NationStates

Salus Maior wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
The gospel doesn't suggest a national policy, Christ had little interest in the affairs of state. Any national policy derived from the Gospel or Christian theology at large, would largely be open to interpretation.

Not necessarily related to the refugee argument (which I largely agree with you on), but I think it's definitely possible to create a more Christian-centered state at least morally speaking.

Angleter wrote:Liturgical translations to be put back in the hands of people who think 'spiritu' is Latin for 'also'.

Luminesa wrote:

Pasong Tirad wrote:It's not about you. It's not about whether or not they will return the kindness. That doesn't matter. They need help now. You, have the capacity to help but choose not to. Firefighters don't ask people in a burning building if they're Muslim, if they voted Liberal or if their house is insured. They just go in.

You do have to bear in mind that even the CCC tells us that we are obligated to be reasonable. We who are more fortunate have the option to take-in immigrants, and we only require them to respect the laws of the country. If an immigrant comes into the country and refuses to follow the law, or flaunts their hatred of the law in some way, we are not obligated to continue to show charity. Of course, on the flip-side, those who do respect the law, and who are here because they need shelter and they want to live a decent life, should receive as much charity as possible. But it is entirely impossible to help all people at all times. Even Francis de Sales writes about that. Do what good you can at that time.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Not necessarily related to the refugee argument (which I largely agree with you on), but I think it's definitely possible to create a more Christian-centered state at least morally speaking.

I'd say it depends on the style of Government for starters. But then I find there's sort of that infinitely regressing question of "which Christianity?" I mean take the issue of SSM for instance: you have Christian denominations on both sides of this argument.

This is why I'm personally a supporter of the secular liberal Democracy. Religion can have influence on the state but ultimately the individual has the ultimate right to live how they please. In theory anyway.

The Parkus Empire wrote:Leviticus 19:34 says to love the foreigner as the native. Does anyone here think Christ abolished this stipulation?

Salus Maior wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Leviticus 19:34 says to love the foreigner as the native. Does anyone here think Christ abolished this stipulation?

No, but it's not loving the foreigner if we bring them all into the country and that wrecks the economy and their state of living here (as well as everyone else's).

Salus Maior wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
I'd say it depends on the style of Government for starters. But then I find there's sort of that infinitely regressing question of "which Christianity?" I mean take the issue of SSM for instance: you have Christian denominations on both sides of this argument.

This is why I'm personally a supporter of the secular liberal Democracy. Religion can have influence on the state but ultimately the individual has the ultimate right to live how they please. In theory anyway.

Well, I would say either the Catholic or Orthodox Church ideally. Most other denominations aren't consistent enough in their doctrine to provide a solid moral code that could be written into a constitution.

The problem with secular liberal democracy is that essentially anything goes so long as you can make an argument for it and get support for it. There's no solid sense of morality because it by definition distances itself from the source of morality which is the Church and God. Which is why abortion is a thing, among other things.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Well, I would say either the Catholic or Orthodox Church ideally. Most other denominations aren't consistent enough in their doctrine to provide a solid moral code that could be written into a constitution.

The problem with secular liberal democracy is that essentially anything goes so long as you can make an argument for it and get support for it. There's no solid sense of morality because it by definition distances itself from the source of morality which is the Church and God. Which is why abortion is a thing, among other things.

Historically speaking, Orthodox and Catholic states did not have constitutions. They had anointed autocrats. Constitutions came out of the struggle of the non-noble elite for power, and actually engendered secularism.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
No, but it's not loving the foreigner if we bring them all into the country and that wrecks the economy and their state of living here (as well as everyone else's).

Do you think natives who don't help grease the wheels of mammon should also be cast out? If not, then you love the native more than the foreigner.

Salus Maior wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Historically speaking, Orthodox and Catholic states did not have constitutions. They had anointed autocrats. Constitutions came out of the struggle of the non-noble elite for power, and actually engendered secularism.

I realize. I'm speaking more of a theoretical form of government.

Salus Maior wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Do you think natives who don't help grease the wheels of mammon should also be cast out? If not, then you love the native more than the foreigner.

I'm not sure what you're saying.

What I'm saying is that if we bring everyone over just for them to have a bad standard of living, it's not helping them.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
I realize. I'm speaking more of a theoretical form of government.

It's not feasible. Orthodox reactionaries favor absolute monarchies, not theocracies. And Catholic reactionaries (if they still exist) favor absolute political power of the Pope, with monarchs answering to him.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying.

What I'm saying is that if we bring everyone over just for them to have a bad standard of living, it's not helping them.

It might decrease average standard of living, but theirs would still improve. Also when we're talking about refugees it's about something other than that.

Salus Maior wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:It's not feasible. Orthodox reactionaries favor absolute monarchies, not theocracies. And Catholic reactionaries (if they still exist) favor absolute political power of the Pope, with monarchs answering to him.

Plenty of Christians I've spoken to are receptive to the idea of a Christian moral-based constitutional government. And even if most weren't, it's not an "unfeasible" idea regardless.

And besides, I'm a constitutional Monarchist anyway.

Salus Maior wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:It might decrease average standard of living, but theirs would still improve. Also when we're talking about refugees it's about something other than that.

Fleeing from poverty just to end up in more poverty isn't an improvement.

And besides, there's more ways to help refugees than bringing them into your country.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Plenty of Christians I've spoken to are receptive to the idea of a Christian moral-based constitutional government. And even if most weren't, it's not an "unfeasible" idea regardless.

And besides, I'm a constitutional Monarchist anyway.

Maybe, but you said Catholic and Orthodox. Absolute monarchy is suppprted many of our saints, even into the 20th Century (and probably the 21st when canonization sets in). But a constitutional theocracy just doesn't have a precedent and you can't really distill a "sharia law" or "penal code," as such, from the Gospel.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Fleeing from poverty just to end up in more poverty isn't an improvement.

And besides, there's more ways to help refugees than bringing them into your country.

There's living in a trailer park. Then there's living without utilities or much food.

Refugees are generally in mortal peril because of national conditions. While those can be fixed, it takes time; what do you propose during the immediate peril?

Salus Maior wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Maybe, but you said Catholic and Orthodox. Absolute monarchy is suppprted many of our saints, even into the 20th Century (and probably the 21st when canonization sets in). But a constitutional theocracy just doesn't have a precedent and you can't really distill a "sharia law" or "penal code," as such, from the Gospel.

I'm aware. But absolute monarchy isn't really practical, especially when you consider their purpose to be to protect their subjects and (in my theoretical government) the moral and traditional integrity of the country. You would need to put limits on their power so they don't just do whatever outside of that purpose.

That's because it would be law derived from Christian morality and virtues, as opposed to a secular flimsy social "good". And theocracy would mean that literal priests would be in charge of the government and that's not what I'm suggesting.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
I'm aware. But absolute monarchy isn't really practical, especially when you consider their purpose to be to protect their subjects and (in my theoretical government) the moral and traditional integrity of the country. You would need to put limits on their power so they don't just do whatever outside of that purpose.

That's because it would be law derived from Christian morality and virtues, as opposed to a secular flimsy social "good". And theocracy would mean that literal priests would be in charge of the government and that's not what I'm suggesting.

I don't trust Christian sharia

Nordengrund wrote:I'm somewhere in the middle between secularism and promoting Christian values in government. In some ways, I think secularism is compatible with Christian values as I believe everyone should practice whatever they want as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others. While I am okay with a government promoting Christian values in areas like social justice, abortion, etc, I don't think any particular denomination should have special treatment.

I'm a low-churcher, so maybe I tend to be a little more skeptical of state churches and monarchism due to that.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Diopolis wrote:To a much lesser extent than the other protestants at the time. The KJV reads fairly similarly to a more awkwardly poetic douay-rheims. Both are fairly good translations liberal Christians randomly demonize because of who uses them, albeit complicated by the difference in vocabulary between the seventeenth century and modern day.

They demonize the translations precisely because they are accurate. Liberal Christian translations tend to be...liberal.

Salus Maior wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote: I don't trust Christian sharia

It's not Christian sharia.

Anyway, have fun with the Secular liberals that despise everything you stand for then.

Salus Maior wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote: I don't trust Christian sharia

It's not Christian sharia.

Anyway, have fun with the Secular liberals that despise everything you stand for then.