 'kneel' for that but I'd definitely give him a high-five for being God. I don't agree with his methods but we could be ALOT worse off. At least we don't sacrifice humans anymore..at least religiously

[Chaigidel]

actually we do-- strong juju on roads because so many shed blood on them

to the spirits blood is money, wherever you have blood you will find spirits.

[Amorphos]

interesting thread maraud!

i am an anarchist and an agnostic, i actually believe ‘god’ is an anarchist too. he is not a boss, we don’t see him acting as such anywhere in reality. instead he is just ‘there’ both within and without, if we choose to look for the truth of a given thing then we may find it, if we look for truth generally then we find that it is beyond words. how then can a god be a boss if he doesn’t make commands or even speak [as such].

perhaps a boss is more like the metaphoric satan, they take away our individual freedom to their own ends, so that they can become richer whilst giving us false hope of the same or similar riches. how many bosses work as hard as their employees? even if they do it is to their own ends, we may note how they work by intimidating us and using us as a team yes, but also as a group within their world. we all work together but for them, they direct us bringing us into the fold.

this is why we are not sheep and they not the shepherds, we are all both in the truer balance.

[lil' Sally]

God is an anarchist. If he wasn't there would be little debate of his existence, because he would be known by all, like the sun.

[johnny5000]

It's been a long time since I read Bakunin, but I think it was him who talked about how if God existed, he must be the absolute embodiment of logic and reason, since that would be the nature of a God.

Logic and reason implies a natural progression of things... like A causes B to happen. God would have created the laws of nature so that if you drop something it falls to the ground. The earth revolves around the sun. That sort of thing.

However, that sets up a paradox. Is God's power limited by the laws he created? Can he make it so that an object, if dropped, does not fall? Or so that the earth doesn't revolve around the sun? Basically, can he violate the laws he created? If so, then he violates logic, and therefore isn't God. If he can't, then he's not all-powerful, and therefore isn't God.

[lil' Sally]

God doesn't need to be all powerful. If a man creates something, say an atom bomb, must he be able to control the bomb after it has exploded to remain the bomb's creator?

God needs to be the beginning, and nothing more, to be God.

[Maverick]

I was wondering now if this 'anarchist' view as I call it, has been more eloquently and flat-out better described by someone?

The Greek Stoics were anarchists. To conquer the world is to conquer the self, etc. The basic idea was governments exist because men are unwilling to govern themselves.

Epicureanism is a far cry from Stoicism but I think with regards to the establishment every enlightened philosophy recognizes that it is out of human frailties and ignorance that it must exist. Anyways, you may like this paradox by Epicurus if you aren't already aware of it:

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. ... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. ... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?

The idea: "a boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on Earth" rings true to me. The earliest societies and codes of law like those of Hammurabi or Ur-Nammu were predicated on a strict social hierarchy, the laws passing down from the Gods to divine Kings to their viziers and finally down to us humble peasants. The nobility derive their power from the divine King who derives his power from the Gods and this fabrication was the best excuse to endow the many levels of bosses in a highly stratified society with the right to profit off of the labor of lesser people, up to the King who was the greatest social parasite of them all.

if you refuse to bow to the lord you are simply without any mind. probably not even human.

Or you have mind enough to know your own ignorance and don't need to be humbled... although besides Socrates and a few other select individuals I don't know who else this would apply to, so I sympathize with your argument.

God doesn't need to be all powerful. If a man creates something, say an atom bomb, must he be able to control the bomb after it has exploded to remain the bomb's creator?

Or, if a man is able to control an atom bomb after it has exploded, doesn't it cease to be an atom bomb by its own definition and properties?

Logically, an all-powerful God could create self-determined human beings. That God can't control his creation doesn't mean God isn't all-powerful, it means his creation is self-determined, were it not self-determined it wouldn't be his creation but something different.

[lil' Sally]

Logically, an all-powerful God could create self-determined human beings. That God can't control his creation doesn't mean God isn't all-powerful, it means his creation is self-determined, were it not self-determined it wouldn't be his creation but something different.

I like this. A lot.

[boofhead]

Man sees order in the Universe. This is reflected in societal structure, from a group of peers to the nuclear family to the nation. We are apes, we have Alpha males.

Pyramidal structures involving order or dominance are evident everywhere. For those that believe in the spiritual, the pattern follows that which is evident in the corporeal.

No big deal, just common sense.

Anarchists are interesting fools. They can have their Mad Max society, in which the strongest rules eventually, and you end up in the end with what the anarchist despised in the beginning.

Authority laying down the Law.