What Religion the State Part II

[Fenris]

On the contrary, there were times in Christian history, when Christians were not paranoid of Jews, that they actually accepted Jews as they were, and really admired them. They, of course, wanted them to convert to Christianity. But they understood why they didn't, and didn't judge them.

It's not clear to me why you're bringing this up.

Aside from the Jewish experience in this country, when were Jews "admired"?

When were they "not judged" for not converting to Christianity?

And why are Christians "paranoid" about Jews? Does this strike you as normal and healthy behavior? Whole Jewish communities in the middle ages were burned at the stake for "poisoning wells" and "torturing holy wafers".

I do not come away with the feeling that you know the history of Jews in Christian lands. Perhaps that's why you're so eager to recreate the experience.

Or maybe you just don't care.

[Athanasius]

As another forum bites the dust.  All good things...

Actually, huh?

[IMINXTC]

If you can't tell I'm sincere, then perhaps the message isn't for you? I've been on a number of forums, both moderated and unmoderated, both Christian and semi-Christian, and I've *never* been kicked off of a forum permanently, and certainly not for being a "troll." I've been doing this for more than 20 years. At almost 70 years old I have nothing at all to gain by "trolling," unless it's in a nearby lake!

Nevertheless, your rambling conjectures rarely represent the contextual scriptures and, on a "Bible" forum, should be regarded as "extra" biblical and perhaps considered questionable doctrine because they insist upon the total disregard of the great commission and clear, "biblical" instructions for the Church. Your call to a Theocracy, however you wish to define it, is alien to the scriptures, and your vague recitations of historical events do nothing but prove the point that God is not involved in men's Theocratic ambitions, but is infinitely concerned with the Gospel and the Church's role in the world, which is to call men to Christ, who actually gets very little air-time in your imaginary scheme.

"But we preach Christ crucified..." 1Co 1:23

[RandyPNW]

On the contrary, there were times in Christian history, when Christians were not paranoid of Jews, that they actually accepted Jews as they were, and really admired them. They, of course, wanted them to convert to Christianity. But they understood why they didn't, and didn't judge them.

It's not clear to me why you're bringing this up.

Aside from the Jewish experience in this country, when were Jews "admired"?

When were they "not judged" for not converting to Christianity?

And why are Christians "paranoid" about Jews? Does this strike you as normal and healthy behavior? Whole Jewish communities in the middle ages were burned at the stake for "poisoning wells" and "torturing holy wafers".

I do not come away with the feeling that you know the history of Jews in Christian lands. Perhaps that's why you're so eager to recreate the experience.

Or maybe you just don't care.

I'm always challenged, and I always try to answer, whether I get credit for it or not. I've read about Martin Luther, how he initially admired the Jews before getting paranoid that they were "stabbing the Christian State in the back," and turned on them with "Against the Jews and their Lies." We all know about that, of course, if you know anything about Christiani-Jewish relations.

And then there is the matter of Replacement Theology and its origins in the Early Church. Some of the earliest Church Fathers admired the Jews and spoke well of them. Ultimately, the Christians in the new Christian Empire grew impatient with Jewish intransigence and unwillingness to convert, en masse, to the Gospel.

The end result was a new theology called Amillennialism, with Replacement Theology at its core. If you care for greater detail, I'm sure I can find it?

I initially was intrigued with the Jewish People because of my interest in biblical prophecy. Some authors, like Gordon Lindsay spent a lot of time discussing Israel's place in prophecy. There were some good books on the subject. A more in-depth book I read was "The Fall and Rise of Israel," which spares nothing. It was disturbing to read this.

Of course I care about the plight of the Jews. As I said before, I went to Israel on my own and volunteered to work for free on a Kibbutz, within range of Lebanese terrorists. I was rejected due to concerns about my health at that time, but it remains that I made an honest effort to do my part to support the Jewish People and the State of Israel.

I believe Israel is still called of God, even though the centuries that have passed have had a purpose of some kind. The end for Israel will,  think, be a great joy to the Jewish People.

[RandyPNW]

If you can't tell I'm sincere, then perhaps the message isn't for you? I've been on a number of forums, both moderated and unmoderated, both Christian and semi-Christian, and I've *never* been kicked off of a forum permanently, and certainly not for being a "troll." I've been doing this for more than 20 years. At almost 70 years old I have nothing at all to gain by "trolling," unless it's in a nearby lake!

Nevertheless, your rambling conjectures rarely represent the contextual scriptures and, on a "Bible" forum, should be regarded as "extra" biblical and perhaps considered questionable doctrine because they insist upon the total disregard of the great commission and clear, "biblical" instructions for the Church. Your call to a Theocracy, however you wish to define it, is alien to the scriptures, and your vague recitations of historical events do nothing but prove the point that God is not involved in men's Theocratic ambitions, but is infinitely concerned with the Gospel and the Church's role in the world, which is to call men to Christ, who actually gets very little air-time in your imaginary scheme.

"But we preach Christ crucified..." 1Co 1:23

On the contrary, the Gospel is not to be separated from our worldly lives, as I understand it. It is to take top place in everything we do, politically, socially, religiously.

To create a theology of division between politics and religion is to fall into the hands of those who wish to "divide and conquer." Those who hate religion in a subtle way sing the praises of its poetic, moral value, while in their personal lives it's the last thing they want to disturb their own ambitions.

I find you a real Christian. But I think your Dem-leaning political viewpoint, if I remember correctly our arguments on the previous forum, may have biased you against my "theocratic views," which are really a belief in the Christian State as it has existed, for real, throughout the centuries. Saying I believe in real history that was "Christian," nominally or not, is certainly not non-Christian. And it most definitely has a place on any forum that allows free discussions.

I'm happy to see new subjects arise, taking us in directions that interest you. For lack of subjects I gravitate towards my own pet interests, and raise those issues, such as prophecy, doctrine, and politics. I'm sorry political differences are allowed to become a wedge between real Christians. The value of forums like this is in the opportunity to work out some of these logjams in Christian relations, and help us in dealing with the world in the best way possible.

Unfortunately, when we fall into paranoia, and begin to accuse one another of evil motives, the battle is lost. But the war is not lost for those who put Christ first in everything, in serving, and in honesty, speaking out of a pure conscience, inspired by the Scriptures and by the love of Christ.

[Athanasius]

On the contrary, the Gospel is not to be separated from our worldly lives, as I understand it. It is to take top place in everything we do, politically, socially, religiously.

This "on the contrary" is an invention of your own mind. IMINXTC has not argued for a separation between Gospel and "our worldly lives". This is clear in what he wrote: "God is ... infinitely concerned with the Gospel and the Church's role in the world, which is to call men to Christ". It's easier to respond to a caricature, though, isn't it? To argue against the idea of separation, and not what was presented, which is that there's no necessarily development between the Gospel and theocracy.

To create a theology of division between politics and religion is to fall into the hands of those who wish to "divide and conquer." Those who hate religion in a subtle way sing the praises of its poetic, moral value, while in their personal lives it's the last thing they want to disturb their own ambitions.

IMINXTC has not suggested a 'theology of division between politics and religion'. This is another invention of your mind. Worse, you passive-aggressively suggest that in making such a suggestion, he - and anyone else of a similar view - have fallen "into the hands of those who wish to 'divide and conquer'". Absolute intellectual dishonesty, to build up this caricature then speak against it with the ferver of religious grandeur.

I find you a real Christian.

Patronising.

But I think your Dem-leaning political viewpoint, if I remember correctly our arguments on the previous forum, may have biased you against my "theocratic views," which are really a belief in the Christian State as it has existed, for real, throughout the centuries.

Insulting, as if IMINXTC cannot engage with your views without being at the mercy of his biases. This is your attempt to hand-wave away the view presented. You fail to argue against the argument, and now you dismiss the intellectual position as being the product of mere bias.

Saying I believe in real history that was "Christian," nominally or not, is certainly not non-Christian. And it most definitely has a place on any forum that allows free discussions.

Another invention. The claim is that you appeal to history at a surface level, without a deeper understanding of what's under discussion. Evidentally you have no retort other than "free discussion".

I'm happy to see new subjects arise, taking us in directions that interest you. For lack of subjects I gravitate towards my own pet interests, and raise those issues, such as prophecy, doctrine, and politics. I'm sorry political differences are allowed to become a wedge between real Christians. The value of forums like this is in the opportunity to work out some of these logjams in Christian relations, and help us in dealing with the world in the best way possible.

Patronising. And this is a theological discussion as well, not just a political one.

Unfortunately, when we fall into paranoia, and begin to accuse one another of evil motives, the battle is lost. But the war is not lost for those who put Christ first in everything, in serving, and in honesty, speaking out of a pure conscience, inspired by the Scriptures and by the love of Christ.

So IMINXTC has asked to be removed. You, Randy, have consistently:

1. Ignored or dismissed the argument presented.
2. Invented caricatures to argue against instead.
3. Have helped drive off at least two members while appealing against cancel culture.
4. Have been passive-aggressive.
5. Have been patronising.
6. Have displayed with other members a less than Christlike attitude.
7. Have suggested I'm acting ungodly and have refused to substantiate the claim when pushed.
8. Have consistently argued with a double-standard, especially concerning appeals to the historical church (against the JWs), while citing concerns for that same historical church ("they're only human!") when used as a counter-example against your own positions.
9. Have presented a false sense of community by appealing to "working out" differences of view, which is impossible given 1) and 2) above.

Instead of using IMINXTC's post to demonstrate the Scriptural consistency of your argument, namely, that your view of theocracy is in line with clear biblical instruction for the Church, you caricatured the man and the argument instead.

I told you I was giving you leeway. I warned you not to push it. This being contro doesn't excuse the above. See you Monday.

[Fenris]

I'm always challenged, and I always try to answer, whether I get credit for it or not. I've read about Martin Luther, how he initially admired the Jews before getting paranoid that they were "stabbing the Christian State in the back," and turned on them with "Against the Jews and their Lies." We all know about that, of course, if you know anything about Christiani-Jewish relations.

And then there is the matter of Replacement Theology and its origins in the Early Church. Some of the earliest Church Fathers admired the Jews and spoke well of them. Ultimately, the Christians in the new Christian Empire grew impatient with Jewish intransigence and unwillingness to convert, en masse, to the Gospel.

The end result was a new theology called Amillennialism, with Replacement Theology at its core. If you care for greater detail, I'm sure I can find it?

I initially was intrigued with the Jewish People because of my interest in biblical prophecy. Some authors, like Gordon Lindsay spent a lot of time discussing Israel's place in prophecy. There were some good books on the subject. A more in-depth book I read was "The Fall and Rise of Israel," which spares nothing. It was disturbing to read this.

Of course I care about the plight of the Jews. As I said before, I went to Israel on my own and volunteered to work for free on a Kibbutz, within range of Lebanese terrorists. I was rejected due to concerns about my health at that time, but it remains that I made an honest effort to do my part to support the Jewish People and the State of Israel.

I believe Israel is still called of God, even though the centuries that have passed have had a purpose of some kind. The end for Israel will,  think, be a great joy to the Jewish People.

So, you know, again, you've posted a great deal without actually addressing my point. During the middle ages and later, when religion and politics were mixed in what you choose to call "Christian states", Jews fared poorly. This is history. And you don't deny that it happened, you simply ignore it. I've mentioned the Inquisition, Jews being burned at the stake, Jews being expelled from countries, and you go on about "prophecy" and your personal experiences. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the topic.

And allow me to clarify. This isn't a "Christian" problem. It's a "man is fallen" problem. Any state that allows religious doctrine to interfere with people's rights is going to have the same problem. And you rightly call it out for Islamic states but somehow feel that Christian leaders will be immune to the corruption that power introduces.  You wouldn't live under an Islamic state that curtails your freedom of speech but you're fine setting up a Christian state that would curtail mine.

[Mcgyver]

Wow... I've read this thread through 3 times now...and my head is still spinning...

Since I'm having problems finding the quote button let me say that Fenris hit the nail on the head when he said that it's a fallen man problem.

I sure don't want to live under a theocracy... because the men who rule in the name of God (no matter how well intentioned) would still be flawed, sinful, biased... well, men... How many atrocities have committed in the name of God throughout history?

All we have to do is take the merest glance at our own Christian Church history as pertains to the interaction between the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches to see that a theocracy would never work...

[Athanasius]

Wow... I've read this thread through 3 times now...and my head is still spinning...

Since I'm having problems finding the quote button let me say that Fenris hit the nail on the head when he said that it's a fallen man problem.

I sure don't want to live under a theocracy... because the men who rule in the name of God (no matter how well intentioned) would still be flawed, sinful, biased... well, men... How many atrocities have committed in the name of God throughout history?

All we have to do is take the merest glance at our own Christian Church history as pertains to the interaction between the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches to see that a theocracy would never work...

(Quote is to the top right of every post. There's no multiquote, but you can 'Insert Quote' from the edit screen to add quotes from multiple posts.)

[Mcgyver]

Thanks, much appreciated!

[Aijalon]

A Christian State, or theocracy, is one whose people predominantly adhere to a single religion, to a single morality. The theology is often pretty set in stone, at times, and at other times, fairly liberally interpreted.

The US was founded as a kind of Christian State, or theocracy.

No, it wasn't.

1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The Constitution, Article IV "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States..."

Following Christian moral traditions is nothing like a Theocracy.   

As to those morals, none of them were coded into the constitution.  For instance, if I - a man - want to have 2 husbands, and adopt a child that will have 3 fathers, I can. (It was done in California).  I can do this because this is not a Theocracy whatsoever.

The country is founded on the principle of no law (no tax) without representation.  A theocracy is based not at all on representation.  The self evident truths of a Theocracy are laws as they are expressly revealed by God, and cannot be changed by man.  Iran is more of a theocracy.   America is a true and true democracy with a flavor of meritocracy.   Its laws are decided by the whims of the masses, its rules are the "most fit/most deserving".  A theocracy works nothing like this. 

A theocracy is based on making God happy.  America is based on the "self evident" truth of man's pursuit of happiness.

[Fenris]

  America is based on the "self evident" truth of man's pursuit of happiness.

I'd say that America is built on the concept of the consent of the governed, and personal freedoms.