What Religion the State Part II

[Fenris]

But the Joooooooos, well, you no.  Equal opportunity, you know?
Their only protection these days are those darned Space Lasers (TM).

The biggest irony is that he won't live under a Muslim theocracy because they'll deprive him of freedom of speech. But he's fine setting up a Christian theocracy that deprives other people of freedom of speech.

"Tyranny is ok when I get to make the rules".

[RandyPNW]

In your Christian Theocracy, are we going to stone adulterous people?

It's difficult for you and for those of us raised up in modern times to grasp what a Christian State even is. It seems that 100% of the responses I've gotten on a number of Christian forums have denied Christian States even exist!! And this reality, that Christian States have existed in history, is known by every history professor that you could ever meet!

So it's really a matter of twisting the facts to align with a cause, or to avoid abuses that are commonly associated with the modern sense of theocracies. And I want to avoid that kind of prejudice, by viewing things as God originally envisioned a theocracy for Israel.

I don't believe the Hebrews were quick to apply death sentences to those who broke the Law. We read of God's quick judgments under the Law, but don't always recognize that He was quick to judge largely in matters of severe rebellion.

After all, God knows our hearts. A rebel may be someone we identify with in moments of weakness, but we don't always see, as God does, that some rebel with deep passion, and acrimony, and deserve death.

The world's legal systems recognize this difference between sins of weakness and sins of deep rebellion. And punishments are given out accordingly. Some crimes merit capital punishment according to many legal systems in the world.

For example, someone may riot in the streets over deep passion that Black Lives have been violated in some way. But they would not be punished with death because their purpose was not really to destroy property out of pure malice--it was an emotional thing.

Someone may attack a capital building, thinking an election was being stolen by a particular political party. But this doesn't merit the death penalty as if this was an act of treason or sedition. It is an emotional reaction, though the actions were wrong, and damage was done to our Constitutional system.

In a genuine Theocracy, it is understood that the vast majority of the population understand God and His laws. The people understand what is wrong, and  they understand how inner emotions need to be controlled.

And so, someone guilty of the most radical rebellion against God were sometimes punished with death. They knew not just that the actions were wrong, but they also freely gave vent to malice.

This is not a casual judgment, but a revealed judgment, carried out in a society more aware of what constitutes greater penalties. It is a society that largely knows not just that criminal acts should not be done, but they also know that God can be called upon to resolve these problems by faith.

Giving vent to emotions out of frustration can happen, but should be more controlled in a real Theocracy. To choose to ignore this is actually to rebel, intentionally, against God and His laws. The worst cases of this rebellion were what fell under the death penalty.

[Athanasius]

It's difficult for you and for those of us raised up in modern times to grasp what a Christian State even is. It seems that 100% of the responses I've gotten on a number of Christian forums have denied Christian States even exist!! And this reality, that Christian States have existed in history, is known by every history professor that you could ever meet!

No one here has denied that Christian states have existed throughout history. After all, we've been raising specific examples. What we're arguing is that they're so-called Christian states, and not states reflective of some theocratic ideal of pure Christian theology/belief. They are states that disguise ideology as faith and rule by diktat necessarily. You yourself recite rules of law that would cause even the CCP joy.

This isn't a difficult concept for us poor Moderns. We need to think only of the Vatican or any number of African or Middle Eastern countries. You seem to want to think that the Christian theocracies of the past are different from the theocracies of today, but they weren't. You seem to want to think that Humanism and Enlightenment philosophy are these great degenerators of society, but surely you have some idea of what the political and social power the church wielded historically (and even some places today)? By and large, people don't reject Christianity because they think it's dumb and stupid and foolish. They're never given the opportunity. They reject something resembling Christianity, something that has extended itself to such extremes that it's twisted itself into something else entirely.

Examples are easy to come by. Gay men were sterilised, forced to take estrogen, jailed, abused, and tortured to be cured. But no, when society reacts against the abuses of religion in the guise of morality, it's that reaction that's blamed for the downfall of society. Meanwhile, a majority of Christians in the West get to engage in their persecution porn, lacking any awareness of themselves or the world.

And that's the Christian state going back to when it was the original Christian empire of the 3rd and 4th centuries and following. There is no Christian state in history that exemplifies the teachings of Christ. At a minimum, they all engage in ideological tyranny.

by viewing things as God originally envisioned a theocracy for Israel.

The problem with this view is that the modern world isn't ancient Israel.

After all, God knows our hearts. A rebel may be someone we identify with in moments of weakness, but we don't always see, as God does, that some rebel with deep passion, and acrimony, and deserve death.

And thus, theocracy doesn't see as God sees but acts like it does anyway.

In a genuine Theocracy, it is understood that the vast majority of the population understand God and His laws. The people understand what is wrong, and  they understand how inner emotions need to be controlled.

And so, someone guilty of the most radical rebellion against God were sometimes punished with death. They knew not just that the actions were wrong, but they also freely gave vent to malice.

This is not a casual judgment, but a revealed judgment, carried out in a society more aware of what constitutes greater penalties. It is a society that largely knows not just that criminal acts should not be done, but they also know that God can be called upon to resolve these problems by faith.

Giving vent to emotions out of frustration can happen, but should be more controlled in a real Theocracy. To choose to ignore this is actually to rebel, intentionally, against God and His laws. The worst cases of this rebellion were what fell under the death penalty.

You'd be amazed at how many of the religious state's enemies are revealed by God as rebels deserving death due to their deep sin. Like literally, all of them.

You need to think much harder about the blood that would flow through the streets of such a theocracy. Maybe the heretics of old would tell you about it, but they had their tongues cut out. I'm referring to Maximus of course. The heretic that wasn't. The one they called The Theologian.

Theocracy looks good on paper. Even Communism looks good on paper. But we can think of worlds more glorious than our own with ease. The minute we try to create them they become this extensions of this world, because what else could they be?

[RandyPNW]

No one here has denied that Christian states have existed throughout history. After all, we've been raising specific examples. What we're arguing is that they're so-called Christian states, and not states reflective of some theocratic ideal of pure Christian theology/belief. They are states that disguise ideology as faith and rule by diktat necessarily.

Thank you for the acknowledgment that Christian states have existed in history! It's not that the many I referred to don't believe that, but that the *only ones* who responded to me were those who denied they exist. Those who would recognize what I speak of refuse to publicly acknowledge it in the thought they would have to agree with me.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pure Christian theology?" Nobody should harbor the illusion that I refer to *perfect* Christian doctrine being imposed upon all by the State. Fundamental beliefs existing in the creeds have sufficed to maintain a lawful order, avoiding certain definitions that tend to divide the Christian public.

It was found early in Christian history that too much tolerance in the Christian State for Gnosticism or for Pelagianism, and the religion itself that determines the morality is lost. However, Jews and Muslims could coexist together with Christians in Christian States despite their theological differences, assuming they don't try to confuse their own religion as a form of doctrinally-orthodox Christianity.

The important matter for the Christian public was in maintaining a standard religion assuring that the appropriate morality remained in practice throughout the State. Non-Christians can obviously be moral too! This does allow for a limited measure of religious pluralism, which seems to be your biggest concern. Freedom of thought and conscience I would agree are important Constitutional rights, even in a Christian State.

You seem to want to think that Humanism and Enlightenment philosophy are these great degenerators of society...

I do. When Voltaire called Religion a "cursed thing," it sowed seeds of cynicism in Christian States. Even if it was deserved, I would again state that the answer is repentance and spiritual revival--not a turn to meaningless "Reason," whatever the philosophes thought that was?

...They reject something resembling Christianity, something that has extended itself to such extremes that it's twisted itself into something else entirely.

I agree that the Christian State has gone the same way as Israel's Theocracy. God foreknew it by giving the world Israel as a model. But the answer, again, is renewal and revival--not a dilution of religious values.

There is no Christian state in history that exemplifies the teachings of Christ. At a minimum, they all engage in ideological tyranny.

That's almost as bad as saying there has never been a Christian State. I think what you're saying is that there's never been a *perfect* Christian State? Of course we agree.

But are you saying that the failures of Christians States means we must choose an alternative kind of State in order to enjoy more success than Christian States had? Or, are you saying that modern "checks and balances" somehow safeguard against the excesses that were integral with Christian States of the past?

If so, that may or may not be true. For one, to remove the power of Christ from a society would lessen chances of perpetuating justice in a society. But secondly, Christian States can remain, essentially, "Christian States" and adopt these added safeguards against tyranny! Adopting Constitutional checks and balances does not de facto make Christian States "non-Christian States!"

by viewing things as God originally envisioned a theocracy for Israel.

The problem with this view is that the modern world isn't ancient Israel.

That should not be a problem according to Paul, who stated quite matter of fact that ancient Israel, under the Law, and existing in the form of a Theocracy, is a model for the Church throughout history.

1 Cor 10.11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.

You see, we have to decide which things should change in a society from a Christian pov, and which things should *not* change!

After all, God knows our hearts. A rebel may be someone we identify with in moments of weakness, but we don't always see, as God does, that some rebel with deep passion, and acrimony, and deserve death.

And thus, theocracy doesn't see as God sees but acts like it does anyway.

The opposite of what I said. Christians should be able to discern beyond the visible acts and determine motives, to some degree. God keeps some things private, but in important matters of society, divine revelation can be drawn upon. After all, spiritual discernment is one of the spiritual gifts.

Nobody, however, would say that there isn't a false gift of "spiritual discernment!" Judgmentalism is as prevalent in Christian societies as in any other society. But you won't find Christian discernment in non-Christian societies--only examples of careful scrutiny and educated guesses.

You'd be amazed at how many of the religious state's enemies are revealed by God as rebels deserving death due to their deep sin. Like literally, all of them.

No, they are not Christians, and thus are given greater latitude by God when there are extenuating circumstances and issues of religious ignorance--perhaps even matters of personal disappointment and abuse.

You need to think much harder about the blood that would flow through the streets of such a theocracy. Maybe the heretics of old would tell you about it, but they had their tongues cut out. I'm referring to Maximus of course. The heretic that wasn't. The one they called The Theologian.

I would've thought you'd mention Michael Servetus? However, in the Early Church, the emperors themselves were not always doctrinally-orthodox.

For a time Arianism reigned in the ancient Roman Empire. Constantine was not a theologian, but pursued religious order in his Empire. Eastern emperors, under the influence of the Orthodox Church, would have the same problems, particularly when pure doctrine was being initially formulated.

Again, a "pure" theology doesn't always exist in a Christian State. There are constant fluctuations, as each generation has its own leaders and populations.

Theocracy looks good on paper. Even Communism looks good on paper. But we can think of worlds more glorious than our own with ease. The minute we try to create them they become this extensions of this world, because what else could they be?

Yes, but we need order for our societies this side of the Millennium. The Kingdom of God is not yet, but it is among us through the observant Church. We shouldn't be discourage just because sin continues to exist in the Church! If the Church is corrupt in our time, it's time to fix it--not remove it for something less Christian!

[Fenris]

No, they are not Christians, and thus are given greater latitude by God when there are extenuating circumstances and issues of religious ignorance--

Yes, the "enemies" of the state are always "not Christians". Even if they are Christians, just the "wrong kind" or with the "wrong beliefs". Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other over just this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

If the Church is corrupt in our time, it's time to fix it--not remove it for something less Christian!

I have a great idea. How about fixing "the Church" before giving it the power over entire countries?

[ProDeo]

I agree that the Christian State has gone the same way as Israel's Theocracy.

Well then, let it be a lesson.

Besides, Israel was a called Theocracy by God Himself.

We however are a different nation -

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim  the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

No geology.

No politics.

Purpose : that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

[RandyPNW]

I agree that the Christian State has gone the same way as Israel's Theocracy.

Well then, let it be a lesson.

Besides, Israel was a called Theocracy by God Himself.

We however are a different nation -

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim  the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

No geology.

No politics.

Purpose : that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

No politics in Christian States??

[Athanasius]

Thank you for the acknowledgment that Christian states have existed in history! It's not that the many I referred to don't believe that, but that the *only ones* who responded to me were those who denied they exist. Those who would recognize what I speak of refuse to publicly acknowledge it in the thought they would have to agree with me.

So-called Christian states*.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pure Christian theology?" Nobody should harbor the illusion that I refer to *perfect* Christian doctrine being imposed upon all by the State. Fundamental beliefs existing in the creeds have sufficed to maintain a lawful order, avoiding certain definitions that tend to divide the Christian public.

In order to maintain a consistency of social order, beliefs will need to be codified into law. Changing those laws is especially difficult as there's a theological dimension to them, and this implies, in a theocracy, if a law is changed, that the law was codified in error on the basis of misunderstanding. This is a problem for the state, which claims to be led directly by God, even if by proxy, i.e., a religious class speaking on behalf of God. Of course, such a state would simply start talking about abrogation. Hence, from this reality flows a concept of pure Christian theology, which would just so happen to be the theological position of the state.

Creeds aren't the basis of lawful order. They're declarations of faith around which faith communities are built. Also, none of them makes absurd comparisons between things like clothing choices and same-sex orientations.

It was found early in Christian history that too much tolerance in the Christian State for Gnosticism or for Pelagianism, and the religion itself that determines the morality is lost. However, Jews and Muslims could coexist together with Christians in Christian States despite their theological differences, assuming they don't try to confuse their own religion as a form of doctrinally-orthodox Christianity.

What you mean to say is that Christian empire was not able to tolerate beliefs it believed were antithetical to empire, and which threatened the seat of (political) power. It wasn't just Gnosticism, or Pelagianism, or Arianism, or whatever it was. And even then, by the time we come around to someone like Maximus the political state has already been corrupted, with the Church in tow.

As it is, Christians killed and subjugated Jews, and Muslims killed and subjugated Christians and Jews, and Christians went to war with Muslim nation-states. I don't know if you've shifted to this dimension from another, but in this reality, history is not an example of the Abrahamic religions playing nice with each other. Of course, a Christian theocracy wouldn't be able to tolerate Judaism or Islam any more than it would tolerate Gnosticism or Peleganism. There's no consistency in the view you're presenting.

The important matter for the Christian public was in maintaining a standard religion assuring that the appropriate morality remained in practice throughout the State. Non-Christians can obviously be moral too! This does allow for a limited measure of religious pluralism, which seems to be your biggest concern. Freedom of thought and conscience I would agree are important Constitutional rights, even in a Christian State.

If a Christian state enforces a standard (civic) religion, then any practice of religion outside of that standard is by default paganism, heretical, etc. Quaint affirmations of the morality of non-Christians don't get you anywhere in a theocracy proper. There would be no constitutional rights for non-Christians insofar as 'freedom of thought and conscience' are concerned, because these require freedom of speech and act, which the state would firmly deny to anyone who didn't affirm state beliefs. In fact, the very concept of 'freedom of thought' is Orwellian, as if the state controls the thoughts of those unfortunate enough to find themselves within it.

These are fancy ideals you have, but the reality of the state you're describing is authoritarian. You're thinking about theocracy as if it would be window-dressing on Western ideals, but this is to fail to properly consider theocracy to its proper end.

I do. When Voltaire called Religion a "cursed thing," it sowed seeds of cynicism in Christian States. Even if it was deserved, I would again state that the answer is repentance and spiritual revival--not a turn to meaningless "Reason," whatever the philosophes thought that was?

And you would have been jailed or executed for suggesting the church was in need of repentance or spiritual revival, even if it did. Voltaire wasn't acting in a vacuum when he rigged the lottery, or wrote against French religion. These are the kinds of thinkers a so-called Christian state produces -- inevitably. This is because the state isn't so much Christian, as it is a state.

That's almost as bad as saying there has never been a Christian State. I think what you're saying is that there's never been a *perfect* Christian State? Of course we agree.

I'm saying there have only been so-called Christian states.

But are you saying that the failures of Christians States means we must choose an alternative kind of State in order to enjoy more success than Christian States had? Or, are you saying that modern "checks and balances" somehow safeguard against the excesses that were integral with Christian States of the past?

I'm saying that Christians need to quit with the political ambition, as if the Christianising of a country is going to make it better. History shows us that it won't.

If so, that may or may not be true. For one, to remove the power of Christ from a society would lessen chances of perpetuating justice in a society. But secondly, Christian States can remain, essentially, "Christian States" and adopt these added safeguards against tyranny! Adopting Constitutional checks and balances does not de facto make Christian States "non-Christian States!"

This is nice and all, but 'the power of Christ' has never ensured a just society, and usually the exact opposite for anyone who wasn't part of the religious in-crowd. I don't know why you're talking about constitutional checks, as these wouldn't exist in a theocracy, or at least, they wouldn't exist in a form analogous to what the US has today. The state wouldn't be safeguarding against tyranny as the great evil, but evil corruptive beliefs.

That should not be a problem according to Paul, who stated quite matter of fact that ancient Israel, under the Law, and existing in the form of a Theocracy, is a model for the Church throughout history.

1 Cor 10.11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.

You see, we have to decide which things should change in a society from a Christian pov, and which things should *not* change!

So it's not a problem, but then we also need to decide what to keep and what to toss out? Mhmm.

The opposite of what I said. Christians should be able to discern beyond the visible acts and determine motives, to some degree. God keeps some things private, but in important matters of society, divine revelation can be drawn upon. After all, spiritual discernment is one of the spiritual gifts.

Nobody, however, would say that there isn't a false gift of "spiritual discernment!" Judgmentalism is as prevalent in Christian societies as in any other society. But you won't find Christian discernment in non-Christian societies--only examples of careful scrutiny and educated guesses.

'Christians should' and 'Christians do' are two entirely different epistemic propositions. I'm starting to wonder if you're trolling, or if you're writing things without having thought them through.

No, they are not Christians, and thus are given greater latitude by God when there are extenuating circumstances and issues of religious ignorance--perhaps even matters of personal disappointment and abuse.

Unreal.

I would've thought you'd mention Michael Servetus? However, in the Early Church, the emperors themselves were not always doctrinally-orthodox.

Maximus is a better example.

Yes, but we need order for our societies this side of the Millennium. The Kingdom of God is not yet, but it is among us through the observant Church. We shouldn't be discourage just because sin continues to exist in the Church! If the Church is corrupt in our time, it's time to fix it--not remove it for something less Christian!

Do you remember that time Jesus said He came to set up a political empire? Me neither. Do you remember when He sent out the apostles to lay the foundation for empire? Me neither. Christians love Jesus, and bad things happen when they lay claim to political power. As already mentioned, who believes the right thing in the right way, and who gets to decide, and what happens with those Christians who don't? Well, you already said they weren't Christian, which is just... unreal.

[ProDeo]

I agree that the Christian State has gone the same way as Israel's Theocracy.

Well then, let it be a lesson.

Besides, Israel was a called Theocracy by God Himself.

We however are a different nation -

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim  the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

No geology.

No politics.

Purpose : that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

No politics in Christian States??

Name one verse in the NT where we (Jesus followers) are called to create a Theocracy.

[IMINXTC]

The ultimate motive and eventual purpose behind this Theocracy push, for many, not necessarily among us, imo,  is to reign in and warn any believers who refuse to vote or otherwise act politically according to the dictates of what amounts to what would be touted as a Christian mandate or party platform and it's designated  leaders.

Many are already buying into the idea that overthrowing the constitution in favor of a Theocratic political platform is preferable to a democratic system and "God help" those believers who will not wear that hat.

Yeah, I know. It's already here.

God's party(?).

[Fenris]

But the Joooooooos, well, you no.  Equal opportunity, you know?
Their only protection these days are those darned Space Lasers (TM).

The biggest irony is that he won't live under a Muslim theocracy because they'll deprive him of freedom of speech. But he's fine setting up a Christian theocracy that deprives other people of freedom of speech.

"Tyranny is ok when I get to make the rules".

Coughs

[Fenris]

Christian states were everywhere in Europe, as imperialism gave way to nation-states. Most all of them in Europe were Christian, and so they can legitimately be defined as "Christian States," or "Christian Theocracies," as I like to use the term.

Spain under king Ferdinand comes to mind. The perfect theocratic hell-hole that you'd like to reproduce. Forced conversions? Check. Torture of Christians whose beliefs were deemed heretical? Check. Expulsion of religious minorities? Check.

This isn't even a serious discussion anymore. It's a bad guy movie trope.

More coughing

[Fenris]

If I lived in their abusive, corrupted theocracy, they may not give me any right to express my view.

And in your ideal theocracy, *I* wouldn't be able to express my view! Bravo!

I need a cough drop

[RabbiKnife]

If I lived in their abusive, corrupted theocracy, they may not give me any right to express my view.

And in your ideal theocracy, *I* wouldn't be able to express my view! Bravo!

I need a cough drop

Reeeeecccooooollllaaaaaaa…

[Fenris]

Reeeeecccooooollllaaaaaaa…

More of a "Halls" man myself.