Is God a Libertarian?

[QvQ]

But the point is that God could have stomped on the head of Lucifer in the garden, and appeared to Adam and Eve to prevent them from being decieved... Yet he offered *liberty* to his creation by not doing anything to stop it.

We see this same thing with Christ, who went so far as to allow sinners to nail him to a cross, and betray him... And did nothing to prevent it... That's *liberty*.

God could have stomped the snake. Christ could have prevented the Crucifixion. God has Free Will. Man does not. Adam could not and did not stomp the snake. The people who nailed Christ to the Cross could not have if He did not allow it. What you claim is that God has free will, not that man did or does.

 

[Landon Caeli]

God could have stomped the snake. Christ could have prevented the Crucifixion. God has Free Will. Man does not. Adam could not and did not stomp the snake. The people who nailed Christ to the Cross could not have if He did not allow it. What you claim is that God has free will, not that man did or does.

I'll have to think about the things you've said. It's getting late, and I'm grateful for yours and the other comments. I'll return later, after letting this soak in.

 

[Sparagmos]

But the point is that God could have stomped on the head of Lucifer in the garden, and appeared to Adam and Eve to prevent them from being decieved... Yet he offered *liberty* to his creation by not doing anything to stop it.

We see this same thing with Christ, who went so far as to allow sinners to nail him to a cross, and betray him... And did nothing to prevent it... That's *liberty*.

He did not offer the liberty to eat of any tree in the garden. They were severely punished for doing so.

 

[RDKirk]

But the point is that God could have stomped on the head of Lucifer in the garden, and appeared to Adam and Eve to prevent them from being decieved... Yet he offered *liberty* to his creation by not doing anything to stop it.

That makes no sense. God uttered a law, prescribed certain punishment for breaking the law, and in fact executed that punishment.

Are you saying that if President Biden in the future forbids any American from purchasing a bible by penalty of prison, that would not be an obstruction of liberty unless he first renders every person physically incapable of purchasing a bible?

 

[Landon Caeli]

He did not offer the liberty to eat of any tree in the garden. They were severely punished for doing so.

That makes no sense. God uttered a law, prescribed certain punishment for breaking the law, and in fact executed that punishment.

Are you saying that if President Biden in the future forbids any American from purchasing a bible by penalty of prison, that would not be an obstruction of liberty unless he first renders every person physically incapable of purchasing a bible?

I see exactly what you both are saying.

I'm just trying to balance this old notion I was mentioning in the OP out with the philosophy of "libertarianism" in my mind... And testing it. It may or may not work.

 

[QvQ]

I am glad you posted this thread. It has been interesting.

 

[Albion]

A concept was brought before me once, that has stuck in my head for years... If God communicates his moral laws to us, through religions, but yet gives us the free will to decide for ourselves how to act, then does that mean Libertarianism is the holiest, and best political philosophy of all?

I hadn't thought of it before, but the answer quite possibly is "yes."

That doesn't mean that just anything a person chooses to do is good, but liberty is certainly a human right and God obviously created Man to have it.

For instance, I can choose abortion, drugs, homosexuality, racism, fowl-mouthed bigotry toward protected groups and blasphemy towards Islam... And I can literally do these things if I choose to or not through my own free will...

Yet I may pay a punishment in the end, after it's done, but I'm allowed to live my life whatever way I choose according to God's nature in the world.

...So should our politics be the same way? Should people be allowed to sin legally the way God allows, as long as we're not physically harming others....

Probably. The word "physically" in that sentence might be open to discussion, however.

 

[QvQ]

God is not a libertarian. God has the Absolute Authority to command and enforce. However a civil government must tread a ground between anarchy and authoritarian.
Hobbes thought an authoritarian government was best. Christians accept the Absolute Authority of God's governance but civil government is another matter. The difference between the Constitutional Monarchy the Monarch being the head of church and state and the US separation of church and state are two forms that are influenced by Hobbes.

 

[Albion]

God is not a libertarian. God has the Absolute Authority to command and enforce. However a civil government must tread a ground between anarchy and authoritarian.

That doesn't make him NOT a Libertarian, however. Not if he suspends his absolute authority in order to allow his creatures free will. And he did. Adam let him down, but God did permit Adam to make his own choice.

 

[QvQ]

God does not suspend His Authority. He does not allow sin. Sinners, and I can tell you from bitter experience, live in hell on earth. Free will is Sin. It is not a "choice." To do any "will" except God's is not free will. It is bondage and destruction, and what isn't destroyed in this life will be destroyed in the next. And can a person, dead in spirit, choose anything other than self interest and instant gratification?
A Christian does not have Free Will. A Christian must obey God's Will. To do otherwise is sin. So is it for all. Sin is the punishment given to Adam and until Christ, we were all sinners, condemned not by sin but to sin.

 

[Albion]

God does not suspend His Authority. He does no allow sin.

Certainly he does. He could just as easily have made Men incapable of sinning, but he did not do that.

To cite a well-traveled saying about the creation of Adam, God wanted a son, not a slave. Further, the Bible makes clear that all of us are born in sin and that even the just man falls seven times a day.

 

[QvQ]

Certainly he does. He could just as easily have made Men incapable of sinning, but he did not do that.

To cite a well-traveled saying about the creation of Adam, God wanted a son, not a slave. Further, the Bible makes clear that all of us are born in sin and that even the just man falls seven times a day.

By my authority, my dog does not get in the trash. When my dog sneaks into the trash (sin), he is punished accordingly. I did not suspend my authority, I did not allow the dog to transgress. The dog does not have free will. The dog is acting on self interest and self gratification.
God could have made Adam a different kind of creature. I could have obtained a different pet, a hamster, but getting into the trash or not getting into the trash is not why I have a dog.
God did not make Adam to sin.

 

[Albion]

By my authority, my dog does not get in the trash. When my dog sneaks into the trash (sin), he is punished accordingly. I did not suspend my authority, I did not allow the dog to transgress.

Backing up to when we were talking about God instead of dogs, I said that God chose to allow men to have free will. That doesn't diminish God; it was his intention. Neither does it mean that sins committed are inconsequential or inoffensive.

God did not make Adam to sin.

No, but he allowed him to choose. Adam of course chose badly and we then pay the price along with him.

 

[QvQ]

I have read your posts carefully.
I could allow the dog to freely dine on trash. however not in my house. That is My Will, not the dog's. So, Adam was kicked out of the house. Adam's descendants then were lost, merely roaming around without any authority, self interested and self gratifying? ??
I read one argument that stated it was God's plan and purpose that men know sin (and redemption) to His greater Glory.
I think Adam's fall and subsequent death was an operation of law, like falling off a roof and gravity, not free will choice nor was it retribution from God. God made the law, Adam transgressed the law either by accident or design and the operation of law invoked the penalty.
God did not make Adam to sin. God made Adam to love.
Interesting discussion.

 

[RDKirk]

That doesn't make him NOT a Libertarian, however. Not if he suspends his absolute authority in order to allow his creatures free will. And he did. Adam let him down, but God did permit Adam to make his own choice.

If God were a Libertarian, He would not give commands and, assuredly, He would not punish for disobedience.

If there is a penalty that will be paid for a moral action, then a moral authority exists.

 

[RDKirk]

Certainly he does. He could just as easily have made Men incapable of sinning, but he did not do that.

To cite a well-traveled saying about the creation of Adam, God wanted a son, not a slave. Further, the Bible makes clear that all of us are born in sin and that even the just man falls seven times a day.

If God had suspended His authority, sin would not result in death.

 

[Albion]

So, Adam was kicked out of the house. Adam's descendants then were lost, merely roaming around without any authority, self interested and self gratifying? ??

Not at all. God gave Man guidance on behavior, morals, etc., set before him the Commandments, provided Holy Scripture, and much more in addition. But he did not deny him free will.

I read one argument that stated it was God's plan and purpose that men know sin (and redemption) to His greater Glory.

I don't think Scripture supports that POV.

I think Adam's fall and subsequent death was an operation of law, like falling off a roof and gravity, not free will choice nor was it retribution from God.

Again, Scripture would seem to describe a different scenario. Adam was told to obey, did not do so, was driven from the Garden as a result and had to work for a living, and so on. Sin, which Adam and Eve had not initially known, was passed on to their children and descendants.

God made the law, Adam transgressed the law either by accident or design and the operation of law invoked the penalty.
God did not make Adam to sin. God made Adam to love..

It doesn't seem that we disagree.

 

[RDKirk]

Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. --Romans 6

There is no such thing as "free will." We are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness.

 

[Albion]

If God were a Libertarian, He would not give commands and, assuredly, He would not punish for disobedience.

I do agree that it's an awkward debate, either way, because God is not a candidate for office or a political organizer. But if we are to take on the question, I think a case could be made for him being called a Libertarian. That is because he endowed Men with free will, by which I mean he makes his choices, just as Adam did.

But here's where your analysis goes wrong IMO. It's not with your idea of God, but of Libertarianism.

Libertarianism does not advocate complete anarchy, no government, lawlessness, or people able to do anything they feel like doing--all with perfect immunity. No.

There are rules and there are punishments for violations. The approach to both of these is not what Progressives or Conservatives would opt for, but they do exist with Libertarians.

 

[RDKirk]

There are rules and there are punishments for violations. The approach to both of these is not what Progressives or Conservatives would opt for, but they do exist with Libertarians.

But no Libertarian proposes a central moral authority who is the creator, judge, and executioner of those rules and punishments.