/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>834334

<One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures

Lol, I guarantee most normies believe this is a Christian value. I kind of want to shock the system and write a story about a Christian antihero trying to destroy the universe because God told him to since he couldn't himself because of the promise he made after Noah's flood.

>>834336

What about the Golden Rule?

>>834336

>I kind of want to shock the system and write a story about a Christian antihero trying to destroy the universe because God told him to since he couldn't himself because of the promise he made after Noah's flood.

That premise is retarded.

>>834365

An understatement really.

But yes, you'll find many Luciferian larpers embracing libertarianism. Satan is the original rebel.

I thought it was pretty clear that we're moving towards more and more satanic s—

>>834374

A libertine is specifically a hedonist. Not all so called Luciferians care one way or another about it. What they push forward is lacking respect for authority or regulation or norm.

Besides all that, you can simply talk to a Satanist. Most will tell you themselves they're libertarian. It's the only reason why I pointed it out. Experience. Your sarcasm doesn't change that.

>>834374

Some Kraut boomer pundit choosing to label absolutist corporatism differently doesn't actually make it libertarian.

>>834386

Stop playing the game of unreachable definitions.

You demonic humanists love saying your ideas are not the reality being criticised.

>>834383

How did you come to that conclusion? Politically, it doesn't say one way or another in the New Testament (and it most definitely does not in the Old Testament). It just says that in all things we should be content and that our kingdom is not of this world. The Pharisees specifically tried to ensnare Jesus with political statements and he replied with his well known response about rendering to God and Caesar what is theirs. Nor did the Lord ever rebel or plead for his freedom once. Not in Herod's hands, not in the Sanhedrin's, not in Pilate's. And he forbid Peter from even fighting for his sake. Later, the apostles made no proclamation about the political norm of slavery, other than that one should embrace slaves as brothers, and for slaves to embrace their believing masters as brothers. Freeing slaves is ideal, but it wasn't forced and it wasn't an idea whose time had come yet. You're projecting a revolutionary impulse on to the Church that never originally existed. In fact, Paul himself, in every epistle, called himself a "slave" of Jesus Christ (not merely servant. The word is slave). On top of that, there was a clear hierarchy with Peter and James in high leadership positions and the Apostles making bishops (overseers) to hold the binding keys of apostolic authority after them - and the apostles warning others to obey them. It wasn't some free for all with a bunch of puffed up radical freedom fighters (both fighters of Rome and of Bishops) calling all of the shots for themselves.

>>834399

You're definitely the one projecting in this case.

I'm not presenting an argument, just pointing out misinfo.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy prioritizing the absence of coercion. This does not mean no authority, it means authority by consent.

>>834359

Here’s how I see the golden rule:

“Someone breaks into my house, I don’t know what he’s after. I get up and take a baseball bat to his head. As the Police are on their way to arrest him. He looks at me and says, “hey you fake Christian! What about the golden rule!” I’de reply, “what about it! I would also want someone to hit me in the head and detain me till cops arrive if I was breaking into people’s homes. It would give me the opportunity to reflect on my life. Maybe avoid something worse. Your welcome!”

It always amuses me how pagans try to tie Christian hands behind their own backs with Christ’s teachings. Then when I think about it too much it’s not amusing anymore. We are not supposed to be sitting ducks. Not that you were saying that. This is just how I would respond. I find that this example can be used many different ways. Why not?

>>834408

So how do we apply the Golden Rule?

What do you think about the "turn the other cheek…" teaching?

I reckon, you have similar views. So why would Jesus say this assuming His Words would all have use for us.

>>834409

Interesting question, supposing Jesus was taking into consideration that both have a right cheek and a left one. If someone slaps you across your right cheek there is only one ‘other’ right cheek remaining, the instigator’s. You turn that other cheek as hard as you possibly can with a good stiff slap. Someone like me who believes the Bible has been manipulated by wicked people to make Christian’s docile can easily accept that this may be the case.

Personally though if it was just a slap I know the Holy Spirit would tell me to take it and be grateful that the experience has helped me understand Christ better and not retaliate.

However, my personal experience with being bullied in school when I was younger taught me that all this serves to do is make you a punching bag for as long as that bully is around. I find that the current way Christians use this saying tends to not be blessed when dealing with a bully. And Following this saying as it’s presented to Christians does not seem to bear any fruit. Everyone whose ever stood up to a bully can tell you that a single punch to their chin is all it takes to solve the problem, and save years of torment. All bullies are cowards, just one is all it takes. It was after I got older that I realized that everything in my being was telling me to stand up for myself, and I never did because I though it was forbidden. The Holy Spirit was telling me to fight back and I listened to man’s interpretation instead. Misinterpreting this saying caused me a lot of grief. I’m happy Christ clarified this for me.

Depends on how you define libertarian. Jesus was an anarchist.

>>834413

Christian pacifism isn't about being some rag to agressors, it's about what protest culture might call non-violent resistance(which isn't surprising. Both MLK and Gandhi learned of that via Tolstoi's books).

And surprisingly, that works really well, as well as prevents cycles of violence.

We have strict justifications for violence, too(see Just War), if it comes to that, though it is as a last resort.

I assume that follows in interpersonal relationships.

Martial arts teaches similar things, as a practical advice(among others, you never know if the guy is crazy, and will follow you with a broken glass, or a brick, or something)

>>834442

Mlk wasn't a Christian or a pacifist. He was a convenient talking head for actual communist entitlement politics.

>>834442

I agree with everything you said and how you said it. But it’s not the view of a lot of Christians out there. Many give their members the worst advice. And in fact just like most things are taken at face value this scripture is also. You’ll find it very hard to convince some Christians it’s ok to kill if Someone’s about to kill you. They seem to have a problem distinguishing murder from killing. Many would frown on martial arts because “a Christian is not suppose to study war”. Some never buy a gun to defend their homes believing that God will take care of things for them. I believe one must do their part and get a firearm to show God they’re not just sitting around and leaving it up to him alone. It’s important to study everything Christ said when he was trying to be cornered by twisted questioning. I’ve noticed that Christians argue the most on the teachings Jesus gave when under pressure. That’s why I believe ‘turn the other cheek’ means ’hit em back’. Also ‘love thy enemy’ causes problems. I think we genuinely listen to the voice inside about these things. Some people in our churches are wicked the voice inside says ‘stay away’ and gives us permission to hate him. man says ‘he’s your brother you must love him’.

>>834365

If you don't like it it must be good.

>>834365

>ur retarded XDDDDDDDD

Go back to 2012 r/atheism.

>>834371

Oh winnie the pooh off. Conformity in this age means gay rights and modernism.

>>834379

I unironically have a royal fatherline. It is against my nature to obey anyone, much less word-thinker plebs. If you really want natural order restored you would be obeying people like me instead of popular opinion and norms.

>>834413

>And Following this saying as it’s presented to Christians does not seem to bear any fruit.

This. That's because the people presenting it are evil.

>>834336

Why are you letting the world make you dislike compassion and empathy, the basis of Christ's judgement?

>>834409

Christian teaching is not of this world and is wholly unsuitable for the world. It does not serve the world, it demands that the world serves it.

>>834466

Yes. They were also very stupid. It’s hard to know if they were more evil than stupid in this particular case. But that’s the problem. At some point you get tired of finding out your faith keeps teaching you stupid things. You find out that they’re stupid after realizing it’s not being blessed. Then you ask yourself why you didn’t just follow your instincts, (aka the heart, where Gods laws are written).

>>834336

Did God say he won’t destroy the world again? Or did he say he won’t destroy the world by flood again? If he said the latter then I think he insured himself.

>>834468

Compassion and empathy are the most worldly bulls— ever. God flooded degenerates, nuked degenerates, and ordered the Israelites to kill more degenerates. Even in human form he said to cast degenerates who would lead children astray into the sea to drown.

>>834470

>Then you ask yourself why you didn’t just follow your instincts, (aka the heart, where Gods laws are written).

Because of original sin, the desire to conform to other people. It's what got Adam and Eve kicked out of Eden, what got the crowd to crucify Jesus and cheer, and what allows so many people to brutally pervert Christian doctrine into something evil while feeling absolutely no remorse as long as they feel enough people agree with them.

>>834472

>Even in human form he said to cast degenerates who would lead children astray into the sea to drown.

He didn't say that at all. He said that it would be better for them if that were to happen.

>>834474

Why bother writing in the hearts?

>>834474

Adam and Eve were perfect. They knowingly disobeyed and the people that wanted Jesus crucified where not the generation to have the law written in their hearts.

>>834475

Ffs if he said it's better that means he wants it to happen.

>>834476

Even with the desire for conformity present, leaving us with the law on hearts is better than nothing.

>>834477

Fair point. But the pharisees killed Jesus because he wouldn't bend the knee by conforming and instead continued preaching against their doctrine.

>>834478

What would it mean, by your measurement, to hate someone?

>>834472

No, it is not. The most fearful attribute of the Lord is his mercy. The world is never merciful.

Matthew 25: 31-46. Being stingy leads to eternal punishment.

Christians libertarians be like

>yes please put billionaire atheist pedophiles in charge of my society please. Taking away their property and executing them violates their individual rights which are the highest good. Free markets are in the bible Jesus says let every man accumulate as much wealth as possible, and let him use that wealth to spread atheism and homosexuality

>>834840

https://christianlibertarianreview.com/staff/

>>834841

you can't do the libertarian personal liberty and free market bit without allowing rich pedophiles and homosexuals run your society

corporate consumer society is antithetical to the christian way of life.

>>834334

>Is it just me or does libertarianism have a lot of overlap with satanism

Libertarianism has now and always been degenerate. Don’t fool yourself into thinking otherwise.

>>834383

>Libertarianism is largely a conservative christian movement

>Pro LGBT

>pro drugs

>Atheist and openly anti-christian

Great conservative Christian movement.

>>834374

Someone gets it. Capitalism and communism two sides of the same coin.

>>834458

I'm pretty sure a lot of MLK's writings were actually composed by his Jewish communist (and therefore anti-Christian) handlers. He probably didn't even know or understand a large portion of the material attributed to him. This is not to defend him of course. Obviously, he was a bad actor and not a serious religious leader, but it's highly likely some of his "intellectual work" was Jewish subversion that he merely went along with.

>>834383

>Christianity is associated with less government

Woke Christians reject current government because modern governments reject Christianity. When Christians had the power to control, we didn't choose less governance, we had monarchies. Western society from the 1700s on stood on the shoulders on Christian monarch imperialism and thought they knew better, and only decayed culturally onward. Breaking up Christian empires is only the handwork of Satan.

>>834846

Yeah, and the coin is called "division of labour".

There's nothing magical or conspiratorial about economic theory, since capitalism and communism are literally the end-points of the only spectrum in which you can divide property and wealth in a society.

All other forms are pretty much state capitalism in which party-connected oligarchs get state contracts, vague woo like distributism, which no one on this planet can explain how it's supposed to be implemented IRL, or various strains of anarcho-hipsterism, which are impossible to function in real life for more than a couple of years.

Help me understand something, guys. Libertarian theory dictates less state involvement because the state is corrupt and breeds corruption. The more powerful the state becomes, the more corrupt it becomes, even if the ruler is benevolent. How is it not Christian to reject this? I understand the concept of Christofacism, for example, like the Iron Guard under Codreanu, among others, where the State is used to orient people towards God, but then again I don't need the state to tell me how to get closer to God, when I have the Church to do it. Now, if we're talking about something like the Papal States, for example, then that's something else, where the Church is head of State.

Sorry for the small ramble.

I'm an Eastern Catholic, but there isn't a flag for that.

>>834861

Freedom of conscience is a fundamental God-given right and we Americans were the first to recognize this and enshrine it as a practice value, since then over time most other places of civilizational value have followed suit to some degree. Obviously not to the extent of revolution like the French reign of terror which broke down order in allowing mob rule, because that was never sustainable. Now the problem facing a lot of countries is the entrenchment of bureaucracy that naturally spreads itself as a system and especially grows unslowed when the idea people start to think it would be better if "the government" (i.e., them in their fantasy reality) were to make more and more decisions for people than it is now, be controlling and so forth because deep down they think their values don't have the inherent qualities of truth that prevail under a free system. Thus you get neo-green eco-marxists, who are todays' BIGSTATE authoritarians (liars) who try to surf the trendy populist wave by appealing to other inner-totalitarians. It's always been a struggle against that versus God-given rights that are natural and inalienable and require no authoritarian defender because they are true. Sorry if I rant but I haven't had proper sleep.

>>834862

Can one be a Libertarian Christian Monarchist?

>>835417

Not outside of imageboard larping

Monarchism is a meme and contradictory with libertarianism

At the same time premodern monarchism is pretty universally recognized as preferable to democracy among ancaps and other serious libertarians

>>834861

>Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

/thread

>>835439

This is only true when the state follows Godly principles. Since 2008 that has not been the case. Personally I believe we must do our best to keep this scripture, but day by day it’s being more weaponized against us.

>>835439

Well if you're going to follow scripture like that you might as well tell the authorities to turn the other cheek to rebels.

>>835439

God just may intervene when they go full retard. (That’s my new favorite saying)

>>835439

Ah, yes. So we should all just be perfectly obedient good boys, no matter how tyrannical grow the whims of the State.

Throughout Christian history Romans 13 has often been used to justify State iniquity. Is the State always right by mere virtue of being the State? Is this what you really believe? Or do you just get off on being an authoritarian?

>>834334

LaVeyan satanism is Randian libertarianism with satanic trappings. It's the most LARPy strand of satanism.

I'm not a full-fledged libertarian but libertarianism has a lot to recommend it. I don't care if it "overlaps" with whatever LARPy bullsh#t Anton LaVey happens to have penned. If a satanist says drinking orange juice is good for you will you stop drinking it?

>Acts 5:40-41

>40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

>41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.

>>835450

If God has it in store that we should be brought before councils and suffer some kind of shame for going against wrongful authorities, we should do so in the full knowledge of the power of God to save us or do as he wills and the belief that he is in control. Jesus Christ was delivered up to councils to be crucified and knew fully that everything was in control. Therefore whatever punishment might come by obeying the word of God and for Christ's sake we ought to view as chastisement directly from the Father, who is in control and something that He wills for us, knowing that Christ suffered and the servants are not better than the lord. He said if the world hates us, know that it hated him before it hated us. Therefore don't dispute the punishment if it's for the sake of Jesus but gladly take it.

>>835472

Dammit! Your right! But the laws are positioned in such a way that no one is completely innocent in it’s eyes. Although I’m sure God takes that into consideration as well. This is where I need faith.

>>835472

That sounds very holy man. But the truth is that underneath the holy facade you're a huge p%ssy. Bless your heart.

>>835474

Every thread about Romans 13 devolves into holier-than-thou nerds averring that all forms of civil disobedience are sinful and that we should all be utterly and pathetically obedient to every last jot and tittle of our modern positivistic legal codes. Which is an absurd position in itself; not even the people who make our laws follow them that rigorously.

Roman law was significantly different from modern law; there is such a thing as de jure laws and de fact laws; there is such a thing as excessive scrupulosity when it comes to following the law of the land. Being rigoristic about Romans 13 leads to neurosis. Don't fall into that trap.

(Alright, alright, I'm sorry for calling that guy a p%ssy. Please don't ban me, mods. I'd delete that post if I could.)

>>835537

ROtFL. I came close to something like that on that post in particular. but this time I was able to catch myself. What do you think I was irritated?

In current affairs, Minarchism would be the best Libertarian approach for a Christian state to keep out degeneracy.

>>835417

These are the 76 genders for right wingers, just pathetic.

>>837986

My brother

>Be libertarian

>Assume consent is the greatest moral good

>A priori assume "do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" is the most perfectly just social policy possible

<Actually try to defend this s—-tier ideology as compatible with Christianity and not obviously Luciferian

>>838054

>do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law

You do know that this is a plagiarized and twisted around version of Blessed Augustine's "Love, and do what thou wilt," right?

Anti-racism has a lot of overlap with a cult.

>>838054

Consent is how the spiritual world works though and our goal is God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. Fr. Ripperger says one of the first things to do when you're under demonic oppression is to assert what's yours again. Satanic hippies and commies teach the opposite, that you should give up your property. And like another Anon said, do as thou wilt is a stolen quote from St. Augustine.

Could someone far more intelligent in libertarian theory explain to me how the state could be deemed immoral or that the NAP is the basis of their morality? I have noticed that there a more than a few atheist libertarians, such as Walter Block, so I wonder how they can establish a moral concept without an objective moral lawgiver? The NAP comes off as completely subjective and far inferior to Christian morality.

>>839052

The non aggression principle is part of Christian morality. It also isn't seen as the only moral rule to a libertarian, it's just the fundamental from which a social order is built.

>>839052

More thoughts

Your criticism of atheists making moral claims being arbitrary isnt unique to libertarians but any atheist of any political view. Libertarianism isn't based on an atheism. You could make this criticism of randian objectivism which is explicitly atheist.

>>839057

I was pondering a bit and thinking that the use of the NAP ultimately could only work within a Christian libertarian frame of view. Reading the arguments for example on the NAP and abortion, with the position that atheist libertarians take in explaining that abortion doesn't show aggression against a fetus because it is a trespasser, seems completely in denial of sexual reproduction. I don't see how they logically conclude that.

libertarianism is just classic liberalism according to people that don't understand classic liberalism. Classic liberalism is a freemasonic political ideology that posits a godless republic as the superior form of government, so of course it's satanic at its core.

>>835420

>Monarchism is a meme and contradictory with libertarianism

Not as big of a meme as many would think. It is a bit of a natural conclusion that can be reached through right-libertarianism especially from the Hoppean perspective. The Monarch is can be seen not as a symbol of a state, but as a symbol of a nation, a people, and of their culture.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/11/anarcho-monarchism

>>839656

You have it backwards. Hoppe argued the preferability of monarchy over democracy in DTGTF, but better still is the covenant community model he advocates

>>839659

I'm not implying Hoppe is a monarchist, and I am fairly sure he has denied it as well. Only that libertarian-monarchy can be drawn out from his ideas and other right-libertarian views.

>>839662

You're making an understandable mistake but these things are mutually exclusive

A monarchy could be theoretically more libertarian than what we currently have but that would be in spite of it being monarchical

>>839664

>but these things are mutually exclusive

Only if you confuse the idea of a monarch with that of the state. If you think of the notion of a covenant where the people agree to have their disputes heard by one judge being that of the King, then that really is the bare bones of it. The King doesn't have to have an army, make laws, enforce laws and taxes or anything else like that. He may simply be that of cultural figurehead that creates a solidarity and cohesion among the inhabitants.

>>839666

Monarchism is the political system where a monarch is the head of state. You're proposing something like an attorney general with no enforcement power, which is interesting but not monarchism.

>>839667

If people want a monarch to have a monopoly of force then he becomes a head of state. A monarch doesn't have to rule a state to be a monarch. There are still deposed monarchs and decedents of monarchs that project a great deal of influence upon their former subjects. Not because they rule them, because obviously they don't, but because they represent something far deeper in the cultural cohesion of the people. Something that remains of the people's identity.

>>839668

and such systems are not referred to as monarchies

>>839669

>and such systems are not referred to as monarchies

It wouldn't, it would be monarchism which is of course different from monarchy. Which is why it is referred to as anarcho-monarchism and not anarcho-monarchy. The semantics of it is really a trivial argument. I think you are having a hard time wrapping your head around the notion of all the roles a monarch plays. It is more than just signing papers and chopping off heads. But I myself am actually new to the concept, so that is really all I got. The mad monarchist had a good blog encapsulating some of these ideas. Another hurdle for someone to grasp, is the concept of being from a country that has never had a monarch. Obviously this kind of setup would render the idea extremely hard to fathom.