State of the Race: 42 Days Left

[Anthony_270 959]

15 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I agree with this. 

My hierarchy of extremism goes something like this:

1. Fundamentalist Christian (same as your definition)
2. Theocrat (my term for a public individual--often political--that has a difficult time separating religion from secular laws, theory, norms, etc. by action or rhetoric and imposes their views on others.
3. Active Christian (your definition) and Religious Christian (my definition). As you say, regularly attends church, reads the bible, partakes in life as a Christian. However, they don't necessarily impose their views on others. 
4. Spiritual Christian. This is someone that identifies as a Christian. Believes. Prays, but doesn't attend church, except maybe Christmas and Easter. Is more or less a secularist Christian. 
5. Convenient Christian. Someone that gives little thought to faith except in a crisis or when it is expedient to show faith for personal gain or to make people around them comfortable. 
6. Spiritual Agnostic. May find some truths in Jesus's message, and in other religions and religious figures but is conflicted on uninterested in praying to a divine power without further proof of his/her/its existence. 
7. Pure Agnostic. Neither believes nor disbelieves since God cannot be proven or disproven. Likely to be critical of Christianity when it becomes authoritarian or interferes with secular decisions or judgment. Often not opposed to people being religious. May not think about religion often and could possibly be uninterested it. 
8. Superficial Atheist. Someone who is outspoken about their anti-religious standing and their disbelief in God, but whom are spiritual at the core and prone to run back to religion in a tragedy, although likely to leave it again once they feel internally secure again. 
9. Inactive Atheist. Disbelieves, but like the pure agnostic, is mostly uninterested in a sparring match on religion. Likely to dislike religion but isn't an activist about, possibly to keep the peace. 
10. Active Atheist. Similar to your Active Christian. Keeps up on literature about Atheism or anti-Christian literature. Likely to hang out primarily with other like-minded thinkers. However, unlikely to necessarily impose their views on others. 
11. Atheocrat. A public individual that has a difficult time showing equal tolerance and affection towards religious people as they show to atheists in action and rhetoric. Might even dislike agnostics as fence-sitters. 
12. Fundamentalist Atheist. Seeks to dismantle and destroy religion, religious institutions, religious symbols, and religious traditions 

I sort of bounce between #6 and #7. Many of my close friends #3, #4, #5, and #6. I think most Americans are actually #4 and #5, followed by #3. I don't think weekly church attendance is that great in the US and few Christians probably read the Bible. Of the Christians, I only have an issue with #1 and #2. I put Cruz, Bachmann, and judge Barrett in #2. I've heard the argument that Cruz might just be a Convenient Christian (#5) just for the sake of power and influence. Trump is definitely #5. Biden could be #3 or #4. He's definitely more religious than Trump. Of the non-religious, I have issues with #11 and #12. I wouldn't want any judge that was #1, #2, #11, or #12 on this list. I'd be most comfortable with a judge that was #7. I think all things being equal, #7 is likely to be the least biased judge since they're personal "spiritual philosophy" is evidence-based by nature. 

Those are interesting distinctions - useful, thanks for this. Interesting how the typology bookends with fundamentalists, a bit like left-right politics where far-left and far-right sometimes share surprising amount of ground, although seen typically within very different frames.

[CPE 97]

19 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I agree with this. 

My hierarchy of extremism goes something like this:

1. Fundamentalist Christian (same as your definition)
2. Theocrat (my term for a public individual--often political--that has a difficult time separating religion from secular laws, theory, norms, etc. by action or rhetoric and imposes their views on others.
3. Active Christian (your definition) and Religious Christian (my definition). As you say, regularly attends church, reads the bible, partakes in life as a Christian. However, they don't necessarily impose their views on others. 
4. Spiritual Christian. This is someone that identifies as a Christian. Believes. Prays, but doesn't attend church, except maybe Christmas and Easter. Is more or less a secularist Christian. 
5. Convenient Christian. Someone that gives little thought to faith except in a crisis or when it is expedient to show faith for personal gain or to make people around them comfortable. 
6. Spiritual Agnostic. May find some truths in Jesus's message, and in other religions and religious figures but is conflicted on uninterested in praying to a divine power without further proof of his/her/its existence. 
7. Pure Agnostic. Neither believes nor disbelieves since God cannot be proven or disproven. Likely to be critical of Christianity when it becomes authoritarian or interferes with secular decisions or judgment. Often not opposed to people being religious. May not think about religion often and could possibly be uninterested it. 
8. Superficial Atheist. Someone who is outspoken about their anti-religious standing and their disbelief in God, but whom are spiritual at the core and prone to run back to religion in a tragedy, although likely to leave it again once they feel internally secure again. 
9. Inactive Atheist. Disbelieves, but like the pure agnostic, is mostly uninterested in a sparring match on religion. Likely to dislike religion but isn't an activist about, possibly to keep the peace. 
10. Active Atheist. Similar to your Active Christian. Keeps up on literature about Atheism or anti-Christian literature. Likely to hang out primarily with other like-minded thinkers. However, unlikely to necessarily impose their views on others. 
11. Atheocrat. A public individual that has a difficult time showing equal tolerance and affection towards religious people as they show to atheists in action and rhetoric. Might even dislike agnostics as fence-sitters. 
12. Fundamentalist Atheist. Seeks to dismantle and destroy religion, religious institutions, religious symbols, and religious traditions 

I sort of bounce between #6 and #7. Many of my close friends #3, #4, #5, and #6. I think most Americans are actually #4 and #5, followed by #3. I don't think weekly church attendance is that great in the US and few Christians probably read the Bible. Of the Christians, I only have an issue with #1 and #2. I put Cruz, Bachmann, and judge Barrett in #2. I've heard the argument that Cruz might just be a Convenient Christian (#5) just for the sake of power and influence. Trump is definitely #5. Biden could be #3 or #4. He's definitely more religious than Trump. Of the non-religious, I have issues with #11 and #12. I wouldn't want any judge that was #1, #2, #11, or #12 on this list. I'd be most comfortable with a judge that was #7. I think all things being equal, #7 is likely to be the least biased judge since they're personal "spiritual philosophy" is evidence-based by nature. 

To be honest with you, I am unfamiliar of any "Christian" denominations outside of the Episcopalian Church or ELCA (I am not 100% sure, but I believe that those two are among the few) that would actively support abortion.  Most Christians I know consider denominations like those two to be full of "atheists that like to dress up for Church" as the popular idiom goes.  

There is a large amount of criticism for politicians such as Pelosi and Biden within the Catholic Church as well, many faithful believe that they need to be disciplined (or excommunicated at the most extreme) for their policy positions surrounding abortion.  I think it was a couple years back that a priest denied Biden the Eucharist over the abortion issue, and there was a big media storm surrounding it.  From a theological perspective, one cannot claim to be a Roman Catholic and support abortion.  That has been the case from the days of Didache up to today's version of the Catechism, the Church's policy is very clear on that.

I don't think that either Biden or Trump are religious to be quite frank with you.  Many people call Biden a CINO (Catholic In Name Only), while I don't believe that Trump has every publicly professed to be a member of any particular denomination.  It is one thing I credit him for, to be honest, many of the GOP like to appeal to Christian voters, and discuss Christian principles, while living a life that reflects the opposite.  Trump certainly hasn't lived a Christian lifestyle in the past (only God knows his heart now), but he certainly hasn't claimed to be one either.  Honesty is rather refreshing at times.

[Reagan04 658]

43 minutes ago, Patine said:

"Big Abortion vs. Big Evengelization." Sounds like a great title for a socio-political commentary book. Personally, the abortion issue is a not more to solving than slapping harsh criminal sentences on mothers and doctors who engage in it (which is completely the wrong way to do it), congratulate oneselves, and call it a day. There are massive, deep-seated, and entrenched social, cultural, and economic issues, and political and judicial gross failings that need to be dealt with on a tremendous scale. It's not simply one bureaucracy targeted as a scapegoat to focus. And a lot of the issues that do they need to be dealt with would be very distasteful for many American Conservatives, because they involve MANY, MANY core root problems created by social, political, cultural, and economic ideals instigated by, and still held dear by them, in many areas - and everyone knows "looking in the mirror," is not a popular approach to policy making nowadays, at all.

I agree, and I address those above.

[vcczar 1,227]

24 minutes ago, CPE said:

To be honest with you, I am unfamiliar of any "Christian" denominations outside of the Episcopalian Church or ELCA (I am not 100% sure, but I believe that those two are among the few) that would actively support abortion.  Most Christians I know consider denominations like those two to be full of "atheists that like to dress up for Church" as the popular idiom goes.  

There is a large amount of criticism for politicians such as Pelosi and Biden within the Catholic Church as well, many faithful believe that they need to be disciplined (or excommunicated at the most extreme) for their policy positions surrounding abortion.  I think it was a couple years back that a priest denied Biden the Eucharist over the abortion issue, and there was a big media storm surrounding it.  From a theological perspective, one cannot claim to be a Roman Catholic and support abortion.  That has been the case from the days of Didache up to today's version of the Catechism, the Church's policy is very clear on that.

I don't think that either Biden or Trump are religious to be quite frank with you.  Many people call Biden a CINO (Catholic In Name Only), while I don't believe that Trump has every publicly professed to be a member of any particular denomination.  It is one thing I credit him for, to be honest, many of the GOP like to appeal to Christian voters, and discuss Christian principles, while living a life that reflects the opposite.  Trump certainly hasn't lived a Christian lifestyle in the past (only God knows his heart now), but he certainly hasn't claimed to be one either.  Honesty is rather refreshing at times.

The point I made early is not about actively supporting abortion. I think most Christians neither actively support or actively oppose it. They might have an opinion, but they don't act on it until it happens to someone they know. 

For instance, my dad was extremely religious and anti-abortion until he was asked what he would do if my mom was pregnant and they were told that their baby would be seriously mentally disabled. My dad instantly said, "Abort it and send it to God." My dad was the kind of Christian that thought Obama was as secret Muslim actively working with terrorists to destroy America. 

[vcczar 1,227]

34 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Those are interesting distinctions - useful, thanks for this. Interesting how the typology bookends with fundamentalists, a bit like left-right politics where far-left and far-right sometimes share surprising amount of ground, although seen typically within very different frames.

Yeah, I think fundamentalism can go both ways-- one can be fundamentally opposed. Actually, one could be fundamentally moderate too. For instance, if an agnostic forbade members of fundamentalist Christian organizations and fundamentalist Atheist organizations from holding public office. 

[billay 163]

4 hours ago, Hestia11 said:

You act like that was in doubt in the first place.

Havent voted for a Republican for president since Bush in 04.

[Hestia11 594]

Just now, billay said:

Havent voted for a Republican for president since Bush in 04.

That's not that long ago.

[Patine 513]

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, I think fundamentalism can go both ways-- one can be fundamentally opposed. Actually, one could be fundamentally moderate too. For instance, if an agnostic forbade members of fundamentalist Christian organizations and fundamentalist Atheist organizations from holding public office. 

If it's just specifically "Fundamentalist Christians," and "Fundamentalist Atheists," who are barred, that still allows "Fundamentalists," Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Paleo-Confucians, Paleo-Shintoists, Scientologists, or even revived followers of Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse, Celtic, Inca, Mesopotamian, or even Nahua Polytheism, or Tengrism, to run, however, which I don't believe solves anything in the purpose of the idea being proposed, and even defeats the purpose of it.

[Anthony_270 959]

2 hours ago, Patine said:

Paleo-Shintoists

How could @vcczar forget the paleo-shintoists?? 

[billay 163]

3 hours ago, Hestia11 said:

That's not that long ago.

You must be older. That was half a lifetime ago for me.

Biden might be worse than Trump on the 4th amendement and certainly is worse than Trump on the 2a. 

The hypocrisy from the left regarding Trump is pretty comical because you all are pretty much the same sans the flamboyant nature. You sure as hell didnt care when he was donating to Democratic politicians. Just like Bloomberg the majority didnt raise a fuss because he placed a (D) next to his name would have been the same with Trump.

Theres alot of hypocrisy and nastiness coming from Democrats that is pushing someone like myself to consider voting for Trump.

[billay 163]

If the SCOTUS would strike down Roe V Wade they would kiss the south goodbye. The country as a whole has moved to the left on Gay rights. This is nothing more than hysteria. 

[Patine 513]

2 hours ago, admin_270 said:

How could @vcczar forget the paleo-shintoists?? 

Well, considering a lot of the atrocities and aggressive, Imperialistic, merciless attitude of Japan and it's military during WW2 was motivated by Paleo-Shinto ideals, he'd be remiss not to.

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

23 hours ago, vcczar said:

It is my belief that people like her, like Cruz, like Bachmann, and many social conservatives that are also Christian, have a hard time separating church and state. 

That's actually quite common about European conservatives as well. The separation of church and state is not an important issue among European conservatives.

[Hestia11 594]

12 hours ago, billay said:

Biden might be worse than Trump on the 4th amendement and certainly is worse than Trump on the 2a. 

The hypocrisy from the left regarding Trump is pretty comical because you all are pretty much the same sans the flamboyant nature. You sure as hell didnt care when he was donating to Democratic politicians. Just like Bloomberg the majority didnt raise a fuss because he placed a (D) next to his name would have been the same with Trump.

[Patine 513]

21 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

That's actually quite common about European conservatives as well. The separation of church and state is not an important issue among European conservatives.

That's unfortunate that so many American and European Conservatives who claim to be Christian disdain and de-emphasize the separation of Church and State when a well-known parable by our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, actually established the doctrine of separation of Church and State. It is hubris, and even at many times, blasphemy, heresy, and sacrilege, to believe one knows better than the words of Christ on Christian Doctrine and the Path to Salvation - and such claims of knowing better are usually the tactics of wolves in sheep's clothing amongst the Flock using the Lord's Name in vain day in and day out.

[Anthony_270 959]

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

established the doctrine of separation of Church and State

Ya, this is one interpretation, but I doubt it. Jesus was Jewish. The Jewish state was to some degree a theocracy. Jesus paid his temple tax, went to Jerusalem to sacrifice a lamb on Passover, and on and on. Jesus didn't advocate a separation of church and state a la the U.S. He was referring to the Roman Empire, which taxed the Jews and was resented for doing so. If he had said 'No, don't pay the Roman tax' he could have been arrested. It was a clever way of responding to the question while emphasizing the importance of spiritual matters, IMHO.

[Patine 513]

36 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Ya, this is one interpretation, but I doubt it. Jesus was Jewish. The Jewish state was to some degree a theocracy. Jesus paid his temple tax, went to Jerusalem to sacrifice a lamb on Passover, and on and on. Jesus didn't advocate a separation of church and state a la the U.S. He was referring to the Roman Empire, which taxed the Jews and was resented for doing so. If he had said 'No, don't pay the Roman tax' he could have been arrested. It was a clever way of responding to the question while emphasizing the importance of spiritual matters, IMHO.

You obviously missed the part where Christ made cautionary parables against many activities engaged in commonly at the time by Jewish Theocracy, including driving several of them and the moneylenders they were hosting and profiting from out of the Tabernacle on the Sabbath, and that most of His Ministry was in the poorest, most neglecting, and most MORALLY LAPSING district of Judea, Galilee. Also, several other parables fly in the face of the Jewish Theocratic of that day as well - "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," "judge not, lest ye be judged," and others. And His allowance of the eating of unclean meats to His followers in a vision he appears in in Acts of the Apostles makes your argument increasingly difficult. And, the fact that the Pharisees, the dominant Theocratic Priestly order in Judea at the time, screamed for His execution makes very clear Christ was a pariah and declared a heretic by the Jewish Theocracy, and that He did not hold the Jewish Theocracy of his day in high esteem, and may have seen it as fallen gravely short of His Father's expectations.

[Anthony_270 959]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

You obviously missed the part where Christ made cautionary parables against many activities engaged in commonly at the time by Jewish Theocracy, including driving several of them and the moneylenders they were hosting and profiting from out of the Tabernacle on the Sabbath, and that most of His Ministry was in the poorest, most neglecting, and most MORALLY LAPSING district of Judea, Galilee. Also, several other parables fly in the face of the Jewish Theocratic of that day as well - "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," "judge not, lest ye be judged," and others. And His allowance of the eating of unclean meats to His followers in a vision he appears in in Acts of the Apostles makes your argument increasingly difficult. And, the fact that the Pharisees, the dominant Theocratic Priestly order in Judea at the time, screamed for His execution makes very clear Christ was a pariah and declared a heretic by the Jewish Theocracy, and that He did not hold the Jewish Theocracy of his day in high esteem, and may have seen it as fallen gravely short of His Father's expectations.

It's certainly true that Jesus was highly critical of certain Jewish authorities. Going from that to 'Jesus advocated separation of church and state' is a big jump, though. Galilee was not a district of Judea, unless by this you mean 'areas inhabited by Jews'. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/7-differences-between-galilee-and-judea-in-the-time-of-jesus/

[CPE 97]

22 hours ago, vcczar said:

The point I made early is not about actively supporting abortion. I think most Christians neither actively support or actively oppose it. They might have an opinion, but they don't act on it until it happens to someone they know. 

For instance, my dad was extremely religious and anti-abortion until he was asked what he would do if my mom was pregnant and they were told that their baby would be seriously mentally disabled. My dad instantly said, "Abort it and send it to God." My dad was the kind of Christian that thought Obama was as secret Muslim actively working with terrorists to destroy America. 

I guess that it partially depends on what denomination you are in as well, there are many staunch pro-life activists within the Roman Catholic Church in particular.  I know that members of other denominations may not be as concerned with these sorts of issues until it hits them as you said.

Personally would disagree with your father though, I don't believe that we should try to play God in those kinds of situations.  Even for those that like to use the poverty arguement, there are so many rags to riches stories out there that we can never predict how someone's life may turn out.  I laughed at the part about Obama being a secret Muslim though lol.

2 hours ago, Patine said:

You obviously missed the part where Christ made cautionary parables against many activities engaged in commonly at the time by Jewish Theocracy, including driving several of them and the moneylenders they were hosting and profiting from out of the Tabernacle on the Sabbath, and that most of His Ministry was in the poorest, most neglecting, and most MORALLY LAPSING district of Judea, Galilee. Also, several other parables fly in the face of the Jewish Theocratic of that day as well - "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," "judge not, lest ye be judged," and others. And His allowance of the eating of unclean meats to His followers in a vision he appears in in Acts of the Apostles makes your argument increasingly difficult. And, the fact that the Pharisees, the dominant Theocratic Priestly order in Judea at the time, screamed for His execution makes very clear Christ was a pariah and declared a heretic by the Jewish Theocracy, and that He did not hold the Jewish Theocracy of his day in high esteem, and may have seen it as fallen gravely short of His Father's expectations.

 

2 hours ago, admin_270 said:

It's certainly true that Jesus was highly critical of certain Jewish authorities. Going from that to 'Jesus advocated separation of church and state' is a big jump, though. Galilee was not a district of Judea, unless by this you mean 'areas inhabited by Jews'. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/7-differences-between-galilee-and-judea-in-the-time-of-jesus/

Both of you missed the background context of that Scripture in that the Pharisees were deliberately trying to entrap Jesus by asking Him whether the Jews of that time should pay the temple tax in the presence of the Herodites.  If He would have answered that they should have, He would have made Himself odious to the Jewish people; the Jewish people hated the Roman authorities and the related bureaucracy with a passion, no one would have taken His teachings seriously again.  If He would have answered that the Jewish people should not pay the temple tax, He would have been inciting rebellion against the governing authorities in front of the Herodites, thus turning the state apparatus against Him.  The answer that He gave was the perfect one to silence both parties. 

When it comes to separation of church and state, I personally believe that the early United States had the matter solved best.  A nation that functioned according to Christian values while never endorsing/forcing compliance with any particular denomination.  The Founding Fathers specifically did this to mitigate the chance of having the old Protestant/Catholic disputes from Europe occurring in the new nation, not because they were irreligious themselves.  From what I understand, most were deists at the very least, with both Protestants and Catholics having representation among them.  They certainly believed in God, but it was more a matter of keeping the new nation intact/Europe's problems out of the country by mandating the separation of church and state.

[Anthony_270 959]

12 minutes ago, CPE said:

Both of you missed the background context of that Scripture in that the Pharisees were deliberately trying to entrap Jesus by asking Him whether the Jews of that time should pay the temple tax in the presence of the Herodites.  If He would have answered that they should have, He would have made Himself odious to the Jewish people; the Jewish people hated the Roman authorities and the related bureaucracy with a passion, no one would have taken His teachings seriously again.  If He would have answered that the Jewish people should not pay the temple tax, He would have been inciting rebellion against the governing authorities in front of the Herodites, thus turning the state apparatus against Him.

Yes, this is a good summary of the situation. Going from this -> Jesus is therefore advocating separation of church and state a la the U.S. is a big leap.

[Patine 513]

17 minutes ago, CPE said:

I guess that it partially depends on what denomination you are in as well, there are many staunch pro-life activists within the Roman Catholic Church in particular.  I know that members of other denominations may not be as concerned with these sorts of issues until it hits them as you said.

Personally would disagree with your father though, I don't believe that we should try to play God in those kinds of situations.  Even for those that like to use the poverty arguement, there are so many rags to riches stories out there that we can never predict how someone's life may turn out.  I laughed at the part about Obama being a secret Muslim though lol.

The real arrogance is assuming any mortal can "cheat," God of a life He has plans for by any means of ending that life at any stage in it's development. This isn't a statement to condone or be indifferent to killing, but to view God's power, viewpoint, and plans in the grand cosmic scope they should really be seen in the perspective of.

17 minutes ago, CPE said:

A nation that functioned according to Christian values while never endorsing/forcing compliance with any particular denomination. 

I'm not sure I would say the U.S. strongly functioned according to Christian values as it's foundation (and, certainly, it got worse in this regard over time). I mean, a nation built upon the toxic and highly un-Christian ideology of Libertarianism with it's economic basis around racially-based chattel slavery and stealing land from indigenous peoples, and using the Lord's Name in vain repeatedly for political gain during the American Revolution and the lead-up to it. Then again, any NATION that claims to be built around Christian values always fall very short of standards. This tendency goes back to the Conversion of Roman Emperor Constantine I in 314, frankly.

[CPE 97]

10 minutes ago, Patine said:

The real arrogance is assuming any mortal can "cheat," God of a life He has plans for by any means of ending that life at any stage in it's development. This isn't a statement to condone or be indifferent to killing, but to view God's power, viewpoint, and plans in the grand cosmic scope they should really be seen in the perspective of.

I'm not sure I would say the U.S. strongly functioned according to Christian values as it's foundation (and, certainly, it got worse in this regard over time). I mean, a nation built upon the toxic and highly un-Christian ideology of Libertarianism with it's economic basis around racially-based chattel slavery and stealing land from indigenous peoples, and using the Lord's Name in vain repeatedly for political gain during the American Revolution and the lead-up to it. Then again, any NATION that claims to be built around Christian values always fall very short of standards. This tendency goes back to the Conversion of Roman Emperor Constantine I in 314, frankly.

I see what you are saying.  The book of Job illustrates perfectly how we don't always understand why things are happening the way that they do, and I agree that God's plans are imperceptible for humans; however, I still believe that we are called to speak out against evil while we are on earth.  

Fair enough on the second point, none of us would ever make it to Heaven if we were held accountable according to the standards of the law; hence why Jesus came to earth in the first place.  Early America was Puritan in nature, and quite different from European culture in many ways, which is why libertarianism caught on there in specific.  The old idiom of "Puritan work ethic" comes to mind.  

When it comes to the slavery issue, it is important to keep in mind that the success of the abolition movement is relatively new when it comes to looking the world's history in entirety.  Slavery has occurred from the earliest written records in human history, which is why it peeves me when it is so frequently mentioned in the context of the Triangular Trade alone.  Romans enslaved Greeks, English enslaved Irish, Arabs enslaved Africans, Muslims enslaved Christians, etc., it is only recently (when looking at world history in a holistic perspective) that the notion of slavery has come to be viewed as evil.  That being said, I do agree that early America fell short in that regard, the book of Philemon and other records indicate that the early church certainly was opposed to the practice; however, in the historical context, it was still "appropriate" (if you will) for the practice to still be accepted during those times.  On the contrary, by the time the 1860s rolled around, most nations (excluding a few such as Brazil), had abolished slavery, hence leading to the moral condemnation of the Confederacy for the practice during that era. 

[billay 163]

8 hours ago, Hestia11 said:

Who built the cages? Who set a record number of deportations? Who passed the 94 crime bill? Who help create messes in Syria, Libya, etc.

 

It sure is fun to pretend isnt it?

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

10 hours ago, Patine said:

That's unfortunate that so many American and European Conservatives who claim to be Christian disdain and de-emphasize the separation of Church and State when a well-known parable by our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, actually established the doctrine of separation of Church and State. It is hubris, and even at many times, blasphemy, heresy, and sacrilege, to believe one knows better than the words of Christ on Christian Doctrine and the Path to Salvation - and such claims of knowing better are usually the tactics of wolves in sheep's clothing amongst the Flock using the Lord's Name in vain day in and day out.

But is it blasphemy or heresy when official congregations get more influence? I think church officials might know best how to please our God, and guide our society which was founded upon Christian values and should respect these actually.

[Patine 513]

2 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

But is it blasphemy or heresy when official congregations get more influence? I think church officials might know best how to please our God, and guide our society which was founded upon Christian values and should respect these actually.

The Path to Salvation and the Ministry of Christ and the Apostles is, very obvious as written in the New Testament, and person path through a relationship with God though His Son, our Lord and Saviour, with the Church as a place of guidance, counsel, uplifting, learning, community, and ceremony that Christians attend of their own volition. Governance, legislation, and judiciary under Church leadership, or powerful direct guidance, leads to religious leaders being able enforce their own interpretations (as well as misinterpretations and outright malinterpretations) onto society and it's citizens (whether or not they are Christian), often through very un-Christ-like methods, and to fulfill ulterior motives upon the Earth of said leaders, and violates the tenet of Free Will, that is essential to the Path of Salvation.