I disagree. The Christian religion and its belief in Christ (as
the way to salvation) is a very good analogy. Paul's take on it
is very accurate. I don't know where you are coming from with
your disagreement; I have not read all this thread so I don't
know your full position. But your words here are inconsistent.
Fist, all religions (by far) do not have one core philosophy in
common. Some religions do not "lead toward a relationship with
god", nor even claim so. It's perfectly analogous to political
parties, many of whom do not believe in non-aggression. Secondly,
since you agree with the NAP, what are you arguing about? I would
throw the word "squabble" back at you.
-Mark
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
_____
This whole comparison to Christianity thing is like comparing
apples and
oranges. Christians are only Christians if they believe in Jesus
of Nazareth
(The Christ) because believing in anything else would require
that they be
called something else, but it may not change the core principles
in which
they believe, or the nature of their worship. People here could
also think
of the NAP much like Vishnu said in the Bhagavid Gita, "All paths
lead to
me." This means that all forms of all religions lead toward a
relationship
with God though the details of the worship may get lost in
squabbling over
which religion is better or which rituals (if any) must be
followed. The
Libertarian party could be the same - that all ideas on liberty
lead toward
the basic philosophy of non-aggression though some people get
hung up on the
details of just how that path should be followed. If someone
decided that
aggression isn't good on some issue of which they care, whether
it be
education or drugs or something else, then we should hold the
door open for
them and educate them as to why aggression really isn't good in
any case.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Paul
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:00 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Purity
Libertarianism is a philosophy, and it has an immutable and
undeniable
core belief; the NAP. The Libertarian philosophy is much like
the
Christian belief system in this.
One can not be consistent to libertarianism without supporting
the
NAP anymore than they can be a Christian who does not believe
Jesus
of Nazareth ever existed. There is no legitimate definition of
Christian that does not include the belief in Jesus of Nazareth
and
there is no legitimate definition of libertarian that does not
include the belief in the Non-Aggression Principle.
By definition, those who are Christian share the belief in
Jesus of
Nazareth, just as those who are consistent to Libertarianism
share
belief in the NAP.
There doesn't need to be lightning bolts. No amount of denying
this
indisputable fact will change things, even if it bothers you.
It
doesn't matter how many times you deny the truth, your denial
doesn't
change this FACT.
_____
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS
| Libertarian | English language | Political parties |
| Online dictionary | American politics |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
