Christian nationalist pastor McPherson: "Empathy is aligned with hell."

FireDragon76 · Monday at 12:01 PM

o_mlly said:
Most colonies did have an official state church and most colonists lived in those colonies -- about 85% of the half million non-indigenous inhabitants,

The Puritans’ Congregational Church was the established state church in New England. The Anglican Church was the established state church in the southern colonies. The tolerant middle colonies had a Christian pluralism of various Christian denominations.

In Penn's colony, one had to be a Christian to be a citizen or hold public office. Williams, a Puritan pastor in Salem, Massachusetts, was banished from the colony of Massachusetts for his dissident beliefs and in 1643 founded the religiously tolerant colony of Rhode Island. The colony became a refuge for religious minorities–Quakers, Catholics, Baptists, Jews, and Antinomians.

More importantly, all the colonies were distinctively Christian in their values with some advocating for freedom of religion by denomination. None advocated for freedom from religion to which we have devolved today. And none would have opposed a public display of the Ten Commandments.

In modern society, it's not the responsibility of the state to imbue life with ultimate or religious significance. You render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's. Pluralism is difficult and messy, but that's often what responsibility looks like, it asks something of us, it's not a neat path through life without the possibility of friction or complexity. Friction is often the whole point (Prov 27:17).

o_mlly · Monday at 12:53 PM

FireDragon76 said:
In modern society, it's not the responsibility of the state to imbue life with ultimate or religious significance.

Modern society, as are all societies, is still distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, and a common culture. The disintegration of common values disintegrates societies as anyone following our society's disintegration has witnessed. The absence of civility, the coarseness of language, vulgarity in the arts, and the use of violence to assert one's beliefs or lack of beliefs are symptomatic of that decline.

When we have no mutual interests or a common culture then we will have no society. We were founded as a Christian community and some states want to reinstall those Judaeo-Christian common values into the public square.

FireDragon76 · Monday at 1:13 PM

o_mlly said:
Modern society, as are all societies, is still distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, and a common culture. The disintegration of common values disintegrates societies as anyone following our society's disintegration has witnessed. The absence of civility, the coarseness of language, vulgarity in the arts, and the use of violence to assert one's beliefs or lack of beliefs are symptomatic of that decline.

When we have no mutual interests or a common culture then we will have no society. We were founded as a Christian community and some states want to reinstall those Judaeo-Christian common values into the public square.

We have mutual interests owing to our shared humanity. That doesn't take a theological tome or project to expound upon, it takes theoria, vision logic, and prophetic witness. Creation groans for the revealing of the children of God. This points to personal transformation, not primarily to political theocratic projects.

o_mlly · Monday at 1:33 PM

FireDragon76 said:
We have mutual interests owing to our shared humanity. That doesn't take a theological tome or project to expound upon, it takes theoria, vision logic, and prophetic witness. Creation groans for the revealing of the children of God. This points to personal transformation, not primarily to political theocratic projects.

Our shared fallen humanity does require the grace of Christ's sacrifice, and His prophetic witness in order to achieve our personal transformation. Hobbes saw as much. Who better than Christ is there to socially contract with?

dlamberth · Monday at 1:34 PM

o_mlly said:
Modern society, as are all societies, is still distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, and a common culture. The disintegration of common values disintegrates societies as anyone following our society's disintegration has witnessed. The absence of civility, the coarseness of language, vulgarity in the arts, and the use of violence to assert one's beliefs or lack of beliefs are symptomatic of that decline.

When we have no mutual interests or a common culture then we will have no society. We were founded as a Christian community and some states want to reinstall those Judaeo-Christian common values into the public square.

Is it societies common moral values that is at issues? Or certain Christian beliefs being pushed by a more politically engaged sect.

FireDragon76 · Monday at 1:38 PM

o_mlly said:
Our shared fallen humanity does require the grace of Christ's sacrifice, and His prophetic witness in order to achieve our personal transformation. Hobbes saw as much. Who better than Christ is there to socially contract with?

I don't adhere to Latin Augustinian anthropology or associated penal substitutionary theories of the atonement. Even Aquinas believed humanity was not so hopelessly lost as to lose the capacity to discern the moral law. Nor do I believe merely being a Christian automatically produces a superior epistemic vantage point.

o_mlly · Monday at 1:39 PM

dlamberth said:
Is it societies common moral values that is at issues?

The absence of common moral values is at issue.

dlamberth said:
Or certain Christian beliefs being pushed by a more politically engaged sect.

Such as?

2PhiloVoid · Monday at 1:44 PM

o_mlly said:
Our shared fallen humanity does require the grace of Christ's sacrifice, and His prophetic witness in order to achieve our personal transformation. Hobbes saw as much. Who better than Christ is there to socially contract with?

I don't know that I'd bring in Hobbes as a voice of reason to borrow from in order to make a point. Why? Because I'm not 'ok' with his Erastianism any more than I'm 'ok' with a stern form of Calvinism.

FireDragon76 · Monday at 1:56 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
I don't know that I'd bring in Hobbes as a voice of reason to borrow from in order to make a point. Why? Because I'm not 'ok' with his Erastianism any more than I'm 'ok' with a stern form of Calvinism.

It's a strange choice. "State violence is necessary and right because humans are violent in origin" seems to be not really consistent with serious Christian anthropological engagement, and more likely simply the result of a guy trying to ingratiate himself to a Protestant religious settlement forged in violence and state power.

o_mlly · Monday at 1:57 PM

FireDragon76 said:
I don't adhere to Latin Augustinian anthropology or associated penal substitutionary theories of the atonement.

Good to know.

FireDragon76 said:
Even Aquinas believed humanity was not so hopelessly lost as to lose the capacity to discern the moral law.

It is important to remember that the angelic doctor lived in the 13th century, not the 21st.

Aquinas believed that the Natural Law guided all men in conscience to behave morally with an inclination to the good. He knew that repeatedly denying those impulses of grace can mute the soft voice of conscience. He also knew that human law could depart from Natural Law. For example, it is not natural to kill the unborn, nor is it natural to kill the elderly.

He also notes that the natural law dictates that we Maintain Order in society. In Summa II-II, Q. 42, Art. 2 he states, “Now it is evident that the reason for the law is to lead man to his ultimate end. But man cannot attain his end except in a society, which requires order.” In as much as our present society is disordered we are handicapped in attaining our ultimate end.

o_mlly · Monday at 2:04 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
I don't know that I'd bring in Hobbes as a voice of reason ...

As the voice of reason? Why strawman me? Without Christ, Hobbes saw that mankind in the state of fallen nature will live lives nasty, shortish and brute.

2PhiloVoid · Monday at 2:17 PM

o_mlly said:
As the voice of reason? Why strawman me? Without Christ, Hobbes saw that mankind in the state of fallen nature will live lives nasty, shortish and brute.

That doesn't address his subscription to Erastianism. And, what's more, any direct affiliation or identification he had as a "Christian" has been known for a long time---at least among us philosophers---to be highly suspect, because like many during his era, he had to play the "I'm not going to say anything against the Church directly" card in order not to be hauled off. As it is, the part of Leviathan I had to read in my Social Philosophy class back in the day didn't impress me much.

So, do you have anyone else you think makes a better point on behalf of the governing authorities and by whom we might legitimate ways to implement and arbitrate their political power?

(Sure, we have Paul the Apostle, but he doesn't say much.....other than "Be good; obey")

FireDragon76 · Monday at 6:29 PM

o_mlly said:
Good to know.

It is important to remember that the angelic doctor lived in the 13th century, not the 21st.

Aquinas believed that the Natural Law guided all men in conscience to behave morally with an inclination to the good. He knew that repeatedly denying those impulses of grace can mute the soft voice of conscience. He also knew that human law could depart from Natural Law. For example, it is not natural to kill the unborn, nor is it natural to kill the elderly.

He also notes that the natural law dictates that we Maintain Order in society. In Summa II-II, Q. 42, Art. 2 he states, “Now it is evident that the reason for the law is to lead man to his ultimate end. But man cannot attain his end except in a society, which requires order.” In as much as our present society is disordered we are handicapped in attaining our ultimate end.

That's generally something I could agree with, the issue seems to be the basis for order, and what means it is imposed. There's been hundreds of years of development in political theology since Aquinas that I don't think should be swept away just because we can't control the outcomes. For things to be just, they need to be just in means, not just ends.

FireDragon76 · Monday at 6:40 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
That doesn't address his subscription to Erastianism. And, what's more, any direct affiliation or identification he had as a "Christian" has been known for a long time---at least among us philosophers---to be highly suspect, because like many during his era, he had to play the "I'm not going to say anything against the Church directly" card in order not to be hauled off. As it is, the part of Leviathan I had to read in my Social Philosophy class back in the day didn't impress me much.

So, do you have anyone else you think makes a better point on behalf of the governing authorities and by whom we might legitimate ways to implement and arbitrate their political power?

(Sure, we have Paul the Apostle, but he doesn't say much.....other than "Be good; obey")

Exactly. Hobbes was writing in defense of the Protestant settlement, and deriving from the chaos a law of nature. And that mentality has taken deep roots all across the Anglophone world. That's precisely the thing that the Radical Orthodox like Milbank are trying to criticize as the dark side of the Enlightenment, the despair that arises from dismissing the possibility that love has any utility for fashioning social ethics.

BTW, even though I appreciate the Anglican tradition, having drifted in and out of it over the years, I appreciate it despite the boilerplate propaganda you might hear from certain corners (especially Reformed/Evangelical Anglicans) that it was rooted primarily in coherent theology or philosophy, and not the political chaos of the Reformation. The moment I hear "Let's all have a study of the 39 Articles on Sunday afternoons" instead of "Let's all study the Beatitudes" or "Let's all study some practices to deepen our prayer life", I know I'm in a parish where people are lacking in spiritual discernment.

o_mlly · 2026-02-17T06:30:43-0600

2PhiloVoid said:
That doesn't address his subscription to Erastianism. And, what's more, any direct affiliation or identification he had as a "Christian" has been known for a long time---at least among us philosophers---to be highly suspect, because like many during his era, he had to play the "I'm not going to say anything against the Church directly" card in order not to be hauled off. As it is, the part of Leviathan I had to read in my Social Philosophy class back in the day didn't impress me much.

So, do you have anyone else you think makes a better point on behalf of the governing authorities and by whom we might legitimate ways to implement and arbitrate their political power?

(Sure, we have Paul the Apostle, but he doesn't say much.....other than "Be good; obey")

? Why are you looking to argue when none is needed? Hobbes fidelity to Christianity does not matter; his insight does. Do you disagree that w/o Christ our lives would be more like the lives Hobbes described?

FireDragon76 · 2026-02-17T07:20:48-0600

o_mlly said:
? Why are you looking to argue when none is needed? Hobbes fidelity to Christianity does not matter; his insight does. Do you disagree that w/o Christ our lives would be more like the lives Hobbes described?

Hobbes doesn't give an insight, he gives an opinion, one that has no basis in serious theology. Humans were not created as violent, isolated individuals. Right in the beginning, it says "it is not good for man to be alone". The Fall doesn't change our essential nature, which continues to be good, and oriented towards fellowship and communion. Sin exists an an accident to human nature, not it's substance.

o_mlly · 2026-02-17T07:40:02-0600

FireDragon76 said:
Hobbes doesn't give an insight, he gives an opinion ...

No difference: His insight = His opinion.

FireDragon76 said:
Humans were not created as violent, isolated individuals.

OK.

FireDragon76 said:
The Fall doesn't change our essential nature, which continues to be good, and oriented towards fellowship and communion.

No. The fall corrupted our nature. Prior to the Fall, we were open to sin. After the Fall, we are diminished and inclined to sin, but not totally so.

Now sin cannot entirely take away from man the fact that he is a rational being, for then he would no longer be capable of sin. Wherefore it is not possible for this good of nature to be destroyed entirely (Aquinas).

FireDragon76 said:
Sin exists an an accident to human nature, not it's substance.

Yes. Our natural instinct to the good is corrupted by sin.

FireDragon76 · 2026-02-17T13:19:59-0600

o_mlly said:
No difference: His insight = His opinion.

OK.

No. The fall corrupted our nature. Prior to the Fall, we were open to sin. After the Fall, we are diminished and inclined to sin, but not totally so.

Now sin cannot entirely take away from man the fact that he is a rational being, for then he would no longer be capable of sin. Wherefore it is not possible for this good of nature to be destroyed entirely (Aquinas).

Yes. Our natural instinct to the good is corrupted by sin.

That corruption isn't so complete that human beings can't understand what is good and orient their lives towards that end. It just means we don't ultimately merit salvation from God in a transactional manner.

o_mlly · 2026-02-17T13:50:48-0600

FireDragon76 said:
That corruption isn't so complete that human beings can't understand what is good and orient their lives towards that end.

Yes.

FireDragon76 said:
It just means we don't ultimately merit salvation from God in a transactional manner.

Prior to the Fall salvation was unnecessary. After the Fall, man could not merit salvation. Only the God-Man could and did. “That which is not assumed is not healed (redeemed)” St, Gregory’s letter to Cledonius.

FireDragon76 · 2026-02-17T14:22:24-0600

o_mlly said:
Yes.

Prior to the Fall salvation was unnecessary. After the Fall, man could not merit salvation. Only the God-Man could and did. “That which is not assumed is not healed (redeemed)” St, Gregory’s letter to Cledonius.

Lots of eastern patristic theology wouldn't portray salvation in that manner, as merely "plan B". For instance, eastern Christian theology doesn't consider Adam and Eve to have been created in perfection, because only God is perfect. This has far more consonance with actual Jewish theology and philosophy as well: creation, and human nature by consequence, isn't ruined, it's waiting to be fulfilled.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Christian nationalist pastor McPherson: "Empathy is aligned with hell."

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

It's Metropolis! Enjoy the stay!

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

“Behold, I make all things new.”

It's Metropolis! Enjoy the stay!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Well-Known Member

Similar threads