Christianity and Libertarianism?

[New Werpland]

and this

13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

A few pages ago I explained the meaning of this passage

I doubt you explained it correctly.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

A few pages ago I explained the meaning of this passage

I doubt you explained it correctly.

He didn't. He maintains I'm taking It "out of context."

[Mysterious Stranger]

I doubt you explained it correctly.

He didn't. He maintains I'm taking It "out of context."

See my last post where I explained exactly why you're taking it out of context. That's not the Catholic church's position, the orthodox churches' position, the position of any of the mainline protestant denomination, the position of the overwhelming majority of evangelicals, the position of the overwhelming majority of Quakers, or even the position of overwhelming the majority of charismatics. The best example of a church that interpreted Romans 13 the way you do would be the Apartheid era Dutch Reformed Churches in South Africa, and even they only thought a particular elected class (their own, coincidentally enough) had a right to rule, so breaking the law in a liberation movement was only wrong when blacks did it, it wasn't wrong when Afrikaners did it. I'm sorry, but you really don't understand Christianity if that's what you think it says. You're criticizing it us for holding a position that we don't hold. Romans 13 has always been viewed to be contextual. If you thought otherwise as a Christian, then you were ridiculously unorthodox.

[Kincoboh]

Americans have such a strange political spectrum.

[Liberusy]

Alright. What if I am a Muslim Doctor in Redneck Texas and I go apply for a job at the hospital but I can't find a job within the state because no majority of people in businesses want to let me work with them? Am I expected to starve?

Well, I suppose you have a couple of options. Your best one would probably be to use the fact that it's a democracy to secure minority rights the same way minority groups in political democracies always have. As a professional doctor in Texas, you'll have some degree of control over how doctors' shops in Texas are run, that's kind of the point. This would probably happen through a union.
(Also, there's something between getting a job as a doctor and starving to death, you could just work a different job. Or leave redneck Texas.)

Democracy doesn't secure minority rights, it does quite the opposite it restricts minority rights in favor of the majority. Democracy by definition is tyranny bu majority. If the majority of the people in my town decide its okay to Lynch Black people in my town of Montgomery, Alabama, then there is nothing the police can do, and they would actually be required to support it. Under democracy if you are a minority [such as a Muslim in Texas] then you have no voice in how society is run. The idea that you may have to leave your profession or leave your home state clearly points out the flaws in a socialist society. Unions wouldn't help either because they represent the majority not the minority. There is nothing in a Democratic socialist society that will protect the rights of the minority.

[Kincoboh]

Well, I suppose you have a couple of options. Your best one would probably be to use the fact that it's a democracy to secure minority rights the same way minority groups in political democracies always have. As a professional doctor in Texas, you'll have some degree of control over how doctors' shops in Texas are run, that's kind of the point. This would probably happen through a union.
(Also, there's something between getting a job as a doctor and starving to death, you could just work a different job. Or leave redneck Texas.)

Democracy doesn't secure minority rights, it does quite the opposite it restricts minority rights in favor of the majority. Democracy by definition is tyranny bu majority. If the majority of the people in my town decide its okay to Lynch Black people in my town of Montgomery, Alabama, then there is nothing the police can do, and they would actually be required to support it. Under democracy if you are a minority [such as a Muslim in Texas] then you have no voice in how society is run. The idea that you may have to leave your profession or leave your home state clearly points out the flaws in a socialist society. Unions wouldn't help either because they represent the majority not the minority. There is nothing in a Democratic socialist society that will protect the rights of the minority.

Anarchism is all-encompassing. If there was a tyranny of the majority anarchist group, then they wouldn't be anarchist. You can't be anarchist if you're pro-hierarchy.

[Liberusy]

Democracy doesn't secure minority rights, it does quite the opposite it restricts minority rights in favor of the majority. Democracy by definition is tyranny bu majority. If the majority of the people in my town decide its okay to Lynch Black people in my town of Montgomery, Alabama, then there is nothing the police can do, and they would actually be required to support it. Under democracy if you are a minority [such as a Muslim in Texas] then you have no voice in how society is run. The idea that you may have to leave your profession or leave your home state clearly points out the flaws in a socialist society. Unions wouldn't help either because they represent the majority not the minority. There is nothing in a Democratic socialist society that will protect the rights of the minority.

Anarchism is all-encompassing. If there was a tyranny of the majority anarchist group, then they wouldn't be anarchist. You can't be anarchist if you're pro-hierarchy.

Then you are an ANCAP not a believer in Democracy.

[Dejanic]

Libertarianism is the absolute opposite of Christianity. Libertarianism has more in common with Satanism, both are individualistic doctrines which preach greed, self reliance, selfishness, etc.

Christianity is closest to a pure form of Socialism.

[Planita]

Libertarianism is the absolute opposite of Christianity. Libertarianism has more in common with Satanism, both are individualistic doctrines which preach greed, self reliance, selfishness, etc.

Christianity is closest to a pure form of Socialism.

[Bachmann America]

Libertarianism is the absolute opposite of Christianity. Libertarianism has more in common with Satanism, both are individualistic doctrines which preach greed, self reliance, selfishness, etc.

Christianity is closest to a pure form of Socialism.

Yeah if you are a Unitarian heretic (which I do not mean in an offensive way. It is a theological term)

[Kincoboh]

Anarchism is all-encompassing. If there was a tyranny of the majority anarchist group, then they wouldn't be anarchist. You can't be anarchist if you're pro-hierarchy.

Then you are an ANCAP not a believer in Democracy.

So Anarcho-Capitalists don't believe in democracy?

[Liberusy]

Libertarianism is the absolute opposite of Christianity. Libertarianism has more in common with Satanism, both are individualistic doctrines which preach greed, self reliance, selfishness, etc.

Christianity is closest to a pure form of Socialism.

Not at all. That isn't even what Libertarianism preaches for starters.
It encourages a self reliance, charity driven society versus involuntary redistribution of wealth in a nanny style government.
"but you shall FREELY open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks." -Deuteronomy 15:8

"One who is gracious to a poor man lends to the LORD, And He will repay him for his good deed." -Proverbs 19:17

"But give that which is within as CHARITY, and then all things are clean for you." -Luke 11:41 [Taxation not charity]

"Sell your possessions and give to CHARITY; make yourselves money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys." -Luke 12:33 [again charity not taxation]

"He who steals must steal no longer; but rather he must labor, performing with his own hands what is good, so that he will have something to share with one who has need." -Ephesians 4:28 [Taxation is stealing]

"Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and READY to share," -1 Timothy 6:18 [ready not forced]

[Liberusy]

Then you are an ANCAP not a believer in Democracy.

So Anarcho-Capitalists don't believe in democracy?

AnCAPs believe in lack of government, where no one rules, so no they do not believe in democracy.

[The UIP]

Libertarianism is the absolute opposite of Christianity. Libertarianism has more in common with Satanism, both are individualistic doctrines which preach greed, self reliance, selfishness, etc.

Christianity is closest to a pure form of Socialism.

Christianity to me is way closer to Libertarianism than Socialism. Christ never forced anyone by word or by deed to do anything, good or bad. You're free to do with Christ what you will. But a true follower will care for his/her fellow man.

[New Werpland]

Libertarianism is the absolute opposite of Christianity. Libertarianism has more in common with Satanism, both are individualistic doctrines which preach greed, self reliance, selfishness, etc.

Christianity is closest to a pure form of Socialism.

Not at all. That isn't even what Libertarianism preaches for starters.
It encourages a self reliance, charity driven society versus involuntary redistribution of wealth in a nanny style government.
"but you shall FREELY open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks." -Deuteronomy 15:8

"One who is gracious to a poor man lends to the LORD, And He will repay him for his good deed." -Proverbs 19:17

"But give that which is within as CHARITY, and then all things are clean for you." -Luke 11:41 [Taxation not charity]

"Sell your possessions and give to CHARITY; make yourselves money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys." -Luke 12:33 [again charity not taxation]

"He who steals must steal no longer; but rather he must labor, performing with his own hands what is good, so that he will have something to share with one who has need." -Ephesians 4:28 [Taxation is stealing]

"Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and READY to share," -1 Timothy 6:18 [ready not forced]

Romans 13 again bro

[Grand Calvert]

Not at all. That isn't even what Libertarianism preaches for starters.
It encourages a self reliance, charity driven society versus involuntary redistribution of wealth in a nanny style government.
"but you shall FREELY open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks." -Deuteronomy 15:8

"One who is gracious to a poor man lends to the LORD, And He will repay him for his good deed." -Proverbs 19:17

"But give that which is within as CHARITY, and then all things are clean for you." -Luke 11:41 [Taxation not charity]

"Sell your possessions and give to CHARITY; make yourselves money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys." -Luke 12:33 [again charity not taxation]

"He who steals must steal no longer; but rather he must labor, performing with his own hands what is good, so that he will have something to share with one who has need." -Ephesians 4:28 [Taxation is stealing]

"Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and READY to share," -1 Timothy 6:18 [ready not forced]

Romans 13 again

It would set us all on the same page if you went back and read my argument against taking Romans 13 out of its context

[New Werpland]

Libertarianism is the absolute opposite of Christianity. Libertarianism has more in common with Satanism, both are individualistic doctrines which preach greed, self reliance, selfishness, etc.

Christianity is closest to a pure form of Socialism.

Christianity to me is way closer to Libertarianism than Socialism. Christ never forced anyone by word or by deed to do anything, good or bad. You're free to do with Christ what you will. But a true follower will care for his/her fellow man.

When Jesus forced the money changers out of the temple, he didn't claim "because it was private property".

[New Werpland]

Romans 13 again

It would set us all on the same page if you went back and read my argument against taking Romans 13 out of its context

First of all tell me what page it's on.

Second, Christianity is based on pre renaissance Communitarian Neoplatonist philosophy. I doubt paul was being sarcastic when he said all that statanism.

[Liberusy]

Not at all. That isn't even what Libertarianism preaches for starters.
It encourages a self reliance, charity driven society versus involuntary redistribution of wealth in a nanny style government.
"but you shall FREELY open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks." -Deuteronomy 15:8

"One who is gracious to a poor man lends to the LORD, And He will repay him for his good deed." -Proverbs 19:17

"But give that which is within as CHARITY, and then all things are clean for you." -Luke 11:41 [Taxation not charity]

"Sell your possessions and give to CHARITY; make yourselves money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys." -Luke 12:33 [again charity not taxation]

"He who steals must steal no longer; but rather he must labor, performing with his own hands what is good, so that he will have something to share with one who has need." -Ephesians 4:28 [Taxation is stealing]

"Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and READY to share," -1 Timothy 6:18 [ready not forced]

Romans 13 again bro

If apostle Paul was advocating obedience to secular authorities, then Caesar would have no cause against him. Why would Caesar have Paul beheaded if he was promoting obedience to Rome?

The world loves its own. If Paul belonged to Caesar, Caesar would not want to kill his own. If Paul was promoting "be subject to Caesar," then Paul would be Caesar's friend. You would not kill your own. You don't destroy the very instrument that advertises for you.

The truth is that Apostle Paul was beheaded for promoting a rival government known as the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. Already this new government was turning the world upside down. Caesar had Paul killed to help stop this threat to Rome's power.

If Romans 13 does not mean "obey the State," what does it mean? Romans 13 means, "Remember them which have the rule over you," as you will also find at Hebrews 13:7. Since Paul was addressing the saints at Rome, it is logical that he would instruct them to submit to those who look after their souls. It is a reminder to be obedient to the authorities God has placed over His people. For they are truly the "ministers of God to thee for good." Unlike worldly rulers, God's ministers are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Therefore, "do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same."

[Primitivist Jemaoi Aaja Aaja]

wtf is this thread?

[Liberusy]

Christianity to me is way closer to Libertarianism than Socialism. Christ never forced anyone by word or by deed to do anything, good or bad. You're free to do with Christ what you will. But a true follower will care for his/her fellow man.

When Jesus forced the money changers out of the temple, he didn't claim "because it was private property".

Yeah he claimed it was Holy Ground [otherwise known as his private property ]

wtf is this thread?

Judge Andrew Napolitano is a staunch libertarian and practicing catholic.

[New Werpland]

When Jesus forced the money changers out of the temple, he didn't claim "because it was private property".

Yeah he claimed it was Holy Ground [otherwise known as his private property ].

wtf is this thread?

Judge Andrew Napolitano is a staunch libertarian and practicing catholic.

Andrew Napolitano, is American.

[New Werpland]

Romans 13 again bro

If apostle Paul was advocating obedience to secular authorities, then Caesar would have no cause against him. Why would Caesar have Paul beheaded if he was promoting obedience to Rome?

The world loves its own. If Paul belonged to Caesar, Caesar would not want to kill his own. If Paul was promoting "be subject to Caesar," then Paul would be Caesar's friend. You would not kill your own. You don't destroy the very instrument that advertises for you.

The truth is that Apostle Paul was beheaded for promoting a rival government known as the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. Already this new government was turning the world upside down. Caesar had Paul killed to help stop this threat to Rome's power.

If Romans 13 does not mean "obey the State," what does it mean? Romans 13 means, "Remember them which have the rule over you," as you will also find at Hebrews 13:7. Since Paul was addressing the saints at Rome, it is logical that he would instruct them to submit to those who look after their souls. It is a reminder to be obedient to the authorities God has placed over His people. For they are truly the "ministers of God to thee for good." Unlike worldly rulers, God's ministers are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Therefore, "do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same."

If Paul were alive then I'm sure he would advocate some form of redistribution, the problem is back in the day there was no such thing as redistribution, but there was charity.

[Liberusy]

If apostle Paul was advocating obedience to secular authorities, then Caesar would have no cause against him. Why would Caesar have Paul beheaded if he was promoting obedience to Rome?

The world loves its own. If Paul belonged to Caesar, Caesar would not want to kill his own. If Paul was promoting "be subject to Caesar," then Paul would be Caesar's friend. You would not kill your own. You don't destroy the very instrument that advertises for you.

The truth is that Apostle Paul was beheaded for promoting a rival government known as the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. Already this new government was turning the world upside down. Caesar had Paul killed to help stop this threat to Rome's power.

If Romans 13 does not mean "obey the State," what does it mean? Romans 13 means, "Remember them which have the rule over you," as you will also find at Hebrews 13:7. Since Paul was addressing the saints at Rome, it is logical that he would instruct them to submit to those who look after their souls. It is a reminder to be obedient to the authorities God has placed over His people. For they are truly the "ministers of God to thee for good." Unlike worldly rulers, God's ministers are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Therefore, "do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same."

If Paul were alive then I'm sure he would advocate some form of redistribution, the problem is back in the day there was no such thing as redistribution, but there was charity.

And there still is charity, why would Paul want to go against [or stretch] the teachings of Jesus when he can stick to what was actually taught?
"Thou shall not steal" It is explicitly clear wealth redistribution requires taxation which is theft and against God's commandments. Charity is voluntarily funded so it is therefore perfectly acceptable and encouraged.

[New Werpland]

If Paul were alive then I'm sure he would advocate some form of redistribution, the problem is back in the day there was no such thing as redistribution, but there was charity.

And there still is charity, why would Paul want to go against [or stretch] the teachings of Jesus when he can stick to what was actually taught?
"Thou shall not steal" It is explicitly clear wealth redistribution requires taxation which is theft and against God's commandments. Charity is voluntarily funded so it is therefore perfectly acceptable and encouraged.

No man, redistribution did not exist in antiquity. Also why don't you actually look at the people who most influenced early Christianity None of them were Libertarians.