/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>592024

humans thought they were being smart and caused it but they were really idiots

>>592024

>Why did Islamic states stay so devout whilst the entirety of what was once Christendom completely rejected political Christianity?

Sounds like one is firmly in the grip of the Devil while the other is sliding into his other hand.

They didnt really. Under ottomans they were more subdued. After England and France gave up the mid east, countries in the area had westernish style and would have developed. But the US, USSR, and Iseral have endlessly munipulated the area and made each so called country politically weak that allowed for new power to arise. No trust or hope of worldly solutions, people turn to god, which allows people claiming to work in gods name to arise. Even with aparent flaws, so,e hope is better than none, so things like isis will arise.

>>592024

>Why did Islamic states stay so devout whilst the entirety of what was once Christendom completely rejected political Christianity?

The enlightenment.

>>592024

>Why did Islamic states stay so devout whilst the entirety of what was once Christendom completely rejected political Christianity?

Because pisslam is animalistic and primitive, thus easy to maintain.

Christianity is more elaborate and thus many may not get the general message and thus fall in heresy or nonbelief

A few things to consider:-

1. Capitalism and materialist values took a lot longer to take hold in the middle east

1.5 Any society where wealth is not derived primarily by ownership of something as static as land is going to tend towards a republic (see Athens, Venice ect)

2.They avoided decades of literal communist

rule

3.Despite what has happened the Western Chrisitians have a very little understanding of Islam and even less of an understanding of what goes on in Islamic countries.

3.5 as a result of this people greatly mistake the level of devoutness of your average Muslim. Its partically dodgy in places like Lebanon, Turkey and Morocco.

4.Islam is naturally a theocratic religion whilst Christianity is not (unless you count Mormons).

5.Contemporary Churches are not equpied to deal with the pressures and challenges of theocracy.

They are devout yet, but it is only a matter of a couple of decades until Islam will, too, meet the same fate as Christianity. Clips of Memri TV show that Islamic states become slowly pozzed and Muslim scholars are enraged because of that.

since their revelation is perfect it cannot be modified doctrinally. Sharia is perfect etc. It's all very conservative. Modernity hasn't even begun to erode them because islam is a way of life in a similar way to ultraorthodox jews.

>>592024

Protestantism(materialism/capitalism) and mandatory "education"

>>592024

Christendom was pretty devout until the 20th-21st century. That’s 1900-2000 years of Christianity. Islam is only 1400 years old

>>592073

Very true. Many Muslims are liberalizing, while a large number are secretly christians. If they didn't have to hide, their numbers would reach over 2million in Iran at least

Threat of violence makes for "true believers". The darker peoples of the world also just seem to be less inquisitive. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. White people are going to question and deconstruct themselves all the way to oblivion, if they aren't careful.

>>592024

I suspect it’s the resistance to change inherent in the religion. Orthodox jews have stuck around. Orthodox Christianity is fairly uncucked. If you don’t form a sustainable identity and stick to it you lose it.

>>592159

I remember watching this documentary about American soldiers in the middle east, and every time they raided some "devout" muslim's home he would have tons of porn on his computer. Muslim countries are just as degenerate was western ones, but they hide it better.

>>592061

The enlightenment brought about the constitution meme. Why couldn't we get a constitution based on biblical law instead of based on libtard principles?

>>592024

Because Islam is a totalitarian religion, not a religion of peace and love like Christianity.

>>592203

>Why did Islamic states stay so devout whilst the entirety of what was once Christendom completely rejected political Christianity?

To what purpose would Satan want to undermine and attack something that is already his (1 Corinthians 10:20)? Weak leaders and 'democracy for all' has been a good portion of the rising problem, a media reeking of evil making the words of Isaiah 5:20 true, for they call evil good and good evil, and deceive many.

>>592024

>Why did Islamic states stay so devout

lmao no

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niN5g8ZxFQg&t=13m55s

>>592307

I'm talking about the ideology behind governments, not about the actions of the populous.

For instance compare this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_system_of_Saudi_Arabia

>The legal system of Saudi Arabia is based on Sharia, Islamic law derived from the Qur'an and the Sunnah (the traditions) of the prophet Islam

to this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States

>The law of the United States comprises many levels[1] of codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the most important is the United States Constitution

I'm asking why they get a law based on their holy text while we get

>muh freedom

>muh demonocracy

>muh will of the people

Why can't we get a state that is based on the will of God?

>Why did Islamic states stay so devout whilst the entirety of what was once Christendom completely rejected political Christianity?

Partly because Christianity was never supposed to be "political". Islam on the other hand was literally created to be a force for control to be used by earthly powers.

I'd also say it had a lot on our part to do with the creation of state churches which were subordinate to national crowns or governments, meaning that they could just become another institution for rebels to attack or subvert, or to be conformed by political and social trends. Just look at where the Churches of England, Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, Norway etc. are now with all their garbage.

>>592312

>Why can't we get a state that is based on the will of God?

The four Books of Kings and Chronicles show us why.

>>592312

because that's what the United States was founded on, sorry. I think there's Poland, who crowned Christ as its king, if you want White Shariah.

>>592270

Between 5 to 16 million Europeans died in just over a century due to religious infighting that infected temporal power. More secular forms of government were a compromise to prevent that kind of warfare.

>>592360

Its hard to imagine a group that deals with Baptists so much would write such a baptist type post.

>>592443

>More secular forms of government were a compromise to prevent that kind of warfare

>16 million died in WW1

>50 to 85 million fatalities in WW2

>There is now an ever present danger that civilisation could be wiped out in a day thanks to nukes

but at were not run by those nasty religious bigots anymore, right?

>>592360

I agree with you 100% on this.

t.Frog who is fed up with all the bullshit they feed us about them at school.

Even our greatest president was pro-monarchy. I hope he's with God now.

>>592653

lol this.

Take God out of the equation and people treat each other like animals that can be just put down at will and slaughtered like cattle. So much for muh progressive humanist science.

>>592121

>Protestants and their materialistic capitalism

This

>>592024

1) Schism

2) Protestantism

3) "Enlightenment"/French Revolution/Catholic genocides

>>592317

That's heresy according to the syllabus of errors. Catholicism is not supposed to be separated from the state.

>>592653

>>592666

Do you genuinely think that the Nazi and Communist governments were secular? They took an intense involvement in religious affairs and actively persecuted Christians.

Secularism was "its no longer ok to ban Catholics/Protestants from universities and public office" and "violently suppressing peaceful Christians for being the wrong denomination (or invading other countries to do so) is not acceptable".

Something worth mulling over - the Thirty Years War killed 25-40% of the German Population. Bear in mind that WWII only resulted in around 10%

Likewise the Wars of Religion in France killed around 2-4 million people, with an population of roughly 15-18 million you are looking at a 10-20% loss of population which is 2.5/5 times the losses of World War I which devastated France so famously.

Despite their lack of technology they slaughtered each other at rates we could not even achieve with machine guns, poison gas and high explosive shells. So much for muh non secular golden age.

>>592032

Largest public debt out of any system. You see, a politician is smart if he abuses public funds for personal gain. Whereas a monarch owns the state so he can't risk it.

It's no surprise that banks love Democracy.

>>592734

You forget

>WW/WW2

>Mass media and breakthroughs in psychology, especially mass psychology

>>592024

Every country becomes devout under hardship. Poland, Mexico, and Russia are examples of countries with Catholic and Orthodox majorities.

With earthly comfort, it seems that people disregard God's commands and owe their good life to themselves. It's the primary theme behind the Garden of Eden in Genesis.

>>592861

More people still died in WWII. Just because the population of the world was higher than in the 16th century doesn't make it a less bloody conflict than the Thirty Years War, which itself had more to do with the rivalry between the French monarchy and the Hapsburgs than religion(just like the American Civil War was more about about southern states feeling that they didn't have has much say as the northern states in Congress than it was about slavery.)

>>592024

>Why did Islamic states stay so devout whilst the entirety of what was once Christendom completely rejected political Christianity?

Because Christendom had to slog through pagan Europe, and, unlike niggers, Europe still loves its pagan roots more than anything else.

>>592854

>Catholicism is not supposed to be separated from the state.

No, you are right, the Church is supposed to be above it, i.e. its head.

What I am talking about, however, is when the sovereign church submits to a national power such as Gallicanism was or Anglicanism is. It's when it becomes subject to the whims of ordinay wordly power that the church loses its way and it's why things like Gallicanism and Anglicanism are seen as schismatic, invalid and heretical.

>>592861

>Do you genuinely think that the Nazi and Communist governments were secular? They took an intense involvement in religious affairs and actively persecuted Christians.

Secularism is literally just "separation of church and state". It has nothing intrinsically to do with religious rights. If you need evidence of this, check our Laicism in France which is so autistic you can't be a public servant and wear a visible crucifix because that violates the 1905 law, apparently.

That other liberal guff you mentioned is not inevitably linked with secularism, and in fact in the USSR and the French Republic it was ignored and Christians were sought out and murdered. "Secular humanists" don't hold a patent on "secularism", despite whatever "no true scotsmen" you throw out.

So, yes, Nazism and Communism were secular.

>muh casualty rates

It's not about technology it's about the scale of the atrocities and the attitudes with which they were committed.

>Despite their lack of technology they slaughtered each other at rates we could not even achieve with machine guns, poison gas and high explosive shells.

No, because they didn't need or want to, since they didn't think along the same annihilationist lines that we do today.

It wasn't until bullshit like political jacobinism, scientific darwinism and industrialisation (muh mission civilisatrice) that one started to think of grand schemes of state-sponsored eugenics and ethnic "mercy killings", and then one started to gear ideologies to the total destruction of "undesirables".

>So much for muh non secular golden age.

Strawmanning is a sin. No one is saying that it was perfect. We are saying that removing God and replacing Him with "muh nature red in tooth and claw" gets you holocausts and nuclear weapons.

>>593045

I'm the same anon, but on a different computer. I don't remember which one I was on when I made my earlier post, but if I have a different ID that's why.

>Proportionately it was

So if a country is inhabited by only four people and three of them kill each other in a drunken brawl, does that make said brawl one of the bloodiest conflicts in history since it killed 75% of a country's population?

>And the wars of religion in France which I cited?

I'm actually not that familiar with the French wars of religion, so I couldn't say. Care to recommend any good books on the subject?

>Would you apply your same standard of reasoning to wars post the enlightenment and the rise of secularism?

Sure. I don't think the WW1, for example, happened just because of secularism and the enlightenment. Most people still oversimplify what that war was about IMO.

>>593082

>So if a country is inhabited by only four people and three of them kill each other in a drunken brawl, does that make said brawl one of the bloodiest conflicts in history since it killed 75% of a country's population?

Is strawmanning like that really helpful? I compared France with France and Germany with Germany not a town with four people to the entire world.

>I'm actually not that familiar with the French wars of religion, so I couldn't say. Care to recommend any good books on the subject?

Mack P. Holt's book though there are probably much better works in French out there.

>Sure. I don't think the WW1, for example, happened just because of secularism and the enlightenment. Most people still oversimplify what that war was about IMO.

Well are you the anon in >>592653?

>>593077

>Secularism is literally just "separation of church and state".

And that separation is not present if the State plays an active role in religious affairs and vice-versa.

>That other liberal guff you mentioned is not inevitably linked with secularism, and in fact in the USSR and the French Republic it was ignored and Christians were sought out and murdered.

It is and that is why those countries abandoned thier secularism in practice and simply tried to mask their anti orthodox and catholic sentiment with it. When the Soviet Union set up its puppet Church and the Radicals started up their cult of the supreme being they ceased being secular.

>despite whatever "no true scotsmen" you throw out.

It simply does not meet the definition you yourself give.

>Strawmanning is a sin.

But that is what it appears you are doing with secularism. I dont think you have demonstrated the link well enough to make such extreme claims.

>>593097

>Is strawmanning like that really helpful?

I think so, yes. It helps to illustrate the flaws in you assertion. Exaggerate to clarify.

>I compared France with France and Germany with Germany not a town with four people to the entire world.

Okay, let's say Germany, for whatever reason, only has a population of 4 people, and 3 of them kill each other in a drunken brawl. Does this drunken brawl then become, proportionately, the bloodiest conflict in German history? It would have to be since resulted in a larger percentage of people getting killed than any other conflict the Germans have ever been involved in.

>>593097

>Mack P. Holt's book

Thanks, I'll check it out.

>Well are you the anon in >>592653?

No, I'm >>592950

Because leftists, primarily cultural marxists but many of the left carry this same hate as well, despise everything that made the west the way it is in it's current state, Christianity has been targeted because it promotes family values instead of degenerate cultures such as drinking until you puke or having sex with someone you've just met etc etc. Their goal was to tear down that wall of what defined the west in the first place, by destroying the dominate culture.

Even though Christianity preaches what they want, they want to make it look like a demonic entity because it doesn't fit the narrative they want to push as well as having rules that don't either, how is it liberating when a woman goes from being a house wife to being forced into listening to follow orders from their boss? How is it freedom when you become just as engulfed into something like partying/materialism instead of going to church once a week? I understand that traditional values as well as Christianity is made to look like it's some sort of evil spirit from the outside to undermine the western values and the like to the point where it's just a thing of the past.