Dismantling Judeo-Christian values in America

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

So the Church is irrelevant then and can be ultimately dispensed of if need be?

The church is distinct from government, community, or nation. Rather, it constitutes the body of Christ comprised of believers. The purpose of the church is not to establish governments or nations, nor to control individuals.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I don’t prefer decline, but in the current world atmosphere with a major religion that is growing more dangerous by the day and spreading rampantly in many countries with the stated goal of taking down the west, and the USA specifically, I would rather partner with those who wish to continue the culture we have, including freedom and liberty for all, than succumb to a barbaric invasion.

(Sorry for the run-on sentence.)

But, even if Christianity wasn’t on the decline, it still wouldn’t be a “Christian nation”. It would be a nation where Christianity is the major religion.

Christianity is experiencing a decline primarily in Western regions, where the majority of the population has historically been Christian. Conversely, Christianity is growing in Eastern and Southern areas, where most people are non-Christian and where governments are often not only non-Christian but, in some cases, have shown hostility toward Christianity. This is the testament of Christianity: Christian government, Christian nation, Christian rule and regulation cannot sustain or advance Christianity.

Christianity began with the self-sacrifice of God's son on the cross. It resides in people's hearts, not in governments or nations.

Christianity’s strength derives from the Holy Spirit within the human heart.

Anyone who claims that establishing a Christian nation is necessary for the flourishing of Christianity is preaching false teaching, and they are representing their father , the prince of the world.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The church is distinct from government, community, or nation. Rather, it constitutes the body of Christ comprised of believers. The purpose of the church is not to establish governments or nations, nor to control individuals.

I agree but the Church is a community and it is a community that sets itself apart from other communities in that it seeks growth via thr conversion of all. Christians will then naturally inherit institutions of power, governments and nations as they are successful in spreading the Gospel. This requires us to accept the necessity of control especially because governance is about control. Christianity isn't an individualist and libertarian creed.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I don’t prefer decline, but in the current world atmosphere with a major religion that is growing more dangerous by the day and spreading rampantly in many countries with the stated goal of taking down the west, and the USA specifically, I would rather partner with those who wish to continue the culture we have, including freedom and liberty for all, than succumb to a barbaric invasion.

(Sorry for the run-on sentence.)

But, even if Christianity wasn’t on the decline, it still wouldn’t be a “Christian nation”. It would be a nation where Christianity is the major religion.

So in other words you would rather see Christianity decline by supporting a system that undermines it. You're more afraid of Christianity potentially undermining the system by challenging core enlightenment assumptions.

I am glad the early Christians didn't have your attitude towards Rome.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I agree but the Church is a community and it is a community that sets itself apart from other communities in that it seeks growth via thr conversion of all. Christians will then naturally inherit institutions of power, governments and nations as they are successful in spreading the Gospel. This requires us to accept the necessity of control especially because governance is about control. Christianity isn't an individualist and libertarian creed.

Pure false teaching that “church will inherit institutions of power, governments and nation” .

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Pure false teaching that “church will inherit institutions of power, governments and nation” .

The Church, being the people, will necessarily inherit those institutions and nations if they succeed in converting said people who own those institutions and nations. How is this false? How does one avoid this?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

The Church, being the people, will necessarily inherit those institutions and nations if they succeed in converting said people who own those institutions and nations. How is this false? How does one avoid this?

Christians may hold positions of governmental authority, as the Bible does not prohibit this profession. However, the Bible does not state that Christians are required to lead government or control all or any aspects of governance.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Christians may hold positions of governmental authority, as the Bible does not prohibit this profession. However, the Bible does not state that Christians are required to lead government or control all or any aspects of governance.

I never said it was required. Rather what I think is required is for us to not support a political order that is fundamentally against us. That order for the Apostles was Rome. For us today it is regimes like the USA.

 

[A New Dawn]

So in otherworldly you would rather see Christianity decline by supporting a system that undermines it. You're more afraid of Christianity potentially undermining the system by challenging core enlightenment assumptions.

I am glad the early Christians didn't have your attitude towards Rome.

“The system” as you call it, here in the USA, Constitutionally separates church from state and guarantees freedom of religion (not freedom from religion). So the system here doesn’t undermine it. It isn’t declining because the system undermines it, as you suggest, but because we live in a fallen world and men would rather rebel against God than be in loving communion with Him. As I said earlier, it appears you support bringing the inquisition back, forcing people through torture and pain to declare allegiance to God. That is no better than the barbaric religion I mentioned earlier in the thread. Or the early Romans who fed the Christians to the lions for entertainment.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

“The system” as you call it, here in the USA, Constitutionally separates church from state and guarantees freedom of religion (not freedom from religion). So the system here doesn’t undermine it. It isn’t declining because the system undermines it, as you suggest, but because we live in a fallen world and men would rather rebel against God than be in loving communion with Him. As I said earlier, it appears you support bringing the inquisition back, forcing people through torture and pain to declare allegiance to God. That is no better than the barbaric religion I mentioned earlier in the thread. Or the early Romans who fed the Christians to the lions for entertainment.

Christianity thrived under regimes which didn't embrace your values. Christianity being in power didnt weaken the Church or the faith community. Do yoy think God commanded us to be enlightened liberals? Why didn't the early Christians follow that philosophy?

Why did they insist on a certain kind of sexual ethics? Why did they undermine Roman religious pluralism which is more in line with modern secularism than it is Christianity? Im genuinely confused.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I never said it was required. Rather what I think is required is for us to not support a political order that is fundamentally against us. That order for the Apostles was Rome. For us today it is regimes like the USA.

Your argument suggests that it should not be surprising to see a decline in Christianity if the nation is no longer identified as a Christian nation. this is completely false assumption.

Christianity is not defined by nations, governments, or laws; it is based solely on Jesus. No authority can determine its progress or decline, as all power belongs to Christ. Those who worship Him do not rely on government or nation.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Your argument suggests that it should not be surprising to see a decline in Christianity if the nation is no longer identified as a Christian nation. this is completely false assumption.

I maintain this is the case because Christians have become absorbed into thr country as such and the country as such is no longer a Christian country, if it ever was one and there are too many examples historically which demonstrate that whose in power can and often does inform the population. Christianity has never been a purely individualist creed.

Christianity is not defined by nations, governments, or laws; it is based solely on Jesus. No authority can determine its progress or decline, as all power belongs to Christ. Those who worship Him do not rely on government or nation.

I can agree with this sentiment when it comes to individual faith but it's flawed in that it doesn't address the practical reality of what has played out historically. Christianity for instance faded in Egypt as a result of Islam and it's dominance over power for instance. Often Christians of your persuasion will instinctively blame Coptic Christians for their failure to convert the Muslims yet you would likely not know the sorts of conditions Christian dhimmis were subject to.

Preaching the Gospel to Muslims resulted in death. Christians had to pay a special tax and feel themselves as social and religious inferiors to their Muslim overlords. Christian women could marry Islamic men and their children would be raised as Muslims but Muslim women could not marry Christian men or their would be killed.

The point of telling this is that the conditions of who rules matters and I do not think it controversial to posit that it would have been better for the Copts had they maintained political control of Egypt and had security in which to flourish as a Christian society with law informed by Christianity and rulers which put the Copts first.

It's not that it's necessary to rule but it is often better and Christianity historically never had this sort of radical seperation from power you seem to advocate.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I maintain this is the case because Christians have become absorbed into thr country as such and the country as such is no longer a Christian country, if it ever was one and there are too many examples historically which demonstrate that whose in power can and often does inform the population. Christianity has never been a purely individualist creed.

I can agree with this sentiment when it comes to individual faith but it's flawed in that it doesn't address the practical reality of what has played out historically. Christianity for instance faded in Egypt as a result of Islam and it's dominance over power for instance. Often Christians of your persuasion will instinctively blame Coptic Christians for their failure to convert the Muslims yet you would likely not know the sorts of conditions Christian dhimmis were subject to.

Preaching the Gospel to Muslims resulted in death. Christians had to pay a special tax and feel themselves as social and religious inferiors to their Muslim overlords. Christian women could marry Islamic men and their children would be raised as Muslims but Muslim women could not marry Christian men or their would be killed.

The point of telling this is that the conditions of who rules matters and I do not think it controversial to posit that it would have been better for the Copts had they maintained political control of Egypt and had security in which to flourish as a Christian society with law informed by Christianity and rulers which put the Copts first.

It's not that it's necessary to rule but it is often better and Christianity historically never had this sort of radical seperation from power you seem to advocate.

“Preaching the Gospel” is the only thing Jesus commanded.

If you think Preaching the Gospel to Muslim resulted in death, then Jesus Christ is a false teacher and we all be better of as atheist.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

“Preaching the Gospel” is the only thing Jesus commanded.

If you think Preaching the Gospel to Muslim resulted in death, then Jesus Christ is a false teacher and we all be better of as atheist.

It literally did. Muslims would kill any Christian who preached in their midst against Islam and the Christian community as a whole could have expected to suffer.

Would you have preferred all Christians simply died in the Middle East? Would you have preferred Christians in the East and West not resist Islamic invasion?

You're arguing that political control and power doesn't matter yet only someone ignorant of Christian history could actually believe this.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

It literally did. Muslims would kill any Christian who preached in their midst against Islam and the Christian community as a whole could have expected to suffer.

Would you have preferred all Christians simply died in the Middle East? Would you have preferred Christians in the East and West not resist Islamic invasion?

You're arguing that political control and power doesn't matter yet only someone ignorant of Christian history could actually believe this.

Is there a direct quote from Jesus instructing followers to seek political power to expand his kingdom?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Is there a direct quote from Jesus instructing followers to seek political power to expand his kingdom?

Is there a quote forbidding it? The seeking of political power? Are Christians a dhimmi class naturally in your estimation?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Is there a quote forbidding it? The seeking of political power? Are Christians a dhimmi class naturally in your estimation?

There is no direct quote from Jesus about seeking political power, so people invent their own interpretations and follow what suits them! is that your advise?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

There is no direct quote from Jesus about seeking political power, so people invent their own interpretations and follow what suits them! is that your advise?

My advice is to do what is best for the Christian community and live according to the faith. At times that has been to use or get political power. I see loyalty to the current US regime as antithetical to the interests of Christianity broadly as the US regime promotes values which ultimately undermine faith.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

My advice is to do what is best for the Christian community and live according to the faith. At times that has been to use or get political power. I see loyalty to the current US regime as antithetical to the interests of Christianity broadly as the US regime promotes values which ultimately undermine faith.

So, are you suggesting that humans, rather than God's commands, determine what is best for Christians? If that's the case, Christianity is no different from Islam or Hinduism, where people also decide what is best for their community.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

So, are you suggesting that humans, rather than God's commands, determine what is best for Christians? If that's the case, Christianity is no different from Islam or Hinduism, where people also decide what is best for their community.

Where have i suggested anything like that? What do you mean by Christians being no different from Islam or Hindiusm? How would you have Christians distinguish themselves from these communities in a way that is different from how Christians of the past did?