Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!
I'll suggest that God has quoted many voices in the Bible, but in His Own Voice, He says, that no one is good, except God alone.
I have to agree with that too. It's interesting what happens when you maintain that word "inalienable" with the words "right to", and then "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Then you know there's been a slow erosion of the pervasive Judeo-Christian worldview as preeminent. Not an erosion of the worldview, but of its prevalence.
No.
I use it solely because of its long-standing usage and generally common acceptance. If you'd prefer, I will simply say "Christian worldview," and we can do that in contrast or comparison to a Judaic worldview, or an Islamic worldview, or any other worldview you think germane. Tis is a Christian discussion board where most of the members are Protestant. Your concerns might be better addressed in an exclusively or predominantly Orthodox forum (I had difficulty finding one I could recommend) or the Orthodox board in an otherwise Protestant forum.
No.
Are we using Thomas Paine to measure your concerns and needs, or scripture. Let me know. I'm American, have studied American colonial history, and read a lot of Paine's works. I can speak Painease if you like
. Otherwise, I recommend you go read 1 Samual 8.Moses was a representative selected by God and as a consequence of his inability to rule every matter of all the people, leaders were selected. At first they were chosen by Moses (Ex. 18:25) and eventually the heads of tribes, families, households, etc. came from the people themselves. Civil governance was a representative republic, not a monarchy. It was a theocratic representative republic, but an RP, nonetheless.
LOL! The golden calf incident occurred because he was a poor ruler, and his response was decidedly dictatorially tyrannical and...... fascist
.).Are we using Thomas Paine to measure your concerns and needs, or scripture. Let me know. I'm American, have studied American colonial history, and read a lot of Paine's works. I can speak Painease if you like
It doesn't. I provided the scriptural basis (1 Samuel 8) for what was posted. Odd that given the evidence, you'd think this has something to do with Paine. Even odder now that the entire chapter (1 Samuel 8) has been posted and you're still pushing Paine.
You clearly have not read Paine. He writings, "Common Sense," "Age of Reason," "Rights of Man," are constantly referencing the Bible (As an authoritative justification for his positions), and mentioning God. Atheists like to claime him as an atheist but he's either the most inconsistent or most hypocritical atheist who's ever lived.
No, A representative republic.
Nice straw man. Since I never asserted a "judicial theocracy," the statement proves fallacious. You should ask before assuming and judging. More importantly, you should read your Bible.
No.
I do NOT mean any disrespect, but I do not yet see any evidence the premise of "Christian Nationalism" is correctly understood. If that label was taken from the contemporary newscast, or liberal academia, then it's nonsense that should be avoided in this conversation (at least unless and until the term is defined and defined in a manner that actually bears some integrity with reality). This is one of the reasons I asked about Van Til, Schaeffer, and others. Depending on the source (Christianity Today, PBS, BJC, Wiki, etc.) you'll find there are as many different definitions as there are sources. You just happen to be having this discussion with someone education in social psychology, sociology, and anthropology, with a fair understanding of history and political abuses thereof. I live outside of DC, am somewhat involved in local politics, and personally know some well-known politicians (local, state, and federal), both Christian and non-Christian. Most definitions of so called, "Christian Nationalism" are made by those who are hostile to Christianity, hostile to nationalism in all forms, and hostile to any combination of the two. In other words, they are inherently prejudiced, a priori biased sources than cannot be relied upon for objectivity. Francis Schaeffer, for example, has been labeled and vilified by those who do not like what he wrote as a Christian nationalist, even though he never once espoused any such political viewpoint. In contrast, the Reconstructionists espouse a Christian state in which positions of governance are held solely (or predominantly, depending on the Reconstructionist consulted) by Christians...... but even then they are not espousing a theocracy or expecting every single citizen of a country or nation to be Christian. What Schaeffer espoused is that Christians simply 1) develop a Christian worldview that soundly applies to all circumstances of life and 2) show up in the marketplace of ideas to express those views reasonably and rationally. By definition, America is a pluralistic society in which the majority gets to rule, but not at the expense of the minorities' rights..... which it has an obligation to maintain as measured by the rule of law. That means whatever the majority population is, they get to decide things. In the current case of America, for example, something like 85% of the population is theist (but not necessarily Christian). Therefore, theists do and will have a majority influence on governance, at least the extent their theism informs their vote. Non-theists do not get to tell theists what they should think or how they should act outside of the rule of law. Similarly, since the theists in America are overwhelmingly Christian theists, Christianity does, will, and can have a greater influence and non-Christians don't get to dictate conduct outside the established rule of law. Because the rule of law all are subject to abide clearly states all ideas are legally legitimate expressions of speech everyone gets to have a say and the best means of changing government and the rule of law by which the government governs (or is supposed to govern) is that of reason. Christians believe the best possible case anyone can makes is....
.
Yes, I have already dealt with this. As a consequence, I am now being asked a question I've already (preemptively) answered. I don't well tolerate posters who ansk questions already answered because it indicates a lack of authenticity and thoroughness.
I provided a survey of scripture all the way from Adam to the Church, sampling from the entirety of scripture to show how two themes run through scripture from beginning to end so any insinuation of selective use of scripture is betrayed and refuted before it occurred.
Which is exactly what happened.
Moses was not a priest.
Don't bother.
yes indeed - I really do like that post !!!No.
Theonomy, not theocracy.
You said you were familiar with the subjects. I do not see that evidenced in what I am reading but I take Post 19 at face value exactly as written unless and until I read evidence proving otherwise. If you'd like to clarify or otherwise amend the previous statement I'd greatly appreciate that, and I am happy to elaborate on any of those authors and subjects with which there is a lack of knowledge or understanding. For example,
Theonomy is simply the perspective that the principles of God's laws (the principles, not the letter of the law) should be espoused and applied in societal or civil governance. All the world's governments already do so in part, despite their all being secular institutions. Theonomy is not theocracy and theonomy need not require all governmental servants be Christians.
I do NOT mean any disrespect, but I do not yet see any evidence the premise of "Christian Nationalism" is correctly understood. If that label was taken from the contemporary newscast, or liberal academia, then it's nonsense that should be avoided in this conversation (at least unless and until the term is defined and defined in a manner that actually bears some integrity with reality). This is one of the reasons I asked about Van Til, Schaeffer, and others. Depending on the source (Christianity Today, PBS, BJC, Wiki, etc.) you'll find there are as many different definitions as there are sources. You just happen to be having this discussion with someone education in social psychology, sociology, and anthropology, with a fair understanding of history and political abuses thereof. I live outside of DC, am somewhat involved in local politics, and personally know some well-known politicians (local, state, and federal), both Christian and non-Christian. Most definitions of so called, "Christian Nationalism" are made by those who are hostile to Christianity, hostile to nationalism in all forms, and hostile to any combination of the two. In other words, they are inherently prejudiced, a priori biased sources than cannot be relied upon for objectivity. Francis Schaeffer, for example, has been labeled and vilified by those who do not like what he wrote as a Christian nationalist, even though he never once espoused any such political viewpoint. In contrast, the Reconstructionists espouse a Christian state in which positions of governance are held solely (or predominantly, depending on the Reconstructionist consulted) by Christians...... but even then they are not espousing a theocracy or expecting every single citizen of a country or nation to be Christian. What Schaeffer espoused is that Christians simply 1) develop a Christian worldview that soundly applies to all circumstances of life and 2) show up in the marketplace of ideas to express those views reasonably and rationally. By definition, America is a pluralistic society in which the majority gets to rule, but not at the expense of the minorities' rights..... which it has an obligation to maintain as measured by the rule of law. That means whatever the majority population is, they get to decide things. In the current case of America, for example, something like 85% of the population is theist (but not necessarily Christian). Therefore, theists do and will have a majority influence on governance, at least the extent their theism informs their vote. Non-theists do not get to tell theists what they should think or how they should act outside of the rule of law. Similarly, since the theists in America are overwhelmingly Christian theists, Christianity does, will, and can have a greater influence and non-Christians don't get to dictate conduct outside the established rule of law. Because the rule of law all are subject to abide clearly states all ideas are legally legitimate expressions of speech everyone gets to have a say and the best means of changing government and the rule of law by which the government governs (or is supposed to govern) is that of reason. Christians believe the best possible case anyone can makes is....
...a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent topical case of well-rendered scripture.
The non-Christian would, of course, leave out the last four words of that statement and place something else in its stead. That's what people living in a pluralistic society with a representative republic get to do and they are empowered by the law to do exactly that. That is, in theory, exactly what you and I are doing now. It's sort of the basis of all internet discussion boards: diverse expression within an established set of rules, supposedly applied justly by those with the authority and power to do so. The chief difference is we did not get to pick those in authority
Be careful about 1) letting outsiders define anyone, and 2) any ignorance of the huge political diversity that exists both doctrinally and practically within Christendom.
Chirstian Nationalism isn't really a thing.
Where it does exist, it is not monolithic.
The statement, "Which sounds like a mode of Christian Nationalism to me," displays a certain lack of understanding because nothing I have posted is remotely associated with Christian Nationalism. I assume the statement is not intended to be snarky or otherwise trolling. If and when I read evidence of trolling, I will ask for change and if no change ensues then I will take my leave of the conversation. So, try sticking to what I actually post without imposing biased filters on it and assigning it meaning I never intend. I am readily willing to clarify and explain everything I post. I assume you would like me to practice the same metrics with what you post.
Fair enough?
More importantly, this op is supposedly about fascism not being evil. As a form of government, it may not be inherently evil, but as practiced in human history it is necessarily so (at least I cannot think of an historical example that was not abused or abusively qualifying as evil). You and I agree any form of government can be misused or abused and, in theory, any form of government could possibly be practiced in a good ant not-evil manner, although some forms are clearly more consistent with the principles and precedents established in the Bible (when read and understood correctly). A monarchy, for example, is not a form overtly espoused in the Bible. It is one that is, instead, prohibited but that does not mean a monarch could not also head a democratic form, such as a parliamentary or republican form of governance.
Or have I read the posts incorrectly or assumed too much?
I again suggest perhaps this might be occasion for you to review your own op and post a simple thesis statement and thereby assert a single point of comment or inquiry to be discussed, especially if what you believe to be a specific scriptural form of government is to be asserted.
True. At the direct dictate of God.
There were many priests but not all of them were inspired by God. For a Theocracy the prophet/priest has to be inspired.
There is a way which seems right unto a man, But the end of that way leads to death. (Proverbs 14:12)
sounds like democracy...
Fascism is one of many such ways.
