NationStates

Galloism wrote:I mean that bit you'd have to take up with the Jews who want a religious state.

If there were enough of them in the US to be a problem I would. Instead, I settle for snarling at the Ultra-Orthodox in Israel every chance I get.

Christians are commanded to be no part of the world - don't take part in the political system. This was shown by Jesus who literally fled when they tried to give him political power.

The fact that lots of people are bad Christians doesn't change the command.

If they are commanded to not take part in the political system, is not any requirement of service or taxation participation in the political system? Is it "Don't participate unless threatened"? I believe you are greatly oversimplifying the position of Christianity on being part of the world.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:Christians are instructed to follow the laws of their country so long as it doesn't require them to renounce God. America doesn't require that, does it?

Then we're back to square one - Decian's persecutions didn't require them to renounce God, it required them to make a ritual oath on behalf of the Emperor. The US requires new citizens to pledge their loyalty to the nation - are Christians forbidden from that?

Some say yes. We even have some procedures for it.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:Please leave us and hate crimes against us out of this banal diatribe against Christian people, thank you.

Sorry that your traditionalism addiction is enough to make you ignore hate crimes, buddy.

TIL'd that saying that it's shitty to use LGBTQ+ people and the hate crimes against us as a cudgel against Christians = ignoring hate crimes altogether

10/10.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Galloism wrote:I mean that bit you'd have to take up with the Jews who want a religious state.

If there were enough of them in the US to be a problem I would. Instead, I settle for snarling at the Ultra-Orthodox in Israel every chance I get.

I'm sure that's lots of fun.

Christians are commanded to be no part of the world - don't take part in the political system. This was shown by Jesus who literally fled when they tried to give him political power.

The fact that lots of people are bad Christians doesn't change the command.

If they are commanded to not take part in the political system, is not any requirement of service or taxation participation in the political system?

No.

Is it "Don't participate unless threatened"? I believe you are greatly oversimplifying the position of Christianity on being part of the world.

Hey, I'm just going by that bible thing. Not a lot of Christians follow the bible, but that's only a tangentially related issue.

Jews were exempted for the same reasons that Christians should have been exempted by Decian's edict. And unlike the Christian community, Rome's Jewish communities would have almost certainly staged a revolt. Maybe we should force Muslim-Americans to denounce Muhammad in order to prove their loyalty. I'm sure that'll go over well and is definitely the liberal and tolerant thing to do.

Conserative Morality wrote:If they are commanded to not take part in the political system, is not any requirement of service or taxation participation in the political system? Is it "Don't participate unless threatened"? I believe you are greatly oversimplifying the position of Christianity on being part of the world.

Paying taxes and obeying the law is mandated in the Bible. Give Caesar's what is Caesars and Romans 13.

You really are grasping for straws to paint Christians as dangerous fifth columnists.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:Please leave us and hate crimes against us out of this banal diatribe against Christian people, thank you.

Sorry that your traditionalism addiction is enough to make you ignore hate crimes, buddy.

You sound like Islamophobes when they accuse LGBT people of being traitors when we don't condemn all Muslims because of homophobic and transphobic violence in the Middle East. I don't buy what you're selling especially when you've gone on the Trans Discussion Thread in the past and insulted a poster who works on a transgender suicide hotline because she didn't agree with you about something.

Conserative Morality wrote:1.Have you forgotten your Levitical law so quickly? Adulterers and the like are to be put to death.

2.Sorry that your traditionalism addiction is enough to make you ignore hate crimes, buddy.

3."Genocide"
lol, Dan Carlin night tonight I see.
No, the Romans weren't all-inclusive, but they were a hell of a lot better than the Christian governments that replaced their pagan one.

4.Tell me, then, in your view, what *are* Christians required to do?

5.>> sacred text says you cannot have two masters
>> most Christians identify with their religion over their nation
>> long history of trying to screw over everyone else by implementing the laws they are commanded to follow and impose in secular government
>> "I-it's just bigotry and fear-mongering"

Okay anon.

1. Take off the Fedora, CM. It's a bad look and it clearly kills brain cells.

2. What hate crimes?

3. Seems more like Dawkins night here. And I think that's debatable.

4. Act as Christ to others and conduct oneself according to principal. The latter of the two everyone does.

5. It is bigoted and fearmongering to suggest that Christians are constantly trying to undermine the country. And if they win seats in the government based on a platform of Christian principle, that's completely valid and how republics work. Or is it the case with you that liberals are the only ones that are supposed to win in the Republic? In that case you don't really have much in common with the spirit of American republicanism.

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:
If I may add my figurative "two cents", if I'm not mistaken (do correct me if I'm wrong) CM's perspective is that "true" loyalty to the nation and/or state requires that one place all other loyalties beneath it. In other words, Christians may be instructed (in theory, at least) to follow the laws of their country so long as it doesn't require them to renounce God, but CM believes that Christians ought to follow the laws of their God so long as it doesn't require them to renounce the secular State. My apologies if the preceding statement was impolite, btw.

More or less. So long as your primary loyalty is not to the nation but to your religion, then so long as the state does not adhere to your religious precepts, you are a fifth columnist waiting to strike, only needing the offer of sufficient theological justification to betray the nation. And, in fact, I would regard you as a hypocrite if you claimed to have your first loyalty to your religion but not be ready to do so.

Galloism wrote:Some say yes. We even have some procedures for it.

The modifications of the oath are superficial only; it doesn't change the substance of it, and people who think otherwise are either fooling themselves or playing rules lawyer (which, tbqf, I'm okay with). The only complete exception there is mental incapacity.

Torrocca wrote:TIL'd that saying that it's shitty to use LGBTQ+ people and the hate crimes against us as a cudgel against Christians = ignoring hate crimes altogether

10/10.

TIL that involving the very real and actual hate crimes of a religion that demands death for moral crimes isn't a valid point of discussion when discussing that religion.

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:Paying taxes and obeying the law is mandated in the Bible. Give Caesar's what is Caesars and Romans 13.

You really are grasping for straws to paint Christians as dangerous fifth columnists.

Yet this entire conversation started from the refusal of Christians to obey the law, and the continuing tendency for them to disobey the law in the face of it not aligning with their religious precepts.

Hanafuridake wrote:
You sound like Islamophobes when they accuse LGBT people of being traitors when we don't condemn all Muslims because of homophobic and transphobic violence in the Middle East. I don't buy what you're selling especially when you've gone on the Trans Discussion Thread in the past and insulted a poster who works on a transgender suicide hotline because she didn't agree with you about something.

The only time I remember going onto the Trans Discussion Thread was in a discussion of how gender dysphoria was a real thing and that claiming trans identity to be cool and hip was fucking stupid, and that the demedicalization of trans folk was deeply harmful to people who were, you know, actually trans, in the name of being woke.

That what you're talking about?

Conserative Morality wrote:

Galloism wrote:Some say yes. We even have some procedures for it.

The modifications of the oath are superficial only; it doesn't change the substance of it, and people who think otherwise are either fooling themselves or playing rules lawyer (which, tbqf, I'm okay with). The only complete exception there is mental incapacity.

That’s not true. You can explicitly leave out the parts about bearing arms and defending the United States.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Galloism wrote:I mean that bit you'd have to take up with the Jews who want a religious state.

If there were enough of them in the US to be a problem I would. Instead, I settle for snarling at the Ultra-Orthodox in Israel every chance I get.

And the laws regarding executions in the Old Testament were meant to apply to the ancient Israelite state. Mainstream Christian theologians do not believe that gentile Christian governments are bound to implement such laws.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Torrocca wrote:TIL'd that saying that it's shitty to use LGBTQ+ people and the hate crimes against us as a cudgel against Christians = ignoring hate crimes altogether

10/10.

TIL that involving the very real and actual hate crimes of a religion that demands death for moral crimes isn't a valid point of discussion when discussing that religion.

There's a clear and obvious difference between that and you using us as a bludgeon against all Christians.

Conserative Morality wrote:TIL that involving the very real and actual hate crimes of a religion that demands death for moral crimes isn't a valid point of discussion when discussing that religion.

Council of Jerusalem meant that Christians aren't required to follow Judaic Civil Law, likewise Christ opposed execution and violent punishment of sinners. If you're going to rant about how bigoted Christianity is, start with educating yourself on it.

Yet this entire conversation started from the refusal of Christians to obey the law, and the continuing tendency for them to disobey the law in the face of it not aligning with their religious precepts.

Do you mind providing proof of this "tendency"? All I see is spiteful rhetoric.

I fully agree with you CM-san. In fact, we need to go further. Everyone who doesn't pledge loyalty to America worldwide is an enemy of the liberal state and needs to be hunted down and persecuted. Only then will we truly be free and show the world how kind, tolerant, and gentle we are. All Christians are disobeying the laws that they disagree with while all non-Christians never disobey laws they personally do not agree with.

Conserative Morality wrote:TIL that involving the very real and actual hate crimes of a religion that demands death for moral crimes isn't a valid point of discussion when discussing that religion.

Yet this entire conversation started from the refusal of Christians to obey the law, and the continuing tendency for them to disobey the law in the face of it not aligning with their religious precepts.

Christianity does not demand death for moral crimes and I think we've discussed how that is enough for you to know it. Which means you're ignoring it for the sake of justifying your own personal grudge and bias rather than anything concrete.

Christians do obey the law of this country (of course, simply saying that is a massive generalization that's going to have exceptions just as much as saying "Muslims obey the law of this country" or "black people obey the laws of this country").

Salus Maior wrote: 2. What hate crimes?

The ones that make up 20% of all hate crimes in the US?

Admittedly some of those perpetrators are Jewish or Muslim, but for anyone who takes the worldly implications of their religion that seriously, I regard in much the same way.

3. Seems more like Dawkins night here. And I think that's debatable.

I'd be happy to debate it.

4. Act as Christ to others and conduct oneself according to principal. The latter of the two everyone does.

Would Christ help the war effort if He was called by the nation to participate?

5. It is bigoted and fearmongering to suggest that Christians are constantly trying to undermine the country. And if they win seats in the government based on a platform of Christian principle, that's completely valid and how republics work. Or is it the case with you that liberals are the only ones that are supposed to win in the Republic? In that case you don't really have much in common with the spirit of American republicanism.

If racists win seats in the government based on a platform of racialist principle, that's also 'completely valid' and how republics work. Would I not be allowed to object to that and say that those with an allegiance to their race over their nation were nothing more than fifth columnists wanting to destroy the government from the inside? If Nazis won elections here in the States, am I supposed to support them instead of objecting to them as scumbags with no respect for the nation? The spirit of American republicanism is not meekness and mildness in dealing with the opposition; it is refraining from violence or repression until it is absolutely necessary.

Cenk Shapiro wrote:I fully agree with you CM-san. In fact, we need to go further. Everyone who doesn't pledge loyalty to America worldwide is an enemy of the liberal state and needs to be hunted down and persecuted. Only then will we truly be free and show the world how kind, tolerant, and gentle we are. All Christians are disobeying the laws that they disagree with while all non-Christians never disobey laws they personally do not agree with.

Please pardon me if I seem impolite, but is this account a puppet of one of the thread regulars?

Also, if America reintroduced slavery I would be forced to adhere to this new law since my sense of right and wrong does not override the state. Hm, why did my shadow suddenly become Benito Mussolini...

Galloism wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:
The modifications of the oath are superficial only; it doesn't change the substance of it, and people who think otherwise are either fooling themselves or playing rules lawyer (which, tbqf, I'm okay with). The only complete exception there is mental incapacity.

That’s not true. You can explicitly leave out the parts about bearing arms and defending the United States.

That's not a complete exception, that's still an oath of loyalty to the United States.

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:

Cenk Shapiro wrote:I fully agree with you CM-san. In fact, we need to go further. Everyone who doesn't pledge loyalty to America worldwide is an enemy of the liberal state and needs to be hunted down and persecuted. Only then will we truly be free and show the world how kind, tolerant, and gentle we are. All Christians are disobeying the laws that they disagree with while all non-Christians never disobey laws they personally do not agree with.

Please pardon me if I seem impolite, but is this account a puppet of one of the thread regulars?

Mockery is the highest form of flattery.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:I thought he did it because someone bet him that he couldn't create a religion people would follow, and then he started denying it once he realized how profitable Scientology was.

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion.

Unfortunately true.

Seed faith? Scientology. Chloroform in print? Uh... what rhymes with chloro... Chloroboro!

Conserative Morality wrote:

Or are you equating loyalty to the nation as the same thing as loyalty to your particular brand of liberal politics?

No.

Sure, buddy. Sure.

You're honestly an incredible authoritarian, you know that?

Bienenhalde wrote:And the laws regarding executions in the Old Testament were meant to apply to the ancient Israelite state. Mainstream Christian theologians do not believe that gentile Christian governments are bound to implement such laws.

Funny how recently that consensus came about; just about around the time when secular governments started gaining power. Funny also how in many third world countries without strong traditions of secularism such thought still predominates, even amongst the well-educated clergy.

It's almost like the current consensus is the result of liberalism and modernism instead of a simple universal religious principle.