Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


–1 vote
the question is the question.

Thank you.
this sounds like a question for a pastor, not an anarchist....but, i suggest a sense of humor.
Pastor Bob, I'd love to know more about this situation, without revealing identifying info, can you maybe say more about this anarchist, this supposed god, and your relationship with each?
What do you mean by god? If I asked the best way to share khj with anarchists, I should be able to coherently tell them what khj is. So that's what I'm asking, what is this thing you're meaning?
What a shame that nobody here likes god

years ago a good friend picked up a young (early 20s) woman and her dog, hitch-hiking. the woman seemed particularly smart, critical, mellow, open... especially for someone so young. she pronounced her name "jee-OH-dee". i figured some hippie/new-ager jhodhi or something. she spelled it g-o-d.

actually, i guess that dog was sharing god with an anarchist.

You tell them that God´s not dead and wait for the response ¨No, but I will get that bastard someday.¨
We accept any and all gratuities, but prefer cash, money orders, and major credit cards.
Wait, what?
You don't.


4 Answers

0 votes
Absent context the question is as blind as a deaf bat ... gods on hi and gods that never die ... so many & much to share  but WHY  ... there are many gods (beliefs) available  ... that one would choose to share one's god with another is invasive ... sharing is by nature invasive ... Webster's definition : to allow or give in part to others is invasive despite its passivity  ... applying Webster's,  "others"  = 's the anarchist to whom god info is being given ... the "giving to" invades the philosophical space of the anarchist ... no matter the intention such sharing is at best unnecessary and at worst obtrudist ... the sharing is unnecessary for there are accommodating gods available to anarchists ... that anarchists in the nature of their personal choices come to such gods is natural and intrinsic to individualistic purpose ... these  accommodating gods  need not be accessed by  extrinsic evangelical enthusiasm ... a true individualistic anarchist comes to spiritualization thru the anarchy of his existence ... in this anarchy are the proto means of all situational interpretation ... that these proto means can lead to spirituality is most consistent with individualistic anarchy ... a god sharing cloaked in obtrudism is just as invasive but less benign ...  one who would attempt to share a belief (god) with another presupposes the absence or inferiority of the sharee's belief ...   woe unto thy sharing soul for there is no good fate in thy presupposition >  presuppositions are the antithesis of spirituality... the anarchist does not need your god nor will he offer up his to you ...the gods that accommodate anarchists are personal gods ... these anarchial gods need no building or pulpit for god and subject are one... in this oneness lies spirituality ... only when one's beliefs (god) become woven into one's existences can spirituality be attained ...  in the harmony of this weave lies spiritual existence ... in spiritual existence sharing abounds ... sharing abounds in the examples of lives led in an individualistic honesty to one's belief ...that such spiritual lives can be shared without the intent that they be shared testaments their spiritual essence ...  >  So to my presumed xtian Question poser i say do not try and share the unsharable.
by (370 points)
"sharing is by nature invasive ... Webster's definition : to allow or give in part to others is invasive despite its passivity  ... "

i disagree that sharing is "by nature" invasive. i also disagree that it is necessarily passive.

i also don't really follow your use of "spirituality", or why "true individualistic anarchists" would "come to" it.

i do like aspects of your answer.

Thank you for your comments ... (you) disagree that sharing is "by nature" invasive ... (you) also disagree that it is necessarily passive >>> i interpret "share god" to mean an "offer" of one's god (belief) to another ... i deem it invasive because the offer of god comes unsolicited ... an unsolicited offer is invasive because it comes extrinsic to the offeree ... an offer of a god (belief) can be nothing less than an invasion when it is founded upon the presupposition that the offeree's god(s) is wanting ... that the offeree's god is wanting is embodied in the sharer's offer of his god > absent a wanting god there is no need for a new god ...  a sharing must be passive ... a sharing's passivity is what distinguishes it from an offer that an offeree is bound to accept > generally institutionally sponsored offers .... SPIRITUALITY comes easy to the soul of an individualistic anarchist ... with the exercise of self determination comes a spiritual  belief ... there is no causality dilemma for one that attains a life of individualistic anarchy so attains the spirituality intrinsic to an unadulterated belief ... in individualistic anarchy you need no introduction to or sharing of another's god ... in individualistic anarchy you are your own god and you exist at the mercy of that god and only that god >>> i hope this enlightens

jp: i must have misunderstood you. first you said sharing one's god is invasive, then you said sharing is by nature invasive. i took the latter to be referring to any kind of sharing in general being invasive, and that is what i was disagreeing with. 

sharing one's god i can easily see as invasive, and usually is imo.

i still don't agree about passivity, but at least now i think i understand how you are using it.

and i surely don't get why you are defining "individualist anarchy" for anyone other than yourself - especially using the term "god". do you seriously hope to enlighten me (or anybody)? your religious terminology kind of baffles me, but i'm sure you are using it in some abstract way that i don't get.

Anarchy as a political philosophy is little more than a prayer and a little less than a dream ... to seek a  non hierarchial state with laws not buttressed by force is quixotic ... nowhere can one point to evidence that leaderless packs are capable of even limited perpeptualization ... leaderlessness is contra organizational ... systemic hierarchies are the  natural result of organization  ... organizations are populated by the socio/political man ...Individualistic anarchy is non complementary to anarcho-syndalcalism ...  individualistic anarchy is asymmetric to  organizational concepts ...  an individualistic anarchist stands distinct from the wants of the socio/political man ... this distinction is that HIS belief (spirit) is transformative  >>   "I teach you the overman. (socio/political)  Man is something that shall be overcome. ...  The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth... Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman—a rope over an abyss ... what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end." > nietsche's zarathusra ... it is in nietsche's overman that individualistic anarchy is tethered to spirituality ... the individualistic anarchist's (anarcho-individualist) asymmetry to the socio/political man magnifies his existence ...  in this magnified man can be found the purpose of existence ... in this purpose for existence there is the spiritualality that the church/state falsely offer ... that this purpose for existence is  spiritual  merely acknowledges the heightened levels of acuity that come within the realm of self determination ... the enlightenment i offer is that of a candle in an unlit concert hall ... it is a nondirectional  enlightening and not meant to affect a preferred darkness  ... so in myself i shall mingle with the gods of others both far and about 

+2 votes
on garlic toast, with some soft goat cheese and a nice chianti?
by (13.4k points)
I was going to say "with ketchup". I bet gods are crunchy.
0 votes
Eh, i don't care if you worship jesus or some frog outside just don't put authority over me and we good.
by (140 points)
0 votes
You don't, pretty simple.
by (220 points)