Shouldn't all Evangelicals want Christian Nationalism?

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I don't think any of that is irrational. Do you believe Christianity is illogical and irrational?

Yes, I believe Christianity seems illogical and irrational, beyond human comprehension. It only makes sense to me because the Holy Spirit provided wisdom. Without the Holy Spirit, Christianity might seem like just another fairy tale from 2,000 years ago.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

When questioning Christian about power, cite scripture and support it with a Biblical doctrine. There is no point in continuing this discussion if you cannot provide a Bible verse. I am not interested in personal opinions or interpretations, only in principles rooted in the Bible.

You are a Protestant whose faith community did not exist until yesterday. Emphasis on Sola Scriptura is a Protestant notion and I rely on more than scripture. If you are convinced scripture forbids Christians from holding power then try to convince me from scripture. You won't be able to though, because it doesn't.

I observed that your post focuses on positive points but does not include Bible verses. As someone who identifies as Christian and advocates for a Christian nation, it is surprising to see the absence of God's Word, which is fundamental for Christians, in your discussion.

How do you advocate for a Christian Nation when you do not want Christians to rule said Nation?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yes, I believe Christianity seems illogical and irrational, beyond human comprehension. It only makes sense to me because the Holy Spirit provided wisdom. Without the Holy Spirit, Christianity might seem like just another fairy tale from 2,000 years ago.

Well I disagree. If you agree with Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists that Christianity is absurd, illogical and cannot be believed than that's where we depart.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Christian Nationalism just will not work as long as Christians can't agree on whose Church to follow.

Maybe. Depends. I could see a broad coalition of conservative Christians agreeing on some basic rules for society.

I'll wait until Jesus sets up his Kingdom.

How incredibly passive.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Well I disagree. If you agree with Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists that Christianity is absurd, illogical and cannot be believed than that's where we depart.

Well I will part with you also because that is why Jesus is so dangerous and provocative. He disturbs because he transcends our polarities. You cannot logically pigeonhole him. The power in his parables was their illogic. "The last shall be first." "The greatest among you must serve the others." "eat my body and drink my blood." "The last worker gets the same pay as the first", "if you hand offends you cut it off" etc.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I could see a broad coalition of conservative Christians agreeing on some basic rules for society.

Like "feed the hungry, clothe the naked"? "Keep the Sabbath (Saturday)?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Most of Christian history is under various forms of Christian monarchy or otherwise a political state that officially endorsed Christianity. Even some of the United States were officially submitted to Jesus with state churches up through the 19th century.

You are living in an aberration of time. Can you use scripture or Biblical doctrine to support living in a modern liberal democracy where, say for example, the average school promotes homosexuality to children as healthy and normal?

The speck and the log in the eye come to mind here.

We should not confuse European history with the history of Christianity. What you have shared is about Europe and Western history, not about history of Christianity. If we look the New Testament and early Church history, Christianity began in Bethlehem under a harsh pagan government. Thirty-three years later, Christ was crucified by a pagan ruler, and fifty days after that, God sent His Holy Spirit while still under pagan rule.

The early church grew globally despite harsh and pagan rulers. It wasn't until 350 years later that Christianity had its first Christian leader and government. When examining these Christian rulers and monarchs of Europe, it becomes evident that they often did not practice Christianity themselves but rather wielded it as a tool to exert power over others.

Today, there are more Christians living outside Western civilization. There are now more Christians in communist/Hindu/Muslim Asia than in Europe or North America. Over the past five decades, the number of individuals converting to Christianity has been higher in the 10/40 window than in either the Americas or Europe.

Bringing someone to Christ involves preaching the good news of Jesus Christ, prayers of the saints, and testimonies.

If Christians are truly concern of expanding Christianity, Christians should preach, witness and pray for unbelievers including homosexuals and those considering aborting their baby rather than enforcing a Christian government on them.

You are correct about "speck and the logs." However, this teaching was meant for Christians, not non-believers. The church should first examine their own hearts and remove the "speck and the logs" before focusing on those who "promote homosexuality in schools."

“For God so loved the world ( including those who promote homosexuality in schools), that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Also irrelevant.

What specific "Christioan" laws would you like to see?

But if we follow the example of Jesus who humbled himself, gave up his "power", identified with the vulnerable, accepted maltreatment would we not be more faithful to him and his teaching?

That is why Jesus is so disturbing, radical, dangerous, subversive. He is not about Earthly power.

The only way to describe your writing is as Paul did.


“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Philippians 2:5-8

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The only way to describe your writing is as Paul did.


“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Philippians 2:5-8

With that kind of Christian, what would an authentic Christian Nationalism look like?
Something very different than what they have in mind now.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

They ended up being assimilated. "Christianity" was assimilated. As it is now.

Christianity was assimilated into Roman society but what was the result of said assimilation? Was it more bad than it was good? Are we to reject the influence Christianity had on not only Roman law but Western law after the fall of the Western half of the Empire? Are we to reject the change from a Pagan oriented worldview to a Christian one which dominated the minds of the average person and carried a massive weight? Christianity growing larger was inevitably going to change society and it's not as if the devout did not come up with responses to all the risks that entails. There continued to be devout Christians, more so than ever before because of the freedom to be a Christian without repercussions.

Definitely pornography as there are existing standards. We talked about that before. Marriage? or How do you feel about legal Same sex unions?

Yes we've talked about this before, but you keep asking the same question. Regarding Same sex unions in a Christian society they would have no legal status and would be shunned.

Ya, i went too far. We have a role in the secular world.

This is obvious yet many Christians in their opposition to gaining power forget this.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

We should not confuse European history with the history of Christianity. What you have shared is about Europe and Western history, not about history of Christianity. If we look the New Testament and early Church history, Christianity began in Bethlehem under a harsh pagan government. Thirty-three years later, Christ was crucified by a pagan ruler, and fifty days after that, God sent His Holy Spirit while still under pagan rule.

The history of Christianity is tied up with the west since that is where Christianity was expressed and had the most freedom. Of course there are others but as a Protestant what claim do you have to them? You are a direct result of Western Christianity as that is where your faith was born out of.

The early church grew globally despite harsh and pagan rulers. It wasn't until 350 years later that Christianity had its first Christian leader and government. When examining these Christian rulers and monarchs of Europe, it becomes evident that they often did not practice Christianity themselves but rather wielded it as a tool to exert power over others.

Of course they didn't behave perfect, few rulers do. What then is the solution? To completely do without power as Christians? To have no Charlemagne's or Alfred the Greats willing to defend the faithful? No one is suggesting Christian political participation is perfect, rather is a necessity in a world which demands people have power in order to secure sovereignty. If Christians give this up they become essentially a dhimmi or slave population.

Today, there are more Christians living outside Western civilization. There are now more Christians in communist/Hindu/Muslim Asia than in Europe or North America. Over the past five decades, the number of individuals converting to Christianity has been higher in the 10/40 window than in either the Americas or Europe.

None of this would have been possible if not for the work of previous generations of Christians living in the West. Had Christianity not been preserved in Europe and it's presence there firmly established, later missionary work would have been impossible.

Bringing someone to Christ involves preaching the good news of Jesus Christ, prayers of the saints, and testimonies.

Well yeah.

If Christians are truly concern of expanding Christianity, Christians should preach, witness and pray for unbelievers including homosexuals and those considering aborting their baby rather than enforcing a Christian government on them.

So you would rather Christians pray for aborted babies than do anything to actually stop abortion? Would you also rather Christians pray to stop murder rather than do anything to stop murder? How about Rape? How about any other crime which is committed? If Christians are able to gain power in a specific region or territory they don't have to tolerate LGBT or abortion.

You are correct about "speck and the logs." However, this teaching was meant for Christians, not non-believers. The church should first examine their own hearts and remove the "speck and the logs" before focusing on those who "promote homosexuality in schools."

So we shouldn't missionize of convince others of our values now?

“For God so loved the world ( including those who promote homosexuality in schools), that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”.

Why do you defend homosexuality and the LGBT? Would you do the same with child predators?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Christianity was assimilated into Roman society but what was the result of said assimilation? Was it more bad than it was good? Are we to reject the influence Christianity had on not only Roman law but Western law after the fall of the Western half of the Empire? Are we to reject the change from a Pagan oriented worldview to a Christian one which dominated the minds of the average person and carried a massive weight? Christianity growing larger was inevitably going to change society and it's not as if the devout did not come up with responses to all the risks that entails. There continued to be devout Christians, more so than ever before because of the freedom to be a Christian without repercussions.

So there is something positive to be said for Christian assimilation into contemporary world.

Yes we've talked about this before, but you keep asking the same question.

It is you who keep bringing it up without answer. The movie industry at least has a rating system. now how would you enforce it on the internet?

Regarding Same sex unions in a Christian society they would have no legal status and would be shunned.

You would also make homosexuality illegal. What kind of punishment?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

So there is something positive to be said for Christian assimilation into contemporary world.

Except whereas Chrostoan assimilation into Rome pulled Rome and the West towards Christianity, modern Christian assimilation pulls Christians into the world and it's influence.

It is you who keep bringing it up without answer. The movie industry at least has a rating system. now how would you enforce it on the internet?

I bring it up whenever the topic is mentioned. You can block websites and prevent porn companies operating in your state/country. Will it stop everyone? No. But it will have an impact.

You would also make homosexuality illegal. What kind of punishment?

I don't have to make it illegal. Homosexuality is incredibly fringe and I would be more concerned about properly regulating heterosexual relationships.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Except whereas Christian assimilation into Rome pulled Rome and the West towards Christianity, modern Christian assimilation pulls Christians into the world and it's influence.

I agree completely. Even to the point where Christianity is almost unrecognizable in some cases.

I bring it up whenever the topic is mentioned. You can block websites and prevent porn companies operating in your state/country. Will it stop everyone? No. But it will have an impact.

I don't have to make it illegal. Homosexuality is incredibly fringe and I would be more concerned about properly regulating heterosexual relationships.

What do you have in mind with properly regulating heterosexual relationships?

 

[BobRyan]

Christian Nationalism would result in many more people hearing about the Gospel of Jesus. The gospel would shine through every major institution, instead of being mostly hidden or mocked as it is today, at best an historical relic.

According to Evangelicals, nothing is more important than this mission to have more people one earth hear the Gospel.

The nation itself would be a kind of witness about the reality of Jesus Christ, in the same way that we worship individual liberty and the spirit of democracy today, as the ultimate goods of mankind.

So what do evangelicals say in response to this?

I suppose they may disagree with the methods that the Gospel is preached, but who are they to resist the methods as long as Jesus is being preached?

The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. - Phillipians 1:17-18


This is where I see real tension between modern Christianity and the Gospel. There are idols in between them, idols that the leftwing and rightwing share. I always picture it as the Statue of Liberty holding the Cross. The idea is that they are not willing to sacrifice either of them, and give glory to both in a kind of syncretized secularized modern Christianity.

hmmm

wikipedia. - Christian Nationalism

"President of Russia Vladimir Putin has been described as a global leader of the Christian nationalist and Christian right movements.[24] As President, Putin has increased the power of the Russian Orthodox Church and proclaimed his staunch belief in Eastern Orthodoxy,[25] as well as maintaining close contacts with Patriarchs of Moscow and all Rus' Alexy II and Kirill."

The problem is trying to get Christian Nationalism --- and Religious Liberty to co-exist.

 

[lismore]

Latin attacks on East Rome did not help them survive and likely permanently crippled them.

Hello! It was indeed sad when the Latin version of Christian Nationalism and the Orthodox version of Christian Nationalism went to war, Christians killing Christians. While they were preaching reconciliation, they were living it's opposite. The horrific sack of Constantinople in 1204, a shocking object lesson in why 'Christian Nationalism' is to be avoided, IMHO. As was the disaster of the First World War in Europe.

So talking of competing Christian Nationalisms, which version was correct, the Orthodox or the Latin? They're different enough to cause major conflicts, so they can't both be right.

It also resulted in the repeal of Pagan morality in favour of Christian morality and norms in the East Roman Empire. Would you prefer the Greeks have remained Pagan?

I don't believe that forced cajoled conversions or infant baptism is actually de-Paganising a culture. This is why Jesus said only a few would find the small gate and the narrow path to life. By switching the narrow way to the broad road you are having a system where many are cajoled into professing faith in God but they actually by nature deny him by their works. Hence your bloody wars between Orthodox and Catholic. Undoubtedly there were true believers caught up in the mess, but in an era when lip-service is required and lauded, you aren't changing the hearts of men.

Given that Alfred spared his enemies in the end it seems he was a great King of Christian virtue. What is your problem with him ruling as a Christian?

None. It's good when a true believer gets into a position of power. It doesn't happen very often, there aren't very many of us.

Why should Christians be allowed to be part of Parliament? Don't you believe in the utter separation of true Christians from power?

No. As I said before I believers and the gospel should permeate every level of society, be salt and light wherever they go. However, a meal composed only of salt, would not be palatable, which is what Christian Nationalism would be.

It's not like Christians didn't try during the early centuries of Islam to convert them, but the structures of Islamic society and its devotion to Allah made it nearly impossible to break through.

'Christian Nationalism' as a state religion made surrounding states like Persia more antagonistic towards the gospel and also stunted the missionary zeal of the church. It has been claimed that the failure to Evangelize the Turks and the Arabs to a significant degree in pre-Islamic times came back to bite. You failed to evangelize your neighbours but you did manage to thrash out the correct length of the tonsure.

God Bless

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Hello! It was indeed sad when the Latin version of Christian Nationalism and the Orthodox version of Christian Nationalism went to war, Christians killing Christians. While they were preaching reconciliation, they were living it's opposite. The horrific sack of Constantinople in 1204, a shocking object lesson in why 'Christian Nationalism' is to be avoided, IMHO. As was the disaster of the First World War in Europe.

I'm confused. I thought these weren't Christian states since such a thing can never exist. It wasn't so much Christian Nationalism that caused the 4th crusade but machivalean politicking and byzantine intrigue as well. The crusaders didn't just randomly attack Constantinople because they were Catholic and the East Romans Orthodox.

So talking of competing Christian Nationalisms, which version was correct, the Orthodox or the Latin? They're different enough to cause major conflicts, so they can't both be right.

Well I believe Orthodox Christianity is correct. You believe both were false and there were no Christians at this point, right?

I don't believe that forced cajoled conversions or infant baptism is actually de-Paganising a culture. This is why Jesus said only a few would find the small gate and the narrow path to life. By switching the narrow way to the broad road you are having a system where many are cajoled into professing faith in God but they actually by nature deny him by their works. Hence your bloody wars between Orthodox and Catholic. Undoubtedly there were true believers caught up in the mess, but in an era when lip-service is required and lauded, you aren't changing the hearts of men.

Please show me the true Church that remained hidden throughout history and avoided power. Where were they preaching the need to disarm in the face of Muslim aggression?

None. It's good when a true believer gets into a position of power. It doesn't happen very often, there aren't very many of us.

How is it good now? Don't you abhorrent power and the use of it? Being in power requires one to be willing to kill. I got the impression you were a pacifist who hates violence.

No. As I said before I believers and the gospel should permeate every level of society, be salt and light wherever they go. However, a meal composed only of salt, would not be palatable, which is what Christian Nationalism would be.

What does that look like in terms of governmental authority? Should there be Christian police officers? Soldiers? Lawyers and politicians?

'Christian Nationalism' as a state religion made surrounding states like Persia more antagonistic towards the gospel and also stunted the missionary zeal of the church. It has been claimed that the failure to Evangelize the Turks and the Arabs to a significant degree in pre-Islamic times came back to bite. You failed to evangelize your neighbours but you did manage to thrash out the correct length of the tonsure.

God Bless

Tell me how you would evangelize a culture that would kill you the moment you tell them that their Prophet was false. That required of you as a Christian to recognize your inferior status. Why haven't Christians like yourself been auccesful in converting the Islamic world?

 

[lismore]

I'm confused. I thought these weren't Christian states since such a thing can never exist.

You can have a state where Roman Catholicism is the state religion and you can have a state where Orthodox is the state religion, these two states can have a bloody war where there are unspeakable atrocities as indeed happened in 1204. A clear reason why 'Christian Nationalism' is not good. Jesus said a Kingdom divided cannot stand. So clearly the RCC and the Orthodox launching bloody wars against each other would be a division?

Well I believe Orthodox Christianity is correct.

Then the other form of 'Christian Nationalism' you went to war against, where Roman Catholicism was the state religion was wrong?

So you admit 'Christian Nationalism' can be wrong?

You believe both were false and there were no Christians at this point, right?

WRONG! Already asked and answered:

Undoubtedly there were true believers caught up in the mess

Please show me the true Church that remained hidden throughout history and avoided power.

Why? That's not a claim made by me. True believers are like cities on a hill. They cannot be hidden.

Where were they preaching the need to disarm in the face of Muslim aggression?

Straw-man argument.

I got the impression you were a pacifist who hates violence.

No you didn't. I have already stated on this thread that a government has a responsibility to protect it's citizens. You don't need to have a state religion to have an army and police force.

What does that look like in terms of governmental authority? Should there be Christian police officers? Soldiers? Lawyers and politicians?

As I have said four times now, believers and the gospel should permeate every layer of society, to be salt and light in it.

Tell me how you would evangelize a culture that would kill you the moment you tell them that their Prophet was false.

I would endeavour to follow the command of the Lord Jesus Christ:

Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation (Mark 16:15)

Jesus didn't say to go into all the world and tell them a prophet was false. Jesus said go into all the world and preach the gospel. Going into all the world and preaching the gospel seems to be a very major challenge for 'Christian Nationalism'.

Why haven't Christians like yourself been auccesful in converting the Islamic world?

As the Word of God says, wherever the gospel is preached there is fruit:

How Iran Became a Hotspot for Christianity

Despite Muslims’ commitment to bringing up their children in the ways of Allah, the Holy Spirit is stirring the hearts of children and adults in Islamic-ruled countries to bring them to faith in Jesus.

www.crossway.org

The rise and durability of Islam has been due to a great extent by the failure of the church to preach the gospel. But you did set the correct length of the tonsure

God Bless You

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You can have a state where Roman Catholicism is the state religion and you can have a state where Orthodox is the state religion, these two states can have a bloody war where there are unspeakable atrocities as indeed happened in 1204. A clear reason why 'Christian Nationalism' is not good. Jesus said a Kingdom divided cannot stand. So clearly the RCC and the Orthodox launching bloody wars against each other would be a division?

Or you could just have a state and states will always perpetrate violence to secure power. I will use the USA as an example a secular state which has probably perpetrated more violence and death than all Christian Kingdoms before it in the name of it's secular ideology. It doesn't matter what ideology one has because violence is inherent to human nature.

Your use of Christian Nationalism in the case of Latin and Byzantine society is simply anachronistic. It would be better to say Christian political power because Christian Nationalism is a 21st century political ideology mostly rooted in Protestantism.

Then the other form of 'Christian Nationalism' you went to war against, where Roman Catholicism was the state religion was wrong?

I can believe in Orthodoxy but also believe Orthodox rulers were wrong at points. Do you expect me to say a Christian polity will be perfect? It can't be because no nation, no community will ever be perfect in a fallen world.

So you admit 'Christian Nationalism' can be wrong?

We've not seen Christian Nationalism in power yet. Again, let's not be anachronistic.

WRONG! Already asked and answered:

Why? That's not a claim made by me. True believers are like cities on a hill. They cannot be hidden.

Where were they then preaching your gospel of giving up power?

No you didn't. I have already stated on this thread that a government has a responsibility to protect it's citizens. You don't need to have a state religion to have an army and police force.

But presumably you would object to a Christian doing these things.

As I have said four times now, believers and the gospel should permeate every layer of society, to be salt and light in it.

What does that look like practically.

I would endeavour to follow the command of the Lord Jesus Christ:

Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation (Mark 16:15)

Jesus didn't say to go into all the world and tell them a prophet was false. Jesus said go into all the world and preach the gospel. Going into all the world and preaching the gospel seems to be a very major challenge for 'Christian Nationalism'.

Wow. What a brilliant idea. Are you the first person in the entire history of Christianity to think about preaching the Gospel to Muslims? Wow, amazing.

As the Word of God says, wherever the gospel is preached there is fruit:

How Iran Became a Hotspot for Christianity

Despite Muslims’ commitment to bringing up their children in the ways of Allah, the Holy Spirit is stirring the hearts of children and adults in Islamic-ruled countries to bring them to faith in Jesus.

www.crossway.org

The rise and durability of Islam has been due to a great extent by the failure of the church to preach the gospel. But you did set the correct length of the tonsure

God Bless You

Or it could be that Islam as a religion functioned in such a way that preaching the Gospel to Muslims became impractical and impossible.

Let's examine Islamic society, especially early Islamic society. A society which:

- Killed those who preached or tried to lead Muslims away from Islam.
- Killed those who converted from Islam to another religion.
- Which considered and treated non Muslim peoples as Dhimmis who must be utterly subject to Muslims and be made to pay a punitive tax called the Jizya.
- Which allowed men to marry non Muslims but forbade non Muslims from marrying Islamic women and all children born of a Muslim man must be raised as Muslims.
- Which allowed and promoted the idea of slave raiding, especially non Islamic women who could then be sold into Harems or used as sex slaves.
- Which promoted the use of force as a means of lawful subjugation of all the world to Islam and Allah's law. Jihad perhaps being the highest calling a Muslim could follow.
- Which prohibited Christian Communities within the Islamic world even repairing broken churches unless they had the explicit permission of their Muslim overlords.

There's more to be said, but your notion of simply preaching the Gospel is absurd. Christians tried it and realized it resulted in more harm than good and the only thing Muslims recognized was an equal or greater use of force against them. It's also rather disrespectful to the Christian communities which had to live under the Islamic yolk when a 21st century westerners presumes to judge the faithfulness of her fellow Christians that they failed to convert the surrounding society despite not knowing what that surrounding society was like. It's also somewhat hypocritical when your advice has not worked in secular society.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

The history of Christianity is tied up with the west since that is where Christianity was expressed and had the most freedom. Of course there are others but as a Protestant what claim do you have to them? You are a direct result of Western Christianity as that is where your faith was born out of.


Of course they didn't behave perfect, few rulers do. What then is the solution? To completely do without power as Christians? To have no Charlemagne's or Alfred the Greats willing to defend the faithful? No one is suggesting Christian political participation is perfect, rather is a necessity in a world which demands people have power in order to secure sovereignty. If Christians give this up they become essentially a dhimmi or slave population.


None of this would have been possible if not for the work of previous generations of Christians living in the West. Had Christianity not been preserved in Europe and it's presence there firmly established, later missionary work would have been impossible.


Well yeah.

So you would rather Christians pray for aborted babies than do anything to actually stop abortion? Would you also rather Christians pray to stop murder rather than do anything to stop murder? How about Rape? How about any other crime which is committed? If Christians are able to gain power in a specific region or territory they don't have to tolerate LGBT or abortion.

So we shouldn't missionize of convince others of our values now?

Why do you defend homosexuality and the LGBT? Would you do the same with child predators?

“You are a direct result of Western Christianity as that is where your faith was born out of.”

My identity is not shaped by Western or Eastern Christianity. Instead, it is rooted in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died on the cross and granted me forgiveness for my sins.



In our recent exchanges, I've noticed that you mention "Christianity" but never praise God, glorify Christ, or reference scripture. Even assuming I'm a product of Western Christianity suggests a limited understanding of the faith.

This will be my final response to you. I'm not interested in engaging in a pointless argument.