What religion the State?

[RandyPNW]

What Christian empire and Christian nation-states were those?

Yep, the person making constant reference to historical examples (with particulars) hasn't adequately considered past Christian nations. I'll be interested to read what examples you have in mind.

OP's lack of citations -- and refusal to produce any when asked -- seems to be par for the course, so far.

When nearly every existing example shows how bad a theocracy is in practice, there really aren't any citations to be provided. So everything is reduced to abstract hypotheticals that don't just have zero grounding in reality, but have to constantly excuse reality as not being the "real" version of the thing in question.

I haven't ignored the question. Like everybody else, I don't live here, and have other things I have to do. The history of Christianity would inform us what Christian States have existed, and I've read Latourette's History of Christianity, which is very thorough, and have taken the various classes on the history of the world. If what you need is proof that Christianity penetrated state governments, you don't know enough to be discussing this.

But I believe that you, like most on these forums, are educated and smart, and know what I'm talking about. So no, I'm not ignoring anything, or avoiding, and all that. What we are doing is disagreeing about how thoroughly "Christian" states were "Christian" in history, and debating the relevance of the Christian State when there was so much mixture.

[RandyPNW]

By the way, I feel compelled to point out that one way in which Protestantism is far superior to Catholicism is in that it never had any political power in the way that the Catholic Church did, and so avoided the worst abuses. The Catholics started Crusades and carried out Inquisitions and played kingmaker to royalty based on personal loyalty to the Pope. That we're on a Protestant board debating copying the political practices of Catholicism is kind of sad, in my opinion.

Absolute Power corrupts absolutely. Still, it is not an indictment of the Christian Religion, as you infer. It expresses the dangers of Big Govt, and I think we're both conservatives, politically?

[RandyPNW]

And while I'm on that theme, I'd like to talk about the founding fathers. Their greatness lay in the fact that they understood humanity all too well. They saw human failing and weakness. And so they did something marvelous, they created something new in this world: limited government. They actually enumerated what powers government would have and specifically spelled out things that government would not be permitted to do. Things like freedom of speech and freedom to practice religion, as stated in the First Amendment. And this whole idea of limiting government's power over its citizens is what makes America great.

As I've said before, American Democracy was a peace treaty between conservative Christianity and Deism, tolerating a diversity of religions. It was more akin to "have other gods" than "don't have any other gods."

As such, the Constitution and its bylaws were not Theocratic or fully Christian. But they were peaceable, and based on Judeo-Christian ethics. That's why it has worked so well. But the farther we fall into Humanism, the less it is working, as I see it.

[Fenris]

As I've said before, American Democracy was a peace treaty between conservative Christianity and Deism, tolerating a diversity of religions. It was more akin to "have other gods" than "don't have any other gods."

And this is fine. Once government decides which gods are permissible, it can also decide which behavior is permissible, down to the tiniest detail. I have no desire to live in such a place.

As such, the Constitution and its bylaws were not Theocratic or fully Christian. But they were peaceable, and based on Judeo-Christian ethics.

Yes. And it's worked very well.

[Fenris]

Absolute Power corrupts absolutely. Still, it is not an indictment of the Christian Religion, as you infer.

I'm not indicting Christianity. (I'm rather fond of you lot, by and large). It's the danger of mixing religion and politics, as the Catholic Church did, that screams "danger". Nearly everyone here is Protestant, which hasn't fallen into the same trap. Nor should it.

It expresses the dangers of Big Govt, and I think we're both conservatives, politically?

You can think of me as a small government conservative. Although I suppose my leanings are more libertarian (small "L", not the party, which is full of kooks).

[Athanasius]

What Christian empire and Christian nation-states were those?

Yep, the person making constant reference to historical examples (with particulars) hasn't adequately considered past Christian nations. I'll be interested to read what examples you have in mind.

OP's lack of citations -- and refusal to produce any when asked -- seems to be par for the course, so far.

When nearly every existing example shows how bad a theocracy is in practice, there really aren't any citations to be provided. So everything is reduced to abstract hypotheticals that don't just have zero grounding in reality, but have to constantly excuse reality as not being the "real" version of the thing in question.

I haven't ignored the question. Like everybody else, I don't live here, and have other things I have to do. The history of Christianity would inform us what Christian States have existed, and I've read Latourette's History of Christianity, which is very thorough, and have taken the various classes on the history of the world. If what you need is proof that Christianity penetrated state governments, you don't know enough to be discussing this.

But I believe that you, like most on these forums, are educated and smart, and know what I'm talking about. So no, I'm not ignoring anything, or avoiding, and all that. What we are doing is disagreeing about how thoroughly "Christian" states were "Christian" in history, and debating the relevance of the Christian State when there was so much mixture.

I saw your earlier reply to me and will respond in time, but wanted to ask if you considered the atrocities of the Byzantine and related empires enough to disqualify them from being considered genuinely Christian, or if you excuse these states for the atrocities they committed?

Because it was Jesus who said, "Blind your neighbour, castrate those who persecute you, cut out the tongues of those who curse you" and so on, right?

[Fenris]

The reason we preach the Gospel is so that people will not be ignorant in their decision-making, and can thereby be judged as included or excluded in God's Kingdom.

This is the most negative and uncompelling reason I've ever seen for preaching the Gospel. It's usually more along the lines of "Letting people know of Jesus's sacrifice so they may be free of sin", not "Teaching them the law so that they may be punished on judgement day".

I mean, if that's your reason it would be kinder that people remain ignorant, so that God can't punish them for willfully sinning.

[agnostic]

This is the most negative and uncompelling reason I've ever seen for preaching the Gospel.

Who could've guessed that a theocratic worldview which justifies the history of Christian-ruled governments but compartmentalizes every atrocity they committed with "no true Scotsman" even while advocating for the same practices that led to those atrocities would actually repel members of groups who would be persecuted under its dominion.

[RandyPNW]

This is the most negative and uncompelling reason I've ever seen for preaching the Gospel.

Who could've guessed that a theocratic worldview which justifies the history of Christian-ruled governments but compartmentalizes every atrocity they committed with "no true Scotsman" even while advocating for the same practices that led to those atrocities would actually repel members of groups who would be persecuted under its dominion.

This comment seems overly "desperate." First, I didn't in the least try to justify "failed Christianity!" On the contrary.

But more to the point, the Gospel that attempts to set the record straight on a true Christian theocracy is practical in setting forth moral standards that are indeed religiously based, but not accepted by the pagan world, which attempts to rationalize away their human conscience.

It is important for this "theocratic" message to get out, to convict governors to "do the right thing," even though they represent non-Christian governments. Our testimony to righteousness will not be accepted by all, but it will offer the best route to take, and bring judgment to those who now know the truth and reject it anyway.

The Gospel is not just an outreach to include all. Rather, it is a narrow outreach to those "with ears to hear," who share a common human conscience before God. It is the opposite of "agnostic."

I would add that "no true Scotsman" does not apply in this case. Nobody is saying that Christians can't fail, nor that Christian states can't fail. I've said otherwise.

[Fenris]

It is important for this "theocratic" message to get out, to convict governors to "do the right thing," even though they represent non-Christian governments.

If by "the right thing" you mean pushing biblical values, I'm behind you. If you mean pushing a theocratic state, I'm completely opposed.

Our testimony to righteousness will not be accepted by all, but it will offer the best route to take, and bring judgment to those who now know the truth and reject it anyway.

I'll say it again: This is a horrible reason to preach the Gospel.

[RandyPNW]

It is important for this "theocratic" message to get out, to convict governors to "do the right thing," even though they represent non-Christian governments.

If by "the right thing" you mean pushing biblical values, I'm behind you. If you mean pushing a theocratic state, I'm completely opposed.

Our testimony to righteousness will not be accepted by all, but it will offer the best route to take, and bring judgment to those who now know the truth and reject it anyway.

I'll say it again: This is a horrible reason to preach the Gospel.

You're entitled to your opinion, Fenris. Yes, I'm pushing values that originate with the Bible. People don't have to accept the Bible in my ideal State, but they do have to accept moral values in my ideal Christian State.

The Gospel is not just about Salvation, but also a warning about Judgment. It would not be kind not to warn men that judgment awaits them if they don't live good lives.

I'm not saying that my ideal Christian State is to judge men's eternal souls, nor to punish them for theological disagreement. The object of religion in the State is to produce moral congruency.

You don't have to be a Christian in my ideal Christian State. But the Christian testimony would warn those who do not agree with Christianity that judgment awaits them from heaven, if they reject God's word in their lives.

The State does not impose this kind of judgment. The State's interest is in moral order within the society. And I believe that a 90% Christian society can achieve this in some measure, while also being tolerant with respect to individuals who may differ.

[Athanasius]

The State does not impose this kind of judgment. The State's interest is in moral order within the society. And I believe that a 90% Christian society can achieve this in some measure, while also being tolerant with respect to individuals who may differ.

'Some measure' is the trick. History would demonstrate that when a state attempts to enforce moral congruence, 'judgement' is exactly what happens for those who find themselves in conflict with those moral values. In fact, we need only look at an example like China, or our very own social media mobs, to see what happens when moral values are imposed and enforced. And even historically, we're only talking a hundred or two years in the past and we'd have more examples than we'd know what to do with.

This leaves wide open the question of how your idealised religious State would respond to the inevitable underground cultures that arise from its moral impositions? Those who don't conform to the values are going to be considered, as you said, seditious (corrupters of divinely-revealed! morality), and for the State to protect itself as well as its population from moral and religious corruption, it's going to what, slap these people with a reprimand? Nonsense, it's going to jail them, convict them, execute them. Or maybe you think it'll merely exile these people? Then that state better prepare for war.

If you disagree, then how do you suggest a State would respond to such people?

[Athanasius]

Not at all. In the US, prior to the 70s, laws were enforced against homosexual behavior without the support of gay people.

That's not quite a reply to the point I was making. Sure, you can enforce morality through the threat of law, but then where does that leave the state? In the US the church is widely considered to hate and despise the LGBTQ+ community, and it's those same laws and practices of the 70s (and earlier) that provide the substance of the objections we hear today and in the recent past. This of course has given a boost to so-called liberal so-called Christianity.

And you know what? It's true that homosexuality was treated with extreme contempt and disgust in the past. If the States was a Christianity country in the 70s (it was not) then it could have instituted a Christ-based response to what it saw as this moral and sexual issue. It did not.

It is universally true, to the conscience of Man, that ethnic equality exists naturally, and that divisions are based on necessity due to sectarian corruptions.

You must be reading different history books than the rest of us.

We are talking about the truth of a particular religion, and not about the prevalence of sin in all religions. Again, examples of failed Christianity do not confuse the clarity of Christian truths and do not cloud the genuine examples of Christian charity. Christianity stands apart from other religions, both in theological relevance and in demonstration of its power to be righteous before God.

This also doesn't address what I was saying. You talk about 'failed Christianity' from our future perspective, but put yourself into the past and you would have likely been a practitioner of that same Christianity, arguing for the same thing you're arguing now. It's too convenient an argument to dispel counter-examples as 'failed Christianity' and then try to suggest that I'm confusing that failed Christianity with the clarity of Christian truths. It's exactly because of the clarity of those Christians truths that I don't think a theocratic state is even remotely desireable.

Do you "honestly" think honesty is about agreeing with your conditions for agreement?

You referred to Islam as a religion of war while referring to Judaism as a religion that 'attempted to purge itself of anybody in its orbit of beliefs... [or] outside of its own theological orbit'. So no, I don't think honesty is agreeing with me. I think honesty is being honest in your descriptions, and not forgiving ancient Judaism for the very same thing you condemn Islam for.

I understand perfectly well what you're saying. Not much to respond to. I've said my bit--you just deny it by bringing up examples of failed Christianity, and then claiming that is "dishonest" or "disingenuous."

Have I brought up examples of failed Christianity? Not yet, I haven't. It took you until this reply to mention the Byzantine empire, but if that's your idea of a Christian state then I don't know how you think you've done anything but validate everything I've said thus far.

God hates the willful sinner. Jesus forgave all sinners, no matter the sin, based on their "ignorance." The reason we preach the Gospel is so that people will not be ignorant in their decision-making, and can thereby be judged as included or excluded in God's Kingdom.

What? That is not the reason I preach the Gospel.

God hates the willful sinner. God hates homosexuality in any society, Christian or otherwise. I use homosexuality as an example because it had been illegal in former Christian-leaning countries, and now is accepted out of conversion into more of a humanist religion. Although I understand that a country is not necessarily or even likely to convert back to full-scale Christian law, it is still necessary that we promote Christian morality, as if it is something that the State *should* legislate.

And go back to electric shock therapy, lobotomies, sterilisation, the forced consumption of estrogen, and so on? We ought not. On the subject of promoting Biblical values I'm all for that, but this isn't the same of trying to legislate a theocratic state.

Also, society needs to be informed about "what is right" before God, even if the State supports a different point of view. It is our duty from God. And it is our responsibility to men.

The church can do this without the state. Turning the Gospel into civic religion turns it into a little 'g'-ospel.

Have you read a History of Christianity? The longest-running Christian kingdom in history was the Byzantine Empire. As Rome broke up into nation-states, a number of those states declared their laws to be based on Christianity. Some of those states continued to carry the "imperial" banner of Christianity.

Yes, and in what sense do you think these nations come anywhere close to practicing true Christian religion? Those were brutal, brutal empires.

Our message is practical whether it is realized, presently, in the State or not. It informs individuals of their moral need to prepare for God's Kingdom. It encourages States to pass Christian laws, whether the State is Christian or not. Ultimately, when Christ returns, there will be Christian states, I believe.

When Christ returns there will be no need for 'Christian states'.

[RandyPNW]

You boggle my mind. In condemning the idea of a Christian State, or even the hope for one, you by default validate all or some of the alternatives, whether an Islamic State, a pagan State, a Communist State, etc.

Even worse, you discount and deny--even oppose, God's promise to do that very thing, namely create nation-states with the faith of Abraham.

In condemning the "legislating of morality" you in fact condemn God for doing the same when He gave Israel the Law of Moses. And you ignore Jesus claim that he would make a nation of faith out of the Roman nation.

Matt 21.43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."

You discount preaching the Gospel for the purpose of enlightening people with the knowledge of Christ. Christ forgave people due to their ignorance--"forgive them for they know not what they do." But you say that isn't your purpose in preaching the Gospel, to make them answerable to God. The Gospel has never been strictly about salvation, but also about judgment.

Your Gospel has never succeeded over the long haul unless it has worked its way into the State, which then became the protector of Christianity, albeit temporarily. How did Christianity advance in history apart from being mixed in with the political states?

You are so far out among the crowd of skeptics that we can't carry on a conversation. You claim to be Christian but sound utterly antiChristian, with respect to the Christian State. But I know this is a common position, separating the Christian religion from the political state.

It is the position of the old separatists, who Luther condemned as malcontents and rebels. You don't strike me as one who would participate in a peasants' rebellion? And yet, you join the opposition to those who would sign petitions for Christian laws. God have mercy!

But in all honesty, I respect your intellect, and understand this is a popular position today. I'm just asking you to not follow the crowd in denying the workability of a Christian State simply because our schools tell us its evil and has failed repeatedly.

Marriages fail repeatedly, but do we give up on marriage? You don't have to join any of the old dead denominations, or any of the failed Christian states. You can start over, as all reformations do, and preach what we *hope* to happen, namely the Kingdom of God. And if we expect, in the Kingdom of God, for Christian states to exist, why should we oppose them now in theory?

[Athanasius]

You boggle my mind. In condemning the idea of a Christian State, or even the hope for one, you by default validate all or some of the alternatives, whether an Islamic State, a pagan State, a Communist State, etc.

If I'm not in favour of theocracy, so why would my apparent condemnation (your word) 'of a Christian State' lead to the validation of alternatives? As Fenris has mentioned and I've agreed with: I'm all for a state built on biblical values, but I'm very much not for theocracy on this side of the new creation. Besides, the problem isn't the idea of a Christian State, in theory, it's the reality of that Christian State in practice.

Even worse, you discount and deny--even oppose, God's promise to do that very thing, namely create nation-states with the faith of Abraham.

I do not, and I do not think that is an appropriate interpretation of God's promise to (then) Abram in Genesis 12. (Just one nation, by the way, not nation-states.)

In condemning the "legislating of morality" you in fact condemn God for doing the same when He gave Israel the Law of Moses. And you ignore Jesus claim that he would make a nation of faith out of the Roman nation.

No, I don't, but that's a neat rhetorical trick you have there: suggest my objections to your proposal are actually objections to God's past acts or God's promises. Countries obviously pass legislation that prohibits certain behaviours deemed immoral or evil: stealing, murder, rape, vigilantism, etc. etc. But there's a difference between these legal prohibitions and the legislation of morality. To quickly point out: one tells us what we ought not to, and the other tells us what we ought to do.

As for Jesus' claim, let's assume your understanding: that still does not make Rome a genuine 'Christian State'. You can claim it, or the Byzantine empire, but you'll soon find yourself defending atrocities to maintain the claim -- or dropping it. There's a strange cognitive dissonance at play here.

Matt 21.43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."

You discount preaching the Gospel for the purpose of enlightening people with the knowledge of Christ. Christ forgave people due to their ignorance--"forgive them for they know not what they do." But you say that isn't your purpose in preaching the Gospel, to make them answerable to God. The Gospel has never been strictly about salvation, but also about judgment.

I don't "discount preaching the Gospel for the purpose of enlightening people with the knowledge of Christ". You said, "The reason we preach the Gospel is so that people will not be ignorant in their decision-making, and can thereby be judged as included or excluded in God's Kingdom." Not "a" reason, but "the" reason, and that is not "the" reason we preach the Gospel.

Your Gospel has never succeeded over the long haul unless it has worked its way into the State, which then became the protector of Christianity, albeit temporarily. How did Christianity advance in history apart from being mixed in with the political states?

I would be careful if I were you in implying that I preach a Gospel other than that preached by Christ, received by the disciples and Apostles, and passed on.

And Christianity intertwining with the state historically does not mean that this is something to be desired. That's a description, and we're disagreeing with the prescription.

You are so far out among the crowd of skeptics that we can't carry on a conversation. You claim to be Christian but sound utterly antiChristian, with respect to the Christian State. But I know this is a common position, separating the Christian religion from the political state.

Imagine being so caught up in one's notion that being Christian necessitates being in favour of a Christian state, that one considers anti-Christian those who aren't in favour of a Christian state. I am all for the return of Christ and his kingship over the nations. I am not for human attempts to imitate that.

It is the position of the old separatists, who Luther condemned as malcontents and rebels. You don't strike me as one who would participate in a peasants' rebellion? And yet, you join the opposition to those who would sign petitions for Christian laws. God have mercy!

Because what you think are 'Christian laws' will not be applied in the spirit of Christ civically. That's what I oppose, not 'Christian laws' in theory, but in practice. But what is this theological maligning -- I strike you as someone Luther would condemn as a malcontent and rebel? For real? I don't know what to say to that other than that it's unbelievable, and you're way off base with that assessment.

But in all honesty, I respect your intellect, and understand this is a popular position today. I'm just asking you to not follow the crowd in denying the workability of a Christian State simply because our schools tell us its evil and has failed repeatedly.

And Marxism isn't a bad idea either despite the repeated millions dead. I haven't been educated by the schools into my position - I surveyed history myself.

Marriages fail repeatedly, but do we give up on marriage? You don't have to join any of the old dead denominations, or any of the failed Christian states. You can start over, as all reformations do, and preach what we *hope* to happen, namely the Kingdom of God. And if we expect, in the Kingdom of God, for Christian states to exist, why should we oppose them now in theory?

As I was saying above, it's the difference between Christ's kingship and human imitation.

This comes across like an old Marxist trying to convince me that Trotsky had it wrong, and so did Lenin, but if only we tried again with X, Y, Z it'll be different! Christian states fail because the notion itself is contradictory and paradoxical. A Christian state is unnecessary. Even if it starts out genuinely Christianly it'll soon end up as political power clothed in Christian religious imagery, devoid of meaning, and brutal in execution.

But you do have an example of a Christian state that wasn't brutal, right? What is that example, and what happened to the State? You know, aside from 19th century Hegelian Denmark?