What religion the State?

[agnostic]

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.

[Fenris]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.

[Fenris]

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?

[RandyPNW]

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.

[Fenris]

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...

[RabbiKnife]

Until about 1834 there were a number of u.s. state religions.

[Taylor]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.

[Athanasius]

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.

[Taylor]

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. 

[Taylor]

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.

[Athanasius]

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.

[Fenris]

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.