Tea Party or God Party?

[Matt Collins]

How much should a return to God be emphasized in the tea-party movement? And should discussion of the Divine take a back seat to economic and government reform?

A panel of speakers at WND's "Taking America Back" conference in Miami, Fla., tackled the question head on.

"I don't think there's any way to separate economic freedom from our Judeo-Christian heritage," argued Tim Daughtry, who trains grassroots conservatives through Patriot Coaching. "It is a classic mistake to appease the left, to back down by sticking to economic issues.

SOURCE:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=205185

[Elwar]

Depends on if regulated sexual positions and restrictions on who can get a precious government certificate of marriage will turn the economy around and fix our multi-trillion dollar debt.

[Brian4Liberty]

In related and equally shocking news, at the annual conference of the National Islamic Party held in Tehran this week, a debate was held on the role of Allah in government. After much lively discussion, a unanimous agreement was reached that "there is no way to separate government from our Islamic heritage." :rolleyes:

[erowe1]

"I don't think there's any way to separate economic freedom from our Judeo-Christian heritage," argued Tim Daughtry, who trains grassroots conservatives through Patriot Coaching

That's an encouraging quote. We should work to make sure that point gets more emphasis in discussions with the religious right.

The way Huckabee and Pence separate issues of smaller government and free markets from morality, so that they can say that morality trumps them is not something most Christians should accept once they put some thought into it. Tyranny is not bad just because it's impractical, it's bad because it's immoral.

[Sola_Fide]

This is a good question.

There is no question that you cannot seperate economics from morality. Sound money is a moral issue....unsound money is theft. Theft is evil.


So, in that regard, I think a morality can be beneficial to the Tea Parties. I am actually starting to hear churches and mainstream evangelicals talk about currency debasement now. Its a good sign. In the Old Testament, God chastised Israel for mixing dross with their silver, thereby debasing their currency. It is a moral issue.



I also think that Liberty and forceful coercion are tied to morality as well. We are made in God's image. We are free as He is completely free. So therefore an oppressive Statist tyranny acting as god over us is incompatible with the free man made in God's image.


I don't hear evangelicals talking about true Liberty enough. Morality in government is not about how many faith-based programs we can have, its about how immoral the government and force itself is....and how we must restrain it.

[nate895]

Let's think about this logically. For the purposes of this argument, I am not going to argue the premises, because I am just showing the logic behind the idea.

(1) God is the omnipotent, omniscient ruler of the whole universe and all that is in it.
(2) The civil government is part of the universe.
(3) Therefore, God rules over the civil government.

This is a very simple, elementary logical syllogism. If you believe God is the omnipotent, omniscient ruler of the whole universe, you must believe He rules over the civil government as well. There simply is no other option if you want to even pretend you are logical.

[nate895]

I also think that Liberty and forceful coercion are tied to morality as well. We are made in God's image. We are free as He is completely free. So therefore an oppressive Statist tyranny acting as god over us is incompatible with the free man made in God's image.

Free will has never been a part of the orthodox interpretation of the imago dei. Volition (the ability to choose between actions based on our wants and desires) is. However, free will implies the equal ability to choose between options without any restraint, inherent or otherwise. However, our wills are restrained by our own natures. That is not to say that civil government should be involved with the use of our volition, unless the use of our volition interferes with another person's liberties.

[silentshout]

I think they should stick to economic issues.

[nate895]

I think they should stick to economic issues.

I think they should stand up for what they believe in, and earnestly debate the issues, like the radicals refuse to let them.

[Brian4Liberty]

Scruggs proclaimed. "Christians don't spend themselves into oblivion and then say, 'Ah, I'm not paying the bill.'"

Lol! Right...GW Bush anyone? Possibly the pinnacle achievement of "evangelical Christian" politics...

[Sola_Fide]

I think they should stick to economic issues.

They should.

But the point is: you cant seperate economics from morality.

[Southron]

This is a very simple, elementary logical syllogism. If you believe God is the omnipotent, omniscient ruler of the whole universe, you must believe He rules over the civil government as well. There simply is no other option if you want to even pretend you are logical.

This is true, but I trust that you believe God appoints leaders as well?

Many Christians like to think of Bush as "God's President" and Obama is not.

[Slutter McGee]

Let's think about this logically. For the purposes of this argument, I am not going to argue the premises, because I am just showing the logic behind the idea.

(1) God is the omnipotent, omniscient ruler of the whole universe and all that is in it.
(2) The civil government is part of the universe.
(3) Therefore, God rules over the civil government.

This is a very simple, elementary logical syllogism. If you believe God is the omnipotent, omniscient ruler of the whole universe, you must believe He rules over the civil government as well. There simply is no other option if you want to even pretend you are logical.

(1) It is good therefore God commands it
(2) God is not omnipotent

(1) God commands it therefore it is good
(2) God is arbitrary

I have no problem with your believe in God. I believe in God, albeit a much more deist approach.

But to argue that you can not seperate economic theory from an illogical view of morality is asinine.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[nate895]

This is true, but I trust that you believe God appoints leaders as well?

Many Christians like to think of Bush as "God's President" and Obama is not.

God appoints all leaders (I'm a Calvinist, I believe God decreed everything that comes to pass in time in a compatibilist way). Some of them are good, some evil. The evil ones are intended for a good purpose, however.


(1) It is good therefore God commands it
(2) God is not omnipotent

(1) God commands it therefore it is good
(2) God is arbitrary

I have no problem with your believe in God. I believe in God, albeit a much more deist approach.

But to argue that you can not seperate economic theory from an illogical view of morality is asinine.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

You have no idea what you are talking about, obviously. God commands only that which is consistent with His nature. He didn't just choose some arbitrary set of rules.

[Slutter McGee]

You have no idea what you are talking about, obviously. God commands only that which is consistent with His nature. He didn't just choose some arbitrary set of rules.

So God's nature is preset? God could not be evil if he chose? If so then God is not omnipotent.

Again, this is not about your moral set of beliefs, but about you projecting your moral set of beliefs as necessary for the existence of liberty, as liberty also exists outside of the idea of a supernatural being.

That is not to say you should not find God and liberty consistent in your own beliefs, just that you should recognize that it has little to do with modern economic theory.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[nate895]

So God's nature is preset? God could not be evil if he chose? If so then God is not omnipotent.

Again, this is not about your moral set of beliefs, but about you projecting your moral set of beliefs as necessary for the existence of liberty, as liberty also exists outside of the idea of a supernatural being.

That is not to say you should not find God and liberty consistent in your own beliefs, just that you should recognize that it has little to do with modern economic theory.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

What if you develop an economic theory within the boundaries of a Biblical worldview? That is exactly what Dr. Gary North does. If you believe the Bible is the inspired word of the omniscient God, it would behoove you to use it to construct your beliefs about everything accordingly, considering no other source is infallible.

As for whether God is omnipotent if He cannot choose evil, there is no basis for such a statement. Your arguments simply do not follow. The omnipotence of God means He can do anything which is logically possible, i.e., anything that does not result in contradiction. Evil is that which is opposed to the natural order of God's universe, or that which is opposed to God's nature. For God to choose it would mean that He would deny Himself, which would mean God would claim to be both God and not God at the same time.

[osan]

"I don't think there's any way to separate economic freedom from our Judeo-Christian heritage," argued Tim Daughtry

It is the imbeciles such as this dufus who will defeat the movement to restore liberty.

If you are too stupid to dope out how the one is most readily and easily separable from the other, you have no business in political action. You should stay at home in a comfy chair and drink beer.

Bloody idiots.

[Imaginos]

I think they should stick to economic issues.
+1.
Hell yes!
Follow Ron Paul's lead (economy, anti-war, and liberty) and stay out of religions!

[nate895]

It is the imbeciles such as this dufus who will defeat the movement to restore liberty.

If you are too stupid to dope out how the one is most readily and easily separable from the other, you have no business in political action. You should stay at home in a comfy chair and drink beer.

Bloody idiots.

You are the bloody idiot who obviously cannot follow basic logic.

Once again:

(1) God is the omnipotent, omniscient ruler of the whole universe and all that is in it.
(2) Civil government is part of the universe.
(3) Therefore, God rules over civil government.

This is literally the same form of argument as everyone's favorite syllogism:

(1) All men are mortal.
(2) Socrates is a man.
(3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

[Theocrat]

I think they should stick to economic issues.

It is that sentiment which leads me to believe that libertarians are short-changing themselves in this entire movement. Human beings are not exclusively economic agents. We're much more complex than that. This movement represents more than just economic reforms and liberties, and the problems we critique go much deeper than many libertarians are willing to admit. As AquaBuddha2010 has said, this is a moral battle we're in.

I would add it's a war of worldviews, ultimately, the Kingdom of God versus the kingdom of man. So, in that sense, the Tea Party Movement needs to get back to the elementary principles which our Founders pointed to. It all begins with the sovereign God Who created us and endowed us with our rights. Any movement that takes God out as the foundation of its projection is a movement walking closer to a sepulcher. Sadly, most libertarians treat God as an insignificant Being, and to that, their ruin.

[Sola_Fide]

As AquaBuddha2010 has said, this is a moral battle we're in.

I would add it's a war of worldviews, ultimately, the Kingdom of God versus the kingdom of man.



I can tell you and I both have read a lot of Rushdoony:)

[AutoDas]

It is that sentiment which leads me to believe that libertarians are short-changing themselves in this entire movement. Human beings are not exclusively economic agents. We're much more complex than that. This movement represents more than just economic reforms and liberties, and the problems we critique go much deeper than many libertarians are willing to admit. As AquaBuddha2010 has said, this is a moral battle we're in.

I would add it's a war of worldviews, ultimately, the Kingdom of God versus the kingdom of man. So, in that sense, the Tea Party Movement needs to get back to the elementary principles which our Founders pointed to. It all begins with the sovereign God Who created us and endowed us with our rights. Any movement that takes God out as the foundation of its projection is a movement walking closer to a sepulcher. Sadly, most libertarians treat God as an insignificant Being, and to that, their ruin.

First you have to prove that morality exists.

[nate895]

I can tell you and I both have read a lot of Rushdoony:)

We should all start a club.

[nate895]

First you have to prove that morality exists.

I suppose you wouldn't mind me heading by your house and permanently borrowing stuff, would you?

[Bman]

I think they should stick to economic issues.

I agree the tea party has never been about god. There's no reason for it to start. I think when a group starts standing for too many things it gets nothing done.

[cindy25]

the problem is that by making the tea party God's party they are making it a zionist party

[Jodi's mom]

Let's think about this logically. For the purposes of this argument, I am not going to argue the premises, because I am just showing the logic behind the idea.

(1) God is the omnipotent, omniscient ruler of the whole universe and all that is in it.
(2) The civil government is part of the universe.
(3) Therefore, God rules over the civil government.

This is a very simple, elementary logical syllogism. If you believe God is the omnipotent, omniscient ruler of the whole universe, you must believe He rules over the civil government as well. There simply is no other option if you want to even pretend you are logical.

I agree wholeheartedly!! and will go further by saying unless we turn back to our Creator, we will perish! Read Jeremiah chapters 1-5. Maybe further. That's where I am now. I believe those scriptures refer to the U.S. as I believe we are the descendants of ancient Israelites.

[nate895]

I agree wholeheartedly!! and will go further by saying unless we turn back to our Creator, we will perish! Read Jeremiah chapters 1-5. Maybe further. That's where I am now. I believe those scriptures refer to the U.S. as I believe we are the descendants of ancient Israelites.

On what grounds do you believe we are the blood descendants of the ancient Israelites?

[Sola_Fide]

We should all start a club.

You too huh?

[nate895]

You too huh?

Oh, yes. My first exposure to Rushdoony at the C4L Regional Conference in Seattle was a contributing factor to my eventually becoming Reformed, a Young Earth Creationist, and wanting to become a full-time Apologist eventually. My teachers went from somewhat enjoying the presence and debate with a real libertarian to absolutely hating my guts.

[Sola_Fide]

On what grounds do you believe we are the blood descendants of the ancient Israelites?



Yeah...

Christians are spiritual descendants of Israel, not physical. And the US is definitely not descended from Israel.:)

[nate895]

Yeah...

Christians are spiritual descendants of Israel, not physical. And the US is definitely not descended from Israel.:)

I am not sure if you are familiar with the belief, but there is a group that claims that the people British Isles are the descendants of the so-called "lost tribes of Israel" (which isn't even a Biblical idea to begin with). The belief is called British Israelism or Anglo-Israelism. I consider it a dangerous belief (maybe heretical, but I'm not sure), and I have had a few people who espouse the idea contact me recently, and I am wondering how to deal with it since I have never actually met someone who supports it.

[Sola_Fide]

Oh, yes. My first exposure to Rushdoony at the C4L Regional Conference in Seattle was a contributing factor to my eventually becoming Reformed, a Young Earth Creationist, and wanting to become a full-time Apologist eventually. My teachers went from somewhat enjoying the presence and debate with a real libertarian to absolutely hating my guts.



That's awesome man! I am Reformed as well, though not as theonomic as the Reconstructionists. I think I would be maybe more along the lines of Luther in his view of the threefold purpose of the law.


I met Andrew Sandlin and Steve Schlissel in 99 at a Christian Reconstruction conference in Ohio. Andrew gave me Roots Of Reconstruction by Rushdoony. From there I read pretty much all of his books. My favorite is The One And The Many...it is a masterpiece of Christian political philosophy in my opinion.


Great to have some fellow Reformed brothers here!

[nate895]

That's awesome man! I am Reformed as well, though not as theonomic as the Reconstructionists. I think I would be maybe more along the lines of Luther in his view of the threefold purpose of the law.


I met Andrew Sandlin and Steve Schlissel in 99 at a Christian Reconstruction conference in Ohio. Andrew gave me Roots Of Reconstruction by Rushdoony. From there I read pretty much all of his books. My favorite is The One And The Many...it is a masterpiece of Christian political philosophy in my opinion.


Great to have some fellow Reformed brothers here!

I am less theonomic than the Reconstructionists as well, but I am still in the theonomist camp more so than the natural law camp. I am more in lines with Greg Bahnsen than RJ Rushdoony.

[Sola_Fide]

I am less theonomic than the Reconstructionists as well, but I am still in the theonomist camp more so than the natural law camp. I am more in lines with Greg Bahnsen than RJ Rushdoony.


You mentioned apologetics. Are you a presuppositionalist?

[nate895]

You mentioned apologetics. Are you a presuppositionalist?

Yes. I like using evidences a lot more than, say, Bahnsen, but I still make sure to setup any use of evidences with TAG if it is appropriate.

[Sola_Fide]

Yes. I like using evidences a lot more than, say, Bahnsen, but I still make sure to setup any use of evidences with TAG if it is appropriate.



Aw man thats great. I am very familiar with TAG. I read Always Ready by Bahnsen and pretty much memorized all Bahnsen's debates.


I am more of a Fideist nowadays though. I came across A Christian View Of Men And Things by Gordon Clark, and I read all of Vincent Cheung's books. His basic apologetic method is to simply disprove empricism. It is very effective.


Here is a debate that Vincent Cheung did. It is the most thourough destruction of atheism Ive seen in a debate: http://www.vincentcheung.com/files/html/sansone-cheung.htm

[nate895]

Aw man thats great. I am very familiar with TAG. I read Always Ready by Bahnsen and pretty much memorized all Bahnsen's debates.


I am more of a Fideist nowadays though. I came across A Christian View Of Men And Things by Gordon Clark, and I read all of Vincent Cheung's books. His basic apologetic method is to simply disprove empricism. It is very effective.


Here is a debate that Vincent Cheung did. It is the most thourough destruction of atheism Ive seen in a debate: http://www.vincentcheung.com/files/html/sansone-cheung.htm

Yeah, I think every individual apologist has their little nuances, even when they agree in general. For instance, Van Til wanted to synthesize BB Warfield and Abraham Kuyper, whereas I definitely lean more towards Kuyper's (who thought reasoning with unbelievers is totally fruitless) side (probably due to my internet experiences). I do not think reasoning with unbelievers is totally fruitless, but I will be faster to say "Don't cast your pearls before swine" than Warfield and Van Til.

[Theocrat]

I can tell you and I both have read a lot of Rushdoony:)

I have read a lot of Rushdoony's works, especially his Institutes of Biblical Law.


We should all start a club.

Indeed, all for the glory of the triune God. :)

[silus]

Tea party folks hate teh gays.

[Razmear]

God appoints all leaders (I'm a Calvinist, I believe God decreed everything that comes to pass in time in a compatibilist way). Some of them are good, some evil. The evil ones are intended for a good purpose, however.



http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/images/WesternUnion.gif

[nate895]

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/images/WesternUnion.gif

http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/fundyath.html

[crazyfacedjenkins]

"The god excuse. The last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument, 'It came from god'. Anything we can't describe must have come from god." --Carlin

[crazyfacedjenkins]

I'm getting a real laugh at the bible thumpers in this thread. Doesn't your boy JC always talk about the evils of money and how you should give it away? He even says it's manditory that you give 10% away to the church/government.

If you suckers actually read that fairy tale, you would realize how anti-capitalist JC and his spooky sky-man father really are.

[treyfu]

Let's think about this logically. For the purposes of this argument, I am not going to argue the premises, because I am just showing the logic behind the idea.

(1) God is the omnipotent, omniscient ruler of the whole universe and all that is in it.
(2) The civil government is part of the universe.
(3) Therefore, God rules over the civil government.

This is a very simple, elementary logical syllogism. If you believe God is the omnipotent, omniscient ruler of the whole universe, you must believe He rules over the civil government as well. There simply is no other option if you want to even pretend you are logical.

How can god be both omniscient and omnipotent at the same time? If it knows what's going to happen, it can't change it. This is quite the contradiction.

God has no place in the political sphere. It can only serve to muddle up the truth.

[Slutter McGee]

nate. It really is this simple. When the teaparty movement becomes a vehicle for religion, then it is done. That certainly doesn't mean that you can't base your principles of liberty off of your religious beliefs.

Sincerley,

Slutter McGee

[erowe1]

So God's nature is preset? God could not be evil if he chose? If so then God is not omnipotent.


The theological term "omnipotent" has never meant that God can do things that are logically contradictory or contrary to his own nature. It has always been a term to describe the relationship he has with his creation.

[erowe1]

How can god be both omniscient and omnipotent at the same time? If it knows what's going to happen, it can't change it. This is quite the contradiction.

That's not a contradiction. The things God knows will happen are things that will happen as a result ultimately of his own sovereign exercise of his power in creating and superintending the universe.

Prior to creation, God knew all that would happen in the universe he created. He also knew all that would happen in any other universe he might have created. And knowing all these things, he created the universe he did.

But an explanation like this is not even necessary, since the two claims that you said contradict each other don't contradict each other at all, not even on the level of a superficial reading. Your assertion that they do is a non sequitur, unless you're making up your own definitions of "omniscient" and "omnipotent," in order to make them contradict, in which case it's a tautology.

[erowe1]

I'm getting a real laugh at the bible thumpers in this thread. Doesn't your boy JC always talk about the evils of money and how you should give it away? He even says it's manditory that you give 10% away to the church/government.


Jesus said that? What verse? And mandatory in what sense?

[MelissaWV]

I always figured God was omniscient by knowing everything. Of course, the future hasn't happened yet, not even for God, so that's not a "thing" to be "known" yet. Omnipotence relates to the present, as it always does. I'm not a huge fan of this idea of the future being knowable or already laid out somehow, even by God. God seems to exist simultaneously with time, after all, and the Bible certainly depends on chronology to make any kind of sense.

Consider Genesis for the easiest example of what I mean. Did God know that Adam and Eve were going to eat of the forbidden fruit? It seems kind of sadistic to go through that entire exercise just to punish Man for what Man was obviously going to do, and was designed to do. However, if you look at it in real time, you have God creating Man, and Woman, and the whole tree of knowledge thing was probable... but not for certain. God gave us free will. So it happened, and then God (the omnipotent) had to decide what to do with humanity. He had the power to smite us and start over (which is actually a part of a lot of other mythologies in history), He had the power to banish us, He had the power to just forget about it. So there is an instance of omniscience and omnipotence. God knew everything going on at the time, including the fact that they ate of the tree, and then He had the ability to do whatever He saw fit about it.

Just a thought.

* * *

As for the "religion is silly" people... I still have no idea why it bothers you so much. We're having a discussion. Why can't people just discuss the matters at hand and not make fun of one another?

[Slutter McGee]

That's not a contradiction. The things God knows will happen are things that will happen as a result ultimately of his own sovereign exercise of his power in creating and superintending the universe.

Prior to creation, God knew all that would happen in the universe he created. He also knew all that would happen in any other universe he might have created. And knowing all these things, he created the universe he did.

But an explanation like this is not even necessary, since the two claims that you said contradict each other don't contradict each other at all, not even on the level of a superficial reading. Your assertion that they do is a non sequitur, unless you're making up your own definitions of "omniscient" and "omnipotent," in order to make them contradict, in which case it's a tautology.

Again, your argument does not rest on logic, but the understanding of your own theological beliefs. Which is fine. I have no problem with it.

All I want is for one of you religious folk to admit that faith in God is not a prerequisite to liberty, and that as such, it would be politically stupid for the tea-party to adopt this point of view.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[MelissaWV]

Again, your argument does not rest on logic, but the understanding of your own theological beliefs. Which is fine. I have no problem with it.

All I want is for one of you religious folk to admit that faith in God is not a prerequisite to liberty, and that as such, it would be politically stupid for the tea-party to adopt this point of view.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Of course. "The Tea Party" is not Christian as a single unit, so it would be stupid to adopt that point of view. However, individual Tea Party members shouldn't have to keep quiet about the fact that their political views and their religious views happen to mesh nicely. It's a fine line. The Tea Party is not doing a good job of staying on it.

[ChaosControl]

What about the giant spaghetti monster party?

[erowe1]

I always figured God was omniscient by knowing everything. Of course, the future hasn't happened yet, not even for God, so that's not a "thing" to be "known" yet. Omnipotence relates to the present, as it always does. I'm not a huge fan of this idea of the future being knowable or already laid out somehow, even by God. God seems to exist simultaneously with time, after all, and the Bible certainly depends on chronology to make any kind of sense.

Consider Genesis for the easiest example of what I mean. Did God know that Adam and Eve were going to eat of the forbidden fruit? It seems kind of sadistic to go through that entire exercise just to punish Man for what Man was obviously going to do, and was designed to do. However, if you look at it in real time, you have God creating Man, and Woman, and the whole tree of knowledge thing was probable... but not for certain. God gave us free will. So it happened, and then God (the omnipotent) had to decide what to do with humanity. He had the power to smite us and start over (which is actually a part of a lot of other mythologies in history), He had the power to banish us, He had the power to just forget about it. So there is an instance of omniscience and omnipotence. God knew everything going on at the time, including the fact that they ate of the tree, and then He had the ability to do whatever He saw fit about it.

Just a thought.

* * *

As for the "religion is silly" people... I still have no idea why it bothers you so much. We're having a discussion. Why can't people just discuss the matters at hand and not make fun of one another?

I think a lot of Christians think the way you do. There has been a theological movement in evangelicalism since the 90's called Open Theism that maintains exactly what you said. But it's really nothing new, and I think many lay Christians without knowing there are debates about this very naturally assume the future is open.

As for my understanding of the Bible, to answer your question, did God know Adam would eat the fruit, absolutely yes. That was a necessary step on the way to his sending his son to die for our sins. The cross wasn't Plan B, it was Plan A.

[MelissaWV]

What about the giant spaghetti monster party?

Their ban on people eating pasta offends me.

[Slutter McGee]

Of course. "The Tea Party" is not Christian as a single unit, so it would be stupid to adopt that point of view. However, individual Tea Party members shouldn't have to keep quiet about the fact that their political views and their religious views happen to mesh nicely. It's a fine line. The Tea Party is not doing a good job of staying on it.

But most of their religious views and the idea of smaller government DONT mesh nicely. Thats the whole point. And once the tea-party turns into a vehicle to promote religious belief it is doomed as a vehicle to promote smaller government.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

EDIT: And when I say "their" religious beliefs I am talking about a large majority of the tea-party, not ronpaulforums

[erowe1]

Again, your argument does not rest on logic, but the understanding of your own theological beliefs. Which is fine. I have no problem with it.

All I want is for one of you religious folk to admit that faith in God is not a prerequisite to liberty, and that as such, it would be politically stupid for the tea-party to adopt this point of view.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

It does rest on logic. If there exist any theological beliefs in which omniscience and omnipotence are logically compatible, then it cannot be the case that they are necessarily logically contradictory. I gave one possible explanation, but it doesn't matter if that's the right one or not. They are not contradictory.

I don't really care what "the Tea Party" says. I don't think the tea party exists as a monolithic entity that is capable of saying anything.

I also haven't seen anyone say that faith in God is a prerequisite to liberty in the political sense of liberty.

[Slutter McGee]

It does rest on logic. If there exist any theological beliefs in which omniscience and omnipotence are logically compatible, then it cannot be the case that they are necessarily logically contradictory. I gave one possible explanation, but it doesn't matter if that's the right one or not. They are not contradictory.

I don't really care what "the Tea Party" says. I don't think the tea party exists as a monolithic entity that is capable of saying anything.

I also haven't seen anyone say that faith in God is a prerequisite to liberty in the political sense of liberty.

Seriously bud, through arguing religion and how morality relates to it. I let myself get sidetracked. I am much more interested in the political implications of making religious values an active subject of the tea party.

As far as not caring about the Tea-Party...as much as they piss me off at times, they are the biggest movement for conservative fiscal reform in many many many years. It would be silly to dismiss it.

And the tea-party is not a monolithic entity, but that does not mean that an increased focus on religious issues from the tea-party platform would not affect how the general public percieves it.

A focus on religious views will again seperate the precarious temporary alliance between traditional conservatives and libertarian conservatives on these fiscal issues, and all progress we have gained on this front will be lost.

Sincerley,

Slutter McGee

[erowe1]

As far as not caring about the Tea-Party...as much as they piss me off at times, they are the biggest movement for conservative fiscal reform in many many many years. It would be silly to dismiss it.

And the tea-party is not a monolithic entity, but that does not mean that an increased focus on religious issues from the tea-party platform would not affect how the general public percieves it.


I didn't mean to dismiss it. What I meant was that there's no such thing as "the tea party platform."

However, if there does exist any actual organization that publishes a platform that functions as the de facto tea party platform, then it's not Freedom Works, Tea Party Express, ICaucus, or whatever that group was the quote in the OP was from, it's the RNC.

[Brian4Liberty]

How can god be both omniscient and omnipotent at the same time? If it knows what's going to happen, it can't change it. This is quite the contradiction.

God has no place in the political sphere. It can only serve to muddle up the truth.

Agreed, there is a logical contradiction there. And omniscient and omnipotent don't necessarily mean knowing the future. The future has not happened yet. Experience can make for really good guesses about the future, and who has more experience than God? ;)


I always figured God was omniscient by knowing everything. Of course, the future hasn't happened yet, not even for God, so that's not a "thing" to be "known" yet. Omnipotence relates to the present, as it always does. I'm not a huge fan of this idea of the future being knowable or already laid out somehow, even by God. God seems to exist simultaneously with time, after all, and the Bible certainly depends on chronology to make any kind of sense.

Consider Genesis for the easiest example of what I mean. Did God know that Adam and Eve were going to eat of the forbidden fruit? It seems kind of sadistic to go through that entire exercise just to punish Man for what Man was obviously going to do, and was designed to do. However, if you look at it in real time, you have God creating Man, and Woman, and the whole tree of knowledge thing was probable... but not for certain. God gave us free will. So it happened, and then God (the omnipotent) had to decide what to do with humanity. He had the power to smite us and start over (which is actually a part of a lot of other mythologies in history), He had the power to banish us, He had the power to just forget about it. So there is an instance of omniscience and omnipotence. God knew everything going on at the time, including the fact that they ate of the tree, and then He had the ability to do whatever He saw fit about it.


You beat me to it!

[itshappening]

The Big spending neocons desperately want Bush evangelicalism which served them so well to make a come back, probably under the Huckster or Palin

[Brian4Liberty]

Of course. "The Tea Party" is not Christian as a single unit, so it would be stupid to adopt that point of view. However, individual Tea Party members shouldn't have to keep quiet about the fact that their political views and their religious views happen to mesh nicely. It's a fine line. The Tea Party is not doing a good job of staying on it.

Agree completely. And the problem that we are having right now is those few people who are coming out and saying "you can't believe in Liberty, rights, the Constitution or even have morals if you are not a believer in my specific religious sect." It does nothing but divide, and the logical disconnect between this position and "liberty" is hard to understand. This has been a big issue in a local meet-up recently. For some reason this is becoming a wedge all of a sudden, and suspicion starts with the neo-conservatives... They used it in the past, and they are trying it now.

[Theocrat]

Agree completely. And the problem that we are having right now is those few people who are coming out and saying "you can't believe in Liberty, rights, the Constitution or even have morals if you are not a believer in my specific religious sect." It does nothing but divide, and the logical disconnect between this position and "liberty" is hard to understand. This has been a big issue in a local meet-up recently. For some reason this is becoming a wedge all of a sudden, and suspicion starts with the neo-conservatives... They used it in the past, and they are trying it now.

Philosophically speaking, there can be no basis for liberty if there is no God. Given the materialistic assumptions which many of you have on this forum, you can't even believe in the metaphysical existence in something like the concept of liberty.

So, I don't even understand how, rationally, a person who denies God's existence can 1) believe in liberty, (let alone define it objectively), and 2) argue that it is a universal good goal for all of mankind. When anti-theistic Tea Party proponents appeal to liberty as the chiefest goal, they are working from a different worldview than their own. That is always going to be the pervading conflict of the nonbeliever.

The logical, and dare I say, American position is if liberty exists, then it must come from God. If there is no God, then it leaves man (or impersonal nature) to decide what liberty is and who gets it. That is a basic philosophy of those on the left side of the political spectrum who always call for big government. Sadly, those of you who reject God in the Tea Party Movement are in company with them, in terms of a common philosophical worldview.

So, it's not we Christians who have a problem with liberty in this movement. It is non-Christians who will not rationally come to terms with their own set of beliefs and assumptions about the world, in general, and politics, in particular.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Jesus said that? What verse? And mandatory in what sense?

So I, an atheist, have to teach a church goer about Christian tithing/taxing?? Fucking priceless! Maybe it's because I read the bible that I am now an atheist, I suggest you do the same. Maybe then you'll realize what kind of bullshit nonsense you're signing up for.

[Brian4Liberty]

Philosophically speaking, there can be no basis for liberty if there is no God.


Case in point...


That is a basic philosophy of those on the left side of the political spectrum who always call for big government. Sadly, those of you who reject God in the Tea Party Movement are in company with them, in terms of a common philosophical worldview.

Ok, so:

- Democrats are all "godless".
- Anyone who is "godless" should go ahead and switch to being Democrats, and vote appropriately. (Or is this just your denomination? Do Catholics count? How about Jews? Muslims? Hindus? Buddhists? etc.)

[nate895]

Again, your argument does not rest on logic, but the understanding of your own theological beliefs. Which is fine. I have no problem with it.

All I want is for one of you religious folk to admit that faith in God is not a prerequisite to liberty, and that as such, it would be politically stupid for the tea-party to adopt this point of view.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

I don't think you know what logic is.

[Sola_Fide]

So, I don't even understand how, rationally, a person who denies God's existence can 1) believe in liberty, (let alone define it objectively), and 2) argue that it is a universal good goal for all of mankind. When anti-theistic Tea Party proponents appeal to liberty as the chiefest goal, they are working from a different worldview than their own. That is always going to be the pervading conflict of the nonbeliever.





Exactly.


From an atheistic worldview, on what non-arbitrary basis is Liberty a worthy goal? If everything is conventional and there are no truths that apply universally, why can't a person like Stalin work for the anti-thesis of Liberty and not be equally justified? Why is tyranny not as worthy a goal as Liberty?

Let's hear an atheist non-arbitrarily answer that. It can't be done:)

[nate895]

So I, an atheist, have to teach a church goer about Christian tithing/taxing?? Fucking priceless! Maybe it's because I read the bible that I am now an atheist, I suggest you do the same. Maybe then you'll realize what kind of bullshit nonsense you're signing up for.

Do you actually think you know anything about the Bible if you say Jesus said to give 10% to the church? That's not even in the Bible, so either you never read the Bible and getting your bogus beliefs from some atheistic or generic "Bible contradictions" website, or you just making stuff up. I don't which source is worse.

[Theocrat]

Case in point...



Ok, so:

- Democrats are all "godless".
- Anyone who is "godless" should go ahead and switch to being Democrats, and vote appropriately. (Or is this just your denomination? Do Catholics count? How about Jews? Muslims? Hindus? Buddhists? etc.)

No, I would not say that all Democrats are godless; I would say the Democratic platform of which they affirm is godless because it's principles contradict the revelation of liberty which God has established (as the Creator and the Giver of our rights).

My contention is that anyone who denies God's existence is, in principle by reason of his philosophy, already acting in accord with the policies of those on the political Left. Sure, anti-theistic libertarians may reject certain ideas from the Left, but they have no objective basis for doing so. Like the Leftists, their ideas are just as arbitrary and inconsistent because they do not found themselves on the absolute authority of the sovereign Lord.

[Brian4Liberty]

From an atheistic worldview, on what non-arbitrary basis is Liberty a worthy goal?

Evolution.

[Sola_Fide]

Evolution.



What is the non-arbitrary basis?


Why should we evolve toward Liberty and not toward Tyranny?



Secondly, why can't a person go against "evolution" and work for Statism if that is what he thinks is right?

[Theocrat]

Evolution.

That explains nothing, and it's actually a logical fallacy of reification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29). Evolution is not a personal being, so it's impossible for it to tell us anything about the "goodness" of liberty or the "evilness" of tyranny. As you well know, evolution is a term used to describe a natural process of how life might have come to exist. The limits of its parameters is the natural world, for evolution seeks to tell us what is the case, not what ought to be the case. Therefore, it cannot explain what liberty is.

[nate895]

Evolution.

It's newer, therefore it's correct.

That isn't illogical, and arbitrary at all now is it.

Remember, Christians are the illogical ones with no facts. Just keep repeating that to yourself, since your repetition of it seems to be all you have.

[erowe1]

I'm getting a real laugh at the bible thumpers in this thread. Doesn't your boy JC always talk about the evils of money and how you should give it away? He even says it's manditory that you give 10% away to the church/government.

If you suckers actually read that fairy tale, you would realize how anti-capitalist JC and his spooky sky-man father really are.


Jesus said that? What verse? And mandatory in what sense?


So I, an atheist, have to teach a church goer about Christian tithing/taxing?? Fucking priceless! Maybe it's because I read the bible that I am now an atheist, I suggest you do the same. Maybe then you'll realize what kind of bullshit nonsense you're signing up for.

Perhaps I was too subtle, so I'll be more blunt this time. Jesus never said anything remotely supportive of anything you claimed he did. Feel free to waste as much time as you would like searching in vain for evidence that he did.

And if you do bother doing that, and you decide to come back here with some reference to something you think you can twist into what you said, please don't neglect to include in your response the answer to the other part of my question, "mandatory in what sense?".

[wizardwatson]

I'm getting a real laugh at the bible thumpers in this thread. Doesn't your boy JC always talk about the evils of money and how you should give it away? He even says it's manditory that you give 10% away to the church/government.

If you suckers actually read that fairy tale, you would realize how anti-capitalist JC and his spooky sky-man father really are.

If Jesus were reading this thread, he'd probably be getting a laugh at you right now.

And when he met you in heaven he'd probably be like, "dude, atheism's one thing but douchiness is quite another."

[Sola_Fide]

It's newer, therefore it's correct.

That isn't illogical, and arbitrary at all now is it.

Remember, Christians are the illogical ones with no facts. Just keep repeating that to yourself, since your repetition of it seems to be all you have.


Originally posted by Theocrat That explains nothing, and it's actually a logical fallacy of reification. Evolution is not a personal being, so it's impossible for it to tell us anything about the "goodness" of liberty or the "evilness" of tyranny. As you well know, evolution is a term used to describe a natural process of how life might have come to exist. The limits of its parameters is the natural world, for evolution seeks to tell us what is the case, not what ought to be the case. Therefore, it cannot explain what liberty is.



Exactly.


Not only is it completely arbitrary, you cannot argue from what is the case to what ought to be the case. It is a logical fallacy.


If evolution is the standard that we should use for morality, then one should argue for tyranny, not against it...since we as humans have shown that we are very good at tyranny and bad at liberty.

[Sola_Fide]

Bump.

It only took 3 idiot illogical Christians to end this debate?


Man:)

[Brian4Liberty]

Bump.

It only took 3 idiot illogical Christians to end this debate?


Man:)

Maybe because everyone is tired of debating this nonsense. You do not represent all Christians. As a matter of fact, you represent a small minority of them. You really need to go debate some philosophical atheists if you want to have fun and endless, fruitless debate. Not everyone enjoys philosophy.

[Sola_Fide]

Maybe because everyone is tired of debating this nonsense. You do not represent all Christians. As a matter of fact, you represent a small minority of them. You really need to go debate some philosophical atheists if you want to have fun and endless, fruitless debate. Not everyone enjoys philosophy.

*shrugs*

I don't think it's nonsense bro...

[nate895]

Maybe because everyone is tired of debating this nonsense. You do not represent all Christians. As a matter of fact, you represent a small minority of them. You really need to go debate some philosophical atheists if you want to have fun and endless, fruitless debate. Not everyone enjoys philosophy.

You know, these "philosophical atheists" hardly exist. Most of the public representatives of atheism are well outside their field of expertise (a demonstrable fact from their numerous errors in popular works) when discussing philosophical issues. As much as a third of philosophy departments are conservative Christians, when they were almost non-existent in the 1960's. The wave in scholarship is in favor of conservative Christianity, not against it. That's why the atheists are so desperate for popular support.

[Brian4Liberty]

You know, these "philosophical atheists" hardly exist.

You might try these out:

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Forums.aspx

[nate895]

You might try these out:

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Forums.aspx

Calling most of these guys "philosophers" is an insult to language itself, particularly when they start discussing God.

There is saying in Greek circles "A little greek [first year Greek student] is a dangerous thing." The same goes for philosophy.

[fatjohn]

Hmm,
I'm hearing you guys but if the bible is really true, then why isn't anything written about this shit?http://harleyk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/HubbleDeepFieldL.jpg
Now please move this to religion, thx

[Slutter McGee]

I don't think you know what logic is.

Logic is not creating some convoluted psuedo-philisophical argument to justify your belief in the existence of God.

I believe in God. It is called faith. There is no evidence. There is no logical certainty. There are not even sound premises.

My belief in God allows me to see liberty for what it is. Something that is attainable by all religions and all those who lack religion.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[robert68]

How much should a return to God be emphasized in the tea-party movement? And should discussion of the Divine take a back seat to economic and government reform?

A panel of speakers at WND's "Taking America Back" conference in Miami, Fla., tackled the question head on.

"I don't think there's any way to separate economic freedom from our Judeo-Christian heritage," argued Tim Daughtry, who trains grassroots conservatives through Patriot Coaching. "It is a classic mistake to appease the left, to back down by sticking to economic issues.

SOURCE:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=205185

“Liberty” jihadism?

[Sola_Fide]

Hmm,
I'm hearing you guys but if the bible is really true, then why isn't anything written about this shit?http://harleyk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/HubbleDeepFieldL.jpg
Now please move this to religion, thx



Wow.

This is a fail. Sorry dude.

[nate895]

Logic is not creating some convoluted psuedo-philisophical argument to justify your belief in the existence of God.

I believe in God. It is called faith. There is no evidence. There is no logical certainty. There are not even sound premises.

My belief in God allows me to see liberty for what it is. Something that is attainable by all religions and all those who lack religion.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Once again, you do not evidence any knowledge about what reason and logic are.


Hmm,
I'm hearing you guys but if the bible is really true, then why isn't anything written about this shit?http://harleyk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/HubbleDeepFieldL.jpg
Now please move this to religion, thx

Genesis 1:16:

And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.

Psalm 19:1:

The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Isaiah 40:22:

It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

[Slutter McGee]

Once again, you do not evidence any knowledge about what reason and logic are. ;

Ironic considering you do not evidence any knowledge about what faith is.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[nate895]

Ironic considering you do not evidence any knowledge about what faith is.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

I believe what God has said about our future. There is no possible way to prove what He said is true. I believe it, however. That does not make that belief irrational, considering God cannot lie, it just means that you cannot provide empirical evidence. I never said you can provide irrefutable empirical proof of the existence of God, merely that the empirical is consistent with the existence of the Christian God, and not consistent if He were in fact, non-existent.

[Slutter McGee]

I believe what God has said about our future. There is no possible way to prove what He said is true. I believe it, however. That does not make that belief irrational, considering God cannot lie, it just means that you cannot provide empirical evidence. I never said you can provide irrefutable empirical proof of the existence of God, merely that the empirical is consistent with the existence of the Christian God, and not consistent if He were in fact, non-existent.

You did it again. Almost got me in a debate that I really could care less about. Please...without starting some apologetic rant, can you tell me why religion and the teaparty should coexist?

Isn't that what the damn thread is supposed to about?

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Sola_Fide]

Isaiah 40:22:

It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;


Interesting, isn't it? :)

[nate895]

You did it again. Almost got me in a debate that I really could care less about. Please...without starting some apologetic rant, can you tell me why religion and the teaparty should coexist?

Isn't that what the damn thread is supposed to about?

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

I already have, on page 1. If you cannot see the crystal clear, elementary logical syllogism expressed in post 6 of this thread, not only will you have not shown evidence of knowing what logic is, you will prove the opposite.

[robert68]

As for my understanding of the Bible, to answer your question, did God know Adam would eat the fruit, absolutely yes. That was a necessary step on the way to his sending his son to die for our sins. The cross wasn't Plan B, it was Plan A.

If “God” was the real creator, whatever he "sent his son” to do spiritually, he could have done himself; and he wouldn't have damned everyone to hell to begin with, only to undo it later.

[nate895]

If “God” was the real creator, whatever he "sent his son” to do spiritually, he could have done himself; and he wouldn't have damned everyone to hell to begin with, only to undo it later.

Trinity.

& Who you are to say what God should do?

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Do you actually think you know anything about the Bible if you say Jesus said to give 10% to the church? That's not even in the Bible, so either you never read the Bible and getting your bogus beliefs from some atheistic or generic "Bible contradictions" website, or you just making stuff up. I don't which source is worse.

What the fuck? Although I was a little loose with who said what (spooky burning bush man or JC), if you don't know about Tithe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe) than you are a HORRIBLE christian.

This is really sad, have you even opened up that rag of a book? It just sounds like someone taught you their interpretation but you never actually read any scripture. It all makes sense now, you've never read the Bible so you don't understand how capitalism and Christianity are too opposing ideologies.

[nate895]

What the fuck? Although I was a little loose with who said what (spooky burning bush man or JC), if you don't know about Tithe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe) than you are a HORRIBLE christian.

This is really sad, have you even opened up that rag of a book? It just sounds like someone taught you their interpretation but you never actually read any scripture. It all makes sense now, you've never read the Bible so you don't understand how capitalism and Christianity are too opposing ideologies.

The 10% tithe is a compilation of different monetary contributions in the Torah. 1% is the amount set aside for ministers/priests, there is some set aside for feasts, sacrifices, etc.

As for your continued assertions about capitalism and Christianity being two opposing ideologies, you still haven't provided a single basis for that whatsoever. You are the one who sounds like they are just listening to someone's interpretation and then repeating it as if it were undeniable fact.

Edit: Emboldening the assertion is not a substantive argument.

http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/fundyath.html

[Sola_Fide]

What the fuck? Although I was a little loose with who said what (spooky burning bush man or JC), if you don't know about Tithe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe) than you are a HORRIBLE christian.

This is really sad, have you even opened up that rag of a book? It just sounds like someone taught you their interpretation but you never actually read any scripture. It all makes sense now, you've never read the Bible so you don't understand how capitalism and Christianity are too opposing ideologies.



HaHaHaHaHa!

WHAT???


Please explain yourself. Please:)

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Remember when JC had a bad trip and freaked out at the merchants in the temple? Something tells me he did that because he wanted capitalism out of his temple.

And who could forget the classic line:

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." --Mathew 19:24

[idirtify]

This is a good question.

There is no question that you cannot seperate economics from morality. Sound money is a moral issue....unsound money is theft. Theft is evil.


So, in that regard, I think a morality can be beneficial to the Tea Parties. I am actually starting to hear churches and mainstream evangelicals talk about currency debasement now. Its a good sign. In the Old Testament, God chastised Israel for mixing dross with their silver, thereby debasing their currency. It is a moral issue.



I also think that Liberty and forceful coercion are tied to morality as well. We are made in God's image. We are free as He is completely free. So therefore an oppressive Statist tyranny acting as god over us is incompatible with the free man made in God's image.


I don't hear evangelicals talking about true Liberty enough. Morality in government is not about how many faith-based programs we can have, its about how immoral the government and force itself is....and how we must restrain it.

While I of course have no problem with more religious people understanding the immorality of big government, morality is not necessarily the domain of religion. Not only does religion have no monopoly on it, the two are easily separable. While individual liberty and the golden rule might resemble some religious morals, they function perfectly well on their own (are quite fine as secular morals).

[nate895]

Remember when JC had a bad trip and freaked out at the merchants in the temple? Something tells me he did that because he wanted capitalism out of his temple.

"Something tells me" isn't a substantive argument.


And who could forget the classic line:

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." --Mathew 19:24

What this has to do with the private ownership of the means of production and free markets, I do not know, but what Christ is saying here is that those who are rich (i.e., those who are mighty in this world) often cannot see the Kingdom of God. This isn't because God hates rich people for being rich, it's because rich people are prideful in general and want to keep stuff, even if they must sacrifice to serve the Lord for whatever reason. Jesus then demonstrates his point to the disciples in the proceeding verses by saying in verse 26 "With man this [salvation] is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Thus, man cannot save himself, but God must save him.

[nate895]

While I of course have no problem with more religious people understanding the immorality of big government, morality is not necessarily the domain of religion. Not only does religion have no monopoly on it, the two are easily separable. While individual liberty and the golden rule might resemble some religious morals, they function perfectly well on their own (are quite fine as secular morals).

But why should I choose the golden rule? Why, furthermore, should I not apply the rule in a communist way instead of a libertarian way?

[idirtify]

Let's think about this logically. For the purposes of this argument, I am not going to argue the premises, because I am just showing the logic behind the idea.

(1) God is the omnipotent, omniscient ruler of the whole universe and all that is in it.
(2) The civil government is part of the universe.
(3) Therefore, God rules over the civil government.

This is a very simple, elementary logical syllogism. If you believe God is the omnipotent, omniscient ruler of the whole universe, you must believe He rules over the civil government as well. There simply is no other option if you want to even pretend you are logical.

It’s logical given the premise “if you believe in God”, but it’s not without the premise (if you don’t believe). In fact, if you don’t believe, it’s logical to worry about the danger of intermingling religion with government. No pretending here.

[nate895]

It’s logical given the premise “if you believe in God”, but it’s not without the premise (if you don’t believe). In fact, if you don’t believe, it’s logical to worry about the danger of intermingling religion with government. No pretending here.

I am simply saying that to say it is illogical to mix religion and politics, I can come back to say that it is basic logic for God and politics to mix. Even if you do not believe in God, you have to believe that those who do (the vast majority of mankind) should be seeking to do God's will in the civil authority if they are being logically consistent.

[idirtify]

But why should I choose the golden rule?

Out of self-interest. If it’s what you want for yourself, chances look good that it’s what everyone else wants too. Thus stems the truce on initiated aggression and the golden rule and consistent and universal libertarianism.





Why, furthermore, should I not apply the rule in a communist way instead of a libertarian way?

It’s self-defeating to apply the golden rule with communism since it violates everything the individual wants.

[idirtify]

I am simply saying that to say it is illogical to mix religion and politics, I can come back to say that it is basic logic for God and politics to mix. Even if you do not believe in God, you have to believe that those who do (the vast majority of mankind) should be seeking to do God's will in the civil authority if they are being logically consistent.

Could you reword that please?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

But why should I choose the golden rule? Why, furthermore, should I not apply the rule in a communist way instead of a libertarian way?

People generally like to be wealthier than poorer. Freedom brings prosperity. Ergo, the utilitarian argument employed by people like Mises & de Jasay makes perfect sense why you would hold to such a rule. To think religion is the only domain of morality is insane.

[clarity]

People generally like to be wealthier than poorer. Freedom brings prosperity. Ergo, the utilitarian argument employed by people like Mises & de Jasay makes perfect sense why you would hold to such a rule. To think religion is the only domain of morality is insane.

People do generally like to be wealthier than poorer. That goes for the kings, the dictators, and the oligarchs of the world and it drives them to forsake God and enslave the people. Atheism is fundamentally the foundation of moral and existential nihilism. Meaning that without God and his Word, your morals are no more important or rational than the morals of someone else.

[nate895]

People generally like to be wealthier than poorer. Freedom brings prosperity. Ergo, the utilitarian argument employed by people like Mises & de Jasay makes perfect sense why you would hold to such a rule.

Generally

What if people are generally wrong? Furthermore, why is contentment a better state of mind than, say, downright misery? Why should not whatever causes the most pain in the most people be the option we choose?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Generally

What if people are generally wrong? Furthermore, why is contentment a better state of mind than, say, downright misery? Why should not whatever causes the most pain in the most people be the option we choose?

Are you daft? I answered this in my post. Have you not read any Mises before? He makes the argument that from utilitarian principles come the most desired rules (Morality). If you ask someone would they want to be rich or poor, 99.9% would say rich. There are some who are minimalist, luddites who would rather be poor. I don't like objective preferences, because they don't exist.

I mean what the hell. Your deity is the one who smolt two whole cities because they engaged in acts he/she/it deemed immoral, and is the basis for much of the social conservative creed. Gambling, sex/prostitution, homosexuality, etc. There is very little in the morality of Christianity to point to a laissez-faire society. I am no more a freeman if I am a slave to God. The moment a religious zealot plans to use Government to curb my peaceful activities, is the moment I call them tyrants. Not to mention the fact that Christianity is riddled with contradictions (It does say Thou Shalt Not Steal in the Commandments right? What is taxation?). In any event, it is imminently plausible to create a moral compass through utilitarianism.

In fact, I would wager that is a lot more effective to bringing people to our side, than throwing God in their face. I prefer Mises & de Jasay in bringing people over (Appeal to reason over faith).

[nate895]

Are you daft? I answered this in my post. Have you not read any Mises before? He makes the argument that from utilitarian principles come the most desired rules (Morality). If you ask someone would they want to be rich or poor, 99.9% would say rich. There are some who are minimalist, luddites who would rather be poor. I don't like objective preferences, because they don't exist.

I mean what the hell. Your deity is the one who smolt two whole cities because they engaged in acts he/she/it deemed immoral, and is the basis for much of the social conservative creed. Gambling, sex/prostitution, homosexuality, etc. There is very little in the morality of Christianity to point to a laissez-faire society. I am no more a freeman if I am a slave to God. The moment a religious zealot plans to use Government to curb my peaceful activities, is the moment I call them tyrants. Not to mention the fact that Christianity is riddled with contradictions (It does say Thou Shalt Not Steal in the Commandments right? What is taxation?). In any event, it is imminently plausible to create a moral compass through utilitarianism.

In fact, I would wager that is a lot more effective to bringing people to our side, than throwing God in their face. I prefer Mises & de Jasay in bringing people over (Appeal to reason over faith).

You have no argument here other than to assert utilitarianism leads to the best morality, which is a vicious circle. Then you just go on a rant on how much you hate God, and arbitrarily mix your definitions with the Christian's to make up problems that don't exist. This is what society comes to when you abandon God: meaningless drivel from the intelligent, and debauchery amongst the average idiot.

As for what is more effective, the Gospel is the most effective, for it is the power of God unto salvation. From there, we can debate about politics and what the Bible has to do with it.

[robert68]

People do generally like to be wealthier than poorer. That goes for the kings, the dictators, and the oligarchs of the world and it drives them to forsake God and enslave the people. Atheism is fundamentally the foundation of moral and existential nihilism. Meaning that without God and his Word, your morals are no more important or rational than the morals of someone else.

Actully, rulers historically, going way back, have commonly had political alliances with religious groups. “God” has been and is an excellent public (and private) justification for them doing what they want. And that's not coming from an atheist.

[erowe1]

Actully, rulers historically, going way back, have commonly had political alliances with religious groups. “God” has been and is an excellent public (and private) justification for them doing what they want. And that's not coming from an atheist.

That's very true. And as a Christian I appreciate the same warning. The church-ruler alliance is always bad, IMHO.

I also see two mitigating factors to keep in mind. First, The historical alliances between rulers and religious leaders have mostly been in contexts when religion was embedded in other parts of society much more than it generally is today. One of the reasons this is important is that the religious leaders in many pre-modern contexts were also one and the same with the society's intellectuals. One analogy to their role today might be pastors serving as mouthpieces for the state. But another analogy that might be more appropriate is the way the state uses scientists, economists, and other scholars to convince the population of the need for more state power to allay this or that crisis.

Second, it's important to maintain the distinction between the problem of alliances between religious leaders and the state and the role of religious thinking in formulating policy positions on the parts of all of us. I think the former should be avoided, but the latter should not.

[Southron]

Actully, rulers historically, going way back, have commonly had political alliances with religious groups. “God” has been and is an excellent public (and private) justification for them doing what they want. And that's not coming from an atheist.

This is partly why I reject the "Americanized, God and country" sort of patriotism.

It is nothing more than a weak version of Christianity, with just enough truth to appeal to misguided people.

What I also reject, though, are claims that making any moral judgment is "forcing my beliefs" on you.

[MelissaWV]

Out of self-interest. If it’s what you want for yourself, chances look good that it’s what everyone else wants too. Thus stems the truce on initiated aggression and the golden rule and consistent and universal libertarianism.

It’s self-defeating to apply the golden rule with communism since it violates everything the individual wants.

I would have to disagree with you. There are multiple ways of twisting the Golden Rule to suit more sinister agendas, it's just that the person doing the twisting wouldn't see it as sinister.

"If it's what you want for yourself, chances look good that it's what everyone else wants, too."

Take that as your main and only premise for a moment. Now, let's say you want to build a new interstate. It's what you want, as it will get you to work faster, and upon consideration chances look good that it's what everyone else wants, too, because traffic is terrible and the interstate would speed up the commutes of a great number of those people as well. The rest would use other roads, but they would be less congested. You simply cannot see who would be opposed to this.

The phrase "eminent domain" comes into play. You realize you wouldn't sell your home for, say, less than $300,000 if it were the size of that old man's house, but he won't sell. You offer more and more and more, because to you the money would obviously become overwhelming at some point and you'd sell. You're basing everything off of your point of view. He doesn't sell. Now, you know the interstate is for the "good of the people," so you find a way to get him off of the land by force (it's what you feel the other people would want, so they could get to work) and compensate the old man to the tune of $300,000 (the amount you feel is fair for his home). I know there's an objection rising to your lips (or fingers, in this case) but there are more and more cases throughout history. Some folks are simply being malicious in their misuse of the Golden Rule, and some are probably well-meaning but the ends are still the same.

Consider that, if you are really a philanthrope at heart, you cannot fathom why someone would "let someone starve" and so you take up a collection, but you want to be fair to everyone (because you would want them to be fair with you in this way) so you take a percentage of everyone's income to feed the poor. This has the twofold impact of also feeding the hungry, which you would want done for you if you were starving.

Justification is a tricky, tricky thing.

[idirtify]

I would have to disagree with you. There are multiple ways of twisting the Golden Rule to suit more sinister agendas, it's just that the person doing the twisting wouldn't see it as sinister.

"If it's what you want for yourself, chances look good that it's what everyone else wants, too."

Take that as your main and only premise for a moment. Now, let's say you want to build a new interstate. It's what you want, as it will get you to work faster, and upon consideration chances look good that it's what everyone else wants, too, because traffic is terrible and the interstate would speed up the commutes of a great number of those people as well. The rest would use other roads, but they would be less congested. You simply cannot see who would be opposed to this.

The phrase "eminent domain" comes into play. You realize you wouldn't sell your home for, say, less than $300,000 if it were the size of that old man's house, but he won't sell. You offer more and more and more, because to you the money would obviously become overwhelming at some point and you'd sell. You're basing everything off of your point of view. He doesn't sell. Now, you know the interstate is for the "good of the people," so you find a way to get him off of the land by force (it's what you feel the other people would want, so they could get to work) and compensate the old man to the tune of $300,000 (the amount you feel is fair for his home). I know there's an objection rising to your lips (or fingers, in this case) but there are more and more cases throughout history. Some folks are simply being malicious in their misuse of the Golden Rule, and some are probably well-meaning but the ends are still the same.

Consider that, if you are really a philanthrope at heart, you cannot fathom why someone would "let someone starve" and so you take up a collection, but you want to be fair to everyone (because you would want them to be fair with you in this way) so you take a percentage of everyone's income to feed the poor. This has the twofold impact of also feeding the hungry, which you would want done for you if you were starving.

Justification is a tricky, tricky thing.

“There are multiple ways of twisting the Golden Rule to suit more sinister agendas”

Just not as many ways as twisting religion to suit more sinister agendas.



Your examples may profile things most people want, but they violate more fundamental things most people want. They may want an interstate, but more fundamentally they want to keep all their money safe from theft. IOW their want of freedom from coercion trumps their want for something that requires coercion from others to pay for. While you are right that lots of people do not see these things clearly, that’s not technically relevant to this discussion on relative merit; if they did, they would see the gun in their hand and realize they are violating that which they value the most.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Are you daft? I answered this in my post. Have you not read any Mises before? He makes the argument that from utilitarian principles come the most desired rules (Morality). If you ask someone would they want to be rich or poor, 99.9% would say rich. There are some who are minimalist, luddites who would rather be poor. I don't like objective preferences, because they don't exist.

I mean what the hell. Your deity is the one who smolt two whole cities because they engaged in acts he/she/it deemed immoral, and is the basis for much of the social conservative creed. Gambling, sex/prostitution, homosexuality, etc. There is very little in the morality of Christianity to point to a laissez-faire society. I am no more a freeman if I am a slave to God. The moment a religious zealot plans to use Government to curb my peaceful activities, is the moment I call them tyrants. Not to mention the fact that Christianity is riddled with contradictions (It does say Thou Shalt Not Steal in the Commandments right? What is taxation?). In any event, it is imminently plausible to create a moral compass through utilitarianism.

In fact, I would wager that is a lot more effective to bringing people to our side, than throwing God in their face. I prefer Mises & de Jasay in bringing people over (Appeal to reason over faith).

Christianity is an opposing ideology to capitalism and anything laissez-faire. People who derive their moral compass through fear miss the whole point.

[fatjohn]

Genesis 1:16:

And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.

Psalm 19:1:

The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Isaiah 40:22:

It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

oh, wow
really detailed... but, nothing about galaxies, black holes, extra solar planets? The way they move? Which creatures might live on them? No?
I guess god didn't thought it was important and that no man was ever going to be interested in that stuff.

[nate895]

oh, wow
really detailed... but, nothing about galaxies, black holes, extra solar planets? The way they move? Which creatures might live on them? No?
I guess god didn't thought it was important and that no man was ever going to be interested in that stuff.

Their sole purpose is to glorify God. No creatures live on them.

As for why God wouldn't talk about it more in His word: Does it have absolutely anything to do with the history of redemption? No. The Bible is about the history of the reconciliation of man to God after the Fall, so I fail to see how this would have any bearing on the Bible's truth. God provided all that was necessary to study the Heavens in His word. That doesn't mean He told us all about them, just that the tools for finding out are there. Also, these passing mentions of all this marvelous thing called the universe (which was a passing mention even when it was written) goes to show God's omnipotence since all were created in an instant.

This is similar to the problem some atheists bring up about the universe just being too big. As if God would be limited to a small universe. Tell me: If God created a small universe, would you then indict Him for not making a large one? That would seem a bigger problem to me.

[MelissaWV]

oh, wow
really detailed... but, nothing about galaxies, black holes, extra solar planets? The way they move? Which creatures might live on them? No?
I guess god didn't thought it was important and that no man was ever going to be interested in that stuff.

In all fairness, that doesn't show an inconsistency. History textbooks don't go into math, and geography books don't often delve into philosophy. Does that mean that math and philosophy don't exist? The Bible purports to be the story of humanity. It's about terrestrial morality and development, and about celestial involvement in such by God and His agents. I wouldn't expect to find a detailed discussion about black holes or other galaxies.

You just spoke, for instance, about only a few things. Why not mention the millions of other things that exist out there in space, or even here on earth, or in the seas? Why gloss over many of them? Creation stories often talk about only the animals most sacred or important to mankind, and leave the rest to a brief mention. There are the birds of the sky and the fishes of the sea. Does this mean that those cultures don't believe in whales, seals, or dolphins? :p

On top of this, the Bible was ultimately written by human beings. If you believe it is divinely inspired, it stands to reason that God would discuss things in terms the human author could understand, relate to, and set to paper. If you believe it is purely the work of human minds, then it stands to reason that those humans would not go too far past their contemporary knowledge of space and its contents.

[nate895]

If you believe it is divinely inspired, it stands to reason that God would discuss things in terms the human author could understand, relate to, and set to paper.

I think this is possibly one of the best statements of inspiration by a non-Evangelical I have ever seen. Give credit where credit is due.

[nate895]

This is partly why I reject the "Americanized, God and country" sort of patriotism.

It is nothing more than a weak version of Christianity, with just enough truth to appeal to misguided people.

What I also reject, though, are claims that making any moral judgment is "forcing my beliefs" on you.

I have to say that one of the things that started the perceivable decline of Christianity amongst the masses in the Western society was the use of the church in WWI to support the disgusting human slaughter that was that unnecessary war. Did you know that church attendance started to significantly decrease only after the Chaplains on the frontlines condemned the Christmas Truce? The soldiers were primarily Christians, and did not want to be fighting each other when that truth dawned on them. Then the Chaplains took orders form their governments to put a stop to it. It really disenfranchised many in that generation for Christianity, so that while many in that generation remained Christians, thy were not as diligent in their own walks and did not pass Christianity down to the next generation in as great a way as generations past.

Every problem the Church has had over the years can be traced back to unfaithfulness within the Church itself.

[Bman]

I have to say that one of the things that started the perceivable decline of Christianity amongst the masses in the Western society was the use of the church in WWI to support the disgusting human slaughter that was that unnecessary war. Did you know that church attendance started to significantly decrease only after the Chaplains on the frontlines condemned the Christmas Truce? The soldiers were primarily Christians, and did not want to be fighting each other when that truth dawned on them. Then the Chaplains took orders form their governments to put a stop to it. It really disenfranchised many in that generation for Christianity, so that while many in that generation remained Christians, thy were not as diligent in their own walks and did not pass Christianity down to the next generation in as great a way as generations past.

Every problem the Church has had over the years can be traced back to unfaithfulness within the Church itself.

I saw a documentary on that. It's really a shame. all the soldiers were making peace but the war machine could not have it.

[fatjohn]

Their sole purpose is to glorify God. No creatures live on them.

As for why God wouldn't talk about it more in His word: Does it have absolutely anything to do with the history of redemption? No. The Bible is about the history of the reconciliation of man to God after the Fall, so I fail to see how this would have any bearing on the Bible's truth. God provided all that was necessary to study the Heavens in His word. That doesn't mean He told us all about them, just that the tools for finding out are there. Also, these passing mentions of all this marvelous thing called the universe (which was a passing mention even when it was written) goes to show God's omnipotence since all were created in an instant.

This is similar to the problem some atheists bring up about the universe just being too big. As if God would be limited to a small universe. Tell me: If God created a small universe, would you then indict Him for not making a large one? That would seem a bigger problem to me.

How do you know, maybe god didn't tell you about them because it does not fall in line with what the bible is supposed to be. Maybe you should let that one over to science.
AND
I guess you didn't saw avatar.

[libertybrewcity]

The Tea Party has been hijacked by the Christian right. Look at literally every tea party candidate from Rand to Lee to Buck to Angle to O'Donnell to many running in the house too. They are all social conservatives. The people have spoken.

I don't know how many times it will take for the GOP to wake up realize that social conservatism must die. It is not a winning strategy, at least on the federal level except for a few places.

[Sola_Fide]

The Tea Party has been hijacked by the Christian right. Look at literally every tea party candidate from Rand to Lee to Buck to Angle to O'Donnell to many running in the house too. They are all social conservatives. The people have spoken.

I don't know how many times it will take for the GOP to wake up realize that social conservatism must die. It is not a winning strategy, at least on the federal level except for a few places.


Social conservatism is fine as long as it is not enforced federally.

In fact, I would argue that the self-government that comes from faith is an essential aspect of Liberty. You can't have a drastically limited government without self-government.

[libertybrewcity]

Social conservatism is fine as long as it is not enforced federally.

In fact, I would argue that the self-government that comes from faith is an essential aspect of Liberty. You can't have a drastically limited government without self-government.

you can have drastically limited government without it being faith based. In fact, I would argue that religion controls the self like government controls the populace.

[Sola_Fide]

you can have drastically limited government without it being faith based. In fact, I would argue that religion controls the self like government controls the populace.



Hmm....

Could you expand on what you mean here?

[libertygrl]

How much should a return to God be emphasized in the tea-party movement? And should discussion of the Divine take a back seat to economic and government reform?

A panel of speakers at WND's "Taking America Back" conference in Miami, Fla., tackled the question head on.

"I don't think there's any way to separate economic freedom from our Judeo-Christian heritage," argued Tim Daughtry, who trains grassroots conservatives through Patriot Coaching. "It is a classic mistake to appease the left, to back down by sticking to economic issues.

SOURCE:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=205185

None. If you believe in the constitution which states that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, I think that says it all. Other than maybe group members coming together to pray for the safe return of our troops or the well being of our country, GOD should be a private matter and not pushed into a debate over national issues.

Ron Paul has admitted he's a man of faith yet you never heard him touch on the subject while going around giving speeches. It was always about liberty, and the rights of the individual. This actually brought more diverse groups together for a common cause because like he always says - "freedom is popular." Those who wear their religion on their sleeves do it to score points with a certain segment of voters. Bush Jr. is a perfect example.

[speciallyblend]

you can have drastically limited government without it being faith based. In fact, I would argue that religion controls the self like government controls the populace.

i hear ya, i will give example for you the marijuana issue! Most Faith Based want smaller government until it is something they do not agree with! Hell they would have jesus arrested for wearing hemp and being annointed with oils that contained hemp. i find many religious folks want freedom for them and big government for everyone else! The big government lovers are usually faith based and right-wingers in the gop!! this is what i have found in my many yrs as an activist in the gop and outside the gop. The biggest fight in the gop is these folks!!

[speciallyblend]

None. If you believe in the constitution which states that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, I think that says it all. Other than maybe group members coming together to pray for the safe return of our troops or the well being of our country, GOD should be a private matter and not pushed into a debate over national issues.

Ron Paul has admitted he's a man of faith yet you never heard him touch on the subject while going around giving speeches. It was always about liberty, and the rights of the individual. This actually brought more diverse groups together for a common cause because like he always says - "freedom is popular." Those who wear their religion on their sleeves do it to score points with a certain segment of voters. Bush Jr. is a perfect example.

Libertygrl 2010:)

[Sola_Fide]

i hear ya, i will give example for you the marijuana issue! Most Faith Based want smaller government until it is something they do not agree with! Hell they would have jesus arrested for wearing hemp and being annointed with oils that contained hemp. i find many religious folks want freedom for them and big government for everyone else! The big government lovers are usually faith based and right-wingers in the gop!! this is what i have found in my many yrs as an activist in the gop and outside the gop. The biggest fight in the gop is these folks!!



You all have got to stop saying "Christians are for big government". Its stupid and not anywhere close to being true. What if I said "all atheists are secular progressives who want collectivism"? It would be ridiculous because even though historically secularism has been tied to Communism and Socialism, I know there are some Objectivists out there who want real Libertarianism.


So stop lumping all of us Christians together. Ron Paul is a Christian. Historically Christians have argued for limited government and non-intervention in America. The Liberty movement has many grass roots homeschooler Christians who are real Constitutionalists (its not perfect but it is better than what we have now).