Seeing the title of the video made me jump for joy. The hardest thing for me has been attempting to unite Christianity / traditional Catholicism with libertarian ideals, with most advocates of the former or the latter saying that libertarianism is against the principles in previous Catholic nations (monarchy, state power etc). I haven’t fully watched your video yet but I have no doubt that it will be thoroughly explained, especially due to the video length. “It is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonwealth. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.” - Pope Leo XIII “What are kingdoms but great robberies? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal or covetousness, but by the addition of impunity.” - St Augustine “One should do harm to no man.” - St Thomas Aquinas
I deliberately didn't cross-over politics into this video, so thank you for providing those patristic quotes as they say absolutely everything which needs to be said
@@CeaddaOfMercia After watching the video, I’d like to respond to your skepticism towards Catholicism, specifically the papacy. There are some videos I recommend: To the papacy as a whole: ruclips.net/video/6KV6PXSODgE/видео.html To the rebuking of Peter by Paul: ruclips.net/video/sxDvhDIiVc0/видео.html (I’d just like to point out, the publisher of these videos is a Sedevacantist website, meaning that they reject Francis and other previous holders of the title of Pope to be true Popes. I’m not entirely sure that I agree with their positions as I’m not fully educated on the matter, but some of their videos on Catholic doctrine as a whole were what originally brought me to the Catholic faith).
There are counter-points on each side. Anarcho-Christians claim that the only master you have is God and worship or even just the following of another master than God is blasphemous. I can see how this applies to the state, first of all, statism can be considered a religion in itself (not to mention statism was created by people who claimed they were gods). But even beyond this not so silly thought, following what the state says is just like following another master, so anarcho-Christians do have a strong point. On the other side, non-anarchist Christians point towards Romans 13, which claims that authorities are created by God and nobody can rebel against authorities and call themselves Christians. So anarcho-Christians are in a tough spot, either they follow the Bible, "God's commandment," or they claim the Bible is wrong and thus be very blasphemous. The only exception is if a government tries to make Christians disobey God. But that isn't too hard to point to, since governments tax people (stealing) and use them to fund wars, which goes against the word of God. Of course, there are other things that non-anarchist Christians point to, like "render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar." But anarcho-Christians point to the situation and claim that had Jesus not said something to sound ambivalent, he would have failed to prove himself to be the son of God. I believe our reptilian friend Filthy Heretic made a good video regarding "render unto Caesar." I recall something about the coins being the property of Caesar, because the coins had his mark on them. What I believe wasn't mentioned was that "coins are the eye of the devil" / "the mark of the beast" and Jesus always thought people to be compassionate and not ask for money and instead help your fellow man. Well, that goes against capitalism / monetary societies and straight into the realm of gift-based societies, but that's a whole other discussion. I think another thing that wasn't mentioned was that the denarius had an inscription on it calling Caesar "the most high-god" or something like this, so it can be interpreted that Jesus was asking the pharisees who their God actually is and to discard blasphemous icons. Of course, you would start asking yourself how many people knew how to read and write at that time and I'm not sure there is any indication that Jesus knew how to read, but that is just my ignorance, so for the sake of argument, ignore that. But regarding Romans 13, "there is no authority except that which God has established" is a bit controversial in Christian circles. Some say the only authority God established is of Himself and maybe of the Church (so long as it follows Gods words and is not corrupted and blasphemous, like the Catholic papacy is). Then there is also oaths. Some say oaths ought not to be taken if it goes against God's will and for Man's will (as you shouldn't break your promises and should never make promises that you cannot keep), while others interpret that oaths are to never be made, because people have only an oath to god. Especially not an oath of allegiance, which is basically serving another master. Interestingly, non-capitalist anarchist Mikhail Bakunin makes a fair point: "God exists, therefore man is a slave. Man is free, therefore God doesn't exist" - this does make sense enough to disprove religious (or at least the Catholic and Islamic and I believe Judaistic too interpretations of God). However, there are anarcho-Christian counter-arguments to this, such as being God's slave means being a free Man on Earth. Interestingly, Christian anarchists also point out that Christianity is completely voluntary and thus cannot be slavery in the classical sense. As in, God doesn't want you to believe in Him just because he said so, God wants you to have faith because you want to follow him truly and accept God in your heart. So basically not slavery, but voluntary servitude, which does kinda invalidates Bakunin's point. But atheists do make another good point, and that is that many of God's behaviors makes it kinda impossible for God to be all-loving, all-powerful and all-knowing, all at the same time, and the example used is that of Adam and Eve. And if you are a Christian, you should probably believe in the story of the garden of Eden literally. If God was all-knowing and all-powerful, He would have known that Adam and Eve would eat the forbidden fruit, thus that means that He knew He was going to punish them, making him not so all-loving anymore. Some interpret his punishment of them as being all-loving, but that is a really weird interpretation, as in, getting banished from the garden of Eden was "for their own good" and losing immortality and getting affected by cold and diseases was a lesson for them for their benefit.... yeah, I don't see how that works. If God was all-loving and all-powerful, then that means He could have not seen the event coming, as has He known, He would have made it so that they wouldn't have to go through being punished. Not to mention that if He was all-powerful, He could either get rid of the devil just by thinking of it, or that means that the devil has basically the same powers as Him, thus nullifying His all-mightiness. And lastly, if God was all-loving and all-knowing, that means He couldn't have been all-mighty, because He couldn't make it so that Adam and Even don't do the wrong thing. So this disproves at least the Abrahamic interpretation of God that the religions derived from this all follow. Regarding God being all-loving, Luke Smith, another one of my favorite *content creators*, makes a fantastic point regarding people going to Hell. Some people _want_ to go to Hell, because they want to suffer and also want to see others suffer. And hell is a place where they can "suffer in peace" while also seeing others suffer. So hell is basically the best place for them and Heaven, where they don't get to suffer or to see others suffer would be a big punishment for those kinds of people. Yeah, weird, but this does make sense.
@@MrBiky I was in a similar boat trying to understand how Christianity fits in with Libertarian Anarchism while trying to justify how things like Romans 13 fits into it while seemingly contradicting much of the Bible. But as I tried looking into it, I found some podcasts and videos discussing the subject and they explained it very well and each had some very logical takes on it. And to show they were being transparent and not just trying to twist verses to fit a narrative, they took the context of the entire book of Romans along with similar situations throughout the Bible. As it turns out, Romans 13 is far more likely referring to those upholding natural/God's law like our inalienable rights. So things like reputable private security firms would much more fit into that. And as we know from history, governments/states have in no way whatsoever done what is just in God's eyes. They steal, murder on mass, oppress people's basic freedoms, etc. So it makes no sense that it could even be remotely referring to them. And when it talks about paying your dues, it makes much more sense that it's simply refering to paying people for their services which is still very much Capitalistic. Whether it be private security or any other service you may use that helps protect God's law and people basic rights. Also when you being up things like helping people without expecting payment, things like charity easily fall into that which still falls under Capitalism. Of course it would be just for them to try to repay you regardless, but not to do a good work without being asked then expecting them to especially when they may not be able to in that time. I'll link a few of the video's that helped me realize a lot of this if you're interested. Each having some differing takes on Romans 13 and similar subjects. ruclips.net/video/a7TCj7fX8Ag/видео.html ruclips.net/video/n_p8XOTLBxE/видео.html ruclips.net/video/1I8Z-i7HKdM/видео.html Hopefully I could help clear some of this up. And of course I'm not going to claim to be perfectly knowledgeable on all this, but it seems to be the most logical conclusion to these confusions.
It does my heart so much good to see libertarians and right-anarchists fully embracing Christ. I grew up a non-practicing Christian, that is to say I was raised Christian and believed in God, but didn’t actively go to church, read the Bible, pray, etc. Then I went through an edgy atheist phase, and a semi-ironic pagan phase, culminating in a similar agnostic deism to yourself, before realizing that my then-developing political beliefs coincided with my previous Christian faith, and everything clicked into place. Seeking out Liberty brought me back to Christ, and the fact that so many like-minded people are becoming or had already been Christians shows me it wasn’t a fluke.
@Zoog Ancap Personally I was never convinced by the Romans 13 argument. The idea that submitting to a State that persecutes Christians, murders children, and promotes sexual perversion across the world was somehow closer to Christ’s teachings than anarchy seemed blatantly false to me. That gave me two options; either A, God lied to Paul or allowed Paul to lie to the Romans, or B, that interpretation of the passage was incorrect. Because God cannot lie, and the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and so cannot contain lies, that only left me with option B.
@Zoog Ancap I guess the difference for me is that most of my interactions with Romans 13 was it, like so many Bible verses, being plucked out of context and used as a gotcha to shut down debate, instead of me having to come to grips with its meaning directly. It also helped that all the hard work was done for me already by other Christian anarchists wanting to dispel the Statist narrative of the passage. Also, I didn’t mean to get it across that I believe God directly wrote the Bible through controlling its authors in some way, I believe it was Divinely inspired and it was through His will that it was written, but the men doing the writing were just that. That’s especially the case for the Epistles, and part of why trying to use it to justify submission to whatever current regime controls you is unbiblical, I believe. You can’t pluck a verse or passage out of the Bible and understand its’ meaning without knowing the context in which it was originally written. I’m by no means a theologian or biblical scholar, and I try my best to further my understanding of God’s word and apply it to my life, I pray that He reveals the path for all of us. God bless you as well, brother.
I went through the same pipeline, Atheist, to pagan, to agnostic deist, to theist. I don't know if I am a true Christian yet, I am still exploring. But I do believe there is a God, and that he has set out a pattern that should be followed for enlightenment.
@@evan7391 I pray and have faith that God will guide your journey to know Him and that you will find the fullness of truth in Christ. “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him” Ephesians 1:17
As someone who is inquiring about the Orthodox faith, thank you for this vid. Around the 33 min mark is what got to me the most. Having that similar mindset shift back in late 2019/2020 after feeling God's presence during a depression, it made me actually have motivation for a goal to own land and homestead and take care of animals.
Most of these arguments are quite terrible. You reject Hinduism because “The whole mythology seems bonkers” Very rigourous standard their. If the ultimate being is described accurately by it your cultural bias means little. Same with “Jesus’ resurrection seems more plausible” Not really, and I could find more reasonable parts in any religion to compare to tge ressurection and call them more reasonable. This is mostly extremely weak apologetics which have been addressed a thousand times before. And it does even worse at demonstrating the link between these things and economics. Infinite beings do not “act” because they dont feel unease, and they dont operate within time or causality.
Jesus Christ loves you and died for you: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." - John 3:16 HE IS RISEN! ✝️ 🕊️ 👑 ruclips.net/video/J0wgys3ZEHY/видео.html ruclips.net/video/zGO6_aS-RFs/видео.html
There's no such thing as causality when time is off the table. For instance, numbers doesn't exist in the physical world, they are abstractions; for this reason, the notion of causality in mathematics is simply absurd, there's no temporal relation between mathematical statements. Also, infinite regression is a possible solution to the "every physical phenomenon has a previous cause" (which by itself is an unprovable statement, but let's assume it to be true for the sake of the argument), and it doesn't require the existence of entities that transcend time but somehow are still causal. My opinion on this subject is that we're simply unable to understand everything in the universe, and those questions will always come down to a simple matter of faith. Just like dogs cannot possibly comprehend differential equations, humans cannot possibly comprehend advanced metaphysical concepts. Brains didn't evolve to understand everything about everything, they evolved for survival and reproduction.
There's another point I would like to make, it's logically impossible for all 3 of the below statements to be true (at most 2 of them can be true): 1. God is omnipotent 2. God is good 3. Evil exists A good person, if given reasonable opportunity, wouldn't allow an evil act to occur. If this good person is infinitely mighty (omnipotent), this means absolutely nothing can ever stop them from preventing evil acts, so therefore there will be no evil acts. I would say it's safe to assume there's unfortunately a lot of evil in the world, so it's logically impossible for God to be at the same time good and omnipotent, because it would imply there's no evil in the world. If they're omnipotent, then they simply don't want to stop evil, since absolutely nothing is stopping them from doing so, and therefore they're not good; if they're good and actually want to stop evil, but are unable to do it, so they're not omnipotent. "Oh, but God can defy logic because he's God and everything blablabla" - So there's no point in discussing this at all. If a person throws logic out the window, then it's a complete waste of time to discuss anything with them, because they are just *pretending* to be actually debating, when in reality it's just pure faith and nothing will make them change their mind, since logic has become optional as a method of searching for truth. If logic doesn't matter, stop trying to use it to prove God.
@@randomyoutubecommenter4 (I know it's been two years but I wanted to respond) So you're basically saying that God should intervene in every little thing and micro manage everything like an all-encompassing government? Which in turn would deprive us of agency and free will which is one of His greatest gifts to us. We also live in a fallen world where bad things happen and our hope is in Jesus Christ. Perhaps you're right though that sometimes it's about Faith. Some people have it others don't.
@@crusader2112 No, I didn't say that at all. I just said that there are things beyond causality, and we're simply not able to fully understand them. Causality requires time, so it cannot possibly explain things beyond time, such as "why do time exist" or even "why aren't the laws of physics different", and similar questions. Btw, I consider myself a deist now (I was an atheist by the time of my post), which means I do believe in God, but not from any specific religion, more like a "creation force" that explains why there's something instead of nothing (and would be the basis for concepts like soul and free will as well). It's kinda complex to explain in a RUclips comment, but long story short: I believe that God can be found through reason/philosophy, without the need for religion or supernatural revelation.
Completely on the same wavelength as you. The commonalities in our ideological evolution are mind-blowing. I've loved all of your ancap videos, but this one is a special one. Jordan Peterson's biblical lectures rocked my whole world. I then realized that I acted as if God existed (either in the form of an idea or a metaphysical entity). Lately, I've been reading the bible, and Jesus seems to be the ultimate ideal anarcho-libertarian. By this, I mean he was pro individuality and he always pointed to a person's internal self as the thing that needed changing before criticizing the outer world. Good work mate.
Wow Anglo, your journey to Christianity sounds really similar to mine as I was also a deist before converting to Christianity again these past couple of months. I'm not sure where I land in terms of which denomination to choose from as I come from an orthodox background but I was really fascinated hearing your reasoning behind coming to Christianity ✝️ Much love ❤
This is really awesome man. I’m more of a pseud who doesn’t pay much attention to philosophy and I haven’t read much. I have t read scriptures for the last 6 months and 6 months ago that was the first time I’d read scripture since my 8th grade year, now I’m a senior. This is really good stuff man, I’m happy you came to Christ, and by doing that and making this video you are giving me the will to open up the good book again. Godbless, my brother in Christ from across the pond!!
i recently found God however my brain was racking with my former Atheist logic, which made it hard to truly believe, which caused me to fail, Praying as if a lie, however your video has helped deepen my faith and I will check out all of the sources you told me about, You've not only helped my Libertarian beliefs deepen, but my faith in God, thank you
It surprises me that you've mentioned Eastern Orthodoxy, but never actually looked into it. It's unreformed, 100% original Christianity that completely rejects Papacy (considers it a heresy).
I’m not catholic i’m protestant I’m just trying to follow the bible so much i can And well it hasent lead me to the catholic Church and i have problems with that Church what is importent is that you have accepted Jesus as your Lord and savior Welcome to Christianity 😊
I saved this for a time when I could listen as dispassionately as possible. Your video came at exactly the time I was beginning to feel sympathy with religion having been mostly atheist for my entire life. Given the rise of scientism in the last ~2yrs I am becoming increasingly allergic to outright atheism. I have always felt spiritual and found a lot of value in the psychedelic experience and I’ve often joked that psychedelics are my religion. I’ve also found great value in Buddhist meditation and I think buddhism understands the human condition and is mostly correct with respect to the experience of the mind. This video certainly set off a few trip wires for me still and I’m uncertain I will ever consider myself a Christian but I am infinitely more sympathetic to Christianity, especially with its emphasis on the individual and the idea that rights are god given. I’ll take Christianity over the abomination that is scientism any day. If people are going to be religious either way, I’ll take the one that gave us everything I love.
"2yrs I am becoming increasingly allergic to outright atheism." I mean, atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Just because there are stupid people who make secular religions doesn't some how make magic real.
This video honestly helped me rationalize my faith, for years I have struggled to truly believe in God but your video really helped explain that God is real and that he is here and I feel like I can be confident that God is real thank you so much. I love your videos by the way big fan
Weird enough libertarianism was what make me Christian. I was raised as a Catholic but a left the Church when I start to get myself involved with politics and with leftards. Today I not exactly the church kind of guy yet but I have regained my faith in God and I am a libertarian conservative.
Catholic bro. Keep your faith up. You sure read about Christianism as tradition guardian. One of the last chapters of ``The fatal conceit´´ and what Rothbard wrotte about Christianism. You can either find his thoughts in ``The libertarian manifesto´´ or in ``The ethics of liberty´´
Honestly the final sentence of your comment specifically is pretty much me now as well. Being an Ancap with conservative leaning personal views. And not really going to church much (although I should more honestly) but still being strong in my faith.
Tbh, you shouldn't disregard Hinduism. It's not ridiculous as you said, it is just a lot more detailed than the western faiths. Each sub god has a role and reason to exist. Really encourage you look into it man , or you're doing a disservice to yourself and won't be complete in your journey to faith.
I have more I'd like to say and ask, but I have to go to work soon. So I just want to say real quick that I loved listening to your reasoning and reflection even though I dislike the Christian God 💛 I hope people are able to keep kindness and respect in their responses.
The problem with theism is that human knowledge requires certain metaphysical statements to be true. Positive statements do not exist in the abstract, they are things which a human must act to create and which rely on the speaker having certain knowledge in his head. So, if you want to posit "God created the universe" you would need to have knowledge of something which was supposed to be somehow outside of existence itself (the concept "universe" means the same thing as the concept "existence"). However, for a rational being to have knowledge of something, there must be existents which they can perceive and then construct concepts of. When you step out into the void of non-existence, you cannot then claim to have knowledge of anything. We only know things due to the "metaphysical context" in which we live (reality exists, A is A, etc), but when you're speaking of a hypothetical situation where these axioms are not true, when you're speaking of some kind of pre-existence void that God was supposed to somehow inhabit in order to then "create the universe", you cannot make a positive statement about anything. Thus you cannot state "God created the universe" or even simply "the universe was created/has a creator." About the law of causality argument, it does not state that existence itself has to have been caused by some other thing. It in fact doesn't state that matter can be brought into existence at all, only that, assuming a thing does already exist, then it may lead to a chain of cause and effect. "Action" is not some abstract platonic thing that waves through the world, it is something which only exists as it pertains to specific instances of action being performed by entities within existence. You cannot back-trace into "what moved the universe into being" because, in the pre-existence void, there are no entities present which could possibly act. This is why I believe in the theory of an eternal universe (which is compatible with modern scientific theories as well), because it states that the universe itself is outside of time, thus the idea of there being a time "before" existence doesn't make any sense to begin with and does not need to be considered to make any arguments here. In other words, you cannot create something out of nothing (within time, i.e. one second there is nothing and the next there is something), so thus the universe must be out of time such that it has always existed and always will exist. Thus, religion is just a highly organized form of mysticism and one cannot be perfectly faithful and rational at the same time, owing to these metaphysical and epistemological facts.
Damn. I looked at this comment after seeing Peikoff's debunk of Aristotle on this point (I'm a baby Objectivist), and little did I know, you had it right here.
I mean so long as you don't go the Katlyn Bennett approach (I know she wasn't ever libertarian but that's besides the point) of becoming a theocrat, it should be fine. Personally I subscribe to an "extreme" version of faith alone where by so long as you have faith upon Christ's sacrifice on the cross and resurrection, any other theological conclusion be it Catholicism Arianism, Monothelitism, orthodoxy or some protestant denomination are irrelevant so long as one doesn't mix in pagan gods or contradict the sacrifice in the flesh in some way like Docetism.
I am very happy you have found your path to Christ. In terms of my Christian beliefs I grew up and currently am with Baptisism generally, but I consider myself more of a non-denominational protestant since many of the denominations make their own good points and I'm not entirely loyal to any single one along with me being protestant for rejecting the pope's authority. Although you still listed some good cases for non pope worshipping catholicism as well. Also this video kinda reminds me of a reverse version of me being a Christian and coming to be an Ancap. Just like you being an Ancap and becoming Christian. In fact your channel is actually what made me realize I am an Ancap along with other channels helping to explain to me how Anarcho Capitalism and Christianity go together perfectly. So in general, good luck in your faith and to all of us growing more on our knowledge about it and life as a whole.
Haven't finished the video yet, but I've been thinking about this alot recently. I grew up christian and knew all the apologetics, but eventually found them unconvincing. Recently though, I current events have been challenging my materialist and rationalist (read autistic) outlook. This has led me to abandoning the atheist label, though I've still yet to be convinced by any of the christian sects (and yes I am biased toward christianity for a variety of reasons). I've also abandoned the libertarian position (though not the economics) for similar reasons. My dillema right now in regards to christianity is similar to my feelings toward crypto: everyone sounds reasonable, but they all disagree, and I'm not big brained enough to know who to believe. The whole thing is just overwhelming to me tbh. Will definitely be moving in that direction at some point though.
If there is no evidence of God, then there is no reason to believe he exists. Any existence of a God proven doesn't mean he's the Christian one either. Thousands of religion, only one is right allegedly
@@edgaraf9411 Yes, if God exists, there is only one objective truth. I think either Juduaism, Christianity or Islam HAS to be true because they're scriptures are the most historically accurate. Also the seven sins are very solid, just look at current events/culture, everything that's wrong in our society. I also rather have a good hiarchy than non at all, we need (and espacially the youth) good intellectual and spiritual direction. There are so many religions is just a lazy argument, look into history. The real question to be asking is: Who has the best philosophy and what is the correct Church? (Denomination)
As someone who grew up roman catholic from pre school to sophomore year, dealing with the dogma and also my own teenage edgy atheist phase to combat some rather annoying practices, to now being 23 and viewing religion and religious philosophy with deeper view and perspective. It makes me glad I did grow up catholic, baptized, well educated in theology, as well as practice the Sacraments, I still remember being 13, questioning my faith but also sitting down for confession or sitting in silence in prayer, being both annoyed but also spiritual and peaceful while in the act, it was intense and made me way more thought productive. When I switched to public school, the sheer difference in intellect, critical thinking, philosophical, and logical graps on knowledge was so stark, I almost felt bad. When being able to outsmart a science teacher who is clearly left wing and anti religion, Shit opend my eyes and now I often ponder visiting my church or at rhe very least revisting alot of what I've learned
While I respect that people have the freedom to believe whatever they want, I honestly just find every contemporary religion to be too Draconian, and it goes against my fundamental philosophical beliefs of individualism and liberty. The way Abrahamic religions describe God sounds more like a tyrant than a loving deity, and the worship of said deity is downright idolatry (ironically enough). I do have spiritual beliefs, but I don't enclose myself under any specific label. Fundamentally, I am a satanist, simply because satanism promotes doing whatever the fuck you want and finding your own truth. Spiritually, I am eclectic. I don't like any organized religion.
I can see how you view it that way due to all the tradcucks and other pharasee esc people that claim to speak for God being hyper authoritarians. But the Bible itself very much supports Libertarian view points. Sure it also says certain things are morally wrong, but even then it never condones the use of force against them as long as they aren't doing direct harm to others. Also Jesus Himself also called out people like the pharasees and people today that resemble them as false prophets that only claim God's word to forward their own narratives and power grabs.
I'm one of those rare and crazy individual who don't like to use labels when referring to oneself, but who people would describe as a cold deist, in the classical sense. My belief is that God exists and the Universe either had to come from "somewhere" or that in this universe, it is possible that matter can be created out of nothing. The later would be explaining the theory that the universe is infinite and ever-expanding, but wouldn't explain why that is. Of course, there is a clash, either the universe is finite and has a limited supply of atoms and it's just that, being an empty space, it is just expanding, as in, spreading thin the resources available, so becoming less dense, or that the universe keeps increasing in volume and mass. But there is no way to actually determine that the universe is either infinite, nor that it is expanding and the knowledge that we have seems to be pretty inaccurate. Why I am not what people would call "agnostic" is that I have a very strong belief that a creator exists, which I believe is way beyond human comprehension and it is not up for debate for me whether God exists or not. So, it's not that I'm indifferent whether God exists or not. However, what my other belief is, is related to the "cold" part of "cold deism." And that is, this Creator does not interfere in any way with humans. So by this standard, I judge religions as being spooks. On a side-note, I don't care what beliefs people hold, be it that they believe the Bible or the Quran is The Word of God, or that one believes he's a poached egg. What I do care about is human action, whether one leaves people alone or tries to use force against them. So, you decide if I'm edgy enough for your standards. I have presented a few arguments under the pinned comment regarding some anti-religious stances that I don't believe can be resolved. But besides that, I believe that the conflicts within most religious scriptures can only be resolved in one way: they were written by men and are not the Word of God. Easy as that. It is interesting that the Vatican does not want the books in its library to be digitized and spread to the whole world. I understand they are old books and parchments and might break at the slightest touch, but I do believe it can be done without a lot of damage to the originals, if any. Of course, most of that is in either Latin, Greek or Jewish, maybe some Sanskrit, so there would have to be a lot of research into all of these. Regarding conflicts and contradictions within things like the bible. If it was the Word of God, it cannot have been such a huge mess, it would have been consistent. So all of the different texts have to be creations of different people, with different views, at different times. Things like evil people needing to be beaten with a stick vs Jesus teaching of turning the other cheek. So, after having watched the whole video, I'm yet to be convinced by religious arguments. Hard-atheists aren't convincing me either, because this is one of the rare cases where just because there is no hard proof that God exists (even though there are signs that He might or at least might have at some point), there is a need to be hardly proved that He doesn't exist either. It's like Schrodinger's God or something, He exists and doesn't exist at the same time, until we can prove either of these cases. I have made an example a long time ago: if a big boulder falls from a mountain on a road and there are people claiming to have seen someone getting crushed, while there are others who claim there was nothing under the boulder, you can't just take one side's word for it without evidence. Lift the boulder and see who's right. Other interesting findings, not sure how true or accurate are, show that some of the writings in the Old and New Testaments have many commonalities with other epics and stories from Mesopotamia. One of them being the epic of Gilgamesh where a survivor of the Great Flood is mentioned, the flood being the main topic of Noah's ark. Ea warns Utnapishtim to build a boat to save all living beings. After the flood is over, he offers a sacrifice to God. Other similarities to forbidden fruits are also in the epic of Gilgamesh when he tries eating the rejuvenation herb, but which is stolen by a snake, with the snake being considered the devil in the garden of Eden story. There's also Pandora's box, with a similar story of being the first woman. Pandora who is created in the image of her creator and is told not to open the box (actually a jar), but she did anyway and evil came out of it. Basically the whole plot of eating the apple, "bad things would happen." Both Pandora and Eve were curious and tempted. Back to the epic of Gilgamesh, the story of Adam and Eve / Ekindu and Shamhat, man is created by God and lives among animals. Man is seduced by a woman and accepts her food offering, decides to leave paradise, covers himself and is not allowed to return. So, if the Bible is the original text, there shouldn't exist texts and stories prior to the Bible referencing almost the same plot. One could argue that the story is actually the same and that the bible just took already existing knowledge from legends and slapped them in a book and that doesn't invalidate the Bible as a holy script. But then, by who it was written again? One could say that the stories actually did happen and God actually spoke with people and taught them stuff and they were just consolidated in a written format. But it does counter the argument that the Bible was written by God or at least with influence from God, as opposed to being written by humans and containing stories related to God and His revelations. Other interesting correlations are between Christian holidays and pagan rituals. For example, Easter is believed to have been a pagan ritual. It is supposed to happen on each first Sunday after the first Full Moon after the March equinox. Kinda specific, isn't it? Especially when usually traditions follow a certain calendar date, but not Easter. Supposedly Easter was a tradition following the Sumerian legend of Damuzi (Tammuz) and his wife Inanna (Ishtar). He dies and she follows him in the underworld. In her absence, the Earth loses fertility, crops stop growing and animals stop reproducing. Unless something is done, all life will be lost. Inanna's servant goes to another god, he sends 2 creatures after Damuzi and Inanna and resurrects them and they get the power to return to Earth with the power of light for six months. Then the cycle repeats. This story indicates the cycle of death in autumn and life in spring. Related to this story, Easter was a celebration of life and the Goddess Ishtar, who was also known as _Eostre,_ the goddess of Spring (Eostre -> Easter). It was celebrated on march equinox, the time when light and dark had the same time and when light would grow. Ishtar was often represented as a hare. The tradition of eggs represents life and fertility (chicken are born from eggs). While in most Catholic world the hare and chocolate eggs are still maintained, in other parts of the world, like in Romania (which is Orthodox), Easter is celebrating by boiling eggs and painting them red (supposedly red of Christ's blood I believe), but there is no depiction of rabbits. The tradition was happening mostly in the western part of the Roman Empire, somewhere between Italy and Germany (probably both). Speaking of the Catholic Church and hidden writings. Pope Gregory I, in order to convert more pagans to Christianity, gave order to his missionaries to allow pagans to keep doing their customs, but add Christian philosophy to the mix and instead of whatever pagan gods were celebrated, to celebrate Jesus or one of the martyrs. And Easter was one of those pagan customs that were Christianized. What's funny is that the original custom was pretty weird, in the sense that people knew that following the spring equinox, they had to have sex, because winters were harsh and babies had less chances of survival if they were born when it was cold (winter or early spring). So the celebration wasn't just an empty festival, it was actually a necessity. Celebrating Eostre, the goddess of spring and fertility by mating and making kids, well now that's a custom I'd get behind. But I will say that these are not reasons enough to disprove Christianity in its original form (whatever that was, as it was clearly lost to time). Just because stories were borrowed and added to a book and because pagan customs were transformed into Christian holidays does not necessarily mean that the original Christianity was not real and *the* religion of God. But it does raises quite a few big question marks and makes Christianity be viewed with a healthy doze of skepticism, at least on my part. Of course, that's just my knowledge and I don't know how much of this is true, but for that matter, I don't know how much of the Bible is true either. I believe it to be unreasonable to expect me to believe in Christianity or any other religion, when so much of said religions are just evolution and popularization of already existing legends and pagan customs from many cultures. Deism on the other hand is way more of a reasonable position to take. Way more than Christianity and way more than atheism.
@Zoog Ancap No offense, but telling someone to "do your own research" does not shift the burden of proof on the other side. I do admit that I could be wrong, I found those quotes on the internet. I'm not a Christian, I'm a deist. I do not intend to buy a book and quote it just to be correct on the Internet. Besides, most Christians I heard, including 2 Christian anarchists prefer King James version of the Bible. Besides, I find that telling someone to "go educate one's self" is not an argument. I wouldn't call it a fallacy, but it's not an argument either. The burden of proof is on the person who is making the claims. Also, the idea implied when telling someone to "do his research" implies that someone reaches the same conclusion that the opposing side has already drawn. Lastly, it shows a slight disrespect towards the opposing side, as in "I don't have time to look this up, so look it up yourself." That's not how you convince someone that your side's argument is better, in fact, that's how you make it look weaker. You don't have to look that up though Zoog, because I'm tired an a bit unwilling to debate. I'd like to hear what was wrong in my argument or my quotes just for future reference, if that's ok with you, but otherwise, we can each live our own lives. I just wanted to point out the invalidity of the argument. Still, I'd like to coin the term "argumentum ad indagatio" for this one. I heard some people use "argumentum ad googlum," but some I've heard different uses of this one, usually to imply "search google for X, then search for Y and you will see a difference in search results" (as kind of an argumentum ad populum) as opposed to "do your own research."
Im Born again Christian (John 3 ) and politcally libertarian//anarchist, tough I do believe in the application of God's law to civil society. I dont think its contradictory but I can see how it could be seen that way.
Ok, I have watched the video and first off I'll reveal that I'm an agnostic atheist. The section regarding axioms and priori proofs is very interesting to me. Namely, it reminds me of the big questions book written by Stephen Hawking. Stephen Hawking tackles the idea of god in a chapter stating that the difficulty of proving god, or anything before the big bang for that matter, is that it's very difficult to study something in a time where time and space itself didn't exist. Implying that our first mover must've existed outside this nothing is a very odd statement since as Hawking pointed out, there is simply nothing to exist outside of and no time for that being to have lived in. It's like asking "what's North of the north pole''. And my second point spawned from the fact when you mentioned the fall and creation. I know that the catholic church allows a stance of faith together with the theory of evolution. The irony though is that the theory of evolution is completely incompatible with the creation story. We know for a fact that humanity evolved from a common ancestor together with the other great apes, how is this compatible with a story that claims that an entire species evolved from 2 humans who were cast out from a mystery garden after having been tempted by a talking snake? The commonality of creation myths is that the power of a god makes it so that a creation is something that can be achieved fairly quickly, because the god in question is powerful enough and efficient enough to allow it. The problem of trying to force cosmology, biology and geology as we understand it today together with Christianity is that the god in question has very strange methods. Assuming we do so, the modern catholic believes in a god that caused the big bang, than waited 9 billion years to even begin the process of forming the planet, than waited another 1 billion years to start creating life. Mind you, one would assume that as soon as he'd the chance he would immediately create humanity, but no, he first started creating monocellular lifeforms at the bottom of these ancient oceans. Than he waited for another rough 3.52 billion years to even start the evolution of the modern human that we know of. And between those two events, God saw fit to evolve all kinds of pointless animals and fucked around with all sort of pointless events such as meteor impacts and the magnetic reversal of the poles. I say pointless not because I regard these events from a nihilistic stance, but pointless because a personal loving god who wants to have a relationship with us, wouldn't bother with 9 billion of pointless creations, destructions and unbearably slow processes. Wouldn't god rather just create the thing he's supposedly most interested in and supposedly wants to interact the most with, namely us? I am however very glad that you found something so significant like this for yourself and I hope it'll serve you well.
@@aguilarraliuga1777 Like I said, as Stephen Hawking and many of his colleagues have pointed out, time didn't exist before the big bang. Also, if I assumed your viewpoint was correct. why would he take his time? He is all-knowing, why bother tinkering if he can just snap anything he wishes into being?
so, this is probably an incredibly silly question, but are you still a libertarian/ancap? i dont really see libertarians talk about religion - its largely mainstream conservatives talk about christianity
Im only answering till 15:40, also I'm not going to write a complete thesis on a yt comment, I might join your discord for further discussion, although I'd rather hoped that you would have a matrix instance: 1. The problem with the first mover argument is that it kicks the can down the road, then the question becomes who moved god first, was there a super god, what was he doing for all of infinitum before he decided to create the universe etc 2. Your understanding of BigBang is not quite complete, first the idea that the universe started with a infinity dense and infinity small singularity is a simplest extrapolation of our current physics equations, which we know to be incorrect or rather incomplete because we have 2 contradictory fields of physics, relativity and quantum mechanics, which are somewhat contradictory to each other. Basically, we are missing information. Other possible scenarios with our current understanding of physics include a big bounce, i.e. a cyclical universe, or an infinite universe, or a bubble universe etc. 3. "The reason you see a ball..." Not necessarily, it may have always been moving, counterintuitive I know, but movement is relative. To ask why the ball is moving, is no different then asking, why is the ball still? In physics, they both have the same meaning. With your question you are assuming that the ball is supposed to be still relative to you. Think of planets, these are balls that have always been moving relative to you, and even relative to the atoms and particles that make you. 4. "Follow all motion back in the past..." Again no, all we know is that spacetime itself is expanding (note, spacetime is not a physical object), it is not a statement of the size of the universe as whole, the universe may be infinitely large and has always been infinitely large and may have always been moving. 5 "Something outside our universe" You know what is outside our universe, the universe, at least as we used to think. At one point in time we thought that the galaxy was the universe, until we discovered other galaxies. The point being that the universe by its very definition is all encompassing, therefore there can be nothing outside the universe. You might mean outside our current understanding of the universe, but as soon as we have understanding then it becomes part of the universe again. Therefore if there is a god, then our new understanding of the universe would include the existence of god in it and therefore you are back to the original question of how the universe began. 6. "What caused the big bang" Again there might not be a cause, because there might not be a big bang as you understand it. 7. "Atheism being outright denial" I never thought of atheism as an outright denial, but simply as a position that you do not require god to explain the universe and our existence and that a god would introduce extra complexity which would also have to be explained. 8. "The big band is the method", No again that's a misunderstanding of the big bang, stop thinking of a big bang, and more like a big expansion. 9. "A cake does not..." A cake could come into existence by pure random chance, a cake is just an improbable arrangement of particles, given enough times, all probabilities lead to 1. 10. "there is no reason..." Nobody claims there is no reason for the expansion of spacetime, simply that we do not know the reason yet. The answer will probably come when we marry gravity with quantum mechanics. 11. "Big bounce vs big bang" But god is in itself a "cop out". There is nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know", one does not need an answer. 12. "the existence of nature is found in the supernatural". Ok, the supernatural by its very definition is beyond reason. You are trying to explain reason with the unreasonable. 13. "Science cannot explain why its laws..." Ammm, yes it can? Science has been doing that for centuries? An example, Science explains the existence of the laws of gravity. 13. "To deny that the supernatural cannot exit..." If there is any "supernatural" possibilities, it would immediately fall under the definition of natural. Or to put it another way, the supernatural is just science that we cannot explain yet. You are basically making another god of the gaps argument, you are stating that our current lack of understanding means that god must have done it, ignoring the fact that a god introduces more complexity and creates even more questions. As well as not applying the same rules to god as you would the universe. God does not have to answer the question of its existence but the laws of nature do? Seriously?
I’m glad you found faith man. I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who thinks faith and libertarianism are not contradictory! I’m not Christian, rather, I’m an Orthodox Jew, but if Christianity is what brought you to G-d then I’m happy for you. Here’s to the Libertarian Religious!
From many videos of other Anarcho-Christians going over the subject, they point out all the context around the verses and how the original Greek words it out. Apparently it only mentions authority without the word "governing", and since it's also refering to no authority but what is ordained by God, I see it far more so refering to natural law aka God's law. And it also never used the word "taxes" for "pay your dues" which could mean anything from a punishment debt to morally wanting to pay back to those that help you. Also the fact that it mentions that the authority upholds justice (something the state clearly does the opposite of), and in another part of Romans, Paul mentioned something about not going to state law for help, implying he can't have been refering to it. I hope I'm not misquoting anything but that's seemingly what it would he saying with all the context together. Plus of course "thou shall not steal" and taxation being theft so that too lol.
I’m a polytheist. Specifically Hellenic. Amazing video. I have my own modern way of interpreting the religion. We disagree on what religions applied to this concept (I believe all of them can be applied to this concept). And we do have something like Brahmin called Mother Gaia, goddess of all life. The other gods merely symbolize the things they represent, but not are those things. Also I can confirm not all pagans are the way you described lol. Overall very nice video.
I am happy you have found faith. I hope it guides you through the future trials of your life and brings you true happiness. A book you might find interesting about the modern Catholic church and the pope, would be Infiltration by Dr. Taylor Marshall. It's more along the lines of theology and modern politics rather than a persuasive argument to justify the Pope and Church.
The idea of a deity you have to listen to no matter what is the antithesis of libertarianism. Where did this deity get its authority from? Why does it have a monopoly on authority? Wouldn’t forcing people into hell fire be the ultimate violation of the Non-Agression Principle?
God is not just a really big and smart human sat on a cloud telling you what to do just because He feels like it. He is the infinite, formless pure intellect which is the basis for existence, as He is not contingent on anything else. He is the supreme authority as, through his infinite nature, He lacks nothing, and is therefore all-good and the fountain of morality. And God no more violates the NAP when people go to hell than any shop owner violates the NAP in not giving food to a hungry person. The way to heaven is to have faith in Him, do good to others, and repent of your wrongdoings. If you refuse to do that, you send yourself to hell, not the inverse.
How is god forcing people to hell when it is yourself who commits vile actions? Is somebody holding a gun to your head telling you to do all these things?
Anglo, from one Christian to another, Soli Deo Gloria! I've long thought of the possibility of higher profile members of the libertarian/anarchist community being saved in Christ and the effect that would have, and your salvation meets me with unending joy. It's refreshing to hear of another Christian libertarian, as the concepts of human dignity and natural rights can only truly be established within the Imago Dei. I will ask of you though, to consider and study the soteriology of the Reformation and of the Catholic Church: if mankind is totally entrenched in sin, man cannot by his own volition choose God; God must, in his divine mercy and sovereignty, choose to kneel down and pick man up from his sinful state, should man be saved at all. Any other credit to man for his salvation assumes there is good in man apart from God. Following all the libertarians in the community as I do, it can start to seem like each is an impersonal, slightly altered representation of libertarianism instead of the distinct persons they are; listening to your interview with BR and learning of your leaning toward economics (and more specifically, Austrian school) piqued my interest in you as a favorite. Now learning of your salvation, I am joyous in the privilege of knowing of you not only as a son of liberty, but also as a brother in Christ. From like minds across the pond, DC
I used to be an edgy atheist but recently I had the exact same thought process as you did. I still don't know which religion is correct or if any of them are and this is keeping me awake at night. I'm completely lost. I don't know if I'm convinced but thank you for this video nonetheless I feel like I needed it
More martyrs died for believing in Christ in the 20th century than any other time in history due to persecution by communists. Terrible things have been done in the name of the religion, but it is so far from black and white, and does not change whether or not it is true
Yeah, it doesn't really change if it's true or not, but I've always just been baffled by the existence of Christian Anarchists since it seems like an oxymoron. Because if an all-powerful, all-good etc god uses states as a way to manifest his will, then I don't see a point in resisting any action by states since it's all part of the grand design anyway. Had it remained an underground movement (like when followers were killed because they refused to worship deified Roman emperors) to this day, or if it had fizzled out after a few centuries or so and today had a following the size of something like Eckankar, it would have been far more believable. That being said, I will listen to your entire lecture later tonight when I have the time.
States are made up of human beings, and human beings have free will. If we use free will to enact evil then we enacted evil, God did not. If we act against God's plan of peace and cooperation, then it is our action that did so. States are not a necessary part of his plan or a manifestation of his will, by defying his laws they are actively working against it, and that is their own fault and worthy of being resisted
Hm I haven’t watched the whole video yet, but I will eventually. However, I do one question based on what I’ve seen so far, although you may answer it later on in the video. You say that the universe is everything that exists, but then later you go on to argue that the universe must’ve had a cause that exists outside the universe. Is this not a contradiction? If the universe is everything that exists, then it would seem to be a contradiction to say that something can exist outside the universe.
@@CeaddaOfMercia Supernatural means not real. it can not be measured. It is your imagination at best. If something exists then it is natural and not supernatural. lmao
@@orderoftheredstarofbethlehem my bud is Jewish and told me something about getting a discount for me lmao I'll see, my first name is Hebrew and celtric so maybe I'll DNA test and get lucky 😁😅
Cultural homogeneity is necessary for liberty and social trust and a shared religion can give us that. it's sad we no longer have that because of diversity and multiculturalism we should be more like Korwin party in Poland
I know people that consider themselves ``cultural christians´´. They don buy the religious aspects of the christianism but they know that christian ethic is the one that can make a functional society. Atheism, islamism, hinduism... you can just look.
@@juanjosefreijedo774 china was already and advance society before the introduction of european ideas, actually western countries tried to destroy and convert china to a colony but they survive, mao and the comunist also tried to destroy the confucionism morals and ethics with the cultural revolution, but after it failure deng xiao ping embrace those ideas, the only good influence that western people had on those countries were technology and the scientific method but morals and ethics not so much considering how diferentes their cultures are between them and with europe, they already had universities and budism defend the equality among all humans before christians arrive, it was one of the reason why the shintoism and hinduism try to destroy them but failed
This is a simple question I have Why should I forfeit freedoms for a 50/50 chance of either eternal life or nothing? My answer would be there is nothing because it is the safest bet. But the religious answer is “you shall forfeit freedom for eternal life” this argument means two things that invalidate it 1. If you can live forever by doing good things, that means you are being coerced (which is an anti-anarchist argument). Therefore making it both meaningless and forceful. While an atheist doing good things comes from their heart, they want to help for the purpose of helping. 2. What gives authority to this argument? Nothing, I'm not denying that there is a God or isn't. My question is how do we know where we end up, and where the is the justification for the removal of some freedoms to get into this paradise? Basically, my whole argument is How do we know where we end up? And why is this religion the correct one?
"Why should I forfeit freedoms for a 50/50 chance of either eternal life or nothing?" I mean they don't even have proof of any god. Let alone a christian one.
Some thoughts I had while listening: Axioms, in these terms, are approximations and "correct enough" guesses that haven't been contradicted -eg we don't "know" the universe "exists", only that we define it to be - "existence" is undefinable outside of our universe The "big bounce" theory has just as much proof as god so that bit's true enough Before the big bang = north of the north pole = temperature below 0K -> no sense or need or reason for a cause of the big bang, as cause exists as a result of it Supernatural things by definition can't exist The 3 "L's" of Jesus only make sense if Jesus was one man, but since the gospels vary so widely, and no historiographically acceptable primary source of Jesus (not his followers) exists, this can't be known. The fully man, fully God in no way is comparable to incomprehensible natural phenomena - one is undefinable in our existence (even in your explanation, as God would be outside of it), the other is I haven't heard a better way to make sin a workable concept than in this video, though "perfection in the eyes of God" or "God's plan" is, as above, undefinable Catholics believe "the faith" is expanded by saints, so only the bible is considered a "done deal" Still, pretty interesting video. Mostly agree with the "what to do", but not the "why".
what about infinities? an alternative theory to the big bang is the big bounce wherein the start of our universe was caused by the collapse of another and that universe was created through the collapse of another and another and another etc etc. this would be an uncountable infinity of universes, and uncountable infinites have neither a start nor an end. edit: 13:20 - let this be a lesson to not comment too quickly 😂😂
i think my point still stands tho - in regards to uncountable infinities that is. and i don’t think it’s ‘clutching at straws’ as the end state of the universe is the same as the starting state (an infinitely small and dimensioned singularity with the means of expansion into a universe). although, that’s only on the assumption that the rate of expansion doesn’t supersede the rate of ‘condensation’ so to speak. if the universe expands too fast, the means of condensing back into a singularity (gravity) may not have such an effect.
@Zoog Ancap indeed, they are mathematically impossible to demonstrate but you have to imagine, we are examining a possibly - if not, certainly - multi-dimensional universe through a 4 dimensional lens. we are bound by these dimensions, we cannot imagine a world wherein we are not bound by time. timelessness as a concept is an impossibility to 3 dimensional beings. a countless infinity, thus, would be impossible to demonstrate and yet i personally believe the universe is as such. we are simply ants on a 2d piece of paper (length, width), unaware and unable to comprehend the depth of our world.
@Zoog Ancap absolutely lol, i recommend reading “The God Equation” by Michio Kaku. it’s more of a history of science in relation to the theory of everything but nonetheless relevant and interesting.
Let's check out what Romans 13 says, starting with verses 1-4 Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. This is written by Paul, who was repeatedly persecuted by those in power, both the Jewish leaders (Pharisees, Saducees, etc.) and the Romans. He was arrested and put in prison multiple times. He openly defied orders to stop preaching the Gospel, all the apostles and disciples did. If these are the authorities that Paul is talking about, he is entirely hypocritical. He disobeys them all the time. Moreover, if these authorities are a terror who those who do wrong and never a terror to those who do right, why do they punish those who spread the Gospel? That would mean that the Gospel is evil. These two things mean that these governments cannot be the legitimate authority that Paul is talking about. They are illegitimate authorities and therefore their power does not come from God. All legitimate authority comes from God. All legitimate authority is a terror to those who do wrong and never a terror to those who do right. Therefore, no Earthly government that exists today or could possibly exist are legitimate authorities. The question then becomes, why did Paul write it like this then? Why did he not just outright say that. That's a much harder question to answer and I find the most likely to be that he knew that other early Christians would understand what he meant while Roman officials would not take his words as outright rebellion But, let's proceed with Roman 13 Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority. This seems like it directly contradicts with what Jesus said about taxes: On their arrival in Capernaum, the collectors of the Temple tax came to Peter and asked him, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the Temple tax?” “Yes, he does,” Peter replied. Then he went into the house. But before he had a chance to speak, Jesus asked him, “What do you think, Peter? Do kings tax their own people or the people they have conquered?” “They tax the people they have conquered,” Peter replied. “Well, then,” Jesus said, “the citizens are free! Paul says pay your taxes. Jesus says that Kings only tax those they have conquered (also translated as slaves, subjects, and/or hostages). He also goes on to say he only pays taxes to avoid causing a scene. So why does Paul disagree with Jesus? Of course, he does not. Paul says to pay what you owe. The very next verse (Romans 13:8) says this Owe nothing to anyone-except for your obligation to love one another. If you love your neighbor, you will fulfill the requirements of God’s law. You are called to pay the government what you owe them. You owe them nothing. Another set of verses often brought up is when Jesus says "give to Caesar what is Caesar's." But again, look at this in context. The Pharisees are trying to catch Jesus in a trap. If he says you have to pay taxes, the people will reject him. If he says you don't, the Romans will arrest him. He, as always, finds a way out of the trap by making everyone hear what they want to hear. At first glance, and to the Romans and religious leaders, this means you should pay your taxes; after all, that coin he held up has Caesar's face on it, it must belong to him. But Jesus never actually says this. In fact, the Bible does not at all support the idea that the money belongs to Caesar: A Psalm of David. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein, (Psalm 24:1) Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it. (Deuteronomy 10:14) The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, declares the Lord of hosts. (Haggai 2:8) Who has first given to me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine. (Job 41:11) There's tons of other anarchist passages in the Bible as well
I disagree that the axiom that the fact that we are in a rational universe cannot be proven. If you can conduct 3 experiments consistently and get the same general laws of how they will act out of them, that is evidence of a rational universe and the more experiments and technologies that continue to act the same way is further evidence of our rational universe.
I will say this, on terms of Papal infallibility, it is not true that the Pope is infallible whenever he teaches officially. It’s more complicated. He needs to seek to define a matter to be definitively held for all time and he needs to bind the entire church to this teaching, and he needs to make his intention to do this clear. And on the topic to St Peter, when telling the Gentiles they needed to be circumcised, he was not teaching definitively and universally. When he did speak on this definitively at the Council of Jerusalem he did taught that the Gentiles didn’t need to be circumcised. And in terms of denying Christ 3 times, he did this before he was made Pope. The ecclesiastical authority as well as the institution of the various sacraments take place after the resurrection, even if many things are set up prior to the resurrection, they find their full institution after the resurrection The issue of ecclesiology and papal authority is complex, and I would recommend reading the STS as it speaks on this particular issue Edit: the STS is the Sacrae Theologia Summa, it’s a very extensive theological manual which from memory was given papal approval
Awesome, I also noticed myself growing closer to God and appreciating both philosophy and Christianity more as my libertarian journey continues on. At one point in time I was also an atheist and during this time I noticed that many atheists just had a distain for philosophy, this includes major new atheist thinkers like Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins. Which is a shame because most atheists have replaced God the state. At a minimum I think it's important for people to seek out philosophy even if they aren't certain about God this whole worship of science is foolish and antithetical to knowledge and the development of individuals.
@@akivaweil5066 economics is a science and the science shows free market's rise living standards. Yet people choose to ignore the great work of Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Bob Murphy etc because they have chosen to replace God with the government or they cling on to ths idiotic idea of a caring fatherly government. By observing how prisons are filled with innocent people, it's easy to conclude that big daddy government isn't youe pal. Anyway to respond directly to your point s choosing a spiritual path doesn't discount one from.being able to utilize science. This channel is a good example of that. Furthermore, I don't know anyone who has turned to God simply to own the libs or whatever trolling aside. I don't believe Anglo or my self have embraced God for that reason. That wasn't the point of this video.
@@countlessbathory1485 Not to mention that in one of Anglo's previous videos, he showed that some of the most brilliant scientific minds in history were very much religious.
@Zoog Ancap Yeah true man, in simple terms these people have replaced God with the government. Regardless, there are many libertarians and ancaps who are religious and understand why God is vital. Some known figurers include Ron Paul, Tom woods, Eric July, Walter Williams I know has more a minarchist but he sure has some good work, and even Jeff Berwick from the the dollar vigilante has been speaking more about spirituality. The mad lad highlighted how certain passports are like the mark of the beast.
The definition of God is a being which is necessary (couldn't not exist, to use a double negative) and infinite. An infinite thing could not have been created as it would have a beginning and therefore be finite, it simply has always and will always exist. So, no, God is the one thing which has no creator and is THE creator by being pure existence
I have for a while moved from completely aþeistic towards an agnostic deism rooted in stoicism as you described you were at. I wonder if þis will be similar to þat time over two years ago now when you dropped from minarchy to anarchy and I soon followed. Alþough non-religious I generally have þe wish to fulfill þe imitation of Christ (m.ruclips.net/video/ClGKmklPHns/видео.html) and have had some biases towards Christian þinking based on my origin wiþin a society grown out of Christianity and watching some amount of Jordan Peterson talking about Christianity as wiþ þe video mentioned above.
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DIR7_X-ahy4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](/img/1.gif)
Seeing the title of the video made me jump for joy. The hardest thing for me has been attempting to unite Christianity / traditional Catholicism with libertarian ideals, with most advocates of the former or the latter saying that libertarianism is against the principles in previous Catholic nations (monarchy, state power etc). I haven’t fully watched your video yet but I have no doubt that it will be thoroughly explained, especially due to the video length.
“It is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonwealth. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.” - Pope Leo XIII
“What are kingdoms but great robberies? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal or covetousness, but by the addition of impunity.” - St Augustine
“One should do harm to no man.” - St Thomas Aquinas
I deliberately didn't cross-over politics into this video, so thank you for providing those patristic quotes as they say absolutely everything which needs to be said
@@CeaddaOfMercia After watching the video, I’d like to respond to your skepticism towards Catholicism, specifically the papacy. There are some videos I recommend:
To the papacy as a whole:
ruclips.net/video/6KV6PXSODgE/видео.html
To the rebuking of Peter by Paul:
ruclips.net/video/sxDvhDIiVc0/видео.html
(I’d just like to point out, the publisher of these videos is a Sedevacantist website, meaning that they reject Francis and other previous holders of the title of Pope to be true Popes. I’m not entirely sure that I agree with their positions as I’m not fully educated on the matter, but some of their videos on Catholic doctrine as a whole were what originally brought me to the Catholic faith).
Also, because I haven’t said yet, your video was phenomenal. I enjoyed listening to everything you had to say.
There are counter-points on each side. Anarcho-Christians claim that the only master you have is God and worship or even just the following of another master than God is blasphemous. I can see how this applies to the state, first of all, statism can be considered a religion in itself (not to mention statism was created by people who claimed they were gods). But even beyond this not so silly thought, following what the state says is just like following another master, so anarcho-Christians do have a strong point.
On the other side, non-anarchist Christians point towards Romans 13, which claims that authorities are created by God and nobody can rebel against authorities and call themselves Christians. So anarcho-Christians are in a tough spot, either they follow the Bible, "God's commandment," or they claim the Bible is wrong and thus be very blasphemous. The only exception is if a government tries to make Christians disobey God. But that isn't too hard to point to, since governments tax people (stealing) and use them to fund wars, which goes against the word of God.
Of course, there are other things that non-anarchist Christians point to, like "render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar." But anarcho-Christians point to the situation and claim that had Jesus not said something to sound ambivalent, he would have failed to prove himself to be the son of God. I believe our reptilian friend Filthy Heretic made a good video regarding "render unto Caesar." I recall something about the coins being the property of Caesar, because the coins had his mark on them. What I believe wasn't mentioned was that "coins are the eye of the devil" / "the mark of the beast" and Jesus always thought people to be compassionate and not ask for money and instead help your fellow man. Well, that goes against capitalism / monetary societies and straight into the realm of gift-based societies, but that's a whole other discussion. I think another thing that wasn't mentioned was that the denarius had an inscription on it calling Caesar "the most high-god" or something like this, so it can be interpreted that Jesus was asking the pharisees who their God actually is and to discard blasphemous icons. Of course, you would start asking yourself how many people knew how to read and write at that time and I'm not sure there is any indication that Jesus knew how to read, but that is just my ignorance, so for the sake of argument, ignore that. But regarding Romans 13, "there is no authority except that which God has established" is a bit controversial in Christian circles. Some say the only authority God established is of Himself and maybe of the Church (so long as it follows Gods words and is not corrupted and blasphemous, like the Catholic papacy is).
Then there is also oaths. Some say oaths ought not to be taken if it goes against God's will and for Man's will (as you shouldn't break your promises and should never make promises that you cannot keep), while others interpret that oaths are to never be made, because people have only an oath to god. Especially not an oath of allegiance, which is basically serving another master.
Interestingly, non-capitalist anarchist Mikhail Bakunin makes a fair point: "God exists, therefore man is a slave. Man is free, therefore God doesn't exist" - this does make sense enough to disprove religious (or at least the Catholic and Islamic and I believe Judaistic too interpretations of God). However, there are anarcho-Christian counter-arguments to this, such as being God's slave means being a free Man on Earth. Interestingly, Christian anarchists also point out that Christianity is completely voluntary and thus cannot be slavery in the classical sense. As in, God doesn't want you to believe in Him just because he said so, God wants you to have faith because you want to follow him truly and accept God in your heart. So basically not slavery, but voluntary servitude, which does kinda invalidates Bakunin's point.
But atheists do make another good point, and that is that many of God's behaviors makes it kinda impossible for God to be all-loving, all-powerful and all-knowing, all at the same time, and the example used is that of Adam and Eve. And if you are a Christian, you should probably believe in the story of the garden of Eden literally. If God was all-knowing and all-powerful, He would have known that Adam and Eve would eat the forbidden fruit, thus that means that He knew He was going to punish them, making him not so all-loving anymore. Some interpret his punishment of them as being all-loving, but that is a really weird interpretation, as in, getting banished from the garden of Eden was "for their own good" and losing immortality and getting affected by cold and diseases was a lesson for them for their benefit.... yeah, I don't see how that works.
If God was all-loving and all-powerful, then that means He could have not seen the event coming, as has He known, He would have made it so that they wouldn't have to go through being punished. Not to mention that if He was all-powerful, He could either get rid of the devil just by thinking of it, or that means that the devil has basically the same powers as Him, thus nullifying His all-mightiness. And lastly, if God was all-loving and all-knowing, that means He couldn't have been all-mighty, because He couldn't make it so that Adam and Even don't do the wrong thing. So this disproves at least the Abrahamic interpretation of God that the religions derived from this all follow.
Regarding God being all-loving, Luke Smith, another one of my favorite *content creators*, makes a fantastic point regarding people going to Hell. Some people _want_ to go to Hell, because they want to suffer and also want to see others suffer. And hell is a place where they can "suffer in peace" while also seeing others suffer. So hell is basically the best place for them and Heaven, where they don't get to suffer or to see others suffer would be a big punishment for those kinds of people. Yeah, weird, but this does make sense.
@@MrBiky I was in a similar boat trying to understand how Christianity fits in with Libertarian Anarchism while trying to justify how things like Romans 13 fits into it while seemingly contradicting much of the Bible. But as I tried looking into it, I found some podcasts and videos discussing the subject and they explained it very well and each had some very logical takes on it. And to show they were being transparent and not just trying to twist verses to fit a narrative, they took the context of the entire book of Romans along with similar situations throughout the Bible. As it turns out, Romans 13 is far more likely referring to those upholding natural/God's law like our inalienable rights. So things like reputable private security firms would much more fit into that. And as we know from history, governments/states have in no way whatsoever done what is just in God's eyes. They steal, murder on mass, oppress people's basic freedoms, etc. So it makes no sense that it could even be remotely referring to them. And when it talks about paying your dues, it makes much more sense that it's simply refering to paying people for their services which is still very much Capitalistic. Whether it be private security or any other service you may use that helps protect God's law and people basic rights. Also when you being up things like helping people without expecting payment, things like charity easily fall into that which still falls under Capitalism. Of course it would be just for them to try to repay you regardless, but not to do a good work without being asked then expecting them to especially when they may not be able to in that time.
I'll link a few of the video's that helped me realize a lot of this if you're interested. Each having some differing takes on Romans 13 and similar subjects.
ruclips.net/video/a7TCj7fX8Ag/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/n_p8XOTLBxE/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/1I8Z-i7HKdM/видео.html
Hopefully I could help clear some of this up. And of course I'm not going to claim to be perfectly knowledgeable on all this, but it seems to be the most logical conclusion to these confusions.
Reject modern statism, embrace anarcochristianism
Anarcho-Christianism is essentially anarchy-tyranny
There is monarchy in Heaven, why not make it on Earth
my first comment of 2023
Axiom: "God acts" lmao bottom text
It does my heart so much good to see libertarians and right-anarchists fully embracing Christ.
I grew up a non-practicing Christian, that is to say I was raised Christian and believed in God, but didn’t actively go to church, read the Bible, pray, etc. Then I went through an edgy atheist phase, and a semi-ironic pagan phase, culminating in a similar agnostic deism to yourself, before realizing that my then-developing political beliefs coincided with my previous Christian faith, and everything clicked into place. Seeking out Liberty brought me back to Christ, and the fact that so many like-minded people are becoming or had already been Christians shows me it wasn’t a fluke.
@Zoog Ancap Personally I was never convinced by the Romans 13 argument. The idea that submitting to a State that persecutes Christians, murders children, and promotes sexual perversion across the world was somehow closer to Christ’s teachings than anarchy seemed blatantly false to me. That gave me two options; either A, God lied to Paul or allowed Paul to lie to the Romans, or B, that interpretation of the passage was incorrect. Because God cannot lie, and the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and so cannot contain lies, that only left me with option B.
@Zoog Ancap I guess the difference for me is that most of my interactions with Romans 13 was it, like so many Bible verses, being plucked out of context and used as a gotcha to shut down debate, instead of me having to come to grips with its meaning directly. It also helped that all the hard work was done for me already by other Christian anarchists wanting to dispel the Statist narrative of the passage.
Also, I didn’t mean to get it across that I believe God directly wrote the Bible through controlling its authors in some way, I believe it was Divinely inspired and it was through His will that it was written, but the men doing the writing were just that. That’s especially the case for the Epistles, and part of why trying to use it to justify submission to whatever current regime controls you is unbiblical, I believe. You can’t pluck a verse or passage out of the Bible and understand its’ meaning without knowing the context in which it was originally written.
I’m by no means a theologian or biblical scholar, and I try my best to further my understanding of God’s word and apply it to my life, I pray that He reveals the path for all of us. God bless you as well, brother.
I went through the same pipeline, Atheist, to pagan, to agnostic deist, to theist. I don't know if I am a true Christian yet, I am still exploring. But I do believe there is a God, and that he has set out a pattern that should be followed for enlightenment.
@@evan7391 I pray and have faith that God will guide your journey to know Him and that you will find the fullness of truth in Christ.
“that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him” Ephesians 1:17
It you are reading this, I want you to know that I finished the video with a completely different view than when I began.
As someone who is inquiring about the Orthodox faith, thank you for this vid.
Around the 33 min mark is what got to me the most. Having that similar mindset shift back in late 2019/2020 after feeling God's presence during a depression, it made me actually have motivation for a goal to own land and homestead and take care of animals.
I wanna say thank you for this video it really, REALLY, helped me so you have for sure helped your fellow man in this video. Thank you 💚
Glad to hear it!
Most of these arguments are quite terrible.
You reject Hinduism because
“The whole mythology seems bonkers”
Very rigourous standard their.
If the ultimate being is described accurately by it your cultural bias means little.
Same with
“Jesus’ resurrection seems more plausible”
Not really, and I could find more reasonable parts in any religion to compare to tge ressurection and call them more reasonable.
This is mostly extremely weak apologetics which have been addressed a thousand times before. And it does even worse at demonstrating the link between these things and economics.
Infinite beings do not “act” because they dont feel unease, and they dont operate within time or causality.
Jesus Christ loves you and died for you:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." - John 3:16
HE IS RISEN! ✝️ 🕊️ 👑
ruclips.net/video/J0wgys3ZEHY/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/zGO6_aS-RFs/видео.html
There's no such thing as causality when time is off the table. For instance, numbers doesn't exist in the physical world, they are abstractions; for this reason, the notion of causality in mathematics is simply absurd, there's no temporal relation between mathematical statements.
Also, infinite regression is a possible solution to the "every physical phenomenon has a previous cause" (which by itself is an unprovable statement, but let's assume it to be true for the sake of the argument), and it doesn't require the existence of entities that transcend time but somehow are still causal.
My opinion on this subject is that we're simply unable to understand everything in the universe, and those questions will always come down to a simple matter of faith. Just like dogs cannot possibly comprehend differential equations, humans cannot possibly comprehend advanced metaphysical concepts. Brains didn't evolve to understand everything about everything, they evolved for survival and reproduction.
There's another point I would like to make, it's logically impossible for all 3 of the below statements to be true (at most 2 of them can be true):
1. God is omnipotent
2. God is good
3. Evil exists
A good person, if given reasonable opportunity, wouldn't allow an evil act to occur. If this good person is infinitely mighty (omnipotent), this means absolutely nothing can ever stop them from preventing evil acts, so therefore there will be no evil acts.
I would say it's safe to assume there's unfortunately a lot of evil in the world, so it's logically impossible for God to be at the same time good and omnipotent, because it would imply there's no evil in the world. If they're omnipotent, then they simply don't want to stop evil, since absolutely nothing is stopping them from doing so, and therefore they're not good; if they're good and actually want to stop evil, but are unable to do it, so they're not omnipotent.
"Oh, but God can defy logic because he's God and everything blablabla" - So there's no point in discussing this at all. If a person throws logic out the window, then it's a complete waste of time to discuss anything with them, because they are just *pretending* to be actually debating, when in reality it's just pure faith and nothing will make them change their mind, since logic has become optional as a method of searching for truth. If logic doesn't matter, stop trying to use it to prove God.
Cope harder
@@randomyoutubecommenter4 (I know it's been two years but I wanted to respond) So you're basically saying that God should intervene in every little thing and micro manage everything like an all-encompassing government? Which in turn would deprive us of agency and free will which is one of His greatest gifts to us. We also live in a fallen world where bad things happen and our hope is in Jesus Christ. Perhaps you're right though that sometimes it's about Faith. Some people have it others don't.
@@crusader2112 No, I didn't say that at all. I just said that there are things beyond causality, and we're simply not able to fully understand them. Causality requires time, so it cannot possibly explain things beyond time, such as "why do time exist" or even "why aren't the laws of physics different", and similar questions.
Btw, I consider myself a deist now (I was an atheist by the time of my post), which means I do believe in God, but not from any specific religion, more like a "creation force" that explains why there's something instead of nothing (and would be the basis for concepts like soul and free will as well). It's kinda complex to explain in a RUclips comment, but long story short: I believe that God can be found through reason/philosophy, without the need for religion or supernatural revelation.
@@randomyoutubecommenter4 Okay thanks for clearing that up. 👍 Peace ✌🏻
Completely on the same wavelength as you. The commonalities in our ideological evolution are mind-blowing. I've loved all of your ancap videos, but this one is a special one. Jordan Peterson's biblical lectures rocked my whole world. I then realized that I acted as if God existed (either in the form of an idea or a metaphysical entity). Lately, I've been reading the bible, and Jesus seems to be the ultimate ideal anarcho-libertarian. By this, I mean he was pro individuality and he always pointed to a person's internal self as the thing that needed changing before criticizing the outer world. Good work mate.
Glad to see you come to the faith Anglo! Love to see it!
Wow Anglo, your journey to Christianity sounds really similar to mine as I was also a deist before converting to Christianity again these past couple of months.
I'm not sure where I land in terms of which denomination to choose from as I come from an orthodox background but I was really fascinated hearing your reasoning behind coming to Christianity ✝️
Much love ❤
This is really awesome man. I’m more of a pseud who doesn’t pay much attention to philosophy and I haven’t read much. I have t read scriptures for the last 6 months and 6 months ago that was the first time I’d read scripture since my 8th grade year, now I’m a senior. This is really good stuff man, I’m happy you came to Christ, and by doing that and making this video you are giving me the will to open up the good book again. Godbless, my brother in Christ from across the pond!!
You’ve made the greatest choice that you will ever make in your life my friend. Also, I think the Bible is very libertarian. God bless.
i recently found God however my brain was racking with my former Atheist logic, which made it hard to truly believe, which caused me to fail, Praying as if a lie, however your video has helped deepen my faith and I will check out all of the sources you told me about, You've not only helped my Libertarian beliefs deepen, but my faith in God, thank you
ruclips.net/video/DakEcY7Z5GU/видео.html
Based
It surprises me that you've mentioned Eastern Orthodoxy, but never actually looked into it. It's unreformed, 100% original Christianity that completely rejects Papacy (considers it a heresy).
26:58 man, I can't control myslef, this gave me chills!
I’m not catholic i’m protestant
I’m just trying to follow the bible so much i can
And well it hasent lead me to the catholic Church and i have problems with that Church what is importent is that you have accepted Jesus as your Lord and savior
Welcome to Christianity 😊
Then why do you reject his church? Did he not say a house divided is a fallen one.
@@aguilarraliuga1777 the catholic Church does what the pharicies does
I saved this for a time when I could listen as dispassionately as possible. Your video came at exactly the time I was beginning to feel sympathy with religion having been mostly atheist for my entire life.
Given the rise of scientism in the last ~2yrs I am becoming increasingly allergic to outright atheism.
I have always felt spiritual and found a lot of value in the psychedelic experience and I’ve often joked that psychedelics are my religion. I’ve also found great value in Buddhist meditation and I think buddhism understands the human condition and is mostly correct with respect to the experience of the mind.
This video certainly set off a few trip wires for me still and I’m uncertain I will ever consider myself a Christian but I am infinitely more sympathetic to Christianity, especially with its emphasis on the individual and the idea that rights are god given. I’ll take Christianity over the abomination that is scientism any day. If people are going to be religious either way, I’ll take the one that gave us everything I love.
Choose the bliss of just living, dude. Nothing matters and everything matters at the same time.
"2yrs I am becoming increasingly allergic to outright atheism." I mean, atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Just because there are stupid people who make secular religions doesn't some how make magic real.
This video honestly helped me rationalize my faith, for years I have struggled to truly believe in God but your video really helped explain that God is real and that he is here and I feel like I can be confident that God is real thank you so much. I love your videos by the way big fan
Weird enough libertarianism was what make me Christian.
I was raised as a Catholic but a left the Church when I start to get myself involved with politics and with leftards. Today I not exactly the church kind of guy yet but I have regained my faith in God and I am a libertarian conservative.
Catholic bro. Keep your faith up. You sure read about Christianism as tradition guardian. One of the last chapters of ``The fatal conceit´´ and what Rothbard wrotte about Christianism. You can either find his thoughts in ``The libertarian manifesto´´ or in ``The ethics of liberty´´
Honestly the final sentence of your comment specifically is pretty much me now as well. Being an Ancap with conservative leaning personal views. And not really going to church much (although I should more honestly) but still being strong in my faith.
Tbh, you shouldn't disregard Hinduism. It's not ridiculous as you said, it is just a lot more detailed than the western faiths. Each sub god has a role and reason to exist. Really encourage you look into it man , or you're doing a disservice to yourself and won't be complete in your journey to faith.
This video is BASED and so are you.
Will you change your name to the Anglo-Catholic Libertarian now?
26:58
Yes. I am glad to call you a brother In Christ.
I have more I'd like to say and ask, but I have to go to work soon. So I just want to say real quick that I loved listening to your reasoning and reflection even though I dislike the Christian God 💛 I hope people are able to keep kindness and respect in their responses.
The problem with theism is that human knowledge requires certain metaphysical statements to be true. Positive statements do not exist in the abstract, they are things which a human must act to create and which rely on the speaker having certain knowledge in his head. So, if you want to posit "God created the universe" you would need to have knowledge of something which was supposed to be somehow outside of existence itself (the concept "universe" means the same thing as the concept "existence"). However, for a rational being to have knowledge of something, there must be existents which they can perceive and then construct concepts of. When you step out into the void of non-existence, you cannot then claim to have knowledge of anything. We only know things due to the "metaphysical context" in which we live (reality exists, A is A, etc), but when you're speaking of a hypothetical situation where these axioms are not true, when you're speaking of some kind of pre-existence void that God was supposed to somehow inhabit in order to then "create the universe", you cannot make a positive statement about anything. Thus you cannot state "God created the universe" or even simply "the universe was created/has a creator."
About the law of causality argument, it does not state that existence itself has to have been caused by some other thing. It in fact doesn't state that matter can be brought into existence at all, only that, assuming a thing does already exist, then it may lead to a chain of cause and effect. "Action" is not some abstract platonic thing that waves through the world, it is something which only exists as it pertains to specific instances of action being performed by entities within existence. You cannot back-trace into "what moved the universe into being" because, in the pre-existence void, there are no entities present which could possibly act. This is why I believe in the theory of an eternal universe (which is compatible with modern scientific theories as well), because it states that the universe itself is outside of time, thus the idea of there being a time "before" existence doesn't make any sense to begin with and does not need to be considered to make any arguments here. In other words, you cannot create something out of nothing (within time, i.e. one second there is nothing and the next there is something), so thus the universe must be out of time such that it has always existed and always will exist.
Thus, religion is just a highly organized form of mysticism and one cannot be perfectly faithful and rational at the same time, owing to these metaphysical and epistemological facts.
Damn. I looked at this comment after seeing Peikoff's debunk of Aristotle on this point (I'm a baby Objectivist), and little did I know, you had it right here.
One of the best theological videos I’ve ever seen. Christ is King and may he bless you!
I mean so long as you don't go the Katlyn Bennett approach (I know she wasn't ever libertarian but that's besides the point) of becoming a theocrat, it should be fine. Personally I subscribe to an "extreme" version of faith alone where by so long as you have faith upon Christ's sacrifice on the cross and resurrection, any other theological conclusion be it Catholicism Arianism, Monothelitism, orthodoxy or some protestant denomination are irrelevant so long as one doesn't mix in pagan gods or contradict the sacrifice in the flesh in some way like Docetism.
Absolute banger video
I am very happy you have found your path to Christ. In terms of my Christian beliefs I grew up and currently am with Baptisism generally, but I consider myself more of a non-denominational protestant since many of the denominations make their own good points and I'm not entirely loyal to any single one along with me being protestant for rejecting the pope's authority. Although you still listed some good cases for non pope worshipping catholicism as well. Also this video kinda reminds me of a reverse version of me being a Christian and coming to be an Ancap. Just like you being an Ancap and becoming Christian. In fact your channel is actually what made me realize I am an Ancap along with other channels helping to explain to me how Anarcho Capitalism and Christianity go together perfectly. So in general, good luck in your faith and to all of us growing more on our knowledge about it and life as a whole.
Yeshua’s gospel brought about libertarianism. Blessed be the Messiah!
Haven't finished the video yet, but I've been thinking about this alot recently. I grew up christian and knew all the apologetics, but eventually found them unconvincing. Recently though, I current events have been challenging my materialist and rationalist (read autistic) outlook. This has led me to abandoning the atheist label, though I've still yet to be convinced by any of the christian sects (and yes I am biased toward christianity for a variety of reasons). I've also abandoned the libertarian position (though not the economics) for similar reasons. My dillema right now in regards to christianity is similar to my feelings toward crypto: everyone sounds reasonable, but they all disagree, and I'm not big brained enough to know who to believe. The whole thing is just overwhelming to me tbh. Will definitely be moving in that direction at some point though.
If there is no evidence of God, then there is no reason to believe he exists. Any existence of a God proven doesn't mean he's the Christian one either. Thousands of religion, only one is right allegedly
Be your own person and treat others how you would like to be treated
Same here friend! ✝️🇻🇦☦️
@@edgaraf9411 Yes, if God exists, there is only one objective truth. I think either Juduaism, Christianity or Islam HAS to be true because they're scriptures are the most historically accurate. Also the seven sins are very solid, just look at current events/culture, everything that's wrong in our society. I also rather have a good hiarchy than non at all, we need (and espacially the youth) good intellectual and spiritual direction.
There are so many religions is just a lazy argument, look into history. The real question to be asking is: Who has the best philosophy and what is the correct Church? (Denomination)
Loved it. You've made me more of a believer, lots of good arguments.
Question, which translation of the bible do you read/prefer.
Thanks mate I'm happy to hear it. And personally ESV is my go-to but I'm not dogmatic about it at all
As someone who grew up roman catholic from pre school to sophomore year, dealing with the dogma and also my own teenage edgy atheist phase to combat some rather annoying practices, to now being 23 and viewing religion and religious philosophy with deeper view and perspective. It makes me glad I did grow up catholic, baptized, well educated in theology, as well as practice the Sacraments, I still remember being 13, questioning my faith but also sitting down for confession or sitting in silence in prayer, being both annoyed but also spiritual and peaceful while in the act, it was intense and made me way more thought productive. When I switched to public school, the sheer difference in intellect, critical thinking, philosophical, and logical graps on knowledge was so stark, I almost felt bad.
When being able to outsmart a science teacher who is clearly left wing and anti religion,
Shit opend my eyes and now I often ponder visiting my church or at rhe very least revisting alot of what I've learned
You should read “He is There, and He Is Not Silent” by Francis Schaeffer. Very helpful book.
Amen
While I respect that people have the freedom to believe whatever they want, I honestly just find every contemporary religion to be too Draconian, and it goes against my fundamental philosophical beliefs of individualism and liberty. The way Abrahamic religions describe God sounds more like a tyrant than a loving deity, and the worship of said deity is downright idolatry (ironically enough). I do have spiritual beliefs, but I don't enclose myself under any specific label. Fundamentally, I am a satanist, simply because satanism promotes doing whatever the fuck you want and finding your own truth. Spiritually, I am eclectic. I don't like any organized religion.
I can see how you view it that way due to all the tradcucks and other pharasee esc people that claim to speak for God being hyper authoritarians. But the Bible itself very much supports Libertarian view points. Sure it also says certain things are morally wrong, but even then it never condones the use of force against them as long as they aren't doing direct harm to others. Also Jesus Himself also called out people like the pharasees and people today that resemble them as false prophets that only claim God's word to forward their own narratives and power grabs.
luciferism is closer to anarchism and libertarianism compare to satanism
Great video, keep up the good work
I'm one of those rare and crazy individual who don't like to use labels when referring to oneself, but who people would describe as a cold deist, in the classical sense. My belief is that God exists and the Universe either had to come from "somewhere" or that in this universe, it is possible that matter can be created out of nothing. The later would be explaining the theory that the universe is infinite and ever-expanding, but wouldn't explain why that is. Of course, there is a clash, either the universe is finite and has a limited supply of atoms and it's just that, being an empty space, it is just expanding, as in, spreading thin the resources available, so becoming less dense, or that the universe keeps increasing in volume and mass. But there is no way to actually determine that the universe is either infinite, nor that it is expanding and the knowledge that we have seems to be pretty inaccurate.
Why I am not what people would call "agnostic" is that I have a very strong belief that a creator exists, which I believe is way beyond human comprehension and it is not up for debate for me whether God exists or not. So, it's not that I'm indifferent whether God exists or not. However, what my other belief is, is related to the "cold" part of "cold deism." And that is, this Creator does not interfere in any way with humans. So by this standard, I judge religions as being spooks. On a side-note, I don't care what beliefs people hold, be it that they believe the Bible or the Quran is The Word of God, or that one believes he's a poached egg. What I do care about is human action, whether one leaves people alone or tries to use force against them.
So, you decide if I'm edgy enough for your standards.
I have presented a few arguments under the pinned comment regarding some anti-religious stances that I don't believe can be resolved. But besides that, I believe that the conflicts within most religious scriptures can only be resolved in one way: they were written by men and are not the Word of God. Easy as that. It is interesting that the Vatican does not want the books in its library to be digitized and spread to the whole world. I understand they are old books and parchments and might break at the slightest touch, but I do believe it can be done without a lot of damage to the originals, if any. Of course, most of that is in either Latin, Greek or Jewish, maybe some Sanskrit, so there would have to be a lot of research into all of these.
Regarding conflicts and contradictions within things like the bible. If it was the Word of God, it cannot have been such a huge mess, it would have been consistent. So all of the different texts have to be creations of different people, with different views, at different times. Things like evil people needing to be beaten with a stick vs Jesus teaching of turning the other cheek.
So, after having watched the whole video, I'm yet to be convinced by religious arguments. Hard-atheists aren't convincing me either, because this is one of the rare cases where just because there is no hard proof that God exists (even though there are signs that He might or at least might have at some point), there is a need to be hardly proved that He doesn't exist either. It's like Schrodinger's God or something, He exists and doesn't exist at the same time, until we can prove either of these cases. I have made an example a long time ago: if a big boulder falls from a mountain on a road and there are people claiming to have seen someone getting crushed, while there are others who claim there was nothing under the boulder, you can't just take one side's word for it without evidence. Lift the boulder and see who's right.
Other interesting findings, not sure how true or accurate are, show that some of the writings in the Old and New Testaments have many commonalities with other epics and stories from Mesopotamia. One of them being the epic of Gilgamesh where a survivor of the Great Flood is mentioned, the flood being the main topic of Noah's ark. Ea warns Utnapishtim to build a boat to save all living beings. After the flood is over, he offers a sacrifice to God.
Other similarities to forbidden fruits are also in the epic of Gilgamesh when he tries eating the rejuvenation herb, but which is stolen by a snake, with the snake being considered the devil in the garden of Eden story. There's also Pandora's box, with a similar story of being the first woman. Pandora who is created in the image of her creator and is told not to open the box (actually a jar), but she did anyway and evil came out of it. Basically the whole plot of eating the apple, "bad things would happen." Both Pandora and Eve were curious and tempted. Back to the epic of Gilgamesh, the story of Adam and Eve / Ekindu and Shamhat, man is created by God and lives among animals. Man is seduced by a woman and accepts her food offering, decides to leave paradise, covers himself and is not allowed to return.
So, if the Bible is the original text, there shouldn't exist texts and stories prior to the Bible referencing almost the same plot. One could argue that the story is actually the same and that the bible just took already existing knowledge from legends and slapped them in a book and that doesn't invalidate the Bible as a holy script. But then, by who it was written again? One could say that the stories actually did happen and God actually spoke with people and taught them stuff and they were just consolidated in a written format. But it does counter the argument that the Bible was written by God or at least with influence from God, as opposed to being written by humans and containing stories related to God and His revelations.
Other interesting correlations are between Christian holidays and pagan rituals. For example, Easter is believed to have been a pagan ritual. It is supposed to happen on each first Sunday after the first Full Moon after the March equinox. Kinda specific, isn't it? Especially when usually traditions follow a certain calendar date, but not Easter. Supposedly Easter was a tradition following the Sumerian legend of Damuzi (Tammuz) and his wife Inanna (Ishtar). He dies and she follows him in the underworld. In her absence, the Earth loses fertility, crops stop growing and animals stop reproducing. Unless something is done, all life will be lost. Inanna's servant goes to another god, he sends 2 creatures after Damuzi and Inanna and resurrects them and they get the power to return to Earth with the power of light for six months. Then the cycle repeats. This story indicates the cycle of death in autumn and life in spring. Related to this story, Easter was a celebration of life and the Goddess Ishtar, who was also known as _Eostre,_ the goddess of Spring (Eostre -> Easter). It was celebrated on march equinox, the time when light and dark had the same time and when light would grow. Ishtar was often represented as a hare. The tradition of eggs represents life and fertility (chicken are born from eggs). While in most Catholic world the hare and chocolate eggs are still maintained, in other parts of the world, like in Romania (which is Orthodox), Easter is celebrating by boiling eggs and painting them red (supposedly red of Christ's blood I believe), but there is no depiction of rabbits. The tradition was happening mostly in the western part of the Roman Empire, somewhere between Italy and Germany (probably both).
Speaking of the Catholic Church and hidden writings. Pope Gregory I, in order to convert more pagans to Christianity, gave order to his missionaries to allow pagans to keep doing their customs, but add Christian philosophy to the mix and instead of whatever pagan gods were celebrated, to celebrate Jesus or one of the martyrs. And Easter was one of those pagan customs that were Christianized. What's funny is that the original custom was pretty weird, in the sense that people knew that following the spring equinox, they had to have sex, because winters were harsh and babies had less chances of survival if they were born when it was cold (winter or early spring). So the celebration wasn't just an empty festival, it was actually a necessity. Celebrating Eostre, the goddess of spring and fertility by mating and making kids, well now that's a custom I'd get behind.
But I will say that these are not reasons enough to disprove Christianity in its original form (whatever that was, as it was clearly lost to time). Just because stories were borrowed and added to a book and because pagan customs were transformed into Christian holidays does not necessarily mean that the original Christianity was not real and *the* religion of God. But it does raises quite a few big question marks and makes Christianity be viewed with a healthy doze of skepticism, at least on my part.
Of course, that's just my knowledge and I don't know how much of this is true, but for that matter, I don't know how much of the Bible is true either. I believe it to be unreasonable to expect me to believe in Christianity or any other religion, when so much of said religions are just evolution and popularization of already existing legends and pagan customs from many cultures. Deism on the other hand is way more of a reasonable position to take. Way more than Christianity and way more than atheism.
People writing essays to argue their position is what makes me love this political group so much.
@Zoog Ancap No offense, but telling someone to "do your own research" does not shift the burden of proof on the other side. I do admit that I could be wrong, I found those quotes on the internet. I'm not a Christian, I'm a deist. I do not intend to buy a book and quote it just to be correct on the Internet. Besides, most Christians I heard, including 2 Christian anarchists prefer King James version of the Bible.
Besides, I find that telling someone to "go educate one's self" is not an argument. I wouldn't call it a fallacy, but it's not an argument either. The burden of proof is on the person who is making the claims. Also, the idea implied when telling someone to "do his research" implies that someone reaches the same conclusion that the opposing side has already drawn. Lastly, it shows a slight disrespect towards the opposing side, as in "I don't have time to look this up, so look it up yourself." That's not how you convince someone that your side's argument is better, in fact, that's how you make it look weaker.
You don't have to look that up though Zoog, because I'm tired an a bit unwilling to debate. I'd like to hear what was wrong in my argument or my quotes just for future reference, if that's ok with you, but otherwise, we can each live our own lives. I just wanted to point out the invalidity of the argument.
Still, I'd like to coin the term "argumentum ad indagatio" for this one. I heard some people use "argumentum ad googlum," but some I've heard different uses of this one, usually to imply "search google for X, then search for Y and you will see a difference in search results" (as kind of an argumentum ad populum) as opposed to "do your own research."
Im Born again Christian (John 3 ) and politcally libertarian//anarchist, tough I do believe in the application of God's law to civil society. I dont think its contradictory but I can see how it could be seen that way.
Ok, I have watched the video and first off I'll reveal that I'm an agnostic atheist. The section regarding axioms and priori proofs is very interesting to me. Namely, it reminds me of the big questions book written by Stephen Hawking. Stephen Hawking tackles the idea of god in a chapter stating that the difficulty of proving god, or anything before the big bang for that matter, is that it's very difficult to study something in a time where time and space itself didn't exist. Implying that our first mover must've existed outside this nothing is a very odd statement since as Hawking pointed out, there is simply nothing to exist outside of and no time for that being to have lived in. It's like asking "what's North of the north pole''.
And my second point spawned from the fact when you mentioned the fall and creation. I know that the catholic church allows a stance of faith together with the theory of evolution. The irony though is that the theory of evolution is completely incompatible with the creation story. We know for a fact that humanity evolved from a common ancestor together with the other great apes, how is this compatible with a story that claims that an entire species evolved from 2 humans who were cast out from a mystery garden after having been tempted by a talking snake? The commonality of creation myths is that the power of a god makes it so that a creation is something that can be achieved fairly quickly, because the god in question is powerful enough and efficient enough to allow it. The problem of trying to force cosmology, biology and geology as we understand it today together with Christianity is that the god in question has very strange methods.
Assuming we do so, the modern catholic believes in a god that caused the big bang, than waited 9 billion years to even begin the process of forming the planet, than waited another 1 billion years to start creating life. Mind you, one would assume that as soon as he'd the chance he would immediately create humanity, but no, he first started creating monocellular lifeforms at the bottom of these ancient oceans. Than he waited for another rough 3.52 billion years to even start the evolution of the modern human that we know of. And between those two events, God saw fit to evolve all kinds of pointless animals and fucked around with all sort of pointless events such as meteor impacts and the magnetic reversal of the poles. I say pointless not because I regard these events from a nihilistic stance, but pointless because a personal loving god who wants to have a relationship with us, wouldn't bother with 9 billion of pointless creations, destructions and unbearably slow processes. Wouldn't god rather just create the thing he's supposedly most interested in and supposedly wants to interact the most with, namely us?
I am however very glad that you found something so significant like this for yourself and I hope it'll serve you well.
The answer is simple: He took his time. What’s the rush? Time to God isn’t gonna be the same for us
@@aguilarraliuga1777 Like I said, as Stephen Hawking and many of his colleagues have pointed out, time didn't exist before the big bang. Also, if I assumed your viewpoint was correct. why would he take his time? He is all-knowing, why bother tinkering if he can just snap anything he wishes into being?
Let's go, will listen adter workout.
so, this is probably an incredibly silly question, but are you still a libertarian/ancap? i dont really see libertarians talk about religion - its largely mainstream conservatives talk about christianity
Absolutely
Libertarian conservatives are very comun in my country, I would even say that is the best version of libertarianism.
There's Christian Anarchists, so yeah.
Im only answering till 15:40, also I'm not going to write a complete thesis on a yt comment, I might join your discord for further discussion, although I'd rather hoped that you would have a matrix instance:
1. The problem with the first mover argument is that it kicks the can down the road, then the question becomes who moved god first, was there a super god, what was he doing for all of infinitum before he decided to create the universe etc
2. Your understanding of BigBang is not quite complete, first the idea that the universe started with a infinity dense and infinity small singularity is a simplest extrapolation of our current physics equations, which we know to be incorrect or rather incomplete because we have 2 contradictory fields of physics, relativity and quantum mechanics, which are somewhat contradictory to each other.
Basically, we are missing information.
Other possible scenarios with our current understanding of physics include a big bounce, i.e. a cyclical universe, or an infinite universe, or a bubble universe etc.
3. "The reason you see a ball..." Not necessarily, it may have always been moving, counterintuitive I know, but movement is relative. To ask why the ball is moving, is no different then asking, why is the ball still? In physics, they both have the same meaning. With your question you are assuming that the ball is supposed to be still relative to you.
Think of planets, these are balls that have always been moving relative to you, and even relative to the atoms and particles that make you.
4. "Follow all motion back in the past..." Again no, all we know is that spacetime itself is expanding (note, spacetime is not a physical object), it is not a statement of the size of the universe as whole, the universe may be infinitely large and has always been infinitely large and may have always been moving.
5 "Something outside our universe" You know what is outside our universe, the universe, at least as we used to think. At one point in time we thought that the galaxy was the universe, until we discovered other galaxies. The point being that the universe by its very definition is all encompassing, therefore there can be nothing outside the universe. You might mean outside our current understanding of the universe, but as soon as we have understanding then it becomes part of the universe again. Therefore if there is a god, then our new understanding of the universe would include the existence of god in it and therefore you are back to the original question of how the universe began.
6. "What caused the big bang" Again there might not be a cause, because there might not be a big bang as you understand it.
7. "Atheism being outright denial" I never thought of atheism as an outright denial, but simply as a position that you do not require god to explain the universe and our existence and that a god would introduce extra complexity which would also have to be explained.
8. "The big band is the method", No again that's a misunderstanding of the big bang, stop thinking of a big bang, and more like a big expansion.
9. "A cake does not..." A cake could come into existence by pure random chance, a cake is just an improbable arrangement of particles, given enough times, all probabilities lead to 1.
10. "there is no reason..." Nobody claims there is no reason for the expansion of spacetime, simply that we do not know the reason yet. The answer will probably come when we marry gravity with quantum mechanics.
11. "Big bounce vs big bang" But god is in itself a "cop out". There is nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know", one does not need an answer.
12. "the existence of nature is found in the supernatural". Ok, the supernatural by its very definition is beyond reason. You are trying to explain reason with the unreasonable.
13. "Science cannot explain why its laws..." Ammm, yes it can? Science has been doing that for centuries? An example, Science explains the existence of the laws of gravity.
13. "To deny that the supernatural cannot exit..." If there is any "supernatural" possibilities, it would immediately fall under the definition of natural.
Or to put it another way, the supernatural is just science that we cannot explain yet.
You are basically making another god of the gaps argument, you are stating that our current lack of understanding means that god must have done it, ignoring the fact that a god introduces more complexity and creates even more questions. As well as not applying the same rules to god as you would the universe.
God does not have to answer the question of its existence but the laws of nature do? Seriously?
I’m glad you found faith man. I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who thinks faith and libertarianism are not contradictory! I’m not Christian, rather, I’m an Orthodox Jew, but if Christianity is what brought you to G-d then I’m happy for you.
Here’s to the Libertarian Religious!
God bless man.
Very poor video on Christianity in my opinion. Just read C.S. Lewis, guys.
Heaven yeah!
Wake up babe, new AL lore just dropped (he became even more based)
he gets more based by the hour
I was questioning my life and god before this video. Thankyou for putting it in a way I could understand. Amazing video truly
How do you reconcile Romans 13 with anarcho capitalism as a Christian?
From many videos of other Anarcho-Christians going over the subject, they point out all the context around the verses and how the original Greek words it out. Apparently it only mentions authority without the word "governing", and since it's also refering to no authority but what is ordained by God, I see it far more so refering to natural law aka God's law. And it also never used the word "taxes" for "pay your dues" which could mean anything from a punishment debt to morally wanting to pay back to those that help you. Also the fact that it mentions that the authority upholds justice (something the state clearly does the opposite of), and in another part of Romans, Paul mentioned something about not going to state law for help, implying he can't have been refering to it. I hope I'm not misquoting anything but that's seemingly what it would he saying with all the context together. Plus of course "thou shall not steal" and taxation being theft so that too lol.
Super based I love to see it
I’m a polytheist. Specifically Hellenic. Amazing video. I have my own modern way of interpreting the religion. We disagree on what religions applied to this concept (I believe all of them can be applied to this concept). And we do have something like Brahmin called Mother Gaia, goddess of all life. The other gods merely symbolize the things they represent, but not are those things. Also I can confirm not all pagans are the way you described lol. Overall very nice video.
I know Gaia as “mother earth” as far as I know the first thing existing in Greek mythology is Chaos
When the C of E allowed women priests, bishops, and contraception, it was automatically off the list for the true church of Christ.
At least me.
Agreed.
I am happy you have found faith. I hope it guides you through the future trials of your life and brings you true happiness.
A book you might find interesting about the modern Catholic church and the pope, would be Infiltration by Dr. Taylor Marshall. It's more along the lines of theology and modern politics rather than a persuasive argument to justify the Pope and Church.
Reason & Theology’s Micheal Loften did a great take down on Marshall’s book.
The idea of a deity you have to listen to no matter what is the antithesis of libertarianism. Where did this deity get its authority from? Why does it have a monopoly on authority? Wouldn’t forcing people into hell fire be the ultimate violation of the Non-Agression Principle?
God is not just a really big and smart human sat on a cloud telling you what to do just because He feels like it. He is the infinite, formless pure intellect which is the basis for existence, as He is not contingent on anything else. He is the supreme authority as, through his infinite nature, He lacks nothing, and is therefore all-good and the fountain of morality.
And God no more violates the NAP when people go to hell than any shop owner violates the NAP in not giving food to a hungry person. The way to heaven is to have faith in Him, do good to others, and repent of your wrongdoings. If you refuse to do that, you send yourself to hell, not the inverse.
How is god forcing people to hell when it is yourself who commits vile actions? Is somebody holding a gun to your head telling you to do all these things?
Anglo, from one Christian to another, Soli Deo Gloria!
I've long thought of the possibility of higher profile members of the libertarian/anarchist community being saved in Christ and the effect that would have, and your salvation meets me with unending joy.
It's refreshing to hear of another Christian libertarian, as the concepts of human dignity and natural rights can only truly be established within the Imago Dei.
I will ask of you though, to consider and study the soteriology of the Reformation and of the Catholic Church: if mankind is totally entrenched in sin, man cannot by his own volition choose God; God must, in his divine mercy and sovereignty, choose to kneel down and pick man up from his sinful state, should man be saved at all. Any other credit to man for his salvation assumes there is good in man apart from God.
Following all the libertarians in the community as I do, it can start to seem like each is an impersonal, slightly altered representation of libertarianism instead of the distinct persons they are; listening to your interview with BR and learning of your leaning toward economics (and more specifically, Austrian school) piqued my interest in you as a favorite. Now learning of your salvation, I am joyous in the privilege of knowing of you not only as a son of liberty, but also as a brother in Christ.
From like minds across the pond,
DC
I love your non libertarian videos as much as your libertarian videos
This is great!
I used to be an edgy atheist but recently I had the exact same thought process as you did. I still don't know which religion is correct or if any of them are and this is keeping me awake at night. I'm completely lost. I don't know if I'm convinced but thank you for this video nonetheless I feel like I needed it
Hello . . .
Magic is not real....
@@f__kyoudegenerates That's not what your mom said when I was done with her
You were never an atheist.
God bless
Have you considered the Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern Orthodoxy) as an option?
Yes and I can't agree with things such as hesychasm and the general mysticism of it, compared to the robust theology of the Latin tradition
Wonderful Video
Please make that video decoding/refuting Keynesian terms and concepts that you mentioned in the Austrian Econ video
What books did you read to come to the conclusion that (one) God exists and (two) that Christ is God?
I've never liked Christianity since it's spread was pretty much always top-down since after the Roman Empire adopted it as it's state religion.
More martyrs died for believing in Christ in the 20th century than any other time in history due to persecution by communists. Terrible things have been done in the name of the religion, but it is so far from black and white, and does not change whether or not it is true
Yeah, it doesn't really change if it's true or not, but I've always just been baffled by the existence of Christian Anarchists since it seems like an oxymoron. Because if an all-powerful, all-good etc god uses states as a way to manifest his will, then I don't see a point in resisting any action by states since it's all part of the grand design anyway. Had it remained an underground movement (like when followers were killed because they refused to worship deified Roman emperors) to this day, or if it had fizzled out after a few centuries or so and today had a following the size of something like Eckankar, it would have been far more believable. That being said, I will listen to your entire lecture later tonight when I have the time.
States are made up of human beings, and human beings have free will. If we use free will to enact evil then we enacted evil, God did not. If we act against God's plan of peace and cooperation, then it is our action that did so. States are not a necessary part of his plan or a manifestation of his will, by defying his laws they are actively working against it, and that is their own fault and worthy of being resisted
My logic to it is, if Christianity was a justification for atrocities, humans will find any way to cope with its own nature
Hm I haven’t watched the whole video yet, but I will eventually. However, I do one question based on what I’ve seen so far, although you may answer it later on in the video. You say that the universe is everything that exists, but then later you go on to argue that the universe must’ve had a cause that exists outside the universe. Is this not a contradiction? If the universe is everything that exists, then it would seem to be a contradiction to say that something can exist outside the universe.
I said the universe encompasses nature. Other things which exist outside of it would therefore be supernatural
@@CeaddaOfMercia magic isn't real.
@@CeaddaOfMercia Supernatural means not real. it can not be measured. It is your imagination at best. If something exists then it is natural and not supernatural. lmao
Welcome to the club brother, I highly recommend taking a trip to Israel and seeing where Christ walked. Be blessed!
I was so close to going 😩
@@bbgamegodpnw you can still go, its back open after Covid
@@orderoftheredstarofbethlehem my bud is Jewish and told me something about getting a discount for me lmao I'll see, my first name is Hebrew and celtric so maybe I'll DNA test and get lucky 😁😅
comment bump
Cultural homogeneity is necessary for liberty and social trust and a shared religion can give us that. it's sad we no longer have that because of diversity and multiculturalism we should be more like Korwin party in Poland
I know people that consider themselves ``cultural christians´´. They don buy the religious aspects of the christianism but they know that christian ethic is the one that can make a functional society. Atheism, islamism, hinduism... you can just look.
what about confucionism?, korea, china, taiwan japan and singapur are all advance societies, also budism is the 2 biggest religion in this countries
@@ghostxl8525 Fair point. Some of their societies improved with the western influence tho
@@juanjosefreijedo774 china was already and advance society before the introduction of european ideas, actually western countries tried to destroy and convert china to a colony but they survive, mao and the comunist also tried to destroy the confucionism morals and ethics with the cultural revolution, but after it failure deng xiao ping embrace those ideas, the only good influence that western people had on those countries were technology and the scientific method but morals and ethics not so much considering how diferentes their cultures are between them and with europe, they already had universities and budism defend the equality among all humans before christians arrive, it was one of the reason why the shintoism and hinduism try to destroy them but failed
This is a simple question I have
Why should I forfeit freedoms for a 50/50 chance of either eternal life or nothing? My answer would be there is nothing because it is the safest bet. But the religious answer is “you shall forfeit freedom for eternal life” this argument means two things that invalidate it
1. If you can live forever by doing good things, that means you are being coerced (which is an anti-anarchist argument). Therefore making it both meaningless and forceful. While an atheist doing good things comes from their heart, they want to help for the purpose of helping.
2. What gives authority to this argument? Nothing, I'm not denying that there is a God or isn't. My question is how do we know where we end up, and where the is the justification for the removal of some freedoms to get into this paradise?
Basically, my whole argument is
How do we know where we end up? And why is this religion the correct one?
"Why should I forfeit freedoms for a 50/50 chance of either eternal life or nothing?"
I mean they don't even have proof of any god. Let alone a christian one.
23:49 democracy.
All I could want from my fellow man, is consistency. To use the mental tools they use to build and break, and apply them to everything.
Bro Im a teenager (agnostic deist) and I havent finished this yet but u sound just like me lmao
Think deeply bro, come to all logical conclusions and keep going
Spirituality + mysticism = religion. Don't do mysticism!
A libertarian and A CHRISTIAN?
What a combo of basedness, I am in awe!
Not a Christian but holy hell, the bible lore is so cool
I'm gunnu go to a church I've never been to church before or even felt attracted to the church
Do it, pick a local church.
Wow, there is so much similarity with my journey to christ.
Some thoughts I had while listening:
Axioms, in these terms, are approximations and "correct enough" guesses that haven't been contradicted -eg we don't "know" the universe "exists", only that we define it to be - "existence" is undefinable outside of our universe
The "big bounce" theory has just as much proof as god so that bit's true enough
Before the big bang = north of the north pole = temperature below 0K -> no sense or need or reason for a cause of the big bang, as cause exists as a result of it
Supernatural things by definition can't exist
The 3 "L's" of Jesus only make sense if Jesus was one man, but since the gospels vary so widely, and no historiographically acceptable primary source of Jesus (not his followers) exists, this can't be known.
The fully man, fully God in no way is comparable to incomprehensible natural phenomena - one is undefinable in our existence (even in your explanation, as God would be outside of it), the other is
I haven't heard a better way to make sin a workable concept than in this video, though "perfection in the eyes of God" or "God's plan" is, as above, undefinable
Catholics believe "the faith" is expanded by saints, so only the bible is considered a "done deal"
Still, pretty interesting video. Mostly agree with the "what to do", but not the "why".
Ok you coping sxhizophrenic atheist
what about infinities? an alternative theory to the big bang is the big bounce wherein the start of our universe was caused by the collapse of another and that universe was created through the collapse of another and another and another etc etc. this would be an uncountable infinity of universes, and uncountable infinites have neither a start nor an end.
edit: 13:20 - let this be a lesson to not comment too quickly 😂😂
Finish the video homie
@@kai-vp8mz thanks, commented at the start lmao
i think my point still stands tho - in regards to uncountable infinities that is. and i don’t think it’s ‘clutching at straws’ as the end state of the universe is the same as the starting state (an infinitely small and dimensioned singularity with the means of expansion into a universe). although, that’s only on the assumption that the rate of expansion doesn’t supersede the rate of ‘condensation’ so to speak. if the universe expands too fast, the means of condensing back into a singularity (gravity) may not have such an effect.
@Zoog Ancap indeed, they are mathematically impossible to demonstrate but you have to imagine, we are examining a possibly - if not, certainly - multi-dimensional universe through a 4 dimensional lens. we are bound by these dimensions, we cannot imagine a world wherein we are not bound by time. timelessness as a concept is an impossibility to 3 dimensional beings. a countless infinity, thus, would be impossible to demonstrate and yet i personally believe the universe is as such. we are simply ants on a 2d piece of paper (length, width), unaware and unable to comprehend the depth of our world.
@Zoog Ancap absolutely lol, i recommend reading “The God Equation” by Michio Kaku. it’s more of a history of science in relation to the theory of everything but nonetheless relevant and interesting.
What do you think of Romans 13?
Let's check out what Romans 13 says, starting with verses 1-4
Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong.
This is written by Paul, who was repeatedly persecuted by those in power, both the Jewish leaders (Pharisees, Saducees, etc.) and the Romans. He was arrested and put in prison multiple times. He openly defied orders to stop preaching the Gospel, all the apostles and disciples did.
If these are the authorities that Paul is talking about, he is entirely hypocritical. He disobeys them all the time. Moreover, if these authorities are a terror who those who do wrong and never a terror to those who do right, why do they punish those who spread the Gospel? That would mean that the Gospel is evil. These two things mean that these governments cannot be the legitimate authority that Paul is talking about. They are illegitimate authorities and therefore their power does not come from God.
All legitimate authority comes from God. All legitimate authority is a terror to those who do wrong and never a terror to those who do right. Therefore, no Earthly government that exists today or could possibly exist are legitimate authorities.
The question then becomes, why did Paul write it like this then? Why did he not just outright say that. That's a much harder question to answer and I find the most likely to be that he knew that other early Christians would understand what he meant while Roman officials would not take his words as outright rebellion
But, let's proceed with Roman 13
Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority.
This seems like it directly contradicts with what Jesus said about taxes:
On their arrival in Capernaum, the collectors of the Temple tax came to Peter and asked him, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the Temple tax?” “Yes, he does,” Peter replied. Then he went into the house. But before he had a chance to speak, Jesus asked him, “What do you think, Peter? Do kings tax their own people or the people they have conquered?” “They tax the people they have conquered,” Peter replied. “Well, then,” Jesus said, “the citizens are free!
Paul says pay your taxes. Jesus says that Kings only tax those they have conquered (also translated as slaves, subjects, and/or hostages). He also goes on to say he only pays taxes to avoid causing a scene. So why does Paul disagree with Jesus? Of course, he does not. Paul says to pay what you owe. The very next verse (Romans 13:8) says this
Owe nothing to anyone-except for your obligation to love one another. If you love your neighbor, you will fulfill the requirements of God’s law.
You are called to pay the government what you owe them. You owe them nothing.
Another set of verses often brought up is when Jesus says "give to Caesar what is Caesar's." But again, look at this in context. The Pharisees are trying to catch Jesus in a trap. If he says you have to pay taxes, the people will reject him. If he says you don't, the Romans will arrest him. He, as always, finds a way out of the trap by making everyone hear what they want to hear. At first glance, and to the Romans and religious leaders, this means you should pay your taxes; after all, that coin he held up has Caesar's face on it, it must belong to him. But Jesus never actually says this. In fact, the Bible does not at all support the idea that the money belongs to Caesar:
A Psalm of David. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein,
(Psalm 24:1)
Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it.
(Deuteronomy 10:14)
The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, declares the Lord of hosts.
(Haggai 2:8)
Who has first given to me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine.
(Job 41:11)
There's tons of other anarchist passages in the Bible as well
@@frmyt1135 You knowI read through all of this. I am shocked that anglo became a christian. this is just all nonsense. Like all of it.
but you see i disagree for reasons i do not care to disclose and my opinions are always right because i said so
Based? Hello what?
Haven't watched yet but just from þe title looks like your most controversial video yet funnily enough
Is there still a Discord?
I disagree that the axiom that the fact that we are in a rational universe cannot be proven. If you can conduct 3 experiments consistently and get the same general laws of how they will act out of them, that is evidence of a rational universe and the more experiments and technologies that continue to act the same way is further evidence of our rational universe.
I will say this, on terms of Papal infallibility, it is not true that the Pope is infallible whenever he teaches officially. It’s more complicated. He needs to seek to define a matter to be definitively held for all time and he needs to bind the entire church to this teaching, and he needs to make his intention to do this clear.
And on the topic to St Peter, when telling the Gentiles they needed to be circumcised, he was not teaching definitively and universally. When he did speak on this definitively at the Council of Jerusalem he did taught that the Gentiles didn’t need to be circumcised.
And in terms of denying Christ 3 times, he did this before he was made Pope. The ecclesiastical authority as well as the institution of the various sacraments take place after the resurrection, even if many things are set up prior to the resurrection, they find their full institution after the resurrection
The issue of ecclesiology and papal authority is complex, and I would recommend reading the STS as it speaks on this particular issue
Edit: the STS is the Sacrae Theologia Summa, it’s a very extensive theological manual which from memory was given papal approval
Christians libertarians are the less confiable type of libertarian
You should debate liquid Zulu on this topic
Awesome, I also noticed myself growing closer to God and appreciating both philosophy and Christianity more as my libertarian journey continues on. At one point in time I was also an atheist and during this time I noticed that many atheists just had a distain for philosophy, this includes major new atheist thinkers like Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins. Which is a shame because most atheists have replaced God the state. At a minimum I think it's important for people to seek out philosophy even if they aren't certain about God this whole worship of science is foolish and antithetical to knowledge and the development of individuals.
Just because people are choosing science or government doesn't mean you have to pick religion to spite them. 🤷🏽♀️
@@akivaweil5066 economics is a science and the science shows free market's rise living standards. Yet people choose to ignore the great work of Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Bob Murphy etc because they have chosen to replace God with the government or they cling on to ths idiotic idea of a caring fatherly government. By observing how prisons are filled with innocent people, it's easy to conclude that big daddy government isn't youe pal. Anyway to respond directly to your point s choosing a spiritual path doesn't discount one from.being able to utilize science. This channel is a good example of that. Furthermore, I don't know anyone who has turned to God simply to own the libs or whatever trolling aside. I don't believe Anglo or my self have embraced God for that reason. That wasn't the point of this video.
@@countlessbathory1485 Not to mention that in one of Anglo's previous videos, he showed that some of the most brilliant scientific minds in history were very much religious.
@Zoog Ancap Yeah true man, in simple terms these people have replaced God with the government. Regardless, there are many libertarians and ancaps who are religious and understand why God is vital. Some known figurers include Ron Paul, Tom woods, Eric July, Walter Williams I know has more a minarchist but he sure has some good work, and even Jeff Berwick from the the dollar vigilante has been speaking more about spirituality. The mad lad highlighted how certain passports are like the mark of the beast.
@@countlessbathory1485 "mark of the beast"😂😂
You came to christianity in a similar way I did.
If there is a God because there must be a creator, wouldn't there need to be a creator for him?
The definition of God is a being which is necessary (couldn't not exist, to use a double negative) and infinite. An infinite thing could not have been created as it would have a beginning and therefore be finite, it simply has always and will always exist. So, no, God is the one thing which has no creator and is THE creator by being pure existence
nice vid
What do you think about Islam?
Wow ,very deep, systematic vid.
I have for a while moved from completely aþeistic towards an agnostic deism rooted in stoicism as you described you were at. I wonder if þis will be similar to þat time over two years ago now when you dropped from minarchy to anarchy and I soon followed. Alþough non-religious I generally have þe wish to fulfill þe imitation of Christ (m.ruclips.net/video/ClGKmklPHns/видео.html) and have had some biases towards Christian þinking based on my origin wiþin a society grown out of Christianity and watching some amount of Jordan Peterson talking about Christianity as wiþ þe video mentioned above.
On þe oþer hand I þink I will always be highly skeptical of any large organised religion for similar reasons I am skeptical of þe state.
So the key take away is that you believe in Santa. Got it. loud and clear
Yes.
@@CeaddaOfMercia sick
this has potential to be super based