Since you seem to be getting my Maroon text as black (or at least it
is black when I get it back), I'm not real sure how to differentiate
my additional replies.
But they're in there.
"Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of
what's good for people than people do is a swine."--P. J. O’Rourke
On 11/22/2011 4:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Well,
I obviously do not see it as the Reconstructionist sees
it. I don't believe that we are going to convert every
soul on the planet and then rule as a Christian
Theocracy for 1000 years before Jesus comes back.
"Anyone who
thinks he has a better idea of what's good
for people than people do is a swine."--P. J. O’Rourke
On 11/21/2011 6:52 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Christianity is a missionary religion. This
statement ought to be non-controversial.
Unfortunately, I think because of libertarian
influence more than any other factor,
this viewpoint is denied. That is, at least as I
understand it, Libertarians tell us that
religion should be a private affair, that no-one
should seek to convert others,
and especially should keep their noses out of
non-Christian cultures because
what Muslims or Hindus, etc, may do, is their own
business and Christians
should respect their rights to practice their
traditional faiths.
DRB: Odd, but I have not heard this from
Libertarians, but rather leftist Democrats. The same
ones who see Christianity as a problem and not Islam.
This also sounds as though one was hearing a sermon at a
Fundamentalist Christian separatist church.
OK. If
you say so. But suppose we switch this around. Do
you know of any Libertarian
statements
( or even one ) which says that it is OK to
proselytize and maybe even a
good
thing ? Wish I could remember where I heard this,
but my mind is drawing blanks
at the
moment. There are two other groups., for sure, that
are anti-proselytization,
Orthodox
Jews --a significant % anyway-- and the Parsis of
India --again, a
clear
majority , if not all.
DRB: Well, with the effort some of them go to online to convert more
libertarians, I don't know why they would object. "Do as I say not
as I do" is not very attractive or consistent. But I do not know of
any statements in favor of religious conversion. Most of them are in
support of maximum individual liberty, and that would include
liberty in religious choice as well.
Indeed, some ( or most ) Libertarians go further
and deny any value to religion
whatsoever, and hence want religious believers
not to proselytize at all. Murray Rothbard
noted this kind of attitude at one time :
"...I am getting tired of the offhanded smearing
of religion that has long been endemic
to the libertarian movement. Religion is
generally dismissed as imbecilic at best,
inherently evil at worst. The greatest
and most creative minds in the history
of mankind have been deeply and
profoundly religious, most of them
Christian.”
DRB: This is more along the lines of what I have
heard and read, except from a few radical Atheists.
Maybe
this is the tie-in. In other words, "religion is
bad, evil, obsolete," etc, therefore
religious
believers should shut up and not seek to convert
others to their sickness.
NOT my
view, obviously, but the view of Atheists. Since
there are a large number
of
Atheists among Libertarians, could be where the
anti-proselytizing sentiment
comes
from.
Related
question, how do religious people and Atheists get
along within Libertarian
ranks
? Or do they get along ?
DRB: They get along surprisingly well. The over the top evangelists
of either usually annoy everyone, not just their opposites. There
have even been cases where Atheists have told other Atheists to
"chill" and likewise Christians, because all they were doing was
annoying everyone and not being a good witness for their own cause.
At any rate, I have heard the refrain from
Libertarians that seeking to convert others
to one's religion is objectionable. Leaving aside
the fact that Buddhism is also a missionary
religion, as is Islam, the Baha'i Faith, that in the
past so was Judaism, that sometimes Hinduism has a
missionary dimension, etc., this prohibition effects
Christians directly and is most relevant here.
DRB: REFRAIN??? Really??? I haven't heard the first note.
Coercive conversion is objectionable. You know, like
"Convert or die, Infidel!!!" They realize that folks are
"converted" to Libertarianism as a political ideology and
they're not against that. Catholics and Southern Baptists
together on a libertarian e-mail list. OH MY. Meanwhile
the pushy Atheist gets pummeled.
It so happens, of course, that the New Testament
commands believers to seek to convert
others AND to persuade everyone to follow
Biblical morality. Here ( emphasis added )
is the quote :
Matthew 28:16-20
So the eleven disciples went to
Galilee to the mountain Jesus had designated.
When they saw him, they worshiped him, but some
doubted. Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All
authority in heaven and on earth has been given to
me. Therefore go and make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
teaching them to obey everything I have
commanded you. And remember, I am with you
always, to the end of the age”
Libertarians are fond of citing
other verses, and while other passages are clear
that people should not be coerced into religion
nor in any way sacrifice their legitimate personal
freedoms, the Great Commission carries special
weight. Christians who actually believe in the
Bible are supposed to convert others. Not only
this, they are supposed to seek to bring about a
massive social movement that converts the world to
Biblical morality. That is, rather than being
"morally libertarian" the New Testament commands
Christians to seek a common morality for everyone.
DRB: THERE'S the word!! "Coerced." Exactly. If one
wants to take a religion that forces them to surrender a
personal liberty, that is their prerogative. When I
think "coerced," I'm thinking gun-point, knife-point,
thumbscrews and the rack, cat-o-nine tails, etc. What do
you consider to be "coerced?"
There
are all kinds of ways to be coerced. For example :
You like working here ?
Then do
X. Or,
you want me to keep this secret ? Then I want X.
Take it from here.
All
kinds of pressures can be brought to bear to compel
others to do things that
otherwise
they would not do. Can be social pressure, too.
Mostly this might be
called
"soft coercion," but same effect. You want to get
ahead. Then you know
what
you've gotta do even if your morals get compromised
in the process.
Pretty
rare when someone has not experienced some form of
coercion
in
life, as a matter of fact.
DRB: Meh. Sounds like it's possible to be oversensitive in this
area. Commercials as coercion. The first two examples are outright
blackmail and I don't know of many Christians employing such, except
for threats of Hell, which if the person addressed doesn't believe
in Hell, that won't work anyway. I'm not sure how to execute a "quid
pro quo" in evangelism either.
To make this clear all you need to
do is read I Corinthians some time. The Apostle
Paul criticized the Corinthian congregation for
tolerating "anything goes" morality. To Paul such
liberty was the exact opposite of what Christian
faith should be all about.
I simply do not see where actual
Christian faith, or actual Buddhist faith, etc.,
can be compatible with Libertarianism. The
foundation of Libertarianism is anything goes (
minus punching out the other guy ).
DRB: So we should not tolerate pedophilia,
homosexuality, adultery, and many others, but should
immediately kill them all and let God sort them out?? If
we let them live, aren't we tolerating it?? Can't
tolerate them is what i"m hearing.
Don't
follow you here. We should not tolerate
homosexuality, pedophilia, etc,
is my
view.
A
heckova lot of Libertarians say we SHOULD tolerate
these things. Where does
the
killing come in ? In the USA, before 1973, actually
more like 1983, we did
not
tolerate homosexuality, and theoretically we still
do not tolerate pedophilia,
although
even that is now eroding. I don't seem to recall
that homosexuals were
being
killed by the state in large numbers. Or any
numbers. We let them live
but
either demanded that they enter therapy to cease
being homosexual,
or sent
them to prison, as still happens to pedophiles.
By
bringing up a non-existing horror, you completely
evade the question.
The
morality of any religion you can name, well, most
religions, is strongly
anti-homosexual,
anti-child sex, etc, Yet, at least for
homosexuality,
the
vast majority of Libertarians get really pixxed off
if you say
that
homosexuals do not have a right to be homosexual.
That is,
and
surely you know exactly what I am talking about, the
entry price
for
being a libertarian is to toss out parts of
Bible-based morality.
But,
hey, why not ? That morality is obsolete anyway.
Besides,
easy enough to rationalize this away, I'm not really
giving
up my morality because I still am opposed to
abortion.
This
kind of reasoning , uhhh, lacks something.
DRB: It's sarcasm, trying to feel out how far this intolerance
should go. Old Testament (and Islamic) stoning? The
Reconstructionists would be all in favor of that. They want to
follow God's Law as set forth in the OT, for the most part as the
"constitution" for their Theocracy. Just shunning? Commit all of
them to mental institutions? How should this manifest itself? It is
one thing to SAY that one is not going to tolerate something, but
how does that WORK in the real world?
The foundation of Christian faith
is the over-reaching goal of converting the world
to faith in Christ and to observance of a clearly
defined set of moral principles. It is not OK by
this morality to do or favor any number of things
that Libertarians say are perfectly OK. In fact,
Christians are supposed to oppose a
number of the things Libertarians advocate.
DRB: Like what? Smoking weed?
Like
tolerating homosexuality, this is the main thing .
And you simply cannot tell me
that
something well in excess of 90% of Libertarians
aren't pro-homosexual.
DRB: At least I now know what you are not willing to believe. The
only thing that I KNOW with that degree of
certainty (90 % support) is the drug legalization crowd. If there is
90 % support of homosexuality, then they sure are quiet about it.
The pro-druggies are NOT quiet. There is a "what goes on between
consenting adults in their bedroom at night is nobody else's
business" general principle so you probably have a point. How many
folks are giving it "lip service" vs the number of "true believers"
probably cannot be determined.
As
for weed, I don't see where that is much different
than drinking wine or beer,
But
what about hard drugs ? That is a different matter,
with very different consequences. What % of
Libertarians tolerate hard drug use I cannot say,
but
it would seem safe to say that
a much higher number than among others.
DRB: See above.
Such as anti-statism. The great
model of society that we are presented with in the
Bible is the Hebrew monarchy, after all. Jesus,
furthermore, seeks to bring the Kingdom of Heaven
to the world and partly is justified as messiah
because of his royal lineage, a descendent of King
David. The subtext surely is that any state to
which we give authority ought to be as
well-conceived and well-managed as the Kingdom of
Israel in Solomonic times. That, as model for
political order, is a far cry from Libertarian
preachments about a minimalist state with no ( or
very little ) centralized authority. The entire
book of Deuteronomy is about the necessity of
establishing a centralized state with a virtuous
and strong government.
DRB: That's right, let's let government destroy our
freedom. SIEG HEIL, BABY!!!
The
book of Deuteronomy is Nazi ? That seems to be what
you are saying.
You
want to tell me that the Solomonic system was
Fascist ?
Well, I
do have some issues with the book of Deuteronomy,
even with some
aspects
of Solomonic Israel, but the charge of Nazism never
occurred to me.
DRB: No, no, no. Reconstructionism would LOVE to
go back to Deuteronomy. The only problem with that is that they
would add several things such as the death penalty for heresy. And
if you are not a Calvinist, you are a heretic. Guess what that
means?? Better hope that they don't have any rocks around.
DRB: Them, I would almost consider Fascist. Oh, who am I kidding?
Strike the "almost."
DRB: Eschatologically speaking, Reconstructionism is Theonomic
Neo-Postmillenialism. They maintain that Jesus came back in AD 70 at
the destruction of Jerusalem (but appeared to no one), and that we
are in the pre-millennium. It will become the millennium when
Reconstructionism finally takes over and then Jesus will return in
1000 years. They are Theonomic in that they believe that the Law of
Moses is to apply in the millennium, except for the sacrificial
system which the death of Jesus makes null and void. They would also
classify Dispensationalism as heresy (even though there are many
full Calvinist Dispensationalists) because they are Premillennial
(Jesus will return to set up the millennial kingdom), and not
Theonomic.
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
|
