/christianity/ - Christian Theology

>>1275

>What do you think about these?

Thanks, that's quite good, though it's mostly a libertarian/small government response. I agree with most of what you said myself, but I guess I was wondering about the politics of conservative Christians who are much more prone to turning to the law to enforce their values. Maybe that simply hasn't been as common since the 1980s and earlier, which is why I can't find a lot of information on it.

Something I didn't bring up, though I think most every Christian and some non-Christians agree with, is that there should be no restrictions on churches getting involved in politics and backing candidates to whatever degree they want. Trump approved of some bill that would allow that, but of course never did anything when he might have gotten it through Congress.

>>1273

>What would be your laws on gays and transgenders?

extermination

>>1458

>ICOC

>non-denominationals

I suggest you pick up a copy of the Bible and begin reading it.

In addition, seek out a reformed church in your area (preferably PCA, OPC, RCA, Reformed Baptist, etc) and start attending as soon as possible.

As for escaping your addict parents, place your trust in the Lord, and if He wills he'll provide a window for you to escape through. Pray fervently, read the scriptures daily, place your full trust in Christ.

>>1507

>first thing the papist does is recommend the rosary

Reminder that all the dogmatic declarations Rome has made concerning Mary are not only unbiblical, but contrary to church history.

I left the wiles and Rome and found my sure home in the arms of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

>>1548

If you're just hoping that when you die God determines that you were good enough, you're going to be sorely disappointed. The Bible says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 3:23, 6:23)

The gospel ("good news") is that Jesus died in your place, so that by believing in Him your debt is paid.

>>1516

Based. I wonder how sedes would feel about that.

>>1273

>Christians and Politics

For what it's worth, OP, one of my hobbies is on the philosophy of civilisation and government. To wit, I spend a lot of time thinking about how we got from "there" to "here".

I agree with Winston Churchill who said that democracy is the worst form of government known to man … except for all the others.

Likewise, one of my favourite quotes is from James Madison who wrote:

< If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

< If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

These two statements are foundational to any theorising about government. The foundation of Madison's two sentences is sin, and a failure to recognise, within the founding laws of a nation, that sinfulness is just a recipe for abetting them. Thus, while I wholeheartedly side with the Christian Theocrats (I cannot recall what the correct term is for this … "dominionists"?) who argue for theocracy in principle, in practise it will inevitably be administered here on earth by mere sinful men. And no man is without sin. Ergo, theocracy is just another word for bad government with God blamed for all of it. Just look at Iran.

I could run through the list of systems of government and come out with the same result every time, but I'll not bother. So, we're left with Churchill's statement. It's a tired, despondent, sighing answer on the question of government, but it's the only one left. Distribute power to as many people as possible, then have other people who watch those people, and those who watch the watchers, and then switch on the machine. Corruption? Inevitably. Bad governance? Absolutely possible. Tyranny of the majority over the minority? Must be guarded against. The biggest issue with democracy is that the ultimate "watcher" is you and I, ill-educated, ill-tempered, poorly-equipped-for-the-job dolts with no experience in – much less, for many people, interest in – government, and these are the people who must make ultimate policy decisions. Poor government is a foregone conclusion. But it's also the best hope mere humans have, frankly.

I say this by way of introduction to why I remark on the following the way I do. I can see fundamental flaws with democracy from the git-go, but I am also, like Churchill, resigned to the fact that we have yet to discover a better or fairer way, and until we do we'd best make the most of the messy system we have.

Consequently, I see no reason to force onto the majority a Christian-infused state. It simply won't work. If the Republican right did successfully overrule Roe-v-Wade tomorrow by Presidential veto or whatever, or the Supreme Court decides this is the way to go, how long before it is overturned? The majority believe in abortion. They are woefully wrong, they are abetting murder, but the way to correct this is not by legislative trickery or SC justice-stacking by conservative Presidents. The way to overcome this is by changing peoples' minds. While this will never work on the die-hard feminists, it can on the middle ground. And abortion's methods are so demonstrably horrific that even the most die-hard would be lost for words.

Sorry, what was your question?

to be continued

continued

>For example, do people here support the Christian Amendment, or is that seen as pointless?

Don't know what this is to be able to say. It's an amendment that adds token statements to enshrine Christianity as the law of the land? How long before it's overturned? How long before it agitates the centrists into siding with libruls?

>How would prayer in schools work?

Yeah, the notion that this was banned on account of Madison's writings is just silliness. This wasn't his aim, but neither did he want the state to be used to enshrine one particular brand of Christianity.

I'd leave this up to the school community. It's frankly no one else's business, but I know US courts don't like the majority overruling the minority.

>What would be your laws on gays and transgenders?

Same as any other psychologically ill individuals, were it my country to rule. Since it's not, and since the majority seem convinced to accept this silliness, what can I do?

Voluntarily seeking self-mutilation ought to be an automatic trigger for intensive psychological examination. As for gays … I want there to be individual liberty, but I am drawn to evidence that they're just a healthcare drain. But, broadly an evidence-based approach without the shrill squealing of the loony-left any time an academic fails to say "gay is great" as the headline of their study would be better.

I reject out of hand /pol/ish notions of "hunt them down like vermin". Regardless their illness or reprobatity, they remain people made in God's image.

>What about taxation of church property?

I disagree, again, that the tax department has any business regulating churches and what comes from the pulpit. That's the sort of dictatorial shi- they pull in Turkey and China. If it's run like a business, to make a profit, it gets taxed. If it's a "membership model" "community group building" in collective ownership, it's already been taxed (individual's personal income tax) and the tax department has no business looking into its affairs. This needs SOME regulation to ensure this isn't just a tax dodge by tele-evangelists who I would tax, but otherwise, get lost.

>What type of censorship if any would you want to see?

Frankly I'd ban porn tomorrow, but I know I couldn't get 130 million signatures onto this much less half of the US Congress – and even less so in my librul country. So, any law I mandated would be overturned tomorrow.

>What is the most common stance against abortion, does it allow for situations where mother's health is in jeopardy?

I'd allow for parent's choice when it came to mother's health for the first few weeks, perhaps, but beyond that I'd happily ban it. I'd probably give condoms and birth control away for free to reprobates who insist on continuing to fornicate, just to keep disease rates and kids-in-orphanage rates lower. But, again, how long before I'm overthrown as king because "muh freedoms"?

>Intelligent Design & Creationism taught in school

>Capital Punishment

Mmm. I have issues with the idea of the state taking lives in a modern democracy, especially given everything I said above about the sinful corruption in all men. The fact that so many executed felons in the US are low IQ individuals speaks volumes. And it's not that low IQ makes for criminal tendencies.

>Drug War

This is one of the rare occasions "Crazy" Ron Paul and I agree – this never worked because Americans insist on getting addicted to shi-. It's a health crisis, not a law and order one.

>Gambling Laws

Ban it. I have no issue with banning sports gambling, and I see no reason any other should be permitted. Maybe have a state lottery, but, really, what for? It's well documented that winning the lottery is just a recipe for destroying your life, and "b-b-but it funds schools" is just a recipe for lazy governance – state governments failing to adequately tax to PAY for those schools. Luck is not a recipe for a good life. The sooner we all just sigh and accept it, the better off we will all be.

As may be obvious, I am torn between what I would like to see happen and what I believe is actually possible under democracy.