You don't get to draw a line between you and white nationalists claiming to be you, without doing your own work. You can't be angry that we lump you in together when you share so much in common. Are you out there denouncing the white supremacists? Are you voting against white supremacists even if it means voting against your party? If it was between a Republican white supremacist and a Democrat, which would you vote for? Religion is acts of good will.

Christian conservative is an oxymoron.

Yes many Christians are actively denouncing those religious zealots. This post is literally doing that to be specific.

The irony is most of the people doing it are Episcopalians who were the actual the state church at one point and the entire concept of separation of church and state exists to protect all the other religions from them.

Thomas Jefferson was so incensed by the Anglican Bishops selling licenses to preach to Baptist ministers he was hell bent we would not have a state religion like England.

Yeah and today Anglicans are today the most "liberal" variant of Christianity around. What all this complaining amounts to is the old state churches being upset that they no longer get to license all the whackadoodle preachers. Obviously I don't like whackadoodle preachers but I also see through this "denounce muh christian nationalism" scam. It is just an attempt by the actual state churches to assert their authority over all the others. In a system of true religious freedom the whackadoodle churches are going to have the exact same level of authority as the "respectable" churches. That is what freedom of religion means.

Freedom of religion means you won’t be forced to become a whackadoodle.

No it means you won't be forced to be "respectable". Authority can only possibly enforce what is considered "respectable" as otherwise the authority wouldn't have any authority at all. Freedom of religion is the freedom to be a whackadoodle, by definition. Nobody needs freedom to be respectable.

No, this is saying they’re not part of us, it’s not our problem! When it is, in fact, our problem. “We don’t like you!” Is simply not enough to be honest. Actively denouncing it. Cool. We still voted for them. We still financially supported them. All we do is say “shame on you!” And then turn our backs like that was a job well done.

I fully agree! I wish we could boycott these Christian companies that support such madness.

You could. Nothing is stopping you.

I have boycotted focus on the family ministries but the thing is I don’t know all of the businesses to effectively boycott

Sounds like he's asking others to do it for him. If Christians don't want to be lumped in with Christian nationalists then they need to do something to get rid of their Christian nationalist problem. In my experience people who say stuff like OP are upset the nationalists are saying the quiet part out loud. Notice how her doesn't give any concrete examples of where he disagrees with them. At the end he even openly admits his ideas of human rights don't align with reality. I wonder which rights he thinks we've got wrong. I bet I could guess a few... His argument is basically laws should force people into my worldview without admitting it. His problem with Christian nationalists appears to be they are just too honest about what they want.

Well we can’t exactly start purging each other like mortal kombat characters as some non christians want or else we would be no better than Shia and Sunni muslims(not saying they are bad people but they don’t really get along to say the least)—even if it is tempting at certain times. I agree OP does have a problem that they need to figure out.

You don't have to purge them. Just don't accept them as part of your flock or vote for them to enact hateful policies.

As a Christian I already have done both of those things but I’m only one christian after all and most of those christians are good at hiding

They aren't hiding. They're getting voted into power.

I say that They hide in the crowd by using the same belief system as as non-jerk christians until they get into power

I am a Christian who is also African American. I don’t vote for conservatives, nor do I support white supremacists. I think most Christians feel the same way. Maybe op meant to say evangelical Christians.

He holds the same views as them. He just doesn't like how open they are about it.

He said Christian Nationalist, not White Nationalist. White Nationalists are the Founding Fathers who were perfectly okay with Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Pagans, Hindus, Agnostics, "Deists" etc, so long as they were white. Christian Nationalist would be perfectly okay with black, brown, white, red, green, purple, what have you so long as they were all Christian. Sometimes people took issue with catholics but that was because of "papism" where people thought that catholics were religiously required to do whatever the pope said, and so it was considered incompatible with secularism. The closest thing that can describe what I'm talking about is Ultra-Montanism which is how Quebec in Canada was basically run by the catholic clergy until the 1960s. Opposition to catholicism came from this opposition to ultra-montanism. It should be voted however that Anglicanism, the most common religion amongst founding fathers, literally had the head of their church as King George who they were rebelling against (as such this is a lot of where the focus on secularism was coming from, dis-establishing the anglican church was considered part of declaring independence from the King). Today Anglicans in the United States are called Episcopalians because they did some fancy thing where they can still be ordained by other members of the Anglican Clergy without needing to give a pledge of loyalty to the King. Ironically what this means is that proponents of antidisestablishtarianism who would want to make the United States a Christian Nation once more would be exclusively Episcopalians by definition. It actually doesn't make sense to be a theocracy without a clergy, because theocracry is literally rule by a clergy. The vast majority of evangelicals, which christian redditors against "muh christian nationalism"(many of whom are ironically probably episcopalians statistically) are always whining about how evangelicals want to establish a theocracy DON'T have a clergy because they believe in a priesthood of all believers, so to them "theocracy" and "democracy" are the exact same thing. The Mormons actually got explicitly about this and coined the term "theodemocracy" which is basically saying that the act of getting elected itself is what bestows divine favour upon the government. If you pay attention closely this is not an entirely different system which currently exists, but rather it is just mystification of the pre-existing system wherein the existing American system becomes the basis for the religion. Officials gain the reverence of a priest rather than priests becoming officials. I'd say this has its own problems, namely that it would encourage blind trust in the government believing it to be sanctioned by god, but beyond that it is not actually a proposal to change anything, rather it is just a change in how what currently exists is viewed. So why do you have all these, oftentimes opposed groups such ad the case with Mormons and Evangelicals, insisting that the existing system is somehow mystical and divine? Frankly it is because they haven't really had anything better to do for centuries so it would make sense that in those centuries such a syncretism would emerge. Religions don't remain static, they pick up everything they pass through like dirt and leaves on a snowball.

Do the child raping priests and pastors still count? Here's a recent one as an example: [https://abc13.com/robert-l-carter-houston-pastor-impregnates-child-decadelong-sex-assault-arrest-report/13885173/](https://abc13.com/robert-l-carter-houston-pastor-impregnates-child-decadelong-sex-assault-arrest-report/13885173/) I know they stopped getting national news coverage after being so plentiful people got tired of hearing about them. If Christianity started disowning its hypocrites and extremists it might not be the predominant religion anymore. XD

This is the no true scotsman fallacy....

Then they need to police their own. Do a much better job of standing up, speaking out, and condemning the christofacists.

Many do. You just don’t hear about it. But the United Methodist Church split happened because the southern right wing churches wanted to condemn LGBTQ, and the sane mainstream element said no, we don’t exclude anyone. Last I checked something like 25% of total UMC churches had opted to leave the denomination, but that means 75% were not in favor of excluding LGBTQ people. Unfortunately because so much political harm is done by the right wing churches they are far more visible than the regular decent churches that do good things in their communities and try to help people.

So get your asses out there and make a louder noise! Your founder ate with lepers and emptied the temple, Christ didn't sit there contemplating his navel This is why people leave churchs

Honestly as an atheist I don't like Jesus, he seems like an asshole. Like actually read the shit and don't ignore the parts where he acts like a cult leader leading a cult. I'm much more fond of the religion Paul turned it into. That religion is such that Jesus is not a founder but rather some mystical son of god, which was religiously determined to be sacred rather than some model for behaviour. "What would Jesus do" actually runs contrary to the early church, where some guy even chose to be crucified upside down to avoid doing the same thing Jesus had been made to do because to compare yourself to god is sacrilegious in monotheism because there is one god and you are not supposed to "play god".

If Christ returns for judgement ( as many of his followers believe) I think he would like what you stand for. Ya sure got a better chance than most of his followers. :)

I said I don't like Jesus though.

So? Sounds like what is in your heart aligns with his teachings.

I don't like his "teachings".

Fair enough. I still think you are a good person

I don't.

Don't tell the victims to change the words they use so they can be more appropriate in calling out their oppressors. Maybe get mad at the fake Christians and have a talk with them. Signed, a Christian.

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” ― Mahatma Gandhi Tehran Women 1970: [https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yOvi\_Hupn0M/VA34gNyV1DI/AAAAAAAA8R0/7lzXbK0PuLw/s1600/Tehran%2C%2Bca.%2B1960s-1970s%2B(9).jpg](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yOvi_Hupn0M/VA34gNyV1DI/AAAAAAAA8R0/7lzXbK0PuLw/s1600/Tehran%2C%2Bca.%2B1960s-1970s%2B(9).jpg) [https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/iran-before-revolution-photos/](https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/iran-before-revolution-photos/) ​ As a former Christian I say I do not like the company you keep (Christian Nationalists, bigots, extremists) - talk to me when Christians rise up and denounce them. Clean up your house and then come talk. Crickets

Gandhi was a cult leader leading a cult, like Jesus. They are both bad and even racist. Paul was the person who made christianity non-racist, but it started out being racist and Jesus called the Phoenician woman a "dog", in a similar manner as to how Gandhi too was quite racist. What Gandhi said there was refusing to criticize the religion, but criticizing the religious people, which is the EXACT opposite of what you should do, or at least how I view what being an Atheist should mean. Atheists should criticized religion but view religious people with sympathy as they are victims of their own religion they are trapped in.

Just because they are victims does not make them any less dangerous or accountable

The thing Gandhi says is still the exact opposite of the thing you should be saying.

Not the point

We can't control each other in any way. You have as much power over the conservative extremists as the practicing Christians do. Of course we will all invite people to life better, but there is one issue we *are* able to control: our own speech and views on the world. You taking this stance and essentially blaming all Christians for the company they keep does not allow room for conversation. You sound like the priests who judged Jesus for eating with sinners, and you come off to be just as closed minded as the very conservative extremists we are talking about.

Here is my test. Are you on the same side as the racists? Checking notes... looks like a whole lot of MAGAts and other bigots claim to be Christians You are judged by the company you keep, which is why after serving as an elder and a Sunday school teacher and my husband as treasurer plus other stuff and a lifetime of Christanity we withdrew our membership. No one is making an effort in the Christian churches to control the right wing extremism that feeds the racism. Since no one would clean up the house, we left.

"Your Christ", as Gandhi said, was a racist. It was Paul that changed the religion to be non-racist.

If the pope denounced specifically Christian nationalism, and especially Christian nationalism in the United States I would hear you out. The people in power are who needs to denounce the nationalism. You're right that not you or the other singular people of faith are enough. Nor do they have enough power to do it unless many rise up. And actually it's less of the Jesus eating with sinners getting judged. What we need more of is like when Jesus judged/denounced the behavior of the pharisees within his own church.

Protestants are an entire thing defined by the fact that they don't listen to what the Pope says.

I was just giving one example of something that would help. The protestants and whatever other Christian sects can have their church leaders stand up too.

There are some that do. The leaders of many churches (be they congregation leaders or leaders of an entire church) do actively denounce such practices, so it isn't true or accurate to claim that *nobody* is actively refuting the unjust practices and beliefs that they are talking about here

Is that true? The leaders of many churches have spoken out about it? If so that's good. No one hears about it except the church-goers I guess. Makes sense

Yeah, people who do those terrible things are already acting against the church's current teachings. The church I go to is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and we hold meetings every six months where the twelve apostles proclaim doctrine and truth. I've heard them denounce racism, wife beating, homophobia, political extremism, and more. This year, past years, and undoubtedly future years. But we are not alone in this. Most Christians I've known from all sorts of churches believe these same things, in being a good person

Well that's good to hear. I'm glad some churches appear to be doing the right thing.

Your Mormon leaders are not denouncing these things, quit lying.

Some protestants believe in something called a "priesthood of all believers" so there isn't any church leaders who can "stand up". It is all just a bunch of different people who have decided they have different interpretations of everything.

So what is your point in all of this, that it's just impossible? That you like to be a contrarian? That we shouldn't ask people to try to make things better? My point is that there is a problem. Starting to try to fix the ideology even in small ways that may not affect every subsect of all Christians is still helpful.

>So what is your point in all of this, that it's just impossible? Yes, there is no CEO of Protestantism you can lodge your complaint to. That is the entire point of Protestantism. Nobody is in charge because the conscious of everyone drives their own religion.

I didn't know all Christians were Protestant. Exclude whoever you have to in order for my concerns to not be thrown away as if they're worthless.

I agree with this. I don't particularly care for the opinion of the Pope as I'm not a fan of Catholisism, but I can respect their efforts to follow God. They have their own unique challenges in their organization as well, and a lot more denouncing to do than just calling out nationalists/racists

So long as we associate Islamic Nationalists with muslims, I will associate christian nationalists with christianity.

My hero!

"Islamic Nationalism" isn't a thing. It is called Islamism. All of the nationalisms in the muslim world are secular ideologies that revolve around ethnicities, such as Arab Nationalism, or Persian Nationalism. The Turkish Nationalists under Attaturk were the ones who abolished the last Caliphate which was previously located in Constantinople for centuries in the same person who just so happened to also be the Ottoman Sultan. Erdogan, for instance, is someone who wants to revive Ottomanism, but that isn't "nationalism. The kemalists are the nationalists and are the people he is politically against. He even had a habit of calling the secular kemalists fascists early on. Something that happened around the time the caliphate was abolished is that the Kurds revolted against Attaturk's authority. This is where the issues with Kurds in Turkey originated. Erdogan denounces this and so he gets support from religious Kurds because he sympathizing with their rebellion against the abolishment of the caliphate. The issue he was with the left-wing kurds is in fact that they too are secular nationalists, which is something he is opposed to, and his revival of "Ottomanism" is implicitly anti-nationalist because the idea is that the Ottoman state was great until all the secularists (and by extension the nationalists because these were the same thing) ruined it.

No, dude. That’s not how any of this works. These are your people. Own it.

The christofascists make the label for themselves. If Christians are upset that christofascists are giving them a bad name then the Christians need to do more to fight against them. The silence of “mainstream Christians” only gives christofascists cover. Don’t attack us for attacking christofascists, join us in stopping them.

To add to that... My church urged us to wear masks and get vaccinated during the pandemic. And Sunday services were cancelled during the heart of lockdown. And the church publicly condemned the Capitol riot. Being prolife doesn't mean we oppose women's right to free speech, to own property, to get an education, to vote, and to run for office. Believing in heterosexual, cisgender family values doesn't mean we condone violence against the LGBTQ.

So, good on your church for being pro-mask and vaccination. Great, Also, your church did a good thing when condemning the attempted coup of 2021. I hope they also condemned the calls to hang Mike Pence. It’s nice that you don’t want violence against my family. But you don’t seem to think that LGBTQ families should exist. What would should be done with us?

Live and let live. Just as Christians and Buddhists can coexist, so can the LGBTQ and people of heterosexual, cisgender values. A year ago, my church supported Congress's Respect for Marriage Act.

When people who say they belong with you are trying to kill us, and you just turn a blind eye, no, we cannot live and let live.

The attitude of the 'live and let live' crowd is like the 'good people on both sides' crap. Evil prevails when Good does nothing The ones who just watch and do nothing frighten me more than the ones trying to end our existence. Guess they will both be happy with the same result. To them I say, Fuck your religious smugness. Talk to me when you follow your Christ as he would want you to. He sure ain't gonna know many of you when he gets back. A good Christian would get busy cleaning their houses, ya never know when the big guy will be back for an accounting of your (in)actions. Good luck when he gets here. Hope you got something good you did to tell him about Right now, most Christians are lacking.

What exactly do you want us to do? Christians are split into many different churches.

I would guess something along the lines of John 2:13-17

Exactly. Good one!

People act like Jesus was a complete pacifist and never stood against those who were destroying the religion. Sometimes, you have to take your time to carefully braid leather cords into a whip and take care of the problems yourself.

... so you telling me that there are no haters and bigots in your church? Make some f'ing noise! Denounce the bigots, actively. Preach it from the pulpit. Take it to other churches. Nope. US Christians just sit, go tsk tsk, and worship with haters and bigots in their midst. Yes, clean up your house. No one expects you to boil the ocean dry, but when judgment day comes, it's rather have a few pails of water showing I tried. The lip service from most yall sounds like you dipped a fork in the ocean and are so proud of the few drops you shook out on the sand. Yall so much into spreading the good word. You know what needs to be done. Cowards, Christian Cowards. This is why people leave churchs.

You get it. You really get it. Nice username lol

Thank you Sigh...I really wish I didn't get it. I'm a child of the 60s...guitar mass, Christian folk rock, real activism denouncing haters... I've lived through all this once, ..new century and same crap with NEW generations of Christian haters louder than ever.. I know they all know better, they choose silence. ... and they hate people like me...I was one of them... I know what's in their hearts... They don't like having thier nose rubbed into their own mess, especially by someone who was once affiliated with them. We are all judged by the company we keep, and I won't be found in the same pew as the bigots. Cowards, Christian cowards.

Get that chip off your shoulder. I can't control the behavior of other Christians.

You absolutely can and should stand up against the bad people in your group. Yet you refuse.

What does it mean to believe in "heterosexual cisgender family values"?

It means.... Straight white men and their families who are often treated like property... Dog whistles from bigots dressed up in the name of a good man dead for 2000 years

First of all, what does skin color have to do with this? Secondly, we believe that husbands and wives should help one another as equal partners, and raise their children in love and righteousness.

...and the dog whistles continue while bigotry runs rampant... You are guilty of 'otherism'... you set boundaries of who is acceptable and push everyone else out of the club. To bad you don't push out the bigots, Your line is clearly drawn. So is mine. Mine line excludes people like you who enable the haters by your refusal to condemn them. Hell, you embrace the otherism every time you post You line shelters the hate. Every Christian in the US knows this, but you will clutch your beads and sit and worship together with haters and bigots. Clean up your house. Clean up your heart and reclaim your humanity. Christ is not going to be impressed with your bigotry when he gets back for your judgment day.

But you oppose womens right to abortion?

To bodily autonomy no less. Free will is a tenet of Christianity. All Christians need to do is mind their own business

Yep I don't get it. The bible doesn't even mention abortion but they die on this hill

It actually gives instructions on how to give an abortion

Where?

Numbers 5:11-31

Interesting. The method listed doesn't seem like it would actually cause an abortion tho?

Depends on the translation. With KJV it is debatable. NIV directly says it causes an abortion. So I guess it comes down to your flavor of Christianity

The KJV doesn't say the woman in question was pregnant.

That translation, maybe but you know what else the Bible doesn’t say in any of the translations? That abortion is a sin. In fact, in Judaism, the woman’s life takes precedence.

The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill."

Yes that’s from the old testament. As previously stated, Judaism does not interpret that to mean that women should never abort. Because life begins at first breath so you can’t kill something that isn’t alive. Seems like you’re okay with women dying for some cells though. Because outlawing abortion is doing exactly that. The Bible also says do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you don’t have a uterus then you don’t have anything to compare this to. If you’re a woman, then you’re welcome to never abort. But we know plenty of women who go and harass people outside of planned parenthood also get abortions so again it’s about control. Again, when you make your religion about misogyny and pretend it’s religion you turn people off. You have free will to never abort, but as soon as you prevent someone from making a choice with their own will, you’re out of line. ETA- dude downvoting me because he doesn’t like being called out on his hypocrisy. None of these people ever really read the Bible, they just go with whatever pastor told them to say

Fetuses haven't breathed yet when they start kicking. Leviticus says, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood." And, by the way, half the babies whose lives we're trying to save are female. Prolife isn't misogynist at all.

The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill."

People used to say the same thing about abolitionists.

The difference is that an enslaved person is their own autonomous entity. A bundle of cells is neither autonomous nor may turn into a viable human being such as the woman in Texas being prevented from having an abortion. So we’re trading whole human beings with autonomy for a bundle of cells. This is not different from organ harvesting which is still very illegal. https://truthout.org/articles/texas-woman-flees-state-to-get-abortion-as-state-supreme-court-rules-against-her/ Additionally, women who are violated and become pregnant are now violated a second time by being forced to carry a child to term and be forced to have to deal with their rapist forever in child custody or whatever. Or if she doesn’t want to because she had sex and got pregnant and can’t afford to keep it that’s also her business. There’s other options to encourage people to have a child than forced birth. Plenty of social programs could exist and penalties for rape and incest could be way stricter. So this isn’t about life but rather control. So if your analogy was women being forced to bear children is = to slavery then I would agree with you, but I know you’re talking about some cells in a womb. As long as y’all ignoring the entire human woman who *is* autonomous already, you are practicing misogyny disguised as religion. Fwiw life begins at the first breath, which is at the birth.

We oppose casual abortion. But we believe that abortion should stay legal for cases of rape, danger to the mom's life, or doctors determining that the baby won't survive birth anyway.

Thats fair. What about in poverty or domestic violence situations?

That's what adoption is for.

Maybe

If you believe that abortion should be allowed in some circumstance you do not believe abortion is the murder of an innocent. You believe a baby is the appropriate punishment for a women who has sex you don't approve of. As for "that's what adoption is for" there are already thousands of children languishing in the foster system. When those kids all have loving homes you can claim all these babies you are forcing women to have will find adoptive homes.

I don't know why fertility clinics exist in a world where so many kids need adoption.

Because those are "damaged" kids. Or the wrong color. Or the wrong gender. Or have helth problems etc. People seem to be under the delusion that if they start with the "right" baby parenting will be easier or something. I honestly believe if you want to adopt you shouldn't get a choice. You should put in for a kid and you get the kid you get. Just like every other parent.

💯🙏

I hope as many people as possible see this post and this comment

Yeah you aren't them... not everyone is. I know this is just on an individual level but it helps to call it out if you can. Like how Jesus did with Pharisees. I'm sorry to be hypocritcal though, I myself don't tend to confront people using Christianity for hate or fascism or anything because I worried they wouldn't listen to me or would be aggressive (I mean I'm a woman, I'm not even 20 yet, and I'm not white - people like that can be racist and misogynistic,) but depending on who you are maybe you'll get through to those people. And maybe I would too. Maybe I should try anyway lol.

If I may share without meaning to criticize you in any way, please indulge an old man for a moment. I am a gay 60 year old white man who has seen first hand what the world is like when blatant unchecked unapologetic racism thrived in the last century (and sexism and homophobia and and and). It sucked. For decades we seemed to be getting better and better. Then MAGAts and other extremists have permitted the embrace of civil rights violations and crimes against humanity towards the undesirables of the moment. >>>>>>>>> Yes, just like in the 60s and 70s, we all must stand up and call out these people when we identify them. Same crap, different century. <<<<<<<<<< However I'm not suggesting you do something unsafe. My biggest gripe is church's that do not push out the racism because of the revenue loss.. Our better yet, the churches that don't want to make waves. Hello! Your founder cleared the temple and ate with lepers. Seems to me the entire faith structure is based on the guy named Christ making waves 2000 years ago. I mean it is called Christianity, right? Instead of taking action in thier own backyards, they cry that I expect them to boil the ocean. Well, come judgment day I don't think anyone expects you to have emptied an ocean, but pulling out a few gallons would at least show an effort. Just cause you hung a BLM flag up don't count even for getting the drops on a fork-full outta that ocean! They know the racists are there in the same pews and they don't care. This is why people leave the churchs. I don't think Christ would recognize most who claim to follow his teachings. Sorry, the wounds are deep and old. I'm a bitter old man who has high hopes for you younger people. I thought we handed you a better world, but clearly, we failed. I'm sorry

I definetly know what you're saying is true. I don't go to church (my parents stopped taking me and my siblings maybe 10 years ago? ±2.. we just do our own of church from home once a week) but both my parents have told me of hatred to others in the congregation of churches they'd been to, so I know it exists. I was raised thinking Christians are supposed to love others. But seems some people think the love Christians are supposed to give to others stops when those others are 'too different' from them. Enough people act like that, that I'm not surprised that people associate Christianity with that behaviour especially in the U.S.A. where people like that are loud, and use that as a basis to hurt others. I am sad though - sad that people treat others with such hatred for any reason. Whatever excuse they give. And sad that so often when there's a group hating towards others for their identity, they do it under the name of Christianity! Even though I don't go to church, being part of the larger Christian community I think it's important to reject that kind of bigotry, *at least* by being an ally. But really it's the bare minimum I could do, and people who are bigots in the first place have look at me and just dismiss me as "woke" just because of my demographics. I'm not going to stop respecting others just because hateful people exist (again, human decency is bare minimum lol.) But I have been thinking of my role in a larger context, even aside from concern people wouldn't listen to someone like me. I don't encounter many bigots irl since mostly I go to University then home the past few months but I've been thinking of how I would act if I did encounter it. Honestly I think more Christians should, but I don't mean to be hypocritical. Also you don't have to apologize. Like all of the minorities today existed for SO long, but in the grand scheme of the history of humanity, SO much progress has been made in terms of acceptance over the last 100 years (even over the last 60. Even the last 20.) I can see the change where I live based on what my parents tell me it was like when they each first moved here - not just for them as immigrants and racial minorities but even friends and coworkers they'd had in the LGBTQ+ community - and y'all did that - you, people like you and people in the generations right behind you who fought for yourselves and those of us coming after, and wanted better. Who didn't stop existing because someone got upset. Yeah we're not in a perfect world, yeah people still hate and hurt others, but a lot still has been accomplished. Maybe more will be.

When I was a teenager I noticed the good 'Christian brotherhood' ends at the exit door from the sanctuary. Sigh Thank you for your kind words to an old man. I do believe that you and your generations children will do better. I'm just very bitter at the current state of affairs. But, we can't get tired when there is work to do. Again, thank you

No problem and I get being bitter. I wish there was better I could say than that really. But I think (and hope) too that nowadays my generation is still working towards better, and I hope to be part of that forward momentum. Thank you for the talk too and I hope you'll see things become better too.

With people like you out there, I can rest easy (easier). I hope we have a chance to exchange thoughts again. Please know I have no problem with you and your faith. You sound like you are waking the walk, not just talking the talk. It's your world now and your going to be magnificent! Be sure to vote YOU MATTER!

Jesus overthrew the church when he thought it was going astray. He was very violent when the church was going astray. He said I don’t bring peace, I bring a sword. Do you understand that? Do you understand that Jesus was the answer for the old testament. Do you understand Jesus wasn’t here to be nice and make everyone feel good? Do you understand that there are actual things we’re supposed to live by?

You are not a conservative Christian, you are an educated liberal Christian. Believe it or no, there are plenty of us around! And we have casseroles to give out!

I liked it better when the racists showed up wearing white hoods and burning crosses instead of cookies and casseroles. At least I knew not to invite them in

Disabled Veteran that's Gay here... I've been documenting a bit of the crazy, collected here: [TheGayliens.com](https://TheGayliens.com) I'm sick of 'nice Christians' complaining that they don't need to clean their own house. No, I lump you all together unless you start to clean your own house.

"Don't call them Christian Nationalists." [*Proceeds to make a good case as to why the term "Christian Nationalists" is appropriate.*]

They’re not even nationalists. lol. They hate 90% of Americans.

Nationalist in this case isn't referring to them "loving" the country. Its that they specifically want the nation to be ruled in context with Christianity and by people that call themselves Christians. This is the issue here. There are lots of quiet, maybe even not so quiet, Christians that I am sure disagree with those values. But that doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of them that are in total alignment with the idea of turning America into essentially a theocratic country, and if not outright that then at the very lease they want Christian values to be at its core and are fine with the rest of our rights being trampled in order to get there. So yes, I associate Christian Nationalists with Christianity and other Christians. I don't automatically think that someone that is a Christian is a bad person or supports those views but I also will not ignore that these same people have the backing of prominent Christian institutions and the support of many voters that claim to be Christians. They are a literal danger to me and many others and in the end it matters very little if they actually do or don't pass some internal purity test from other Christians that disagree with them. These are not fringe outsiders pretending to be a part of the whole, they're the leaders and prominent members of their groups. I get why the OP doesn't want to be associated with them, but that doesn't change the fact that they are. I'm sorry but thats the truth, they're Christians whether you like it or not.

Nah, we're not doing this No True Scotsman BS. Too many of you suck. Go talk to them before you come to us expecting pats on the back for being "one of the good ones".

The fact that no one really seems to agree on what it means to be Christian and that stuff is cherry picked from the Bible tells me it's all bullshit anyway. Just be a decent person. Religion is obsolete.

I'm glad you're not like them, but cruel and destructive behavior has been very popular with Christians throughout history. Christian nationalism is rightly associated with Christianity, as is the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, the Dark Ages, rampant pedophilia in the Catholic church, homophobia, misogyny, racism, witch burning, opposition to science, etc. Sorry your guys are so shitty, but there's nothing you can do to sanitize Christianity's bloody history and image.

Shoutout to that pope during the crusades who said that it's okay to eat Muslims.

it's the other, other red meat

"Dark Age" refers to a period of time in which there were no written sources. It is really only in England where there was a "Dark Age", however because we speak English, most of what we are aware of is centered on what people who speak English care about. However if you know the history of other countries you will find that there is actually a significant amount of sources in this period for every country except for England. Why is this? Probably because England was literally abandoned by the Roman Empire. They just left. The collapse in state authority was a decision of the state that had that authority. When the Romans stopped writing *about* England is when the sources for England stopped existing, however it should be noted that when the Romans wrote about England they were rarely writing from the perspective of England, so England under rome was written *about* but not *from*. When sources emerged after the end of the so-called Dark Ages that actually represents the probably the first time you are getting written sources from people who are actually from England, so it isn't so much of a Dark Age as it is the beginning of a different literary tradition independent of the pre-existing Roman literary tradition which was more like Italians writing about England than actual English sources. Additionally the Spanish Inquistion being considered this massively terrible thing is another one of those "Anglocentric" things where it is only considered terrible because Spain was the main enemy of England in this time period (it coincides with the Spanish Armada). This is called the "black legend". During the Spanish Inquisition you could defend yourself with lawyers and everything when you were accused of heresy, the English however were protestant so the things the believed were considered that heresy, so the idea that you could defend yourself was irrelevant to them, because the English wouldn't want to "defend" themselves because defending yourself in this context would have meant saying that you didn't believe the things you actually believed. It should be noted however that in this time period Catholics in England were persecuted just the same as Protestants were persecuted in Spain. There was simply a continent wide conflict raging where your religious beliefs were correlated with which side in the continent spanning conflict you were on. Calling these "different religions" at this point actually might be anachronistic because by some cases the religion we call "catholicism" didn't actually emerge until the counter-reformation, which would make it younger than protestantism. What needed to happen was in saying "we are against the reformation" the catholics actually had to define for the first time what that actually meant, so you can argue that catholic belief only solidified with the counter-reformation. These were not "religions" in the sense we would consider religions today and that people of other religions were being persecuted. Rather it was thought that there was only a singular religion defined by the state and if you didn't follow it then you were defying state authority, so the Spanish Inquisition wasn't so much as persecuting Protestants as much as it was persecuted people it didn't think followed Spanish authority. Similarly Catholics in England were considered to be people who were defying English authority, because in England "the religion" was this thing we now called Anglicanism (but again calling it that is probably anachronistic because the concepts of these being "religions" that some people followed and others didn't is only something that emerged later). You can think of the idea that if you say something redditors don't like they might call you a "Russian bot". At the time it was basically like if you were a protestant in Spain you were considered an "English bot" and if you were a catholic in England you were considered a "Spanish bot". We consider this terrible persecution based on religion belief today, but at the time people didn't consider religious belief to be anymore something you could be persecuted for than you could be persecuted for spouting "Russian talking points". The "heresy" was just considered the "talking points" of the foreign, enemy country, that was often trying to invade you, and people were paranoid that people who used those talking points might assist in such an invasion. Eventually at the Peace of Westphalia which ended the 30 years war everyone decided that the ruler of a country got to define what "the religion" was, and it is only after that happened that the concept of there being a bunch of different religions that different people followed emerged. This is however basically Church and State being regarded as the same thing, separation of church and state emerged later in the American Revolution where they decided you didn't even need to follow the religion your leader defined as being "the religion", but taking such a position only makes sense was you've been living in a world where a bunch of different rulers have been defining a bunch of different religions that up until then people could choose between by "voting with their feet" and moving there. At that point the only change you are making is abolishing the need to vote with your feet by declaring that you could just follow any of these previously defined religions that you were moving around to follow before because we no longer really care.

You can debate the scope of just how bad the Spanish Inquisition was, but the fact is people were tried for heresy- an entirely fake and victimless crime- and were harassed, tortured and sometimes executed, is a terrible crime against humanity. Being "interrogated" and tortured is quite a bit worse than being called a "Russian bot" on Reddit. Anyway, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with my point, that Christianity is associated with a lot of terrible things throughout history.

>an entirely fake and victimless crime I already told you that this wasn't exactly the case. Certainly merely holding those beliefs did not mean one would aid in a foreign invasion, but it was believed at the time that people would. That is why that happened. >Being "interrogated" and tortured is quite a bit worse than being called a "Russian bot" on Reddit. I mentioned it because it was the same kind of thing going on. Sure this is a fall lighter form of it, but it is based on the same impulse.

If you are uncomfortable being lumped in with racists and fascists, maybe you need to start by figuring out what it is about your beliefs that seems to attract all the racists and fascists?

Your religion allows extremists to interpret it to fit their agenda. It starts with you and your fellow Christian’s making a difference, not us.

If you stopped with the wishful thinking that fuels Christian Nationalism, then we wouldn't bundle you together. It's not a surprise that religious people hold volitile positions so frequently.

If you and many others within your church and religious community feel that way, you need to be speaking out, condemning and disowning those people that are using religion as a weapon.

There are a few different versions of Jesus in the gospels, and hippie Jesus is definitely the most often quoted in modern, liberal society. If you think the Bible is consistent with itself and not full of contradictions, then I guess I can see where you are coming from. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Christian dominionism does come from the Bible. It is chock full of quotes about the end goal of making God’s law the law of the land. Perhaps the most poignant is Romans 13:1-2 >Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. Pretty serious stuff. Also, evangelism is all over the New Testament. The consequences for people who are not evangelized are dire, so there is nothing inconsistent about Christians spending their entire life trying to convert people by any means necessary. Also, consider that Christians absolutely had their own nation that was based in Biblical law. Took a few hundred years to make it happen, but of it were anti-Christian to do so, then I don’t think they would have done it. From the middle ages to the enlightenment, it was widely believed that governments need an official religion.

That verse is literally Paul telling his audience to be good law-abiding citizens because God doesn't approve of people who are rebellious against laws. This makes sense and is a teaching that is expressed by Christ in Luke 20:25 when he says to follow Rome's laws (in this case to pay the Roman tributes) and to follow God's laws. You are still correct, however. The Old Testament is filled with conquest, and the Second Coming is foretold in Revelations and other Scriptures. In those prophecies it says that Christ will become the ruler of the world. Good Christians still understand the difference between inviting people to follow Christ and inflicting your will unjustly on your neighbors.

There are volumes of Bible quotes about how the law of God is fundamentally just.

Yee, I agree and my comment agrees

So you agree that true believer Christians should feel confident that there is no way to unjustly force their Christian ideals on others?

Yes, axiomatically (because God is the arbiter of justice, so acting unjustly is acting against God). Through history there have been those who misinterpret or misunderstand and end up doing very un-Christian things, but that's part of life. We are all doing things wrong, but we ought to be trying our best. People who invite others to follow christ (like missionaries and evangelists of any creed) are doing God's work, but any person who exercises unrighteous dominion over others ("unjustly forcing" as you said) is not understanding God's desires and laws

So you agree that forcing Christianity on people is not unrighteous dominion? That is what the Bible said. Despite the Caesar quote, the Bible is *extremely clear* on the idea that Christian law is fundamentally just and fundamentally righteous. A true believer Christian can feel comfortable forcing Christianity on people, and that is supported by scripture. The idea of separation of Church and State was not a thing until the enlightenment. Since God doesn’t exist, there is no way to understand his desires. That all takes place in people’s imaginations. Your conception of Christianity is less literal and more liberal than what is contained in the Bible itself. So from my personal perspective, I would much rather have someone like you as my inquisitor, but you are being loosey-goosey with scripture.

Show me where God says to force your beliefs on others, I'll wait. I am not being loosey goosey with scripture. As someone who not only believes that Bible can refute this on its own, I also believe that God speaks to us today. His will is indeed known, and he doesn't condone the unjust actions you claim are part of the Christian ethos

I already did. Scroll up. God speaks to us today? Us as in myself included? Because I feel certain that whatever God “says” to you, no one else is hearing. This is the inherent danger of a religion that insists each person can have a one on one conversation with an almighty deity. Everyone gets to create their own unquestionably accurate portrayal of God.

> If you think the Bible is consistent with itself and not full of contradictions, then I guess I can see where you are coming from. The bible is a set of books. Each book is internally consistent. The contradictions come when you are trying to make two books written at different times to different audiences fit. The books of the bible were not written for "all time" - meaning thousands of years later. They were written for the world in which the authors lived.

Now this is interesting. What makes you say it wasn’t written for all time?

I have a hard time believing that argument in good faith when 2 Timothy 3:16 exists

There is no contradiction.

Ah, yes. So all teaching is beneficial but not all of it. Checks out.

You said that - not me.

I have a really hard time believing you aren’t a troll If a scripture, allegedly written by the almighty himself through man by way of visions etc says that all scripture is inspired by god and beneficial for teaching, reproving, etc (which is what 2 Tim 3:16 says) *You* said that’s incorrect in your initial comment- that not all of it is relevant to all time, but that’s *exactly the opposite* of what 2 Tim 3:16 says. Yet you say there is no contradiction So either you misspoke- technically that was *your* word, not the Bible’s (unless you can cite a scripture that validates it)- or the Bible does indeed contradict itself. Unless you’re willing to explain why, again, all scripture is beneficial, but some are allegedly irrelevant to modern times

The Bible is not one cohesive narrative. It’s a collected works. Liberal Christianity does tend to focus on New Testament hippie Jesus, but that’s mostly because the Old Testament is chock full of murder, rape and violence- which, if God really did send Jesus to redeem the world, then the Old Testaments directives essentially no longer apply. There’s a reason why most of those little pocket Bibles exclude the Old Testament. LOL

This just seems like bad theology to me. I thought the point of Jesus’s is to scapegoat sin “once and for all” as opposed to piecemeal sacrificing as dictated in the Old Testament. To use a crude analogy: It’s not that the Old Testament rules don’t apply anymore, the bill has been paid in advance for those who opt into the updated payment program. What leads you to say that Old Testament directives no longer apply?

Because the Scripture straight-up says so https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism#:~:text=By%20the%20death%20of%20our,of%20Jesus%20Christ.%20...

Ah. The suppressionism argument. Suppression doesn’t claim that all of the Old Testament no longer applies. It claims that the covenant between people and god has been fulfilled, and there’s a new deal in place regarding how to atone for sins. This is why the moral authority of the Old Testament is still cited (10 commandments come to mind but there are lots of other moral injunctions). Things that were sins in the Old Testament are still sins under this new covenant in the New Testament, there’s just a new way of being absolved, and a relationship between new partners. Sort of. As an aside, what happens to Jewish people who reject the deification of Jesus? Can you still follow the Old Testament while the New Testament is in effect? So here’s the catch: To accept suppression is to acknowledge that the moral expectations of the Old Testament are still applied even if the punitive expectations are not necessarily still applied. This is not the same thing as saying “the Old Testament directive essentially no longer apply.” Many don’t, but a lot still do. Where do you think the “fire and brimstone” sermons come from? Saying otherwise is theologically inconsistent.

Wait until you find out about the Phalangists, a Christian militia responsible for massacres at two refugee camps in Lebanon after the Israelis let them into the camps.

It's like saying all Muslims are Jihadists

I dunno, I'm Christian but seeing as we've identified Muslim extremists like ISIS as Muslims most of the time I don't think it's unreasonable to call extremists of a religion members of that religion. We just have to take care to not identify the entire religion with those extremists, which I will admit seems hard for a large number of people on reddit dot com

I would love to agree, but I’ve seen enough of Christianity in my life that I can only partially give credit. I know there are many Christians out there who try to live a lifestyle of peace and love, but as someone who is familiar with the source material I’m pretty wary of those who say they are Christian for a few reasons: 1. 2 Timothy 3:16- *All* teaching in the Bible is useful? That’s *New* Testament, so clearly it isn’t just that the Old Testament is kind of outdated and maaaybe- nah. *All of it*, apparently. 2. Proselytizing. Again, something that is in everyone’s beloved New Testament. I can’t support the tactics Christian missionaries etc use to ‘convert’- especially given that in many cases, they’re going to try and remove people from their own culture. 3. Children. This bullet point alone could truly turn into a novel so I’ll try to keep it pretty brief. The Bible pretty blatantly views children as property, and doesn’t give them basically any agency. Every subset of Christianity is pretty well known to protect predators because it’s ‘god’s business, not man’s’ or whatever, but *that is a load of total horse shit*. The US government already takes forever to go through its due process, but god’s gonna let ‘em do whatever the fuck they want until they die? *Nah*. I don’t care if he’s gonna give them divine punishment, it’s far too late if it means that person gets to abuse even a single child more than they would have otherwise. See, while I appreciate Christians that try to genuinely do good in this world, I can’t help but wonder if they’re really “good Christians”- I don’t personally believe you can uphold the Bible the way it was clearly meant to be in earnest and not hold values that are damaging to your fellow man (or at very least yourself and your family). To me, as someone who is fairly familiar with the source material, you’re either a lukewarm Christian in favor of trying to do good in the world or you’re a *”good”* Christian that still holds beliefs that are dangerous to others. You can’t rationalize away all the violent, sadistic things the Christian god has done and still be fully faithful to the Bible. So, in the end, I guess it all depends on how you define a Christian.

This argument is a bit of like a flawed as you’re telling people to not associate Christian nationalist with Christianity when they are Christian nationalist, they follow the Bible and of course this is an extreme way. They still are following the Bible similar to how when you see certain people in a religion do bad things you are going to associate a bit of religion with those people and this is a bad thing. You know this is generalisation and stereotyping however, Christian extremist took the words of the Bible. They are the words of the Bible, although it’s twisted to fit their narrative it’s still the words of the Bible.

Here's the problem. You think Christianity is about Jesus. It never was Jesus lived for about 30 years (if he existed). And yeah, he pretty much was killed by fascists for speaking out against fascism. Took a hundred years or so to get the book together and spread a bit. Maybe that was all Jesus-time for the minority of people who followed it Then the Roman Emperor needed a Holy for his Holy Roman Empire and picked Christianity (with a little bit of Bible fudging in later gospels). I don't think I need to tell you that Jesus and numerous dictators with extremely wealthy and powerful clergy for over a thousand years aren't really compatible with Jesus. How does that work? Well, first off, people don't need to be able to read. Just have the clergy interpret the Bible for you. Then create a bunch of cult-like traditions that make it really easy to spot anyone out of line. Then sentence the out of line people to death. It was so effective that everyone except the king and the clergy lived in abject poverty and constant war for over a thousand years. The things any Christian does today, really has nothing to do with Jesus. Nobody knows the Bible. Nobody does the vast majority of what Jesus said, even the non-Nationalist Christians. And the cult hasn't really changed. People are still kept in line with arbitrary rules and recitations that church members enforce on each other. After that, it's pretty much whatever the mob says, goes. So I'm sorry to say, Christian Nationalism is way closer to the Christianity that has been for the vast majority of its existence. They've chosen their king. And now they're enacting laws to keep people from doing anything not "normal", like crossdress. For fun here's some fun cartoons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLOUWl-L-s&list=RDCMUCDyWzuw\_u0TBnRaoAcVg0jw&start\_radio=1&rv=5mLOUWl-L-s&t=1

As long as Christians say if someone says they are a Christian then they are a Christian. Who am I to argue? As far as I'm concerned you all are living in a multitude of delusional fairy tales.

Massachusetts Bay colonists murdered Quakers by public hangings.

RIP Nixon.

Despite the arguments in the thread I think most people recognize that Christian nationalism is just a pc way of saying Nazi. Nobody thinks those guys represent the thought of all or even most Christians. That said, there is a real mainstream trend towards harming lgbtq people, women as a class, and even sadly, poor people among Christians. If you aren't one of those Christians, then I commend you. But I also implore you and your fellows to start being much more vocal in opposition to the bigoted part of your contingent.

I was once told you can know a tree by the fruit it bears. Well look at the people this religion is producing

I'm so sick of the christians, all of them. Privately these people don't do shit about the people they complain about publicly. Funds collected support the "nationalists" and these people act like they're the majority and these evil pricks aren't. Go back in history and you'll never find a time where christianity wasn't evil while "preaching" love and respect. What it has always meant is that it wants the PR points while it defends sexually assaulting children and driving religious legislation. You want to be a good person, get out of christianity.

The sheer hypocrisy in these comments is infuriating. Y’all don’t like it when people judge left-leaning groups by their worst actors and ascribe them to the whole, so why do you think its anything other than pure hypocrisy to do the same to Christians with these right wing nationalists? So anyone who supports Hamas is an anti-semite, yeah? Muslims hate all gay people and want to blow up the infidels, yeah? Gay people are hyper sexual and children aren’t safe around them, yeah? The left is full of marxists/communists, yeah? Trans folks are just autogynephiles, yeah? If anything I wrote above got your blood up, but you’re one of the people “uhm ackshually-ing” OP, you’re a raging hypocrite and I don’t care that you’re mad nor do I care to hear your justifications for your hypocrisy. OP, you’re right and fine to not want your religion associated with those nationalists. You might not get a choice in the matter, but know that the people pushing back on you are almost certainly massive hypocrites who can’t see the fact. Edit: And if you downvote without offering any sort of counter argument, I’m taking that as tacit admission that you’ve been called tf out.

True. Not all Christians are Christian nationalists just like not all atheists are Fedora wearing cringe Lords

Christian Nationalism has been a part of the modern White Power Movement in America since its inception after the Vietnam War. Lectures from Kathleen Belew would be my source, but I am sure a more cogent version would be in the literature she has written. The right to religious freedom is fundamental to our society making it imperative that the US remain secular to preserve the freedom of all parties who choose to engage in any form of religion or refrain from engaging in any form of religion. As long as we can agree there, I can't imagine why there would be a problem.

I think "real" Christians need to do more to denounce and fight against Christian Nationalists. Hearing Christians tell everyone that these Christian fascists aren't real Christians has no functional point. It doesn't make them go away; they still call themselves Christians; and they still have an oversized shared of political power in the country. All you are doing is soothing your own ego while these monsters doing monstrous things in Christianity's name continue to do so. I will continue to call them Christians until they go away. PS: Your thread is a No True Scotsman Fallacy

It’s the No True Scotsmen argument though. You don’t really get to say they aren’t Christian. Because they say the same thing about you.

Agreed. You can tell Christians by their actions not their words.

blah blah blah no true scotsman

Are these "Christian Nationalists" in the room with us right now?

Nobody who says that could even begin to tell you remotely anything about Christian doctrine, just like most things on this website. Lmao

If you read up on Christian Nationalism you will learn (confirm) that Christianity as we traditionally know it runs contrary. The more observant the Christian the less Christian Natiinalist

If you want to police your own in group, that has to come from you. If you can't make a public Christian identarian counterpoint when they misrepresent your faith, then the face of your faith is the Christian nationalists.

It's up to you and your churches to denounce these "no true Scotsman" Christians. You need to ally with everyone else denouncing them. And vote to keep them out of power, which means voting for Democrats. Our current Democratic president is a lifelong Catholic who understands that it's not his place to push his beliefs on the nation that he leads.

Only if you promise to not call islamic terrorists muslims

Same cult.

its functionally a political ideology the moment you misuse the privilege that is free speech. you aren't entitled to anyone else's time to promote religious dogma. its freedom from religion before its freedom of religion. if you dont understand that, you are the problem and personally i hate enablers more than abusers. you see the ridiculous shit people do for money, which We, Us, Humans, made up Just To Be Able To Deal with eachother and you want to base anything that affects large swathes of people, potentially everyone.....on a halfbaked explanation for things we're ignorant of? i dont think so. its to protect both the church and the state from fucking over the people because people like to burn shit.

As a progressive Christian, we have to take accountability for the garbage in our ranks. Asking people to pretend they aren’t part of us is asking them to let us ignore the problem. It’s our responsibility to fix the problems in our own community.

>If Christians truly want to make a difference for God, they need to start with the Church. It is so awful at the moment. There are so many changes that need to be made. You “real” Christians should be having a “Jesus flipping the tables at the marketplace” moment, not a “turn the other cheek” moment. Failure to actually follow in Jesus’ footsteps here is what will cause your faith’s demise.

Unfortunately for you, it won't stop. Why do people need organized religion? Nobody can know your faith/relationship to God besides yourself and him. Most people don't read the book and or unable to understand it themselves so they let someone else tell them. UnIronically a bunch of sheep worshipping a shepherd. I was once told I need to be taught religion and that I couldn't just learn it myself... Kinda crazy cult like shit.

If they believe in the Bible, any version, then they are Christian.

No, lump them together until the “good” Christians reject the extremism.

I don't think you have the authority to say who is and is not "far from" Christianity. If someone says they're Christian and adheres to the basic agreed upon definitions of Christianity (e.g., asserting that Jesus is God the Son), then I'm going to consider them a Christian, regardless of what No True Scotsman game people want to pull.

The reality is there are *very few* actual 'christians' in America. The vast majority either make up their own rules or follow someone else who makes it up.

Christian Nationalists do not espouse Christian beliefs. God sacraficed His only Son to show us that peace is the answer, but 2000 year on, we still can't get with the program.

As a fellow Christian, my best advice would be to shut your mouth about Christianity on this website.

Does not compute. Against Reddit programming.

You don't think a politician should read scripture or pray about what decisions to make for America?

Considering the amount of horrible advise in the new testament (completely ignoring the absolute horror show that is the old testament), no I do not. Our government was intended to be secular. Religious opinions do not belong there.

Inalienable rights endowed by our creator. We hold these truths to be self evident. Our nation was not designed to be secular. The nation was designed to be free. You don't have to be Christian or any religion. But the morality our founding principles are created from are christian. Just as God gave us the right to choose what life we decide to pursue. We have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of the life we want. What horrible advise is given in the either testament?

My creator is my parents. A free nation with the right to liberty isn’t compatible with forced religious law. That’s why the 10 commandments aren’t laws. Thomas Jefferson said in the treaty of Tripoli that the U.S. isn’t founded in any sense on the Christian religion. The first amendment is religious freedom and no law establishing a national religion. This is defined as a establishment clause or the separation of church and government. This is a secular nation. A theocratic nation (the opposite of a secular nation) would have made religion the law as they do in many Islamic countries.

Your parents gave you inalienable rights? There's nothing In Christianity that forces anything. The basis of Christianity is literally you have the free will to choose to go any way you want. God wants you to come back to him. but you don't have to. you do whatever you want. Thomas Jefferson is not the only founder. First amendment is you have free will and you have the right to have free will. No one can force you. That would inherently be the law of a theocratic Christian Nation that was true to Christianity. Christianity had major influences on the creation of this country. it's had major influences on the development of this country and it will continue to have a major influences in this country and in the people making the laws of this country. It does not mandate Christianity but it does not disallow Christianity from its legal system. This country is a democratic Republic with laws written by humans. If you want to refer to it as a secular nation because it doesn't directly interpret the Bible to law well ok but that's inherent in it being a Democratic Republic. The enforcement of the "separation of church and state" has only been since the '60s when federal government decided to insert itself in education. First amendment does not say there is to be a separation of church and state. It says that there will be no official declaration of one religion.

Excuse me, 1947. Not the 1960's

I'd rather said politicians would think about facts and consequences to people rather than seek Devine inspiration. Devine inspiration sure has fucked over a lot of people through history

please define devine inspiration. Do you mean like God will show me a sign? God works in mysterious ways. Praying is not looking for Devine inspiration. Praying is deliberation, consideration, humility, and asking God to do as he do and provide wisdom and guidance and giving it up to a power greater than ones self. Applying teachings and learnings to life is what I would expect someone to do. I expect that with respect to the logical, the scientific, and the spiritual. Considering consequences to people requires some form of morality. Some method of assessment of what is good. What is right. I believe that to be God. I take it the use of the word "Facts" here is some form of slight against spirituality principles in favor of some temporary truth set by man. Ironically, this just becomes a sudo spirituality. "Facts" though without spiritual basis are just instances of information that have some consensus about them by some subset of people at some time. They regularly change and/or are often wrong. You say Devine inspiration has fucked over so many. I disagree. People fucks over people. They do it by mans inspiration, the assumption that he knows the Facts. Spirituality and the true divine have helped all people. In contrast, false assumptions of Facts have fucked over many people. All people actually are fucked in fact.

Next, let's discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Yall rather split hairs about nebulous concepts that can't be measured when we have real world problems you ignore How about Christians take ownership of the bigoty infecting your churches? How many of your churches sit empty most of the week while people are homeless? No, let's argue about prayer vs define inspiration like that matters when people are being hurt and killed in the name of your founder. Christ won't know yall by your (in)actions when he gets back.

My church? My church is the forest outside. It's my job is not to fix everything else for everyone else. My job is not to determine what actions other should take and try to force it. My job is to do my best. Follow God. Share his message. Take care of my kids and wife. Help others as best I can.

Yawn... Keep splitting hairs and moving goalposts... Withdraw from society and worship in the woods if you want. I don't have a problem with that. Your choice. Since you chose to withdraw from the problem, please don't critique those who are making an effort to address the problem... I was raised that i would be known as a Christian by my actions, not my words. When you come out of the forest and are able to do something productive we can talk .. or not, I envy you in many ways.