God The Anarchist...Who Knew?

[mrjarrell]

Interesting article and interpretation from Tom Knapp at C4SS.

That’s how the song and the story go, anyway. Two of those sons in particular, Isaac and Ishmael, are said to have founded two divergent tribal lineages known today as the Jews and the Arabs. And to the extent that those two ethnic groups today tend to identify with particular religious beliefs, those beliefs still share a deity in common.
Where the line between history and mythology is, I won’t pretend to know. But whenever I notice the latest developments in the “Palestinian statehood controversy,” I think back to a point in the putative chronology at which the deity in question argued forcefully, but to no avail, that Israel would be much better off remaining a stateless society. Here it is, in 1 Samuel, chapter 8:

And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;
That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
​

God as anarchist advocate. Whodathunkit?

Read the rest at the source. An interesting commentary. The Palestinians have managed to survive 60 years without a state, just as Samuel seemingly wished for the Israelites.

 

[Fletch]

The Bible is far more subversive than most people allow it to be.

 

[tyrajam]

the deity in question argued forcefully, but to no avail, that Israel would be much better off remaining a stateless society.

WHAT? Thats not what the quoted passage said at all.

And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you

How in the world can he interpret this as a stateless society?? This is a statement that the Isrealites should continue to be ruled by the Judges, not by a king like their neighbors. They had a state before and after, but it was not ruled by a king. This verse has nothing to do with a state or anarchy. Whoever wrote that is either ignorant beyond belief or just plain lying because they have an agenda. Hmm...

 

[mrjarrell]

Rule by the Judges would have been stateless, as their rule was prior to the kingdom. They were tribal at that time, not an established state. Samuel was clearly warning them of the dangers of having a king and, by extension, a state.

 

[Jeremiah]

The Bible is far more subversive than most people allow it to be.

So are most movies, books, and music, If only people had critical thinking abilities.

 

[mettle]

It's a shame that most people don't actually read the account and the meaning behind the Lord's desire for the people to wholly follow Him....

...instead we snip stuff out and paste it up on here so the 'self is God' people can begin to try and tear it down.
You can't nullify the Word, only your soul's response to it.

In the end it will judge you. Now, let the flaming begin... cya!

 

[Fletch]

Rule by the Judges would have been stateless, as their rule was prior to the kingdom. They were tribal at that time, not an established state. Samuel was clearly warning them of the dangers of having a king and, by extension, a state.

I sort of see what you're saying, and sort of don't. An executive does not make a government, and to say that they were ungoverned prior to monarchy is really overstating the case. It was more like they had a Judicial Branch but no Executive or Legislative. I think the main difference might be expressed as a passive/reactive government as opposed to a pro-active one.

 

[mrjarrell]

Not ungoverned, I don't recall saying that. The judges didn't rule over the people, they just passed judgment on transgressions against Mosaic law and worked to resolve disputes between the tribe members. They were also corrupt at the time of Samuel's speaking out against a king. Which is why some people wished a centralised king, rather than their decentralised society. I do have to agree, tho. It was similar to having a Judiciary without an executive or legislative branch. Their "law" was based on the scriptures they had.

 

[Fletch]

'The Bible is far more subversive than most people allow it to be.'

And it is. Jesus' approach to the State was more to ignore it than to engage with it. There's a year's worth of sermons wrapped up in that one concept.

Most of your posts concerning religion are as well. They all speak of 'hate God, hate religion' 'self is God' etc.

Hate God? What are you talking about? I've never advocated hating God. I also don't believe that self is God. As for the religion thing, I might cop to that if by "religion" you're referring to dogma or theocracy (which I do hate), but seriously I think you must be off your meds if this is what you think my position on God is.

Drinking today?

What business is it of yours?

 

[Fletch]

Not ungoverned, I don't recall saying that. The judges didn't rule over the people, they just passed judgment on transgressions against Mosaic law and worked to resolve disputes between the tribe members. They were also corrupt at the time of Samuel's speaking out against a king. Which is why some people wished a centralised king, rather than their decentralised society. I do have to agree, tho. It was similar to having a Judiciary without an executive or legislative branch. Their "law" was based on the scriptures they had.

OK, I think we're on the same page.

 

[RA8]

Gomez.ra8 decides to respectfully stay out of the argument(end third person). My only suggestion is to use the same common sense, skepticism, and analytical attitude you use when reading any other piece of literature.

 

[tyrajam]

Rule by the Judges would have been stateless, as their rule was prior to the kingdom. They were tribal at that time, not an established state. Samuel was clearly warning them of the dangers of having a king and, by extension, a state.

But it was NOT stateless. They had entered the "promised land" (canaan) and conquered the canaanites. They built the temple and lived there for 300-400 years. This was clearly their "state". You and many others are correct that the Judges ruled in the sense that they applied the Mosaic Law when there were disputes, and the people decided they wanted to be like other nations and be ruled by a king. But this state they had during the rule of the judges lasted longer than America has.

I think a better analogy of this is America has been ruled by "judges", seperated into three branches, who apply the law which is our constitution. But now we have decided we want to be ruled by a king like other nations, and we have put king obama in control of us. Looking at how that worked out for the Hebrews doesn't give me hope for how it will work out for us!

 

[rich8483]

God was the ruler. gave his law in the ten commandments. it was a theocracy. the people wanted an earthly king, one that they could see. which would ignore Gods power. but God conceded in giving them a king, of which was supposed to live by God's law. the king was still not all powerfull. had to bow down to God's power.

much like our president has to bow down to the constitution but it gets ignored over ridden. the kings of Israel were supposed to honor Gods rule but, through sin would not fully follow Gods law like they were supposed to.

 

[mrjarrell]

But it was NOT stateless. They had entered the "promised land" (canaan) and conquered the canaanites. They built the temple and lived there for 300-400 years. This was clearly their "state". You and many others are correct that the Judges ruled in the sense that they applied the Mosaic Law when there were disputes, and the people decided they wanted to be like other nations and be ruled by a king. But this state they had during the rule of the judges lasted longer than America has.

I think a better analogy of this is America has been ruled by "judges", seperated into three branches, who apply the law which is our constitution. But now we have decided we want to be ruled by a king like other nations, and we have put king obama in control of us. Looking at how that worked out for the Hebrews doesn't give me hope for how it will work out for us!

Actually, it was not a state, as much as it was a territory. Just like American Indians enjoyed. Yes, some had centralised towns, but there was no centralised state ( being a government entity, not a territorial thing).

 

[CarmelHP]

Actually, it was not a state, as much as it was a territory. Just like American Indians enjoyed. Yes, some had centralised towns, but there was no centralised state ( being a government entity, not a territorial thing).

You mean the "Indian Nations" who concluded treaties with the United States as governments of their people?

 

[mrjarrell]

You mean the "Indian Nations" who concluded treaties with the United States as governments of their people?

Nope. Individuals concluded treaties with representatives of the US government. Many times without the knowledge of other tribes in the region or even the members of their own tribes.

 

[CarmelHP]

Nope. Individuals concluded treaties with representatives of the US government. Many times without the knowledge of other tribes in the region or even the members of their own tribes.

Right. All were done this way. None were legitimate. What exactly would it have taken for the Indiana tribes or Jewish tribes to have been a "nation" or a "state," UN approval? Apparently, unless you have some unitary form of government, such as a king, you can't have a coherent nation, is that what you're saying?

 

[Fletch]

Right. All were done this way. None were legitimate. What exactly would it have taken for the Indiana tribes or Jewish tribes to have been a "nation" or a "state," UN approval? Apparently, unless you have some unitary form of government, such as a king, you can't have a coherent nation, is that what you're saying?

Well, that is the problem with a flattened org chart -- no one person is empowered to speak for the group. It's also one of the strengths of a flattened org chart, because it helps prevent people from being dragged into things they'd rather not.