Stefan Molyneux

[ryanpatgray]

@Niccolò

Yes, Molyneux is the type that when asked about Immanuel Kant, replies with some anti-Christian joke - confusing Immanuel with Emmanuel.

Molyneux talks in a free-flow style which is actually one of the things I like about his podcasts. His early podcasts were recordings he made while driving. He goes off topic quite often and I find it charming. It gives his podcasts a more human nature. take a listen if you do not believe me. You can find them at www.freedomainradio.com

[jimbojr]

Niccolo, you certainly seem to spend a lot of time thinking and writing about someone you consider to be so much in error. I wonder why that is so?

[MacFall]

@Nasikabatrachus

If I may present my understanding of his argument:

1. Chrisitans follow the moral edicts of the Bible

2. The Bible, in the new testament specifically, prescribes violence against non-Christians

3. From 1 and 2, Christians who follow the moral edicts of the Bible consistently should advocate violence against non-Christians

And hence he derives the conclusion that Christians cannot be anarchists, since anarchists oppose aggressive violence on principle, a subset of which is religion-based aggression.

That’s basically correct.

I think this discussion should be best continued after finding the piece of scripture that he actually cites as evidence for this argument, no?

That’s problematic, because it does not exist. There is no advocation for violence, except in self defense, in the New Testament. It is made clear in the NT that the law of the Old Testament - the law that demanded blood for sin - no longer applies; that’s the whole point of Christian doctrine. A consistent Christian can NEVER advocate violence against non-aggressors. When Molyneux claims that Christians who don’t follow the Old Testament literally are not “true Christians”, he is displaying a great deal of ignorance.

[MacFall]

@ryanpatgray

The COST, in this case is not violence but shedding personal delusions.

People who are willing to die for their faith will most likely only be silenced through violence. Final, fatal violence. If one expects to purge faith from humanity, one had better be willing to kill a whole lot of people.

Personally, I prefer the consistently libertarian idea of “live and let live”.

[ryanpatgray]

@MacFall

@ryanpatgray

The COST, in this case is not violence but shedding personal delusions.

People who are willing to die for their faith will most likely only be silenced through violence. Final, fatal violence. If one expects to purge faith from humanity, one had better be willing to kill a whole lot of people.

He is not a colectivist. He is working on an individual level, not a “whole society level”.

@MacFall

Personally, I prefer the consistently libertarian idea of “live and let live”.

Which is Molyneux’s position.

[ryanpatgray]

@MacFall

That’s problematic, because it does not exist. There is no advocation for violence, except in self defense, in the New Testament.

I have emailed you a place where there is.

[MacFall]

@ryanpatgray

@MacFall

Personally, I prefer the consistently libertarian idea of “live and let live”.

Which is Molyneux’s position.

I know that. But he doesn’t speak that way. He uses collectivist reasoning to attack people of faith, describes us as statists, and says that we must be silenced “at any cost”. That’s a dangerous way of putting things.

[MacFall]

@ryanpatgray

@MacFall

That’s problematic, because it does not exist. There is no advocation for violence, except in self defense, in the New Testament.

I have emailed you a place where there is.

You emailed me irrelevant Old Testament laws.

[ryanpatgray]

@MacFall

@ryanpatgray

@MacFall

That’s problematic, because it does not exist. There is no advocation for violence, except in self defense, in the New Testament.

I have emailed you a place where there is.

You emailed me irrelevant Old Testament laws.

It was not my intention to cite Bible scripture in this forum (it is supposed to be about economics) which is why I initially responded off the board. But, since you press the issue. Here goes:

Mark:

7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

[ryanpatgray]

@MacFall

@ryanpatgray

@MacFall

Personally, I prefer the consistently libertarian idea of “live and let live”.

Which is Molyneux’s position.

I know that. But he doesn’t speak that way. He uses collectivist reasoning to attack people of faith, describes us as statists, and says that we must be silenced “at any cost”. That’s a dangerous way of putting things.

He does not use colectivist reasoning. A person who claims to hold a particular set of beliefs should logically be assumed to hold the set of beliefs that they claim to hold. Again, he does not descibe you as a statist. Silenced? Where does he say silenced?

[MacFall]

It was not my intention to cite Bible scripture in this forum (it is supposed to be about economics) which is why I initially responded off the board. But, since you press the issue. Here goes:

Mark:

7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

This is the General forum. I understand we’re allowed to discuss non-economic issues here; if I’m wrong I’m sure the mods will tell me so.

As I pointed out in my return email, if one cares to look at this passage in context, Jesus is quite clearly and deliberately nullifying the Old Testament blood laws.

He does not use colectivist reasoning. A person who claims to hold a particular set of beliefs should logically be assumed to hold the set of beliefs that they claim to hold.

He claims that all Christians believe what only an extreme minority of Christians actually believe, throwing in all Christians into his definition of the GROUP.

Again, he does not descibe you as a statist.

He describes Christian doctrine as necessarily statist, and proclaims that all “true” Christians follow said doctrine. Simple deduction says that he considers Christians to be statists.

Silenced? Where does he say silenced?

Sorry; “cured”. That doesn’t invoke the idea of persons of faith voluntarily becoming atheists.

[jimbojr]

What does Jesus mean here?

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

[ryanpatgray]

@MacFall

This is the General forum. I understand we’re allowed to discuss non-economic issues here; if I’m wrong I’m sure the mods will tell me so.

Fine with me.

@MacFall

As I pointed out in my return email, if one cares to look at this passage in context, Jesus is quite clearly and deliberately nullifying the Old Testament blood laws.

They were discussing PURITY laws. Besides, if he is supposed to be the Messiah based upon the Old Testament doesn’t invalidating the old testament also invalidate his claim to be the Messiah? Here is the passage in context:

@Mark

Mark 77:1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from . 7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 7:12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. 7:14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. 7:17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

@MacFall

He claims that all Christians believe what only an extreme minority of Christians actually believe, throwing in all Christians into his definition of the GROUP.

His point is that to be consistent one would have to believe those things.

@MacFall

He describes Christian doctrine as necessarily statist

Not in the same sense. It has a statist structure. What you think of when you hear the terms “king” or “kingdom”. The word “lord” is a political term is Elizabethan English.

@MacFall

Silenced? Where does he say silenced?

Sorry; “cured”. That doesn’t invoke the idea of persons of faith voluntarily becoming atheists.

Really? I do not know about you but I have never been sent to the doctor’s office at the point of a gun.

[MacFall]

@jimbojr

What does Jesus mean here?

What he said.

[MacFall]

@ryanpatgray

They were discussing PURITY laws.

They were discussing THE LAW OF MOSES. With the exception of the 10 commandments, ALL the law found between the books of Genesis and Joshua is invoked under the concept of תורה, or “tawrah”, usually mistransliterated as “torah”. There’s no difference in kind between the laws of cleanliness and familial laws under תורה.

Besides, if he is supposed to be the Messiah based upon the Old Testament doesn’t invalidating the old testament also invalidate his claim to be the Messiah?

He didn’t “invalidate” the Old Testament. He fulfilled the law of the Old Testament, making its demands inapplicable to followers of His covenant. He also fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament.

@MacFall

He describes Christian doctrine as necessarily statist

Not in the same sense. It has a statist structure. What you think of when you hear the terms “king” or “kingdom”. The word “lord” is a political term is Elizabethan English.

I refer to his claims that “true” Christians follow Mosaic law - which is statist.

@MacFall

Sorry; “cured”. That doesn’t invoke the idea of persons of faith voluntarily becoming atheists.

Really? I do not know about you but I have never been sent to the doctor’s office at the point of a gun.

The mentally ill often are. Molyneux holds that believers are mentally ill - he says that right out. Now, as I’ve said, I know that he doesn’t believe in forcing people to become atheists. But the language he uses does not manifest that belief. Read the phrase again: “God fever… must be cured at any cost”. At best, that is a very… irresponsible way of putting it.

Frankly, I’m amused by people who want to “cure” me of the very conviction that drives me to agree with them on nearly everything else. But I find it somewhat insulting that people who don’t even share my faith try to tell me what I am and am not allowed to hold in my faith. That’s about as paternalistic as one can get without passing a law.

[Niccolo]

@ryanpatgray

Molyneux talks in a free-flow style which is actually one of the things I like about his podcasts. His early podcasts were recordings he made while driving. He goes off topic quite often and I find it charming. It gives his podcasts a more human nature. take a listen if you do not believe me. You can find them at www.freedomainradio.com

I know. I’ve listened to a great deal of Molyneux’s podcasts and read most of his books and blog entries.

[Niccolo]

@jimbojr

Niccolo, you certainly seem to spend a lot of time thinking and writing about someone you consider to be so much in error. I wonder why that is so?

Because opposition to that which is incorrect is important?

[y2tim]

Here is one passage that advocates the killing of non-believers, from Acts 3:

3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

3:23 seems to me to say that if you don’t believe in Jesus Christ you should be killed.

[ryanpatgray]

@MacFall

He didn’t “invalidate” the Old Testament. He fulfilled the law of the Old Testament, making its demands inapplicable to followers of His covenant. He also fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament.

So, you do not have to follow any parts of the Old Testament except the the parts that we say because they justify our power. It sounds like a politition who ignores those parts of the constitution that they don’t like and insists on following other parts of the constitution when it is politically convenient.

@MacFall

The mentally ill often are. Molyneux holds that believers are mentally ill - he says that right out. Now, as I’ve said, I know that he doesn’t believe in forcing people to become atheists. But the language he uses does not manifest that belief. Read the phrase again: “God fever… must be cured at any cost”. At best, that is a very… irresponsible way of putting it.

If it sounds that way it is only because you have been conditioned to expect governments to do that sort of thing.

@MacFall

Frankly, I’m amused by people who want to “cure” me of the very conviction that drives me to agree with them on nearly everything else. But I find it somewhat insulting that people who don’t even share my faith try to tell me what I am and am not allowed to hold in my faith. That’s about as paternalistic as one can get without passing a law.

Let us assume that you met someone on the street who told you that he believed that Moby Dick was the literal word of God. You ask him

"So, you believe that there really was whaling ship named The Pequad?”

“No, of course I don’t believe that. don’t be silly.”

“But you take Moby Dick literally?”

“Yes.”

“OK. But you do believe that Ishmael’s life was saved by floating on Queequeg’s coffin after the ship sank?”

“No, how dare you tell me what I believe!”

“But I thought you said you took Moby Dick as the literal word of God?”

Edit: once again an innocent word has been censored. In case you don’t get it from the context i am refering to a novel by Herman Melville.

[jason4liberty]

3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Actually, I think this is not a statement about corporeal death. It specifically states “soul”. It looks to me like the “people” are those who ascend to heaven, and those destroyed are those that don’t.

I think that it is also interesting that many of those who sacrificed selflessly against state power did so through because of a Christian ethic. The Englishman who prosecuted Charles I did it because he searched his soul and felt a religious duty to do so. Faith can give one courage that logic can not.

I am also curious why anyone who advocates anarchism would try and demand that someone else must be cut from society at any cost, if indeed that someone else only wants to believe what they believe and go about their life. The “problem” isn’t being Christian, it is violently forcing your belief on others. Convincing is ok, violence is not.

Is there a difference between ethics and morality? Ethics leads me to believe that I can do what I want, as long as I do not infringe on the liberty of others (murder, robbery, etc). Morality leads me to also refrain from adultery, prostitution, drunkedness, etc. I won’t violently force my morality on you, but I will demand that you honor my ethics. Are the two complementary, or exclusive?