/liberty/ - Liberty

>>73067

I don't celebrate though. Not unless I have something to. Unless you're religious, there's no particular reason. Not very fond of the fusion of marketing and collectivism that goes on.

>>73071

As oppposed to my christian libertarian fellows, I mean.

>>73071

>because Jesus died for your sins too

I wasn't even born to sin. Nor do I concede to an omniscient authority's right to judge me. Even if I had any sins to answer for, I'm fine with taking responsibility for myself.

Original sin is absolutely incompatible with Libertarianism.

>>73095

>at least we're not Keynesian

Or Georgists, thank god

>>73095

Not really, the first anarchists /were/ socialists, btw I would honestly read Kropotkins stuff on anthropology, is interesting regardless.

>>73093

>Send your son knowingly to his gruesome death

Which Jesus knew about, and willingly submitted to. Matthew 26:53-54 show that.

>to pay for the "sins" you, as the owner of all human beings, have ascribed to them.

"Sin" means something like "deviation". To sin means to stray. God, then, hasn't ascribed sin to us, rather sinning is what we do by deviating from the path He has laid down for us. Which brings us to free will.

Now, if you stray from the path of ultimate goodness - God -, how can you expect to reap the fruits of staying on the right path? That's why sinners aren't united with God. This doesn't mean they're never united to Him, but as sinners, they aren't. Once their sins are forgiven, once they are on the right track again, God accepts them. That takes most of the punch from the doctrine of sin as it is commonly taught nowadays.

>Not only that, none of them are allowed agency

Where'd you get that from? Of course humans are allowed agency. God could withdraw our free will easily, but chose not to, which I don't think you'd object to.

>and their "sin" is considered hereditary for all eternity.

What I said above. "Sin" does not necessarily mean a moral transgression.

>Not to mention how absurdly pointless it is to "test" mortals when you are yourself omniscient.

Considered that Job might be allegorical? As early as Augustine, it was widely acknowledged that not all the Bible was to be taken literal. Before him, I don't think anyone took it literal either. But count on evangelists to do just that, because they're idiots. Thing is, evangelists are a new development, and not at all representative of Christianity.

>>73068

I am not christian either, but I like spending time with family nd watching christmas movies together, and its the only giftgiving holiday we have

>>73136

>Which Jesus knew about, and willingly submitted to. Matthew 26:53-54 show that.

Willingly submitted to the purpose he was created for? Why would an omniscient creator bother leaving him with the ability to choose? His whole being revolves around his existence as a tool created with a purpose.

>the path He has laid down for us. Which brings us to free will.

Following someone's choices is not free will, especially when you're his creation and property.

>God could withdraw our free will easily, but chose not to, which I don't think you'd object to.

If he could, then actually ask his debtors whether they agree or not. You can't force someone into debt. Nobody owes for what he can not choose, nor separate from himself.

>Considered that Job might be allegorical?

I've considered anyone can choose when to interpret the Bible in whichever way comfortable to come to the conclusion they want. It's not trying to be consistent. Probably because it wasn't written by a single person. It's a piece of poetry that has no real authority over anything, nor established "link" with the God it professes to. If you take out the "testing" bit out of its literal meaning, then God's playing purposeless games for his amusement, to which he knows the outcome anyway.

When you point out none of his shit makes sense either way all you get is "he works in mysterious ways."

>You'd understand if you were Omniscient

>You'd understand the subtleties of Marxism if you were Marx

>>73150

what gift did you get?

i got powerbank from my parents as a gift

Merry Christmas to you as well.

>>73121

>first anarchists /were/ socialists

anarchy and anarchism predated socialism

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=anarchy

i hope you had happy hannukah <3

>>73287

Oy veyyy

>>73287

lmao jews amrite? XDDDD

>>73429

>>73222

>Why would an omniscient creator bother leaving him with the ability to choose?

why not?

>Following someone's choices is not free will, especially when you're his creation and property.

you could choose not to follow the path he has laid for you if you want, thats what free will is, it is only meaningfull if you chose to follow

when someone asks a great deal of you, something really big, and you do it that is one of the best indicators that you care for them, that you have genuine loyalty to them ect, but when the MAKE you do it perhaps by violent coercion it means almost nothing

I am not even a christanon and do myself butt heads with them sometimes, but your such a fag here, I would have dismissed this as bait if not for those sick trips

>>73475

>>Why would an omniscient creator bother leaving him with the ability to choose?

He had already made the decision of sending someone to die. He had a definite goal and purpose and the absolute power and knowledge to do it. He should be incapable of making any mistakes and know anything and everything that has or will happen. Anything you are and will do is his fault as he has made you exactly in such a way to do it and knows full well the results and what you will be before he even begins. Allowing you "free will" means he's intentionally failing at a task he can not.

>you could choose not to follow the path he has laid for you if you want

He knows whether you will or not before you're even born. Following his Laws means you don't burn in hell. It's not comparable in any way to making someone proud. You're going full retard with that shallow defense.