What religion the State?

[Fenris]

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.

[Fenris]

Except for 19th century Denmark and its perfectly Hegelian Christian state.

Go Denmark! 

[RandyPNW]

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.

[Fenris]

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.

[Athanasius]

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.

[Fenris]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.

[Athanasius]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.

[Athanasius]

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.

[agnostic]

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.

[Athanasius]

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.

[Fenris]

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.   

[Fenris]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.