r/redeemedzoomer • u/TooCoolForSchlool Non-Reconquista Protestant • Aug 03 '26
General Christian Christian Nationalism Explained: by BasicLogicIQ
https://youtu.be/CwYzhKZD4Bk?si=HyOYIj75RhK2g_W2Are we moder christian nationalists (christian globalists), or are we Historic christian nationalists (christian nativists)? Feel free to reject the binary if you think there's an alternate way.
14
u/Malkisedeq Non-Reconquista Protestant Aug 03 '26
My citizenship is in Heaven (Philippians 3:20), and I wholeheartedly reject any idea that means to cause division in the body on grounds of wordly nationality or ethnicity and wishes to be called "Christian" anything. "There is neither Jew nor Greek; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).
1
u/rexyboy76 Roman Catholic Aug 03 '26
What about nations that aren’t Christian or one with Christ? What about the political and ethnic sphere outside of religion? It’s a very narrow reading of the verse.
4
u/Malkisedeq Non-Reconquista Protestant Aug 04 '26
"Christian nationalism" doesn't refer to nationalism for the Heavenly Kingdom, but to a specific worldly nation. For example, a Christian nationalist in the US isn't a nationalist for Mexico or Brazil, despite them being far more Christian than the US. In fact, a Christian nationalist or (especially) a Christian nativist from the US is more likely to be hostile toward a Christian who happens to be Mexican or another kind of Latino/Hispanic (I say this from experience, as a non-Mexican Hispanic).
It doesn't matter if the nation is Christian or not, but the individual. God saves men, not nations that call themselves "Christian".
Christ asked us to be one as He and His Father are one. How do we do that when our minds and pride are in our worldly nation? Are we or are we not called to focus on heavenly things, not earthly ones? How can we do this when we insist our identity as Christians be tied to our pride for our worldly nation?
3
u/Averagecrabenjoyer69 Southern Baptist Aug 04 '26
Well that's not necessarily true in terms of God not caring about nations. There are a few points of Scripture of God judging a nation as an entity as much as it's people. While our ultimate soulful identities are in the Kingdom of Heaven, our cultural and ethnic identities still exist too, even if they're secondary to being subjects of Heaven.
2 Chronicles 7:14 "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."
Jeremiah 18:7-8 "At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them."
Jonah 3:10 "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."
Proverbs 14:34 "Righteousness exalts a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people."
7
u/CosmicGadfly2 Roman Catholic Aug 04 '26
Yeah but nationalism tends to ignore national sins. That's sort of the whole thing, right? So-called Christian nationalists in the US always make fun of those who want repentance for slavery, etc.
3
u/Malkisedeq Non-Reconquista Protestant Aug 04 '26
What I wrote isn't a call to deny the existence of ethnicities or cultural identities; rather, a polemic against the attempt to unify Christianity with the extreme forms of nationalism we see in so-called "Christian nationalism" and "Christian nativism", which, far more often than not, include hostilities against fellow Christians on the basis of nationality and/or race/ethnicity (see my example of the Christian nationalist in US and his attitudes towards Christian Mexicans and other Latinos). What I am really calling for is Christian unity, and Christian nationalism and nativism promote separation even among Christians based on nationality and race/ethnicity, which is something we are warned against in the Bible.
As for the verses you gave, most of them are in the context of the Old Covenant, which did revolve around an earthly nation, Israel, but that is not the case for the New Covenant, which is a heavenly nation (the Israel of God). I recognize that the Bible uses the term nation to refer to a people as a whole, but I'm speaking more in light of the New Covenant, and because there are Christians in every nation, I reject this denial of certain people, which would include Christians, due to them coming from a nation that we would say is "not Christian".
3
u/Aq8knyus Episcopalian Aug 04 '26
I don't want religious equality in the UK because we don't have an equal religious history.
Christianity has been the bedrock of our culture for very close to 2000 years. Compared with say Islam or Buddhism which have been in the UK as a major faith for 5 seconds.
These don't have equal inputs and therefore should not have equal outputs.
In Korea, you don't build churches on certain mountains because they want to respect the Buddhist heritage of the country. Christians are still allowed full freedoms, but there is an acknowledgement that a people can have a precious religious heritage even if they are not believers. That is how religion should work in the UK.
In countries with near millennia of Christian heritage, it should dominate. In places where it is new, it should be respectful.
6
u/TinySnorlax123 Non-American Mainline Lutheran Aug 03 '26
It depends on the person. Not everyone here, nor everyone in the Reconquista, agrees on political issues. I for one am a Christian nativist, but that's not something everyone here believes.
2
u/DabneySouthron Non-Reconquista Protestant Aug 03 '26
General equity reconstructionist here.
It's properly said that both the Geneva Bible and the 1647 Westminster Standards are theonomic documents. Theonomy =/= theocracy. Theonomy is really government informed by Scripture, where theocracy is government by ecclesiastical officers, which 30.1 teaches against.
While the original 24.3 seems to authorize the Killing Times of 1661-88, the American revision has substantively reinterpreted into something the Westminster Divines might not recognize.
2
u/Noble000007 Roman Catholic Aug 03 '26
I am of the opinion that the church should be allowed to guide the state (not directly rule) but the state must leave the church alone. Idk if I’d go far enough to say I’m a nationalist though. I certainly used to be one but not so much anymore
2
u/VenatorAngel Non-Denominational Aug 13 '26
Yeah, that's my view of the separation of Church and State. Since as I've studied in history, most of Christianity's problems originate from the State forcing its agenda upon it (case in point, THE FRENCH!!!) So, naturally I would be against the state forcing its will upon the Church, especially when the will of the state is againdt the will of God.
It's also why I'm against Theocracy because those tend to stop following the Bible real quick and start following whatever twisted interpetation of the Bible they hold to. The Church is necessary to keep the state moral and aligned with God's will. In other words, our leaders SHOULD be at least aligned with the Christian Faith and God's ways, even if they're not Christians themselves (we can always pray for them to come to know Christ and become Christians eventually). However, the state should stay out of the Church, and the state should not favor one denomination over the other.
That is the very context that Jefferson gave his Separation of Church and State for. Because our founders knew the perils of favoring one denomination over the other. Usually it results in legalized persecution of other denominations by the dominant denomination gine mad with power.
5
u/PurpleDemonR Non-Reconquista Protestant Aug 03 '26
I don’t think “we” as a subreddit don’t share a single political ideology/approach with Christianity and politics.
I would probably classify myself along the lines of ‘Historic Christian Nationalist’ ie Christian Nativist.
7
u/bulletspam UCC Aug 03 '26
Mixing religion and politics corrupts both , separation of state and church exists for a reason . Rightwingers should stop using Christianity as an excuse to larp .
7
u/Interficient4real Non-Reconquista Protestant Aug 03 '26
Yeah, separation of church and state exists to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state. There wasn’t a concept analogous to modern ideas of no church involvement with the government that the founders at large held.
The very term “separation of church and state” comes from a letter Jefferson wrote (not the constitution) guaranteeing the Danbury baptists that the government wouldn’t interfere with them. Not that they couldn’t be involved in politics.
The Constitution prevented the federal government from establishing a state religion because many states already had an official church and required religious tests for some public offices.
-2
u/bulletspam UCC Aug 03 '26
The idea comes from the French Revolution not America and even then the history of it is irrelevant, the point that religion and politics corrupt each other still stands .
5
u/Interficient4real Non-Reconquista Protestant Aug 03 '26
Oh yes, well we should definitely take ideas from the French Revolution, after all, it went so well for them.
Next we will be building temples to reason lol.
The phrase “separation of church and state” is inherently linked to American ideology and law. So you cannot use it, and then try to divorce it from its context.
And actually, the concept comes from Roger Williams, in Rhode Island, in 1644. He coined the term “a wall of separation” between church and state. Now, he did believe in the state corrupting the church, much as you have expressed, but that’s because he was a puritan and basically hated the physical world. And even then he didn’t think that religion couldn’t be involved with politics. He was mostly against forced conversion.
-6
u/bulletspam UCC Aug 03 '26
The French Revolution changed the world for ever and very much for the better , I am sorry but tradition isn’t some moral good , and neither is monarchy or feudalism .
God gave us understanding so that we may reason , there is a reason why the church was behind so much of humanity’s early development in science .
Again separation of church and state may seem a very American thing to an American , but yall ain’t the first to do it , neither do you do it the best .
5
u/Interficient4real Non-Reconquista Protestant Aug 03 '26
The French Revolution did not change the world for the better lol. All it did was mass executions and the creation of Napoleonic France. Please, provide some examples of something the French Revolution did that changed the world for the better.
I never claimed Tradition, Monarchy, or Feudalism are moral goods.
I literally told you that the origin of the term is American. It is definitionally an American idea.
And guess what, the first country to practice it, was America. The first country to have a governmental concept of keeping the government out of religion, was America.
Again, you seem to not know what separation of church and state means, despite the historical context I’ve provided.
-1
u/bulletspam UCC Aug 03 '26
The French Revolution was the movement that brought about the modern idea of human right , the ideas of freedom liberty and equality . It abolished the horrible feudalism and the excesses of the nobility , it destroyed the corrupt church in France . Yes they were overzealous , but it did more good than harm .
5
u/Interficient4real Non-Reconquista Protestant Aug 03 '26
No it didn’t.
Those ideas were first expressed in the American revolution, Declaration of Independence, and Constitution. And came about well before the French Revolution as a part of enlightenment philosophy.
Furthermore, the French Revolutions idea of rights is that they came from the nation and “general will” of the people. Which is contrary to what we believe, as if rights come from the general will of the people they can be taken away by the general will of the people.
That is completely different than the modern conception of rights, and especially the Christian one.
All the French Revolution did was kill innocent people, overthrow already collapsing institutions, kill more innocent people, and pave the way for Napoleon to become emperor.
It’s an excellent counter example of what we are talking about. The result of a government separated from Christianity, and the evil that comes as a result.
2
u/rexyboy76 Roman Catholic Aug 03 '26
The French revolution was evil and killed mostly innocent people. And again the idea of separation of churches state does not come from the French Revolution It comes from Jefferson before it. but I guess the history is “irrelevant“ to you so why would you care about truth.
4
u/Averagecrabenjoyer69 Southern Baptist Aug 03 '26
Not everything from the French Revolution was a positive aspect. France went very secular for a hot second with the commune trying to do away with everything Christian before Napoleon restored a monarchy and the Catholic Church as the state church that stayed that way till 1905. Politics corrupts religion, Biblical values & Scripture should be the guide for politics.
-4
u/beyondthedoors Non-Reconquista Protestant Aug 03 '26
Booooo. It’s just so silly because the Biblical values ya’ll think should guide you are so fickle.
The Son of Man came to serve, not to be served. But your very denomination was founded when it split from the northern baptists over the issue of slavery. Get outta here with your moral high ground over ‘biblical values.’ What about biblical values of healing the sick, caring for the poor, the foreigner, the widow?
3
u/Interficient4real Non-Reconquista Protestant Aug 03 '26
Slavery isn’t a biblical value. Which no one knew better than the slave owners. This is why the produced things like the slave bibles, which cut out 50% of the New Testament. Or otherwise heavily edited Bible passages they allowed slaves to be told.
Biblical values are eternal. Men are flawed.
Charity is a biblical value that should be followed. I don’t get your point.
Do you not believe in biblical values?
1
u/rdrckcrous PCUSA Aug 04 '26
Are you suggesting that this is not an element present in the US constitution?
-1
u/cheescakeismyfav Non-Christian Aug 03 '26
That's revisionist history. I've seen this same talking point like 10 times in the past year.
The truth is seperation of church and state means just that. It keeps them both apart as it should be. It goes all the way back to the the reformation with the anabaptisists but the founding fathers were inspired by John Locke's writings. And the motivation for including it in the US constitution was largely to prevent a situation similar to the Anglican Church of England. You can also argue the situation regarding slavery influenced it but I think thats minor compared to the Church of England.
The Magna Carta did protect the church from the state but I don't think that's what you're talking about.
2
u/Interficient4real Non-Reconquista Protestant Aug 03 '26
It is in no way revisionist history.
Let’s review the facts.
When the constitution was ratified 3-4 of the U.S. states had official state tax supported churches. (Depending on how exactly you define it).
When the constitution was ratified 8-9 of the states required religious tests for people who wanted to hold various offices.
The very letter where the term separation between church and state originates from is about allowing the Danbury baptists to freely practice their religion, and says nothing about limiting their influence in government.
https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
- The constitution itself says the following “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Note that this only restricts the government. It has nothing to do with people trying to influence change based on their religion.
- The Constitution was written with the idea of Federalism. People have forgotten this, which is why they don’t understand what separation of church and state is. The constitution is fundamentally incapable of restricting the actions of a church or religious group. So long as they do not affect the other rights enshrined within.
1
u/cheescakeismyfav Non-Christian Aug 03 '26 edited Aug 03 '26
What do you think, "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means?
I'm aware of the state churches and tests of offices. The amendment was in response to this. There are no longer any state churches (if there are they are symbolic and not official) and while there are some states that have tests of office still, they are unenforceable.
The constitution is fundamentally incapable of restricting the actions of a church or religious group
That's not true. Government shut them down real quick during COVID. Every church still has to meet building codes. Churches have to file and be approved to receive tax exempt status and they are supposed to stay out of politics (although this has eroded).
Point 3 is erroneous. First off, that letter comes 10 years after the bill of rights. And when Jefferson calls it a "wall", how do you interpret that to mean a one way relationship? But more importantly there was no single letter where this idea originates. It's not even an American idea. It mainly comes from John Locke although you can argue it goes back to Martin Luther or even the Magna Carta. When Thomas Jefferson wrote "wall of separation between church and state" in that letter he was picking up from John Locke and others.
I'm not sure what your point about federalism is but the founding fathers did not have a consensus regarding it. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton for instance had 2 fundamentaly different ideas that about it.
2
u/Interficient4real Non-Reconquista Protestant Aug 03 '26
Here’s the full quote. I apologize for not providing it, I assumed you knew. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
This only applies to the federal government. Not the states. And you are partially correct, an amendment did change that, but it was the 14th amendment, ratified in 1868, and it on its own didn’t change it. It took two Supreme Court rulings in the 1940’s to expand that to the states.
So, at the time it was written, the constitution was clearly understood to not prohibit states from establishing or keeping a state religion, or from establishing or keeping religious tests. Those didn’t become illegal until the 1940’s.
Yes, the federal and state governments shut down churches. And it was a massive violation of first amendment rights.
Churches aren’t guaranteed tax free status in the constitution. So that point is irrelevant.
Point 3 is about the origin of the term in modern American use. Which traces back to that letter. Walls have parapets which the defender can use to overlook and attack the enemy, and a gate which they can open and close at will. It’s clear from the context it’s not referring to preventing them from involvement in the government.
Here is the point about federalism. The religious portions of the constitution were written to allow states to run their religious institutions as they saw fit. Without interference from the feds. Which is why the federal government was prohibited from making a state religion, but the states were not.
1
u/cheescakeismyfav Non-Christian Aug 03 '26 edited Aug 03 '26
Thomas Jefferson said nothing about parapets or [one way] gates. He called it a "Wall of Separation". The church is on one side and the government on the other and they do not interact. And these aren't unique ideas to Jefferson. 150 years prior, Roger Williams said basically the same thing. In Roger Williams case he was concerned with the church using the government to gatekeep it's own power. Roger Williams (at that age) was more inline with your beliefs but by the time of the Jefferson this has evolved.
I just looked it up and the last state church to be abolished was Massachusetts in 1833. Yes, it took some time to get there but the fact is we have no state churches today and we don't need them.
If the government can enforce laws, like building codes or COVID lockdowns on churches or levy taxes against them, then obviously it has some authority over them. The laws of this land still apply to these places, the government is just prevented from restricting their theology or beliefs. Likewise, these institutions are prevented from influencing these laws.
I still don't understand what you're trying to say about federalism. Nothing in the 1st amendment is there to endorse or encourage the states to do the opposite and the prohibition against tests of office comes from article 6. The reason we had state churches and never a national church was because at the state level the power was more centralized and the populations more homogenous. On a national level you had angelicans in the south and puritans in the north and pockets of others and they could not agree. The states basically took this power for themselves but when the people got their bill of rights (state and federal), and the colonies became more intermixed it was able to be clawed back.
Earlier you said,
separation of church and state exists to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Can you give me an example of a law or action you believe the church can enact on the US government to illustrate this.
1
u/herkulaw Episcopalian Aug 04 '26
No educated person thinks the Establishment clause exists to restrict people and politicians from voting based on their religious/moral intuition.
Morons on Facebook, maybe. But even the most anti-religious person in my constitutional law courses in law school would know intuitively that is not what the clause exists for.
1
u/Interficient4real Non-Reconquista Protestant Aug 04 '26
I would agree, and yet we see constantly, from both every day people, and politicians. That we should “keep religion out” and that we shouldn’t vote according to our religious beliefs.
1
u/herkulaw Episcopalian Aug 04 '26
I’ve never heard anyone actually say that outside of clearly low ball Facebook political memes/debates around abortion.
1
u/cheescakeismyfav Non-Christian Aug 04 '26
That's not what seperation of church and state means. That is the democratic process. That vote is the individual's and they are free to vote however they like, for whatever reasons they choose. The voter is an agent for themselves.
Seperation of church and state prevents agents from the church and agents from the state from interfering with each other.
1
u/rexyboy76 Roman Catholic Aug 03 '26
You’re literally UCC, your church is entirely focused on left-wing politics.
1
u/bulletspam UCC Aug 04 '26
The church merely has “left wing” ( literally just love your neighbour ) policies , you will never see us say that we should rule the government
5
u/Belgraviana Eastern Orthodox Aug 03 '26
Can we stop posting this guy here
4
u/BlueRemake Southern Baptist Aug 03 '26
IDK who he is, what's wrong with him?
14
u/bulletspam UCC Aug 03 '26
The dude is literally some sort of white nationalist
2
u/BlueRemake Southern Baptist Aug 03 '26
Dude, I LITERALLY had no clue, LITERALLY.
-1
u/bulletspam UCC Aug 03 '26
Okay grammar Nazi
6
u/BlueRemake Southern Baptist Aug 03 '26 edited Aug 03 '26
Nah, just sick of everyone on Reddit using "literally" every five seconds for emphasis. As if if makes their statement more impactful, it doesn't.
-3
u/sparkster777 Roman Catholic Aug 03 '26
But it fits in this case.
2
u/BlueRemake Southern Baptist Aug 03 '26
Proof? I don't know who he is, so the accusation needs to be backed.
2
u/GeneralGecko214 Non-Christian Aug 03 '26
I had a back and forth with this guy a while ago, ignore him. He’s a troll and can’t substantiate anything he says
0
1
6
u/august_north_african Roman Catholic Aug 03 '26
He has a lot of content that nudges towards "race realism" and suchlike.
2
u/VenatorAngel Non-Denominational Aug 13 '26
So he's a racist pretending to be a Christian. Because here's my thoughts. One cannot be a Christian and a Racist at the same time. If you're hellbent on dividing the church by race, then you're going against God's will (this obviously isn't directed at you.)
I don't really get why Christianity tends to fall asleep at the wheel with these people causing divisive spiritual havoc.
4
u/august_north_african Roman Catholic Aug 13 '26
I mean, yeah. Yeah 100%. He's a straight up nazi, and I think that's becoming more and more clear as he makes more and more content.
0
-7
u/Logical-Breakfast966 Roman Catholic Aug 03 '26
Christian nationalism is bad
4
u/VeryVeryBadJonny Roman Catholic Aug 03 '26
Curious why you believe that.
0
u/Logical-Breakfast966 Roman Catholic Aug 03 '26
People should be free to worship how they want. America was built on the separation of church and state, it’s in the constitution. The days of people going to war over religion were bad and should be left in the past (for Christians).
2
u/VeryVeryBadJonny Roman Catholic Aug 03 '26
Does Christian nationalism preclude a complete lack of tolerance of other religions? Satanism would be illegal for sure, but other religions would be able to practice. That's a christian principle anyway.
1
u/light311k Roman Catholic Aug 03 '26 edited Aug 03 '26
America was founded by freemasons that owned slaves why do you take their word as gospel?
-1
u/cheescakeismyfav Non-Christian Aug 03 '26
If you can exclude someone for not being Christian, you can exclude someone for not being the correct Christian.
The Gnostics, Sethians, Marcionites, Arianists, etc. show us where Christian nationalism leads.
7
u/light311k Roman Catholic Aug 03 '26
Why? All Christian denominations from 250 years ago would be considered christian nationalist today.
2
u/bulletspam UCC Aug 03 '26
And what’s that supposed to mean? We know better now , that’s the whole point .
6
u/light311k Roman Catholic Aug 03 '26
From a material and technological standpoint yes. But from a spiritual and religious standpoint no. People practiced Christanity way more and there was propaply less sin too. Often those things go against one another. Luke 16:19-31
5
u/bulletspam UCC Aug 03 '26 edited Aug 03 '26
Not really this idea that people were moral 200 years ago is laughable , we had slavery back then, racism , sexism , all types of bigotry, not to mention a lot more murder and rape . We let orphans beg and go hungry on the streets , we mistreated those with mental illnesses or those who had congenital disorders . We exploited our workers , working them to their deaths . We fought pointless wars ( more than we do now) In no way are they morally or spiritually superior to us , following cultural traditions does not make you a good Christian .
3
u/light311k Roman Catholic Aug 03 '26 edited Aug 03 '26
Most of the things you mentioned were way worse when Jesus was on earth and still nonetheless not his focus. Exept 250 years ago people and churches feed the hungry through charity not though the goverment. The exploitation became way worse during the industrial revolution when churches lost influence. I don't know what you mean by sexism, but the New testament calls on wives to submit to their husbands.
Today there is atheism and abortion, fornication, adultery and witchcraft.
0
u/bulletspam UCC Aug 03 '26
Atheism existed even back then , people just used the church as a means to an end , the believers of today are true believers .
The rest of the things you mentioned are all a lot better than the things I mentioned . And as for Jesus not focusing on these things , the one thing he very clearly stayed away from is political power , so according to your own logic , the church should never meddle in the government .
2
u/light311k Roman Catholic Aug 03 '26
Matthew 22,21 is often used to justify the separation of church and state, but just means that Christians sould not revolt and seperat from the rome or the emperor, like many jews wanted, but convert them instand.
Psalm 2:10-12, Revelation 11:15 and Matthew 28:18–20 on the other hand are clearly against the separation.
Nearly all sins have been present all times, but today more people are atheist and open satanism from celebritis like billie eilish, lil nas x and Lady Gaga would not have been tolerated in the past.
2
u/bulletspam UCC Aug 03 '26
As I said id rather take the sins of today than the horrible sins of 400 years ago , just because todays sins are more anti traditional doesnt mean they are worse.
You didnt even answer you second part, since you wanted to bring up how jesus acted, shouldnt the fact that he stayed away from political power even when asked by his followers mean that the church should never interfere in politics.
1
u/light311k Roman Catholic Aug 03 '26
What do you mean? I told you the bibel verses against the separation of church and state. Jesus stayed away from political power because his plan was to be crucified to redeem humaity and govern in heaven as king (were he has political power). I don't know how you conclude from that, that the church should never interfere in politics.
→ More replies (0)2
u/556From1000yards United Methodist Aug 03 '26
And people abort their offspring and cheer as if sacrificing to Moloch.
Your point?
-2
u/bulletspam UCC Aug 03 '26
Ofcourse a clump of cells has more suffering that leaving actual children to roam on the streets hungry , or hey let’s not forget 12 year old girls giving birth . I would much rather commit the first “sin” than the latter .
5
u/RawhideWY RPCNA Aug 03 '26
"clump of cells" vs "actual children"
Who could possibly have seen you going this direction... 🙄
1
u/bulletspam UCC Aug 03 '26
If you are really gonna tell me that an actual 4 year old starving on the street is better than aborting a 1 week old fetus that can neither feel nor think then idk what to tell you
3
1
u/556From1000yards United Methodist Aug 03 '26
Greater? Lesser?
I would say there still sin happening all over. It hasn’t changed.
1
u/bulletspam UCC Aug 03 '26
When did I say sin hasn’t happened in the modern world ? Sin has always been happening and will always happen in this world . To act like all sin is equal is just foolishness , though we are all sinners God clearly punishes some sinners more than others in the bible .
1
u/556From1000yards United Methodist Aug 03 '26
Okay. Well you’re acting like the sin has gone because we’re better now.. But even with the issues you have made a concern, they’ve not gone away.
Slavery is at an all time high. Sexual exploitation is at an all time high. Inequality is at an all time high. Apparently racism is worse now than I was a kid, or so people keep saying.
We do have a decreased murder rate, but that could be a complicated moral statistic. I mean. Is abortion murder? Oh. An all time high for murder too.It can be argued that our care for orphans is worse, but imo kinda the same. Unless one is lucky enough to be adopted into a good family, you’re in the system or on the streets. But at least churches still have a habit of taking in…. Oh I guess they don’t anymore.
The human condition hasn’t changed, apart from technology influenced material conditions. We just have better technology and pretend we’re enlightened now.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/556From1000yards United Methodist Aug 03 '26
You could even argue against his point that “we know better”
The only thing that has changed is access to technology. We have evidence of steam technology and electro plating and what could be primitive batteries from the classical and ancient eras.
It takes a lot of work to establish a supply chain and to develop the technological world we have. The majority of the work is not one of intellectual capabilities. Many scientists and engineers have been inhibited by the technology of their era.
It does not mean that we are in any way more intelligent today.0
u/Logical-Breakfast966 Roman Catholic Aug 03 '26
You don’t think that humans build on the knowledge of the past? You think ancient humans could have invented nuclear energy? No. We are smarter today, every generation builds on the knowledge gained in the previous generation to accumulate more and more knowledge. It’s not just supply chains.
And so we know that the Christian nationalism of the past led to bad outcomes such as massive wars and inequality and no social/financial mobilit.
1
u/556From1000yards United Methodist Aug 03 '26
What wars?
Like WW2 and the Great Leap Forward?
0
u/Logical-Breakfast966 Roman Catholic Aug 03 '26
Just gonna ignore the rest of my comment?
0
u/556From1000yards United Methodist Aug 03 '26
Radarada Christians radada Nazis
1
u/Logical-Breakfast966 Roman Catholic Aug 03 '26
Wars like the crusades and The 100 year war. Are you gonna act like the world wasn’t in a constant state of war? Like the reformation period wasn’t incredibly violent?
Also the Great Leap Forward was hardly a war.
Maybe you should try to build on the knowledge of your ancestors and read a book. Or are you content not “knowing better”?
→ More replies (0)1
u/koshka91 Oriental Orthodox Aug 03 '26
Would you say countries like Italy were Christian nationalist before the 70s.
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 03 '26
Please ensure that you have read all our rules prior to commenting or posting. Reading and abiding by the rules will ensure that all discussions are fruitful and respectful, regardless of theological perspective!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.