In response to:

5 Reasons God Allows Tragedies Like the Sandy Hook Massacre To Occur

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 8:36 PM
I am amused by the obvious fact that some of our libertarian brethren have not considered the possibility that God is a libertarian! They say that either God is not good, because He does not prevent evil, or that He is no omnipotent, because He cannot prevent evil, and that He must not exist because a God Who is not omnipotent and good is a contradiction and not God at all. Consider, however, all those sanctimonious libertarians who insist that they have moral standards, but that they do not believe that they can impose them on others. Why does it hurt THEIR heads to think that perhaps God thinks somewhat the same way???
Ron-CA Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 9:13 PM
Trog,

Maybe because has moral standards for man, and that is in direct opposition to the Libertarian party. This from the first line in the Libertarian platform:

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others."

Amorality is not part of God's plan.
Troglodite Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 9:25 PM
Ron:
Someone below sagely noted that, because we are contingent and finite creatures, our only real choice is WHOM we will serve. It will either be God, in which case we will enjoy the liberty of the sons of God, or the devil, in which case our lot will not be very enjoyable. Ultimately, we are just sovereign enough to decide whom we will serve, but not sufficiently sovereign to serve only our own selves.
Well, OK, that is between you and me, and we are both believers. But what problem do the libertarians have with a libertarian god?
Tacitus X Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 9:34 PM
Vowing not to violate others' rights is the opposite of amorality.
Troglodite Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 9:45 PM
"Human beings have no more rights that they can assert against anyone stronger than they are than mice have that they can assert against a cat. Vowing not to violate the rights of others is either foolish (like a cat promising to be a vegetarian and intending to keep his promise) or a put-on (like a cat promising to be a vegetarian and intending to eat the fools who believe him)."
nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 10:17 PM
Trog, your continuous mischaracterization of libertarianism is tiring.
Tacitus X Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 9:13 PM
You're failing to distinguish between punishing people for violating others' rights as opposed to coercing others to behave the way you like. The sanctimony comes from pretending God agrees with you (big surprise) while you do it.
Troglodite Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 9:20 PM
"Really, TX, let us cut out this sanctimonious nonsense that people have rights. You talk about rights when all you really want is an excuse to smack people in the head for violating your alleged rights. You have no more real rights than a toadstool or a paramecium. And, by the way, they have no real rights either, so you need no exuse to smack them in the head if that is what suits you. When you die and your body rots and there is nothing left of you, it will not matter anyway."
Tacitus X Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 9:32 PM
Who's writing your stuff - Ozzy Osborne?
Troglodite Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 9:41 PM
TX:

It is called "reductio ad absurdum." You make it easy, since I do not have far to go from what you say to the nonsense that follows from it. Thank you.
Carl469 Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 9:56 PM
Hey, the Oz is a libertarian. And a survivor.

As a Christian, it can be difficult to reconcile all the evil that happens in the world with an all knowing, all powerful loving God who could stop it if He wants, but chooses not to do so. If our hearts break for the innocent children who were senselessly murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary, how can a God who loves us not feel the same way? If any of us had known what Adam Lanza was going to do, we would have done anything in our power to stop him, so why didn't God? All too often we tend to quote...