Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Angry Ron Paul Defends Ground Zero Mosque


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Libertarianism is close to the view which prevailed during the time of the Judges; everyone doing what is right in their own eyes. The Bible declares this is wickedness.


Libertarian minarchy is not the Judaeo-anarchy we find following the death of Joshua. You'll still have government protecting people from rape, murder, theft, and to enforce contracts. Any sin committed against fellow man would not be lawful in a libertarian minarchist society.

I'm also not sure how we can compare the US to Israel. Israel (and Israel alone) was a God-established theocracy- and the Jews (and the Jews alone) were called to follow a very strict Law (the purpose of which was to ultimately point to Christ). We as Christians don't pretend to follow that Law. The US was never established to follow the Law (and I hope it will never be required to follow the law of any religion, particularly I fear Sharia). It was established (in part) to allow everyone to worship God freely. To accomplish this, it was required of the government to be secular. You can't enforce personal morality without seeking religious interference. And we know what happens when government gets involved in religion. If the US were to become a church state, the Biblical interpretation set forth as law will not be in line with our own. Why? Because whatever government does, it does badly.

Our government isn't the solution to sin. It makes a very poor substitute for Christ. Our government is established to set rules to restrict itself and to protect us against domestic or foreign interference so that we can live in liberty and have the freedom to worship God. The more government, the less freedom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Laws by their very nature are imposing somebody's morality on others. Abortion changed from murder to a privacy issue, so society now accepts it. Tell a child whose parents were killed by a drunken driver that alcohol is a private matter. Sex outside marriage was outlawed in every state at one time; look at what "staying out of bedroom" has done to our society now.

Now, you may argue that drunkenness and sexual immorality are moral lapses of sinful man. And I would agree. But God established government to punish evil. Who defined evil? God did. God imposed His morality (His holiness) on the nation of Israel and on us as New Testament believers; granted as the Creator, it's His right to do so. But if God was libertarian as defined today, then He wouldn't care what the Israelites did, nor would He care enough to send His Son to the cross.


Alcohol is a private matter. Reckless endangerment turns it into a matter that is anything but private.

Your argument is used often by people who want to enforce a specific moral code on others, but the fact remains that we have certain laws to protect "life, liberty, and property." Outside of this social laws force our own moral convictions that are private on others who may not have the same views. Just look back to the days of prohibition for examples of how this doesn't work.

Again and for the millionth time now, you can't run a government like a church. Government isn't church. Government not enforcing your morals doesn't mean that you can't still hold them. Seriously, if laws have to force people to behave a certain way then their morality is really just a facade anyway. It's just incredibly arrogant to legislate that people act like you think they should, provided their actions do not infringe on the life or property of another.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Libertarian minarchy is not the Judaeo-anarchy we find following the death of Joshua. You'll still have government protecting people from rape, murder, theft, and to enforce contracts. Any sin committed against fellow man would not be lawful in a libertarian minarchist society.

I'm also not sure how we can compare the US to Israel. Israel (and Israel alone) was a God-established theocracy- and the Jews (and the Jews alone) were called to follow a very strict Law (the purpose of which was to ultimately point to Christ). We as Christians don't pretend to follow that Law. The US was never established to follow the Law (and I hope it will never be required to follow the law of any religion, particularly I fear Sharia). It was established (in part) to allow everyone to worship God freely. To accomplish this, it was required of the government to be secular. You can't enforce personal morality without seeking religious interference. And we know what happens when government gets involved in religion. If the US were to become a church state, the Biblical interpretation set forth as law will not be in line with our own. Why? Because whatever government does, it does badly.

Our government isn't the solution to sin. It makes a very poor substitute for Christ. Our government is established to set rules to restrict itself and to protect us against domestic or foreign interference so that we can live in liberty and have the freedom to worship God. The more government, the less freedom.


The US government was never meant to be much of a factor at all in peoples lives. As originally formed, each State retained their soveriegnty and the States based their laws upon Scripture.

All law is a matter of morality. Whether it's okay to rape or murder is a matter of morality just as whether it's okay to be a prostitute or an adulterer.

Scripture is clear one of the purposes of government is to restrain evil, which is sin. Under the American system, as originally put forth, I agree this isn't the purpose of the Federal government, but of the State governments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Alcohol is a private matter. Reckless endangerment turns it into a matter that is anything but private.

Your argument is used often by people who want to enforce a specific moral code on others, but the fact remains that we have certain laws to protect "life, liberty, and property." Outside of this social laws force our own moral convictions that are private on others who may not have the same views. Just look back to the days of prohibition for examples of how this doesn't work.

Again and for the millionth time now, you can't run a government like a church. Government isn't church. Government not enforcing your morals doesn't mean that you can't still hold them. Seriously, if laws have to force people to behave a certain way then their morality is really just a facade anyway. It's just incredibly arrogant to legislate that people act like you think they should, provided their actions do not infringe on the life or property of another.


All laws are based upon one or more moral views. Originally the States laws were based upon Scripture. Since at least the mid-20th century there has been a move to eliminate such laws in favor of the morality of liberal humanism. We have moved from a system much based upon morality as put forth in the Word of God to a system much more based upon the morality
of liberal humanists who believe they should be allowed to do as they please.

What the main point here is that those of us discussing this are all professing Christians. According to Christ, if we are following Him, that means we walk in agreement with Him. The Word of God says a purpose of government is to restrain evil, which is sin. The Word of God says those who profess Christ are to lift up, support and live by His Word.

Again, choose you this day whom you will serve...will you serve God or secular humanism?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

In actual fact, our Constitution was formed as a very Libertarian document. Libertarians stand for limited government - and that is what our federative Republic was designed to be. The founders specifically enumerated the powers of the federal government - not to control citizens, but to control the federal government. Those who were not greatly in favor of the Bill of Rights didn't think it was necessary because the Constitution limited the feds. But there were some very wise heads who knew that if certain things weren't listed, the feds would push beyond (and, boy have they - even with the Bill of Rights). And just in case anyone had any questions, the 9th and 10th amendments were listed to let everyone know that the states had the final power because the PEOPLE would decide.

Now, what would a libertarian view of the Constitution do? Simply: there would be no health care reform because it violates the 10th amendment and it puts power into the hands of the feds that shouldn't be there; there would have been no Roe v. Wade: the Supreme Court would have bounced it back to the state because it is a state by state matter, not federal; the current situation in CA, with gay marriage, would not have gone to court because a referendum by the PEOPLE is well within the federal laws of the land...etc.

All laws have their basis in morality. And communities have the right to decide if they want to have alcohol legal in their area, marijuana legal in their area, abortion, etc. They also have the right to decide if they DON'T want it legal in their community and/or state. That is the beauty of the freedom in which our liberty allows us to function.

And that is actually very compatible with Christianity. How so? Well, if we as Christians win people to Christ and they learn what is right, they become a force for good in laws. Remember Billy Sunday? Everywhere he preached, saloons were closed down after people got saved.

THAT is the way of libertarianism - and THAT is the way God works in our lives...

(please note, though, that I still don't like Ron Paul)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

God's plan isn't libertarian at all. According to God, true freedom comes in abiding by His law. The law is to be there to restrain evil, those in Christ shouldn't even be effected by the laws because they are not involved in such evil.

Libertarianism says there should be no laws against illicit drugs, alochol, prostitution, sexual perversions, "marriage" other than biblical marriage (polygamy, homosexual, child/adult, etc.), racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, etc.

None of this is compatible with Scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

God's plan isn't libertarian at all. According to God, true freedom comes in abiding by His law. The law is to be there to restrain evil, those in Christ shouldn't even be effected by the laws because they are not involved in such evil.

Libertarianism says there should be no laws against illicit drugs, alochol, prostitution, sexual perversions, "marriage" other than biblical marriage (polygamy, homosexual, child/adult, etc.), racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, etc.

None of this is compatible with Scripture.

No they don't say there should be no laws against those: they say there should be no federal laws - and they would be correct (other than laws against bringing stuff like that into the country). The laws are to be made on a local level. At least, the majority of libertarians believe that. I'm sure there are some who would go to the extreme of anarchy, and that I would be against. But the average libertarian is in favor of limited government - which is supposedly what conservatives favor. A true conservative would be more in line with libertarianism than with the GOP...

No, John. According to God, true freedom comes from abiding in Christ. And when Christians do their jOB of witnessing and occupying, the laws of the land will reflect that. The law of the land and God's law are two different things, but your first paragraph seems to make them equal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


No they don't say there should be no laws against those: they say there should be no federal laws - and they would be correct (other than laws against bringing stuff like that into the country). The laws are to be made on a local level. At least, the majority of libertarians believe that. I'm sure there are some who would go to the extreme of anarchy, and that I would be against. But the average libertarian is in favor of limited government - which is supposedly what conservatives favor. A true conservative would be more in line with libertarianism than with the GOP...

No, John. According to God, true freedom comes from abiding in Christ. And when Christians do their jOB of witnessing and occupying, the laws of the land will reflect that. The law of the land and God's law are two different things, but your first paragraph seems to make them equal.


I've already made it clear in previous posts that the Federal government was formed in a libertarian manner because it was meant to be very limited and weak. The Feds are not to have any say in the matters of most laws, that was left to the States.

Libertarians want libertarian beliefs across the board, from the city hall to the county board to the State government to the Feds. According to their own publications, every aspect of American government should be libertarian.

We can't abide in Christ if we are not OBeying His Word, the two are one and the same. Christians should expect State laws to follow the guideline of Scripture just as they once did. Christians should not support the removing of just laws nor should they support the creation of unjust laws.

Something is wrong when professing Christians are against godly, just laws and advocate for the legalization of wickedness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators



I've already made it clear in previous posts that the Federal government was formed in a libertarian manner because it was meant to be very limited and weak. The Feds are not to have any say in the matters of most laws, that was left to the States. Well, then, according to this and what you've said, the founding of our country is incompatible with Christianity...but anyone who studies history (and I know you do) knows that isn't so.

Libertarians want libertarian beliefs across the board, from the city hall to the county board to the State government to the Feds. According to their own publications, every aspect of American government should be libertarian. Libertarians want the PEOPLE to decide...that's what libertarian is. And so, if the people are Christian, laws will be scriptural.

We can't abide in Christ if we are not OBeying His Word, the two are one and the same. Christians should expect State laws to follow the guideline of Scripture just as they once did. Christians should not support the removing of just laws nor should they support the creation of unjust laws. Christians should workd for that, but unless we are winning souls to Christ and discipling them it isn't going to happen...and I don't know any Christians who support the creaton of unjust laws. I'm sure there are some, but I don't know any.

Something is wrong when professing Christians are against godly, just laws and advocate for the legalization of wickedness. That something is not following Christ. I hope you don't think I'm advocating the legalization of wickedness...I certainly have never said so nor intimated such. I've merely been pointing out what libertariansim is - and that it can be compatible with scripture: if Christians do their jOB. But too many Christians think they don't need to do anything but complain about what's going on today...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The united States was established only as a compact between the individual nations (States) for mutual benefit and not designed to usurp their authority. The power to create and enforce laws was left to each State and they chose to base such upon Scripture. This was/is compatible with Christianity.

The libertarian position is that things such as prositution, drug use, alcohol use, marriage, sexual perversion and other "personal matters" should not be subject to any laws. The libertarian position is that such should be legal and each individual allowed to determine for themselves whether they will or won't engage in any of it.

Absolutely, Christians should be about spreading the Gospel, witnessing, living their lives in accord with the Word so others will see. That's always primary.

There are some on this board who have advocated for the abolition of "moral" laws and promoted the idea of people being allowed to do as they please in the name of freedom so long as in their mind others are not harmed.

I know you, LuAnne, have not advocated for freedom to sin and commit wickedness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



It's not incompatible at all. Unfortunately, some people think that if your view is incompatible with theirs than it must be incompatible with Christianity. We are not to force our views on others. Social conservatives like a government that enforces morality because then they can force the world to conform to their view of what is "right" and make it so they don't have to open their minds to consider that people might have a different view than them.

Of course, we all know that Jesus was a Republican...


Jesus and His 12 were never involved in politics. In fact all of their efforts were made towards that kingdom to come and actually had nothing to do with the affairs of this life.

2Ti 2:3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.
2Ti 2:4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

How can we please Him who called us while tangled in the affiars of this life?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Overall, libertarianism is incompatible with Christianity.

Not all the property is owned by those wanting to build the mosque. Government officials and others are working hard to get it approved so the rest of the land can be sold to the Muslims so they can build their mosque.



I don't know much about them, but I've heard some that hold to the Libertarian express that they're the party of free thinkers, and they have no moral restraint. And most of those who hold to that seem to be very worldly, and stand directly against the morals and principles God had proclaimed.

As said in another topic, Christians will yoke together with anyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Jesus and His 12 were never involved in politics. In fact all of their efforts were made towards that kingdom to come and actually had nothing to do with the affairs of this life.

2Ti 2:3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.
2Ti 2:4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

How can we please Him who called us while tangled in the affiars of this life?


Jerry, It seems to me that he called the 12 Disciples (and then the 12 Apostles) to a specific purpose and did not call the other hundreds that believed to the same ministry as the 12. You may feel called to the same ministry as the 12; but clearly the Lord Jesus Christ does not call everyone to that same ministry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Jerry, It seems to me that he called the 12 Disciples (and then the 12 Apostles) to a specific purpose and did not call the other hundreds that believed to the same ministry as the 12. You may feel called to the same ministry as the 12; but clearly the Lord Jesus Christ does not call everyone to that same ministry.



We are all called to deny self and follow Jesus. We cannot do that if we entangle our self in the affairs of this life. Remember, our citizenship is suppose to be in heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members




I don't know much about them, but I've heard some that hold to the Libertarian express that they're the party of free thinkers, and they have no moral restraint. And most of those who hold to that seem to be very worldly, and stand directly against the morals and principles God had proclaimed.

As said in another topic, Christians will yoke together with anyone.


You are correct that you don't know much about them.

I'll take unfair and incorrect blanket statements for 1000, Alex.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...