Topic: Libertarianism
Christian Libertarianism Is An Oxymoron. How can submission and liberty coexist in the same brain?by Scott from Oregon
(libertarian)
Monday, March 3, 2008
As an anti-religionist, I am often perplexed by the irrational and contradictory positions some religious folks take. I scratch my scalp and shrug my shoulders and wonder at the ridiculousness of it all. I don't know whether to laugh or hide my head, and the trouble comes not because I care what others believe, but because their beliefs have deleterious effects on how I am able to live my life.
You hear often in political discussions (from the Christian religious folks, mostly) that America was founded on Christianity and America is "a Christian country" and that the founders were Christian and/or believed in a diety.
This is precisely what you'd expect from Christian folk to believe. And of course, there would be elements of both truth and fiction in these statements. One could join the ranks of individuals who have argued for and against these views with reckless abandon for decades and the results would be the same. Those who are indoctrinated by Christian tenets on one side, athiests, rationalists, agnostics and others mostly falling on the other.
As religious folks continue to form their own blocs and attempt to direct the outcome of elections and policies, this argument will continue to get louder and far more robust. (These questions themselves are pertinent, simply because we still suffer under blue laws in many parts of America, and rational solutions to problems are being subverted politically because of this new religious clout. When people like Ted Haggart and Jerry Falwell have the ear of the president, you know things are not going well in what was supposed to have been a secular America. So for those who aren't comfortable with the new push-back movement of the non-religious, I offer you this- "Get used to it".)
I now want to ask a different question altogether. I want to know how Libertarian Christians reconcile their belief in "liberty" with their belief in a divine dictator? This has puzzled me for a long time, and I often wonder if those who maintain these two dueling beliefs- do they do so by compartmentilizing each into separate intellectual categories?
Christians believe in a god that is omnipotent and omniscient. They are asked to perform rituals and duties to appease this god. They are told how to think, what to believe, what acts to perform, what morals to abide by. They tell their children that god "knows everything they think and do", and they have a list of prescribed punishments for "sinning". As someone who was never shackled with this kind of overlording, I cannot imagine how one would willingly grant this kind of totalitarianism in the first place? Why would one do this to him/herself willingly? Why would one do this to their children?
The libertarian view, as I understand it, says that you are an individual and have the rights of an individual. You are free to make choices and make mistakes, as an individual, and that the maximum amount of liberty is the ultimate goal. This belief is 100% diametrically opposed to the Christian belief, which asks for your total submission to an idea not your own. "Submit or eternally suffer" is the underlying threat and adhered-to dogma. Now compare this to "Live Free Or Die."
I find this all puzzling.
When I hear a Libertarian state that "We are granted rights as individuals by our creator", I am dumbfounded by the implication. Firstly, that someone has the ego to assume he/or she knows what the "creator" has in mind, and lastly, that in America, this statement predominantly implies a Christian creator, which does not (within the doctrine) grant these rights at all.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Scott from Oregon only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Scott from Oregon is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Scott, there is no puzzle. I believe in liberty and so did our Saviour Jesus Christ. And, out of my liberty I made the choice to follow Him. He is my King and I will obey Him to the best of my ability because the efficacious result of eternal life is predicated on meeting Him on the terms He has laid down.
He offers the contract, but makes no one comply with it. Your liberty permits you to reject the contract.
I will obey the civil authorities in order not to bring shame on His name unless those civil authorities contradict His directions. Then we are obligated to obey God rather than men.
I will continue to fight for liberty in the physical realm just so everyone can make the same choice. After all, there are societies where that choice cannot be made without dire consequencies.
I do not mean to imply that I can be worthy of His acceptance predicated on my own works. Let me try to explain. Should you ever come to conclusion that a Creator exists, and that it is obvious that we are in an alienated state, and you were desirous of normalizing that relationship, you would naturally next inquire as to how that normalizing could be accomplished. How could the Creator harmonize both His mercy and His justice? The alienated state implys that we have violated His law, and since he made everything, what could we give Him to atone? The answer is obvious, nothing.
So, unless He makes a way, we are ruined. Contracts consist of three basic elements, the meeting of the minds, the term, and the consideration. Since we can't pay the consideration, it is clear He would have to pay it Himself. And that is the hope of Christains since the Creator sent His very special Son to partake of both natures and pay the price on the cross that we could not pay.
The term is eternal. The meeting of the minds is to embrace the terms of the contract He has laid down.
I am sure this is more than you wanted to hear. Sorry.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-03 19:50:58
DX10- Respectfully considered, but you are stating the argument I have stated, only leaving out the punishment for failing to follow into subservience, or, in your words-- "I will obey Him to the best of my ability because the efficacious result of eternal life is predicated on meeting Him on the terms He has laid down."
What you are suggesting without saying, is that there is a grave and eternal punishment awaiting those who do not "freely" enter into this agreement.
Not only that, you are telling children this.
So to my mind, you are not willfully accepting anything, but being threatened into acceptance by a punishment far worse than imaginable torture and death in the reality we all exist in.
In other words, there is no free will, only enslavement based upon the threats of the very same texts that promises the eternal life if you only adhere to the enslavement.
It puzzles me that a mind who seeks liberty would accept this dischotomy willingly.
Since I am a statist, it's very easy for me to reconcile my faith with my personal beliefs.
To me, God is not so much "omnipresent and omnipotent" as "outside the flow of space and time". We are the little people in a simulation that has a book written about it. God can read through the book as he pleases, and see the endings, and beginnings.
I think a lot of the surroundings behind religion, and it's mistakes, are the result of humans misusing religion. I firmly believe that no one should have to decide or even be exposed to the formality of religous thinking until they are adults.
I will raise my children in "Christian values" -- don't lie, cheat , or steal, don't adulterate, don't cling to material objects over being a good person -- but I don't demand anyone fixiate on the specific trappings.
As for the hellfire? It's pretty simple. My father had a saying for me. "I brought you in this world, I can take you out". To me, it's very simple...
...but the thrust of your article is LIBERTARIANS. Which is yet another reason I don't buy into your philosophy. It contrasts with that of my Savior.
I won't even mention the fact that the document that talks about life, liberty, all men being created equal, and all that jazz was written by a bunch of people who thought it perfectly good to own other people -- and that a war was fought basically because the people who owned others thought it was unfair that they were being tarriffed out of business.
Scott, I said nothing about punishment. If you accept the concept of a Creator Who is the repository of all the virtues and Who has created you with a free will, then it follows that His commands would be in your best interest. And, that is exactly the Christian teaching to those of us who accept the Bible as His inspired word. I suggested no corollary.
"I will raise my children in "Christian values" -- don't lie, cheat , or steal, don't adulterate, don't cling to material objects over being a good person -- but I don't demand anyone fixiate on the specific trappings."
Premise, how do you know these are Christian values?
The Bible speaks of Free Will as you know. We are free to live by our own Bible code and for each of us the code might be interpreted differently. There are gay Christians, cult Christians, Rastafarian Christians and libertarian Christians. Each think they are Christians and each have Free Will to do as they wish within their own interpretation the Bible.
1 Corinthians 9:24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain [it]. 25 And everyone who competes [for] [the] [prize] is temperate in all things. Now they [do] [it] to obtain a perishable crown, but we [for] an imperishable [crown].
If one is to truly practice, as a Christian, free will, then they cannot put their onus upon another's individual rights. Christians are taught to love thy neighbor as thyself and that's fit right in line with the libertarian doctrine.
Posted By: Craig J. Bolton
Date: 2008-03-03 21:01:22
Scott, I am not a Christian because I find Christianity to be riddled with contradictions. However, the contradiction you seem to be trying to construct between religion and libertarianism is equally incoherent.
Let's assume that there is a very very powerful being who can do such things as grant a gift of "eternal life." Let's also presume that this being has standards and isn't willing to share eternity with just anyone. Hence, he sets down minimum standards of conduct which, if you follow them, he'll give you the gift he has to bestow. If not, well that's your choice.
What, exactly, is wrong or unlibertarian about that? Would you have G_d be the great socialist sugar daddy who gives out gifts to everyone regardless of merit? Does he have some sort of duty to serve others? [What do those propositions sound like to you - hint, it sure isn't libertarianism.]
Posted By: Jeremiah Johnson
Date: 2008-03-03 21:02:21
Scott, libertarianism is the belief that the government ought to only deal with protecting citizens rights from being infringed by anyone who does not have jurisdiction over them.
"That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
That would include protecting from other citizens, other governments, and the government established to protect these rights. To this end, the New Testament clearly makes a case for libertarianism. The ideas given in the Scriptures is that the choices you make which do not violate another's inalienable rights, are between you and God, and he will execute judgement in that regard whether it be the natural consequences which he has created, or eternal consequences, or both. So you go off and do your own thing and it's between you and God. That's why in 1 Cor. 5, Paul admonished the church at Corinth to break fellowship with that fornicating man and put him out into the world for God to judge him. They were not to punish him in any way. This is also the repeated again in Matt. 18:18 by Jesus Christ.
Here are some interesting verses regarding taxation that Jesus Christ said:
"What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free."
It's an interesting correlation Jesus draws with being free and not having to pay any taxes. Though there is a much greater spiritual lesson given here, the carnal ideas present are quite applicable to this discussion. Jesus was not in favor of people being in bondage. Therefore, one can deduct that Jesus was not in favor of taxation.
I am a Bible-believing Christian and my ideas regarding government are that of libertarianism. I get those ideas from the Bible. It all boils down to what is lawful and what isn't. It is not lawful for me to infringe on someone else's rights that were given to them by God, nor is it lawful for me to establish an organization to that end. If you wish to harm your own body, you have liberty to do so, but you will face the natural consequences and possibly eternal consequences. I, however, ought to mind my own business, as long as you aren't harming someone else, and allow those things to be between you and God. I know that if I were to interfere, then I will receive consequences from him upon myself.
So Bible based Christianity will conclude in libertarianism.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-03 21:43:53
(I’ve tried two previous times to reply to these interesting statements, and each time, something intervened and the text was lost. I have taken to typing this up in word, so as to foil the interloping entities...)
What nobody seems to be willing to admit to or discuss IS THE PUNISHMENT prescribed within the bible (the supposed word of god) for using your free will to disregard the scriptures of the bible and seek morality and education elsewhere.
Unless my Sunday school woefully lied to me as a child (which I am sure it did), if I failed to accept the teachings within the bible I was headed for a long and unenjoyable afterlife. As an adult, I can accept or deny the existence of this afterlife as I rationally see fit, but a child is not equipped to judge the punishment prescribed within the bible and promoted in these “sunday schools”.
So the idea of these children “choosing” to believe in the tenets of the bible is strained, to say the least.
Which leads me to my original assertion, which has not been addressed. The bible requires- through threat of severe punishment- obeisance to its tenets and teachings. The punishment for noncompliance is the most severe punishment a human can ever possibly concieve. And it is under this threat that you are asked to “willfully submit”.
This is by definaition a form of dictatorship, albeit divine. Submitting to a dictatorship is not and does not equate to living free. Free to choose. Free to decide your own morality. Free to come to your own grip with the life you are living.
"I now want to ask a different question altogether. I want to know how Libertarian Christians reconcile their belief in "liberty" with their belief in a divine dictator?"--Scott from Oregon
Essentially everything from this sentence on is colored heavily by your perceptions and beliefs about Christians. Although those perceptions and beliefs do have some basis in reality, they (in my experience at least) are not reflective of the whole...but only of parts.
I am by no means a Bible-banger. My faith however is very much based in free will, and in choosing right from wrong. Free will and choice are very much in harmony with both Christian and libertarian beliefs, and I'm not sure why you (Scott) continually try to alienate those with faith...your disagreement with it very much borders on dogmatic at times.
To me the Bible is a roadmap, a cookbook, or a pleasant anecdote...it most certainly isn't an instruction manual or a tax form. It is the method through which others have found a fulfilling or valued life, and thus it may be of some use to me. I don't really expect you to understand, because you are blinded by distrust and or hatred for the concept.
As for your remarks about a creator in reference to natural rights it is a historical context which still has much value today. Prior to the concept of natural innate rights many rulers and governments claimed that they were owed something by their subjects because all that the subjects had or were was "given" to them by their rulers...it was only by their leave that they had anything. Christianity was to some degree a uniform given in those days, so to make the statement that natural rights are derived from a Creator made it plain that no earthly power could disrupt, or destroy those rights. The statement was so effective that today it is widely recognized that there are natural innalienable rights which cannot be taken from us as a individuals or members of a group. When a government or body becomes destructive of those innalienable rights then the Creator argument is an effective and powerful trump card.
Scott, the KJV Bible consists of some 66 books of history, psalms, poetry, prophesies, songs, and letters and was recorded by some 42 different writers covering a period of some 1600 years and was completed nearly two thousand years ago with a final covenant between God and man.
You cannot expect every scripture to be directly applicable to you without consideration of the time and setting in which it was written. Common sense mixed with reality is required. The punishment you allude to may in fact have been improperly explained to you.
Everything in this physical realm is subject to the second law of thermodynamics and is running down. That includes our physical bodies. The things you see are temporal, the things you do not see are eternal.
Where were you before you got here? Where will you be after you die if you do not inherit eternal life? Without debating scripture I submit you will be exactly where you were before you got here.
It is the same question that God asked of Job after Job declared himself righteous. "Who is this who darkens counsel without knowledge? Now lift yourself up and gird your loins for I will ask of you and you answer Me, where were you when I laid the foundation of the world?"
So, where is your argument if the punishment is not there? As the scripture says, "If we have hoped only in this life we are of all men most miserable."
Everyone tends to lump "Christians" together like we're all one happy family. Nothing is farther from the truth.
For instance, did you know that Bible-banging GW himself is an indefensible heretic? He has stated for the record that he believes that he and the King of Saudi Arabia pray to the same god. Now, I know that there are Joel Osteen types out there who would agree with that statement, but no Christian faith which still believes in something would go along with that.
The founders were probably painfully aware of the last 250 years of religious history in Europe and the enormous amount of blood spilled over Christ. The pilgrims weren't muslims or buddhists looking for religious tolerance - they were groups calling themselves Christian.
That's the really simple part. Christians have a history of fighting each other for religious reasons which goes back a millenium at this point. This just happens to be the country where they recognized this, and pragmatically codified religious nonagression into the law.
What better way to deal with that problem than by giving everyone individual liberty?
Posted By: Jeremiah Johnson
Date: 2008-03-03 22:54:59
Scott, Libertarianism is a stance regarding government. What does anything you are saying have to do with government?
To help you further understand why you do not have eternal liberty is because you were born dead in trespasses and sins. You do not have life, therefore you have no right to eternal life. You are not a "Citizen" in the eternal sense of the word, and therefore you have no eternal rights. Eternal Life is a free gift that God already paid for you by dying for your sins.
No righteous judge in our courts can allow breaking the law to go unpunished. Likewise, the Supreme Judge (as titled in the Declaration of Independence) will not allow his laws to be broken without punishment ensuing. However, He has already taken the punishment for sin and if you repent of your sinful condition and turn to him, he will apply that to you. You will then be a child and no longer a stranger. The payment for your sinful nature(tribute) and your continuing sins(customs) would then be paid, like Jesus did for Peter, and you would be one of the children. And like Jesus said, "Then are the children free." On an eternal sense you would not owe the punishment for sin, because he has already paid it all.
However, regarding the government and your Citizenship to a State of the Union, this discussion has no bearing on libertarianism.
We Christians are always looking for someone to pray for, Scott From Oregon will be in my heart.
I don't agree with Christians who want impose their will on the rest of us. I should not be told how to pray. However, if I want to follow the dictates of a man with a pointy hat in Italy who tells me how to come to God, that's my decision. I should be allowed to do that.
Along the way, my kids might pick up some good habits that aren't taught in the schools: don't steal, don't kill, don't tell lies, don't be greedy, don't break up another person's marriage, take care of your parents. Six of those 10 Suggestions work well for aetheists too. It's not all bad.
Even if you're not a "practicing" Christian, the message is what matters: "Love one another as you would love yourself." That's the basis of all freedom and charity. It doesn't require money or a king. Those are distractions from the message.
With all the drinking that went on at my sister's wedding--half Irish-Catholic, half German-Catholic--I couldn't imagine how the 18th amendment ever passed. We need to drink more and argue less!
This is what it costs: Your Obedience to Eternal Principles and Laws
Don't want it? You don't have to buy it. No one is forcing you to.
Want it? You'll have to pay the market price for it. You make the choice. No one else does it for you.
Competition in the marketplace. There is athiesm, agnosticism, buddhism, taoism, islam, mormonism, objectivism, etc.
If someone buys athiesm (does someone have a price-list handy?) what do they get? Is it tangible? Can you touch athiesm? Free-will is not freedom from belief. It is the freedom to choose a belief.
So please tell me again how Christianity and Libertarianism are contradictory?
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-03-04 12:17:17
Bottom line is any religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.) is a competing form of governance. Even LIBERTARIANS accept that there are "Natural laws" or rules to follow and consequences for not following them. I.e. if you murder, than there will be consequences, so the thought is not too totally foreign or contradictory to LIBERTARIAN ideals.
Granted that Christ was an anti-tax advocate (in the temple) but also advocated tithing which is a form of direct taxation.
According to John 3:16 all one has to do is believe to gain salvation, now the incorporation of works in there or your interpretation of works may change things. So "servitude" in the most commonly accepted form doesnt neccessarily aply.
Now the insinuation, that the founders created a theocracy has no merit. Even though most if not all were "christians" they understood that others not necessarily believed as they did, Puritans, Baptist, Episcopaleans, etc. When the 1st Ammend was written it was to insure religious freedom as well as freedom from others imposing there religion on you.
Best class I ever took in college was Comparative World Religions, once I explored other religions I gained a much greater tolerance and awarenes of others and the complexities that religion plays upon the world.
Very interesting opinion on the freedom vs submission by Scott.
Nealaus provides the best answer: free market.
I am not a believer in a higher power but I am a true believer of freedom and respect people’s choices. Such FREEDOM includes the freedom of some individuals to believe and submit themselves and even their children to their doctrines.
Under Libertarianism we are FREE to submit or not to submit ourselves multiple things or rules if we chose so. No government should be telling us or enforcing us to submit ourselves or not. That is the basic principle of Libertarianism.
Here are some examples of submission under a free society:
We can FREELY choose to submit ourselves to drugs and alcohol in excess which could leave us enslaved to addiction. Those individuals under the addiction are less free; however they FREELY chose it first and can FREELY leave it any time they want.
We can FREELY choose to submit ourselves to a monogamous sexual relationship with only one sexual partner for life and be submitted to such partner’s rules or FREELY exit the agreement if the partner’s rules are too submissive. Or we can have multiple sexual partners, exchange money for sex or abstain from sex for life.
We can FREELY choose to eat healthy or be submitted to obesity and higher risks of disease or we can FREELY choose to loose say 100 lb of overweight.
We can FREELY choose to work for an employer in exchange for money, abide by its rules and do what they tell us to do even if we don’t like it or you can FREELY exit your employment agreement any time you want and go to a different employer or start your own business.
We can FREELY choose to lock ourselves inside our house and never get out, talk to nobody or even commit suicide or FREELY chose to get out of the house, walk on the park, talk to people, live your live, etc…
Similarly, we can FREELY choose to believe or not to believe in a higher power and submit ourselves to a doctrine no matter how ridiculous that may be.
Therefore FREEDOM and SUBMISSION can co-exist as long as the SUBMISSION is voluntarily and can be ended at any time by the submitted with no government enforcement as long as we don’t encroach in somebody else’s FREEDOM.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-04 13:29:42
I'll ask it again, as it seems to be the point. What is the result suggested for those who do not "freely" take the offer of eternal life?
What are people told is the end result if they are not baptised, for example? If they eschew Christianity as man-made dogma? If they use the term god in horrific sentences? If they commit adultery and do not repent through some form of Christian rite? If they happen to be gay?
Is there a prescribed punishment for any of thses things?
Are these punishments not coercion of the highest type?
Let me give this a shot. God and man are incomprable. God holds the trump card in all life, liberty and property and can therefor do whatever He pleases with His creation. He doesn't require the right to do so. He is the right. For non-theists, think of this instead, as the forces of nature and curcumstance.
Rights are strictly a human institution and relate soley to the interaction of human individuals, one to the other. Only a humans can have rights. Only humans can violate them. They exist as the fulcrum of equal justice. I have no right to murder, enslave, defraud or steal from you and vise versa.
Human rights have nothing to do with the forces of nature or curcumstances. If you find yourself stranded in the desert and die from dehydration, your life may have ended, but your right to life hasn't been violated by any human being. If you fall in a well from which you cannot escape, you have lost your liberty, but your right to liberty has not been violated by another human being. Dropped your car keys overboard while sailing? You've lost your property, but again, your property rights have not been violated.
You can no more squeeze the omnipotent, creator of the universe into the equation of human rights anymore than you can floods, hurricanes, cancer, or any other state of nature in which one might encounter.
Only God can grant rights or take them away. Humans are not capable of either of these actions. People can only grant or take away privelege. This is what differentiates the two. Man can only abdicate rights, respect them, defend them, transfer them, violate them, but they are always yours.
I'm a Christian and a libertarian, but my libertarianism is nothing more than the political extension of my Christianity. I believe theft, murder, slavery and fraud are wrong if I do them and they're just as wrong if I get the individuals in government to do them in my behalf.
I could write for days on the subject. If you want more hit me up at my blog;
http://bryandmorton.blogspot.com/
Until then, Peace, Freedom, Justice and Prosperity to you all.
One can only be coerced if one A) accepts that coercion and the pretext behind it, or B) has no choice, or C) is ignorant of their choices.
If one accepts the pretext there is no problem, if they do not accept it then they obviously do not believe they will be bound by the consequences.
If one has no choice, then they should be given a choice. This is where liberty and freedom come into the scene. If you have no choice then you are not making a choice, most forms of mainstream Christianity believes that you must use your freewill to make a choice to believe and the choice to live well.
If someone is ignorant of their choices all they can do is make choices and act upon the knowledge they have until they gain more knowledge. A good example of this is a quote from George Carlin saying that "I was Catholic until I reached the age of reason." (I myself am Catholic, so this is not intended as an anti-Catholic remark, but rather an explanatory statement).
Simply put, if you do not believe in the basic statements behind a religion or its tenets then you have nothing to fear from the presumed punishments laid forth by that religion do you?
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-04 14:36:49
Brian- words on the ether are free. Write as much as you like...
"God holds the trump card in all life, liberty and property and can therefor do whatever He pleases with His creation. He doesn't require the right to do so. He is the right"
DOESN'T THIS BELIEF smack of totalitarianism? In other words, you grant, through your faith, all of your rights away to a divine dictator, abdicating your responsibility to an omnipotent entity. How can this coexist with the idea of liberty?
"Simply put, if you do not believe in the basic statements behind a religion or its tenets then you have nothing to fear from the presumed punishments laid forth by that religion do you?"
Yes. That is true. As one who does not believe in the veracity of the claims held in any religous texts, I can assure you that I do not fear the suggested punishments of those claims. But what I wonder is, why would someone who advocates liberty willingly choose to believe in totalitarianism of the mind? THis is where I cannot make sense out of the idea that a Christian (who advocates adherance to immutable laws set down in an ancient text, granting a single entity full control as well as entrance into all of their thoughts and actions) and Libertariansm, which calls for the liberation of the individual from all such control and coercion?
Your conundrum is as old as the hills. You will find the exact discussion in the Bible in Romans 9:17-21. And, you will find the answer. I believe that you won't like the answer because your conundrum is your reason to reject the concept of a Creator. And, that is your free choice. Where you see a totalitarian, I see a loving God who cared so much for His creation that he was willing to pay an unimaginable price for our redemption. (You might want to read up a little bit on the medical analysis of the crucifixition.) [link edited for length] He first loved us. We love Him and keep his commandments which are in our best interest. A perfectly regenerative relationship. Wish I could help but I think we have hit a wall.
Posted By: Jeremiah Johnson
Date: 2008-03-04 15:16:08
Scott:"What is the result suggested for those who do not "freely" take the offer of eternal life?"
Jesus: "He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
Scott: "What are people told is the end result if they are not baptised, for example?"
Baptism has no ramifications regarding eternal life(unless you can prove to me otherwise in the Scriptures). It is simply the first step an already born again Christian takes in their walk with God. The thief next to Jesus on the cross was told he would be with Christ in paradise that very day, and he had no opportunity to be baptized.
Scott: "If they eschew Christianity as man-made dogma?"
David: "The fool hath said in is heart, There is no God."
Paul: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Scott: "If they use the term god in horrific sentences?"
I find it ironic that you would if you don't believe he exists.
Scott: "If they commit adultery and do not repent through some form of Christian rite?"
Christian rite? How about you just get with God and take it up with him.
If they happen to be gay?
Paul: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Scott: "Is there a prescribed punishment for any of thses things?"
Scott: "Are these punishments not coercion of the highest type?"
Why should God let you "inherit" his kingdom? He doesn't have to. That's not coercion.
So, Scott: if you were to have a house that you bought and paid for, and you were also had a cure to death, but you required that people who violated you repent before you give them that cure, and, if they did, on top of curing them they could also share your house with you by doing some work for you, how is that coercion? You earned your own death. You violated God and continually do. He doesn't have to do anything for you. But he, in his mercy, has given you a way to bypass judgement and, on top of that, the potential to share with him his kingdom.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-04 15:27:55
"I believe that you won't like the answer because your conundrum is your reason to reject the concept of a Creator."
Actually, what I reject is the idea that humans can know the desires of a "creator". All religions claim to be divinely written and yet none possess anything within their texts to suggest anything but the feeble thoughts of man.
The possibility of a creator is another one of those "as old as the hlls" discussions, one that has had almost everything said about it, on either side of the fence.
I still haven't heard anyone explain to me how the threat of divine punishment doesn't qualify the Christian belief for a type of enslavement? It seems the issue of punishment has fallen out of the bible altogether? Or has the idea of divine punishment fallen out of favor, as it no longer matches modern morality (which I maintain is separate from religious morality and far more moral)?
"Actually, what I reject is the idea that humans can know the desires of a "creator". All religions claim to be divinely written and yet none possess anything within their texts to suggest anything but the feeble thoughts of man."
Now you have emitted pure opinion. If there is a Creator, and if we are to be reconcilled to Him, then it is encumbent on Him to tell us how! A study of the Bible will leave no doubt as to its authenticity. But, that is another discussion.
When your article appeared yesterday, I almost immediately began writing an article in response. I shouldn't have been surprised to return here to this long list of comments! In any case, I hope you'll read my reply:
I believe the great mistake that those who are outside of the faith of Christ is in thinking that they understand it. They never really do. In response I would like to say that it has never been an adherance to a specific list of beliefs that is what saves a person from an "unpleasant" afterlife. Rather it is a relationship with the one who can save you. Christ said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one gets to the Father but through me." Either he was telling the truth or he was not. So the main point seems to be not what you know, but who you know. :)
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-04 17:01:12
"Now you have emitted pure opinion. If there is a Creator, and if we are to be reconcilled to Him, then it is encumbent on Him to tell us how! A study of the Bible will leave no doubt as to its authenticity. "
And you have just answered my opinion, with your opinion. And your opinion was tagged with the "no doubt" phrase, which, I am sorry to say, leaves me with doubt.
creator, I tried to answer your response on your article, but after spending much time getting it just right, the text got eaten. Divine intervention? Hmmmm...
I am still wondering what happened to the idea of "going to hell" in Christian teachings? Has it fallen out of vogue? It seems to me no one wants to bring up the "punishment" side of the text. It is as if it has become the evil step child in the dark closet...
Thanks for the attempt to respond to my article... I really would like to see your response, so please try again... maybe pre-edit and then paste? :)
Absolutely worst-case, send me an email via the Lounge.... but I'm sure others would also like to see your comments. :)
Regarding "going to hell" - in the truest sense, the bible teaches that hell is not so much a "place" as the very presence of God Himself - God Who is described as "a consuming fire." While there are certainly elements of "justice" and "punishment" involved - ideas that I think fit within the purview of libertarianism when it comes to "breech of contract" - there is also the very serious question of "fitness" involved. How does one become fit to be in the presence of God?
Now try by analogy transfering the idea to a "sci-fi" scenario. Suppose, for a moment, that you wanted to visit the Sun. How would you become "fit" to stand on the surface of the Sun? Could you? I think that is perhaps a more important issue in considering the question of "hell" than simply viewing it as "punishment."
Scott, I assume by your comment that you have studied the Bible and have found it to be the feeble words of men as you put it. And this then must be the source of your doubt. Perhaps you can find the expression "going to hell" in the Bible for me.
Posted By: Jeremiah Johnson
Date: 2008-03-04 18:29:18
Scott, here ya go:
Matt. 25
"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels; For I was hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."
Also, some more for you:
Rev. 20
"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God, and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosover was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Hell (gehenna) is a derivative word with the genesis referring to the city dump outside of Jerusalem. The proper rendering in Revelation would be Hades for the place of the dead prior to the new covenant. Check your Greek concordance.
Sadly Scott from Oregon writes from ignorance. By his words, Scott shows the world that he does not know what any of these are -- Christian, God, Follower of Christ, Free Will, Religion, Self.
Scot writes: "You hear ... that America was founded on Christianity and America is "a Christian country" and that the founders were Christian...
This is ... what you'd expect from Christian folk to believe. And ... there would be elements of both truth and fiction in these statements."
TRUTH: Scott fails to tell us what are these "elements of fiction". How easy it to make a claim without any backing.
Scott writes: "Christians ... are asked to perform rituals and duties to appease this god."
TRUTH: God does not ask men to do any act.
Men who operate Businesses of Indoctrination ask that their customers perform rites and rituals You find this asked by High Priests of the Roman Catholican Church and the High Priests (Ph.D.s) at Harvard, Yale, Stanford and other Universities.
TRUTH: Scott confuses men of Organized Religi-Businesses (Ted Haggart and Jerry Falwell) with their Religion (rites, rituals to enforce membership) with Followers of Christ.
Scott writes: "[H]ow [do] Libertarian Christians reconcile their belief in "liberty" with their belief in a divine dictator?"
TRUTH: Followers of Christ do not believe God as a "divine dictator". Such expression reveals a deeply indoctrinated, childish intellect.
All Followers of Christ hold that man has Free Will.
Folks like Scott need to learn about the Germanic roots of English.
The word will is an Old English verb meaning to "to wish, desire, want" by self-acting and not by obligation [O.E. *willan, wyllan (past tense wolde), from P.Gmc. *welljan (cf. O.S. willian, O.N. vilja, O.Fris. willa, Du. willen, O.H.G. wellan, Ger. wollen, Goth. wiljan "to will, wish, desire," Goth. waljan "to choose")]
Free Will means 'free to want God or not'.
Scott writes: "The libertarian view ... says that you ... have the rights of an individual ... free to make choices and make mistakes, as an individual, and that the maximum amount of liberty is the ultimate goal. This belief is 100% diametrically opposed to the Christian belief, which asks for your total submission to an idea not your own. "Submit or eternally suffer".
Again, since Men have Free Will -- can want God or not -- Men are free to choose and to make mistakes. This is the essence of Follower of Christ belief.
Ironically, only men put rules upon other men. We give many names to that act -- government, slavery, kingdom, dictatorship, enthralling, enslaving, bonding.
God puts no rules upon men who are Followers of Christ.
(Joh 3:16) For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Posted By: Jeremiah Johnson
Date: 2008-03-04 23:06:53
DX10, I'm aware of the difference. However, Matt. 25, Luke 16, and Rev. 20 clearly speak of a place where "those not found in the book of life" would face "everlasting punishment" in "everlasting fire". And Luke 16 does use the word Hades, very much distinguished from Gehenna.
Revelation is after the new covenant has already been established. In fact, according to Hebrews, the new covenant was in force after Christ's death. Read Hebrews 8,9, and 10.
Well, since the Libertarians failed, I guess I'd better do it for them.
Scott is ASKING "How can you have liberty if a) God is Real and b) if you don't do what he says precisely you burn in Hell for all eternity".
The answer is you cannot, which is why high blown ideals have a cost. Liberty is based on the idea that there are "natural rights" and yet most of these so-called natural rights were only extant in cultures that adopted Judeo-Christian ideals.
Not Liberty, mind you. Ideals.
I won't make the rock-ignorant argument that the Bible is the source of all morality,any more than I will say the Bible is why you know not to jump off of buildings. It's obvious to most normal people that some things are evil.
What you really want, of course, is twofold:
1) The right to not have to "worship or believe". I am very non-denominational and I certainly don't attend church, nor do I throw misquoted Scripture at people, but I have my faith. It's MINE. It's between me and God and no one else. I have that right. You have the right to not believe in God. That's YOURS. What God, of course, is saying, is that the threat of ultimate punishment KEEPS you doing what's morally right and gives you a basis to live by. For someone like me -- perfect, and for Libertarians, they've concocted all SORTS of broken logic to make it somehow "fit".
As you can see from the littered replies above, it doesn't.
2) Some people just want the freedom to be evil without social stigma, which I don't think you want. Sadly, you can be evil without social stigma in many cultures regardless of religion.
It's very easy to answer your question with the simple answer:
"God created all things. If you turn from him, then you burn in Hell. Liberty is something for earth and man's governance, which is by definition imperfect. Since God is perfection and rightiousness, perfect submission to what is perfect should be no burden". You have a philosophical objection there.
The other half, "If I don't want to follow God, and he burns me in Hell, then that's using force to coerce my belief and that's against the Libertarian/Objectivist ideal, so I can't see how the two are compatible" then you have the realization that if God exists (and is perfect) then him demanding anything is fine but if you don't believe in him then RELIGION (a man's construct) demanding you live a certain way is oppression.
You could have a really, really long conversation about this with a Jesuit, if you want a more intellectual answer than anything you'll find here. But it won't satisfy you. You're an anti-religionist, and you're more interested , I feel, in driving spikes of "this doesn't fit" into the mortar of Christian faithful than answering questions for your own good.
Just to irritate your sensabilities, though, I'll pray for you.
Normally I just enjoy reading articles and the following comments without commenting myself. However, this topic made me bite :).
I have been a Christian for about ten years now. As I read the Bible, I consider myself more and more a libertarian. So, I am going to attempt to answer what I consider to be your main issue with Christians being libertarians. " 'Submit or eternally suffer' is the underlying threat and adhered-to dogma." (Note: Obviously since we are looking at what Christians believe, from here on out I assume Christianity is true.)
The real issue is the way you are looking at your statement. A statist government (Statist God?) would say do what I say or die (Actually, God wouldn't need to threaten us to get us to do what He wants. He could have just not given us free will). However, this is not at all what God is saying. In fact, if God had His way, everybody would get eternal life. The Bible says (sorry I don't remember the exact reference) that He wishes that none should perish but all would have eternal life. A statist God would make everyone have eternal life whether they wanted it or not. (I suppose, you might be able to make an issue of this theologically, but the only reason you can, is because God has already given us freedom as that is His nature. If He was a statist, He never would have given it to us.)
A picture we are often given of the church, is that of a bride. We are the bride and He is the bridegroom. In essence, if you are saved, you are choosing to marry Christ. If God was a statist, He would say, "Look, I know what's best for you. You are marrying me." Compare that to something like health insurance. A statist government would say, "Look I know what's best for you. You are getting health insurance." Regardless, of whether you want it or not, you now have it. A libertarian government would say, "I am giving you the freedom to choose whether you want to get health insurance or not." Then, you can make the choice and buy it or not. In this way, God says, "I am giving you the choice of marrying me or not." Now, as far as whether it's best for us or not, never comes into it. God knows it is best for us and desperately desires that we choose well, but that won't make Him force us to. This is why I believe libertarian ideas fit in very well with Christianity.
I could add a lot more, however, I believe this should give you an idea of why I can be both a Christian and a libertarian. (Although, a lot of this had to do with the spiritual side of freedom as opposed to the earthly side of freedom in government. It seemed to be what your real issue was)
If you continue to think that God is "coercing" you into believing in Him, there will be no way for you to agree with me. However, if you can at least see that in my eyes God is giving us the ultimate freedom with unimaginable consequences even when He knows what the best choice for us is, you'll at least understand why in one liberterian's eyes it makes sense.
Jerimiah, look carefully at Hebrews 8:13. The old had not fully passed away, but was passing away. It was a time of transistion from the old to the new covenant with the Hebrews letter emphasizing the excellency of Jesus Christ.
Revelation begins with showing things which must shortly come to pass and ends with the time is at hand. There is strong evidence that Revelation was written prior to AD70 and that all was fulfilled in the lives of the first Christians which would make sense since those folks were the recipients of the letters. Death and Hades were indeed cast into the lake of fire symbolically and are no more. When the Christian dies now, he goes directly to be with God.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-03-05 12:20:49
People will freely give all of themselves to an entity they cannot see, feel or hear based on an ancient book, yet have a very hard time giving themselves to the idea that they can rule themselves and be free. I don't get it. LIBERTY is tangible and attainable in our lifetime, as far as the story of salvation goes, we will all have to wait and see.
As an atheist, I can relate to the authors dilema, yet it is not up to him to figure out, nor judge those that choose to "subjegate themselves to dogma."
I personally have seen this subjegation first hand over the last half decade in the Middle Eat and South West Asia. Most Muslims will freely subjegate themselves to their religion, where it gets scary is when the people are too ignorant to figure anything else out. So when the Imam tells me to go blow myself up, b/c its Allahs will I am too stupid to make a rational arguement against it.We Westerners look upon these actions with horror and disdain. Yet Christians in this country are only a decades worth of the Dept of Educations meddling away from the same. You scoff at the posibility that one day Catholics could be hunting down the Methodist, but it has happened throughout the worlds history (Remember the Crusades? Salvation for killing in the name of the Church)
Regardless, LIBERTARIANISM is a political thought process which works great in the realm of politics, RELIGION is a personal venture at least for now unless we become a theocracy, so it is essentially a non-issue here.
Posted By: Jeremiah Johnson
Date: 2008-03-05 12:38:52
DX10,
Hebrews 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
26 ... but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Clearly the testator is Christ and the new testament(same greek word as covenant) was in force after his death. If he is dead at the time this was written, then the new covenant was in force.
Also, there is no documentation of the prophecies given in Revelation happening yet. When they happen, it won't be like Nostradamus's vague poetry where people say, "Was it this or was it that?" People will know very well when these things have taken place. The New Jerusalem has not come down yet. The heaven and earth have not passed away yet(2 Peter 3:10,12).
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-05 12:48:35
"As an atheist, I can relate to the authors dilema, yet it is not up to him to figure out, nor judge those that choose to "subjegate themselves to dogma." "
Ummmm..... yes it is. For you see, religious dogma has rallied and gathered and is having a measurable impact on elections in America (and they do so unabashedly). John McCain just touted an endorsemen by a pastor of some mega-church, and George W. arguable won the presidency both times on the strength of the Evangelical, Christian vote.
And since I have a family member with two tours of Iraq duty now over with, I can claim religion has had a negative impact on my life. The trouble with religious folks is that they want it both ways. Freedom to worship without interference, while simultaneously interfering in the lives of those who prefer a more rational and logical and truth and evidence driven existence.
Religion wants to run amuck out of the box and then wants to be off put by those who would like to box it back up.
A "personal relationship" with any spirtuality is fine by me and would be tolerated with a gentle smile and a nod.
A political movement based on fallacious claims? I don't think so...
Jerimiah, as with all wills, there is the death of the testator, the reading of the will (Col 1:23) and probate of the will. Probate occured in AD70. (Matt 24)
Check out When Jerusalem Fell by Gentry. Very scholarly and a good read.
Much more could be advanced concerning this discussion, but this is probably not the right place, so I will suspend further comment. Best regards.
Posted By: Jeremiah Johnson
Date: 2008-03-05 14:11:46
Scott: "A political movement based on fallacious claims? I don't think so..."
The Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowned by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,"
"We therefore... appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;"
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
I'm glad they didn't think these were fallacious claims, or we may find ourselves still bowing to the Crown of England.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-05 14:42:31
"Scott: "A political movement based on fallacious claims? I don't think so..."
The Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowned by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,"
"We therefore... appealing to the Supreme Judge ...."
Ummmm, nowhere in these statements do I see any reference to the bible or its texts. In fact, I notice a glaring absence of such.
It was common for the intellectual class of that era to eschew religion, but not the idea of god. Lacking the science we now possess, it was, in essence, "the best they could do".
The belief in a creator is a far cry from believing in the text of the bible, or the koran, or any other book concocted by humans and sold as "knowledge of the wishes of THE creator".
In this day and age, the argument for and against an intelligent source behind the universe is still valid and rages onward, but the argument that the bible is the ultimate reference source of that intelligence has been long dispelled by scientific inquiry. The earth is not six million years old, it wasn't created in seven days, there was no ark, nor a flood, man does not ride around in the belly of whales, births are not virginal, there are no angels, satan is a concoction, humans did not crawl out of their graves and dance in Jerusalem, dead people don't "rise" after being dead for three days, seas do not simply "part", and so on and so forth.
Why humans have the need (in all cultures) to hold some form of religious belief (usually used to appease the fear of death and answer the mystery of life) is a great question worth exploring.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are both intellectually miraculous documents, but they too, must be viewed within the vagaries and understandings of their time...
Remember "All men are created equal" (labeled a self-evident truth) did not include all men, and excluded women.
Evolving morality has corrected that over a period of centuries.
Scott, It was 6000 years, it was created in 6 days, there was an ark, there was a flood (much evidence), the Bible never said Jonah rode in a whale, there was only one virgin birth, there are angels, Satan is real, the Bible never said folks crawled out of the grave and danced in Jerusalem, Christ rose on the third day, and the Bible did not say that the Red Sea simply parted, but rather the Lord prepared a wind to part it.
Your knowledge of the Bible is superficial. And, all this discussion about religion revolves around a word that is hardly found in the Bible. In the Greek it pertains to the outward form of rituals. These hardly exist for the Christian as James says, "Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unspotted from the world."
Posted By: Jeremiah Johnson
Date: 2008-03-05 17:25:13
Scott: "Evolving morality has corrected that over a period of centuries."
"Evolving morality"? Why do you even support Ron Paul if you believe in such a ludicrous idea as this? I guess if our nation's morality is evolving, then we've never been better then we are now. Yet crime is up; inequality continues to rise; and school scores are lower then they've ever been. It was the Old Testament where Israel was against slavery. It was the Old and New Testament where we find woman being treated as more then just property. Woman were given an equal place in the New Testament church as man.
This "evolving morality" just doesn't exist in the universe we live in. Ask any employer if they believe in that dogma. You don't need a Ph. D. to see that morality is on the decline and has been for a long time. "Evil men shall wax worse and worse, decieving and being decieved."
Well, morality is evolving, just as Scott says. Unfortunately it is evolving into immorality if one accepts the concept of objective morality. Scott's concensus morality is on the march to eliminate us all. According to Fox News and others, environmentalist Toni Vernelli aborted (killed) her child because it is immoral to bring a child into the world and increase the carbon footprint. Of course the logical extension of this new concensus morality is for all of us to commit suicide. We could do this volutarily, or wait for Congress to pass a law. Of course they would exclude themselves. Dr. Strangelove all over again.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
