Well, ^^^
I was trying to correct cab21.
He makes a crucial mistake in only pointing out the submit to wives part of the bible, and he ignores the part where the husband must also love his wife.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Well, the only time I read the Bible is when I'm drunk and quoting/yelling passages from Deuteronomy and Leviticus.
Being pro government is not something that christians are always advocating.
What if the government outlawed religion and any belief of god?
What would the pro government christians then do?
Go against the government, ignore what it says.
So christians dont have to be pro government.
there is a difference between pro government, and condoning specific governments. a Christian can be pro follow gods laws, and be governed by god.
ignoring a government that bans religion is not anti government, just anti abolishing religion. it would not make them reject to be governed by the laws of god.
pro government does not need to mean condoning anything posible a government could do.
http://www.simpleliberty.org/essays/what_is_liberty.htm
anarchy is self government- what about gods law?
anarchy means no rulers- what about gods rule?
anarchy means no individual is superiar to another- what about god being superiar to humans?
anarchy means voluntary association? what about killing those who chose not to follow god? some of the death in the bible is direct from god, so no humans to blame for taking the name of god in vain.
anarchy is not force or coercion- what about direct death from god for not believing in god?
i know some Christians teach the that god created a hierarchy. god-husband-wife-child. the god is the ultimate authority, the husband submits to god, but has authority over the wife and child. the wife submits to the husband and god, and the child submits to the god, the husband, and the wife. none of the humans have the option here of not being governed by god, at least without the consequence of going to hell.
the husband loving the wife does not make the wife's submission less, nor does it make both the husband and wifes submission to god a equal playing field. man could be killed by god for trying to be equal.
god gives a legal system for people to live by, and in the end, god makes the choices of who goes where and how people are punished. that seems to put god as the ruler of humans.
what kind of meaning is there to voluntary love if rejecting to give voluntary love ends us in hell or gets us killed rather than left to go our own way?
god has, according to the books, directly killed infants of people that had not even made a convenant with god. was killing the first born of egypt something compatable with ancap?
It makes sense that if you dont love god, then why be with god. Therefore hell is the place without god so it makes sense for one to go there.
Heaven is the place where god dwells, so if one does not love god then why go to heaven?
A christian can believe in an anarcho capitalist society, because governments today are ruled by men, and therefore the government is not perfect. Because of this, i want abolishion of the state, (taxation, stealing, etc, etc).
Anarchy is self rule, but that does not mean that i cant follow someone else's rule. As long as i dont FORCE someone else into doing it.
For example in an anarchist society, you still have to follow rules of others when using other's property, etc, etc.
I guess that ill make my self different and be an anarchist and against the rule of MAN.
But i will submit to the rule of God.
Im sure that can still fly.
Im sure God is probably not an anarchist, in terms of Rule. That does not mean that a christian cannot be an anarchist against the rule of MAN.
I can still want to have a ruler, but i being an anarchist dont want rule by MAN, i want rule by God; which is yet to come.
The bible says to not steal, yet that is what we see something that ALL governments do: Tax (steal), so government here does not fit the bible's description. Bible says to not murder, yet we see something in which ALL governments do: murder (wars etc).
Anarchy is not always No force and No coercion. You must use force to defend yourself. When people say that anarchy means no force or coercion they mean aggression. I cannot use force to attack someone else, but i can use force to defend myself if needed.
Sure, the husband loving the wife does not make the wife's submission any LESS, but the husband loving the wife makes her submission justifiable.
God is the ruler of humans, yes then why justify a state run by MAN?
I don't believe in God and I'm not going to hell.
^^ It is not my position to judge you.
I judge as humanly possible. No god of mine decreed I couldn't.
god says hell is punishment for being deceived by satan , so god punishes victoms of crimes in the same way god punishes the criminal.
mabye this will make the difference. is hell simply being without god and ceasing to exist, or is hell a punishment where people will eternaly suffer for being the victom of a crime against them?
yes, against the rule of man can be consistant with bible, not not against the rule of god.
how can someone be self-governed and god-governed at the same time? that man can only be governed by god seems more consistant with only one master, god, rather then the self as master.
a government can be run entirly by voluntary donations, gods kindgom would be run through voluntary love for god, as gods payment is voluntary faith and voluntary love. god's government is the only one that can run without material, but government's on earth can be entirly voluntarily donated do and allow people to leave at will.
by no force or coercian, i think the guy meant agression and initiation. seems like god says that by our very birth we are agression against god and can only be saved through his grace, a punishment for something we did not do, but a punishment for something our ancesters did.
the bible says do not murder, yet god directly killed the first born infants to make a political point as part of a war. it may be the most brutal example of the golden rule, but the infants were killed by god directly for something they did not do, but something other people did.
love makes a man ruler justified. but i thought there were supposed to be no man rulers over other people?
a lack of a Man ruler does not really make it anarchy if there is a divine god ruler. sort of makes it GODarchy instead of MANarchy
who is there to carry out gods punishment for people that break a contract with god, can a man do it or can only god do it? can we be judged on earth or only when we die?setting up a voluntary church justice system is still haveing the judgement of man, with the judgement of man being tainted.
does this mean that a christian ancap person would not honer the court of a athiest ancap person should the christian ancap violate the athiest ancap? that can create a war right there.
I think you might be taking it too far. As far as private court of atheists vs christians, it doesnt matter as you have to consent to going to the same court as the other person (contractual agreement).
Hell is the place without God, and eternal punishment......
But its not my position to judge you where you will go.
How can a person be self governed and god governend at the same time?
Then youre treading through the free will vs predestination argument.
I think its a bit of both. Theres no denying that God gives us free will, and no denying that God can forsee the future.
Or God can control every aspect of our lives and it is our illusion that we have free will (though this is not biblically correct, because in the bible there gives references to both predestination AND freewill of humans, i personally think its a little of both).
I have yet to see.
Is killing the same as murder?
If you want more info you can visit: carm.org
http://carm.org/if-predestination-true-then-how-can-there-be-free-will
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.
Yes, especially when certain tactics are used under the guise of peaceful persuation.
When a church rings its bells for mass at 9am while people are tryning to sleep its harassment.
When people come knocking on your door trying to convert you I consider it harassment.
When you have people hanging posts of dead babies on the sidewalk in front of abortion clinics its harassment though "peaceful". You think that peaceful persuation might affect business?
And many people think junk mail of all kinds is harassment, and church pamphlets fall under this as well.
You also have to realize that to many atheists, trying to convince someone of a religion is like trying to convince someone that the world is flat. It is not a positions to be respected, to many atheists. In other words, it is not seen a point of view but a straight up lie.
I have the same aversion to girl scouts and travelling salesman knocking on my door as I do to jehovahs witnesses and baptists (around here). These so called peaceful tactics, while they don't involve violence are still annoying at best. Its like a child who holds his finger 1/2 inch from your face and says "im not touching you" Yes, he is peaceful but he is still instigating.
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.
The reason this attempt is even being made, in the eyes of the hethens, is to get people to convert so that they can patronize a church. I don't know of any churches of any denomination that do not call for a tithe. And so to many people outside the scope of religion, it is a giant money making scam. So that you can follow the logic: Get people to convert>get people to come to the church> get people to tithe. Actually, the really good preachers can get people to give them money right over the phone. Good for them. They willingly turn to the channel and buy into it. Keep it all out of my face and stay away from me with it completely. One must understand that many people feel as strongly opposed to religion as to the state and some see them as one and the same.
Furthermore, I am not against only religious conmen, but any conmen, but that is beyond the scope of my comment.
None of the examples above take into the account the unending campaign the religious people have to get their propaganda spread everywhere form tv to internet to textbooks and school programs. I serious doubt religious people will just stop trying to gain power and push their view on people suince there is a very logn history of them doign just that in almost every society on the planet.
Maybe, it can be done... some mormons, jews, and some other sects keep to themselves for the most part. Maybe they can live at peace with others but not most religious sects I see in the world today. As a note, this forum software doe snto work for me and so spellcheck is broken.
I dont know where youre getting the money conning thing. I know that there are bogus preachers that only want money (joel osteen perhaps?) but many churches dont force you to give. And when they do ask you to give, they only ask you to give how much you think you need to give.
Its only rational to give money to the church if you attend it to keep it running right?
so two people, one athiest, one christian, no previus contact or contract. the christian steals from the athiest, does that mean the athiest must now have the christian sign a contract and they will go to a mutualy acceptable court? what if the christian will not sign the contract and denies the theft? does it mean the athiest could talk to the christains about the theft and the christians would go and try the theif according to the contracts the theif had signed with other christians?
so the apologetics say child killing is ok if the parents are immoral?
http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/why-did-israelites-destroy-cities-and-kill-all-people-inside
http://carm.org/questions-free-will this one says god created some people for the purpose of sending them to hell. the link calls libertarian free will false or cultlike. if god is a anarchist, shouldn't the born again christians be anarchists? i see so many claim to be born again yet are statist.
http://carm.org/governments
http://carm.org/christian-politics-government
http://carm.org/benefits-dangers-government
http://carm.org/apologetics/-news/sarah-palin-can-women-be-places-authority-government
does not sound anarchist to me, the problem seems to be we have Christians that justify anything with scripture from the bible. some say some government can be ok, others say no government can be ok. the website says sara palin can give a president, a judge, but not a priest. how is that anarchy capitalism?
as for killing vs murder
if a human could kill all the firstborn in a night, planned it, and told the plans to a group of people with directions on how not to be killed, then followed through and killed specific people on a specific night with a specific weapon, would that be murder or killing a aggressor in the act of defense? can we go kill people's babies and call it self defense?
The link i provided you does not hold an anarchist viewpoint.
A christian can still deny the legitimacy of the state while holding love and allegiance towards God.
While God is loving, God isnt fluffy kittens/pillow/holding your hand singing kumbaya.
Back in those times, if a certain people did a great evil, then it would be done justice to the whole family or group of people.
If a parent suffers a consequence, so will their children. For example, lets say if the parent went to jail, tis would affect the child as well (has to move houses, or custody/child services whatever etc).
Ill repeat it again
I can still accept God as my ruler, but i can deny the rule of Men over other men.
if god was a ancap, why did god not use ancap solutions?
why not "thou shall be ancap?
i can accept fluffy kittens ( or fictional characters) as my ruler, but i can deny the rule of Men over other men.
self government does not mean giving authority to govern to other beings voluntarily. men would be able to accept the rule of Men or fluffy kittens if we can consent for anyone to govern us.
back in those times, what changed that god would now in ancap in these times? was that kind of murder ancap back in those times and the free market has taken a shift? back in those times, parents were not offered a contract, and their children were murdered/killed because the parent was in violation of a law the parent had no previous exposure to?
i do love some of the ideas presented as gods ideas, it still seems they are mans ideas as each person i talk to about god has different ideas about what gods ideas are.
To address a few things:
It was brought up many posts back about Jews and the Golden Rule. However, as far as I know, Jesus commanded the Golden Rule. Jews are not Christian.
Anarchy is best defined as without a man or group of men ruling over you. I only say this because to say a Christian could peaceably live in an ancap society. Or that is, to the atheist, since he doesn't believe in God, anarchy is without any ruler, and a Christian saying they are ruled by God is actually without a ruler. A Christian would only say anarchy is without man as a ruler, but God still rules over him, and the atheist just an atheist and can still be an anachist.
God is best viewed to be a personal relationship. That is, it doesn't matter what I think about God to you, especially so long as I do not aggress against you or your property.
As far as God killing humans, or God ruling over someone goes: this really doesn't (or shouldn't) matter to atheists since they do not believe in God. To an atheist, those people died of some natural (not supernatural) cause. To an atheist, people aren't ruled by God, they are acting by their own free will, and just saying they are ruled by, what an atheist believes, is a nonexistent entity. This is akin to: if someone believes the sun revolves around the earth, this doesn't matter to someone that believes the earth revolves around the sun, as no harm has been done unto the other, and the heliocentric believer just thinks the geocentric believer is wrong.
Hell is best defined as without God. To a believer in God, this would be bad, and would be considered a punishment. The believer thinks the atheist is in or is going to be in hell. To the atheist, they can either say: yes, by that definition, I'm in hell, but I don't see it as bad or as a punishment; or the atheist can say I do not believe in God, and therefore don't believe in a hell. No one has harmed the other.
Is it harassment to try to persuade someone of the virtues or benefits of a free society or a free market over a government or a centrally planned economy? No one can force you to listen. As far as the church bell ringing at 9am while others are sleeping: there are people sleeping at all times of the day. By that reasoning, there should be no bells or loud parties or yelling at any time in a society. Don't like people knocking on your door? If the norm happens to be that knocking is acceptable, then what? You don't have to answer. You could tell them that it is private property and they will be trespassing to remain on the property any longer. You could put up a sign saying "do not enter. Private property. Violators will be viewed as trespassers. No knocking either!" Offensive signs on a sidewalk near an abortion clinic? This has to do with government, as the sidewalk is "public." wouldn't necessarily exist in an ancap society. Don't like junk mail? Again, the blame lies at the doorstep of government, who has granted a monopoly on first class mail, and has decreed all mailboxes are property of the USPS. In a free society, this wouldn't necessarily be the case, and then only people you accepted mail from could actually be deposited in you mailbox. Don't want a phone call? Same as previous. And as far as tv, radio, or newspapers go: you don't have to watch, listen, or read it. You dont have to subscribe to channels, stations, or newspapers that has religious ads or pieces. But these companies have every right to put them in their publication or broadcast. They are (and should be) free to distribute it to anyone that is willing to tune in.
In regard to an Christian stealing from an atheist and refusing to go to court: what does the religious belief have to do with this? What happens when an atheist steals from an atheist and refuses to go to court? Rothbard (and many other libertarian/anarchist writers have) addressed this question, so I see no reaon that I need to explain it.
The further this discussion has went, it just seems like atheists trying to persuade religious folks that they're wrong. Again, if you're an atheist anarchist, and you live in an ancap society with a Christian that follows every belief in property and natural rights that you do, what does it matter to you that they also happen to believe in God (which you think is a nonexistent entity anyway) and do not aggress against you? There has been no rational reason yet brought up here as to why an atheist ancap cannot exist with what I call a Christian ancap. The more and more you seem to just be trying to persuade these Christian ancaps that atheism is the correct way and that they can't peaceably exist with you, the more it seems that you are the one trying to shovel an ideology down someone's throat. In this way, these "fundamentalist" atheists are as ridiculous as the fundamentalist religious people.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
Sorry Phi, what are you getting at here? The Golden Rule exists in Judaism.
On the topic as a whole, it must be realised that the purpose of the Torah -from which all of the so-called Abrahamic religions stem - is essentially to institute a monopoly law code, and that therefore statism is at the heart of monotheism. The major branches of Christianity and Islam developed monopolistic law codes also, which were enormous influences on non-religious statist law. The struggles within the Church were mostly disputes about taking control of this monopoly on force - thus the doctrines at the heart of these disputes are political in nature. Abrahamic monotheism began as an instrument of state control, and it was used for this purpose ever after.
say sure ancaps coexist great. say it's same conclusions different methodology perhaps.
so right now i'm looking at the Christian ancaps compatibility with the rest of Christianity and looking at how ancap god really was, and how to get non ancap Christians to become ancap Christians. out of the three sources in the thread of god as ancap, one of them was from a agnostic
the Jewish god is the Christian god, so the ot teaching ought to be ancap as well to be consistent if nt teachings were ancap. maybe it's god working in mysterious ways,
@acft
There is no a priori reason to believe that religious and non-religious people cannot coexist peacefully, nor that they can. In some cases they will, in some cases they won't, depending on the circumstances. But, again, there are any number of other sorts of disagreements (e.g. political disagreement between atheists) which could be just as damaging to the peace of society. Religion is not unique in having the potential to cause social strife.
Was God a democrat?
Was God a conservative?
Did God prefer apple products over microsoft pc's?
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/03/can-a-christian-be-an-anarchist.html here is a post by robert p murphy where he says he is not a christian anarchist as he thinks anarchist is not a accurate discription of his worldview
http://cog-ff.com/Library/html/STUDY%20GODS%20LAW.html this claims a monopoly of truth and law. the source of all law and authority is go here. it says god created contracts with people to carry out his law with a monopoly
some quotes
Obedience to God's Law is encouraged by blessings and enforced by curse.
The Commandments apply to individual conduct, the statutes to national administration, and the judgments to decisions rendered under the Commandments and the statutes.
God's Law contains statutes for regulating all the activities of modern life — sickness, disease, commerce, labor relations, legislation, farming, land tenure, international affairs, finance, sex and marriage, warfare, state and religious ceremonies, politics and government.
When God gave this perfect system of law to His nation Israel, He came "down also upon mount Sinai, and spake with them from heaven, and gave them RIGHT judgments, and TRUE laws, GOOD statutes and commandments. And made known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commanded them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant"
No system of law can be effective without proper administration. The happiness of the people depends both on the system of law and those who administer it. A good system of law may be made very burdensome by bad administration. Along with the knowledge of the right system of law, there is a need for an effective instrument or organization through which the law may be administered for the benefit of all men.
God's Law will be kept in the spirit as magnified by Christ, rather than the mere letter. It will be administered with love, compassion and mercy. Those who show real repentance and change their wicked ways will be forgiven and allowed to live — rather than stoned to death.
But, we, whom God now calls to salvation, are to teach God's laws then, and enforce them. Our life now is the training ground to educate and prepare us for that grave responsibility and wonderful opportunity.
Theists are free to believe. Atheists are free to not believe. Freedom is what libertarians are all about, not agreement on everything. (If I'm wrong, I'm leaving.)
It is correct that a believer is restricted in his thinking, in the sense that if you accept the idea of a creator who gives his rules in a certain book, where that conflicts with other books, you should give the guidance of your book preference, or abandon the idea that your book is right, which is essentially to leave the religion in favor of some combination of reason + faith, which is where I usually find myself.
Religions were made by people, not the other way around. Both theists and atheists can agree on that.
Practicing religion should be free as long as it is voluntary. If I am free to believe or not, I am free. Anything less is some form of statism.
Not sure why quoting 2,000 + year old Jewish myth and folklore would be relevant to modern to North American political systems.
Religion is relevant to politics because religion influences the opinions of individuals, and the opinions of individuals are relevant to politics.
Opinions are subjective and prone to misinformation.
do the christian ancap parents believe in corporal punishment for children? is corporal punishment ancap?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin8.htm/
North American politics are full of opinions which are subjective and prone to misinformation. So I guess you hate the game.
http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
are these ancap?
Of course I hate the game. It's like chess, but no matter if you actually win or lose, you always lose.