Sorry to see that all the trolls decided to shit all over your thread on points you specifically said you did not want to debate. Note that these are predominantly leftists or godless fashy types. This is not coincidental, after all, such worldviews are not well known for producing cultures of respect and honor.
I will now examine the meat of your OP brother.
annatar1914 wrote:1. A literal six day, young earth Creationist, in line with Scripture and the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Christian Faith.
Same here and for the same reasons. Plus, i have no reason not to believe in such, as no theoretical construct erected in challenge to this is logically tenable.
annatar1914 wrote:2. Yes folks, I am also a Geocentrist.... I don't talk about it, it isn't subject to debate (nor is #1, above), it just is.
I am cosmologically ambivalent, but I would generally consider myself a geocentrist, perhaps not in the scientific sense but in the purely theological sense. The earth and man's drama within it are the center of God's redemptive purposes and I have no reason to believe in anything beyond it of any real significance unless it can be experienced directly or inferred by necessary consequence. Otherwise, I have no reason to care about it, No matter how much I enjoy sci-fi fantasy.
annatar1914 wrote:3. I have always been a Monarchist, a supporter of Orthodox Autocracy. Even as a ''Christian Communist'', I held to the seeming dichotomy of such a position just as did the ''Mladorossi'' of the 1920's and 1930's. But there's no reason for the political schizophrenia, I have rejected the Socialism for good.
annatar1914 wrote:4. I support private property and free enterprise, not without conditions and caveats, and there is a higher voluntary communal life possible, the monastic life, but that cannot righteously be compared to the damnable and secular attempts at ''Heaven on Earth''.
I also agree with this note on monasticism, I have never seen a conflict between communal living and private property, indeed the former thrived the most in human history under conditions of the latter. I don't think this is coincidental.
annatar1914 wrote:5. In fact, one will find i'm back to being about as ''reactionary'' in my traditionalism as one can get, not just in my politics or cosmology, but also in my attitudes on daily life, in morality and one's societal roles, etc... Orthodox Christianity as a full way of life the way it should be lived, in Christ Jesus.
Correct, The Christian faith is incredibly patriarchal, traditionalist, and even theocratic in its demands. Its exclusivist, and it tolerates and compromises no other ideology. God demands dominion over all the earth and every aspect of human life. This is why its hated by leftists. They see the True Faith as shackles, but those that believe see it as the very foundation for true freedom.
annatar1914 wrote:Why? I've been a Lion, trying to convince myself that I was among these Goats, those Gaderene Swine of Marxist-Leninists... I won't be numbered among them. I was there, I saw what happened and what they did. They have only themselves to blame, but God and History will Judge.
Past is future, and I won't be numbered with the Losers. Sure, Capitalism has many evils associated with it, and my critique of it continues, but I realized that unlike Socialism, It is capable of modification, of producing a ''Third Way'' that is better for mankind than either Socialism or Communism.
And that calls to my mind another final point; Hierarchy, it's real and it's natural to the condition of life. The Cosmos is Hierarchical. No further egalitarianism from me. ''Star differs from star in glory'', while still remaining stars...
C. Tsar and Nation
That's what I'm about, once more and forever. I expect to be a Terror here, to be sure.
All very good insights and I hope God blesses you in your journey and I am sure we will have many more edifying conversations.
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:But I can't see, in the New Testament, anything saying there must be a hierarchy in society. There are some messages to the effect of "just grin and bear it", but the overall NT message is egalitarian. Parts of the OT are hierarchical, especially giving priests power (most people would then point out priests wrote it; but you give it inerrancy). But your period from Constantine to the 16th century is one of people claiming 'god-given' power over others, and enforcing it with plenty of violence. It's also people forbidding the proles to even read the Bible for themselves, but to instead shut up and do what the priests and nobles tell them. Was that really a "salvific" life?
This is all a load of horseshit.
Christianity is absolutely anti-egalitarian.
It is hyper patriarchal, especially regarding gender, in both the Old and New Testaments and its feudal character comes from the Hebraic notion of inheritance and land possession which continues in the NT as affirmed by both Christ and St. Paul.
Likewise the distinction between the spiritual and political kingdoms further marks hierarchical societal strata.
Furthermore, the Scriptures permit certain qualified forms of slavery in both the old and new testaments.
and Lastly, all discussion by Christ and the apostles regarding "giving to the poor" are purely voluntarist or in regards to spiritual tests.
Christianity opposes the worship and love of money for its own sake, but it does not oppose wealth or land possession. Christianity commands charitable giving for its adherents out of a spirit of sacrifice of love of one's brethren, but it absolutely does not teach the forcible and violent stealing from citizenry to redistribute to the poor except in extreme emergency in certain cases that are likely not duplicable outside and of a very narrow context.
Indeed, the idea of forcing someone to give to the poor at gunpoint defeats the whole purpose of Christ's point in giving to the poor. Giving to the poor is only valuable to God as a voluntary act of sacrifice. Indeed, Christ praised the poor widow who gave a single mite in the collection as "giving the most" in comparison to the heaps of Gold contributed by the rich, because it was "all she had" whereas the riches were a portion of the wealthy people's total wealth. This is contrary to communism which values the mass riches that can be confiscated and redistributed because of their actual capital value. This is not Christ's message. The voluntary sacrifice of a poor person is worth more to Christ's kingdom than the involuntary confiscation of every dime from the Coke brothers.
So, in response to your silly views, we have strict heirachies according to land, gender, class, and religion in Christianity and all aspects of "giving to the poor" and eschewing riches are commanded on the basis of a voluntary spirit (contra marxism).
All of this can be supported with a plethora of texts.
B0ycey wrote:Clearly annatar1914 has been reading the teachings of Apostle VS and has changed his opinions on things. But I am sure VS is no longer a Monarchist btw.
I remember you saying like this regarding @SolarCross one time and I assure you its the delusions of your own mind and making. I consider both SolarCross and Anatar1914 as friends and allies in the realm of PoFo, and I am sure there have been mutual influences, but your paranoia regarding me leading some sort of far-right pofo revolution or that I am somehow a major influencer of others on here is highly exaggerated. PoFo would not notice my absence.
annatar1914 wrote:VS has no more, or less, helped me to see what it's like to be an active Christian in a setting like PoFo. I am still favoring Socialism at least on an emotional level, and I likewise am very much against modern Capitalism in it's current and previous expressions. Theologically VS and I have disagreements as well that may not seem important to one outside the Christian traditions, but which are of profound importance to us. Despite all that, we seem to value the other's opinion.
annatar1914 wrote:As an traditional Orthodox Christian, I am hard put to justify not being a Monarchist, so even during my Christian Communist/Socialist phase, I tried to square that circle. Nor was I alone in trying to do that, either, what with Alexander Kazembek and the ''Mladorossi'' doing the same thing during the 1920's-1940's.
@B0ycey's perception of my political views, as his perception with my philosophical views, tend to be both narrow and simplistic.
I am an Anarcho-Capitalist because I am patriarchal where the head of one's family is the ruler of such and rules likewise over his own property and all that live on it. I am opposed to monarchy inasmuch as monarchy is warned against by the Prophet Samuel, but also affirm the possible need of a spiritual or symbolic ruler uniting all lords and their properties much as the pope provided (in spite of his errors) for medieval Europe or the Emperor did during feudal japan (warring states period).
Hence, I might also be called an Anarcho-Monarchist.
Likewise, I would argue that monarchy, even if being a state (a third-party monopolist of coercion), is infinitely better than any other form of third-party monopolist because it is private
in its ownership of government.
My preferences are as follows:
2. Monarchy (minarchist)
3. Monarchy (Imperialist/Colonialist)
4. Decentralized Constitutional Republic (Wild West/Old Confederacy)
*Even More Distant Gap*
6. Corporatist Republic (mono-cultural) (Japan/Some places in U.S.A, Hungary, et al
7.Everything Else Starting With Social Democracy with most preferred and Socialism/Communism being the worst.