From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Earl Duke, MD PHD DDS)
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD -- New-Israel
Summary: Well pilgrim... Canada beats pogrom 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Russ. dukhobortsy, Fr. duhk == spirit  +  bortsy == wrestlers
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 00:52:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.212555.11509@panix.com>, 
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes...

>GD:
>| And my opinion is that GOD doesn't care about non-entities, such as 
>| governments, education, churches, fads, and the like... only individual
>| people, each directly and individually.  ...
> 
>And I take it if God doesn't "care about" something,
>whatever that means, it isn't important.  Maybe it
>doesn't even exist, which would seem more likely.  
>After all, omnipotence should count for something.

Perhaps in the long run, if GOD doesn't care for it,
then it doesn't exist. I reckon though that the greatest
heartbreak of all is GOD's in loving someone who turns 
their back and walks off into hell  (mostly out of an 
assumption that they =know= what's real). Then again
GOD may find it funny, as I do, that someone who lives
likely less than 100 years, who is basically little more 
than 100 kg of meat, and is better described as a living 
rock than sentient entity -- presumes to assert any truth 
about the Cosmos.

>But then there's not much point in thinking about
>things like "politics" or other such phenomena.  If you
>want to have something to talk about, you have to stay
>pretty materialistic; otherwise it's all "Om, ah, hum"
>and you're done.

Om, Om, Omsk... Ok GF, I'll return to the flesh.

V.Eller's _Christian Anarchy_ 
chp 1, "Christian Anarchy -- The Very Idea"
p. 1+

	Why don't we really get radical for once? Yes, I know
	it wasn't easy to get the word =radical= understood as
	an adjective appropriate to =discipleship=. And yes, it
	was even harder to get =revolution= and =revolutionary=
	so understood. But do you think it a bit more than the
	traffic can bear for me now to push on to =anarchy=? Do
	you see me going from bad to worse? Not so. I stand 
	prepared to show that to go from =revolution= to =anarchy=
	is to go from wrong to right, from misunderstanding to
	understanding, from unbiblical to biblical, from world
	to gospel. And yes, it will take another transforming
	renewal of our minds to understand =anarchy= as the 
	gospel, the good news it actually is.

	The word is ANARCHY. The prefix ("an-") is the equivalent
	of the English "un-," meaning "not"; it does not parti-
	cularly mean "anti-" or against. Thus, we are speaking of 
	that which is more =not something= than it is opposed to
	or against something. The "-archy" root (which I have made 
	made into an English term spelled a-r-k-y) is a common
	Greek word that means "priority," "primacy," "primordial,"
	"principal," "prince," and the like. (Look at that last 
	sentence and realize that "pri-" is simply the Latin equiva-
	lent of the Greek "arky.") The most frequent appearance of
	"arky" in the New Testament is where it is translated as
	"beginning." Indeed, in Colossians 1:18 Paul identifies
	Jesus as "the beginning," "the prime," "THE ARKY." How-
	ever, our particular concern with the word is in Paul's
	writings where it is translated "principalities." Clearly,
	the apostle assumes that we live in a world filled with 
	arkys that threaten to undo us -- and those constantly
	battling each other for primacy.

	For us, then, "arky" identifies any prinicple of governance
	claiming to be of primal value for society. "Government"
	(that which is determined to =govern= human action and
	events) is a good synonym -- as long as we are clear that
	political arkys are far from being the only "governments"
	around. Not at all; churches, schools, philosophies, ideo-
	logies, social standards, peer pressures, fads and fashions,
	advertising, planning techniques, psychological and socio-
	logical theories -- all are arkys out to govern us.

	"Anarchy" ("unarkyness"), it follows, is simply the state
	of being unimpressed, disinterested in, skeptical of,
	nonchalant toward, and uninfluenced by the highfalutin
	claims of any and all arkys. And "Christian Anarchy"
	-- the special topic of this book -- is a Christianity
	motivated by "unarkyness." Precisely because Jesus is 
	THE ARKY, the Prime of Creation, the Principal of All
	Good, the Prince of Peace and Everything Else, Christians
	dare never grant a human arky the primacy it claims for 
	itself. Precisely because =God= is the Lord of History
	we dare never grant that it is in the outcome of the
	human arky contest that the determination of history lies.

	Obviously, the idea of "power" goes hand in hand with
	"arky"; the two are inseperable. Indeed, every time
	Paul uses "arky" in the sense of "principalities," he
	couples it with one of the Greek "power" words. Yet
	regarding both "power" and "arky" we must make a crucial
	specification: we are always supposing a power of a 
	government that is =imposed= upon its constituency.
	It is, of course, proper to speak of, say, "the power
	of love." Yet this is power in an entirely different
	sense of the word in that it carries no hint of imposi-
	tion at all. Looking only at the phrase itself, "the
	kingdom of God" would appear to be an "arky" no dif-
	ferent from the others. Yet we will come to see that
	this is not so. What Jesus said "My kingdom is not 
	of this world," he was saying that, although all
	worldly arkys =have= to be impositional, his is radi-
	cally different in that it does not have to be -- 
	and in fact is not.

{And so on into a rather interesting discussion distinguishing
secular and christian anarchists GF. <wink>}

>Since you mentioned an article entitled _Godwrestling_
>I take it you know about the Dukhobors.  Would a Dukho-
>bor write in alt.conspiracy or talk.politics.theory?

I can't answer since I'm not familiar with them beyond this (though 
I'll likely soon look into them more fully thanks)...

	Doukhobar, Dukhobar -- a member of a fanatical
	Russian religious sect, dating from the second
	half of the 18th c. Their rejection of the
	Christian sacraments, and of the dogmas of the
	Trinity and the divinity of Christ, led to 
	persecution and exile (1843) to the remote
	Caucasus. Many communities emigrated to W.
	Canada after 1898, where their religious attitudes 
        (similar to those of the Quakers) continued to 
	bring them into conflict with the authorities.

Good tie-in re: "think sect," "quakers, mennonites & brethren," and
the ostracism of "christian identity, klan, and other po-white-trash
as concerns Will Campbell." 

If you can suggest anything about the Douhkobars regarding anarchy or
christianity GF, I'd appreciate it. My best guess about Jesus is that he
was a human being who gave himself completely body and soul over to GOD,
and became the corporeal manifestation of GOD. 

Perhaps out of all humanity (from GOD's viewpoint) he was the only one,
or the best of us, or just the only one who offered his all as a gift to
GOD. And surpise... not only did GOD take him up on it, but he made him 
the Way, the Truth, and the Life transcendently. Thus my belief is that
Jesus is the Messiah, but I don't know that. No big deal, Jesus said
Love and Worship GOD. Somehow I suspect GOD gets the last laugh when we
find out that we all have been somehow partially right, (those who
believe that is -- those who don't seem not to want to play). 

So I'm not a Duhk'. Quack, quack. { ps. Any word on the Bey text? }

   |
-- J --
   |  
   |  Stephen   "Ear Boxer"


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy