Would you support a 'Christian Zone'?

[topcare]

Let's start with the premise that the Bible contains instruction from God how people should behave in a Godly society. Secular laws contain instruction about how people should behave in modern society. Many Christians believe that laws should reflect, to an extent, Biblical teaching because a) such teaching is better for society and b) it allows them to practice and share their faith without persecution. On the other hand, secular society, and some Christians, believe that the law should reflect the current morals of society, and that a religious group shouldn't impose their beliefs on others.

The dynamic of these counter opinions has led to an ongoing struggle between the two camps, and a situation where many Christians are made to feel they are being unreasonable, and are even attacked, for suggesting certain aspects of our faith should be reflected in legislation. In some countries, in Europe in particular, governments are even creating legislation that could make some aspects of living a Christian life, Biblical parenting for example, open to prosecution.

So let's run this thought experiment (a thought experiment for now at least):

Let's say we have a zone, a bare plot of land where no one currently lives. The intention would be to develop this empty land so it will have houses and businesses etc., but even before that happens it will have political autonomy: the developers/managers could make their own rules before they even start.

So these zone developers could make rules and laws that reflect Bible teachings. There could be no argument that such rules would be imposed on the unwilling, there is no existing population, and new arrivals know exactly what they are getting into from the start: they would be 'voting with their feet' to show they are at least tolerant of such rules.

So there would be a mandate for everything that is too much, or would cause outrage, in modern societies. So all the great controversial things could be enshrined in law: marriage would be between a man and women, school prayer could not be simply be allowed, it could be mandatory.

We could go further: public officials, judges, police and school principals would have to demonstrate a Christian faith, Christian organisations incentivized to come, ISP's obliged to filter pornography etc. New residents would be asked to sign a declaration that they understand that are coming to a Christian zone, with all that entails (as they would do when enrolling a child in a Christian private school). And if people don't want any of that, well they don't have to come and live there.

The purpose of this relatively small zone would be to demonstrate that Biblical instruction works for society, and if anyone objects to that, well we say to them that we will grow and prosper if it is right, or fold and fail if it is not.

It could also be a place where World-weary or persecuted Christians could come and stay for a season, to re-charge before returning to their home countries.

Now, the questions to you are, if this were possible, would it be right to create such a zone? Would you support it? Would you move there? Would you help create it?

The Amish have a Christian zone

 

[JoshuaDaryl]

So do you not think the Puritans had a successful community? The Amish? The Mormons?

I am very familiar with the Amish. I attend a Mennonite church, and many are related to the Amish. They have left the Amish mostly because the Amish have done the same thing the Jewish folks had done in the time of Christ. They have left the Bible, the word of God, and instead rely mostly on tradition. Then over the generations traditions clash, groups splinter, and communities split. The Amish community looks nice on the outside, but most are a mess on the inside. They have a very successful business image, but really a failed religious community. The Mennonites are a bit more successful because they are not as closed off. I believe this is what some of the others here are pointing at, our duty as christians is not to be in isolated communities, but to be in the world. My Mennonite church preaches being in the world, just not of the world. Be open, and neighborly. Be kind and support your neighbors. Let your community be open, let your church doors be open. For example the Amish preach in private homes that shift from week to week, a tradition born from the necessity of when the underground church was being hunted and persecuted, but now is no longer needed, and is a hindrance to our mission to reach a lost and dying world with the gospel of Christ. Second the Amish preach exclusively either in German, or Pennsylvania Dutch, the average American has no clue to what they are saying, third their Bibles are printed exclusively in German. This is all coupled with a distrust to outsiders, and a zealous purchase of all open properties adjoining theirs. They essentially do create these so called christian zones. The Amish are now facing a health crisis, their genetic variability is shrinking, because an Amish must marry an Amish, their population is limited anyway, that coupled with the difficulty in arranging transportation for distances to long for practical horse travel has the Amish marrying cousins.

 

[Targaryen]

Had to respond to the OP...so

Let's start with the premise that the Bible contains instruction from God how people should behave in a Godly society. Secular laws contain instruction about how people should behave in modern society. Many Christians believe that laws should reflect, to an extent, Biblical teaching because a) such teaching is better for society and b) it allows them to practice and share their faith without persecution. On the other hand, secular society, and some Christians, believe that the law should reflect the current morals of society, and that a religious group shouldn't impose their beliefs on others.

The dynamic of these counter opinions has led to an ongoing struggle between the two camps, and a situation where many Christians are made to feel they are being unreasonable, and are even attacked, for suggesting certain aspects of our faith should be reflected in legislation. In some countries, in Europe in particular, governments are even creating legislation that could make some aspects of living a Christian life, Biblical parenting for example, open to prosecution.

So let's run this thought experiment (a thought experiment for now at least):

Let's say we have a zone, a bare plot of land where no one currently lives. The intention would be to develop this empty land so it will have houses and businesses etc., but even before that happens it will have political autonomy: the developers/managers could make their own rules before they even start.

So these zone developers could make rules and laws that reflect Bible teachings. There could be no argument that such rules would be imposed on the unwilling, there is no existing population, and new arrivals know exactly what they are getting into from the start: they would be 'voting with their feet' to show they are at least tolerant of such rules.

So there would be a mandate for everything that is too much, or would cause outrage, in modern societies. So all the great controversial things could be enshrined in law: marriage would be between a man and women, school prayer could not be simply be allowed, it could be mandatory.

We could go further: public officials, judges, police and school principals would have to demonstrate a Christian faith, Christian organisations incentivized to come, ISP's obliged to filter pornography etc. New residents would be asked to sign a declaration that they understand that are coming to a Christian zone, with all that entails (as they would do when enrolling a child in a Christian private school). And if people don't want any of that, well they don't have to come and live there.

The purpose of this relatively small zone would be to demonstrate that Biblical instruction works for society, and if anyone objects to that, well we say to them that we will grow and prosper if it is right, or fold and fail if it is not.

It could also be a place where World-weary or persecuted Christians could come and stay for a season, to re-charge before returning to their home countries.

Now, the questions to you are, if this were possible, would it be right to create such a zone? Would you support it? Would you move there? Would you help create it?

Sounds like a "christian" version of fascism or Kim-Jong-Un's North Korea to me. I don't need to isolate myself in a "zone".

I try to make change with my actions and examples, what others do can't be up to me.

 

[OGM]

Had to respond to the OP...so



Sounds like a "christian" version of fascism or Kim-Jong-Un's North Korea to me. I don't need to isolate myself in a "zone".

I try to make change with my actions and examples, what others do can't be up to me.

The whole exclusionary-zone thing is something I would not be at all comfortable with.

 

[flicka]

Yes I would, but only because it would amuse me to watch Christians tear each other apart.

 

[jacks]

Yes I would, but only because it would amuse me to watch Christians tear each other apart.

In lieu of lions. Your own personal coliseum. How entertaining for you, I'm sure.

 

[DennisTate]

Such a scheme of course would not force people to do anything, there would be no people in such an initially empty zone to force. Instead, any one who felt the rules were not of their liking would simple not go there. To expand the idea a bit: there could be a competing zone that had completely different rules. The point would be to have choice, not force.

Re legitimacy: what makes any constitution legitimate in the first place?

One of the best ways to actually make this happen could be to put together a Christian..... documentary plus reality film production cooperative and/or company............The plot of land could be formed into a micro-nation with its own constitution...… and a micro-nation currency could be printed up that is a little bit like the Ithaca Hour or CalgaryDollars.ca.

Then if this micro nation got involved in artistic projects that a majority of people tended to agree with... then their freedom to operate this micro-nation plus film cooperative/company..... could have a lot of support.....


http://www.christianforums.com/t7701455/


North American churches should each have their own currency!
I am of the belief that each large church in North America should discuss the printing up of their own church currency unit such as has been done by a group of socially active citizens in Calgary, Canada with their CalgaryDollars.ca

Here is a good article on how important local currencies were during the Great Depression:

..........

 

[DennisTate]

Let's start with the premise that the Bible contains instruction from God how people should behave in a Godly society. Secular laws contain instruction about how people should behave in modern society. Many Christians believe that laws should reflect, to an extent, Biblical teaching because a) such teaching is better for society and b) it allows them to practice and share their faith without persecution. On the other hand, secular society, and some Christians, believe that the law should reflect the current morals of society, and that a religious group shouldn't impose their beliefs on others...................

The purpose of this relatively small zone would be to demonstrate that Biblical instruction works for society, and if anyone objects to that, well we say to them that we will grow and prosper if it is right, or fold and fail if it is not.

It could also be a place where World-weary or persecuted Christians could come and stay for a season, to re-charge before returning to their home countries.

Now, the questions to you are, if this were possible, would it be right to create such a zone? Would you support it? Would you move there? Would you help create it?

95% of people tend to agree to become volunteers in a genuine research project.

You could attempt different gardening methods than the usual in order to see if God would bless your methods in some tangible way that could be measured in some sort of study.


near-death.com/storm.html#a04

The image of the future that they gave me then, and it was their image, not one that I created, surprised me. My image had previously been sort of like Star Wars, where everything was space age, plastics, and technology.

The future that they showed me was almost no technology at all. What everybody, absolutely everybody, in this euphoric future spent most of their time doing was raising children. The chief concern of people was children, and everybody considered children to be the most precious commodity in the world.

And when a person became an adult, there was no sense of anxiety, nor hatred, nor competition.

There was this enormous sense of trust and mutual respect. If a person, in this view of the future, became disturbed, then the community of people all cared about the disturbed person falling away from the harmony of the group. Spiritually, through prayer and love, the others would elevate the afflicted person.

What people did with the rest of their time was that they gardened, with almost no physical effort. They showed me that plants, with prayer, would produce huge fruits and vegetables.

 

[only a sojourner]

The idea sounds appealing but I am not sure how it can be practically done, especially a sovereign political entity. I am not sure the track record of attempts to start enclaves within the United States has been very successful. The largest most recent attempt was probably Zion, Illinois founded by John Alexander Dowie which rather quickly unraveled. The New Testament is also about spreading the gospel to the unsaved and forming insular communities runs counter to this. From very early on however there has been a tendency among some Christians to isolate themselves in monasteries, remote desert regions and other forms of seclusion far from the influence of the world.

However if the New Testament is to be taken literally it describes a Christianity much different then what we see today. There are abundant examples of of spiritual gifts, healing, tongues, expelling demons with no reason to believe that any of this should cease. To many Christians today expelling demons would seem like primitive superstition and the demonic affliction referred to in the Bible simply a metaphor for a psychiatric disorder, epilepsy, etc. However unlike many Charismatic churches today which emphasize a prosperity gospel in which Godliness results in monetary wealth, Paul's letters reflect a persecuted, afflicted but persevering church, joyful amid persecutions. In the very early centuries prior to Constantine most Christians came from the lower classes and there were periods of great persecution.

 

[keith99]

I am very familiar with the Amish. I attend a Mennonite church, and many are related to the Amish. They have left the Amish mostly because the Amish have done the same thing the Jewish folks had done in the time of Christ. They have left the Bible, the word of God, and instead rely mostly on tradition. Then over the generations traditions clash, groups splinter, and communities split. The Amish community looks nice on the outside, but most are a mess on the inside. They have a very successful business image, but really a failed religious community. The Mennonites are a bit more successful because they are not as closed off. I believe this is what some of the others here are pointing at, our duty as christians is not to be in isolated communities, but to be in the world. My Mennonite church preaches being in the world, just not of the world. Be open, and neighborly. Be kind and support your neighbors. Let your community be open, let your church doors be open. For example the Amish preach in private homes that shift from week to week, a tradition born from the necessity of when the underground church was being hunted and persecuted, but now is no longer needed, and is a hindrance to our mission to reach a lost and dying world with the gospel of Christ. Second the Amish preach exclusively either in German, or Pennsylvania Dutch, the average American has no clue to what they are saying, third their Bibles are printed exclusively in German. This is all coupled with a distrust to outsiders, and a zealous purchase of all open properties adjoining theirs. They essentially do create these so called christian zones. The Amish are now facing a health crisis, their genetic variability is shrinking, because an Amish must marry an Amish, their population is limited anyway, that coupled with the difficulty in arranging transportation for distances to long for practical horse travel has the Amish marrying cousins.

I so wanted to post this in German, the original language. After a fruitless search I checked with my Ex and found out Germans do not go for quotes like Americans do so no quote sites in German and I do not read German close to well enough to find it buried in a sermon.

So here it is in English:

The Kingdom is to be in the midst of your enemies. And he who will not suffer this does not want to be of the Kingdom of Christ; he wants to be among friends to sit among roses and lilies not with the bad people but the devout people. O you blasphemers and betrayers of Christ! If Christ had done what you are doing who would ever have been spared?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Let's start with the premise that the Bible contains instruction from God how people should behave in a Godly society. Secular laws contain instruction about how people should behave in modern society. Many Christians believe that laws should reflect, to an extent, Biblical teaching because a) such teaching is better for society and b) it allows them to practice and share their faith without persecution. On the other hand, secular society, and some Christians, believe that the law should reflect the current morals of society, and that a religious group shouldn't impose their beliefs on others.

The dynamic of these counter opinions has led to an ongoing struggle between the two camps, and a situation where many Christians are made to feel they are being unreasonable, and are even attacked, for suggesting certain aspects of our faith should be reflected in legislation. In some countries, in Europe in particular, governments are even creating legislation that could make some aspects of living a Christian life, Biblical parenting for example, open to prosecution.

So let's run this thought experiment (a thought experiment for now at least):

Let's say we have a zone, a bare plot of land where no one currently lives. The intention would be to develop this empty land so it will have houses and businesses etc., but even before that happens it will have political autonomy: the developers/managers could make their own rules before they even start.

So these zone developers could make rules and laws that reflect Bible teachings. There could be no argument that such rules would be imposed on the unwilling, there is no existing population, and new arrivals know exactly what they are getting into from the start: they would be 'voting with their feet' to show they are at least tolerant of such rules.

So there would be a mandate for everything that is too much, or would cause outrage, in modern societies. So all the great controversial things could be enshrined in law: marriage would be between a man and women, school prayer could not be simply be allowed, it could be mandatory.

We could go further: public officials, judges, police and school principals would have to demonstrate a Christian faith, Christian organisations incentivized to come, ISP's obliged to filter pornography etc. New residents would be asked to sign a declaration that they understand that are coming to a Christian zone, with all that entails (as they would do when enrolling a child in a Christian private school). And if people don't want any of that, well they don't have to come and live there.

The purpose of this relatively small zone would be to demonstrate that Biblical instruction works for society, and if anyone objects to that, well we say to them that we will grow and prosper if it is right, or fold and fail if it is not.

It could also be a place where World-weary or persecuted Christians could come and stay for a season, to re-charge before returning to their home countries.

Now, the questions to you are, if this were possible, would it be right to create such a zone? Would you support it? Would you move there? Would you help create it?

I believe the Taliban tried something similar with Afghanistan (using Islam instead of Christianity of course).... It didn't work out too well.

 

[keith99]

I'm pretty sure the OP intended a place where Christians are in charge, yet allowing Christians all rights elsewhere.

How about just letting the Christians vote.

Christian Zone where they can do what they want, but the cost is elsewhere the public practice of Christianity or proselytizing is forbidden by law.

Note that this is a far better deal than the Jews have often had.

So any takers?

BTW I would not wish this on most of the Christians here, but there are few where I would be sorely tempted.

 

[JYJ]

Let's start with the premise that the Bible contains instruction from God how people should behave in a Godly society. Secular laws contain instruction about how people should behave in modern society. Many Christians believe that laws should reflect, to an extent, Biblical teaching because a) such teaching is better for society and b) it allows them to practice and share their faith without persecution. On the other hand, secular society, and some Christians, believe that the law should reflect the current morals of society, and that a religious group shouldn't impose their beliefs on others.

The dynamic of these counter opinions has led to an ongoing struggle between the two camps, and a situation where many Christians are made to feel they are being unreasonable, and are even attacked, for suggesting certain aspects of our faith should be reflected in legislation. In some countries, in Europe in particular, governments are even creating legislation that could make some aspects of living a Christian life, Biblical parenting for example, open to prosecution.

So let's run this thought experiment (a thought experiment for now at least):

Let's say we have a zone, a bare plot of land where no one currently lives. The intention would be to develop this empty land so it will have houses and businesses etc., but even before that happens it will have political autonomy: the developers/managers could make their own rules before they even start.

So these zone developers could make rules and laws that reflect Bible teachings. There could be no argument that such rules would be imposed on the unwilling, there is no existing population, and new arrivals know exactly what they are getting into from the start: they would be 'voting with their feet' to show they are at least tolerant of such rules.

So there would be a mandate for everything that is too much, or would cause outrage, in modern societies. So all the great controversial things could be enshrined in law: marriage would be between a man and women, school prayer could not be simply be allowed, it could be mandatory.

We could go further: public officials, judges, police and school principals would have to demonstrate a Christian faith, Christian organisations incentivized to come, ISP's obliged to filter pornography etc. New residents would be asked to sign a declaration that they understand that are coming to a Christian zone, with all that entails (as they would do when enrolling a child in a Christian private school). And if people don't want any of that, well they don't have to come and live there.

The purpose of this relatively small zone would be to demonstrate that Biblical instruction works for society, and if anyone objects to that, well we say to them that we will grow and prosper if it is right, or fold and fail if it is not.

It could also be a place where World-weary or persecuted Christians could come and stay for a season, to re-charge before returning to their home countries.

Now, the questions to you are, if this were possible, would it be right to create such a zone? Would you support it? Would you move there? Would you help create it?

Should a Christian be made to obey Sharia law? No. For the same reason non-Christians should not be made to obey Christian or Jewish law.

We should remember that religions, all religions, are things of this Earth only. They, and all their scriptures and practices, do not exist in Heaven. God allows great diversity in religion to see what we will do. It is His hope that we respect always the beliefs of others, never forcing our views on the next guy. This constitutes the generosity which God desires for us. This is the giving which brings us to redemption and salvation.

Such zones already exist as the private properties on which churches and homes of believers exist. In these two the practice of Biblical law is perfectly OK because it does not affect others who do not share those views. Does the author of this piece intend to express a dream that a town or a city, perhaps a county in a state, could be made over into a religious enclave? Such a thing might be possible but care would have to be taken not to hurt other citizens who might feel threatened by it. Let's not forget that it is not the ordinary practice of religion, in this case Christianity, that is harmful but rather the extreme model that treads on the rights of others which is. In Islam there are numerous examples of this which result in women being oppressed for example, men being told that they have to have beards and the like. Christianity could be like these. It's not the religion which is at fault but the men and women who have the authority to make others behave as they believe is proper. Christianity best serves us when it is thoughtful and, like Jesus, undemanding. Humility is what gets us into heaven, not aggressiveness. The student of humanities social structuring knows full well that when religious law trumps civil law democracy ceases to exist. Should we create a Christian version of Muslim Sharia law? The motivations in both cases are identical. Both religions cite the same reasons and claim scriptural correctness. I myself truly believe that it should be the teachings of Jesus which shapes Christianity, not the ancient pre-Judaism tales which thousands of years later found their ways into what came to be known as the Old Testament. And what would Jesus say abourt this idea of exclusivity? he would reject it in favor of what He taught us in the Sermon on the Mount.

 

[keith99]

Should a Christian be made to obey Sharia law? No. For the same reason non-Christians should not be made to obey Christian or Jewish law.

We should remember that religions, all religions, are things of this Earth only. They, and all their scriptures and practices, do not exist in Heaven. God allows great diversity in religion to see what we will do. It is His hope that we respect always the beliefs of others, never forcing our views on the next guy. This constitutes the generosity which God desires for us. This is the giving which brings us to redemption and salvation.

Such zones already exist as the private properties on which churches and homes of believers exist. In these two the practice of Biblical law is perfectly OK because it does not affect others who do not share those views. Does the author of this piece intend to express a dream that a town or a city, perhaps a county in a state, could be made over into a religious enclave? Such a thing might be possible but care would have to be taken not to hurt other citizens who might feel threatened by it. Let's not forget that it is not the ordinary practice of religion, in this case Christianity, that is harmful but rather the extreme model that treads on the rights of others which is. In Islam there are numerous examples of this which result in women being oppressed for example, men being told that they have to have beards and the like. Christianity could be like these. It's not the religion which is at fault but the men and women who have the authority to make others behave as they believe is proper. Christianity best serves us when it is thoughtful and, like Jesus, undemanding. Humility is what gets us into heaven, not aggressiveness. The student of humanities social structuring knows full well that when religious law trumps civil law democracy ceases to exist. Should we create a Christian version of Muslim Sharia law? The motivations in both cases are identical. Both religions cite the same reasons and claim scriptural correctness. I myself truly believe that it should be the teachings of Jesus which shapes Christianity, not the ancient pre-Judaism tales which thousands of years later found their ways into what came to be known as the Old Testament. And what would Jesus say abourt this idea of exclusivity? he would reject it in favor of what He taught us in the Sermon on the Mount.

Bolding already there.

Uh, not if that is what the people vote for.

 

[JYJ]

Bolding already there.

Uh, not if that is what the people vote for.

In America the people may not vote and approve something which contradicts the constitution. With freedom comes responsibility friend.

In Europe at the time of our revolution it was common for countries to be divided along Christian denominational lines. For instance in Switzerland only a couple of churchs were officially recognized and members of others could not have full citizenship rights. Other denominations, Anabaptists for instance, were outright banned. It was in this setting that our founders decided to make it clear that America, even though it is majority Christian, would have no official church and that matters of church and State would be separated by law. Our founders were determined that America would not be like Europe of the day. We would be FREE of religion by allowing the practice of them all. But religion is a personal and private thing. We err greatly and sin against God when we dictate our religious opinions to others. God wants no part of being a bully. God wants each of us to have freedom of conscience. How else can we exercise free will?

We thus allow any religion but disallow any of them from pressing their views on others. It is unconstitutional for Christianity to force citizens to conform to their worldview in America and thank God for that. If Christianity wants to impose their Biblical law on the rest of us they must first change the US Constitution.

 

[jgarden]

Would you support a 'Christian Zone'

1. Christians have been killing each other in the name of religion for centuries - is their any reason to believe that they are any more enlightened in the 21stC than all the previous ones.

2. The Bible doesn't call on Christians to withdraw from the world - what is Christian faith if it can't withstand being challenged out in the real world?

 

[Cearbhall]

So these zone developers could make rules and laws that reflect Bible teachings. There could be no argument that such rules would be imposed on the unwilling, there is no existing population, and new arrivals know exactly what they are getting into from the start: they would be 'voting with their feet' to show they are at least tolerant of such rules.

You're speaking as if Christians agree on a definitive list of "Bible teachings." There would be no way for them to actually know what they're getting themselves into.

 

[JustHisKid]

]Let's start with the premise that the Bible contains instruction from God how people should behave in a Godly society.

You lost me at your first sentence because Scripture does not dictate to society how they should live, but to only the church.

The Christian Zone is heaven.

 

[JustHisKid]

Would you support a 'Christian Zone'

1. Christians have been killing each other in the name of religion for centuries - is their any reason to believe that they are any more enlightened in the 21stC than all the previous ones.

Christians have not been killing anyone. If people are killing others in the name of "God", rest assured they are not Christians. By their fruits you will know them.

2. The Bible doesn't call on Christians to withdraw from the world - what is Christian faith if it can't withstand being challenged out in the real world?

Correct. Christians are to be in the world but not to conform to the mindset therein.

 

[JustHisKid]

Yes I would, but only because it would amuse me to watch Christians tear each other apart.

If they behaved as followers of Christ, there would be no such thing.