/liberty/ - Liberty

>>72124

bible as other products of schizos is full of contradictions so you can find backing in bible to every political philosophy because bible is very big

>>72126

I'll frame my reply a little more tamely and just note that it's a peace of literature written by many different people that can be interpreted in many different ways. Except for the more explicit parts like the commandments.

Then you have to also consider which particular sect of Christianity you're addressing. A good deal of Christians haven't read, nor will read the Bible. You have to know the particular set of principles they choose to follow to criticize their consistency. Arguing over a piece of ancient poetry is not getting us anywhere.

>>72126

>>72131

That's cool but can you explain to me why there are wheels of chariots and bones in the Red Sea, which supports the idea that Moses split the Sea in half?

>full of contradictions

Name one/a few?

>>72134

>That's cool but can you explain to me why there are wheels of chariots and bones in the Red Sea, which supports the idea that Moses split the Sea in half?

no

>>72134

>name one/a few?

Mr 15:24-25 vs. Jn 19:14-16

>>72134

>That's cool but can you explain to me why there are wheels of chariots and bones in the Red Sea, which supports the idea that Moses split the Sea in half?

I'm gonna go ahead and laugh, and not do that.

>>72141

>Mr 15:24-25 vs. Jn 19:14-16

I am not seeing the contradiction. I would guess you think the time between the preparations for them to crucify him and the actual thing happening is too far away?

I'll just link some Tom Woods talking about the church then:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnftOVqh-jlZhv70x7iEIXvaBjKMyRP6f

>>72124

Christian libertarian here. I can't go into too much detail now, but I'll help you out later if I can.

Some food for thoughts, for now: Whenever the Bible sounds supportive of the state, it does well to remember that it wasn't talking about the modern state. Even if you think the Bible is against anarchism, then you have to be a libertarian in our modern age. You cannot be a Christian and a staunch democrat, a legal positivist, an egalitarian, socialist, relativist, nor can you engage in statolatry or be indifferent to it. The modern, secular state quite openly refuses to govern according to the laws of God. What's more, the totalitarian movements like fascism, socialism, national socialism and the many totalitarian ideas that thankfully bore no fruit all have a record of anticlericalism and heresy. God has simply been banished from our political system.

>For example, one of the holding tenets of freedom is that "what other people do can't harm you, its unrelated to you".

I am not aware of any libertarian ever holding this up as a tenet. We do acknowledge that the choices of other people can harm or benefit you. We deny, however, that you have any right to be free from such externalities, unless they infringe on your property rights.

>Yet the bible says:

>Leviticus 19:29 Do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot, so that the land will not fall to harlotry and the land become full of lewdness

>It seems to clearly state that sins other people do also do come and affect you, and most people do fall.

Libertarians don't ask if it's right or wrong to let your daughter become a harlot, only if it's right to use coercion against her. The answer must be a resounding no. You cannot force people into morality. They have to be moral by their own free will, otherwise their outwardly right conduct is worthless. You need a high level of freedom, then, if you want a high level of morality. That does not mean moral permissiveness, but it does mean disavowing the methods of fines and imprisonment, which are the usual tools of the state.

>Matthew 6:22 The eye is the lamp of the body. If your vision is clear, your whole body will be full of light.

I don't see how that contradicts libertarianism. I looked at the context too, but still nothing. This is a call to the individual to arrange his own thoughts and conduct towards God, not a call to transform society in a specific way.

>Ecclesiasticus 9:8 “Turn away thine eye from a beautiful woman, and look not upon another's beauty; for many have been deceived by the beauty of a woman; for herewith love is kindled as a fire.”

As I see it, this shouldn't even be taken as a strict law, not moral nor ethical. It's a matter of prudence to look away from a beautiful women if her beauty is going to blind you and lead you astray, but that does not mean you cannot look at beauty at all. That would be an absurd commendment.

>>72126

Learn to speak proper English, or fuck off back to Poland. I have no nerve for your shitposting. You've been here for a year or so already and the only improvement I've seen in you was that you stopped supporting pedophilia.

>>72147

This.

Alright, got some more time now. Here's some bits of my personal philosophy.

I first entertained the thought that there might be a god of some sort because I realized a congruency between sound ethics and sound economics. A system based on the principles of non-aggression, self-ownership and inviolable private property, if it could be established, would see unprecedented economic growth. Meanwhile, attempts to do away with human freedom and plan every aspect of society will destroy society. You can defend human freedom with utilitarian arguments without ever bringing up legitimate ethics, and you can defend it ethically under the presumption that to do so would severely hamper economic growth. My explanation for this congruency is that God didn't want us to have to choose between doing what's right and doing what's expedient. I've heard someone bring up evolutionary psychology once, as an alternative explanation, but he left it at namesdropping it.

You don't necessarily have to bring economics into this. As a general thing, doing what's right has good consequences, while doing the wrong thing tends to backfire, and the best explanation for this that I can find is that there is a benevolent maker, namely God.

Where was I going with this? I don't know, but dinner's ready, so I'll come back to you later and hopefully remember my general point.

>>72150

>Well, this is going to be useless. I'm just going to question your verse interpretation now.

You're free to do so.

>For reference, the topic of this thread was going to be about intentionally tempting people.

Then I misunderstood you. Thought it would be less narrow, but didn't know what exactly it was.

>But you should, because harlots try to tempt people as part of their job.

Of course we ask that, but not as libertarians. Christians, atheists and satanists can all be genuine libertarians, and when they make a judgement on whether prostitution should be legal, their judgement will be based on their libertarian philosophy and not their religion and morality. When they pronounce whether it's moral to be a prostitute, then their religion and morality will play the decisive role, not their libertarianism.

>Nor can you force people into immorality– I say this non-sarcastically.

Strictly speaking, you're right about this.

>But more and more people seem to cave in to immorality, for most people cave in to people around them. The bible seems very intent on rooting those kinds of people that bring immorality in, because the more comes, the harder it is to gain virtues like temperance and chastity.

I get where you're coming from here, but the problem isn't permissiveness. It's the prevailing ideology, which must be fought with ideological weapons. Banishing prostitutes would not treat the disease, only a symptom, at a high cost and with little to no chance of success.

Most fornication isn't even with prostitutes. It's with drunken strangers at the disco, or horny people you just met online. How do you prohibit that kind of behavior without setting up an outright dictatorship, with all the problems that entails? Again, the problem is ideology. Make people aware that being a slut is nothing to be proud of, and fornication will be that much rarer. And the remaining sinners will then have it easier finding the light, too, whereas a ban on fornication would stand in the way of them doing so.

>Where did this interpretation come form now? You say the bible didn't say this, but neither did I say this, so it must have come form you.

Okay, then I misunderstood you again. Maybe I read it too fast. I'm in a lot of hurry, but didn't want to leave you with Poland and other atheists that didn't read the subject.

>>72124

>For example, one of the holding tenets of freedom is that "what other people do can't harm you, its unrelated to you"

That is a really stupid thing to say.

>>72152

could it be that some smart people figured out some of these consequentialism backed ethics about 2000 years ago and decided to write them up, wich was eventually turned into a collection of such philosophy/selfhelp called teh holy book?

what Im saying is, the ethics written down are formed after observing and predicting how they impact society. rather than there beeing a miraculous coincidence.

also consider that for any religion or cult to proliferate to the degree christianity has, they necessarily need a minimum of soundness - otherwise they selfdestruct all the time and thus never become big. like communism/socialism/democratic socialism/liberalism/progressivism/'libertarianism', wich has appeal but keeps falling apart.

I do not cnosider myself a christian yet, I think I am coming around but as someone with at least a passing interest I will share my 2 cents just in case you find them relevant or interesting

>Leviticus 19:29 Do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot, so that the land will not fall to harlotry and the land become full of lewdness

this can be boiled down to "do not raise your daughter slutty" you can live in freedom and raise your daughter however you like, so assuming you are a christian you will raise her to be a nice christian girl, I see no contradiction here between liberty and gods will

>Matthew 6:22 The eye is the lamp of the body. If your vision is clear, your whole body will be full of light.

again, this asks you to do something, not to force that same thing upon others, and is therefore not at odds with liberty

>Ecclesiasticus 9:8 “Turn away thine eye from a beautiful woman, and look not upon another's beauty; for many have been deceived by the beauty of a woman; for herewith love is kindled as a fire.”

for the same reason as last time there is no contradicting

now something that I find interesting is your interpertation, I am going to assume that

<It seems to clearly state that sins other people do also do come and affect you, and most people do fall.

is completely true and not just for the sake of argument this resonates with me for some reason

the idea here, if I were to expand upon it slightly and try to get into your head, is that those you associate with affect you, and should they sin all the time you may start to see it as normal, to go further it would be prudent then, for a pious man to NOT associate with such folk

this is where the right to free association comes in, as long as you can choose who to hang around with you can choose not to hang around with sinners, as long as you can choose who to buy and sell from you can choose not to do so with sinners, as long as you can choose who to live near you can choose not to live near sinners ect, and a state only gets in the way or sometimes contradicts that, imagine being taxed by the state and some of it goes to planned parenthood to pay for contraceptives or abortions when your church abhors that

>>72178

This interpretation correction should change your mind a bit.

>this can be boiled down to "do not raise your daughter slutty"

You are missing the latter part of the verse pretty hard. Here, I'll quote it again for your sake.

>so that the land will not fall to harlotry and the land become full of lewdness

The point is, if harlots hurt people's morals and make the whole land become full of lewdness, and this can get people thrown people into hell, then how is it that they don't violate the NAP? But if we start making moral rules like that, (which many right wing libertarians have decried as blatant statism), we're not librestrad anymore.

>>72180

>You are missing the latter part of the verse pretty hard.

Not at all. Pointing out the social consequences of an action doesn't mean it should be prohibited. That's simply a non sequitur. You're not even using a more interesting fallacy.

>>72124

Are you the anon on /christian/ that goes on about how "cute" coptic icons are? No beef just curious.

>>72189

Are you at least a consistent theocrat, and not using it to justify 80% of what the modern state does?

>>72180

>>72180

you probably didnt read my whole post, because I did in fact address that interpretation, I even agreed with it to an extent

I guess /christian/ is a shitposting board, I hope you are not an accurate representation of the whole faith

>>72124

>Leviticus 19:29

>quoting Jewish law when talking about Christians

Also that passage clearly says MAKING her a harlot, i.e. you are her pimp.

>everything else

Religious matters should be handled inside the church only. If what you did has no legal ramifications then the State should never be made involved.

>>72124

Well OP, I'm Christian, and I would answer that the family unit precedes and supersedes the government. Stopping my cousin/brother/friend from, say, doing heroin/prostituting/drinking, is my job, not that of the government.

What's more, the Church existed long before our government and will continue to exist after it collapses.

Moral behavior is not contingent on the existence of the government, and never has been.

Jesus said Leviticus is for kikes and fags and we don't have to follow it.

>>72265

jesus was a schizo