The Christian Discussion Thread VI

[United Marxist Nations]

I despise laicite, it's an evil and oppressive ideology.

Evil and oppressive, how? I think you underappreciate secularism. Secularism is suppose to keep religion out of government, the way it should be, and put all religions on an equal playing ground. In other words, it's suppose to prevent theocracies like Iraq and Saudi Arabia from popping up.

That's a matter of your opinion. Large percentages of people from every religion would disagree vehemently.

[Diopolis]

I despise laicite, it's an evil and oppressive ideology.

Evil and oppressive, how? I think you underappreciate secularism. Secularism is suppose to keep religion out of government, the way it should be, and put all religions on an equal playing ground. In other words, it's suppose to prevent theocracies like Iraq and Saudi Arabia from popping up. I'd rather live under laicite rather than any sort of theocracy.

Because banning modest dress is totally great.

[United Marxist Nations]

Evil and oppressive, how? I think you underappreciate secularism. Secularism is suppose to keep religion out of government, the way it should be, and put all religions on an equal playing ground. In other words, it's suppose to prevent theocracies like Iraq and Saudi Arabia from popping up. I'd rather live under laicite rather than any sort of theocracy.

Because banning modest dress is totally great.

Yeah, didn't France ban the Burka and Hijab or something like that? What is the deal with that?

[The Flutterlands]

Evil and oppressive, how? I think you underappreciate secularism. Secularism is suppose to keep religion out of government, the way it should be, and put all religions on an equal playing ground. In other words, it's suppose to prevent theocracies like Iraq and Saudi Arabia from popping up. I'd rather live under laicite rather than any sort of theocracy.

Because banning modest dress is totally great.

Say what now?

[The Flutterlands]

Because banning modest dress is totally great.

Yeah, didn't France ban the Burka and Hijab or something like that? What is the deal with that?

Okay, that IS taking it a bit far...

[Diopolis]

Because banning modest dress is totally great.

Say what now?

You didn't read the story of the girl who was sent home because a long skirt was "bringing religion into public school"? And you didn't know that laicite is basically an excuse to discriminate against religious minorities?
I'd rather live in a traditional Catholic confessional state any day of the week.

[Luminesa]

I despise laicite, it's an evil and oppressive ideology.

Evil and oppressive, how? I think you underappreciate secularism. Secularism is suppose to put religion out of government, like it should be, and put all religions on an equal playing ground. In other words, it's suppose to prevent theocracies like Iraq and Saudi Arabia from popping up.

Again, extremes are generally not good for politics. Of course we don't want an Iraq or a Saudi Arabia. But what's the other extreme? Complete and utter atheism in government? Politicians are not allowed to defend their religious beliefs outside of their churches?

No, politicians should be able to voice their religious beliefs in a government setting, even if other people disagree with them. Plus, as long as there is a balance, the government should be fine. Thus actively trying to remove 1,500 years of Christian history from a country's culture, like they're doing in France, is quite dangerous. Religion is a big part of the identity of the history and growth of the Church's Eldest Daughter, even if many of the people in France aren't practicing Christians.

Though at the same time, it's not like basing a country's law on the Ten Commandments would necessarily be a bad thing. After all, the Ten Commandments and Sharia law are very different.

[The Flutterlands]

Evil and oppressive, how? I think you underappreciate secularism. Secularism is suppose to put religion out of government, like it should be, and put all religions on an equal playing ground. In other words, it's suppose to prevent theocracies like Iraq and Saudi Arabia from popping up.

Again, extremes are generally not good for politics. Of course we don't want an Iraq or a Saudi Arabia. But what's the other extreme? Complete and utter atheism in government? Politicians are not allowed to defend their religious beliefs outside of their churches?

No, politicians should be able to voice their religious beliefs in a government setting, even if other people disagree with them. Plus, as long as there is a balance, the government should be fine. Thus actively trying to remove 1,500 years of Christian history from a country's culture, like they're doing in France, is quite dangerous. Religion is a big part of the identity of the history and growth of the Church's Eldest Daughter, even if many of the people in France aren't practicing Christians.

Though at the same time, it's not like basing a country's law on the Ten Commandments would necessarily be a bad thing. After all, the Ten Commandments and Sharia law are very different.

Still, the suppressing of any group of people's rights, simply in the name of religion, should not be tolerated on the secular level. For example, gays should not be prevented from marrying by the government simply because it goes against another group's religion.

[Muinordgrad]

I pray anywhere. This is why I love being a protestant, if I had to pray the rosary over and over again I'd go insane, but I pray to God like he is my friend, like He was sitting right there in my room. Prayer isn't a dialogue, it is a conversation.

Actually, the Rosary is very soothing, and biblical! It's a meditation on the life of Jesus as told in the Gospels, like Tutu said.

And prayer is a dialogue. It's two people talking, God and you. But sometimes, God speaks in the silence, and we have to listen.

I know, and while I mean no disrespect about the Rosary, it just is that I feel like God is actually present when I pray, like almost physically, so... IDK. I guess I'm just weird, but it's what I do and God *definitely* answers me.

Say what now?

You didn't read the story of the girl who was sent home because a long skirt was "bringing religion into public school"? And you didn't know that laicite is basically an excuse to discriminate against religious minorities?
I'd rather live in a traditional Catholic confessional state any day of the week.

I'm not sure which one I would wanna live in. On one hand the Atheist state would be... annoying, and possibly even dangerous if I share the Faith. However, the Catholic Confessional one would most likely not be too happy with my Protestantism, though probably more happy than the Atheist state.

[Diopolis]

Actually, the Rosary is very soothing, and biblical! It's a meditation on the life of Jesus as told in the Gospels, like Tutu said.

And prayer is a dialogue. It's two people talking, God and you. But sometimes, God speaks in the silence, and we have to listen.

I know, and while I mean no disrespect about the Rosary, it just is that I feel like God is actually present when I pray, like almost physically, so... IDK. I guess I'm just weird, but it's what I do and God *definitely* answers me.

You didn't read the story of the girl who was sent home because a long skirt was "bringing religion into public school"? And you didn't know that laicite is basically an excuse to discriminate against religious minorities?
I'd rather live in a traditional Catholic confessional state any day of the week.

I'm not sure which one I would wanna live in. On one hand the Atheist state would be... annoying, and possibly even dangerous if I share the Faith. However, the Catholic Confessional one would most likely not be too happy with my Protestantism, though probably more happy than the Atheist state.

Forced conversions are invalid. Don't proselytize or advertise it and you'd be fine.

[Czechanada]

Evil and oppressive, how? I think you underappreciate secularism. Secularism is suppose to put religion out of government, like it should be, and put all religions on an equal playing ground. In other words, it's suppose to prevent theocracies like Iraq and Saudi Arabia from popping up.

Again, extremes are generally not good for politics. Of course we don't want an Iraq or a Saudi Arabia. But what's the other extreme? Complete and utter atheism in government? Politicians are not allowed to defend their religious beliefs outside of their churches?

No, politicians should be able to voice their religious beliefs in a government setting, even if other people disagree with them. Plus, as long as there is a balance, the government should be fine. Thus actively trying to remove 1,500 years of Christian history from a country's culture, like they're doing in France, is quite dangerous. Religion is a big part of the identity of the history and growth of the Church's Eldest Daughter, even if many of the people in France aren't practicing Christians.

Though at the same time, it's not like basing a country's law on the Ten Commandments would necessarily be a bad thing. After all, the Ten Commandments and Sharia law are very different.

Why are the Ten Commandments an inherently good thing?

[Muinordgrad]

I know, and while I mean no disrespect about the Rosary, it just is that I feel like God is actually present when I pray, like almost physically, so... IDK. I guess I'm just weird, but it's what I do and God *definitely* answers me.


I'm not sure which one I would wanna live in. On one hand the Atheist state would be... annoying, and possibly even dangerous if I share the Faith. However, the Catholic Confessional one would most likely not be too happy with my Protestantism, though probably more happy than the Atheist state.

Forced conversions are invalid. Don't proselytize or advertise it and you'd be fine.

I mean, the thing about Christianity is that we *have* to proselytize.

[Salus Maior]

I'm not sure which one I would wanna live in. On one hand the Atheist state would be... annoying, and possibly even dangerous if I share the Faith. However, the Catholic Confessional one would most likely not be too happy with my Protestantism, though probably more happy than the Atheist state.

Look, Atheists have to deal with the fact that religious people exist. And being offended at a person for choosing to adhere to a religious dress code, whether it is simply long dresses or a hijab, or otherwise publically displaying their faith in an appropriate manner, is freaking ridiculous. It's oppressive intolerance and completely backwards.

Why should we tolerate Atheists or Atheism if they don't show the same respect to us?

[The Flutterlands]

Again, extremes are generally not good for politics. Of course we don't want an Iraq or a Saudi Arabia. But what's the other extreme? Complete and utter atheism in government? Politicians are not allowed to defend their religious beliefs outside of their churches?

No, politicians should be able to voice their religious beliefs in a government setting, even if other people disagree with them. Plus, as long as there is a balance, the government should be fine. Thus actively trying to remove 1,500 years of Christian history from a country's culture, like they're doing in France, is quite dangerous. Religion is a big part of the identity of the history and growth of the Church's Eldest Daughter, even if many of the people in France aren't practicing Christians.

Though at the same time, it's not like basing a country's law on the Ten Commandments would necessarily be a bad thing. After all, the Ten Commandments and Sharia law are very different.

Why are the Ten Commandments an inherently good thing?

Good point. In fact the American Bill of Rights goes against the Ten Commandments. For example, the first amendment grants both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The first commandment declares you can only have one religion and that's Judo-Christianaity.

[Diopolis]

Forced conversions are invalid. Don't proselytize or advertise it and you'd be fine.

I mean, the thing about Christianity is that we *have* to proselytize.

There are ways around it. For example, your church could fulfill the great commission by providing support to international proselytization- which, if it was targeted at non-Christians to begin with, would be more likely to be encouraged than suppressed.
As another example, you could produce literature defending biblical accuracy or providing evidence for the existence of God.

[Salus Maior]

I mean, the thing about Christianity is that we *have* to proselytize.

Well, there's different ways we can speak about our faith without chucking Bibles at people or telling them they're condemned if they don't join us. That doesn't work anymore.

I would say humbly acting as an example of true Christian faith would be the most effective way of doing things.

Why are the Ten Commandments an inherently good thing?

They're not inherently a bad thing either.

Good point. In fact the American Bill of Rights goes against the Ten Commandments. For example, the first amendment grants both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The first commandment declares you can only have one religion and that's Judo-Christianaity.

I suppose so, but commandments 6-10 fit in pretty well with Western governance.

[Diopolis]

I'm not sure which one I would wanna live in. On one hand the Atheist state would be... annoying, and possibly even dangerous if I share the Faith. However, the Catholic Confessional one would most likely not be too happy with my Protestantism, though probably more happy than the Atheist state.

Look, Atheists have to deal with the fact that religious people exist. And being offended at a person for choosing to adhere to a religious dress code, whether it is simply long dresses or a hijab, or otherwise publically displaying their faith in an appropriate manner, is freaking ridiculous. It's oppressive intolerance and completely backwards.

Why should we tolerate Atheists or Atheism if they don't show the same respect to us?

Because colonialism from non-religious.

[Muinordgrad]

I'm not sure which one I would wanna live in. On one hand the Atheist state would be... annoying, and possibly even dangerous if I share the Faith. However, the Catholic Confessional one would most likely not be too happy with my Protestantism, though probably more happy than the Atheist state.

Look, Atheists have to deal with the fact that religious people exist. And being offended at a person for choosing to adhere to a religious dress code, whether it is simply long dresses or a hijab, or otherwise publically displaying their faith in an appropriate manner, is freaking ridiculous. It's oppressive intolerance and completely backwards.

Why should we tolerate Atheists or Atheism if they don't show the same respect to us?

Because Christ, who is the One whom we all should imitate, says to love your neighbor as yourself. He didn't say "love your neighbor if they are nice to you." He just said "love." The word in Greek is Agape, which is the same word that would be used for how Christ loves us. So we should love our neighbor as Christ loves us, even if they are mean to us.

I mean, the thing about Christianity is that we *have* to proselytize.

Well, there's different ways we can speak about our faith without chucking Bibles at people or telling them they're condemned if they don't join us. That doesn't work anymore.

I would say humbly acting as an example of true Christian faith would be the most effective way of doing things.

I'm not saying we should start using mini-bibles as throwing stars. It's just that we need to not be afraid to at least talk about our faith when it comes up. And I agree that we should be examples of the true Faith, but we should also at least talk to people about it. Like, if someone is having a really bad day, after you cheer them up be like "I know Someone who can fix the emptyness that you feel." if it makes sense in context

I mean, the thing about Christianity is that we *have* to proselytize.

There are ways around it. For example, your church could fulfill the great commission by providing support to international proselytization- which, if it was targeted at non-Christians to begin with, would be more likely to be encouraged than suppressed.
As another example, you could produce literature defending biblical accuracy or providing evidence for the existence of God.

I mean, Christians already do the bottom two. And it is sort of selfish, in a way, if we share the knowledge of the GOD OF THE UNIVERSE with people thousands of miles away but don't have the courage to share it with our friends and co workers.

[Jumalariik]

I hate the Crusaders. I hate Pope Urban.

Why?
The Crusades were good. Well not the Livonian Crusade. Deus Vult!

[Salus Maior]

It's just that we need to not be afraid to at least talk about our faith when it comes up.

Oh, yeah I totally agree with that.

[Salus Maior]

I hate the Crusaders. I hate Pope Urban.

Why?
The Crusades were good. Well not the Livonian Crusade. Deus Vult!

Why were they good?

[The Flutterlands]

Good point. In fact the American Bill of Rights goes against the Ten Commandments. For example, the first amendment grants both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The first commandment declares you can only have one religion and that's Judo-Christianaity.

I suppose so, but commandments 6-10 fit in pretty well with Western governance.

Well, commandments 6 and 8... I don't think the government can or should criminalize adultery nor coveting...

[Salus Maior]

I suppose so, but commandments 6-10 fit in pretty well with Western governance.

Well, commandments 6 and 8... I don't think the government can or should criminalize adultery nor coveting...

Well, coveting kinda goes hand-in-hand with stealing...But yes, I suppose that is more of a law on the personal moral level rather than the legal level. And adultery is pretty debatable.

[United Marxist Nations]

I suppose so, but commandments 6-10 fit in pretty well with Western governance.

Well, commandments 6 and 8... I don't think the government can or should criminalize adultery nor coveting...

I'm not sure adultery should be criminalized, but there should be legal consequences (e.g. forfeiting certain marital rights in a divorce case).

[Jumalariik]

Why?
The Crusades were good. Well not the Livonian Crusade. Deus Vult!

Why were they good?

They were designed to retake the lands taken by the saracens for Christianity.
If they had won, saracens would not still rule the Middle East.