ClearWest

Riverwind, If that's what people think then I guess people aren't ready for this philosophy--but they can be ready with more education, and further discussion of the ideas. I think one day enough people will be for it and not against it. Until then I will not force it on them. I think the Libertarian party would get into parliament only one or two seats at a time--so they wouldn't have extraordinary power. They would only be able to be voices for liberty, speaking up about non-force non-regulation non-government solutions. This will eventually spark change, and hopefully people will beging thinking differently and demanding LESS government.

I disagree. Unlike the populists, I don't believe in forcing my will or philosophies on others. I just examin the world as I see it, and share my observations with others. If they see what I see, then hopefully we'll eventually be able to make some changes. But I see what you're saying--If we're using democracy to change our nations policies, we are still using force--whether it leads to Libertarianism or not. Still, I think the action is justified because we are still using their system, and we're a working to change it to a non-force system so that eventually we will not have to use their system. It's the only peaceful way I can think of to do it--unless I refuse to pay taxes and boycott all government services. Which might work for awhile, but the government would eventually lock me up--thus destroying my life. Then again--Give me liberty, or give me death, right? I'm not sure. But for now, I think working within the system to change the system is the best way. He still wouldn't be allowed to take the lives, liberty, and property of others, as he did when he was in government. Who will enforce this? Miniarchist Libertarians would say our military--I would say individuals. The massive numbers of Jews wouldn't have been killed if they hadn't been rounded up in the first place (an act of force by government), and they wouldn't have been able to be rounded up if the government hadn't forbidden Jews from keeping firearms. They would have been able to defend themselves and resist the SS before they got so powerful. Anyone making that big of an investment wouldn't want to let it go to waste. They would want to make at least some of their money back--thus they would likely open it up for the public in some way. This is a good point. If I felt that my rights were under threat from a horde, I would call the people I trust to come help me out--organize a local militia. We would do our best. This might be another case and point for a national military, but still I would hope that would be a rare occurance. This would probably encourage the leader to serve his followers well--he would be less likely to abuse his power over them. Wow, deep statement. Is there a problem with the way people are? The way we think, act, behave. In my deeper moments I've wondered whether or not people were ready for Libertarianism. Could they handle making choices for themselves after being enslaved by an all-powerful government for centuries? Can they really survive on their own, or do they need a nanny state to look after them? Are people smart enough to look after themselves? At first my answer was no--but then I realized that I had come to the same conclusion that the biggest tyrants in history have come to. Isn't that where it all starts? Thinking that people can't look after themselves, thinking that your ways are better. That they can benefit from your influence. My final conclusion is this; people may not always make the right choices--but the important thing is that they have the freedom to choose. Because governments don't always make the right choices either, and they affect many more people with their choices than an individual does with his or her personal choices. I must say, I love how deep these discussions get sometimes. My philosophy is different from yours, however. I don't think rights are given to us at all--I think that we are born with them--they exist naturally, but they are sometimes taken away by others. We can only maintain our own rights when we are allowed to defend them ourselves. Politicians argue over which rights people should and shouldn't have. The rights to healthcare, the rights to water, etc. They only result in more regulation and the taking of someone's rights to give to another (due to these things being paid for through taxation). I think that the only rights that a person can have without interfering with another person's rights are the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. You can live and let live. You can be free and let others be free. And you can own stuff and let others own stuff. (Property is a right that is obviously debated among philosophers. One of my favourite anarchist philosophers--Proudhon--once stated that 'Property is theft'. But I would argue that property is the product of your life and liberty. And if your right to property does not exist, then your rights to life and liberty soon become less meaningful, and less worth seeking--because you will never see the results of your rights, or the fruits of your labour.) I don't think Libertarianism was inspired by God or anything--but I think that it was formulated by people who have observed history and various philosophies and morals and economic logics. And they have concluded that this is the fairest way to do it. It is a philosophy which includes everyone. A group of socialists who wish to live collectively may do so. A group of conservatives who wish to practice their traditional values may do so. Just don't force these things on others and it can all work.

Riverwind, Tyranny is absolute power over other people. Individuals in Libertarianism do not have power over others, so it is in no way tyranny. But in reference to a change being made from democractic socialism to libertarianism--I don't anticipate a revolution. I believe it can be done peacefully. Through talking and sharing ideas, as we are doing here on the Message Board. To do it forcefully would be compromising the fundamental libertarian principles. August, I agree. But that commitment is between the individuals being married, not between the individuals and the government. I'm assuming you're referring to the property division between a divorced couple? I think that this can in most cases be worked out between the two people. If, for whatever reason (usually emotional stress) that they cannot negotiate such terms on their own, they can hire representatives (lawyers) to make the negotiations for them. Or they can both agree on a trusted mediator to settle the case for them. There is no need for government force to step in. Maybe I misunderstand your point, but I really don't think it's necessary for government to conduct people's personal relationships. Is that what you're implying? Because I'm sure I can get a date without the government-- Please clarify if that's not what you meant. Private roads will, of course, do their best to look after their customers--drivers in this case. So they would no doubt put up streetlights without force. But that doesn't mean we have to make roads a consumer industry, complete with tollbooths and etc. A neighbourhood can collectively (and voluntarily) work together to pay for and organize the streetlight installation.

Because Majority shouldn't rule! In a democracy there is always a minority who is opposed to what the majority wants. Do they not matter? 51% of people could vote that the other 49% be shot. Is that fair to you? I guess as long as you're in the majority it would be just fine and dandy. But if you're in a minority on a particular issue, then you're basically oppressed by the majority's will. That's why I stand by the principles reflected in the Libertarianism Animation that you all watched--it is a way for society to function without a minority being forced by a majority (democracy) or a majority being forced by a minority (aristocracy, beurocracy). So, really, democracy is just a mirror image of tyranny. There's just a larger group in power. And, quite often, the larger group usually gives its 'power' to a smaller group anyways! Thus we have the beurocracy that exists in the senate and the house of commons. Democracy--it's not much different from the other tyrannies that existed throughout history. The only difference is--we get to choose our tyrants.

None of these appear to me as needing forced direction from government. People can marry whom they want, they can make employment deals, and parent and raise children without interference or direction. The only thing that is a necessary rule, within Libertarianism, is that people respect each other's lives, liberties, and properties. Sometimes a mediator is necessary to work out disputes, (as in the judicial system) but ONLY with the approval of both parties beforehand! So it still isn't force. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. How can you 'freely' commit yourself to an 'involuntary' relationship. It sounds like an oxymoron. It's based on simple principles which allow and include any other principles which someone wishes to live by. (Except those that involve force or fraud). It's the most moral and fair way for a society to function. You can ask anyone what their standards/lifestyle entails, and it will have a place in Libertarianism--unlike in today's socialist and often fascist 'democracy', where there are thousands and thousands of rules and regulation which limit potential, suffocate innovation, and oppress the free. Libertarianism would end this.

No, no, no. That's just the thing. In Libertarianism no one has to contribute anything! There is no force. No government directing people's every action. However, capitalism (and, yes, Libertarianism) implies that people will work to serve themselves, first--and at the same time they serve others. When a baker gets up at 5:30 to bake his bread it's not because he's forced to in order to feed the public. He doesn't even necessarily do it out of the goodness of his heart. But he does it because of the incentive for profit, and in serving himself, he also serves the public because they benefit from his works by purchasing the bread. Take the consumers--they do not buy the baker's bread because they are forced to (as in communism), they buy it because they think it's a better deal than the other guy who sells bread down the street. Take the labourer--he doesn't work because he is forced to, but because he likes the benefit that he gets from payment--yet at the same time he is benefitting others by doing the work that is necessary to be done! The point is that communism is force--Libertarianism is freedom. I agree. Some may not care that their road is deteriorating. Some will, and will want to do something about it. The power of the individual is great. Cheapest and most practical? Socialism? I would dispute that as well. When governments put services in place, they take money from the taxpayer to administer the service. They run on stolen funds, to them it is nearly unlimited. They have no incentive to run things efficiently. They aren't wasting their own money, they are wasting other people's money. A private business is run on voluntary funds, usually from investors initially, but ultimately from customers. They can't waste money, because they won't get any further investment. This is why governments constantly run deficits, and businesses constantly run surpluses. That's why we see that it costs less money per classroom in a private school than it does in a public school--And private schools are usually higher standards of education! What's up with that? Government waste, beurocratic stangleholds on the system. I'm not implying that volunteers run everything. I mean things will be done voluntary, as in not regulated or enforced. Voluntary could mean out of the goodness of your own heart, or out of personal interests--rather than out of force and regulation and fearmongering. It does, thanks to government regulation saying that corporations are people under the law. It is governments that gave corporations human status. My personal philosophy is one of individual responsibility--not corporate responsibility. A corporation, like a government, is an entity or group, not an individual. And so they should not have responsibilities. To quote Milton Friedman concerning the corporation: "Can a building have morals?" Can a building have responsibilities? No. But the people within the building ARE responsible for their actions. It should be the same with corporations and governments. That way, instead of a 'corporation' just being fined for damages done, whatever individual commited the crime will be responsible. And if there is a chain of command system, then whoever commanded the person to commit the crime will be responsible.

I agree with sticking it to the UN. They're looking more and more like 'Ingsoc' everyday.

Whoa. Whoa Whoa. Road repair is far down the line in the argument. Easement rights allocations supercede 'collectivist community' project notions. Not to mention that the fact that 'collectivist community projects' are inherently 'communist' in theory, and therefore are the diametrical opposite of what you propose as the best system. I oppose forced removal of ones property. I do not oppose people working together for a common purpose. So long as they never take away someone else's life, liberty, or property. I don't think any of these have been violated in my proposed solution. People will be voluntarily giving their property (money) to help pay for the road. And the road is collectively owned already. About the Easement law, I agree--It would be much easier if one person owned the land, but just allowed everyone to use it. Problem solved. That one owner can be the one advocating pledge donations to the upkeep of the road. If it doesn't work that way, that one person can put up a tollbooth. This assumes 999 out of 1000 people will voluntarily pay 'taxes'. Rubbish. No, it assumes that 999 times out of 1000, enough money will be contributed to take care of the road. Is that so hard to imagine? In BC, citizens voluntarily give more charity than most everywhere else in the world.

I would dispute the fact that the socialist system has worked very well. It is a system that has resulted in billions of dollars of lost taxpayer money, increased wait times in health care, economic crumbling, and more extreme forms of corrupt government. And yes I think everyone can and will benefit from Libertarianism. Under socialism people are more equal, yes, but more poor. In a free market, everyone can become richer. The poor in a free market country are generally better off than the poor in a socialist country! Compare the USA to the socialist scandinavian countries. (There was an interesting thread on this long ago that I found in the archives) Take the African country of Kenya. The people there are in poverty because their government won't give them the right to property. We send them billion dollars in foregin aide (the socialist solution to their poverty) and yet they are still in poverty. What they need is a free market solution so that they can climb out of poverty. In order to open a business in Kenya right now you might have to get licenses from 20 ministries, and bribe government officials. It might take years. And even then the government can still shut you down. In a free market it wouldn't be this way, and the poor would be allowed to be rich. When you can trade, borrow, lend, everyone will be making deals that both parties benefit from. That's capitalism in action, and it works. For everyone. There's plenty of money out there. The Libertarian philosophy is based on individuals finding their own societal values. Not necessarily none at all. Everybody has different value systems, so how can we claim that there is any one responsibility to society that everyone must have? Everyone won't be 'trying to screw their neighbour'. Just because you are out for your own benefit, doesn't mean that you're out for the downfall of everyone else. I think most people will find that happiness comes when everyone around you is happy too. I've said it before, Selfishness is ultimately a stupid economic mindset, because it rewards you with short-term benefits, but deprives you of longterm ones. I would love to see a world where no military is needed. That looks like a pipedream at the moment, but I think that in the mean time, we can have a small military, or even a voluntary militia. As for police, we can have private security guards. And also, instead of patrolmen, we can have a neighbourhood watch--afterall in Libertarianism, people will be allowed to defend themselves, rather than relying on big brother to protect them.

Geoffrey, If not out of the goodness of their own hearts, people will see the benefit of serving others because it will serve themselves in the end. Corporations know this principle well. Keep the customer happy, and they'll keep shopping with you. It's a similar principle. Keep donating to the road, not because you care about the other people on it necessarily, but because you would like to see the longterm benefits yourself. In other words, selfish people may see short term benefits, but their longterm downfall will be great. Everyone who works in the customer service industry (as I do) knows this principle well. You go all out for the customer, not because you have to, but because it will make them happy, and hopefully in the longterm they will return to do more business with you. The problem is that people all have different social values, and different ideas of what is reasonable state spending. In Libertarianism, everyone can live by their own social values (so long as they don't interfere with others), and they will manage their own money, so government spending will not be an issue. It's the best way for everyone to be happy. Privatized fire-fighting has been done before. Everyone who wants fire protection pays for the service. Just like house insurance. People who want their house insured can pay for the service. I would disagree there. Most of my personal choices do not affect your life. In fact I can't think of any that do. There are none--none that share my culture and language at least. That's why I'm working within the system to change the system. So that I can live my culture, speak my language, and still have the right to Life, Liberty, and Property. All at the same time. When you said we live in a liberal world, I assume you're referring to social issues such as drugs and alcohol and marriage. In one sense these things are becoming accepted, but that's not necessarily what I want, because government is still involved in every one of these issues! They have to have their hands in everything. In British Columbia we have what is called the Liquor Distribution Branch, who are the only group that can legally manufacture, import, export, trade, buy, and sell liquor in British Columbia. You might say that Liquor is an acceptable thing in our society, but we still have to go through the government to get it. I expect they would do the same thing with marijuana and any other currently illegal substance. That's why I do not like the NDP's (for example) solution to social problems. Many Libertarians are Miniarchists, which I think you would find yourself more able to relate to. They still want a government, just a very very small one. And I suppose on my more moderate days I would also support this. If a Libertarian was ever elected to the house of commons, they would most likely support bills which took us to a miniarchy rather than an anarchy--which is an idea which most of you are, understandably, uncomfortable with.

I see a few different 'non-force' solutions to this dilemma. My favourite being the last one: 1) This situation could run on voluntary cooperation--All 600 unanimously sign on to collectively pay for the road. Thus you have socialism, but it is with everyone's approval. Rare but possible. Then everyone who moves into the neighbourhood in the future will be asked to sign on to this program. (I don't like this option) 2) OR, all 600 unanimously sign on to privatize the road, placing the burden of maintainance onto a company which values its customers. Then they just need to either a) pay a toll each time they use the road or pay a yearly flat rate for using the road (thus being quite similar to the collective payment that I mentioned previously). Hopefully in the future we wouldn't have this problem, because right now everything is owned collectively. Roads, hospitals, schools, post offices. So it would be a given that roads are privatized in the future, and people would be aware of this when they move into the neighbourhood. And they will sign on to use the road when they buy their house. 3) Both of the above are possible--however, I think the better option would be for a group to voluntarily plough the road, funded through voluntary pledges. If this could work (which I believe it would) then it would be an awesome display of human charity. People aren't selfish pigs as some think they are. The Red Cross runs on voluntary funds, as well as hundreds of charities and churches, as well as nearly all private industries. So can a snow plougher. Of course, the cottagers who live there in the summer should not be forced to pay for snowploughing which they never see the direct benefit of. However, the group running the charity can contact them and politely ask them if they would like to contribute. (And it will, in the long term, indirectly be for their benefit because it means the long term survival of their road. Anyone who realizes that will be compassionate toward the cause). You can benefit yourself while still benefitting others. And vice versa. Thanks for your comments, margrace.

It's not necessarily that the individual is always right--It's the concern with the fact that the state is NOT always right. I understand your concern, Riverwind. And I agree that there is a possibility of this scenario arising. However, take this into consideration: A road usually only requires maintainace every 10-15 years (and that's a regularly used street in a small city--so I'm assuming it will be similar in your scenario). So, whenever a concerned citizen sees that the road may be in need of repair, he can contact his neighbours and ask them to contribute to the "Fix the Road" fund. Chances are they will receive an adequate amount in voluntary funds. Not necessarily from everyone--People shouldn't care who does and doesn't contribute. Plus in most cases the donations will be annonymous, so they won't know. #1 of your scenario is out of the picture because it is a use of force and against people's rights. #2, however, is more likely, given human nature for selfishness. And if this is the case, then obviously they care more about their neighbour's business than the road being fixed. It's quite unfortunate, but it's no call to introduce a forced tax. You can probably see my signature right now, but I will post it anyways in case it changes: "To each according to his works, first; and if, on occasion, I am impelled to aid you, I will do it with a good grace; but I will not be constrained". -Proudhon 999 times out of 1000 it will work. They will end up raising the amount of money that they need to get the job done. That 1 time it may not isn't enough to convince me that forced socialism works. The one year that they can't afford to fix their roads. There are always alternatives to force. If you have any other examples of how voluntary exchanges must be replaced with force, I wouldn't mind hearing it. And I appreciate the comments you have made thus far as well. But from my view, everything can be solved without means of force. More cases than not, a voluntary free market will allow everyone to get what they want and need, without giving someone else a raw deal. Unlike socialism as we know it today--where it is not a voluntary exchange of goods and services. Our goods (money) are taken, and our services (if any) are given to us. Whether we like it or not. That is not freedom. I believe in true capitalism, where exchanges are made voluntary because both people benefit from the deal.

Maybe I should pickle my liver in protest of this new bill. They need to get their hands out of my pocketbook first of all--but now they're claiming my organs after I'm dead?? Gosh, they're like a pack of vultures. I don't care how good their intentions are, they've gotta ask me before they take something that's mine. This law is like enforcing the draft, but the ones that don't want to go don't have to. First of all that doesn't make sense. Second of all, you're going to catch a lot of people who probably didn't want to donate their organs, but they didn't make the prior arrangements with the gov't, so it's too late for them. This law is bad news. The stupid thing is, there's no one who will represent my views for me in the house of parliament. My riding is represented by a socialist who will surely support this bill. Another indication that democracy as we know it isn't a fair way to represent each citizen's wishes. Majority rules isn't rule by the people as Democracy was supposed to be... But that's a different story. The point is, don't pass this law.

Hello, everyone! Some of you may be aware that I am a Libertarian--and I noticed that many of you share a lot of my opinions, but do not consider yourselves libertarians. I do not intend to solicit you all to Libertarianism, but I would love to have a discussion about the philosophy in further detail. For those of you who haven't seen it yet, please watch this short animated introduction to Libertarianism located here. And then please post your comments and/or criticism. Let me know what you agree with, and what you don't agree with, and why. Libertarianism advocates a free market where people can make voluntary exchanges of goods and services with no restrictions, tarrifs, or regulation from a third party. We support small government, little to no taxation, and no government involvement in social issues and people's personal affairs. We oppose prohibition, censorship, and conscription. And we believe in the human rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. The Libertarian Party of Canada's official website is: www.libertarian.ca Thanks.

I see what you're saying. Very well, this topic will now be started up in the "Moral and Religious Issues" forum. Please go there to continue the conversation about Libertarianism! Hope to see you all there. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=5788

Wait, you're saying that if this law passes, then the government would assume ownership of our corpses? You guys are actually supporting this? Gosh, they just have to have their hands in everything, don't they? I would oppose this law tooth and nail.

Or you could say that we resemble the left without the fiscal intervention. The main difference between us and the current parties that are in power is that we believe in the individual, and true freedom of choice, with no government regulation or interference in the market. Both the left and the right interfere in people's lives in one way or the other. The Libertarian Party would end that.

I considered that--but it isn't really a religious issue. It's pure politics. It is a federal issue in the sense that this is a philosophy that will hopefully become Federal Policy. But, if the moderators deem that this in the incorrect place for this thread, then I assume they will move it. Until then, would you care to continue the conversation as though it were a federal issue? Because that was my intention.

Thank you for directing me to that name, Theloniusfleabag. I looked at some of Hugo's posts, and I must say I'm very impressed. The man really knows his stuff. Hopefully he comes around for more discussion! While we're on the subject, are there any other Libertarians out there on the boards? If so, don't hesitate to make yourselves known. Hopefully there will be more and more of us, so that we're no longer an obscure idealogy, but an actual formidable party in Canadian Politics. Those of you who disagree with Libertarian philosophy, I'd love to hear from you as well.

Hello, everyone! Some of you may be aware that I am a Libertarian--and I noticed that many of you share a lot of my opinions, but do not consider yourselves libertarians. I do not intend to solicit you all to Libertarianism, but I would love to have a discussion about the philosophy in further detail. For those of you who haven't seen it yet, please watch this short animated introduction to Libertarianism located here. And then please post your comments and/or criticism. Let me know what you agree with, and what you don't agree with, and why. Libertarianism advocates a free market where people can make voluntary exchanges of goods and services with no restrictions, tarrifs, or regulation from a third party. We support small government, little to no taxation, and no government involvement in social issues and people's personal affairs. We oppose prohibition, censorship, and conscription. And we believe in the human rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. The Libertarian Party of Canada's official website is: www.libertarian.ca Thanks.

Okay, now reverse that. Will a consumer be more likely to be wasteful if he has to pay for the water per litre? Or will he be more likely to be wasteful if it is provided "free" by the government? It seems to me that the socialist system proves to be more wasteful in reference to things like water consumption.

By voters at election time. If the bureaucrats are not doing their job right we have the power to fire their ultimate bosses. On one hand you're saying that you don't have time to "micromanage them [specialists] and second guess everything they do." And on the other hand you're saying that people at voting time will know how to rate the beurocrats and know when to vote them out if they aren't doing a good job. I think I'm getting a mixed signal here. Here's my philosophy on the issue. Individuals aren't stupid. They generally know what's best for themselves and for their families. But groups of people can be ridiculously stupid, and a lot of people find themselves supporting a decision because they're just going along with the crowd. It's like mob psychology. Look at any campaign or party convention; full of hype and group enthusiasm for whatever the leader feeds them. Under the right circumstances, a group will vote whatever way a person wants them to vote--and voila, democracy has produced an example of tyranny. Majority rules afterall... What I'm trying to get at is this: No, I don't think it's fair to get a beurocrat (selected by a majority, not necessarily you) to run your life. We only have the 'power to fire' when the power is actually given back to the individual--The freedom to decide where his/her money goes. The freedom to decide which services to receive, and which products to buy. I propose that we should not collectively give power to any person or group to make decisions that affect our lives. This should be an individual decision, so that if you're not happy with a service someone is giving, you can choose to withdraw your support for them--rather than relying on the democratic process which takes a majority to decide whether or not you have to support something that you may or may not like.

The difference is that with a specialist, you usually appoint them. Or at least give them your consent. With beurocrats, they are usually either voted in by a majority (not necessarily you giving your consent. Although I do applaud the democratic system for trying to be fair, it is not always fair to the 1 of 3 that didn't want that particular beurocrat to do his work). Performance reviews done by who? Another government beurocrat I suppose. Good questions, and you're right to explore them--When everyone wants to spend their money on the same issue, then voila! You have voluntary cooperation, and you're likely to get a lot of stuff done with everybody feeling good about it. The issues that get left behind without any financial support; If people aren't contributing then they seem to have higher priorities than the cause--That's not to say that I don't disagree with the people who put themselves before others. I just don't feel that government should be in any position to set someone else's priorities. There is always help for those that need it-- And I think that a world where people help each other voluntarily rather than out of obligation will be a much friendlier and charitable world. Many disagree with me--we've had this debate before on the forums. People do care--That's obvious will all the people out there trying to raise awareness for their cause. And all the people making contributions to help with that cause. Instead of taking these causes to government--take these causes to the people directly! It takes governments years to finally realize that there's a problem, and then when they decide to try and solve it, they end up making it worse. The best way to go is to solve problems by voluntary means, talking to people, informing them, helping people on your own time.

In that case, in a Libertarian society. You would raise awareness throughout the city, and get people to sign on to support your cause. If people really care they will try to help out. If people don't care, then is it really a democracy? Or are we just being ruled by the beurocrats who know what's best for us. Libertarianism doesn't mean everyone is going to be a recluse. It does mean, however, that people will be able to choose where they spend their money--rather than that decision being made for them.

The Sabbath was changed to Sunday in honour of Christ's resurrection. This practice went back far before Constantine came into the picture. The tradition started with Christ's apostles. (See Acts 20:7) Not only did Christ's apostles refer to Christ as the Son of God, but so did the Old Testament Prophet Isaiah, and reference was also made in Psalms (also in the Old Testament). If you're claiming that Christianity is just a repackaged version of Greek Paganism, then I would suggest that it may be the other way around. The true ways of the gospel were perverted and became paganism. The fact that Christ would be born of a virgin was probably known by prophets throughout history--and when the prophecy reached the wrong people it became legend, and later mythology. Not true at all. Constantine was around in 272-337 ad. The earliest dated Christian records are the Dead Sea Scrolls--which date back to before 100 ad. Don't tell me Constantine changed those as a political exercise. They've been left untouched for several centuries. I don't see what differences you're talking about. The dead sea scrolls contained copies of books from Isaiah and even Mark. Well the Old Testament refers to the coming of a Son of God--Whether or not you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that's another story. But according to the prophets who believed in the God of Israel, a Son of God is coming. If you believe them, then it must be happening some time. I believe that that Son of God is indeed Jesus Christ. Anyone who doubts this, all you have to do is some research, study, and prayer. The divinity of Christ is a testament to the Love of God. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son... that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." That's pretty important to me.