so create a libertarian god is useful
to do this we must, cherry pick from existing gods, edit existing gods, or create manmade gods .
we can create a “make your own god” website.
we have self proclaimed fundamentalists that say those that don’t accept that god has ordered violations of libertarian values have cherry picked, or edited god.
You can’t hang gods off of eachother. Either the one or the other dies.
If one principle cannot stand in the presense of an opposing principle then one principle is not followed. It doesn’t matter from which premise the principle arises, only which principle has the bigger stick. So to speak.
Welcome to the human condition.
While creating a libertarian religion might be useful, it really is not necessary, especially in a stateless society. Religion is just a system of beliefs and ethics. Just because someone says they are, for example, Christian, does not mean that they do not break one of the Ten Commandments or the Golden Rule. So in a similar manner, just because someone says they believe in, for example, your created libertarian god, does not mean that they won’t violate the NAP.
Really, the bigger issue, I think, is collectivism. There are religious people that act very collectivist-minded. Perhaps this is how the Crusades began. One guy says “We should go kill those other guys that believe in that other religion that are in the holy land because God told me to!” and then others were like “Well, shoot, I believe in the same religion as that guy, so I’m with him!”
Its just like political collectivism. Some poor person says “We should raise taxes on the 1% because we are entitled to take their money if we pass those laws!” and then others say, “Well, shoot, I’m not part of the 99% so therefore, I’m with that guy!”
Collectivism is individuals choosing to act as a group instead of thinking for themselves and deciding what the best course of action for them, individually, is. This is the probably one of the biggest causes of violations of rights and the by far, the biggest causes of war, in history. Blaming religion for war is similar, in my opinion, to blaming guns for murder. It is individuals that do these things, and in the case of war, it’s individuals giving into collectivism.
I don’t think religious and non-religious people can live together peacefully unless the religious people are not prostletizing.
Really, the bigger issue, I think, is collectivism.
Collectivism is individuals choosing to act as a group instead of thinking for themselves and deciding what the best course of action for them, individually, is.
Agreed, but I have little faith that the majority of human beings can think for themselves.
…call me a misanthrope.
Man is a herd animal. Trying to change man’s nature is utopian. Better that we recognize the reality of the situation and use it to our advantage; if men won’t think for themselves, then at least make sure that the icons they venerate mindlessly are liberal icons.
I don’t think religious and non-religious people can live together peacefully unless the religious people are not prostletizing.
That entirely depends on whether the proselityzing is peaceful persuation or forcible conversation.
collectivism is part of religion, or i’m not sure of many that reject collectivism.
the commandment to honer thy father seems to be that a person should be honered not by virture or choice, but by genetics.
perhaps it can work to focus on “don’t throw the first stone and let god sort things out when we die”.
another element that could work is “god gave me this land, but i have to trade or obtain it from you peacefully, if you choose not to trade with me peacefully, i will let you go and optain land elsewhere, but god will judge you when you die”
right now i do have the feeling that people use “god told me to do X, god will punish me if i don’t do X, god tells me you are on land you don’t own and god will punish me if i do not fight for the land that god has given me, therefore i must defend the land from your occupation in order to obey god”.
someone homesteads some land, then another comes along and says the land belongs to them by order of god and that it’s a sin to not defend the land from the homesteaders agression against gods judgement.
I don’t think collectivism is essential to religion, especially not all religions. Christ taught that you don’t need churh to have a relationship to God. And he basically gave as his only command, the Golden Rule.
A great paper on how to interpret Christ as coming to call men to liberty, and to embrace voluntarism and anarcho-capitalism and reject the state. Please give it a shot.
Now, I will grant that some people will remain aggressive, but that cannot be changed by force, and to do so would be anti-libertarian anyway. I think a key to getting people to reject collectivism and statism is spreading the ideas of liberty and free markets. It might not work for all peoples, but it surely couldn’t hurt. (;
ok the paper says the vast majority of people calling themselves Christians are actually being manipulated and falling into satins trap and are not true Christians. alright
people are encouraged to share that not believing in god will send them to hell, that only by volunteering to love god, can we be saved through gods grace through our voluntary faith.
one cannot be mandated to pay for a church, one can only voluntarily pay for a church, if one does not voluntarily pay for a church, one will go to hell? thus to go to heaven it’s mandatory to pay for a church? perhaps I’m missing this and it’s only saying it’s mandatory to pay god love to go to heaven and that no material good need to be transferred on earth?
so all we have to do to be with god, is to voluntarily give our love, but we go to hell should we choose to voluntarily not give god our love? is that a real choice, or are we essentially mandated to voluntarily give god love as the alternative is a absurd choice?
seems to be saying that choosing to reject god is choosing to aggress against god and violate libertarian principles, therefor hell is gods defensive response to people that aggress against god. hell is also the place where deceived people go and people are punished for their own deception or ignorance dispute the fact they would have chosen god and to love god voluntarily if they knew the truth.
seems the victim gets the same punishment as the victimizer, they both go to hell
I’m not sure how big the “Christ is against the state of Israel and does not recognize it’s sovereignty” movement is, but it seems ok if it grows
Robert p murphy is a christian i think? Im a christian too, though it is hard sometimes. Its not what you DO, persay, its also about faith/belief, and because of your faithit is given that you will do good works. Good works dont come first, its the belief/faith in jesus, and because you love jesus you do good works.
It makes sense right? If you have faith it is a given that you do good works. Which is why faith without works is dead.
I dont see how christianity is against NAP, it follows it. While christians are called to spread the word of God, it is not geniuine if we FORCE people to believe, (for what is belief if it is forced?).
Alot of heat comes from the homosexuality issue; i dont know why many people diss christians for hating homosexuals, but from what ive seen alot of people at my church think homosexuality is wrong, but dont hate on gay people.
heterosexuality can be just as wrong as Homosexuality- both of them can bring about lust and corruption too.
As for the issue of collectivism, yes i see your point, but it gets weird if christianity is split into so many different branches- catholic, orthodox, protestant, then under protestant you have, evnagelica, baptist, lutheran, etc etc etc)
something about christianity is it seems each denomination says all the other ones are false and doing the work of satan and will go to hell.
the newist one is the one i see today saying jesus is a anarch capitalist. it says any support of a state is satans work and people will go to hell if they support a a state on earth. what about isreal and the kings isreal had and the governments in jewish history? these were all satanic? moses government was satanic? king david was satanic?
in the ot it seems like families were killed for rejecting god and a state on earth with moses. in the new testament that people go to hell for not voluntarily loving and having faith in jesus.
so i watched that video
it does not explain why there have been governments in jewish history if god is against governments, god has apointed governments in the bible. either god has appointed government on earth, or jewish history is filled with satans deception including moses.
the video also comes to different conclusions in events from the article, the article says the richest were bad because they were theives, this video talked about it being to obey god without calling the rich man a criminal who got rich by theft.
the video says men cause problems, the article says satan causes men to cause problems
the video says things would be legal, but sinful, i thought libertarianism was was all that is moral is legal and ok and only the immoral would be illegal?
saying that’s bad , so i won’t associete with the person, seems different from saying the person will go to hell because they did something legal but immoral. while the person is not personaly using a threat, they are saying that the threat is from god, and god will deal with the sin that was legal on this earth by punishment in the afterlife
in the video it seems he says that a anarch capitalist view of the bible is not a fundamentalist view, so what is there to say the view is not cherry picking and creating evidence to fit a conclusion?
give ceasar what is ceasars, but nothing belongs to ceasar because ceasar stole the money and the position, but what about moses or other jewish governments?
what about this 2 Chronicles 24:9
And proclamation was made throughout Judah and Jerusalem to bring in for the LORD the tax that Moses the servant of God laid on Israel in the wilderness.
the verse says that moses was both appointed by god to be a servant of god and collect taxes from the people in the state of isael. sounds like a government that taxed with gods authority to me. was moses appointed by god or by satan? did moses do the work of god or satan? or is moses a legend made up for a cause? jesus as a legend made up for a cause? god as a legend made up for a cause? satan as a legend made up for a cause?
if god wanted anarch capitalism, he could have done that through more works on anarch capitalism, right now i’m still wondering why god would choose a people with a certain genetic code to be his people and lead them through wars and slavery and give them promised land and then to call that ancap? it sounds more like a jewish legend to give reason for the jews to have the land through tribal conquest and non ancap methods.
would not ancap mean a rejection of the concept of a state or nation called isrial and the collective that would be ownership through genetic code by gods will? with moses, those that did not want to follow what god said to moses, were killed, they were not given freedom to leave and form their own society, they were not allowed secession, and this included the infants of parents that chose to not follow moses to kill even the bloodlines.
i will give that god and jesus was against the roman government, but i still question that god and jesus was against a isrial or jewish government, as god created isriel and jewish governments,. if god supoorts ancap, were there jewish kings such as king david? this is of course if the writings are true and not legends created by man.
“That entirely depends on whether the proselityzing is peaceful persuation or forcible conversation.”
I think even so called peaceful persuation would be unacceptable a definitely considerred harassment and an attempt to con people out of money to atheists.
do we have any links from jewish religion or muslim religion about god being a ancap? i find it strange god would supposedly go 4000 years before telling people that he does not approve of any government on earth after creating governments with rules, regulations, and taxes and killing dissenters for 4000 years. we have 2000 more years of governments with rules, regulations, taxes, so it looks like christians did not get the memo if they are supposed to be ancap/
heres a site that aparently has the full content of the site owner’s books available. He’s a Christian anarchist.
For the record, my statement that you quoted should read conversion not conversation: typo. I tried to edit it, it didn’t work apparently.
I think even so called peaceful persuation would be unacceptable a definitely considerred harassment
It’s harassment to try to peacefully convince someone of something? Is that just for religion or does it also apply to politics, art, or any other subjects that people might disagree on? If society can only function when everyone agrees on everything, and there’s no debate about anything, then society is doomed anyway.
and an attempt to con people out of money to atheists.
Why would an attempt at persuasion be viewed as an attempt to con people out of money? I don’t follow. Now, if you’re saying that some people might try to con others out of money in the name of religion, well that’s probably true. But some people will also try to con people out of money for a variety of non-religious reasons. I don’t see what’s special about religious conmen, or why their presence makes it impossible for society to be harmonious.
in one of the prefaces, the guy calls himself agnostic
http://www.simpleliberty.org/giaa/a_brief_statement.htm
they guy says he is a anarchist and reads the bible through a anarchist perspective and anarchist bias.
he seems to say things don’t exist simply because he says so, simple saying “there are no examples in the bible of X” does not prove there aren’t.
with verses like this, it sounds hard to believe that god promoted self government, if god asks wives to submit to husbands.that requires one person be dominant and the other subdominant.
this is also a case of collective punishment, god punishes mankind for the actions of adam and eve. if not, women die today from childbirth, so what exactly was eve’s punishiment that made childbirth harder for her than any other woman if it was not a collective punishment on women?
King James Version (KJV)
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Genesis
16 To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.
saying a husband will rule over the wife hardly sounds like self government.
if anarchy is the lack of a ruler, how can a husband rule over the wife, and how can they both be self governed?
another question i have is about the 10 commandments. there were many more than 10 laws in Jewish states. it says there were 613 in the link below
To circumcise the male offspring (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3) (CCA47)
how is that law of circumcising male offspring self governed anarchy where the child get’s the choice of being circumcised or not?
if we go do unto others, i would not want to circumcise a infant, and i would not want to be circumcised as a infant. how does the infant give consent to be circumcised?
There were no airplanes in bible times. Airplanes and computers are not mentioned in the bible.
Being a christian i guess i should burn down my computer and not fly airplanes.
Slavery was ok in bible times, and women were treated worse than men.
I guess I being the believer in the bible, should find nothing wrong with enslaving a person, and beating women whenever i want to.
In bible times, there were no guns. I guess if god didnt create guns in the bible times, that today i being a christian should not ever ever touch a gun.
In bible times, there was no constitutional government, no presidents, no congress. I guess I being a christian should think that because god didnt create constitutional government back then, that it is satanic (though I being an an-cap think that the government does great evil yes, but not because it didnt exist during bible times).
There were no cellphones back in bible times, i guess i should throw away cellphones because jews at that time didnt have them.
If there is a future medicine, lets say a cure for cancer is found, i guess since during the bible times, there was no cure for cancer that we should oppose all cure for cancer just because it didnt exist back then.
Cab21- Anarchy is the lack of government. In an anarchy you can still have leaders, so long as you join them voluntarily (as it is in a marriage, church, or any club etc)
Cab21- you cite the Women submit yourselves to your husbands, yet you do not cite the part where (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5%3A22-33&version=NIV):
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
Ephesians 5^^^^
While wives are called to submit to their husbands, husbands are called to love their wives to the point where you would die for your wife, and to love your wife as yourself.
Cab21- For circumcision i guess youd have to ask an ancap jew.
I’d like to put out Christian theology is not absolute (only to the Christian) and was written for and by a specific group of people. Not sure why quoting 2,000 + year old Jewish myth and folklore would be relevant to modern to North American political systems. If it’s a battle of who’s scripture is superior why don’t we quote the Upanishads and Baghavad Gita and call it a day.