My response to Difster's post in part 2 didn't address a point that needs some consideration, so I'll do that here. Christianity and libertarianism are compatible because of the way that God structured the New Covenant, but God is not a libertarian. What this means is that God is only a libertarian if your criteria for being a libertarian is allowing a significant amount of political and economic freedom on this side of eternity in relation to human government. However, it should be clear from my previous posts that the way that God rules is not libertarian except in some areas. Then again, God is not a liberal or a conservative either, so all things being the same, which they aren't, but we'll pretend that they are, God's no more a libertarian than He fits any other human philosophy.
Christianity and God are separate. Do not mistake the two. One is a religion, a system of beliefs and rules. The other is an actual deity. The qualities of the former do not necessarily correlate to the qualities of the latter.
Christianity and God are separate. Do not mistake the two. One is a religion, a system of beliefs and rules. The other is an actual deity. The qualities of the former do not necessarily correlate to the qualities of the latter.
Related Entries:
- Why God is not a libertarian part 2
- Why God is not a libertarian
- Lying and legislating morality
- A conservative idea worth considering
- What America might look like if it were a theocracy
- Why Christians shouldn't always be afraid of 'situational morality'
- Why God is not a conservative
- Why God is not a liberal
- Law and order: What would Jesus do?
- An open letter to an open letter
Furthermore, most libertarians would again disagree with Difster when it comes to a moral obligation to a poor because most libertarians, like liberals, rarely, if ever, acknowledge natural obligations.
Mike, I'll address this here instead of the previous post just because it's the most current.
I have a little problem with the above quote. Every libertarian I've ever known has been generous to a fault. I've personally never met a libertarian (though I've known a few just on line) that took a calloused view toward the needy. Most have lamented the fact that if the government didn't take so much of their money, they'd have more to direct it where it's really needed.
As for the rest of your clarification, I couldn't agree more. But I would like to add that God has given us a lot of latitude in this life. He's made the rules and their eternal consequences clear. But also keep in mind that the actual playing field was changed once Jesus was on the scene; a new dispensation if you will. We're in the age of The Church. The best analogy I ever heard in this regard is a chess clock. One time starts, the other stops. The timer will get punched again and the time of the Jews will resume (the end times).
That's not quite addressing what I said. An obligation means that you **must** do something about it, not that you **should**. Believer **must** be generous when they can with the poor. It is not optional. We must love those who are in need and provide for them, provided that we do not endanger our own well-being or that of our family (It benefits no one if we impoverish ourselves while trying to help others).
So yeah. I didn't question whether or not libertarians tend to be generous or not. What I said was most libertarians would disagree with the idea that we have a clear obligation to the poor, meaning that charity from those with money is not optional.