Talk:Libertarian Christianity

2016 comments

I'm a bit concerned about (what I perceive to be) a conflict between comments made under the "Libertarian Christianity" wikipedia entry and other comments made under the "Christian Libertarian" wikipedia entry. The Sandlin statement supporting state suppression of victimless crimes (e.g. idolatry) in the former entry is counter to the theme of Church discipline only and not prohibition by the state in the latter entry. Would suggest the removal of the Sandlin statement as inconsistent with the overall theme suggested by the "Christian Libertarian" entry. (NOTE: This is my first entry on wikipedia. Feel free to correct me on anything I've done not according to wikipedia standards. Thanks!) Hutchdeloach (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

2008 comments

Moved page into main article space. (ClauLeo (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Constructive comments and criticism are welcome here. (ClauLeo (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

This article is far from neutral. You need only look at the criticisms section, that seems to be a personal attack on anyone who does not agree with the Libertarian Christian philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satv365 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to combine this article with the Christian libertarianism article, making a single article. Anyone object? ClauLeo (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge Even though the same clear distinction between these is made in both articles, unless there are several WP:RS saying there is a big difference they should be merged into whichever phrase is used most in sources. Carol Moore 16:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Quite NPOV

In all honesty this article would better suit a propaganda website than a neutral encyclopedia article. Certain sections specifically are written as an advertisement rather than an article. Needs some new source and some general revamping, especially the "Distinction from secular libertarianism" and "Criticism" sections. Mnation2 (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

On what grounds are you claiming that it's advertising and propaganda? "new source"? "general revamping"? Can you be more specific? Can you explain what it is about the "secular libertarianism" section and the "criticism" section that is so against the neutral point of view policy? (ClauLeo (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

The more important thing is to merge the article, per the above, with the one having the most WP:RS being the one it's named for. That also might solve whatever NPOV problems might exist. Also, don't forget:

• Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Carol Moore 23:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Thanks for the reminder, Carolmooredc. I intend to work on the merge, and hope other people will do likewise. Given present time constraints, it might take a while. But that's certainly my intention. (ClauLeo (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

Eliminated false claim that Libertarian Christians reject hard determinism. I'm one of them. 76.94.235.103 (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Too narrow -- gives a stilted definition of the intersection of Christianity & Libertarian human rights.

This entire article seems wildly too narrow. Reformed Theology is a narrow & declining interpretation of Christianity. There are many, many other interpretations of Christianity, where Libertarians abide & worship. --Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lance W. Haverkamp This whole article reads like an attempt by self-important, hard-right, Neo-Calvinist paleolibertarians to make their own position within "Christian libertarianism" sound as different and special as possible, like, "We're the theologically rigorous, theologically serious, theologically superior ones, so we deserve our own article." It reads like a conservative Reformed apologetics essay. 170.52.166.40 (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

This is essentially a blog post

How can this stay up? There is no dispassionate discussion of the topics from a neutral point of view. This is an essay. 2603:8080:2302:BC93:7CEE:BE83:8DF4:3809 (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)