Christianists and their quest for "Dominion"

[DunderMifflin]

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I have to say, that people can still talk about religion in such a way in the 21st century utterly terrifies me. It means in spite of everything humanity has been through, we still have the potential to go right back to where we were half-a-dozen centuries ago.

That's nothing that can be blamed specifically on religion though. Look at the people screaming for communism and socialism comebacks. Or the current trend in American politics that's regressing further back before even Christianity to tribal warfare. "My side is right! Everyone else is a nazi! Or My side is right! Everyone else is a stupid sjw!"

[DunderMifflin]

8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, Christian teachings don't guarantee that Christianity will become the dominant religion of the world. In fact, it says that Christians will be rejected by the world, mostly. And that Christian duty is to save as many people as possible, before Armageddon, where most of the world will be judged and found wanting.

So in fact, I would argue that a "convert at all costs" approach is more in line with Christian teachings than a hope for the best attitude.

What if, for example, there are billions of planets with intelligent life out there, and the message of Christianity is brought to each one of them, with it then being up to Christians on that planet to spread it to as many people as possible. And on some planets the message is extinguished fairly early, on others it achieves great success, but in each case it is up to Christians to devise a winning strategy to maximise its reach.

At that point wed just be getting into a theology debate. That seems to be what has caused most of the the splits and different denominations of Christianity  to pop up over the years. Islam looks as if it's been through much of the same.

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

At that point wed just be getting into a theology debate. That seems to be what has caused most of the the splits and different denominations of Christianity  to pop up over the years. Islam looks as if it's been through much of the same.

Let's avoid the theology debate, sure. The point was merely that it is not an issue of "have enough faith and the entire world will become Christians". Because Christian teachings don't state that. So an accusation of lack of faith cannot justifiably be leveled at Christians who feel that greater action is required by humans to spread the reach of Christianity.

[DunderMifflin]

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Let's avoid the theology debate, sure. The point was merely that it is not an issue of "have enough faith and the entire world will become Christians". Because Christian teachings don't state that. So an accusation of lack of faith cannot justifiably be leveled at Christians who feel that greater action is required by humans to spread the  reach of Christianity.

But if I was to say that isnt my interpretation of Christian teaching. Then you'd likely be like "but it is" 

Until eventually one of us is like "you know what I'm just going to go start my own religion and it's going to be the real Christian teachings, not your version!"

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, DunderMifflin said:

But if I was to say that isnt my interpretation of Christian teaching. Then you'd likely be like "but it is" 

Until eventually one of us is like "you know what I'm just going to go start my own religion and it's going to be the real Christian teachings, not your version!"

OK. Not sure it's quite the example you think it is, though, as this is not really a disputed point, as far as I am aware. I'm not aware of a major branch of Christianity that thinks the world is guaranteed to eventually become entirely Christian.

But then, I don't know every interpretation of Christianity out there. And, if you get right down to it, you could always found this new branch here and now, which I guess is kind of the point you are making.

[DunderMifflin]

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

OK. Not sure it's quite the example you think it is, though, as this is not really a disputed point, as far as I am aware. I'm not aware of a major branch of Christianity that thinks the world is guaranteed to eventually become entirely Christian.

But then, I don't know every interpretation of Christianity out there. And, if you get right down to it, you could always found this new branch here and now, which I guess is kind of the point you are making.

Yeh and that there are plenty of Christian sects today that believe that coneverting via the state isn't appropriate. Outside of catholicism most every church can have its own distinct beliefs and it's usually decided upon by one pastor. It's not like they have to report back to the Vatican to make sure it's cool if they preach something.

[Seli]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Roger Williams, who was one of the founders of the State of Rhode Island said of the compelled worship practiced by the State in the Massaschusettes Bay Colony that it was a "Stink in God's nose".  I absolutely agree.  

Compelled worship is false worship.  The State has no business compelling people to worship.  Religions have no business seeking to have worship compelled.  Every time the State and the Church have gotten intertwined bad things result.  I, as a Christian, feel it is my duty to oppose this attempt to compel people into the Christianists brand of Christianity.  

This needs to be opposed, vigorously.

Appreciated.

Although at the same slightly confused this is where an adherent of the Church of Constantine ends up.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Seli said:

Appreciated.

Although at the same slightly confused this is where an adherent of the Church of Constantine ends up.

I conceded the irony of that fact up thread.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Seli said:

Appreciated.

Although at the same slightly confused this is where an adherent of the Church of Constantine ends up.

I say this without any malice, as I know I am not the first to suggest it, but Scot has appeared for some time to be an agnostic on the brink of coming out, yet struggling valiantly to continue  defining himself according to the religious tradition he has grown comfortable in, while increasingly being unable on an intellectual level to reconcile himself with some of its fundamental tenets.

[Rippounet]

7 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

That's nothing that can be blamed specifically on religion though. Look at the people screaming for communism and socialism comebacks. Or the current trend in American politics that's regressing further back before even Christianity to tribal warfare. "My side is right! Everyone else is a nazi! Or My side is right! Everyone else is a stupid sjw!"

You're not wrong. I still find that political extremists make more of an effort to exchange rational arguments in order to convince people (or themselves, at least). With religious extremism it always boils down to "MY holy book is the WORD, yours is fake." Also, I'm tempted to say that political ideologies are built on material promises, and that even the worst ones eventually get exposed when they fail.
But religions... Well, religions promise to "save your soul." They are literally built on faith alone. There's no way you can prove that one religion is better than the others at doing that, can you? This is why I find religious extremism to be so terrifying: because there's no fighting it. The best one can do is preach tolerance and hope that eventually it will die out on its own when confronted with modernity. Except it doesn't always work. On the contrary, religious extremism is proving to be extremely resilient in the face of modernity. One can hope that political conflicts eventually get resolved through dialectics. I fail to see how religious conflics on the other hand can end up in anything else than fire and blood.

[DunderMifflin]

19 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

You're not wrong. I still find that political extremists make more of an effort to exchange rational arguments in order to convince people (or themselves, at least). With religious extremism it always boils down to "MY holy book is the WORD, yours is fake." Also, I'm tempted to say that political ideologies are built on material promises, and that even the worst ones eventually get exposed when they fail.
But religions... Well, religions promise to "save your soul." They are literally built on faith alone. There's no way you can prove that one religion is better than the others at doing that, can you? This is why I find religious extremism to be so terrifying: because there's no fighting it. The best one can do is preach tolerance and hope that eventually it will die out on its own when confronted with modernity. Except it doesn't always work. On the contrary, religious extremism is proving to be extremely resilient in the face of modernity. One can hope that political conflicts eventually get resolved through dialectics. I fail to see how religious conflics on the other hand can end up in anything else than fire and blood.

I used to think that but the modern preachings of political extremists on all sides seem to be indistinguishable from the nonsensical preachings of a religious leader, it's like I wonder if this is just the replacement for religion. I mean when I watch media and shows that cater to far right or left wing politics. It's all just "shaaaaame, they are all  homophobic racist sexist bigots!" or "shaaaame, they are all fascists trying to silence the opinions of others!"

To me in essence it's the exact same as puritanical Christians telling everybody they are going to burn in hell if they don't do as they tell them.

[Buckwheat]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Sure. I also believe in free will. It is a fundamental principle of my and your religion. But consider that if Christianity did not become the State  Religion of Rome, it might not have spread to all of Europe, and would not have ridden the colonisation wave to the New World, to Africa and everywhere else. So billions fewer people would have been presented with the opportunity to make that choice, as there would not have been missionaries or churches taking the message to them in the numbers that were made possible as a knock on effect of the power of the Roman Catholic Church in those early centuries.

It's not about forcing people to become Christians. But if giving Christianity the right to be the official relgion in schools, state institutions and the like (for those who wish to participate)  means more people are faced with making that choice on a daily basis, the end result will be more people converting.

There is no requirement to give all religions a fair shot. The requirement is to take the Gospel to all the world and make people His disciples. So if that is achieved by undermining other religions, well, that is in fact a requirement placed upon Christians, not something to be frowned upon.

This argumentation would work from a Christian viewpoint if every conversion to Christianity had been voluntary, in full understanding, and a free choice. Which ... was not how it actually worked throughout human history.

[Dr. Pepper]

I'm not sure any conversion to christianity could be considered completely and totally voluntary and made of free choice since the alternative provided is to be consigned to a fiery lake of hell.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I'm not sure any conversion to christianity could be considered completely and totally voluntary and made of free choice since the alternative provided is to be consigned to a fiery lake of hell.  

That's a very evangelical view of salvation/damnation.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That's a very evangelical view of salvation/damnation.

It's the view from which FNR is arguing.  My experience with christianity outside evangelicalism is limited, though eternal damnation for non-believers tends to be quite universal.  It's written in your main text!

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It's the view from which FNR is arguing.  My experience with christianity outside evangelicalism is limited, though eternal damnation for non-believers tends to be quite universal.  It's written in your main text!

 

The main text you reference is not the only source of information and most mainline (non-evangelical) Churchs are not "Sola Scriputra".  And don't take the full text literally.

[Rippounet]

16 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It's the view from which FNR is arguing.  My experience with christianity outside evangelicalism is limited, though eternal damnation for non-believers tends to be quite universal.  It's written in your main text!

Slightly off-topic but... Wasn't that added to the bible at the council of Nicaea or something? I remember reading the whole idea of eternal damnation for non-believers was not even actually part of Christ's teachings.

[Dr. Pepper]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The main text you reference is not the only source of information and most mainline (non-evangelical) Churchs are not "Sola Scriputra".  And don't take the full text literally.

This is where it becomes a theological debate because each sect and then each church within each sect might hold different stances based on the same text they consider their primary (and even secondary and tertiary) sources of information. You have some evangelic sects that are lgbt affirming, for example.  Even within the same church there is huge disagreement on these things (the United Methodist Church is one example, they are having a huge identity issue when it comes to LGBT folks).  On the other hand, you'll have other evangelical sects (the christianists, as your article points out) walking around target with bibles and yelling shame or trying to get elected to office in order to demonize a group of people because some insignificant lines in their text say they should.  

I mean, this is an excellent argument for secularism and why christianists should be called out where they are found.  So bringing it back to topic (was there a topic, did you pose a question?), yes, I agree with the thesis of the article you posted.

9 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Slightly off-topic but... Wasn't that added to the bible at the council of Nicaea or something? I remember reading the whole idea of eternal damnation for non-believers was not even actually part of Christ's teachings.

Perhaps.  I'm definitely not any sort of theologist or historian.  I imagine the average evangelist isn't either so they probably aren't providing that information to would be converts.  What they are likely providing is their primary text which is full of their big dude torturing people who don't do what he says, so...

[Buckwheat]

51 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I'm not sure any conversion to christianity could be considered completely and totally voluntary and made of free choice since the alternative provided is to be consigned to a fiery lake of hell.  

Good point. I was thinking more about alternative options as being the other possible religions, with whatever after-death assets they offered.

[Liver and Onions]

This "Christianist" thing does kind of make sense when you ask why these so-called evangelical types seem to ignore most if not all of Christ's teachings. They want the self-satisfied superiority of being one of the "saved" without  walking the walk, so to speak.