A conversation between Marc J Victor and a Christian Friend
Hey brother. I’m so glad and honored that you took the time to send such a thoughtful and organized email with your concerns! Let me start by saying that if I have created a movement intended to produce global peace that also conflicts with Christianity, I will admit right now that we should abandon the project. It would undoubtedly fail. If 3L cannot attract Christians because it advances, at least in some ways, the most fundamental concerns of Christians, then 3L is doomed to fail. I intended to create a global movement that attracts Christians because of their faith.
Additionally, I intend to attract Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and moral atheists because 3L appeals to the shared similarities in their beliefs. If we cannot unite the good people in these groups, 3L will fail. My comments in this email are intended to convince you and your pastor that 3L is the only movement in the world to accomplish this worthy, urgent, and indispensable goal.
I’ve taken the liberty of copying Robbie Miles on this email. Robbie lives in London and is responsible for presenting 3L to the world. Your sincere concerns and how we address them is a top priority for 3L because many Christians and people of other faiths will likely share your concerns regarding their religious views and how 3L interacts with them. Given my lack of specific knowledge about the Christian faith, Richard Stevens is best positioned to address your specific concerns. His email states that he will respond in a few days. I’m sure he’ll note any disagreements with anything I say in my response. Robbie may also have something to add in this area. I’ll leave that portion of the response to them.
With 3L, we have attempted to unite people based on their shared agreement on two different principles: 1. “Aggression”, as I have defined it in 3L, is always wrong and should be illegal. Given Jesus’ instruction to turn the other cheek in the face of aggression, I don’t expect Christians to disagree. I note that 3L does not go this far. 3L does not require pacificism. As you know, 3L allows self-defense. Indeed, self-defense is not defined as “aggression” in 3L. You know I describe myself as a “self-defense absolutist.” Given what I know about your views, I believe you, as a Christian, also agree with the concept of self-defense or defense of others against aggression. Therefore, I do not believe Christianity conflicts in any way with 3L’s legal principle that all acts of aggression should be illegal.
Principle #2 encourages and attempts to inspire all people to be excellent humans. As you know, 3L defines being an “excellent human” as acting with high character, being open-minded and tolerant of others who do not aggress, acting civilly toward others, embracing justice, seeking high-trust relationships, and presenting the world with the best version of yourself. While I admit this moral principle does not go far enough to embrace the additional teachings of Christianity or any other religion, nothing in the 3L moral principle contradicts anything in Christianity. While many Christians will disagree with how some non-Christians live and also do their best to persuade them to live otherwise, unless the Christian aggresses against the peaceful/non-aggressive non-Christian, the Christian does not act contrary to 3L.
Indeed, if 3L’s moral principle went so far as to embrace and promote all the teachings of Christianity, it would be Christianity. 3L intentionally does not seek to win the world for Christianity or any other religion or for the idea of abolishing religion. The goals of 3L are global freedom, peace, and prosperity. While people who promote 3L are certainly free to also promote Christianity, the one restriction is that they must do so without aggressing against others. Therefore, if you intend to promote Christianity by aggressing against others, you would not be a good fit for 3L. However, if you intend to promote Christianity by persuading others to adopt its teachings, as I believe Jesus did, nothing about 3L is incompatible with Christianity. Said another way, 3L promotes a subset of Christian beliefs, those also common to many other religions and held also by many nonreligious people. Again, the goal of 3L is not to promote Christianity but rather to achieve a free, peaceful, and prosperous world. Such a world would be the best place for Christians and others to share their beliefs and do their best to persuade others to join their faith.
I sincerely hope and expect that someday we will have a very active group within 3L called “Christians for 3L” or something similar, promoting Christianity and 3L together. I hope for the same with every other civilized religion, as well as for the non-believers. We can peacefully coexist even as we disagree and exchange ideas, trying to persuade each other about the truth of reality, salvation, or whatever doctrine we promote.
I’ll include a few additional comments in your original email in red. I’m always up for a discussion with you and/or your pastor so that you both fully understand what we are trying to do with 3L and why.
Peace
From:
xxxxxxxx
Sent:
Sunday, March 16, 2025 9:22 AM
To:
xxxxxx
Cc:
xxxxx
Subject:
Re: 3L and Christianity
[Marc’s response in red]
Hi Marc,
First, I’d like to say that I think it is a noble idea trying to find a movement or create one that can result in world peace. In my opinion, Live and Let Live will not work. The main reason being most people on earth belong to some kind of religious belief and that will always be their first and foremost priority over any kind of movement. That’s fine. We’re not saying 3L must be their top priority in life. However, if we can unite people and get them to join 3L because they share some common beliefs, we could dramatically improve the world. It is also my opinion that a person can not be a religious person and also be a part of Live and Let Live. I disagree for the reasons I stated above. Religion is based on faith and morality. Live and Let Live has neither a higher power nor morality attached to it. We do have a moral principle. While 3L does not take any position about why acting as an excellent human is moral, Christians are free to argue it is because it derives from Christianity. I had a long conversation with my pastor about the idea and below are the points we both came up with on why it is impossible for a devout and practicing Christian to be a part of Live and Let Live or even believe in the idea. We have many practicing Christians in 3L who would disagree.
1. The Mission to Evangelize
Christianity, teaches that believers are called to share the message of Jesus Christ with others. Jesus’ Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 instructs Christians to go and make disciples of all nations. This imperative to spread the Gospel can conflict with the idea of “live and let live,” which implies a passive approach to the beliefs and practices of others.
- Conflict: If Christians believe that their faith is the true path to salvation, they may feel a responsibility to convert others to Christianity rather than simply accepting all beliefs as equally valid. This active evangelism can be seen as challenging the notion of letting others live their lives as they choose, particularly if they follow a different religion or no religion at all. This is only a contradiction for any Christians who would evangelize by aggressing against others. Evangelizing by trying to persuade, even in a spirited way, is not aggression and is therefore entirely consistent with all aspects of 3L.
2. Moral Absolutism
Christian teachings often emphasize certain moral absolutes, such as the importance of honesty, integrity, sexual purity, compassion, and justice. These moral standards, based on Biblical teachings, may conflict with lifestyles or behaviors that are seen as contrary to these values. For instance, traditional Christian views on issues like marriage, sexuality, and the sanctity of life may not align with modern, secular views that emphasize individual autonomy. People in 3L have their own individual beliefs about many issues not reached by the 3L moral principle. If a Christian knows that there are morally wrong things going on in an organization, they would try to change the organization. So long as they don’t aggress, this is fine. If they can’t they would remove themselves from this organization. So? No problem here so long as the Christian doesn’t aggress against anyone.
- Conflict: Christians may feel compelled to speak out or take action against behaviors they believe are sinful, which may be seen as a judgement which may trigger aggression. This depends on what you mean by “trigger aggression.” Whoever aggresses is in the wrong. Anyone is free to make judgments about how others act. This is not aggression. If the judged person aggresses, the judged person is in the wrong. This moral imperative to uphold what they believe is the truth can be seen as a challenge to the acceptance of others’ choices. Accepting that others get to make choices we disagree with is not the same as agreeing with, celebrating, or condoning their choice. Even strongly advocating against their choice is consistent with 3L so long as there is no aggression.
3. Jesus’ Teachings on Truth
Christianity asserts that Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). The belief in absolute truth, that there is one true path to God through Jesus Christ, can make it difficult for Christians to adopt a “live and let live” mentality, especially when it comes to matters of faith. 3L has several Christians who believe this and also advocate against aggression and for others to aspire to be excellent humans. I see no contradiction.
- Conflict: If a Christian believes that non-Christian paths are leading people away from salvation, they may feel obligated to intervene, rather than adopting a “let them be” attitude. This turns on how you define “intervene.” If you define “intervene” as equating to “aggress against” then it violates 3L. This definition of “intervene” doesn’t seem consistent with Christianity to me. However, if “intervene” means do your best to try to talk them out of it, then it is consistent with 3L. I note that a property owner can always make whatever rules they want on their own property. For example, a Christian property owner can mandate Christian prayers from everyone on their property if they prefer. This tension between respecting the freedom of others to make their own choices and sharing their belief in the necessity of conversion to Christianity is a key challenge. One can respect the freedom of others to make their own choices while disagreeing with the choice they make. No problem here. Would you respect the choice of a person to reject Christianity? I hope so. Obviously, converting people to Christianity at the point of a sword (or any other aggression) would violate 3L.
4. Sin and the Christian Call to Holiness
In Christianity, believers are often called to live in a way that reflects God’s holiness and to avoid sin. Christians are taught to love others, but also to help them avoid sin, which might involve confronting others when their actions are seen as harmful or contrary to God’s will. No problem here so long as aggression is not used.
- Conflict: The idea of allowing others to live however they choose (even if that includes behaviors the Christian believes are sinful) may be seen as a failure to love them in a way that promotes their spiritual well-being. From a Christian perspective, truly loving someone might involve challenging them to live in accordance with God’s commands, rather than simply letting them go their own way. 3L does not prohibit doing your best to convince others to live in ways you advise.
5. Christian Community and Accountability
Christianity often emphasizes the importance of living within a community of believers and holding one another accountable. In the New Testament, the apostle Paul writes about the importance of exhorting one another to live righteous lives (e.g., Hebrews 10:24-25). This can sometimes lead to situations where believers feel compelled to intervene in the lives of others in ways that conflict with the idea of letting people live their lives as they wish. Will they intervene by aggressing? Christians are free to live in communities with other Christians if they prefer. They could even organize HOAs toward this goal.
- Conflict: If a Christian sees a fellow believer or someone in the community engaging in behavior they believe is sinful or harmful, they may feel it is their duty to help that person change, which may be perceived as meddling in someone else’s life. If the “meddling” amounts to aggression, 3L would outlaw it. However, if the meddling is persuasion, conversation, guilting, teaching the bible, discussing heaven and hell, or any other version of nonaggressive conduct, there is no contradiction with 3L so long as the person acts as an excellent human while discussing the issue. Uncivilized conduct violates the moral principle.
6. The Kingdom of God vs. the World
Christianity teaches that the kingdom of God is at hand and that God’s reign should influence every area of life. Christians are called to live according to the values of this kingdom, even when they conflict with the values of the world around them.
- Conflict: If the world embraces values or lifestyles that contradict Christian teachings, a Christian might feel that simply accepting these without challenge is wrong. They might believe that they have a responsibility to stand for God’s kingdom values in opposition to secular or alternative viewpoints. This sense of duty to uphold God’s moral order can lead to tension with the “live and let live” approach. Only if the Christian employs aggression.
7. Love and Judgment
Some Christians believe that to truly love others, one must guide them toward righteousness, as love can involve both compassion and correction. However, this balance can be tricky, as love should not be confused with judgmental attitudes. The New Testament cautions against hypocritical judgment (Matthew 7:1-5) but also encourages Christians to help others see the truth (Galatians 6:1).
- Conflict: While “live and let live” suggests non-interference, some Christians might interpret their faith as requiring them to engage with the world in a way that challenges behaviors they believe are wrong, sometimes leading to friction with the broader society. It all turns on whether the Christian will employ aggression.
8. False Prophets or Religions
Christians believe there is one God and only one God. We are constantly reminded through scripture to be mindful that there may be false prophets or movements that take the focus away from God and the faith.
- Conflict: Live and Let Live is a political movement but some would also call it a pseudo-religion for people who have no higher power. Nothing in 3L identifies 3L as a religion or pseudo-religion. We would reject this assertion. A Christian can not be involved in any movement that takes the focus away from their faith or God. Nothing in 3L requires a person to take their focus away from their belief in God. Indeed, I suspect many Christians support 3L because they believe it is consistent with God’s laws. Could the same be said of the 2A movement? Many Christians argue the 2A comes from God. Secular gun owners would deny this. So what? Live and Let Live would do that and most Christians would look at Live and Let Live as work from the devil as there is no accountability for personal choices and morality. Christians in 3L may argue that God will eventually punish those who sin. It’s irrelevant to 3L.
To summarize, the key point here is that Christians are called to bring as many people to heaven as possible. Good! Persuade them, but don’t hit them over the head and aggress against them. Sometimes, trying to correct morally wrong actions can be viewed as an aggression (In 3L, we are very clear about what constitutes aggression; persuasion is not aggression) and will be met back with aggression. Whoever aggresses first is in the wrong. That is currently how the world works. Most problems arise from different viewpoints and people being overly passionate about their opinions. Live and Let Live removes human tendencies from the world. How so? We are simply saying when humans aggress, they are in the wrong. People are passionate about what they believe in and are naturally judgemental of people who do not share the same ideas or morals. So long as they don’t aggress, they act legally. Let’s encourage them to act as excellent humans in the process. When people are judged, they can feel aggressive towards the person judging which is why Live and Let Live offers an unrealistic approach to a world full of judgemental people. Whoever aggresses first is in the wrong. This is mostly the law in the US now. It is my belief that Christianity is the only way to world peace. Even if this is true, it does not contradict 3L. I note that this is also the claim of many different religions. Let’s avoid a war over who is right. All that being said, I can not be a part of this movement for the above reasons. If your goal is to spread Christianity via aggression against others, then 3L is indeed wrong for you. However, if you intend to spread Christianity without aggressing, then 3L is entirely consistent with your goal.