/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>836941

vatican city would be an exemplar.

>>836943

>Vatican

A corrupt and false Christian State

>>836941

I though the western world was already what your trying to imagine. You might be 2000 years late on this project. I wish you success in collecting your army though. Your plans for global domination under the crown of Christ will be a Noble endeavor. I’m too lazy for a military life. In fact this will be my last post for today, then I’ll sleep for God knows how long and wake up and skip breakfast. I will help this army of your by not joining it, good sir.

>>836944

false because corrupt or false because catholic, what definition of christian are we going by here?

>>836941

Given anyone who preaches this stuff is highly likely to be a wacko LARPer with some deranged understanding of Christianity that it's just jealous salafis can murder citizens who step out of their very thin line, God no.

>>836947

Historically false. Catholicism is the living example of what happens to man-made hierarchies outside of man-made empire's borders. The exact same reason why Rome wasn't a true Christian State

>what definition of christian are we going by here?

Belief in God of the patriarchs, and belief in Jesus as Christ.

>>836948

Ok granted i am a bit deranged but murdering people is simply wrong according to Christianity in all instances because only God can give life so only God can take it away

No

>>836951

Why not ?

>>836953

Because jihad is not a compatible concept with the gospel and because sacralism is heresy

How Christian would it be if all you did was take the nametag 'muslim' and exchange for 'Christian'?

Just become muslim.

>>836954

Jihad maybe isn't, but what excuse or compromise will you make up for the past existence of Crusades then ?

>>836956

Hell no i don't agree with them on one single bit which is why islam is a wretched putrid false religion. But i am in awe of their present militantism. Christianity used to be exactly like this once, why did we lose our edge? Is it really only frustrating to me that we've left our religion to rot and decay in the hands of the men that lead it currently?

Please, tell me if am i the only one with such frustration, and if not how do the rest of you cope?

>>836962

I don't make excuses, I condemn almost everything that happened in the crusades

>>836962

I don't "cope", I sing my hymns to God and live in his will. I don't care for the world.

>hey let's form another new denomination

Let's not. Protestants have done enough damage to Christianity over the last 500 years as it is, and already experimented with a "Christian State" when their poor theology led to them mutilating/executing clergy, unmarried women, and others.

>inb4 muh crusades and inquisitions

Blown way out of proportion and justified unlike, for example, the Carmelite massacre and Salem witch trials. All the faithful can do now is observe and pray as the Protestant utopia that is secular America continues to spread violence, pornography, and civil unrest before finally crumbling from within.

inquisition did nothing wrong

>>836962

>Jihad maybe isn't, but what excuse or compromise will you make up for the past existence of Crusades then ?

Crusades became a thing as a reaction to jihad in the first place, if jihad were not a thing then something like the crusades wouldn't have existed in the first place.

>>836962

>>836941

I want to make a note here violence or any of that stuff is not necessary when we have the internet you got some christians on /pol/ spreading the word and exposing the satanic elites on top and other portion of christians spreading the gospel and exposing islam and other religions, the internet in it's self is unironically the biggest blessing of spreading the truth, their is truth when the word of god is like a sword.

As has been widely understood by now, that the Islamic State is a concept manufactured by the military and oil industrial complexes for the advancement of their material interests, it probably shouldn't be thought of as an effort that's useful or viable beyond that purpose.

Ignore this at your own peril:

“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?”

Matthew 26:52-54

That's what the true Peter was taught directly. Those who do the opposite follow the path of Judas: a zealot who wished to force Jesus' hand by backing him into a corner and creating chaos.

>>837159

>Those who do the opposite follow the path of Judas: a zealot who wished to force Jesus' hand by backing him into a corner and creating chaos.

You realize our lands have been taken by those that follow the path of Judas? The Hagia Sophia wasn't built by Turks.

>>837192

>Constantinople

A noble endevour, but a pointless cause. Let the dead take care of the dead and let the living take care of the living. The Roman Empire was a pseudo-christian state ruled by men and not by God. It's why the borders of the New Christian State must be located someplace else, preferably in a good geographical defensible position

The oriental carpathian mountains aren't a bad start

>Natural defense in terrain

>Locals who are devout Christians

>To the east Moldova for potential expansion future operations

And Moldova's a nomansland led by local oligarchs and corrupt businessmen anyway. Its powerful enough not to be absorbed by its neighbors but not powerful enough to withstand an armed insurrection. So yeah, Carpathians - Moldova would be my best pick. Being from there myself, i would be more than glad to see a militant Christian take over and so would many of my compatriots. Moldova doesn't have a reason to exist anyways, so might as well do something useful with it except neo-feudalist exploitation by the local oligarchs

>>837192

>You realize our lands have been taken by those that follow the path of Judas?

Yes, you idiot, and the military endeavors against Islam were to defend and protect our lands and people.

You however want to explicitly imitate the violent psychopaths in ISIS, and forcefully install a theocracy by the sword.

>>836941

This has never really been the nature of the Church. Historically there was a united Christendom, but made up of multiple states typically defined by the ethnic, linguistic, customary etc. groups within it. The Church existed above the states. Think emperors and kings being crowned by the Pope.

I would love to achieve a united Christendom but that's not really something you can fight for in an armed conflict, it's not the same as a nation.

>>837438

You're biased to see it that way. Real history was not so simple or monolithic.

>>837438

Lukewarm moderate "cultural christians" have no place in God's kingdom

>>837446

Eat s—, he's right.

We've never had your Al-Qaeda tier nonsense.

>>837447

You're delusional. Christians theocracies existed up until the french revolution.

Heck, modern day theocracies still exist to this very day in forms of monarchies. Though monarchies are not the correct way a proper Christian State should look like.

>>837454

*Existed

>>837469

>You're delusional. Christians theocracies existed up until the french revolution. Heck, modern day theocracies still exist to this very day in forms of monarchies.

You are really stretching the definition of a theocracy.

None of what you are saying count as what political theory really calls theocracies.

We didn't have your jihadi state wanting to conquer christian states to enforce some deranged puritan law code.

The only things approaching what you are proposing were short-lived radical reformist cities like Genoa or Munster.

>Though monarchies are not the correct way a proper Christian State should look like.

Well, it seems your project has no real historical precedent, so it's not surprising no past state lived up to your crazy ass expectations.

>>837472

>Streching

>Ad literam The Rule of God

>We didn't have your jihadi state wanting to conquer christian states to enforce some deranged puritan law code

Define the meaning of "Christian". Were Arianist states of the germanics and Ostrogoths Christians?

>short-lived radical reformist cities like Genoa or Munster

They must've had a very weak understanding of christian governance and what it stands for if the only political system by which a christian man should live in faded so quickly.

>your project has no real historical preceden

381 AD is not a historic precedent to you?

>>837474

>Ad literam The Rule of God

Congrats, you know words

>Define the meaning of "Christian". Were Arianist states of the germanics and Ostrogoths Christians?

Yes.

But they didn't have any grand plan of invading anyone to impose arianism.

Just regular old conquest they had been doing since they were pagans.

>They must've had a very weak understanding of christian governance and what it stands for if the only political system by which a christian man should live in faded so quickly.

Yeah, mate, in history, everyone was a lukewarm with weak faith, which is why no country in history managed to fully apply the real governance.

I think when the "only political system by which a christian man should live in" is practically impossible to implement fully, it should be grouped there with pure communism and anarchism under "ideals that would collapse IRL".

Or, you know, maybe you should revise your ideas.

>381 AD is not a historic precedent to you?

The Byzantines worked on symphonia and caesaropapism, not whatever you want.

>>837474

>the only political system by which a christian man should live

This concept is incredibly unbiblical. Have you ever read the New Testament?

>>837610

Also contradicted by history

>For Christians are not distinguished from the rest of mankind either in locality or in speech or in customs. For they dwell not somewhere in cities of their own, neither do they use some different language, nor practise an extraordinary kind of life. Nor again do they possess any invention discovered by any intelligence or study of ingenious men, nor are they masters of any human dogma as some are. But while they dwell in cities of Greeks and barbarians as the lot of each is cast, and follow the native customs in dress and food and the other arrangements of life, yet the constitution of their own citizenship, which they set forth, is marvellous, and confessedly contradicts expectation. They dwell in their own countries, but only as sojourners; they bear their share in all things as citizens, and they endure all hardships as strangers. Every foreign country is a fatherland to them, and every fatherland is foreign. They marry like all other men and they beget children; but they do not cast away their offspring. They have their meals in common, but not their wives. They find themselves in the flesh, and yet they live not after the flesh. Their existence is on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven. They obey the established laws, and they surpass the laws in their own lives. They love all men, and they are persecuted by all. They are ignored, and yet they are condemned. They are put to death, and yet they are endued with life. They are in beggary, and yet they make many rich. They are in want of all things, and yet they abound in all things. They are dishonoured, and yet they are glorified in their dishonour. They are evil spoken of, and yet they are vindicated. They are reviled, and they bless; they are insulted, and they respect. Doing good they are punished as evil-doers; being punished they rejoice, as if they were thereby quickened by life. War is waged against them as aliens by the Jews, and persecution is carried on against them by the Greeks, and yet those that hate them cannot tell the reason of their hostility.

>>837609

>Yes

So then how do you explain Justinian's conquest of the italian peninsula

>inb4 muh conquests

Wrong. That war was justified theologically exactly because Justinian thought it's necessary to impose what he understood as "Orthodoxy" over the "Schismatic Arians". In other words, he waged Holy War justified by his need to uphold the fundamental Christian religion (As understood by the needs of his royal title ) which his realm was based on.

The Slavs were Christianized using state coercive power for very clear political purposes. There's absolutely solid historic precedent as to what a very broad meaning of Christian State represents, and that precedent is rooted in the Roman Empire. There's also historic precedent of the Bishop of Rome claiming legitimacy over the meaning AND ruling of the Christian State, and used the exact same means as the Roman Empire when it wanted to assert it's legitimacy as an institution by christianizing the various germanic tribes and west slavs.

You must be illiterate not to see the underlying fundamental nature of the Roman Empire's political relations with the rest of the world and cultures around it stemming from it's state religion post 381 AD.

Was is the right thing to do knowing these states acknowledged themselves as Christian States to a bigger or lesser degree? I would disagree with that. Were their actions for christians inside them justified by their politics? Absolutely not because that's not how a Christian State should behave.

>>837610

Is the New Testament the only bible to you?

>>837617

>So then how do you explain Justinian's conquest of the italian peninsula

Bringing back Rome into the Roman Empire, duh.

As for the casus belli pretext, it was avenging Amalasuntha("as soon as he learned what had happened to Amalasuntha, being in the ninth year of his reign, he entered upon war" Procopius), not Jihad.

>>837617

>There's also historic precedent of the Bishop of Rome claiming legitimacy over the meaning AND ruling of the Christian State

The Pope claimed superiority over the temporal powers because he lived in a crumbling West, and he needed to not become the pawn of various warlords and petty kings.

And the HRE still tried constantly to subordinate him, during the Investiture Controversy.

>>837617

>Is the New Testament the only bible to you?

Is it not the bible to you? And are you implying the Old Testament somewhere commands the Israelites to go on a crusade conquering foreign nations and forcing their inhabitants to convert?

>>837618

>Bringing back Rome into the Roman Empire

Nope. Read the rest of my post

>Procopius "Justinian is a demon!" of Caesarea

You have to be joking.

>>837619

>The Pope claimed superiority over the temporal powers because he lived in a crumbling West

The same thing which was done by Roman Emperor Constantine and later by Theodosius by claiming the Roman Empire is shaky and therefor need to claim "temporal powers" over their subjects as God's representative on earth. Nothing different from usual monarchy.

And yet, Bishop of Rome and later Pope created a whole new Christian State by using these same monarchical arguments and imperial means. Bishops of Rome could have existed peacefully with the new invading powers, yet they had to claim themselves as leaders of a new Christian State.

Why? Read on the Ostrogothic Papacy and the involvement of politics into the then new "Western Roman Empire Christian State", from which all future Western monarchs wanted to claim legitimacy from but later devolved into pantheism (Culminating with Humanism of the 17th century) only to get rid of said political influence.

It was the exact same process which happened from 325 to 381 AD in the Eastern Roman Empire. Appropriation of the Christian State by political forces meant to justify wholly unchristian goals.

Both examples are perfectly grounded historical precedent case studies for the existence of a Christian State. And now, knowing their very existence was due to entirely human processes and goals, what would a Christian State without these human goals, but rather with the christian goals toward salvation, look like?

It's why there needs to be a New Christian State, dedicated entirely to the anti-thesis of these human issues.

>>837620

>are you implying the Old Testament somewhere commands the Israelites to go on a crusade conquering foreign nations and forcing their inhabitants to convert?

Yes, there are innumerable precedents such as these. The entire point of Joshua in Exodus and Numbers was to slay the pagan Canaanites and occupy the land with the seed of God that he promised to them.

The Prophets recorded how the rest of the hebrew tribes around Israel were conquered because their pagan worship was an abomination in the face of God. And many many other such instances where Holy War has biblical precedent in being righteously justified.

I'd go as far as saying all the ancient Israelites ever did in their history was wage Holy War on God's eternal enemies. Now the torch was transmitted to Christ, who didn't come to bring peace, but a sword. Who went to the Temple himself and drove out God's enemies from there. By extension, he left this torch to us Christians to wage Holy War on God's enemies further. For God is all compassionate and all loving and forgiving, but for things made by the hands of men which go against his nature he does not forgive. The things he dislikes he expects righteous men in his name to annihilate.

Which is why a New Christian State is needed.

>>836950

>Ok granted i am a bit deranged but murdering people is simply wrong according to Christianity in all instances because only God can give life so only God can take it away

Then why was God so pleased when David killed Goliath?

>>837628

>Nope. Read the rest of my post

The rest of your post is retarded.

The empire was pretty friendly to the Ostrogoths before that.

Only after the queen got murdered did they do any military campaigns, to avenge her and reclaim Italy.

>Procopius "Justinian is a demon!" of Caesarea

It's from the official history, not the fantasy novel called "The Secret History" that people don't even know if it was penned by him.

And besides, atleast i gave a primary source.

Find me a roman chronicle declaring the Justinian campaigns as a holy war to impose some global caliphate, and we will talk.

>Bishops of Rome could have existed peacefully with the new invading powers, yet they had to claim themselves as leaders of a new Christian State.

The only reason the Papal States happened was because the Duchy of Rome, a part of Byzantium, had to centralize more and more of itself to defend against Germanics by necessity, and afterwards got the Franks to save them and make them their own state.

But even if your idiotic premise about the Papal States were true, it's existence invalidates it.

The Papal States didn't go on a global jihad against the rest of the planet, and were preoccupied with other issues.

>And now, knowing their very existence was due to entirely human processes and goals, what would a Christian State without these human goals, but rather with the christian goals toward salvation, look like?

Or maybe if your phantasmagorical Christian caliphate has never implemented properly in history, and tends to get nuked or corrupted when anything close comes along, it's existence and necessity is false.

>>837637

It isn't murder if it is a righteous killing.

Goliath strode out and challenged Israel to send ONE MAN to fight against him for MANY DAYS.

He actually wanted a duel with Saul who was head and shoulders taller than anyone in Israel. Saul was Kraven, Korrupt, and Kowardly by then.

Righteous killing is all through the Bible, advoated by Jesus Christ himself, FOR CHILD MOLESTERS.

>>837662

>Righteous killing is all through the Bible, advoated by Jesus Christ himself, FOR CHILD MOLESTERS.

He didn't say you had to execute them. He said it would be "better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:6) than what ultimately awaits them afterwards. He goes on to say how horrible hell will be by adding: "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire." (Matthew 18:7-8).

Basically no amount of punishment will equal to what happens to them in hell. That even a gruesome execution would be pleasant in comparison. That's not a license for YOU to start killing people. You missed the whole point. You focused merely on the imagery of a man hanging, but disregarded that he was making an illustration on hell - and then applying punishment to hell to all kinds of people. And what drastic measures they should take to avoid it.

How silly are you to make this about yourself and your own desire to kill and miss the point here.

>>837628

>Yes

No Anon, the correct answer was no

>The entire point of Joshua in Exodus and Numbers was to slay the pagan Canaanites and occupy the land with the seed of God that he promised to them

Yes, *exterminating* the foreigners in *their* land. They were not going into their neighbors’ countries, subjugating them and forcing them to worship the God of Israel. The OT has a very apathetic stance on the conversion of non-Israelites in the first place, which is why your interpretation is so utterly anachronistic.

>And many many other such instances where Holy War has biblical precedent in being righteously justified

The wars of ancient Israel against their hostile pagan neighbors are not similar to what you’re advocating.

>I'd go as far as saying all the ancient Israelites ever did in their history was wage Holy War on God's eternal enemies

Then I would recommend you read the bible

>Christ, who didn't come to bring peace, but a sword

How many people did Jesus kill?

>By extension, he left this torch to us Christians to wage Holy War on God's enemies further

I would not want to be you before the judgement seat of Christ and have to answer for so recklessly twisting His words.

>>837649

>Find me a roman chronicle declaring the Justinian campaigns as a holy war to impose some global caliphate, and we will talk.

There was no and is no distinction between "Secular" and "Religious" for Christianity because the Emperor was directly linked to God and his enforcement on faith was an act of God in his view. He was responsible for the well being of his subjects in all matters both secular and religious.

If you think that separation of the two was a thing from the perspective of Justinian and that he just went about going "grug want more land" then you're more illiterate on the subject than you seem.

>The only reason the Papal States happened was…

Because it was an institutional leftover of the Roman Christian state apparatus. An institution that wanted to re-assert itself as THE ONLY Roman State around. And after 1453 to the present day, it still continues to be the only last Christian State to exist as an institutionally, political binding force that has the only legitimate right to claim political legitimacy over the political representation of the entire christians ON THE PLANET. And no matter what Orthodox or Protests will say, the institution is still there and has yet to be challenged by an alternative competitor.

Just like present day so-called "Patriarchates" are institutional leftovers from Roman times, the difference being that now each struggle for regional-territorial influence, taking the place of the Roman Emperor.

>The Papal States didn't go on a global jihad against the rest of the planet

Aha. And the missionary activity which happened for the Germanic pagans? The Mesoamerican Pagans? The African Pagans and literally all pagans on the planet?

They were SENT by the Christian State of the pope in order to enforce his political will and control over the west hemisphere. Just as the Christian State of the Emperor sent missionaries to convert the Slavic pagans to do HIS will and biding, for political purposes in the eastern hemisphere.

>Or maybe if your phantasmagorical Christian caliphate has never implemented properly in history

Not only did it's existence started at 381 AD, but was rivaled by the 8th century by another. EACH competing for political representation of all christendom. And if they don't exist as you claim, you might as well do away with all of the religious dogma which sprung from each of the two Christian States. Have fun.

>it's existence and necessity is false.

You are illiterate then. The entire history of this entire subcontinent was characterized by wars that had an underlying religious motive represented by religious Christian institutions. If you are so ignorant of the faith's history then please stop replying to me as i can't help you with your own stupidity.

>>837689

>They were not going into their neighbors’ countries, subjugating them and forcing them to worship the God of Israel

1 Maccabees 5. It would be a good time for you to revise why your self-declared protestant clergy removed books from scripture

>The wars of ancient Israel against their hostile pagan neighbors are not similar to what you’re advocating.

It is, because most, if not all Christian teachings bear the pagan seal of the beliefs and teachings from teachings of false teachers. Most if not all self-described Christians practice and indulge in the following paganistic practices : Xmas trees, easter eggs, icons, artifacts, wedding rings, astrology, philosophy, interest loans, and the list goes on. All these things put paganism in the front, and God, Christ and the bible second.

>Then I would recommend you read the bible

To you as well.

>>837853

>There was no and is no distinction between "Secular" and "Religious" for Christianity because the Emperor was directly linked to God and his enforcement on faith was an act of God in his view. He was responsible for the well being of his subjects in all matters both secular and religious.

Well, by that logic, anytime some guy with a crown even sneezed aggressively, it was a declaration of jihad.

So in short, no, you don't have any proof, and we can safely rely on the cassus belli presented in Justinian's official chronicle, that it was bringing Italy back into the Roman Empire, wrapped under the guise of avenging the gothic queen.

>Because it was an institutional leftover of the Roman Christian state apparatus. An institution that wanted to re-assert itself as THE ONLY Roman State around.

It didn't.

It became independent while being a part of the Roman Empire, recognised the Byzantine Empire as THE Roman Empire until Irene, when it promptly swapped said recognition to the Franks.

They didn't say "WE THE ROMAN EMPIRE NOW", and start conquering the Mediterranean Sea the second time.

>Aha. And the missionary activity which happened for the Germanic pagans? The Mesoamerican Pagans? The African Pagans and literally all pagans on the planet?

Yes, missionary activity.

When the winnie the pooh did those missions became literal provinces of the Papal States?

Or in the case of slavs, even part of the Byzantine Empire?

>Not only did it's existence started at 381 AD, but was rivaled by the 8th century by another. EACH competing for political representation of all christendom

So are the Papal States the Western Christian state, or the HRE?

You keep flip-flopping.

>And if they don't exist as you claim, you might as well do away with all of the religious dogma which sprung from each of the two Christian States.

The States didn't create dogma, the transnational Churches did, and continued to do even after those states collapsed.

>then you're more illiterate on the subject than you seem.

>You are illiterate then.

>If you are so ignorant of the faith's history then please stop replying to me as i can't help you with your own stupidity.

Cut the crap with your "you dont agree with my fringe, retarded hypothesis, you're dumb".

Your idea is historically ignorant, plays fast and loose with definitions, and only exists because you have a murderboner for ISIS, and wish to backtrack it into Christianity.

>>837863

>Eastern Roman Empire didn't indirectly create dogma by meddling of politics

>Your idea is historically ignorant

I'm done here. Don't bother @me

>>837446

I refer to the church being above the state and crowning its governors, that's already a step beyond secular government. I only said that the church cannot be pressed into replacing or superseding ethnic, linguistic, or cultural boundaries. These nations ought to follow a single church, but their separate cultures require separate governments. God wills the diversity of nations and this doesn't preclude a powerful church.

>>837883

And half of that meddling provoked heresy epidemics that the Church had to purge itself of.

>>837953

And no, the Empire didn't create, the Church did.

>>837066

">paranoid conspiratorial crap and edgy self-proclaimed experts on foreign religions on the neo-Nazi board is the internet Christian renaissance."

i mean is working ai't it?

> self-proclaimed experts on foreign religions on the neo-Nazi board

Sorry I meant particularly just christians exposing sick people but outside of /pol/

you get people exposing islam and other religions and freemasonry all the time.

>>837978

>i mean is working ai't it?

No.

>>836962

>Using Jihad as an example for anything good.

Wow, you're in for an uphill battle. Isis is a terrible example. Barely hold land, terrorist attacks did little in the larger scheme of things. Real the only reason islam spreads AT ALL outside of the middle east is because of having large families and post-christian, atheistic liberal western nations import them to stack votes and better attempt population control on them.

Why not sure Christian nations as an example, but just modern? Didn't the Byzantine empire last over a 1000 years.

>>837979

Stay mad, rabbi.

>>836970

?

>>837995

Why use any of it as an example when it contradicts everything christianity stands for?

>>836941

>Christian principles

Catholic principles I understand. They're written down.

The 2000 protestant religions - they really don't have much in common save saying "Jesus saves". I was reading a post today where one protestant even denied the trinity and said that there's just God the Father and Jesus and the Holy Ghost is just the spirit of Jesus.

>>848435

> 2000 protestant religions

33,909 lat time I looked

Plus 1 for the catholic church after 1958 when the Freemasons took control of the Vatican, and changed the religion.

https://www.catholicfidelity.com/how-many-protestant-denominations-are-there-by-dave-armstrong/

>>853574

This. You couldn't even do it with the Catholics.

Consider the way the 1st amendment was written states could establish or ban whatever religions they wanted. Some states collected tithing for various churches. Not anymore, because someone let the jews in.

>>853574

Remember Christ said hades wouldn't succeed doesn't mean they wouldn't be hard times.

The obvious borders would be the old borders of the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire, and it obviously has to include Jerusalem and the rest of the original Pentarchy: Rome, Constantinople/Istanbul, Alexandria, and Antioch/Antakya. Beyond that, who can say?