I have not caused harm to others. As such, I am without sin.

I reject the concept of sin because it seems to be a form of thought crime. It also implies the presumption of guilt as the default state. It also implies the notion of intergenerational guilt.

Only if you assume that sin cannot be redeemed, and you interpret Man's fallen nature as an inherently sinful nature. This is not my understanding of Christian doctrine, which as far as I am aware teaches that, while Man is indeed fallen, that does not mean that he is by definition condemned to live as a sinner. He can choose to become more than he is, by adhering to the word of God.

Moreover, without sin, there is no such thing as evil- which leads to all manner of twisted justifications for any amount of barbarism. The concept of sin is nothing more and nothing less than accountability made real and concrete, judged against a fixed metric. The atheistic rejection of sin means that, logically, nothing is forbidden.

Even atheist libertarians run headfirst into this problem very quickly. If there is no such thing as sin, what then constitutes true aggression? Where then do violations of the Non-Aggression Principle begin and end? If there is no measurement by which Man can be held accountable- which is indeed the very definition of sin- then what point does the NAP hold if aggression itself has an elastic definition?

Therein lies the value of the Ten Commandments. "Thou shalt not trespass", "thou shalt not covet", "thou shalt not bear false witness", etc.- these are all fixed measurements, rules against which violations can be registered. And they provide a profound moral basis upon which a man can build.

All of these are in conflict with the Geneva Convention of human rights.

The concept of sin implies a victimless crime, something else that is unacceptable to me.

I have not caused harm to others, and seek only to be left alone to pursue my own dreams and goals in life. That someone who wants nothing more than to live their own life, who seeks neither to dominate or to be dominated, can be guilty of anything is incomprehensible to me.

That's a genuinely good question, I might actually post in full about it.

Please do. I would be interested in your thoughts on this matter.

I am merely content to state that I am a deist.

Deism is probably the most rational form of Abrahamic religous belief. BTW, did you know that most of the American founding fathers were deists? Especially Franklin, who was by far the intellectual of the American revolution.

the Commandments of the Lord

If you are referring to the 10 commandments, 6 of them make rational sense. The other 4 don't make sense to me.

Well that's the tricky bit isn't it- what exactly constitutes a "minimal social safety net"?

This is a good question and is answered in some detail in "The Road to Serfdom".

Yes, hence my own reluctance to embrace Christianity openly. I am merely content to state that I am a deist, and that I strongly sympathise with Christianity.

My experience with Asians who believe in Christianity, especially Chinese, is they considered the most attractive feature of Christianity is its intolerance of corruption and dirty dealing. When asked about it, this is actually the number one reason I've heard for why Asians like Christianity.

Christianity, which is the teaching of Jesus the Christ is about forgiveness, the absolute utter need for our forgiveness because each and everyone of us is guilty of sin.

It is not about unconditional forgiveness, however. That is the key distinction. Forgiveness in the eyes of God must be earned, through repentance. Take for example Christ's words to the two thieves who were crucified with Him upon Golgotha. One thief lamented his fate and blamed everyone but himself for his plight, but the other repented of his sins and acknowledged that he had been justly punished. It was to the latter thief that the Son of God blessed and told that they would walk together in His Father's kingdom come the dawn.

As Jesus said, "I did not come to be served, but to serve and to give My life as a ransom for many." And then He said, "Follow Me, be like Me. Behave in your relationships the way I behaved in My relationships."

Let us not forget that Christ was also at times very forceful in asserting the primacy of His theology over the Rabbinical teachings of the past. And that, in particular, is why I respect Christianity. Christ did not say, "it is so because Rabbi X said it, and it is supported by Rabbi Y". Christ said, "it is so because I say it is so, and here is the truth of my words." His ideas were revolutionary for their time, which is something most (High Church) atheists flatly refuse to acknowledge. He demonstrated the eternal truth of His word to all who would believe, and He did so peacefully. This is something remarkable and astonishing, which is why I have immense respect for Christ Himself, but His words seem to have lost something in translation down the centuries, which is why I hold the Church somewhat at arm's length.

I'm with Frederick Heyek in the "Road to Serfdom" where he says that humane societies have a minimal social safety net, and that one must pay taxes to support it.

Well that's the tricky bit isn't it- what exactly constitutes a "minimal social safety net"? Ask ten different people and you'll get ten different answers, and most of them will probably include free health care, free education, and subsidised housing in their lists. Better by far to simply state that there will be NO government-sponsored safety net, and leave it at that. It sounds cruel, but it's the only way to reconcile the fact that income taxation of any kind is theft with the reality of charity borne from a free-enterprise system.

I agree that libertarianism and Christianity can be allies. However, I could never be a Christian. There is simply too much in it that I vehemently reject.

Yes, hence my own reluctance to embrace Christianity openly. I am merely content to state that I am a deist, and that I strongly sympathise with Christianity.

BTW, how do you reconcile Christianity with the Randian/Rothbardian notion of individual self-ownership and autonomy? I'm curious as to how you reconciled these two points.

That's a genuinely good question, I might actually post in full about it. It seems to depend on the particular branch of Christianity. Some, like Calvinism, are utterly fatalistic and hold that there is no such thing as free will at all. Other branches argue that the Lord gave us the gift of reason in order that we might better understand His Truth, and free will that we might come to that understanding on our own. I am strongly sympathetic towards this view, which basically says that you are free to live as you please provided that you do not break the Commandments of the Lord. In this, there is no contradiction between Rothbardian ethics of autonomy and freedom and Christian dictates of morality.

So many people, atheists in particular make a big deal about being "good enough." "I don't need God in order to be a good person." In reality, non of us can be good enough to be good enough for heaven. As far of sharing what you have with those in need, Christianity has nothing to do with telling you or forcing you to do that. Jesus gave His life for you. If you let Him, He will make you the kind of person who "gives" out of your new nature, not because you are externally compelled to do it, as would be the case with someone like kurt9. As Jesus said, "I did not come to be served, but to serve and to give My life as a ransom for many." And then He said, "Follow Me, be like Me. Behave in your relationships the way I behaved in My relationships."

And the really nice thing about Jesus / Christianity, kurt9, is that Jesus will never force you to accept or follow His teaching. You really are free to "reject this utterly."

Christ argued for an annual tithe to be yielded to the ruler by all men; libertarians view taxation as outright theft.

I'm with Frederick Heyek in the "Road to Serfdom" where he says that humane societies have a minimal social safety net, and that one must pay taxes to support it. However, I do consider taxation above and beyond what's necessary to support this safety net to be outright theft and, therefor, criminality.

Christ advocated a lifestyle in which men would share all they had in goodwill

I reject this utterly. I will never in a million years accept this.

I agree that libertarianism and Christianity can be allies. However, I could never be a Christian. There is simply too much in it that I vehemently reject.

BTW, how do you reconcile Christianity with the Randian/Rothbardian notion of individual self-ownership and autonomy? I'm curious as to how you reconciled these two points.

I don't quite equate the Golden Rule with the NAP. "Do unto others as you would have done to you" is not the same as "thou shalt not initiate aggression against another". There is no requirement anywhere for a libertarian to overtly embrace Christianity. I certainly don't, though I recognise that Christianity embodies and enforces an all-powerful set of truths.

Moreover, there are several aspects of Christianity that sit in direct conflict with orthodox libertarian canon. Christ argued for an annual tithe to be yielded to the ruler by all men; libertarians view taxation as outright theft. Christ advocated a lifestyle in which men would share all they had in goodwill- not altogether different from the Communist ideal, with the only difference being that Christ meant for His fellow men to do this of their own free will.

Libertarianism and Christianity at their core teach Truth, and that, ultimately, is what makes them natural allies. But one is not a subset of the other, nor are they mutex.

Given such, why would someone like myself, who is already libertarian, need to embrace Christianity in particular?