The Global Liberty Community
Christianity and Libertarianism are Incompatible
The fantastic economist, Robert Murphy, recently wrote an article titled “How Do You Reconcile Your Christianity and Libertarianism?” Within it he takes on the impossible task of reconciling the worship of a child killing (Genesis 5:32-10:1), anti-woman (1 Corinthians 14:34-35), unscientific (Genesis 1:6), vengeful (Nahum 1:2-8), homophobic (Leviticus 20:13), deceitful (1 Kings 22:23), and tyrannical god while embracing a rational, individualistic, and peaceful philosophy.
Robert starts off the article “I realize why atheist libertarians, who argue on Facebook with statist Christians, would walk away thinking that the two frameworks are incompatible. But for me, they are so naturally complementary that it’s hard for me to understand where the confusion comes in. I think the main thing going on is that (in my humble opinion, of course) many loud Christians are being inconsistent with their stated core doctrines, and many loud libertarians are doing the same.”
I think it’s important to talk about the core doctrines of the bible so we have some frame of reference. The issue is there are very few consistent core doctrines in the whole damned book.
God says to love your neighbor (Leviticus 19:18) and then tells Moses to kill his neighbors who are men, women, and children and leave the little virgins to do with whatever you like (1 Samuel 15:3).
God says he loves you so much that he’ll sacrifice his son because of a weird loophole that he created (John 3:16), but before that he’ll flood the entire world and drown men, women, and children (Genesis 5:32-10:1). It’s too bad he didn’t think of doing that first, but we shouldn’t question it because he’s perfect.
God says to not take a slave (Is. 58:6), and also orders people to take slaves (Joel 3:8).
Hell, it’s not even clear whether or not we should pray in public (1 Kings 8:22) (Matt. 6:5, 6).
What’s fascinating is that those are just a couple of the thousands of contradictions within this divinely inspired book that must be followed exactly according to many believers.
The response to these contradictions, evil actions done by Yahweh, and the gross injustices permeating through every page of the Old Testament is that Jesus cast those aside because god thought “my bad, guys.” The problem with that argument is that the bible doesn’t state that.
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) buy levitra canada
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17 NAB)
Once that’s brought up, the other response will be that the biblical teachings are not meant to be taken literally. Well, that liberal pandering doesn’t quite jive with the teachings of Jesus:
“Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
So now that we got that pesky logical deduction of the irrational, unethical, and contradictory nature of the beloved bible, let’s move on to the rest of Robert’s article.
“If you take the Sermon on the Mount literally, it is quite difficult to see how you could support a violent State institution.”
Not exactly. The Beatitudes make improvable promises of external prizes to those who are being screwed over in the here and now. It essentially amounts to, “Look guys, I know the world sucks. I also know that I have the power to actually make your worthless lives awesome. I could probably even tell you about the germ theory of disease, new farming techniques, show you how electricity works, stop killing kids with malaria, give you antibiotics, or hell, just stop all sickness. But, I’m not going to. Instead, I’m going to give you a magical prize when you’re dead that you’ll never be able to test. Plus, those other assholes who you don’t like will be punished in the afterlife. Isn’t god awesome?!”
He also says murder is wrong while claiming the Old Testament’s justifications of murder and slavery is still right. He tells men to rip out their eyes if they lustfully look at a woman. Jesus also claims that men who marry divorced women are adulterers. He does all these things, but most people just remember the nice “love your neighbor” line.
What I find fascinating is that you should “love your neighbor,” but if god commands it you should kill him. “Love your neighbor” because if he’s bad he’ll burn in hell for eternity. “Love your neighbor,” but if he marries a divorced woman he should be judged. “Love your neighbor,” but if you think they’re sexy rip out your eye. Not exactly the kind of love I’m a fan of.
Robert continues “Yes, Romans 13 admittedly sounds like it is incompatible with Rothbardian libertarianism. But then again, it sounds like it is incompatible with denouncing Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam Hussein.”
Bob, you’re making this too easy for me. I completely agree with you.
“The Christian ultimately cares about people’s souls, not their worldly status. I think that’s why Paul did the “shocking” thing of telling slaves to obey their masters, and telling masters to treat their slaves kindly, as opposed to trying to abolish slavery with his pen. His point was to bring the freedom of the gospel to everyone, in all stations in life. Paul himself was filled with joy as he sat in chains.”
That’s one way to justify it, and I’d agree if obeying your slave master wasn’t repeated ad nauseam throughout the entire bible (Joel 3:8). And also if said passages didn’t play a part in the historical justification of chattel slavery in this country and elsewhere. Yes, Moses fought his master but that’s because Jews are special people who must kill people when directed by the Lord. In reward, they get to keep little virgin slave girls after killing their parents (1 Samuel 15:3).
“Even “extreme” libertarianism recognizes the importance of law enforcement, though I predict that in modern society it would become very peaceful, very quickly. The Bible certainly teaches Christians to aid the poor, orphans, and widows. Most evangelical Christians understand that this does not automatically mean that the State should run all of these initiatives. So, by the same token, if the Bible teaches people to respect property rights, and even (though here I think it gets trickier) says that civil authorities must wield “the sword” to punish criminals, it doesn’t follow that the State should run this initiative.”
As has been made abundantly clear by this article, biblical law is in no way libertarian. From killing gays (Leviticus 20:13), to killing people for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15), to killing whole families for believing in the wrong god (1 Samuel 15:3), to killing people for wearing the wrong clothes (Leviticus 19:19), biblical law is the worst form of tyranny possible.
Sorry Bob, there’s just no way to make these two opposite worldviews compatible without ignoring nearly all the bible and rationalizing the rest. The golden rule is compatible with libertarianism but it is not the summation of Christian beliefs or else there would be no reason to adopt a particular religious stance since that is covered by the non-aggression principle. Because Christianity comes from a specific book, the tenets and historical practices derived from that book must be taken into consideration. According to the bible god owns you, and according to the state the government owns you. Both act in opposition to reason, evidence, and individual autonomy. Both are tyrannical and humans will not be free until they are both cast aside.
Carlos Morales - CPS Whistleblower
A Child Protective Services Whistleblower exposes the truth about the most dangerous domestic agency.
Join The Discussion
33 CommentsThoughts? Comments?
Please login or register to post a comment.
Skyler J. Collins August 6, 2015 , 12:55 am
Carlos, while it didn’t answer all of my questions regarding the seemingly tyrannical OT god, this book did answer some of them: http://skyler.link/amznmoralmonster
(FYI: I am no longer a religious person, see: http://skyler.link/evcseekdivine)
NC August 6, 2015 , 2:48 am Vote4
I think that the whole point missed in this article is the fact that the old covenant waa just that, a covenant. A contract. Which both patties agree to. Contracts are very libertarian and while i wont justify murder in any respect. There were reasons for the extreme position taken on the pagan nations surrounding them. Jesus and the covenant were very much liberty orientented. Its important to know to draw the line between libertarian philosophy and personal beleifs because i think thats what the article fails to get. You can consider homosexuality a sin and still be for private marriage. I mean i still have yet to understand how they arent compatible. Theres free churchs of all kinds of religions for libertarian politics out there. Obviously they can be compatible.
Long Lost Friend August 6, 2015 , 7:23 am Vote3
To be honest, a covenant and a contract differ. Both parties do not sign on the dotted line in a covenant arrangement. God did not bargain with Israel; he chose it and set the terms of the covenant. The nation could be (and were) covenant-breakers, but it was never at the table making a deal with God. God set the terms.
Graeme Brooks August 6, 2015 , 9:15 pm Vote4
Dude, what made you so angry? Do you honestly think that so many people who have found a message of peace in the Bible are just… lying to themselves?
If it helps, Derek Flood’s book ‘Disarming Scripture’ provides some apparently much needed perspective on the the Bible and its approach to violence.
Long Lost Friend August 7, 2015 , 9:18 pm Vote3
Here is why I find this article unhelpful:
1. Regardless of whether the God of the Bible called on the Old Testament nation of Israel to wage war on his enemies or not, the New Testament church is not a geopolitical entity encompassing primarily one ethnic group. What God instructed his people to do after the Exodus is not a model for the Christian in today’s context.
2. Therefore, one can simultaneously believe that God chose a people group a few thousand years ago to wage war on his behalf, and also believe that violent conquest is not what the Christian is called upon to support or engage in today. Many reject the Christian faith, claiming that they would never bow the knee to a God who would EVER act that way over his creation. However, it is false to conclude that Christians have to abandon their faith in order to embrace liberty or the Non-Aggression Principle at this stage of history, as the title above above suggests.
Tim Fry August 8, 2015 , 3:43 am Vote3
I consider myself a Christian, and for that reason I consider the Old Testmant as a cautionary tale of past shortsightedness and depravity of God’s people. Regarding the New Testmant after the gospels, I see this as a good example of how quickly the church fell away from Christ’s teachings.
All I care about was the message attributed to Christ, and I don’t even care if he actually existed.
There was a time I was a statist, then a libertarian, then a minarchist, then an anarchist. I will not, I cannot, go from anarchy back to minarchy; it simply isn’t possible now, and I would have to put effort into adopting new contradictions into my thinking. Along my travels in changing how I perceived the state, my religious beliefs fell away until I found myself at the precipice of atheism. When I examined this I saw that while the realization that the state is illegitimate, unnecessary, and the product of a mass delusion is reasonable, the same does not follow regarding man’s spiritual nature.
I think one should question all beliefs, including religious ones. When I finally questioned the existence of a spiritual nature in myself, I was forced to consider that love, beauty, peace, and the very thought of ‘cogito ergo sum’, though conveniently posited as neurochemical phenomena, are not known to be so. To say that an FMRI lighting in certain areas of the brain ‘proves’ emotions as neurochemical reactions is possibly just as much confusing cause and effect as saying that happiness is caused by smiling. All of this coupled with the fact that saying “there is no God”, lacking evidence to support my positive claim, is its own profession of faith, I therefore could not adopt atheism.
I look at the words and actions of Christ apart from the Bible as a whole and I see a professing of the non-aggression principle. Christ rejected all governments of his day. He claimed to be the son of God, yet never sought a religion based upon him; he advocated that men change nothing but their own hearts, principally in regards to how they treated their neighbors. He sought nonviolence but was prepared to use force to defend himself when all else failed and taught others to do the same.
NC August 8, 2015 , 9:27 am Vote0
Well you are right @longlostfriend so essentially a social sorta contact. Though i would say that both parties did agree to terms. God went to every nation before he went to Abraham. They all rejectes him except Abraham. He didnt have to accept God either he chose to beleive and follow. Much later on when we are talking levitical law. The covenant sorta switched from persobal to HOW TO GOVERNMENT A NATIONLESS PEOPLE. By this point both sides did set terms. The people agreed to follow God to the fullest in exchange for Gods guidance and protection and promise of a homeland. Unfortunately God never broke his end of the agreement. People did. From the very beginning God gave us life and free will in exchange for not eating from one tree in a whole garden… -. – lmaoo i think God was actually trying to show statists that prohibition doesnt work even in the most perfect circumstance lolol
NC August 8, 2015 , 9:45 am Vote0
I just thought of a few interesting things. First and foremost i just realized how easy it is to forget What your your actually talking about in these kinds of conversations. I was just thinking about my extreme views on property rights. Now as a christian and anyone else who beleives in God. God technically created the first human on a planet he created. Essentially we are his property. Even the bible defends the old potter and clay example right? So with that being said is it really so hard to understand why Christians follow? It is Gods RIGHT as owner of his property to do what he wants and out of all the things he could have done he gave us unalienable rights… Free will… Thats awesome. Yet people get pissed in the libeety movement today when they see christians voicing there beleifs well if there beleifs are true then we are all criminals.. Yet Jesus always gives us another chance… I mean… Its so deep the property rights argument applied to the creator of all property is. . Mind blowing really lol.
Also wanted to make a note of what the surround nations were practicing. Child sacrafice, slave trade, beastiality, pedophilia, the list goes on. Now it can be argued that defending LIFE LiBERTY and PROPERTY calls for serious justice at times. If god technically owns all this property and is essentially sole monarchy of earth (and property owner) at would he not be justified in sending an army to hold people accountable for there crimes against humanity.? Again im just throwing this stuff out there i have not given all of this deep deep thought but on the surface it is at the very least understandable why the circumstances were so harsh isnt it? All while still being a very libertarian philosophical situation ?
Brian Butler August 8, 2015 , 3:39 pm
@tfry Excellent post, i feel much the same way that you do on this subject. I’ve read some Christianity related writings by Leo Tolstoy, and while when he gets into economics or things of that nature i feel he strays he is still good on the teachings of Jesus in my view. I try to look at all information as an exercise of separating the wheat from the chaff.
I have an introductory piece by Tolstoy that I’d recommend if you’re not familiar because it’s short and sums up well his view of things. I actually read this again a few days ago, some of the stuff i just dismiss but there are a lot of valuable observations about how people have fallen from the original teachings of Jesus. Particularly the focus on the expansive text of the bible itself instead of the simple messages of Jesus i found to be quite true. It’s not very long, probably ten pages or so, here is the link:
http://www.nonresistance.org/docs_pdf/Tolstoy/Restoration_of_Hell.pdf
Beyond that if you’re still interested, Librivox has a free full audiobook of “The Kingdom of God is within you” which i have not finished in its entirety yet but i have enjoyed what I’ve gotten through so far.
https://librivox.org/the-kingdom-of-god-is-within-you-by-leo-tolstoy/
Robert Higgs also wrote a piece about “The Kingdom of God is within You”, describing what he took from it. Which is worth a read.
http://blog.independent.org/2014/04/21/tolstoys-remarkable-manifesto-on-christian-anarchy-and-pacifism/
Michael Reith August 9, 2015 , 5:05 am Vote4
Carlos, the issue is semantic. It eventually comes down to what we agree or don’t agree to be the definition of “libertarian.” If your view is that libertarianism is a complete philosophy and understanding of life and the solution to mankind’s problems, then you are correct, it’s not compatible with a that definition of libertarian.
Another issue is how we shall interpret the Bible. As a Christian, one who believes that there is a God and that the Bible is his definitive explanation of man’s sinful condition before him and his plan for salvation of mankind, I will naturally have a different view from one who does not believe this to be true. I see the Bible as God’s revelation, through history, of his plan of redemption. Not all truth is contained in the Bible, but it’s contents are Truth.
There is no incompatibility between a Christian and the principle of non-aggression, which is the bedrock of libertarian thought. A Christian properly sees himself as a citizen of God’s Kingdom and a temporary resident of the Kingdom of Man. His mission here is to belong to the Church, God’s embassy, if you will, on this planet. Here he is to live a life of obedience to God, to love him and to love his neighbor. Doing such, his first priority is the preaching of God’s law and the Gospel. His secondary responsibility is to live out his life here in a way that characterizes his true and primary citizenship. He works within his occupation and lives within his community in a spirit of love. Which means he seeks the welfare and good of his neighbor.
How is that incompatible with non-aggression? As a libertarian and a Christian I properly recognize that I have no right to steal the property of my neighbor. Indeed, I am to work towards his gain. I cannot vote for government programs that would steal his wealth to give to another. Nor can I support military aggression against him. It would violate God’s law, and it would violate my libertarian beliefs.
Long Lost Friend August 9, 2015 , 5:21 pm Vote3
Excellent points, Michael. In my estimation, those that view statelessness as their “salvation” are just as much in error as those who look to the state to be their savior.
Randy England August 16, 2015 , 5:48 am Vote8
Carlos, after that mile wide/half-inch deep rant, I don’t know whether I supposed to quit Christianity or libertarianism.
How about this: If a Christian is willing to forego aggression against you, what more do you really want of him?
Rebecca Lau August 19, 2015 , 7:33 pm Vote2
I appreciate this article. There are too many Ron Paul so-cons on the modern libertarian movement, thanks mostly to Ron Paul. We need more atheist leaders like Rothbard and Rand. The fact is that religion and rationality are incompatible. Libertarians should be guided by reason not old books whether it be the Bible or the US Constitution.
Michael Reith August 20, 2015 , 12:13 am Vote4
It seems that you have set up a specific view of reality as an acid test for libertarian credentials. Yet how are my Christian beliefs incompatible with the principle of non-aggression? Or for that matter, any belief system that does not violate the freedom of another person? If liberty has no room for the religious, you have set up the movement for failure. On the other hand, a libertarian Christian has no concern with your atheism, in whatever form or fashion you wish to possess it.
Rick Rule August 19, 2015 , 7:46 pm Vote2
@rebeccalau
We can fight among ourselves after we defeat the state.
While I personally have no faith, for reasons similar to yours, I feel we have too few people in our camp, regardless of their beliefs on subjects outside of freedom and liberty, and not too few.
NC August 20, 2015 , 4:50 pm Vote1
@rebeccalau id advise deeper research into this view of atheism and rationality being compatible. After all if we shall discuss consistency in our logic i must assume your a nihilist because that is the logical conclusion of atheism. And if this is your beleif then it seems odd to me that you have a philosophy such as libertarianism, at all. Reason can not be proven therefore there is no reason to reason. I mean this can go just on and on. How can one beleive in moral law yet not a God. This is indeed an argument amongst persons but i find it unreasonable to attack christian libertarians. I never make the claim against unbelievers.
Greg Howick August 21, 2015 , 8:31 am
The very moment he used the old testament versus, he lost all credibility because of the new Covenant.
Michael Reith August 21, 2015 , 8:48 am
@greghowick: Greg, you do well to point this out. Without an understanding of the meaning of the Bible in its entire context, the verses that were quoted have only partial meaning. Yes, they have a literal context, but they contribute to an entirely different meaning and understanding when they are taken in light of the New Covenant! I think this is often the problem when atheists try to invalidate Christianity by picking and choosing verses without understanding that the entire Bible is about Jesus Christ. I’m understanding of their limitation to the degree that many of them simply have not attempted to understand the Bible in light of Christ. Their intent, so often, is to validate their own disbelief in the God of the Bible. I would say their own disbelief of the Gospel, but I think many of them haven’t a clue as to the actual claims and teachings of Christ or the Epistles. I suppose all humans operate strongly from a motive of self-validation, so it’s understandable. If it is true, and I believe that it is, that such enlightenment is the work of the Holy Spirit, I can only have compassion for their condition, and pray that they might have their eyes opened. Such posts like these are great opportunities!
Martin Brock August 22, 2015 , 8:42 am
@rebeccalau Libertarians should be guided by their own preferences. Being a libertarian is about how you treat other people, not your way of thinking, except insofar as your way of thinking impels you to respect other people’s liberty. Atheism certainly is not a prerequisite and neither is some ideological “rationality” or “objectivity”.
Michael Reith August 23, 2015 , 2:15 am Vote2
Well said. You properly ground libertarian principles on the central principle of non-aggression towards others and their property.
P_Fritz August 22, 2015 , 11:51 pm Vote1
If the Bible were simply considered an example of mythology, on par with Snori Sturlson’s Eddas (Norse Mythology) or Ovid’s Metamorphosis (Greek), then it wouldn’t be a problem just taking what you can get from it. But unfortunately the faithful more often that not insist it be taken literally – historically and metaphysically – and so run into all the problems and incompatibilities that Morales enumerates.
Then political candidates try and bring it into the mix and so everyone who doesn’t subscribe to that mythology feels obligated to reject it. I do think there is a place for religion and spirituality in one’s life (Sam Harris’ book Waking Up discusses how you can do this without being a mystic or fanatic) but it is a personal and private pursuit and we have a concept of secularism and separation of Church and State for a reason. There are no propositions in Libertarianism that require faith in any mythological trans-substantial beings, so why not leave our enthusiasm for Jesus, Thor, Horus, or little grey bug-eyed aliens at home where we can enjoy it in privacy or with other Jesus, Thor, Horus, etc. fans?
Michael Reith August 23, 2015 , 2:29 am Vote2
The actions of men should be the concern, certainly, regardless of what motivates them internally. Sadly, those who attain to power will always appeal to the emotions and passions of men to control them. Sometimes they seek to manipulate religious thought, among many other constructs. Almost always they appeal to fear and tribalism, and the pack mentality. Politicians refine the ability, which isn’t hard considering the woeful state of humanity. Even dear Adolf Hitler was clever enough to manipulate many of the religious of Germany, and co-opt their willing support, in some cases. Those he could not, he persecuted and otherwise dealt with.
If there is a central beauty to libertarian thought, it is the truths that are not only present within it, but which find themselves expressed in many of the world’s religions. Sometimes those truths are perverted, as we see in the confusion within the body of those Americans who currently call themselves Christians, or Muslims.
P_Fritz August 23, 2015 , 2:15 pm Vote0
It you dig very, very deeply you can find shreds of what used to be libertarian ideas in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), however for the most part, they serve only to re-enforce collectivism and obedience. Rothbard in For A New Liberty refers more to pre-monotheistic systems like Taoism and Norse tribalism as representing primitive Libertarian thought. Jesus probably WAS a libertarian too, but clearly all his inner teachings have been co-opted and synthesized with the collectivism of ‘Church’ Christianity which is based largely on the promulgation of fear and guilt. The new Pope coming out against capitalism is a great example of this. So many liberals got excited and thought this Pope is cooler than most, but of course the church has been saying “money is the root of all evil” for centuries all the while filling the Vatican basement with gold. I would not put my faith in the state, nor would I put it in some religious leader’s fantasy.
Michael Reith August 23, 2015 , 3:25 pm Vote2
Rather than religion being opposed to liberty, some rightly see Christianity as the foundation for human freedom. Andrew Napolitano recently spoke at the birthday bash given for Ron Paul’s 80th birthday. Here’s an excerpt, as he spoke to the cause of liberty:
“And that cause greater than self is the primacy of the individual over the state. The concept that we are gifts and creatures of God almighty made in his image and likeness. And the trait that we share with him is human freedom. As he is perfectly free, we are perfectly free. Because our freedom comes from our humanity which is a gift from God, it does not come from the government. “
NC August 24, 2015 , 11:27 pm Vote1
@paulmcatee personally i dont consider catholicism christian. And so i can see where your comming from but it does bother me that so many confuse the two. Its not that i dont respect catholics its that they are very diffrent from christian fundamental thought. So to say Christianity encourages collectivism Id say you probly havebt been around christians practicing what they preach. True christian values are personal not collective. Its about having the freedom to do what you wish but having the desire change and the power to choose not to do some things because you WANT to not because you HAVE to. My pastor introduced me to libertarian principles. As fif my father who is also a preacher. Im was a catholic at ine point in my life and i can see why many would consider religion anti freedom but Christianity is ment to be spiritual not religious and there of course is a diffrence. I wish some of you could see what i learn on a weekly basis and you can see why i get so blow away when people say christians cant be libertarian or rather the two arent compatible. Its like they go hand and hand to a ridiculous degree to me. From the very first book of the bible Free Will is what makes humans well human! God so loved us that he allowed us to decide for ourselves who we want to become and who we want to follow and beleive. If it wasnt for Jesus i wouldnt be a libertarian today plain and simple
Michael Reith August 25, 2015 , 6:35 am Vote0
Hi, Nick. There are certainly a lot of variances in the beliefs of those that profess the name of Christ, and some stray into some pretty non-libertarian thinking. But they don’t represent the general pale of orthodox Christianity, nor, as you point out, proper understanding of the Bible.
I think that those of us who profess to be Christians and also hold libertarian views will always struggle with libertarians of the sort that believe that religion is an impediment to rational thought. In their minds they believe that libertarian thinking can only be arrived at through rational thought (i.e., their own view of “rational”). I have generally found that they harbor some deeper emotions, not rational thoughts, about religion. I suppose that you and I would understand it as a rejection of God. Their struggle is with Him, not us. Of course, the idea that one could be the property of God goes against the premises of libertarian views of the most intimate property rights–that of the right to own themselves. We, on the other hand, don’t see the rights of a being who created us as equal to our own, nor think that God is violating our rights, in that he is our Creator (the rights of the potter, as you point out).
That said, what they don’t seem to grasp, always, is that God’s rights aside, all men created by him are equal in that they share his image. As the Bible says, he is no respecter of men. They are equally fallen in his eyes. Equally his to dispose of as he wills. As it says in Romans, “Jacob I have loved and Esau I have hated.” God has chosen to save some, and not others. But not based on any greater worth possessed by those he saves. Purely because he has the right to decide for whatever reason pleases him.
Alas, it’s a hard discussion to have. They will, naturally, be influenced by those in the Christian community who confuse the Kingdom of Man and the Kingdom of God, and who confuse the role and jurisdiction of the Church with that the of the State, be it modern Roman Catholics who promote collectivism, using the state to redistribute wealth by force, or the modern American evangelical who operates politically to try to force his views on Israel or various moral vices onto the public at large.
Greg Howick August 25, 2015 , 2:14 am
@reconzfury What people say Christianity is and what it actually is are two different things. I sort of do not like calling myself a Christian it has been so tarnished by others. Did you come to your conclusion on Catholicism from Alexander Hislop’s Two Babylons?
NC August 25, 2015 , 2:25 am Vote0
@greghowick funny you say that greg my father is the same way he dislikes calling himself a christian because the term is so tarnished. He calls himself a beleiver in the way to some people. And no i i came to my conclusion on catholicism through my own understand and well massive root beleif differences.
Andrew Wiegand August 8, 2016 , 6:58 pm Vote1
http://libertarianchristians.com/
Elise Daniel August 9, 2016 , 2:57 am Vote0
Thoughts from libertarian Christians here: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/called-to-freedom#/
Joseph Veca August 9, 2016 , 5:11 pm Vote0
Someone failed to read Romans Chapter 2 which states:
12 All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. 14For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.15They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them 16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus.
17 Now if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of God 18 and know his will and are able to discern what is important since you are instructed from the law, 19 and if you are confident that you are a guide for the blind and a light for those in darkness, 20 that you are a trainer of the foolish and teacher of the simple, because in the law you have the formulation of knowledge and truth— 21 then you who teach another, are you failing to teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You who detest idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast of the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 For, as it is written, “Because of you the name of God is reviled among the Gentiles.”
25 Circumcision, to be sure, has value if you observe the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 Again, if an uncircumcised man keeps the precepts of the law, will he not be considered circumcised? 27 Indeed, those who are physically uncircumcised but carry out the law will pass judgment on you, with your written law and circumcision, who break the law. 28 One is not a Jew outwardly. True circumcision is not outward, in the flesh. 29 Rather, one is a Jew inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not the letter; his praise is not from human beings but from God.
–Romans 2:12 – 29, New American Bible, Revised Edition.
St. Paul is rather clear here. Gentiles are not subject to Mosaic law.
I know, but what about Jesus’ comments in the Gospel of St. Matthew:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 20 I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
-Matthew 5:17-20, New American Bible, Revised Edition
To fulfill the law appears at first to mean a literal enforcement of the law in the least detail: until heaven and earth pass away nothing of the law will pass (Mt 5:18). Yet the “passing away” of heaven and earth is not necessarily the end of the world understood, as in much apocalyptic literature, as the dissolution of the existing universe. The “turning of the ages” comes with the apocalyptic event of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and those to whom this gospel is addressed are living in the new and final age, prophesied by Isaiah as the time of “new heavens and a new earth” (Is 65:17; 66:22). Meanwhile, during Jesus’ ministry when the kingdom is already breaking in, his mission remains within the framework of the law, though with significant anticipation of the age to come, as the following antitheses (Mt 5:21–48) show.
In short, this article, IMNSHO, is nothing more than a anti-Christian rant filled with cherry picked Bible verse to support the author’s bias.
Michael Reith August 9, 2016 , 5:41 pm Vote1
The author attempts to evaluate the Bible from an external point of view, rather than judging it by internal consistency and by it’s complete message. As you point out, he cherry picks verses. It reminds me of the media editing video clips and leaving the viewer to make assumptions out of context. Rather than arguing the consistence or inconsistency of libertarian thought with Christianity, he is suggesting that Christians cannot be rational beings because of what he believes about the Bible–that it is illogical and immoral, assuming that he is in the position of a a moral judge. Upon what he bases his morality, is unclear. I assume he believes that a logical and rational man is moral.
Randall Chester Saunders August 9, 2016 , 6:01 pm
@michaelreith
“I assume he believes that a logical and rational man is moral.”
Should one assume, then, that you believe an illogical and irrational man is moral?
I am not opposed to anyone’s religion or any other baseless superstition that most men hold to. It is not my business how others misuse their minds. That does not mean I have to pretend that just because millions of people believe absurd things and thousands more make their livings propogating the lies that any of it deserves my respect. I find them all fatuous, but extremely entertaining, except when they are burning people at the stake or cutting people’s heads off.
Randy