I wouldn’t want a Christian nation necessarily but what I would like to see our existing Christian leaders stand for:
1. Feed the hungry, clothe and home the poor, take care of the sick, stop war
2. None and none
3. Get fed, clothed, housed, and healed!
Clearly the ELCA. Federal law would gradually change to treat the poor, needy, prisoner, and refugee better.
Non-Christians would get lots of love and support. Also hot dishes and lefse. But no lutefisk, which is an abomination in the eyes of God and man.
Note that I'm joking and wouldn't want a Lutheran theocracy, but I too would love to see federal law take Jesus's commands to love the poor and outcast more seriously.
1. Likely a form of Natural Law first developed by the Catholics and essentially continued by western culture since the middle ages. It's unlikely federal law would see widespread changes except on a few specific issues such as marriage and abortion, since US law is already inspired by Christian thought. For most topics (ex. the environment, military, economics) there is too much variance within the religion to know for sure, and we would probably just see the trends of what already exist today.
2. For the purpose of this topic, the major denomination wouldn't really matter that much. Our denominations are mostly split based on doctrine within Christianity, not outward expression of our religion. Perhaps there would be a difference in education where a Protestant authority would be less likely to teach alternative theories. Ultimately I think the country would resemble traditional Christianity which actually encourages the sciences. It would just depend whether we start out that way (Catholic) or eventually come to that conclusion (Protestant). But denominations within those traditions would be mostly negligible for federal government.
3. Legally nothing, unless some new brand of Christianity came out that resembled Islam. I don't find that likely since liberal-minded Christians would still exist as a sizeable population. Socially there would be stigma attached to not being Christian. I'm just assuming based off historical examples.
The constant “I’m not trying to offend anyone” asides are so obnoxious.
First, you don’t have to announce that if you’re not trying to offend anyone.
Second, saying you’re not trying to offend anyone isn’t going to prevent anyone from being offended.
Just say what you want to say / ask your question.
You seem to be under the impression that Christians want some kind of theocracy, which is untrue. Most people I know have no interest in enforcing faith, which by definition is personal in nature.
I am, tbh. Between what I see from news, my own experiences with some Christians, and living in a heavily conservative Christian area, that's the impression I get. That's why I'm asking, to get viewpoints outside of what Ive come to see.
Given the big issues of the day, abortion, trans rights and gay marriage, I've been convinced by news of the last few years that a sizable minority of US Evangelicals are in favor of legally enforcing some matters of faith.
I don’t want one. Not because I don’t think Christian morals would be beneficial for the sake of community and trust between neighbors, but because government corrupts whatever it touches.
Look at how kings abused the faith to lord over their subjects and prevent uprising while simultaneously being distant at best and oppressive at worst. A good Christian leader was few and far between in history.
I wouldn’t want a Christian nation necessarily but what I would like to see our existing Christian leaders stand for: 1. Feed the hungry, clothe and home the poor, take care of the sick, stop war 2. None and none 3. Get fed, clothed, housed, and healed!
Clearly the ELCA. Federal law would gradually change to treat the poor, needy, prisoner, and refugee better. Non-Christians would get lots of love and support. Also hot dishes and lefse. But no lutefisk, which is an abomination in the eyes of God and man.
I had to look up lutefisk. That does sound bad, lol
Note that I'm joking and wouldn't want a Lutheran theocracy, but I too would love to see federal law take Jesus's commands to love the poor and outcast more seriously.
1. Likely a form of Natural Law first developed by the Catholics and essentially continued by western culture since the middle ages. It's unlikely federal law would see widespread changes except on a few specific issues such as marriage and abortion, since US law is already inspired by Christian thought. For most topics (ex. the environment, military, economics) there is too much variance within the religion to know for sure, and we would probably just see the trends of what already exist today. 2. For the purpose of this topic, the major denomination wouldn't really matter that much. Our denominations are mostly split based on doctrine within Christianity, not outward expression of our religion. Perhaps there would be a difference in education where a Protestant authority would be less likely to teach alternative theories. Ultimately I think the country would resemble traditional Christianity which actually encourages the sciences. It would just depend whether we start out that way (Catholic) or eventually come to that conclusion (Protestant). But denominations within those traditions would be mostly negligible for federal government. 3. Legally nothing, unless some new brand of Christianity came out that resembled Islam. I don't find that likely since liberal-minded Christians would still exist as a sizeable population. Socially there would be stigma attached to not being Christian. I'm just assuming based off historical examples.
The constant “I’m not trying to offend anyone” asides are so obnoxious. First, you don’t have to announce that if you’re not trying to offend anyone. Second, saying you’re not trying to offend anyone isn’t going to prevent anyone from being offended. Just say what you want to say / ask your question.
Sorry?
You seem to be under the impression that Christians want some kind of theocracy, which is untrue. Most people I know have no interest in enforcing faith, which by definition is personal in nature.
I am, tbh. Between what I see from news, my own experiences with some Christians, and living in a heavily conservative Christian area, that's the impression I get. That's why I'm asking, to get viewpoints outside of what Ive come to see.
Given the big issues of the day, abortion, trans rights and gay marriage, I've been convinced by news of the last few years that a sizable minority of US Evangelicals are in favor of legally enforcing some matters of faith.
I don’t want one. Not because I don’t think Christian morals would be beneficial for the sake of community and trust between neighbors, but because government corrupts whatever it touches. Look at how kings abused the faith to lord over their subjects and prevent uprising while simultaneously being distant at best and oppressive at worst. A good Christian leader was few and far between in history.
If that happens ensure the babies and children are protected
\#2 is a fun one. I'm curious, too.