Christianists and their quest for "Dominion"

[DunderMifflin]

Louis CK had a bit in his last special congratulating Christians for winning the world. For evidence he asked the crowd what year is it according to the entire world, even China.

[Rippounet]

3 minutes 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.

That might have *actually* saved hundreds of millions of lives.

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

That might have *actually* saved hundreds of millions of lives.

Not following you. But I suspect it is a joke hinting at the many deaths that have been caused by religion over the ages. As I said, my question was posed to Scot as a Christian, as I already know what the view of the secular world is on this issue.

[Dr. Pepper]

14 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

That might have *actually* saved hundreds of millions of lives.

Yeah seriously.  Listening to dominionists like that poster you've quoted is horrifying.  "yeah, we might have committed massive acts of genocide and enslaved entire races but hey at least we got to tell them about our personal brand of theism"

I have no idea how people continue to be swindled by this bullshit.

[DunderMifflin]

I remember being all edgy and shit talking about "God isn't real! Fuck Jesus!" when I was 12. At this point in my life I appreciate the free meals I get on the rare occasions I go to a church. Nobody ever forces me to believe their stuff before I eat their food, I'm cool with that.

also church is still a great community organizer especially in smaller cities.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FNR,

I think it was wrong to make Christianity an "official religion" anywhere.  I think it's coercing people into their faith.  I think faith must be freely chosen to be real.  Once you have the State saying "Worship X or we [fine, beat, imprison, etc] you" the faith that results is pretty worthless.  

"Compelled worship is a stink in God's nose". 

[Dr. Pepper]

3 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I remember being all edgy and shit talking about "God isn't real! Fuck Jesus!" when I was 12. At this point in my life I appreciate the free meals I get on the rare occasions I go to a church. Nobody ever forces me to believe their stuff before I eat their food, I'm cool with that.

Yeah, no one here is talking about going to someone's house for a little hamburger.  It's state religion that's being discussed.  Do try to keep up.  

[Free Northman Reborn]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

FNR,

I think it was wrong to make Christianity an "official religion" anywhere.  I think it's coercing people into their faith.  I think faith must be freely chosen to be real.  Once you have the State saying "Worship X or we [fine, beat, imprison, etc] you" the faith that results is pretty worthless.  

"Compelled worship is a stink in God's nose". 

Largely agree given the wording and examples that you chose above. But it's not really addressing the underlying question. How about the state promoting one religion over others then? Wearing your Constitutionalist hat, you would have a problem with that, I get that. But why would you have a problem with that from a purely Christian point of view?

Christianity certainly doesn't require people to have equal exposure to every religion on earth before making an "informed" decision on which religion they wish to choose. Christianity expressly defines all other religions as fake, and urges its adherents to convince as many people as possible of that as soon as possible.

So a State allowing all religions, but, for example, using tax payers' money to promote Christianity would be perfectly acceptable from a Christian point of view.

 

[DunderMifflin]

I don't think Christianity can be defined so narrowly with estimated over 2 billion people and centuries of splits from the original church.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

"Compelled worship is a stink in God's nose". 

A little Vick's Vapo Rub works miracles.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

12 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Largely agree given the wording and examples that you chose above. But it's not really addressing the underlying question. How about the state promoting one religion over others then? Wearing your Constitutionalist hat, you would have a problem with that, I get that. But why would you have a problem with that from a purely Christian point of view?

Christianity certainly doesn't require people to have equal exposure to every religion on earth before making an "informed" decision on which religion they wish to choose. Christianity expressly defines all other religions as fake, and urges its adherents to convince as many people as possible of that as soon as possible.

So a State allowing all religions, but, for example, using tax payers' money to promote Christianity would be perfectly acceptable from a Christian point of view.

 

Anytime the State gets involved I comes with the specter of Coercion.  As such it is improper for the State to "promote" one faith over another.  

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, DunderMifflin said:

I don't think Christianity can be defined so narrowly with estimated over 2 billion people and centuries of splits from the original church.

Well, it's not about defining it as such. It's not about celebrating the Roman Catholic Church, even. I'm not a Catholic. But I recognize that Martin Luther, Calvin and the other Protestant reformers would not have existed if not for the Catholic Church that went before them, and it is questionable whether the Catholic Church would have existed as anything other than a local Roman sect if not for the power and authority originally given to it by becoming the State religion of the Empire.

So if not for that, most of Europe would have remained pagan, and when/if the Age of Discovery arose, Latin America would not have been converted to Catholicism,and neither would Protestant Christianity have taken root in North America. So conceivably Christianity would have been non-existent on the world stage, or a localized Mediteranean sect that eventually died out after the collapse of the Roman Empire.

It raises the question, at least, of whether in hindsight God (whom you naturally believe in if you are a Christian) would have preferred for Theodosius not to have issued that decree back in 380AD.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Anytime the State gets involved I comes with the specter of Coercion.  As such it is improper for the State to "promote" one faith over another.  

According to the Constitution, yes. Not according to Christian teachings.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

According to the Constitution, yes. Not according to Christian teachings.

I think it's wrong.  I agree with Roger Williams.  

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think it's wrong.  I agree with Roger Williams.  

OK, you've answered my question. Appreciate it.

[DunderMifflin]

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, it's not about defining it as such. It's not about celebrating the Roman Catholic Church, even. I'm not a Catholic. But I recognize that Martin Luther, Calvin and the other Protestant reformers would not have existed if not for the Catholic Church that went before them, and it is questionable whether the Catholic Church would have existed as anything other than a local Roman sect if not for the power and authority originally given to it by becoming the State religion of the Empire.

So if not for that, most of Europe would have remained pagan, and when/if the Age of Discovery arose, Latin America would not have been converted to Catholicism,and neither would Protestant Christianity have taken root in North America. So conceivably Christianity would have been non-existent on the world stage, or a localized Mediteranean sect that eventually died out after the collapse of the Roman Empire.

It raises the question, at least, of whether in hindsight God (whom you naturally believe in if you are a Christian) would have preferred for Theodosius not to have issued that decree back in 380AD.

I'm not a Christian but if I was I'd argue something along the lines of Christianity would have won the world anyway without that government endorsement because it's the one true religion. Or something to that effect.

[BloodRider]

19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Anytime the State gets involved I comes with the specter of Coercion.  As such it is improper for the State to "promote" one faith over another.  

I wouldn't call it coercion. How about propaganda - or lies via omission on a national scale.  It sure is a sign of weakness and lack of faith on those who clamor for it though.  

[Rippounet]

48 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Yeah seriously.  Listening to dominionists like that poster you've quoted is horrifying.  "yeah, we might have committed massive acts of genocide and enslaved entire races but hey at least we got to tell them about our personal brand of theism"

I have no idea how people continue to be swindled by this bullshit.

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.

[Free Northman Reborn]

12 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I'm not a Christian but if I was I'd argue something along the lines of Christianity would have won the world anyway without that government endorsement because it's the one true religion. Or something to that effect.

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.

[Dr. Pepper]

Poor extra-terrestrials.