Why Father is an Anarchist

I was once accused of being an 'anarchist'. Because of the negative
meaning attached to it, I rejected it. Most people perceive of
anarchy as being total chaos, when in fact, in it's purest form, it
is the simple absence of compulsion or a system of enFORCEment.

From Bovier's 6th Edition (1856):

"ANARCHY. The absence of all political government; by extension,
it signifies confusion in government."

I do not espouse 'confusion' or 'chaos', and it is ONLY by extension
that government is presumed to EXIST so as to have confusion
within it in the first place. As the definition states, "The ABSENCE
of ALL political goverment." is anarchy; which is a far cry from the
definition of 'confusion' or 'chaos' itself.

Anarchy is therefore JUST AS VIABLE as an orderly and sane existence
WITHOUT political government, regardless of what anyone
would like to assert, just as the word itself testifies to.

This does not mean there are no consequences for one's behavors, in
fact chaos is the result of the reactive infliction of
consequence as a response to an unfavorable choice.

When everyone reacts to reactions, the resulting environment is
comparable to the 3 Stooges. At some point, people develop a
method of 'order' to curb the resulting chaos because everyone knows
that we are terribly undisciplined as a society that we need
compulsion to prevent all these knee-jerk reactions from causing a
domino effect. Instead of learning to be self-disciplined in a
manner absent of excessive, artifical pain, we develop a compulsive
artifical system to inflict a consecquence upon people for not
behaving like we want them to behave. Usually the artifical
consequence is made so unpleasant, it curtails the ACTION but not the
desire that leads to the action itself. Fear is the motivating force
in this system. Compulsion is equally applied to everyone. Infliction
of force against the will of a minority is mandated by the majority,
even if the majority is completely incongruent to God - and that is
where we begin to see the futility in developing and maintaining
artifical systems of 'order'.

Let us look at the very nature of 'law'. It isn't too difficult to
define 'law' into two separate categories: God's law, and men's law.

God's law is unchangable; men's law consistently changes.

God's law is Eternal - meaning it never had a beginning or will
it have an end; men's law is merely ink on paper and has a
beginning at it's writing, and has an end whenever it suits them.

God's law allows complete freedom of choice and the consequences
are applied by nature - be it blessings or condemnation;
men's laws asserts against free choice an artifical consequence
of condemnation above and beyond that of God's law, and
provides no blessing whatsoever.

God's law is merciful or just based upon the intent of one's
heart; men's law deny the existence of intent and of truth for
'facts' alone.

God's law is enduring reaping what you sow; men's law is
enduring whatever un-natural pains contrived beyond that of
nature, and the only relief is an absence of pain - and an
absence of pain does NOT equal happiness.

That is enough evidence to justify a separation between the two.

It is a matter of common sence that any law that has no consequence
attached to it is of no effect - it is as though it didn't exist at
all. Nothing would happen if a law was violated if that law had no
consequence attached to it. Scripturally we find this very principle
espoused - that a law without a punishment is of no effect.

The dilema occurs when we look at the parameters of the methods of
operation of PH power in relation to free choice. God's 'law' is
thus: When any violation of freedom of choice occurs, the powers of
heaven, and the inseparably connected rights of PH authority
are immediately withdrawn and are ineffectual. Thus, if God wishes to
enFORCE a punishment upon you against your will, He falls
from Godhood for violations of your own will. Seems like a catch 22
for God, right ? If He makes a law, then He MUST enFORCE
that law, yet the enFORCEment of that law violates your free agency,
so God is no longer congruent, and ceases to be God.

Sounds like either God has laws, but better not attempt to enFORCE
them for fear of falling from Godhood; or, God has no laws and
is an anarchist in the purest sence. So, which is it ?

If God has laws, then He better have a way to enFORCE them else they
become of no effect. Problem is that even the attempt to
compel people by law is the intention that violates the natural
congruence of who God is. If His heart is to inflict force against
other's will, then He isn't true to what He espouses, and makes
Himself to be a Liar. Is God then a Liar ? No, so we must conclude
that something else is the reality of things.

Let me take another tact for just a moment so that things should
begin to come into focus here.

What law does God require Himself to adhere to if He is already
naturally congruent to it ? What purpose would a law serve if God is
already the type of person who wouldn't break it ? Don't laws exist
to curb the behaviors of those who otherwise WOULD violate it ?
If God already knows how to behave, why would any law be of use ?
Besides, who would enFORCE a law against an all powerful
God ? Why should He even regard it as it would be impossible for Him
to suffer the consequence of it's violation ?

Could it be that God needs no law to be compelled into behaving any
particular way, and that His perfection is in that He is wholly
congruent and above the law ? Would this status of being 'above the
law' seem logical for a God who is the Greatest Sovereign ? If
so, then He is absolutely chaotic by standard paradigms then because
in this type of existence there can be no 'authority' to curb
His behaviors, and no 'order' for God because the standard paradigm
believes a system of authority is required in order to have 'order'
and eliminate chaos. Perhaps it's we that have it backwards.

God is a God of Order, but not of compulsion. His order derives from
pure intents which leads to proper action, not punishment which
curb actions out of fear but do nothing to change the intents of men.
Man's law only desire is to obtain feigned peace by the heavy
hand of force and compulsion to 'eliminate chaos' without any
consideration for the eternal progression of each soul that REQUIRES
becoming the type of BEing (within and without) that God is in order
to return back home to Him. Man's law ignores the heart and
intent that must eventually become congruent to the very powers of
Heaven for a counterfeit 'order' that requires only strict obedience
without regard to what type of people we are inwardly.

Do you think God will allow unrepentant liars to exist in Heaven with
Him ? The scriptures say He won't allow ANY unclean thing to
abide His presence. The liar couldn't anyway. To abide in the same
existence with God requires us to be as He is. It requires being
congruent to all that He Himself is congruent to. It would be like a
non-smoker living amid an entire population who smoked constantly. It
would be Hell to live with God if you are not that type of person.

Either you are the type of person who can live in true peace without
being forced to do it, or compelled by fear to 'behave', or you are
they type of person who requires law in order to live in a feigned
peace. Jesus said, "In me is the law of Moses fulfilled." That meant
simply that He didn't need the law of Moses to dictate how He was to
live because He had already internalized the true intent behind
it. We have further evidence that this is the case be cause of His
enlightened Sermon on the Mount of Olives, a.k.a. The
Be-attitudes.

If you love God sincerely, you naturally gravitate to becoming just
as He is. Who He is is the reason you love Him, not because of
what He can do for you, or what you hope to be rewarded with. To be
obedient to God because you want the rewards promissed, or
because eternal salvation is offered is the same as marriage to a
weathy person merely to obtain riches. It is to make love a lie. How
many of you want a spouse or children that behave as you want just
for what they can obtain from you, and not because they want
anything to do with you as a person ? What is ironic is that people
believe that if they merely believe that God will save them, and/or
if they do all sorts of 'good works', then He will save them
regardless of what they are truly like inwardly. They believe that as
a person, as long as you can behave outwardly according to God's law,
then it doesn't matter that inwardly that someone is a house
divided against itself. The spirit of the law has no life in them
because they believe that 'obedience is greater than sacrifice', but
are obedient liars instead of being congruently true to themselves,
and hopefully to God.

Why should God have laws among those who already know how to behave
as perfectly as He does out of a matter of true desire and
BEing ? Why should we lie to ourselves about what we really feel and
desire as long as God knows the truth about it already ? To
succeed at such an attempted denial prevents us from changing because
we refuse to even acknowledge our true state of being, or
to feign justify our mere obedience thinking that God will accept us
as we are. When we reach Heaven and realize that all those
artifical, compulsive laws no longer exist, out true nature will
surface and we will alienate ourselves from a God we are nothing like
having never learned the lessons of congruence and thought only of
obtaining reward by obedience.

God is an anarchist that already knows how to BE. He knows laws are a
curse for the disobedient, and that they serve no purpose
for those who already have the true principles written upon the
tablets of their hearts. He allows mankind to choose freely in
self-discovery of what they truly desire to BE, but that no one can
live as a God, or with Him, as long as they can not become
congruent and that the natural charater of a person is in harmony
with the powers of Heaven and the rights of the Priesthood.

Wake_Up