Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[niky]

The God of Abraham and the God of Christ are the same being

No, they really are not. Not in the theological sense, nor in the sense of the laws and religion practiced by the people of the Old Testament and the New Testament. To pretend and accept that the Bible is a single cohesive book uncritically and without analysis is a very dangerous path to take. Especially as Christ himself claimed to have come to create a new covenant or agreement between Man and God. In other words: The old contracts and ways are null and void. This is the new one, and this is the one Christians are supposed to follow.

Christ not only advocated the separation of Church and State, he also formulated (according to the Canon Gospels) a new law that supposedly superseded the old laws. Instead of advocating the death of non-Hebrews and non-believers, he advocated a new, more inclusive ministry. He broke the old laws where it suited him and rebelled against the entrenched powers of the time.

More than libertarian, Christ was a very liberal prophet. One whose message was very, very different from those who came before him. Later writers, in later books and letters of the New Testament, tried to justify through twists of logic, an adherence to certain of the old laws, but the message in the Gospels was quite clear: Jesus created a new covenant, wherein the only requirements were faith and love of neighbor.

As FoolKiller has stated, Jesus himself opposed those who used the name of God to further their own worldly goals. To follow in that spirit is to oppose anyone who would claim power over others in the name of God.

Which is something the Church has conveniently ignored over the past twenty centuries... preaching peace and love on one hand, while supporting wars and expeditions of conquest both financially and politically.

-

If you believe yourself a Christian, you will preach what you believe, but allow others to find their own path, make their own mistakes, and either redeem or damn themselves, in the end.

 

[Danoff]

Not quite. God did use force to prevent sin, or to punish those who sinned, many times in the Old Testament. Christ, however, was sent to redeem those who sinned. Christ's sacrifice would not have been necessary without sin. I believe that those who lead sinful lives and reject God are not rewarded with eternal life, so I would want to prevent the sins they might commit, as Christ said to make disciples of all nations.

My understanding was the OT God used force to punish, not to prevent. God can always prevent - because he's all powerful right? - by just having people not sin. It's entirely within God's power to have everyone stop sinning. He chooses not to because sin is supposed to be an available option to us humans. It's a test, to see whether we are worthy of him. It's not your place to punish or prevent, that's God's role. Your role is supposed to be to bring the word of god to people, not to stone them or threaten to stone them if they sin. I'm surprised that you'd go against Christ on this.

Voting for laws against sinning is the opposite of what Christ taught.

God are not rewarded with eternal life, so I would want to prevent the sins they might commit, as Christ said to make disciples of all nations.

Disciples yes, forced compliance no. If sin is in their heart, what difference does it make if you have prevented the act? God knows. Do your part to bring the word, but Christ did not teach that you should use guns to force people to obey. And guns are what government is.

 

[FoolKiller]

I didn't say it was.

Then I misunderstood you. I apologize.

Not sure what this means, but we are supposed to be discussing libertarianism, not my dream government.

It means we need specifics on what kind of laws you think we should have that would be opposed to libertarianism. The topic is not just libertarianism. It is your thoughts on libertarianism. I a trying to give you the opportunity to clarify your thoughts in regard to your faith, because it seems as if we are expecting you to outlaw important things for liberty, but you seem to deny that.

I am trying to understand your original point. What about libertarianism don't you agree with because of your faith?

Just because Jesus saved a cheating woman from death doesn't mean he was against the law she broke. It only means he was against the punishment she was going to receive, in which case I would agree with him; stoning is a disproportionate response to adultery.

OK. And what would you do to enforce your religious laws on the country? A law is useless without enforcement and punishment.

In any case, we can't go around putting political labels on Jesus. Christ was love, not a libertarian or a republican.

I don't think he should be in politics at all if you want true freedom.

 

[JMoney]

If you believe yourself a Christian, you will preach what you believe, but allow others to find their own path, make their own mistakes, and either redeem or damn themselves, in the end.

I'm simply not going to stand aside and let the world go to hell, an I know in my heart it was never Jesus' intention for me to do so.

Which is something the Church has conveniently ignored over the past twenty centuries... preaching peace and love on one hand, while supporting wars and expeditions of conquest both financially and politically.

That's why I'm not a Catholic- the catholic church has violated many of Christ's teachings throughout history. You can't generalize all of Christianity by saying, "the church"; there is no single church. I am a member of a non-denominational mega church that focuses on evangelism and helping the poor in my city.

It's not your place to punish or prevent, that's God's role. Your role is supposed to be to bring the word of god to people, not to stone them or threaten to stone them if they sin. I'm surprised that you'd go against Christ on this.

Voting for laws against sinning is the opposite of what Christ taught.

I just said that stoning is a disproportionate response- I'm definitely not going against Christ. God gave us free will; he won't prevent someone from sinning. I don't want people to sin, I want them to be saved, and the way I see it, a law is a good way to stop sin. Most of the rest of my faith agree with me.

 

[Danoff]

I'm simply not going to stand aside and let the world go to hell, an I know in my heart it was never Jesus' intention for me to do so.

Persuade, don't force.

I just said that stoning is a disproportionate response- I'm definitely not going against Christ. God gave us free will; he won't prevent someone from sinning. I don't want people to sin, I want them to be saved, and the way I see it, a law is a good way to stop sin. Most of the rest of my faith agree with me.

The law is force. It's the equivalent of holding a gun to someone and saying "don't be gay it's a sin!", or some other sin. Christ never taught anyone to force the people around them to stop sinning. His message was to spread the word of God and let those teachings convince people to voluntarily stop sinning. Anything else is meaningless.

Most of the rest of your faith is just as wrong as you are.

 

[Denur]

Please make up your mind:

God gave us free will;

Or

a law is a good way to stop sin.

What will it be, having free will to sin or having law to prevent sin?

 

[JMoney]

Please make up your mind:
What will it be, having free will to sin or having law to prevent sin?

Both. Laws are not set in place by God, they are manmade, and can be broken. If Christ did not want us to create laws against sin, he would have specifically said so. You cannot draw a conclusion so broad based on one instance of Christ saving a sinner and defying Hebrew law.

Just as God gave us free will to sin, he gave us free will to prevent sin.

 

[FoolKiller]

God gave us free will; he won't prevent someone from sinning. I don't want people to sin, I want them to be saved, and the way I see it, a law is a good way to stop sin.

This is proselytizing by force.

 

[Denur]

Both. Laws are not set in place by God, they are manmade, and can be broken. If Christ did not want us to create laws against sin, he would have specifically said so.

Wanting to have law to prevent sin, means that you are against freedom of religion. Why? Because what is sin in one religion, may not be sin in another. So, how do you feel about having your freedom cut short by yourself?

 

[Danoff]

Just as God gave us free will to sin, he gave us free will to prevent sin.

You do not have free will for the purpose of subverting the free will of others. God did not give his creations free will so that they could assume that they know better than God that some people should not have free will to do certain things.*

It's kindof amazing to me that you can claim to follow Christianity and not know this lesson actually. It's awfully fundamental and a long-running theme.



* Based on Christian mythology of course

 

[JMoney]

Wanting to have law to prevent sin, means that you are against freedom of religion. Why? Because what is sin in one religion, may not be sin in another. So, how do you feel about having your freedom cut short by yourself?

I'll respond to that when it makes sense.

You do not have free will for the purpose of subverting the free will of others. God did not give his creations free will so that they could assume that they know better than God that some people should not have free will to do certain things.*

It's kindof amazing to me that you can claim to follow Christianity and not know this lesson actually. It's awfully fundamental and a long-running theme.

* Based on Christian mythology of course

Once again, words are being taken out of my mouth. According to you, Christianity promotes anarchy (because that's the only form of government that allows true free will) and I am apparently not a true Christian because I want laws to prevent sin. You clearly are not a Christian and do not have any clue whatsoever. Murder is sin, do you actually think Christians should support a movement to legalize murder? Theft? Rape?

I'm tired of restating myself. I'm done debating you until you go to church and gain a better understating of God and the Bible.

 

[FoolKiller]

According to you, Christianity promotes anarchy (because that's the only form of government that allows true free will)

Wait, maybe you don't understand libertarianism if you think that is what he is saying.

I'm tired of restating myself. I'm done debating you until you go to church and gain a better understating of God and the Bible.

I have four digital copies of The Bible on the device I am typing this on right now and was at church Sunday. This right here is why I suggested you clarify with some specific examples. Just saying you will create laws to prevent sin means very little. It leaves people thinking adultery, pornography, types of language, worshipping spaghetti monsters, etc.

If you just mean murder, rape, and the like then you should have no issues with libertarianism.

 

[Carbonox]

@JMoney689, would you be in favor of a law preventing the eating of shellfish?

 

[DK]

I'm tired of restating myself. I'm done debating you until you go to church and gain a better understating of God and the Bible.

Well, that's an odd spelling of "RUN AWAY!"

We tried that whole "Use the law to punish sin" thing in Ireland. It didn't work out too well.

 

[JMoney]

@FoolKiller I clearly wasn't talking to you in the last post.

@JMoney689, would you be in favor of a law preventing the eating of shellfish?

If we have pengiuns driving racecars, then why not?

 

[TenEightyOne]

@JMoney689, would you be in favor of a law preventing the eating of shellfish?

@FoolKillerIf we have pengiuns driving racecars, then why not?

@JMoney689 your views are sinful and against the very laws you propose.

Mark 7:15 clearly tells us that nothing which enters our body can defile us. You should hang you head in shame like Christ upon Calgary hill.

 

[KSaiyu]

I don't really see how you can argue that a parent who refuses their responsibility should be left in custody of the child. That's awfully fundamental. Do you feel this way about food as well? Clothing? Shelter? Is education the only basic necessity where you suggest that a parent should be able to shrug off their responsibilities and retain custody?

I think something is getting lost in translation. The parent would be refusing their responsibility by default; the options may become so narrow (i.e Birmingham) that the parent would have to actively seek out a school to meet their responsibility. The burden of providing the education would rest almost solely on the parent/guardian.

 

[Famine]

the parent would have to actively seek out a school to meet their responsibility

Dear lord! Imagine if being a parent had THAT kind of responsibility!

 

[FoolKiller]

@FoolKiller I clearly wasn't talking to you in the last post.

Just showing that I meet your qualifications in the hope that you would answer my question.

 

[KSaiyu]

Dear lord! Imagine if being a parent had THAT kind of responsibility!

Imagine.

 

[Joel]

My favourite thing about the criticism of Libertarians is the common line about being overly paranoid of governments. What's funny is that Libertarians tend to much more earnestly believe in the good of their fellow citizens than statists who are afraid of other people having freedom.

It's just an odd idea to me to prefer the status quo where people who are demonstrably corrupt, arrogant, and irresponsible (governments) are to be trusted with the well being of people who may or may not be irresponsible.

 

[Danoff]

I think something is getting lost in translation. The parent would be refusing their responsibility by default; the options may become so narrow (i.e Birmingham) that the parent would have to actively seek out a school to meet their responsibility. The burden of providing the education would rest almost solely on the parent/guardian.

Imagine for a moment that the nearest grocery store closed. How would you provide food for your kids?

 

[LeMansAid]

@KSaiyu Ever since you stated that you "criticise liberatianism" I've been pondering your approach in my mind. You and I may well come from a similar place, and may well question libertarianism in somewhat similar ways, but I see a difference. While I'm still asking questions, I don't think I have the right to criticise. Criticising is for people who already know. Now, I can certainly understand trying to trip the ideology up, because that's how we work out if something holds up or not. It's good to test. So, poke it, prod, it, shine a light on it, set it on fire - but until you stop asking questions, you're not ready to criticise.

I'm very appreciative of the lengths that @Danoff and others go to, and I think I'm pretty close to being convinced. My mantra has always been that "whatever works" will get the nod, and I will stay true to that promise to myself, even if it means going against what I've been conditioned to think, and what I've previously thought of my own volition. I'm really quite pleased that it turns out that I genuinely don't merely defend a position, that I don't just ask a series of loaded questions because I think I know better.

@prisonermonkeys was probably dead right about how you are trying to corner libertarians. Me, I was always trying to corner libertarianism itself, and I now see that it was a noble and fruitful venture.

 

[mirial]

Despite all this freedom now, I'd like to know how libertarianism intends to fix our broken society? No one in a position to do so seems to be in a great hurry.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Imagine for a moment that the nearest grocery store closed. How would you provide food for your kids?

Then your options are limited just as they're increasingly limited by each closed grocery store you subsequently reach.

If you require a grocery store of a particular type (ie kosher or halal), or if you're only allowed to select from stores in a certain catchment area, or if the best stores have a 3-year queue then you might struggle and end up growing your own food under government supervision.

I think I was reading the analogy correctly...

 

[KSaiyu]

Imagine for a moment that the nearest grocery store closed. How would you provide food for your kids?

Imagine that store is open, as are all the others in the area but they are selling contaminated food. The parent doesn't know it's contaminated, or actually believes the contaminated food is better for the child. Do we turn a blind eye?

@KSaiyu Ever since you stated that you "criticise liberatianism" I've been pondering your approach in my mind. You and I may well come from a similar place, and may well question libertarianism in somewhat similar ways, but I see a difference. While I'm still asking questions, I don't think I have the right to criticise. Criticising is for people who already know. Now, I can certainly understand trying to trip the ideology up, because that's how we work out if something holds up or not. It's good to test. So, poke it, prod, it, shine a light on it, set it on fire - but until you stop asking questions, you're not ready to criticise.

You can criticise certain aspects based on the answers to those questions.

 

[Danoff]

Despite all this freedom now, I'd like to know how libertarianism intends to fix our broken society? No one in a position to do so seems to be in a great hurry.

Step one, go from income tax to sales tax. That step alone has an unbelievable number of benefits.

Then your options are limited just as they're increasingly limited by each closed grocery store you subsequently reach.

If you require a grocery store of a particular type (ie kosher or halal), or if you're only allowed to select from stores in a certain catchment area, or if the best stores have a 3-year queue then you might struggle and end up growing your own food under government supervision.

I think I was reading the analogy correctly...

Yup. If the free market suddenly stopped catering to demand and nobody was growing food, or if your religious dietary needs are ridiculous, then you might have trouble. Still, who's responsibility is it to feed the kids that you've volunteered to guardian?

Imagine that store is open, as are all the others in the area but they are selling contaminated food. The parent doesn't know it's contaminated, or actually believes the contaminated food is better for the child. Do we turn a blind eye?

No. Contaminated food can cause danger to the child. If the guardians were negligent, they may be liable or lose custody. Education is "contaminated" if it does not teach basic communication and math skills. These are the building blocks needed for an older child and eventually an adult to teach themselves whatever lessons they choose to learn. It is not considered "contaminated" if it ALSO teaches something you don't agree with - such as religion.

This is how child rearing works. You teach your child the basic building blocks of knowledge - analytical thought processes and communication. Those are meant to be in your brain by the end of high school. Then your child leaves your guardianship and goes off to either learn a trade or takes additional courses in an area of interest - their choice. It is not your responsibility to teach the child everything they will ever need to succeed in life, it is your responsibility (as a child's guardian) to teach them enough to make the choices they want to in life.

If you do not teach your child how analytics (math) and communication, eventually they may never be able to learn those skills. If you refused, you have harmed the child, failed your responsibilities as a guardian, and have committed an abuse.

All of this has been discussed in the public school thread I believe.

 

[mirial]

Step one, go from income tax to sales tax. That step alone has an unbelievable number of benefits.

I meant with regard to broken homes in a secular society; anything goes at the moment

 

[Omnis]

Step one, go from income tax to sales tax. That step alone has an unbelievable number of benefits.

Hell yes. And get rid of all fees for repatriation of capital. If the IRS went away, there would literally be a overflow of cash brought back to this country. It would be ridiculous.

 

[Danoff]

I meant with regard to broken homes in a secular society; anything goes at the moment

You're going to have to elaborate.