BibleForums Christian Message Board
Other Categories => Controversial Issues => Topic started by: RandyPNW on June 27, 2021, 01:15:48 AM
-
I do not know why Christians want to separate religion from the State? I understand why they may want to separate an official denomination from the State, lest one denomination use political power to control and abuse the others. But the idea that the State should be without a religion or any other religion than Christianity is besides me. It's as if Christians want to return to what they think is the ideal in the Early Church, when Christians were faced with persecution by the pagan Romans.
God's ideal for the State has always been Theism or Christianity. He showed this by giving Israel not just a State religion but very specific rules to live by. It's really no different in the NT era, because now God wants all nations to adopt the Christian religion, whether they choose to or not. There is no better religion for the State than Christianity, unless of course that Christianity is not really functioning as such.
I think many are concerned that Christianity, when it is mixed with the State, is purely nominal and functions in a purely perfunctory way. But that is pure cynicism. If the State can embrace the Christian religion as a State, then it certainly may be able to practice it in an effective way, if only temporarily and partially.
Many call us back to when Constantine began to tolerate the Christian religion within the Roman Empire. They say that sounded the death knell of Christianity, because then the State would begin to impose its pagan ways on the Christian religion, and Christian officials would become purely servants of a pagan State, abandoning their true Christianity.
But this was never true. After Rome tolerated and then embraced Christianity, many great Church Fathers emerged to help solidify Christian belief and doctrine, to enable it to survive for many centuries. Many charitable enterprises were allowed to flourish, even if there were imperfections in this mix between true Christianity and official Christianity.
Today, as Christianity slips into minority status within the Western states, I don't think we should harbor any illusions, though. We cannot try to impose the Christian religion on the state. But we can testify to the fact it *should be* the religion of all states. After all, we're preaching the Kingdom of God. He is the King of Kings, and will judge all states and all individuals, whether they accept it or not.
-
But we can testify to the fact it *should be* the religion of all states.
In the ideal, post-messianic world, perhaps. In the real world no religion looks good when it has political power. See the Crusades or the Inquisition as real life examples for why this is a bad idea.
-
The best laid plans do go astray. Remember that the principle of a dominating religion of general consensus is on display in the Jewish state, right? Many Muslim states exercise the same right. Since I'm a Christian, and believe intensely in that religion, I feel that I should advance that religion in a nation if 90% of the people believe that.
Don't worry, Fenris--that condition does not exist in the U.S. ;) And nobody is going to torture you to give up your beliefs now, nor in my ideal Christian State. I believe Christian politicians need to be separated from Christian church leaders. when church leaders take political power unto themselves, that's when problems occur.
-
But this was never true. After Rome tolerated and then embraced Christianity, many great Church Fathers emerged to help solidify Christian belief and doctrine, to enable it to survive for many centuries. Many charitable enterprises were allowed to flourish, even if there were imperfections in this mix between true Christianity and official Christianity.
Are you talking about the same bloody first four centuries that everyone else has in mind when thinking about Constantine, Nicaea, various heresies and how they were dealt with, Diocletian, the ECFs, etc.? These weren't exactly peaceful times and probably serves as the example for why separating religion and state is desired by so many.
That's to say nothing of the history of the church from the 5th century to now, or heck, even the recent abuses by the institutional church, the bad theology, its awful real-life consequences, etc. There's going to be no period in history where you could point at the Christian church qua state religion and bask in the glory that was that state's commitment to the teaching of Christ. Disagreement from the Danes notwithstanding.
Basically, your ideal is utopian until instituted by Christ himself. Until then, any human attempt to marry Christianity to the state will see the former corrupted by the latter. That's how it's been and always will be, and that's why I wouldn't even argue for it in theory.
-
Remember that the principle of a dominating religion of general consensus is on display in the Jewish state, right?
Israel is a "Jewish state" in that most of the country is ethnically Jewish. The government is a parliamentary democracy, not a theocracy.
Many Muslim states exercise the same right.
Many Muslim states do in fact use Shariah law as a basis for their government. They are not democracies and in fact treat their citizens (although "subjects" is a better word) quite badly.
Since I'm a Christian, and believe intensely in that religion, I feel that I should advance that religion in a nation if 90% of the people believe that.
And I believe that the United States is a culturally Christian country, albeit also a western democracy. This is a Good Thing.
And nobody is going to torture you to give up your beliefs now, nor in my ideal Christian State.
The "ideal state" that you're talking about doesn't exist and has never existed. It could only exist in a post-messianic world, with all of humanity unified under God's rule.
-
A Jewish state is a religious state, unless you define being "Jewish" in a strictly cultural, non-religious sense. I would suspect that being "Jewish" is used in both ways, both cultural and religious, depending on the individual.
And so, I would agree that Israel is not a theocracy, because cultural Judaism is being proposed, and not a strictly religious Judaism. But I don't believe that Israel was called to be a democracy by God. Rather, it was called, from the beginning, to be a theocracy. And this demonstrates the fact that Israel has not yet attained its future standing with God. I can only pray this happens one day.
Democracies can be Christian or not, Jewish or not--democracy itself is not necessarily separated from religion, although it can be. Ultimately, however, a philosophy or a religion will dominate, as a national consensus evolves. A majority position always evolves.
I agree that the perfect state does not yet exist, but I do believe to be perfect it must be a religious state, accepted and blessed by God. However, to promote the ideal state is not to expect the perfect state yet. The ideal should always be promoted, even though perfection cannot be achieved.
-
A Jewish state is a religious state
Israel is a parliamentary democracy.
And so, I would agree that Israel is not a theocracy, because cultural Judaism is being proposed, and not a strictly religious Judaism. But I don't believe that Israel was called to be a democracy by God. Rather, it was called, from the beginning, to be a theocracy. And this demonstrates the fact that Israel has not yet attained its future standing with God. I can only pray this happens one day.
It will, in the messianic era.
I agree that the perfect state does not yet exist, but I do believe to be perfect it must be a religious state, accepted and blessed by God.
Agree!
However, to promote the ideal state is not to expect the perfect state yet. The ideal should always be promoted, even though perfection cannot be achieved.
Disagree! Until humanity is perfected (in the messianic era) we should be careful to separate religion and politics. That doesn't mean we can't look to the bible for religious values, but we shouldn't even consider theocracy. Too many real life examples of that ending in catastrophe.
-
Too many real life examples of that ending in catastrophe.
i.e. all of them.
-
i.e. all of them.
Yeah, I was going to make exception but none exist. Even the most direct examples like the 40 years in the desert (Moses was a direct intermediary for God!) or Israel during king David and king Solomon's time (both kings who were also prophets and had other prophets to keep them on the straight path) showed that we're not ready for that just yet. Until humanity is willing to submit to God's rule, any attempt at theocracy is going to show just how fallen man can be.
-
A Jewish state is a religious state
Israel is a parliamentary democracy.
And so, I would agree that Israel is not a theocracy, because cultural Judaism is being proposed, and not a strictly religious Judaism. But I don't believe that Israel was called to be a democracy by God. Rather, it was called, from the beginning, to be a theocracy. And this demonstrates the fact that Israel has not yet attained its future standing with God. I can only pray this happens one day.
It will, in the messianic era.
I agree that the perfect state does not yet exist, but I do believe to be perfect it must be a religious state, accepted and blessed by God.
Agree!
However, to promote the ideal state is not to expect the perfect state yet. The ideal should always be promoted, even though perfection cannot be achieved.
Disagree! Until humanity is perfected (in the messianic era) we should be careful to separate religion and politics. That doesn't mean we can't look to the bible for religious values, but we shouldn't even consider theocracy. Too many real life examples of that ending in catastrophe.
Yes, I understand that when things go south, religiously, and religious States become tyrants, that it is best to separate your own religious views from the corrupt religious views of the State. But to then conclude that genuine religion should be separated from the corrupt religious State is to deny that corrupt religious State the answer to its own problems with corruption. Genuine religion is, in fact, the answer to the problem of religious corruption in the State.
It may be impractical to try to insert your own genuine religious views into a corrupt State, when the population supports that corruption. But in that case, it is still best to promote true religion in the State as the answer to its problems, even when people will not accept it as the answer to their problems.
The reason for this is simple. Some within the State will accept genuine religion. And when the time comes, following judgment, for restoration, those who have learned authentic religion will be able to rebuild the State properly, on a proper foundation.
-
Yes, I understand that when things go south, religiously, and religious States become tyrants, that it is best to separate your own religious views from the corrupt religious views of the State. But to then conclude that genuine religion should be separated from the corrupt religious State is to deny that corrupt religious State the answer to its own problems with corruption. Genuine religion is, in fact, the answer to the problem of religious corruption in the State.
It may be impractical to try to insert your own genuine religious views into a corrupt State, when the population supports that corruption. But in that case, it is still best to promote true religion in the State as the answer to its problems, even when people will not accept it as the answer to their problems.
The reason for this is simple. Some within the State will accept genuine religion. And when the time comes, following judgment, for restoration, those who have learned authentic religion will be able to rebuild the State properly, on a proper foundation.
You're idealising.
Consider David, a man after God's own heart, who, as king of Israel, slept with Uriah's wife and then murdered him. The problem is not that there isn't a sufficiently wonderful formulation of religion. The problem is us, the people who try and fail to live up to the ideals of said religion. Those failures aren't graceful either -- see David as the quick example. And even if we have a leader who lives closer to those ideals to anyone else, they'll still fail, and what happens when, not if, that leader's successors go completely in the opposite direction? And you're assuming that the population will go along with this rebuilding of the state on the 'proper foundation' of genuine religion.
On this side of the new creation, religion mixing with politics will never work.
-
It may be impractical to try to insert your own genuine religious views into a corrupt State, when the population supports that corruption. But in that case, it is still best to promote true religion in the State as the answer to its problems
It is best to promote true religious values to the state as the answer to the state's problems. Not the religion itself.
-
If Christianity is the official religion, which version of the Bible is the official Bible? KJV, NIV, NLT, NRSV, ASV? Are the deuterocanonical books of Catholicism recognized? What about the other books used by the Orthodox? Ethiopic? Must it be English? Hebrew? Greek? Latin? Syriac? Who even gets to define "Christianity" here? Mormons consider themselves Christians. JWs use the same set of books as other groups. A lot of Protestants say directly that Catholics and Orthodox aren't Christians at all. Are Black churches that teach Liberation Theology "Christians"? I know a lot of (white) Christians who insist they're not. What about Christian pluralism? Is it considered a heresy by the government? What about Christian anarchy? Is that considered sedition under this system? Will non-Christians be treated like second-class citizens? What penalties will there be for refusing to convert?
I am perpetually baffled by Christians who think the goal of their religion should be about seizing control of government and asserting authority over others, to enforce "Christians ideals." Power. Strength. Wealth. I see it as the utmost rejection of what Jesus actually taught.
The more Christianity tries to rule people, the more it loses its soul.
-
A Christian State has a right and a responsibility to rule, just as any other kind of State has the right to establish order, defend itself, and require compliance with the rules of society. Constantly, reference is made to the end of a Christian State, when it has failed, or when it is in the process of failing. You might as well cite evidence of a poor builder to show that houses cannot be built.
The many kinds of Christianity would be chosen by the individual State. That's why Scotland may want Presbyterianism, Switzerland Reform Theology, Germany and Scandinavia Lutheranism, and Italy and France Catholicism. Etc. etc.
Amazingly, most all of these Christian brands unite around the creeds, with some disputed peripheral points. So the conservative approach to the Christian religion is already pretty well established in history, and has been since the Early Church. Liberal Christians have no interest in the established definition of Christianity, but continue to modify their perception of what Christianity is or should be.
I raised a couple of stepsons who were very much against Christianity. I never required them to confess faith in a religion they didn't believe in. And though they wanted to practice things in our home that we did not agree with as Christians, we did not require them to denounce their beliefs and practices--we only required them to live in harmony with a house ruled by Christian laws.
What this meant was that they could not play their Satanic music or watch lewd TV. They were required to be respectful around Christian friends, though they were not. They failed early in their teens, but after becoming adults they learned they could stay in our home and be respectful towards our sense of a Christian home. Outside of the home they were on their own.
In the Christian State I imagine it would be much the same. People could have their own beliefs and practices, as long as they do not cause public outcry and public disorder by engaging in practices hostile to Christianity.
-
The many kinds of Christianity would be chosen by the individual State. That's why Scotland may want Presbyterianism, Switzerland Reform Theology, Germany and Scandinavia Lutheranism, and Italy and France Catholicism. Etc. etc.
And there have never ever never been wars between different Christian theological traditions, right? Ireland has never known such trouble, nor has England, or Great Britain, etc.? There definitely weren't any 16th-century wars of religion in France, and those first four centuries after the death of Christ were super peaceful, right? And there definitely wasn't any unrest leading up to these periods, either.
You can pontificate this idealised reality until you're blue in the face but it just doesn't work, and history has bodies piled miles wide and miles high to attest to what actually happens when people attempt states founded on religious principles.
Except for 19th century Denmark and its perfectly Hegelian Christian state.
Amazingly, most all of these Christian brands unite around the creeds, with some disputed peripheral points. So the conservative approach to the Christian religion is already pretty well established in history, and has been since the Early Church.
On an alternative version of earth, maybe.
Liberal Christians have no interest in the established definition of Christianity, but continue to modify their perception of what Christianity is or should be.
There aren't any true Scotsman, either.
I raised a couple of stepsons who were very much against Christianity. I never required them to confess faith in a religion they didn't believe in. And though they wanted to practice things in our home that we did not agree with as Christians, we did not require them to denounce their beliefs and practices--we only required them to live in harmony with a house ruled by Christian laws.
How do you think a state enforces those laws, particularly around morality? It isn't going to be mere loving exile. In times past I'd be killed, or castrated, or sterilised, or lobotomized, or committed to a mental hospital, tortured in an attempt to cure me, etc. etc. etc. So-called Christian ideals lay at the foundation of these insanely anti-Christ practices.
What this meant was that they could not play their Satanic music or watch lewd TV. They were required to be respectful around Christian friends, though they were not. They failed early in their teens, but after becoming adults they learned they could stay in our home and be respectful towards our sense of a Christian home. Outside of the home they were on their own.
So they learned to be one kind of person in front of you, and themselves everywhere else.
In the Christian State I imagine it would be much the same. People could have their own beliefs and practices, as long as they do not cause public outcry and public disorder by engaging in practices hostile to Christianity.
We wouldn't want Socrates corrupting the youth, either. But what if those people did cause public disorder? Would we ban them from social media, and form mobs to get them fired from their jobs, and refuse to forgive them unless they repent, and impose a view of the world that couldn't be debated with, etc. etc.
Any similarity to our current social milieu is purely intentional given its highly religious character.
-
A Christian State has a right and a responsibility to rule,
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. Mark 12:17
The many kinds of Christianity would be chosen by the individual State. That's why Scotland may want Presbyterianism, Switzerland Reform Theology, Germany and Scandinavia Lutheranism, and Italy and France Catholicism. Etc. etc.
None of these states are theologies. They're all some form of parliamentary democracy, which have guiding ethics and morals that come form the bible. That is exactly what I think a modern state should be like.
In the Christian State I imagine it would be much the same. People could have their own beliefs and practices, as long as they do not cause public outcry and public disorder by engaging in practices hostile to Christianity.
So, goodbye First Amendment in your dream state, eh? No personal freedom or individual liberty. Everyone has to respect the majority belief and keep their heads down. This sounds remarkably like the form of Shariah practiced throughout history in many Islamic countries, which were theocracies. And it's not a good look at all. Politics and religion never go well together, my friend.
-
Except for 19th century Denmark and its perfectly Hegelian Christian state.
Go Denmark! ;D
-
A Christian State has a right and a responsibility to rule,
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. Mark 12:17
The many kinds of Christianity would be chosen by the individual State. That's why Scotland may want Presbyterianism, Switzerland Reform Theology, Germany and Scandinavia Lutheranism, and Italy and France Catholicism. Etc. etc.
None of these states are theologies. They're all some form of parliamentary democracy, which have guiding ethics and morals that come form the bible. That is exactly what I think a modern state should be like.
In the Christian State I imagine it would be much the same. People could have their own beliefs and practices, as long as they do not cause public outcry and public disorder by engaging in practices hostile to Christianity.
So, goodbye First Amendment in your dream state, eh? No personal freedom or individual liberty. Everyone has to respect the majority belief and keep their heads down. This sounds remarkably like the form of Shariah practiced throughout history in many Islamic countries, which were theocracies. And it's not a good look at all. Politics and religion never go well together, my friend.
Islam and Christian are 2 very different religions. And either one can be corrupt, or more moderate. However, I believe Christianity to be true whereas Islam is more of an ethnic religion, jaded by its ethnic attraction to personal tradition. Christianity is all about the cross, yielding up your personal desires for the truth of God.
In every state some personal freedoms must be given up. We give up personal freedoms when we get married. If we hope to get along with our compatriots at work, we must give up some "personal rights."
We cannot say to God, "I have the right to voice my own opinion." God may give you that freedom, but He doesn't have to say it's okay under all circumstances.
He certainly told Israel they, as a nation, did not have the right to praise other gods. Right? Or, do you denounce your own religion as ethnocentric and barbaric, denying "personal freedoms?"
Typically, Christian nations have tolerated a certain amount of non-Christian expression, in order to allow for an honest debate over religious truth. I'm not for persecuting people who are not pursuing sedition in a Christian state, but only trying to discuss the merits of a religious argument.
-
Islam and Christian are 2 very different religions. And either one can be corrupt, or more moderate. However, I believe Christianity to be true whereas Islam is more of an ethnic religion, jaded by its ethnic attraction to personal tradition. Christianity is all about the cross, yielding up your personal desires for the truth of God.
You know, Christians in theocratic type states have behaved every bit as badly as Muslims in those situations. Ever hear of the Spanish Inquisition? Or the Crusades? It's not a knock on Christians, it's an observation that man is a fallen creature and power corrupts. That's why I ascribe to a smaller government model.
In every state some personal freedoms must be given up. We give up personal freedoms when we get married. If we hope to get along with our compatriots at work, we must give up some "personal rights."
Hold on now. Those are voluntary relationships. When the government makes rules they're backed by the full might of the state. By the point of a gun. That you're ok with the government enforcing some sort of subservience to Christians means you're ok with this country not being free anymore.
We cannot say to God, "I have the right to voice my own opinion." God may give you that freedom, but He doesn't have to say it's okay under all circumstances.
I'm not saying it to God. I'm saying it to you. Or are you or our elected officials now in God's stead? I have the right as a free individual in a free state to denounce anyone I wish, up to and including God.
He certainly told Israel they, as a nation, did not have the right to praise other gods. Right? Or, do you denounce your own religion as ethnocentric and barbaric, denying "personal freedoms?"
National Israel during the time of the bible was theocratic state, as I've already mentioned. And it didn't work out so well, as I've also mentioned. So in your theocratic states of America one wouldn't be free to be proud of being Jewish, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or an atheist? They'd have to toe your line or what? Face jail? Because that wouldn't be America anymore.
Typically, Christian nations have tolerated a certain amount of non-Christian expression, in order to allow for an honest debate over religious truth. I'm not for persecuting people who are not pursuing sedition in a Christian state, but only trying to discuss the merits of a religious argument.
So now practicing any religion besides Christianity and defending that practice is sedition? Things got totalitarian in hurry.
-
Islam and Christian are 2 very different religions. And either one can be corrupt, or more moderate. However, I believe Christianity to be true whereas Islam is more of an ethnic religion, jaded by its ethnic attraction to personal tradition. Christianity is all about the cross, yielding up your personal desires for the truth of God.
Have you considered that you aren't being intellectually honest about this discussion? In the early centuries, it would have been incredibly easy to brand Christianity an 'ethnic religion' - or a cult for that matter - and it's certainly not the case that there are no Christian traditions or practices that aren't, uh, ethnically attractive (Eastern Orthodox much? African instantiations of Christianity)?
Besides, pick any religion and you'll find equivalents to "X is all about Y", or analogies to "[yield] up your personal desires for the truth [of God]". I don't think you're giving due respect to these other religions or, maybe, philosophies of life. You and I may not be convinced by them and find them to be false, but other people don't find them compelling for no reason at all (even when we consider the tendency of Islamic believers to kill so-called apostates or force Islam by the threat of force). They are mostly well thought out, rigorous, and not without wisdom that is useful.
In every state some personal freedoms must be given up. We give up personal freedoms when we get married. If we hope to get along with our compatriots at work, we must give up some "personal rights."
I'm not following how this is analogous to state-enforced religion? I didn't mention Socrates for no reason. If I find myself at birth to be in some State whose laws is enforced by some religion, then that's not the same kind of relationship as a marriage or role as an employee.
We cannot say to God, "I have the right to voice my own opinion." God may give you that freedom, but He doesn't have to say it's okay under all circumstances.
Why not? I mean, God's willing and capable of putting us in our places, but doesn't there have to be some kind of exchange to get to that point? God wants a relationship, doesn't He? There are plenty of examples in the 'OT' of people being quite frank with God, and God in return.
What do you call a relationship where one person gets to hear everything they want to hear, and the other person gets to say everything their partner wants them to say (or do)?
He certainly told Israel they, as a nation, did not have the right to praise other gods. Right? Or, do you denounce your own religion as ethnocentric and barbaric, denying "personal freedoms?"
God never told Israel that they did not have the right to be wrong. There were consequences for idolatry of course (and there are good arguments to be made for the moral and societal decline of Israel as a nation-state vis-a-vis this idolatry and not just because of divine interventions), but what are you saying with this? You probably don't intend it, but you're outlining how to form a society that forces everything underground. It makes for a fake society.
If you're in the West then you're living in the beginnings of such a societal upheaval. You don't really want this.
Typically, Christian nations have tolerated a certain amount of non-Christian expression, in order to allow for an honest debate over religious truth. I'm not for persecuting people who are not pursuing sedition in a Christian state, but only trying to discuss the merits of a religious argument.
Here's the problem, and it's the same problem the far Left have today: if you're convinced of a truth, you can't make room for honest debate because the conclusion is already known. What does the state do if the debate doesn't end as it wants? You used a good word: sedition. In such a state as you're describing, these 'honest debates' will quickly fall aside in favour of propaganda and attempts to silence dissenting opinions.
It seems you're thinking too much about the theory and not enough about the reality.
-
Here's the problem, and it's the same problem the far Left have today: if you're convinced of a truth, you can't make room for honest debate because the conclusion is already known. What does the state do if the debate doesn't end as it wants? You used a good word: sedition.
So much this.
The Catholic church arranged "disputations" between Jews are Christians in the middle ages. But the outcome was decided before the first word was said. The Jews were prohibited from saying anything that the "moderators" (i.e. church officials) found objectionable, and the threat of violence against the entire Jewish community hung over the proceedings. And afterwards, even though the church deemed that "they won", there was still violence against the Jews and the burning of Jewish holy books. All in the name of the "quest for Truth" or somesuch.
-
Have you considered that you aren't being intellectually honest about this discussion? In the early centuries, it would have been incredibly easy to brand Christianity an 'ethnic religion' - or a cult for that matter - and it's certainly not the case that there are no Christian traditions or practices that aren't, uh, ethnically attractive (Eastern Orthodox much? African instantiations of Christianity)?
You're talking about human shortcomings, and I'm talking about the nature of the religion--its theology. Christianity is not ethnically biased--other religions tend to be that--I cited Islam. The same holds true for Judaism, in some respects.
I suppose it could be argued that both Islam and Judaism accept converts from other ethnicities, and that would be true. But I find both those religions to be steeped in a kind of sectarianism, whereas Christian theology, though guilty of the same, has a theology that is not sectarian.
It is exclusive, but not sectarian. That is, Christianity defines itself as the only way of Salvation, but does not favor any particular race or tribe. I find that Judaism favors cultural Jews. And I find that Islam favors Arabs and Iranians.
Besides, pick any religion and you'll find equivalents to "X is all about Y", or analogies to "[yield] up your personal desires for the truth [of God]". I don't think you're giving due respect to these other religions or, maybe, philosophies of life. You and I may not be convinced by them and find them to be false, but other people don't find them compelling for no reason at all (even when we consider the tendency of Islamic believers to kill so-called apostates or force Islam by the threat of force). They are mostly well thought out, rigorous, and not without wisdom that is useful.
Again, I'm talking about the truth of Christianity--not about whether some truth may reside in other religions.
I'm not following how this is analogous to state-enforced religion? I didn't mention Socrates for no reason. If I find myself at birth to be in some State whose laws is enforced by some religion, then that's not the same kind of relationship as a marriage or role as an employee.
Giving up rights for order in the State is in fact analogous to giving up your individual liberties to make for a happy marriage. Not all in a Christian State may like Christian paraphernalia. But those who disagree with it can put up with it for the sake of order, rather than demand their right to have a gay parade down Main St. to challenge Christian morality.
I would ban gay parades in my Christian State. Not only is the gay lifestyle immoral, but to let others express their own personal beliefs publicly in a Christian state amounts to a challenge to the consensus morality. It is, in fact, a form of sedition in a Christian State where the vast majority consider gay behavior immoral. I could add to homosexuality bestiality and other forms of perversion.
What do you call a relationship where one person gets to hear everything they want to hear, and the other person gets to say everything their partner wants them to say (or do)?
God has things like tolerance, forgiveness, and long-suffering for a flawed society. But He will not advocate for rebellion against Himself. If the nation largely knows Him and His moral values, then they *should* promote morality, and not be ambiguous about it.
God never told Israel that they did not have the right to be wrong.
This is just flat out false! God never said it was okay to sin. He accepted that we have a sin nature, and require patience, tolerance, and 2nd chances.
Here's the problem, and it's the same problem the far Left have today: if you're convinced of a truth, you can't make room for honest debate because the conclusion is already known. What does the state do if the debate doesn't end as it wants? You used a good word: sedition. In such a state as you're describing, these 'honest debates' will quickly fall aside in favour of propaganda and attempts to silence dissenting opinions.
Not at all. Moral truth can easily reach a consensus in a Christian State. Again, if you're going to talk about *failed* Christian States, or Christian States in the state of decline, then you're not talking about whether they can work or not.
I've not said they're perfect, nor have I said that there is no patience, tolerance, or forgiveness. On the contrary.
But once a consensus is formed that certain forms of immorality and religious values are not to be tolerated, then it really isn't up for debate between a 90% majority and the 10% who want to do any despicable act they want.
-
You're talking about human shortcomings, and I'm talking about the nature of the religion--its theology. Christianity is not ethnically biased--other religions tend to be that--I cited Islam. The same holds true for Judaism, in some respects.
The same theology that is developed by those same humans who have shortcomings? There's no clean distinction between 'human shortcomings' and 'theology' given that the latter comes largely from the minds of the former. Even the most explicit revelation is received by human minds, with all their shortcomings.
I still don't know why we wouldn't also consider Christianity to be 'ethnically biased' depending on the circumstance and context. It's an odd claim.
I suppose it could be argued that both Islam and Judaism accept converts from other ethnicities, and that would be true. But I find both those religions to be steeped in a kind of sectarianism, whereas Christian theology, though guilty of the same, has a theology that is not sectarian.
I don't know, that sounds like special pleading to me. You may not like it, but the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, as two examples, are plenty sectarian and would broadly qualify as 'Christian'. That's assuming no one argues that a denomination is functionally a sect, or that some sects aren't cults, etc.
It is exclusive, but not sectarian. That is, Christianity defines itself as the only way of Salvation, but does not favor any particular race or tribe. I find that Judaism favors cultural Jews. And I find that Islam favors Arabs and Iranians.
Are these things favoured, or are these things the happenstance of where the majority of believers are? What of those Western Christians who find it odd that there are Middle Eastern Christians because of some prejudice that all Arabs and Muslim? You seem to be arguing for clear distinctions where there are none.
Again, I'm talking about the truth of Christianity--not about whether some truth may reside in other religions.
My point is that believers in other religions or philosophies of life would say similar things to what you're saying about Christianity. You and I may be convinced of the truth of Christianity, but that doesn't mean everyone else finds Christian claims compelling, just as we don't find the claims of other religions to be compelling.
Giving up rights for order in the State is in fact analogous to giving up your individual liberties to make for a happy marriage. Not all in a Christian State may like Christian paraphernalia. But those who disagree with it can put up with it for the sake of order, rather than demand their right to have a gay parade down Main St. to challenge Christian morality.
That wasn't my point. I was asking about people who find themselves in a given state by way of birth (for example), i.e., without having entered into an explicit agreement with the state. I don't know why you're talking about gay pride parades.
I would ban gay parades in my Christian State. Not only is the gay lifestyle immoral, but to let others express their own personal beliefs publicly in a Christian state amounts to a challenge to the consensus morality. It is, in fact, a form of sedition in a Christian State where the vast majority consider gay behavior immoral. I could add to homosexuality bestiality and other forms of perversion.
Congrats, you've invented China or North Korea.
You can ban these things, but that only means you drive those things underground. I mean I wonder, how far should the state go to protect the population from itself?
God has things like tolerance, forgiveness, and long-suffering for a flawed society. But He will not advocate for rebellion against Himself. If the nation largely knows Him and His moral values, then they *should* promote morality, and not be ambiguous about it.
God hasn't mandated modern religious or theocratic states. As I was saying earlier, you're not accounting for the populus. If you want what you're outlining you'll need a state leadership that is brutal in its operation.
This is just flat out false! God never said it was okay to sin. He accepted that we have a sin nature, and require patience, tolerance, and 2nd chances.
I didn't claim that God said it was okay to sin. In any society, people must have the right to be wrong (not least in part because you want to foster debate, right?). This doesn't mean there aren't consequences for being wrong. You don't forgive people for being right, do you?
Not at all. Moral truth can easily reach a consensus in a Christian State. Again, if you're going to talk about *failed* Christian States, or Christian States in the state of decline, then you're not talking about whether they can work or not.
That doesn't at all address what I wrote. And do you really think you know better than all those people in history who attempted religious states, that you have a philosophy and outlook that could do better? You're dreaming, like all those Communists who keep asking for one more attempt to get it right, and this time the fields won't be filled with bodies, really! (And wouldn't you know, their latest Western experiment is going terribly from the start -- what's the difference between the 1% and Ukranian farmers? All we need are some drunk Russians to bring the two together.)
There's a reason these kinds of states go the same way every time, and you're not being intellectually honest if you think you would do better.
I've not said they're perfect, nor have I said that there is no patience, tolerance, or forgiveness. On the contrary.
But once a consensus is formed that certain forms of immorality and religious values are not to be tolerated, then it really isn't up for debate between a 90% majority and the 10% who want to do any despicable act they want.
You're begging the question by referring to that 10% as doing 'despicable [acts]'. What if they're only disagreeing with the consensus? What if the consensus is actually wrong? Are morality and moral values decided by majority vote? And so on, and so on.
I don't know, it just seems like you're arguing for this thing you haven't thought about nearly as deeply as you think you have.
-
The same theology that is developed by those same humans who have shortcomings? There's no clean distinction between 'human shortcomings' and 'theology' given that the latter comes largely from the minds of the former. Even the most explicit revelation is received by human minds, with all their shortcomings.
Revelation from God comes pure from God to the flawed minds of sinful men, it's true. But that's how the Scriptures were written, and still, doctrinal orthodoxy prevailed, to a large extent, in the creeds.
We aren't going to get 100% agreement, but that isn't my point. My point is that in Christianity a theology exists revealed from God that we can rely on, despite our flaws.
I still don't know why we wouldn't also consider Christianity to be 'ethnically biased' depending on the circumstance and context. It's an odd claim.
Christian Theology explicitly forbids ethnic discrimination, and the outworking of its missionary work is evidence of that. Though other major religions are propagated in a variety of ethnic groups, the outworking of that theology results in an ethnic "superiority."
Christianity, in its flaws, has had the same thing happen. For example, some failed "Christians" have pursued, for example, European dominance, such as colonialism. But this does not reflect true Christian Theology, nor is it the practical outworking of Christian Evangelism.
We see in Islam, for example, the advance of the religion itself through wars, by conquest. Judaism, on the other hand, attempted to purge itself of anybody in its orbit of beliefs that included non-Jews. And Christianity, although it would purge itself of those outside of its own theological orbit, was not left with a primary racial group, as Judaism did.
I don't know, that sounds like special pleading to me. You may not like it, but the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, as two examples, are plenty sectarian and would broadly qualify as 'Christian'. That's assuming no one argues that a denomination is functionally a sect, or that some sects aren't cults, etc.
These American cults do not qualify as representative of genuine Christian Theology.
Are these things favoured, or are these things the happenstance of where the majority of believers are? What of those Western Christians who find it odd that there are Middle Eastern Christians because of some prejudice that all Arabs and Muslim? You seem to be arguing for clear distinctions where there are none.
Yes, the practical outworking of the spread of a particular religion is evidence of how impartial it really is, with respect to racial groups. If the particular religion favors its original racial base, this is evidence that the religion is itself biased and favoring its own.
That's why I point out that the outworking of Islam ends up favoring its own Middle East positions, and Judaism ends up favoring its own racial group. By contrast, Christianity, in its flaws, has supported its own European base. But it has also demonstrate great diversification in its evangelical growth. Christianity is literally world-wide and does not show partiality towards Europe in this.
My point is that believers in other religions or philosophies of life would say similar things to what you're saying about Christianity. You and I may be convinced of the truth of Christianity, but that doesn't mean everyone else finds Christian claims compelling, just as we don't find the claims of other religions to be compelling.
That goes without saying.
That wasn't my point. I was asking about people who find themselves in a given state by way of birth (for example), i.e., without having entered into an explicit agreement with the state. I don't know why you're talking about gay pride parades.
I speak of gay parades because it is an example in which a Christian State may forbid what some consider to be "free speech" and "free assembly." This speech, in the context of a Christian State, is seditious and provocative, and is the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Congrats, you've invented China or North Korea.
Congrats, you've compromised Christianity, and let Baal sit proudly next to a statue of Christ. You've made Christianity into an enabler of immorality. You've turned the commandment, "you shall have no other gods," to "God made a mistake in the modern world--He is very tolerant of other religious expressions."
Worse, you claim it is impossible for a nation to embrace Christianity as a religious value system for an entire people, preferring that everybody "do their own thing." It pours cold water on the idea that anybody can collectively do good together, or find common ground on Christian morality.
You can ban these things, but that only means you drive those things underground. I mean I wonder, how far should the state go to protect the population from itself?
I agree that this happens when the nation is no longer majority Christian, and the consensus is for paganism or for freedom for paganism. But I speak of the *message,* and not about when it can't work in the practical sense.
You might ask, "Why then preach a Gospel that can't work today?" And I would say that the Gospel message was preached when pagan Rome wasn't receptive to it, and still, the Empire ultimately capitulated to Christian moral truth.
I didn't claim that God said it was okay to sin. In any society, people must have the right to be wrong (not least in part because you want to foster debate, right?). This doesn't mean there aren't consequences for being wrong. You don't forgive people for being right, do you?
There is a difference between forgiving breaches or failures and creating a policy that allows certain bad behaviors to be legally acceptable. You are giving de facto acceptance to religious or pagan behaviors that from a Christian perspective are wrong. They wouldn't care about your "forgiveness" if what they do is seen to be embraced by the general public.
That doesn't at all address what I wrote. And do you really think you know better than all those people in history who attempted religious states, that you have a philosophy and outlook that could do better?
I'm actually in agreement with those who created, successfully, Christian States. Apparently you don't like that we had a Christian Empire and Christian nation-states. If history had gone your way, what kind of England or America would we have had?
Former Christians States, since the Enlightenment, however, have gone your way--completely tolerant of paganism, and have changed their policies to embrace non-Christian religions. At the same time this went on the Western World entered into an age of revolution. The historic churches became archaic, and irrelevant, and the nations themselves became rife with corruption.
I do admit, however, that the problem seemed to begin, not so much, with tolerance of paganism within the historic Church. Rather, the Church became void of spirituality and had begun to build a monument to itself, becoming every bit the kind of political state you detest. I wouldn't disagree with that notion, which involves a *failed* Christian State!
You're begging the question by referring to that 10% as doing 'despicable [acts]'. What if they're only disagreeing with the consensus? What if the consensus is actually wrong? Are morality and moral values decided by majority vote? And so on, and so on.
No, moral values are decided by Christian revelation, when the Church is actually spiritually alive and cooperating with God. When the Church becomes a failed and spiritually-empty entity, then it does not represent a workable religion for the State.
Beliefs are private, but what people do, with respect to an establish religious morality, is what matters. Law prohibits certain behaviors that the general public considers wrong.
So no, this isn't just allowing differences of opinion. This is about the public recognizing what is wrong, when they see an example of true Christianity at work, and the society embraces the truth of that position.
I don't know, it just seems like you're arguing for this thing you haven't thought about nearly as deeply as you think you have.
Actually, I think you're more the product of your times, and have not adequately considered how well Christian nations have operated in the past. We're in a free fall now, and you're just giving it more space to operate.
-
Revelation from God comes pure from God to the flawed minds of sinful men, it's true. But that's how the Scriptures were written, and still, doctrinal orthodoxy prevailed, to a large extent, in the creeds.
We aren't going to get 100% agreement, but that isn't my point. My point is that in Christianity a theology exists revealed from God that we can rely on, despite our flaws.
On the broader ideas you've been conveying about running a religiously informed nation-state, 100% agreement is what you need, especially if you're going to be enforcing morality.
But, getting back to the order of things...
Okay, but how does this in any way relate back to your original point about the ethnic attractiveness or qualities of a given religion? I agree with you that we're able to come to an accurate understanding of theology, but it feels like you're acknowledging this, then setting it aside when it becomes inconvenient. Islam is an 'ethnic religion' but Christianity is true! I don't know how these two ideas are even equivalent. Are 'ethnic religions' false? If so, then what about Judaism 4,000 years ago, and if not, then what's the point of mentioning the supposed ethnic characteristics of a religion at all?
Christian Theology explicitly forbids ethnic discrimination, and the outworking of its missionary work is evidence of that. Though other major religions are propagated in a variety of ethnic groups, the outworking of that theology results in an ethnic "superiority."
Your understanding of Christian theology may forbid it, but that's certainly not been the historical reality in North or South America, Australia, or any place that at some point in the past became known to Western powers.
I think immediately of the ethnic cleansing that took place in Canada against her indigenous populations, and largely at the hands of the Catholic church in partnership with the state, although it must be pointed out that Protestants stood by and let it happen (in case one is tempted to shoo away Catholicism as conveniently 'not really Christian').
Christianity, in its flaws, has had the same thing happen. For example, some failed "Christians" have pursued, for example, European dominance, such as colonialism. But this does not reflect true Christian Theology, nor is it the practical outworking of Christian Evangelism.
See how convenient it is to label those Christians who are perceived to have failed as "failed 'Christians'", calling into question whether they were Christian at all? Well listen, what sort of Christian do you think you would have been if you were alive then and not now, with your modern sensibilities?
Christian theology in the abstract is great, but it doesn't survive the day-to-day reality. And even then, your abstract theological ideas are not going to be universally shared throughout history. It's too convenient to write the people of the past off as not really Christian, or not really following Christian Evangelism, etc. I agree that there were plenty of people who weren't, but if you want to have a Christian state then you have to accept the example of past attempts to create such a state. Do you really think the people who tried them set about to be corrupt moral failures? Absolutely not.
We see in Islam, for example, the advance of the religion itself through wars, by conquest. Judaism, on the other hand, attempted to purge itself of anybody in its orbit of beliefs that included non-Jews. And Christianity, although it would purge itself of those outside of its own theological orbit, was not left with a primary racial group, as Judaism did.
Again, this is convenient language. Let's accept that Islam spreads through war and conquest. Well then, what about Israel in the OT? God used them as a military power to annihilate people groups, like the Amalekites (although they failed to do that). 'Attempted to purge itself' is a nice way of writing that OT Judaism was a bloody religion. Let's at least be honest about these comparisons.
And yeah, Christianity doesn't have one central 'ethnic group', but that's not the point I'm making. The point is that Christianity is contextually 'ethnically biased' all the same.
These American cults do not qualify as representative of genuine Christian Theology.
Convenient. I wonder what the Sunni and Shia would say about each other? Probably something similar. You can't just ignore every counter-example because the example isn't deemed to be genuine by your estimation. They're sects, or they're cults, but they're analogous and it's disingenuous to toss them aside.
Yes, the practical outworking of the spread of a particular religion is evidence of how impartial it really is, with respect to racial groups. If the particular religion favors its original racial base, this is evidence that the religion is itself biased and favoring its own.
Mhmm. And of Western Christians favouring themselves and devaluing those in the Middle East because they're assumed to be Islamic, backwards, non-Christian, etc.? Or is this yet another example of 'Christians' who aren't genuine? If so, it's funny how there are so many examples of these kinds of 'Christians'.
That's why I point out that the outworking of Islam ends up favoring its own Middle East positions, and Judaism ends up favoring its own racial group. By contrast, Christianity, in its flaws, has supported its own European base. But it has also demonstrate great diversification in its evangelical growth. Christianity is literally world-wide and does not show partiality towards Europe in this.
I don't think you're taking in what I'm saying. See above.
That goes without saying.
But it's a problem for your idea of a religiously informed state.
I speak of gay parades because it is an example in which a Christian State may forbid what some consider to be "free speech" and "free assembly." This speech, in the context of a Christian State, is seditious and provocative, and is the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater.
I ask because you could have used atheism as an example or the promotion of different theological or religious beliefs. Instead, you went for gay pride parades (I don't see how you're connecting this to shouting fire in a crowded theatre, but the propagandists will love it!)
The thinking that informs this kind of state is the thinking we find historically, and has led to the situation we're in now where LGBT+ people think the church hates them, and is able to point to historical example after historical example of why they think that's the case.
Congrats, you've compromised Christianity, and let Baal sit proudly next to a statue of Christ. You've made Christianity into an enabler of immorality. You've turned the commandment, "you shall have no other gods," to "God made a mistake in the modern world--He is very tolerant of other religious expressions."
That's an odd reply. I'm sure you're aware of all the talk from China and North Korea regarding morality, maintaining social values, unity to prevent corruption, and so on. That's exactly the kind of state you would need if, as you wrote, you're going to consider X, Y, and Z (anything perceived to be immoral) sedition.
This notion that not enforcing moral values will make Christianity into an 'enabler of immortality', or compromise Christianity, or lead to the erection of Ba'al statues (in keeping with the gay pride example, Ishtar seems relevant) is of course ludicrous. But again, it's exactly what the religious propagandists of your ideal state would say about dissenters.
Worse, you claim it is impossible for a nation to embrace Christianity as a religious value system for an entire people, preferring that everybody "do their own thing." It pours cold water on the idea that anybody can collectively do good together, or find common ground on Christian morality.
You'll have to quote me on that because I haven't.
I agree that this happens when the nation is no longer majority Christian, and the consensus is for paganism or for freedom for paganism. But I speak of the *message,* and not about when it can't work in the practical sense.
The point is that it was never majority Christian, just a majority where it mattered (at the top). But no, it's not just about the message, especially when you're writing in terms of sedition.
You might ask, "Why then preach a Gospel that can't work today?" And I would say that the Gospel message was preached when pagan Rome wasn't receptive to it, and still, the Empire ultimately capitulated to Christian moral truth.
I wouldn't ask that.
There is a difference between forgiving breaches or failures and creating a policy that allows certain bad behaviors to be legally acceptable. You are giving de facto acceptance to religious or pagan behaviors that from a Christian perspective are wrong. They wouldn't care about your "forgiveness" if what they do is seen to be embraced by the general public.
I am, because a religious state that doesn't give people the right to be wrong is a terrible idea on top of a terrible idea.
I'm actually in agreement with those who created, successfully, Christian States. Apparently you don't like that we had a Christian Empire and Christian nation-states. If history had gone your way, what kind of England or America would we have had?
What Christian empire and Christian nation-states were those?
Former Christians States, since the Enlightenment, however, have gone your way--completely tolerant of paganism, and have changed their policies to embrace non-Christian religions. At the same time this went on the Western World entered into an age of revolution. The historic churches became archaic, and irrelevant, and the nations themselves became rife with corruption.
I do admit, however, that the problem seemed to begin, not so much, with tolerance of paganism within the historic Church. Rather, the Church became void of spirituality and had begun to build a monument to itself, becoming every bit the kind of political state you detest. I wouldn't disagree with that notion, which involves a *failed* Christian State!
Yes yes, and if only we gave Communism one more chance!
No, moral values are decided by Christian revelation, when the Church is actually spiritually alive and cooperating with God. When the Church becomes a failed and spiritually-empty entity, then it does not represent a workable religion for the State.
Beliefs are private, but what people do, with respect to an establish religious morality, is what matters. Law prohibits certain behaviors that the general public considers wrong.
So no, this isn't just allowing differences of opinion. This is about the public recognizing what is wrong, when they see an example of true Christianity at work, and the society embraces the truth of that position.
So either an ideal that will never be realised this side of the new creation or a totalitarian state draped in religious clothing? Just imagine if the state fails and doesn't realise it, but keeps mandating moral values.
Actually, I think you're more the product of your times, and have not adequately considered how well Christian nations have operated in the past. We're in a free fall now, and you're just giving it more space to operate.
Yep, the person making constant reference to historical examples (with particulars) hasn't adequately considered past Christian nations. I'll be interested to read what examples you have in mind.
Other than 19th century Denmark, of course.
-
What Christian empire and Christian nation-states were those?
Yep, the person making constant reference to historical examples (with particulars) hasn't adequately considered past Christian nations. I'll be interested to read what examples you have in mind.
OP's lack of citations -- and refusal to produce any when asked -- seems to be par for the course, so far.
When nearly every existing example shows how bad a theocracy is in practice, there really aren't any citations to be provided. So everything is reduced to abstract hypotheticals that don't just have zero grounding in reality, but have to constantly excuse reality as not being the "real" version of the thing in question.
-
When nearly every existing example shows how bad a theocracy is in practice, there really aren't any citations to be provided. So everything is reduced to abstract hypotheticals that don't just have zero grounding in reality, but have to constantly excuse reality as not being the "real" version of the thing in question.
Exactly. Abstractions are all that can be had, because any real-life example is deemed to be failed, or not genuine, or not really Christian, and so on. Lots of things sound great on paper and are ideal in theory, but it's not possible to translate that to real life -- at least, we mere humans can't. Not now, anyway. We get in the way, even the best and most well-intentioned of us.
-
By the way, I feel compelled to point out that one way in which Protestantism is far superior to Catholicism is in that it never had any political power in the way that the Catholic Church did, and so avoided the worst abuses. The Catholics started Crusades and carried out Inquisitions and played kingmaker to royalty based on personal loyalty to the Pope. That we're on a Protestant board debating copying the political practices of Catholicism is kind of sad, in my opinion.
-
And while I'm on that theme, I'd like to talk about the founding fathers. Their greatness lay in the fact that they understood humanity all too well. They saw human failing and weakness. And so they did something marvelous, they created something new in this world: limited government. They actually enumerated what powers government would have and specifically spelled out things that government would not be permitted to do. Things like freedom of speech and freedom to practice religion, as stated in the First Amendment. And this whole idea of limiting government's power over its citizens is what makes America great.
-
On the broader ideas you've been conveying about running a religiously informed nation-state, 100% agreement is what you need, especially if you're going to be enforcing morality.
Not at all. In the US, prior to the 70s, laws were enforced against homosexual behavior without the support of gay people.
Are 'ethnic religions' false? If so, then what about Judaism 4,000 years ago, and if not, then what's the point of mentioning the supposed ethnic characteristics of a religion at all?
It is universally true, to the conscience of Man, that ethnic equality exists naturally, and that divisions are based on necessity due to sectarian corruptions.
See how convenient it is to label those Christians who are perceived to have failed as "failed 'Christians'", calling into question whether they were Christian at all? Well listen, what sort of Christian do you think you would have been if you were alive then and not now, with your modern sensibilities?
We are talking about the truth of a particular religion, and not about the prevalence of sin in all religions. Again, examples of failed Christianity do not confuse the clarity of Christian truths and do not cloud the genuine examples of Christian charity. Christianity stands apart from other religions, both in theological relevance and in demonstration of its power to be righteous before God.
Let's at least be honest about these comparisons.
Do you "honestly" think honesty is about agreeing with your conditions for agreement?
I don't think you're taking in what I'm saying. See above.
I understand perfectly well what you're saying. Not much to respond to. I've said my bit--you just deny it by bringing up examples of failed Christianity, and then claiming that is "dishonest" or "disingenuous."
The thinking that informs this kind of state is the thinking we find historically, and has led to the situation we're in now where LGBT+ people think the church hates them, and is able to point to historical example after historical example of why they think that's the case.
God hates the willful sinner. Jesus forgave all sinners, no matter the sin, based on their "ignorance." The reason we preach the Gospel is so that people will not be ignorant in their decision-making, and can thereby be judged as included or excluded in God's Kingdom.
God hates the willful sinner. God hates homosexuality in any society, Christian or otherwise. I use homosexuality as an example because it had been illegal in former Christian-leaning countries, and now is accepted out of conversion into more of a humanist religion. Although I understand that a country is not necessarily or even likely to convert back to full-scale Christian law, it is still necessary that we promote Christian morality, as if it is something that the State *should* legislate.
The point is that it was never majority Christian, just a majority where it mattered (at the top). But no, it's not just about the message, especially when you're writing in terms of sedition.
Humanists rightly understand that a variety of "moral" State laws are Christian-based, or religion-based, and as such, should not inform our legislators about what should be done. The Christian "message" tends to appeal to our legislators' conscience, even if they continue to represent a religiously-diverse public.
Also, society needs to be informed about "what is right" before God, even if the State supports a different point of view. It is our duty from God. And it is our responsibility to men.
What Christian empire and Christian nation-states were those?
Have you read a History of Christianity? The longest-running Christian kingdom in history was the Byzantine Empire. As Rome broke up into nation-states, a number of those states declared their laws to be based on Christianity. Some of those states continued to carry the "imperial" banner of Christianity.
So either an ideal that will never be realised this side of the new creation or a totalitarian state draped in religious clothing? Just imagine if the state fails and doesn't realise it, but keeps mandating moral values.
Our message is practical whether it is realized, presently, in the State or not. It informs individuals of their moral need to prepare for God's Kingdom. It encourages States to pass Christian laws, whether the State is Christian or not. Ultimately, when Christ returns, there will be Christian states, I believe.
-
What Christian empire and Christian nation-states were those?
Yep, the person making constant reference to historical examples (with particulars) hasn't adequately considered past Christian nations. I'll be interested to read what examples you have in mind.
OP's lack of citations -- and refusal to produce any when asked -- seems to be par for the course, so far.
When nearly every existing example shows how bad a theocracy is in practice, there really aren't any citations to be provided. So everything is reduced to abstract hypotheticals that don't just have zero grounding in reality, but have to constantly excuse reality as not being the "real" version of the thing in question.
I haven't ignored the question. Like everybody else, I don't live here, and have other things I have to do. The history of Christianity would inform us what Christian States have existed, and I've read Latourette's History of Christianity, which is very thorough, and have taken the various classes on the history of the world. If what you need is proof that Christianity penetrated state governments, you don't know enough to be discussing this.
But I believe that you, like most on these forums, are educated and smart, and know what I'm talking about. So no, I'm not ignoring anything, or avoiding, and all that. What we are doing is disagreeing about how thoroughly "Christian" states were "Christian" in history, and debating the relevance of the Christian State when there was so much mixture.
-
By the way, I feel compelled to point out that one way in which Protestantism is far superior to Catholicism is in that it never had any political power in the way that the Catholic Church did, and so avoided the worst abuses. The Catholics started Crusades and carried out Inquisitions and played kingmaker to royalty based on personal loyalty to the Pope. That we're on a Protestant board debating copying the political practices of Catholicism is kind of sad, in my opinion.
Absolute Power corrupts absolutely. Still, it is not an indictment of the Christian Religion, as you infer. It expresses the dangers of Big Govt, and I think we're both conservatives, politically?
-
And while I'm on that theme, I'd like to talk about the founding fathers. Their greatness lay in the fact that they understood humanity all too well. They saw human failing and weakness. And so they did something marvelous, they created something new in this world: limited government. They actually enumerated what powers government would have and specifically spelled out things that government would not be permitted to do. Things like freedom of speech and freedom to practice religion, as stated in the First Amendment. And this whole idea of limiting government's power over its citizens is what makes America great.
As I've said before, American Democracy was a peace treaty between conservative Christianity and Deism, tolerating a diversity of religions. It was more akin to "have other gods" than "don't have any other gods."
As such, the Constitution and its bylaws were not Theocratic or fully Christian. But they were peaceable, and based on Judeo-Christian ethics. That's why it has worked so well. But the farther we fall into Humanism, the less it is working, as I see it.
-
As I've said before, American Democracy was a peace treaty between conservative Christianity and Deism, tolerating a diversity of religions. It was more akin to "have other gods" than "don't have any other gods."
And this is fine. Once government decides which gods are permissible, it can also decide which behavior is permissible, down to the tiniest detail. I have no desire to live in such a place.
As such, the Constitution and its bylaws were not Theocratic or fully Christian. But they were peaceable, and based on Judeo-Christian ethics.
Yes. And it's worked very well.
-
Absolute Power corrupts absolutely. Still, it is not an indictment of the Christian Religion, as you infer.
I'm not indicting Christianity. (I'm rather fond of you lot, by and large). It's the danger of mixing religion and politics, as the Catholic Church did, that screams "danger". Nearly everyone here is Protestant, which hasn't fallen into the same trap. Nor should it.
It expresses the dangers of Big Govt, and I think we're both conservatives, politically?
You can think of me as a small government conservative. Although I suppose my leanings are more libertarian (small "L", not the party, which is full of kooks).
-
What Christian empire and Christian nation-states were those?
Yep, the person making constant reference to historical examples (with particulars) hasn't adequately considered past Christian nations. I'll be interested to read what examples you have in mind.
OP's lack of citations -- and refusal to produce any when asked -- seems to be par for the course, so far.
When nearly every existing example shows how bad a theocracy is in practice, there really aren't any citations to be provided. So everything is reduced to abstract hypotheticals that don't just have zero grounding in reality, but have to constantly excuse reality as not being the "real" version of the thing in question.
I haven't ignored the question. Like everybody else, I don't live here, and have other things I have to do. The history of Christianity would inform us what Christian States have existed, and I've read Latourette's History of Christianity, which is very thorough, and have taken the various classes on the history of the world. If what you need is proof that Christianity penetrated state governments, you don't know enough to be discussing this.
But I believe that you, like most on these forums, are educated and smart, and know what I'm talking about. So no, I'm not ignoring anything, or avoiding, and all that. What we are doing is disagreeing about how thoroughly "Christian" states were "Christian" in history, and debating the relevance of the Christian State when there was so much mixture.
I saw your earlier reply to me and will respond in time, but wanted to ask if you considered the atrocities of the Byzantine and related empires enough to disqualify them from being considered genuinely Christian, or if you excuse these states for the atrocities they committed?
Because it was Jesus who said, "Blind your neighbour, castrate those who persecute you, cut out the tongues of those who curse you" and so on, right?
-
The reason we preach the Gospel is so that people will not be ignorant in their decision-making, and can thereby be judged as included or excluded in God's Kingdom.
This is the most negative and uncompelling reason I've ever seen for preaching the Gospel. It's usually more along the lines of "Letting people know of Jesus's sacrifice so they may be free of sin", not "Teaching them the law so that they may be punished on judgement day".
I mean, if that's your reason it would be kinder that people remain ignorant, so that God can't punish them for willfully sinning.
-
This is the most negative and uncompelling reason I've ever seen for preaching the Gospel.
Who could've guessed that a theocratic worldview which justifies the history of Christian-ruled governments but compartmentalizes every atrocity they committed with "no true Scotsman" even while advocating for the same practices that led to those atrocities would actually repel members of groups who would be persecuted under its dominion.
-
This is the most negative and uncompelling reason I've ever seen for preaching the Gospel.
Who could've guessed that a theocratic worldview which justifies the history of Christian-ruled governments but compartmentalizes every atrocity they committed with "no true Scotsman" even while advocating for the same practices that led to those atrocities would actually repel members of groups who would be persecuted under its dominion.
This comment seems overly "desperate." First, I didn't in the least try to justify "failed Christianity!" On the contrary.
But more to the point, the Gospel that attempts to set the record straight on a true Christian theocracy is practical in setting forth moral standards that are indeed religiously based, but not accepted by the pagan world, which attempts to rationalize away their human conscience.
It is important for this "theocratic" message to get out, to convict governors to "do the right thing," even though they represent non-Christian governments. Our testimony to righteousness will not be accepted by all, but it will offer the best route to take, and bring judgment to those who now know the truth and reject it anyway.
The Gospel is not just an outreach to include all. Rather, it is a narrow outreach to those "with ears to hear," who share a common human conscience before God. It is the opposite of "agnostic."
I would add that "no true Scotsman" does not apply in this case. Nobody is saying that Christians can't fail, nor that Christian states can't fail. I've said otherwise.
-
It is important for this "theocratic" message to get out, to convict governors to "do the right thing," even though they represent non-Christian governments.
If by "the right thing" you mean pushing biblical values, I'm behind you. If you mean pushing a theocratic state, I'm completely opposed.
Our testimony to righteousness will not be accepted by all, but it will offer the best route to take, and bring judgment to those who now know the truth and reject it anyway.
I'll say it again: This is a horrible reason to preach the Gospel.
-
It is important for this "theocratic" message to get out, to convict governors to "do the right thing," even though they represent non-Christian governments.
If by "the right thing" you mean pushing biblical values, I'm behind you. If you mean pushing a theocratic state, I'm completely opposed.
Our testimony to righteousness will not be accepted by all, but it will offer the best route to take, and bring judgment to those who now know the truth and reject it anyway.
I'll say it again: This is a horrible reason to preach the Gospel.
You're entitled to your opinion, Fenris. Yes, I'm pushing values that originate with the Bible. People don't have to accept the Bible in my ideal State, but they do have to accept moral values in my ideal Christian State.
The Gospel is not just about Salvation, but also a warning about Judgment. It would not be kind not to warn men that judgment awaits them if they don't live good lives.
I'm not saying that my ideal Christian State is to judge men's eternal souls, nor to punish them for theological disagreement. The object of religion in the State is to produce moral congruency.
You don't have to be a Christian in my ideal Christian State. But the Christian testimony would warn those who do not agree with Christianity that judgment awaits them from heaven, if they reject God's word in their lives.
The State does not impose this kind of judgment. The State's interest is in moral order within the society. And I believe that a 90% Christian society can achieve this in some measure, while also being tolerant with respect to individuals who may differ.
-
The State does not impose this kind of judgment. The State's interest is in moral order within the society. And I believe that a 90% Christian society can achieve this in some measure, while also being tolerant with respect to individuals who may differ.
'Some measure' is the trick. History would demonstrate that when a state attempts to enforce moral congruence, 'judgement' is exactly what happens for those who find themselves in conflict with those moral values. In fact, we need only look at an example like China, or our very own social media mobs, to see what happens when moral values are imposed and enforced. And even historically, we're only talking a hundred or two years in the past and we'd have more examples than we'd know what to do with.
This leaves wide open the question of how your idealised religious State would respond to the inevitable underground cultures that arise from its moral impositions? Those who don't conform to the values are going to be considered, as you said, seditious (corrupters of divinely-revealed! morality), and for the State to protect itself as well as its population from moral and religious corruption, it's going to what, slap these people with a reprimand? Nonsense, it's going to jail them, convict them, execute them. Or maybe you think it'll merely exile these people? Then that state better prepare for war.
If you disagree, then how do you suggest a State would respond to such people?
-
Not at all. In the US, prior to the 70s, laws were enforced against homosexual behavior without the support of gay people.
That's not quite a reply to the point I was making. Sure, you can enforce morality through the threat of law, but then where does that leave the state? In the US the church is widely considered to hate and despise the LGBTQ+ community, and it's those same laws and practices of the 70s (and earlier) that provide the substance of the objections we hear today and in the recent past. This of course has given a boost to so-called liberal so-called Christianity.
And you know what? It's true that homosexuality was treated with extreme contempt and disgust in the past. If the States was a Christianity country in the 70s (it was not) then it could have instituted a Christ-based response to what it saw as this moral and sexual issue. It did not.
It is universally true, to the conscience of Man, that ethnic equality exists naturally, and that divisions are based on necessity due to sectarian corruptions.
You must be reading different history books than the rest of us.
We are talking about the truth of a particular religion, and not about the prevalence of sin in all religions. Again, examples of failed Christianity do not confuse the clarity of Christian truths and do not cloud the genuine examples of Christian charity. Christianity stands apart from other religions, both in theological relevance and in demonstration of its power to be righteous before God.
This also doesn't address what I was saying. You talk about 'failed Christianity' from our future perspective, but put yourself into the past and you would have likely been a practitioner of that same Christianity, arguing for the same thing you're arguing now. It's too convenient an argument to dispel counter-examples as 'failed Christianity' and then try to suggest that I'm confusing that failed Christianity with the clarity of Christian truths. It's exactly because of the clarity of those Christians truths that I don't think a theocratic state is even remotely desireable.
Do you "honestly" think honesty is about agreeing with your conditions for agreement?
You referred to Islam as a religion of war while referring to Judaism as a religion that 'attempted to purge itself of anybody in its orbit of beliefs... [or] outside of its own theological orbit'. So no, I don't think honesty is agreeing with me. I think honesty is being honest in your descriptions, and not forgiving ancient Judaism for the very same thing you condemn Islam for.
I understand perfectly well what you're saying. Not much to respond to. I've said my bit--you just deny it by bringing up examples of failed Christianity, and then claiming that is "dishonest" or "disingenuous."
Have I brought up examples of failed Christianity? Not yet, I haven't. It took you until this reply to mention the Byzantine empire, but if that's your idea of a Christian state then I don't know how you think you've done anything but validate everything I've said thus far.
God hates the willful sinner. Jesus forgave all sinners, no matter the sin, based on their "ignorance." The reason we preach the Gospel is so that people will not be ignorant in their decision-making, and can thereby be judged as included or excluded in God's Kingdom.
What? That is not the reason I preach the Gospel.
God hates the willful sinner. God hates homosexuality in any society, Christian or otherwise. I use homosexuality as an example because it had been illegal in former Christian-leaning countries, and now is accepted out of conversion into more of a humanist religion. Although I understand that a country is not necessarily or even likely to convert back to full-scale Christian law, it is still necessary that we promote Christian morality, as if it is something that the State *should* legislate.
And go back to electric shock therapy, lobotomies, sterilisation, the forced consumption of estrogen, and so on? We ought not. On the subject of promoting Biblical values I'm all for that, but this isn't the same of trying to legislate a theocratic state.
Also, society needs to be informed about "what is right" before God, even if the State supports a different point of view. It is our duty from God. And it is our responsibility to men.
The church can do this without the state. Turning the Gospel into civic religion turns it into a little 'g'-ospel.
Have you read a History of Christianity? The longest-running Christian kingdom in history was the Byzantine Empire. As Rome broke up into nation-states, a number of those states declared their laws to be based on Christianity. Some of those states continued to carry the "imperial" banner of Christianity.
Yes, and in what sense do you think these nations come anywhere close to practicing true Christian religion? Those were brutal, brutal empires.
Our message is practical whether it is realized, presently, in the State or not. It informs individuals of their moral need to prepare for God's Kingdom. It encourages States to pass Christian laws, whether the State is Christian or not. Ultimately, when Christ returns, there will be Christian states, I believe.
When Christ returns there will be no need for 'Christian states'.
-
You boggle my mind. In condemning the idea of a Christian State, or even the hope for one, you by default validate all or some of the alternatives, whether an Islamic State, a pagan State, a Communist State, etc.
Even worse, you discount and deny--even oppose, God's promise to do that very thing, namely create nation-states with the faith of Abraham.
In condemning the "legislating of morality" you in fact condemn God for doing the same when He gave Israel the Law of Moses. And you ignore Jesus claim that he would make a nation of faith out of the Roman nation.
Matt 21.43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."
You discount preaching the Gospel for the purpose of enlightening people with the knowledge of Christ. Christ forgave people due to their ignorance--"forgive them for they know not what they do." But you say that isn't your purpose in preaching the Gospel, to make them answerable to God. The Gospel has never been strictly about salvation, but also about judgment.
Your Gospel has never succeeded over the long haul unless it has worked its way into the State, which then became the protector of Christianity, albeit temporarily. How did Christianity advance in history apart from being mixed in with the political states?
You are so far out among the crowd of skeptics that we can't carry on a conversation. You claim to be Christian but sound utterly antiChristian, with respect to the Christian State. But I know this is a common position, separating the Christian religion from the political state.
It is the position of the old separatists, who Luther condemned as malcontents and rebels. You don't strike me as one who would participate in a peasants' rebellion? And yet, you join the opposition to those who would sign petitions for Christian laws. God have mercy!
But in all honesty, I respect your intellect, and understand this is a popular position today. I'm just asking you to not follow the crowd in denying the workability of a Christian State simply because our schools tell us its evil and has failed repeatedly.
Marriages fail repeatedly, but do we give up on marriage? You don't have to join any of the old dead denominations, or any of the failed Christian states. You can start over, as all reformations do, and preach what we *hope* to happen, namely the Kingdom of God. And if we expect, in the Kingdom of God, for Christian states to exist, why should we oppose them now in theory?
-
You boggle my mind. In condemning the idea of a Christian State, or even the hope for one, you by default validate all or some of the alternatives, whether an Islamic State, a pagan State, a Communist State, etc.
If I'm not in favour of theocracy, so why would my apparent condemnation (your word) 'of a Christian State' lead to the validation of alternatives? As Fenris has mentioned and I've agreed with: I'm all for a state built on biblical values, but I'm very much not for theocracy on this side of the new creation. Besides, the problem isn't the idea of a Christian State, in theory, it's the reality of that Christian State in practice.
Even worse, you discount and deny--even oppose, God's promise to do that very thing, namely create nation-states with the faith of Abraham.
I do not, and I do not think that is an appropriate interpretation of God's promise to (then) Abram in Genesis 12. (Just one nation, by the way, not nation-states.)
In condemning the "legislating of morality" you in fact condemn God for doing the same when He gave Israel the Law of Moses. And you ignore Jesus claim that he would make a nation of faith out of the Roman nation.
No, I don't, but that's a neat rhetorical trick you have there: suggest my objections to your proposal are actually objections to God's past acts or God's promises. Countries obviously pass legislation that prohibits certain behaviours deemed immoral or evil: stealing, murder, rape, vigilantism, etc. etc. But there's a difference between these legal prohibitions and the legislation of morality. To quickly point out: one tells us what we ought not to, and the other tells us what we ought to do.
As for Jesus' claim, let's assume your understanding: that still does not make Rome a genuine 'Christian State'. You can claim it, or the Byzantine empire, but you'll soon find yourself defending atrocities to maintain the claim -- or dropping it. There's a strange cognitive dissonance at play here.
Matt 21.43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."
You discount preaching the Gospel for the purpose of enlightening people with the knowledge of Christ. Christ forgave people due to their ignorance--"forgive them for they know not what they do." But you say that isn't your purpose in preaching the Gospel, to make them answerable to God. The Gospel has never been strictly about salvation, but also about judgment.
I don't "discount preaching the Gospel for the purpose of enlightening people with the knowledge of Christ". You said, "The reason we preach the Gospel is so that people will not be ignorant in their decision-making, and can thereby be judged as included or excluded in God's Kingdom." Not "a" reason, but "the" reason, and that is not "the" reason we preach the Gospel.
Your Gospel has never succeeded over the long haul unless it has worked its way into the State, which then became the protector of Christianity, albeit temporarily. How did Christianity advance in history apart from being mixed in with the political states?
I would be careful if I were you in implying that I preach a Gospel other than that preached by Christ, received by the disciples and Apostles, and passed on.
And Christianity intertwining with the state historically does not mean that this is something to be desired. That's a description, and we're disagreeing with the prescription.
You are so far out among the crowd of skeptics that we can't carry on a conversation. You claim to be Christian but sound utterly antiChristian, with respect to the Christian State. But I know this is a common position, separating the Christian religion from the political state.
Imagine being so caught up in one's notion that being Christian necessitates being in favour of a Christian state, that one considers anti-Christian those who aren't in favour of a Christian state. I am all for the return of Christ and his kingship over the nations. I am not for human attempts to imitate that.
It is the position of the old separatists, who Luther condemned as malcontents and rebels. You don't strike me as one who would participate in a peasants' rebellion? And yet, you join the opposition to those who would sign petitions for Christian laws. God have mercy!
Because what you think are 'Christian laws' will not be applied in the spirit of Christ civically. That's what I oppose, not 'Christian laws' in theory, but in practice. But what is this theological maligning -- I strike you as someone Luther would condemn as a malcontent and rebel? For real? I don't know what to say to that other than that it's unbelievable, and you're way off base with that assessment.
But in all honesty, I respect your intellect, and understand this is a popular position today. I'm just asking you to not follow the crowd in denying the workability of a Christian State simply because our schools tell us its evil and has failed repeatedly.
And Marxism isn't a bad idea either despite the repeated millions dead. I haven't been educated by the schools into my position - I surveyed history myself.
Marriages fail repeatedly, but do we give up on marriage? You don't have to join any of the old dead denominations, or any of the failed Christian states. You can start over, as all reformations do, and preach what we *hope* to happen, namely the Kingdom of God. And if we expect, in the Kingdom of God, for Christian states to exist, why should we oppose them now in theory?
As I was saying above, it's the difference between Christ's kingship and human imitation.
This comes across like an old Marxist trying to convince me that Trotsky had it wrong, and so did Lenin, but if only we tried again with X, Y, Z it'll be different! Christian states fail because the notion itself is contradictory and paradoxical. A Christian state is unnecessary. Even if it starts out genuinely Christianly it'll soon end up as political power clothed in Christian religious imagery, devoid of meaning, and brutal in execution.
But you do have an example of a Christian state that wasn't brutal, right? What is that example, and what happened to the State? You know, aside from 19th century Hegelian Denmark?
-
But you do have an example of a Christian state that wasn't brutal, right? What is that example, and what happened to the State?
This refusal to cite sources (and then pretend they're not refusing) is a recurring problem across all their threads. Someone is engaging in a fundamentally dishonest approach to these discussions.
-
You're entitled to your opinion, Fenris. Yes, I'm pushing values that originate with the Bible.
I believe the same thing. But-
People don't have to accept the Bible in my ideal State, but they do have to accept moral values in my ideal Christian State.
The government legislates, hopefully moral values. But people are free to accept or reject those rules. In fact, they're free to elect legislators who hold different values than what the bible mandates.
The Gospel is not just about Salvation, but also a warning about Judgment. It would not be kind not to warn men that judgment awaits them if they don't live good lives.
In other words, scare people into obedience. And here I thought the NT was all about love, when (according to you) it's about eternal damnation.
You don't have to be a Christian in my ideal Christian State. But the Christian testimony would warn those who do not agree with Christianity that judgment awaits them from heaven, if they reject God's word in their lives.
Ooo, scary again
The State does not impose this kind of judgment. The State's interest is in moral order within the society. And I believe that a 90% Christian society can achieve this in some measure, while also being tolerant with respect to individuals who may differ.
Yet you also mentioned criminalizing anyone who isn't sufficiently appreciate of Christianity or who speaks against it. Which is, as I've pointed out, totalitarian.
-
You're entitled to your opinion, Fenris. Yes, I'm pushing values that originate with the Bible.
I believe the same thing. But-
People don't have to accept the Bible in my ideal State, but they do have to accept moral values in my ideal Christian State.
The government legislates, hopefully moral values. But people are free to accept or reject those rules. In fact, they're free to elect legislators who hold different values than what the bible mandates.
The Gospel is not just about Salvation, but also a warning about Judgment. It would not be kind not to warn men that judgment awaits them if they don't live good lives.
In other words, scare people into obedience. And here I thought the NT was all about love, when (according to you) it's about eternal damnation.
God's nature is love, whatever He does, whether He rewards us or punishes us. It is always love.
Our perception of that can be twisted, and we may accuse God of manipulating us with fear when He judges us. But His hope in judgment is to *discipline us,* so that we are not destroyed by our own evil works.
I don't believe in traditional hell-fire damnation like many Christians. I do believe in the Lake of Fire, but I don't believe it represents torture. Instead, I believe it implies eternal removal from God's holy land.
God will punish some people eternally, but I don't believe God ever tortures anybody. They will be removed from His blessings, and that will be torture enough. "Outer Darkness" is a location removed from the light of God's holy city--it is not Hell Fire!
God has a place for all of us in eternity, and I'm sure it will always bring glory to His name, and express who He is as a loving God.
To run a State there must be order. And to have an order that works, the order must have national agreement about what is moral. This can best be done by national recognition of true religion, which in God's sight requires certain good things and certain specified things that must be prohibited. I can't get around that.
Judeo-Christian morality is something Christians and Jews can agree on, and even Muslims, to some degree. But as we can see, morality has to have some more detailed specification than a general morality that just doesn't work with these 3 groups.
You don't have to be a Christian in my ideal Christian State. But the Christian testimony would warn those who do not agree with Christianity that judgment awaits them from heaven, if they reject God's word in their lives.
Ooo, scary again
The State does not impose this kind of judgment. The State's interest is in moral order within the society. And I believe that a 90% Christian society can achieve this in some measure, while also being tolerant with respect to individuals who may differ.
Yet you also mentioned criminalizing anyone who isn't sufficiently appreciate of Christianity or who speaks against it. Which is, as I've pointed out, totalitarian.
No, I do accept conscientious expressions of religious disagreement within a Christian society. A parade given license down main street that bares homosexual protesters does not fit the bill. A Jew who is demonstrably peaceable and honest in his religious disagreement is fine--that is not sedition.
-
To run a State there must be order. And to have an order that works, the order must have national agreement about what is moral. This can best be done by national recognition of true religion, which in God's sight requires certain good things and certain specified things that must be prohibited. I can't get around that.
And yet America has, for hundreds of years. And we're doing as well as anyone else.
Judeo-Christian morality is something Christians and Jews can agree on, and even Muslims, to some degree. But as we can see, morality has to have some more detailed specification than a general morality that just doesn't work with these 3 groups.
I'm not really sure what you're saying here.
The State does not impose this kind of judgment. The State's interest is in moral order within the society. And I believe that a 90% Christian society can achieve this in some measure, while also being tolerant with respect to individuals who may differ.
A state can be "moral" without also being "Christian".
No, I do accept conscientious expressions of religious disagreement within a Christian society. A parade given license down main street that bares homosexual protesters does not fit the bill.
You and I have different ideas about freedom.
By the by, England has a national church and an official state religion. Why doesn't that fit your bill?
-
To run a State there must be order. And to have an order that works, the order must have national agreement about what is moral. This can best be done by national recognition of true religion, which in God's sight requires certain good things and certain specified things that must be prohibited. I can't get around that.
And yet America has, for hundreds of years. And we're doing as well as anyone else.
America is now in a free fall. The deterioration of a Christian consensus is leading to a new form of idolatry, the embrace of all religions as equals.
We used to have freedom for conscience for all religious expressions. But now all of these religious expressions are being given equal support. That leads to confusion and to division. It won't work, and it isn't working.
Judeo-Christian morality is something Christians and Jews can agree on, and even Muslims, to some degree. But as we can see, morality has to have some more detailed specification than a general morality that just doesn't work with these 3 groups.
I'm not really sure what you're saying here.
Though the U.S. was founded as an essentially "Christian" country, it gave free expression for the human conscience, no matter what religion. This is where Humanism and Christianity could come together, on the matter of expressing a free human conscience.
That is not saying that Christianity cannot be the de facto national religion, even if not set forth as a State Religion. The fact of American Christianity was expressed not by establishing a State Religion, but rather, by establishing religious morality.
By Judeo-Christian agreement I'm saying that certain moral values contained in both Jewish and Christian Scriptures were in agreement with laws passed opposing abortion, homosexuality, and other lewd forms of behavior once embraced by paganism.
The State does not impose this kind of judgment. The State's interest is in moral order within the society. And I believe that a 90% Christian society can achieve this in some measure, while also being tolerant with respect to individuals who may differ.
A state can be "moral" without also being "Christian".
Yes, moral virtue can be present but only with the opposite in a non-Christian State. The value, for me, of a Christian State is the same value derived by ancient Israel when they observed the Law--they not only had virtue, but they also maintained a connection with God, spiritually, and magnificent blessings resulted.
No, I do accept conscientious expressions of religious disagreement within a Christian society. A parade given license down main street that bares homosexual protesters does not fit the bill.
You and I have different ideas about freedom.
By the by, England has a national church and an official state religion. Why doesn't that fit your bill?
It does. My view of the Christian State is not the same as how I would judge a Christian individual. I would judge between a purely "nominal Christian" who follows Christian religious practices in a perfunctory way from a Christian who is truly deeply involved in piety and in faith in God.
But the State is a bureaucratic agency designed to protect the people of the country. As such, its Christianity is only as good as the individuals who comprise the State's leadership.
-
America is now in a free fall.
Maybe. But if stopping the fall means becoming a theocracy, I'll pass thank you very much.
The deterioration of a Christian consensus is leading to a new form of idolatry, the embrace of all religions as equals.
That doesn't bother me. We're here to express our free will.
We used to have freedom for conscience for all religious expressions. But now all of these religious expressions are being given equal support. That leads to confusion and to division. It won't work, and it isn't working.
I don't believe this to be true.
Though the U.S. was founded as an essentially "Christian" country,
Europe has Christian countries. America was founded as a "Judeo-Christian" country.
That is not saying that Christianity cannot be the de facto national religion, even if not set forth as a State Religion. The fact of American Christianity was expressed not by establishing a State Religion, but rather, by establishing religious morality.
And this is fine.
By Judeo-Christian agreement I'm saying that certain moral values contained in both Jewish and Christian Scriptures were in agreement with laws passed opposing abortion, homosexuality, and other lewd forms of behavior once embraced by paganism.
And yet there is virtue in this too. God put us here to express our free will. That means to opportunity to make bad choices.
Yes, moral virtue can be present but only with the opposite in a non-Christian State. The value, for me, of a Christian State is the same value derived by ancient Israel when they observed the Law--they not only had virtue, but they also maintained a connection with God, spiritually, and magnificent blessings resulted.
No argument, but that ideal religious state didn't even work in ancient Israel, which was ethnically and religiously homogenous. It could never work in the modern democratic, multi cultural, multi ethnic, multi religious state. With the advent of the messianic era obviously things will be different.
But the State is a bureaucratic agency designed to protect the people of the country. As such, its Christianity is only as good as the individuals who comprise the State's leadership.
And since all people are fallen...
-
Until about 1834 there were a number of u.s. state religions.
-
I do not know why Christians want to separate religion from the State?
I don't think it is Christians that want to separate religion from the State. I think it's the radical leftists/communists, anti-Christians and tyrannical false religions like Islamists.
Today, as Christianity slips into minority status within the Western states, I don't think we should harbor any illusions, though. We cannot try to impose the Christian religion on the state. But we can testify to the fact it *should be* the religion of all states.
A lot of things that "should be" are not... and never will be (again). If you have read Bible prophecy, things are ""progressing"" exactly as foretold in the Bible. The falling away, increasing evil...leading up to the tribulation and the end of this world. The good news is... the new world will be run by Jesus Christ and will be like Heaven on earth...
finally.
-
I do believe that in the Millennium, Christian states will be restored. And we should declare a Gospel of what "should be," and not what we think cannot be.
-
I don't think it is Christians that want to separate religion from the State. I think it's the radical leftists/communists, anti-Christians and tyrannical false religions like Islamists.
Nope, there are plenty of Christians who aren't in favour of mixing religion and the state.
-
I don't think it is Christians that want to separate religion from the State. I think it's the radical leftists/communists, anti-Christians and tyrannical false religions like Islamists.
Nope, there are plenty of Christians who aren't in favour of mixing religion and the state.
But.... not for religious reasons, perhaps. More likely because those Christians tend to adhere to the US Constitution principle of 'separation'. No government should have the power to dictate what religion a people must worship.
-
I do believe that in the Millennium, Christian states will be restored. And we should declare a Gospel of what "should be," and not what we think cannot be.
If you are speaking of the thousand years that Jesus will reign on earth, I seriously doubt that there will be such a thing as "Christian states". There will be nothing but Christians on earth during that period. At least, that's how I understand it.
-
But.... not for religious reasons, perhaps.
Why not? History tells me that whenever Christianity and the State intertwine, the latter always corrupts the former. To preserve genuine Christianity, then, it ought not to become political.
More likely because those Christians tend to adhere to the US Constitution principle of 'separation'. No government should have the power to dictate what religion a people must worship.
I wouldn't know, I'm not American. More personally, I don't want all the nice Christian leaders to sadistically torture me, or offer platitudes in the place of treatment, only to then whinge and whine at the self-destruction they assured. That's just me, though.
-
I don't think it is Christians that want to separate religion from the State. I think it's the radical leftists/communists, anti-Christians and tyrannical false religions like Islamists.
And Jews. Because we've lived under theocracies and it's not fun.