The question "Are Liberty and Christianity compatible" seems obvious. Of course it is! Everyone knows that. Our founders were Christian, and the constitution was heavily influenced by the Bible.

Thomas Jefferson said, "The Christian religion...is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

The answer seems so patently obvious. So, why am I asking the question?

Are Liberty and Christianity Compatible?

Another idiot who doesn't know what Christianity is....


ETA: The author, not the OP.

"Because I've read the Bible, and I've never seen mention of the concept
of liberty (The right to act as you wish provided you hurt no one else)
let alone a defense of the idea. The same applies to freedom, and
individual rights. If the Bible never defends these ideas, are we so
sure that Christianity is committed to liberty ideologically? Is it
compatible with freedom at all?"





The moron author is looking at Christianity as an ideology like Islam. Modern Christianity is a religion, not an ideology.



 

Of course it is, unless you're gay.  Then, fuck you.
On a more serious note, no one can argue that Christianity wasn't a dominant part of cultures/nations that ushered in the greatest advancements known to man.  On the other hand, some would argue that Christianity sort of stood in the way for a bit.

Anyone who asks this question needs a remedial Western Civ class.

The entire premise of Christianity is couched in liberty.

Some religious traditions teach forced compliance.  Christianity teaches that unless submission to God is voluntary, it is of no value to the soul.

Good grief, NPR is trying to tell us about Liberty?

It was no accident that Christian societies produced free societies.  

Religions involving worship of a god and a moral code are about self control which is a pre-requisite for liberty.


The modern worship of government as the higher authority is about government control and that is in no way shape or form compatiable with liberty.

The Bible teaches Christians not to become involved in the affairs of the world or govermnet, but instead be in service to the Lord. It never teached the Church to go out and establish authoratative governments. If anything, it teaches the Church to be prepared to funtion under hostile governance.

Our Objectivist Atheists friends would disagree.

And, they are wrong.

Hence, my suggestion of a Western Civ course.

Not even NPR would be this silly. This is Rational Public Radio. Yes, Objectivitists. Randians. Atlas Shrugged types.

Oh lawd, an Atlas Shrugged apologist is taking on Christianity, this should be hilarious. Too bad almost no one will read the OP.

As much as that book is lauded here, it really clashes with Jesus' core teachings.

I find this hilarious.

True Christians would have a difficult time being a true Objectivist.

It depends on how you define liberty.

If you define it as being able to live how you want without interference from the government then no.

How free are/were the non Christian civilizations of the world.

Christianity = western civilization



Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

How so? The Bible doesn't instruct Christians to set up "the church" as the governement. The Bible instructs Christians to be submitted to whatever government they are under. So from that perspective, Christianity is not incompatible with a government that promates liberty.

They don't know what liberty is, either.  



This article is so full of bias and fail, I don't even know where to begin.

I should rephrase.  The answer is yes if Christians adhere to your view of the Bible but not how conservatives do.  I'm not try to start a shit storm here but both liberals and conservatives seek to control people through the government but just in different areas.

Modern liberty came about in several protestant nations; specifically the Netherlands, England, and the English colonies / United States.

The author makes a fundamental error in conflating the governments produced by falliable men with Christianity's ability to coexist with liberty.

I bet that author has a real hard-on for Locke, an enlightenment thinker who was part and parcel to the philosophy behind the Declaration and Independence and the Constitution. And Locke was a very devout man.

Christianity is freedom...go back to your bong  

Nope. There is a big difference, but a lot of people have drunk the leftist cool aid.

OH geez –– thank you for pointing that out to me!

The 1st Commandment and the (current interpretation) 1st Amendment are not compatible.

Are Liberty and Christianity Compatible?

Exceedingly.

Yes it is....next.

That doesn't even begin to make sense.

How is making it illegal for someone to smoke week in their own home not trying to control?

You don't even need to try to rationalize it.  If you look at the very passages Author McFailboat quotes, and examine them in historical context, it all makes perfect sense.

Who wrote Romans?  St. Paul.
Who was St. Paul?  A Roman citizen and missionary.  Roman in citizenship, but not in loyalty.  Note that he was later executed by Rome as a martyr.

Now, Paul is talking about Earthly allegiances and responsibilities.  He says that God creates all things, so therefore God must have created (or at least allowed) Rome to be the authority.
Jesus Himself said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's." (varying translations exist)
Paul is just repeating the message.  He says don't worry about what government has authority over you.  It doesn't matter.  If you are of God, then Earthly matters should not trouble you.  Pay your dues and live your life, but always with the knowledge that God holds the final word.

Paul's not saying to sit there and accept abuse.  He's saying that if it's all the same, one government to the next, then it doesn't matter.  There was talk at the time of Christianity starting it's own nation, like the Jews had done before them.  Paul says you don't need that because we are already one body in Christ.  Earthly concerns are therefore irrelevant.

Done.  Simple.  End of story.
Why people have to take things out of context, toss logic to the winds, and write a slam piece with nothing more than conjecture (seriously, did you see even one credible statistic?)

Ah, whatever.  I'm done with this.

Supposing for the sake of argument that the author is right, in that Christianity as defined by the Bible is incompatible with liberty, it strikes me as a bit disingenuous to overlook the glaring result of reality, and practice: Culturally, the freest nations in the world (to include our own) are Christian nations. Our own nation was founded largely by Christians. Even those who were not Christian in practice, were at least sympathetic to it. None of this was ever codified (we're not a "Christian Nation" in that way), but it's abundantly clear to me that we were then, and are now, a Christian nation in culture.



You could make the strongest case imaginable for an incompatibility, and you could tirelessly cite Biblical text to strengthen your case. And yet, paradoxically, the freest nations on earth happen to be more or less Christian in nature. Perhaps it's because these nations flat out ignore the words of the very book they claim is infallible. Perhaps it's because they willfully interpret scripture in a way that is sympathetic to modern morality. Fine. Whatever. These are fascinating bits of trivial knowledge, but it cannot be said that Christianity is incompatible with liberty, as practiced.



You can tell me that these liberty loving Christians are not True Scotsmen (snicker), and I can tell you that it doesn't matter. I'm interested in what is, not what might be.



No, the Bible doesn't specifically address liberty in a substantive way. It isn't intended to. It is a religious text, not an exhaustive examination of a single philosophical concept. The whole of the Bible, is really best understood as an account of man's fall from grace, the extent to which he is separated from his Creator, and the path by which he may reconcile this disparity. That's the essence of it.



You know what else the Bible is completely silent on? Photosynthesis. This should come as no surprise, as the Bible is not a science textbook. And as sure as I'm sitting here, Christianity is provably compatible with it.  



The author has a bone to pick with religion (fine, get in line), but his attack on Christianity weak sauce. It also illustrates the narrow prism in which he filters his experience through. If you want to bag on it, there are much better ways to do it.



As sympathetic as I am to Objectivist thought, I have to tell you that it's more vocal evangelists often piss me off. They're just annoying, sometimes.

The way I have heard the 1st Commandment is "I am the lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me."



The current interpretaion of the 1st Amendment is that you can worship according to any faith you choose (Christian, Muslim, Hebrew, Busdhist, Hindu, Satanist) or not worship at all (Atheist) provided you do not inflict harm on others.



The 2 are not compatible.

Two words:  Gutenberg Bible.



The revolution was started when the Bible became cheap and available enough for local people and priests to begin questioning the edicts of the Vatican.  That led to the Protestant Reformation, which in turn caused the political breakup of European societies.  The ability of the people to question their church led to them being able to question their rulers.

Freewill...If that ain't Liberty to do and think what you want, I don't know what is.

Even if you're right, it doesn't matter in practice. Mainstream Christianity, as practiced, does not require that these be codified and applied to all persons by a government.



That commandment applies to Christians. A Christian must abide by it (among other things) to be a Christian. Even while a Christian believes that God demands these things of ALL people, if he is a mainstream Christian, he will concede that it is not his role to coerce you into following these rules, through the force of law. And he has scripture on his side, when making that concession.



Matthew 10:

11   And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.


12   And when ye come into an house, salute it.


13   And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.


14   And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye
depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.



Or, if I may paraphrase a bit, "Say your bit, and fuck 'em if they're not having it. I'm out".



The Bible is littered with suggestions that it is not the place of the believer, to coerce non-believers into "behaving", as it were. In this sense, it really is compatible with liberty as a practical matter. A Christian will tell me I'm likely to wind up in hell, a Christian will tell me I'm immoral and unrepentant, etc - but those are and will remain opinions of his, and no more than that. As a modern Christian, he believes I'll be appropriately judged in the next life - and that it's not his duty to assume that responsibility on God's behalf, in this one.



It's completely compatible with liberty, as practiced.



 

Sure they are. Under the first amendment citizens have the right to chose any religion (or none) that they want. If they chose the Christian faith then yes, their faith will require them to follow the first (and all) commandments (even though the premise of Chrisitanity is that they won't be able to, and therefore require Christ's forgiveness), but everyone is free to NOT to be Christian if they chose not to.

If any Christian were to dictate that all Americans should be Christian, or that the chruch should be in charge of the nation, then they would be wrong. The Bible DOES NOT instruct the Church to govern. It instructs the opposite, that the Church should follow the laws of the government they are under.

A false dichotomy if there ever was one, but an eloquent one.



 

A little something called free will covers that.

Simply pointing out that the original intent of the Founders was pretty much that you were free to worship according to any Christian denomination you wanted....not any faith.  There are plenty of folks in this country that want it to go back to that.

By the time the left has actually legalized weed in this state, they will have banned smoking anything else.

Sir Edmund Burke said something similar:

This'll be interesting.



My position on it is that Christianity is a voluntary submission to a set of beliefs and principles that a person chooses to agree with and a God that a person chooses to believe in. The core of Christianity is the individual choice to adopt the philosophies of Christ and the personal choice to acknowledge Christ as the Son of God. A person cannot be forced to accept Christ or his teachings. This is the very definition of liberty.



Also, I am not aware of any single place in the modern world where a person can be forced to adhere to any of the principles of Christianity by any human authority or power. You cannot say the same for other religions.

In all fairness the text you quoted was about the disciples learning about faith. Jesus had sent them out on a mission so that they would have to trust God to provide for them..he told them not bring food, clothes or anything to "make" it. they have to depend on God, in a simplisitic way, and if they were not recieved in different homes or towns..move on.



I believe Liberty is compatible to a christian in todays world. There is a scripture that says "where the spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty", which may or may not be taken out of context in this conversation. I believe we have choices..choose God or don't. Trying to live up to every scripture is quite a challenge, but I believe the word contains more grace than law..but, it is a lifestyle and it is tough. I choose to believe God, his word and his son Jesus. We could go on all day at what parts were designed for a certain time and whatnot. But, I live my life as best I can to do what Jesus did...talk about him and not me..his life, him dying for all men's sins. The hard part is living it. Everyone is a hypocrit and everyone falls short of living a "perfect" life but that does not stop me from believing in God, his existence and his word.



I believe in personal Liberty and I believe the word of God...if I find them clash, I choose the word but it's the Liberty that we have that gives us an opportunity to worship in whatever ways we choose in the nation imo. I don't find the rub personally.

Sounds to me like he's talking about drug addicts, drunks, womanizers and so on. Would you call an alcoholic or a crack head a "free" person? They are in fact slaves to their addictions, just as the man said.



 

They didn't put "christian" in the 1st amendment. I'm pretty sure that was not by accident.

He was right.

The problem with modern Christianity is it's perverse marriage with Progressivism.

That's horseshit.



Thomas Jefferson himself wrote of the freedom of religion protected by the First Amendment saying that it makes no difference if a man believes in one god, 1,000 gods or no god and that the "Mohammadan" is on equal footing with the Christian in the eyes of our Government.





 

I think it could be more broadly applied to society in general, especially in light of his "listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves".



In 2008 a majority of voting Americans certianly listened to the "flattery of a knave".  As a result, our country's fiscal situation is threatening our freedoms.