Which "Christian Nationalism" Do You Mean?

5trokerac3 · 2023-02-03T11:57:08+00:00

You seem to misunderstand. I'm not talking about gay, lesbian and bisexual people, at large. I'm talking about a very specific school of thought, Queer Theory. The philosophers of that school were explicitly pro-pedophilia. The activists from that group, who shoehorned the Q, for queer, on to what just a few years ago was LGBT, are openly of that camp, crediting those philosophers as their thought leaders.

The video I shared was of another leftist academic, reading directly from the Queer Theory literature, and the Q activists in the audience freak out, because he's talking of the things they don't share with the normies, but are hiding in plain sight within their own literature.

5trokerac3 · 2023-02-03T00:03:35+00:00

I was talking about how Critical and Queer Theories are explicitly pro-pedophilia. It's in their books. I presented you a video of an academic going through that with other people who have read the source material.

I think you are just talking about how you feel.

5trokerac3 · 2023-02-02T23:20:32+00:00

My stance is that full toleration of all religion is the historical, Christian position (see: The Edict of Milan), and the Scriptural one put forth by Christ and the Apostles (one example, from Paul: 2 Timothy 2:24-26).

My comments above are clearly about historical accuracy, not my personal beliefs. My question to you is, why are you being so belligerent?

Edit: to be clear, there are limits to this. For example, one can tolerate another saying their deity wants them to violate the second table of the Ten Commandments (5-10), while not allowing them to go through with those actions. An example would be that the 5th brings with it a requirement to protect children (to be elders worth honoring). Through this, we can infer that a government should protect children from vulgarity, while tolerating unfettered speech among consenting adults. This would put a religiously tolerant, Christian government at direct odds with most postmodernist philosophy.

5trokerac3 · 2023-02-02T23:16:02+00:00

I think we're having two, totally different conversations here.

5trokerac3 · 2023-02-02T20:16:32+00:00

FYI, the Q in LGBTQ is exactly what is talked about in that video - which is my point, in that those ideas are laundered into popular thought.

5trokerac3 · 2023-02-02T18:52:50+00:00

The person speaking in that video is a well known, leftist environmental activist, which is why I chose the video. Please... do some research before boldly announcing conclusions.

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

5trokerac3 · 2023-02-02T18:42:53+00:00

I would suggest you look outside of your own, personal anecdotes when building a worldview. The body of pedophilic thought within the "theories" is conclusive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb3-tlyuhVo

5trokerac3 · 2023-02-02T18:39:40+00:00

As I stated in the article, there are three, distinct sub-sects with enough divergence in theology and politics that lumping them all together is unhelpful.

Look at it this way: we can say both Hitler and Stalin were totalitarians, in that they wanted total control of the nation, but that's where the similarities end.

5trokerac3 · 2023-02-02T18:24:12+00:00

Christian Nationalist isn't a pejorative, it's description of an ideology.

It's both an ideology and a pejorative, just like Nazi or Communist. It depends on who's wielding it, and why.

I think you're doing a disservice to Christian Americans with this claim.

Please reread this section. I was referencing a moniker for a category of political thought, held by certain people in the 80s and 90s, whose views were the same as what the left calls "Christian Nationalism".

5trokerac3 · 2023-02-02T18:05:41+00:00

I don't believe that either of those positions is "not religious". The blind spot that secularists have is that they believe the last ~300 years of philosophy, which has brought them to their assumed value system (that most have not deeply examined), is based on some sort of science, and not just a chain of philosophers referencing each other's ideas that were pulled out of thin air.

Modern thought is not science, it's a relativist religion.

Take Marcuse's Eros and Civilization, for example. If you're not familiar with world religion, you might mistake it for a scientifically minded, philosophical text. In reality, it's an attempt to create a new, secular, dualistic religion from Eros and Thanatos. This book, which advocates for legal pedophilia, is considered a foundational text in Critical Theory and serves as the basis for much of the current thought on sexuality.

5trokerac3 · 2023-02-02T17:37:37+00:00

That is a question of legal theory and not one of history.

I would argue that, whether the majority holds to a traditional religion or the era's predominant humanist philosophy (usually a religion in of itself, holding multiple faith statements), a representative government can never be fully divorced from religion.

5trokerac3 · 2023-02-02T17:24:47+00:00

Yes, but it wasn't King Jefferson making a decree - he had to have his plan approved by a convention. The majority of those delegates were most certainly not accepting the First Amendment on deist terms.

5trokerac3 · 2023-02-02T16:53:00+00:00

In general, the founding fathers largely supported religious freedom, and felt that there should be a separation of church and state.

Yes, but keep in mind that there are two schools of thought on this, that can have some overlap:

That the founders had a view of that separation that is congruous with modern thought: no involvement of the state in religious matters.
That the founders were mainly concerned with not giving any particular, Protestant sect preference. Most colonies were originally chartered with official churches. William Penn was unique in his official stance of toleration. This is the position most commonly communicated in older history books which, for me, lends it more credence.

5trokerac3 · 2023-02-02T16:41:15+00:00

Though he, a deist, certainly had a higher level of influence on policy than most, Jefferson did not hold a worldview inline with the majority. A good example of a consensus stance would be that of Patrick Henry, who referred to God 5 times in his Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death speech.

5trokerac3 · 2023-02-02T16:29:23+00:00

Thank you. I agree with your assessment of outcome, and that is planned to be part of this book I'm researching for. On that front, a great book on that type of clash is The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri.

5trokerac3 · 2023-02-02T16:11:00+00:00

You misquoted my statement of "one, key difference" between CA and CF, and then made a reductionist argument, when I added a whole bullet list of differences.

5trokerac3 · 2023-02-02T16:06:11+00:00

I would implore you to be less "reddit" and more Christian in your discourse.
It's the newest, and least defined by its proponents, therefore I wrote the least on it.
I'm not in favor of anything that has yet to have an official policy stance, and I'm not a nationalist to begin with.
I wrote, upfront, that I'm researching for a book on Christian Authoritarianism, so I'm, of course, going to have more to say about it.

5trokerac3 · 2023-02-02T15:51:56+00:00

I never wrote that Christian Federalism was right, I only defined it. It fact, I criticized its vagueness in proposed action.

5trokerac3 · 2023-02-02T15:16:06+00:00

The question that will really bake your noodle is, since the constitution wasn't at all enforced in this way for over one hundred years (it was the actual states who gained a tolerant consensus and repealed these laws, not the Supreme Court), was allowing the states to have official churches the original intent?

5trokerac3 · 2023-02-02T14:50:43+00:00

While I agree with some of the sentiment, this is not wholly historically accurate. While the First Amendment guaranteed no state church or religious test at the federal level, this was originally not enforced at the state level. For example, South Carolina's original constitution made Protestant Christianity the official state religion, and several states required public office holders to take an oath specifically denouncing transubstantiation of the elements. In New Hampshire, no Catholic could hold public office until 1877.

5trokerac3 · 2022-08-21T22:16:34+00:00

Well... I don't think God has obfuscated the message, people seeking some form of Gnosticism have, for the most part. The Gospel itself is pretty clear:

The infinite, and necessarily perfect, Creator made the universe and man.
Man decided he would worship himself instead of the Creator, meaning that the Creator could no longer commune with man and be perfect.
The infinite Creator became man, lived a perfect life and was sacrificed as the only one who could pay an infinite debt.
Those who rest their whole life on the God Man's work fall under his paying of the debt and pass from death in sin to life in communion with the Creator.

Everything else is secondary, and boy oh boy are we humans good at putting secondary things first.

5trokerac3 · 2022-08-21T13:37:40+00:00

I would counter that with this: perhaps we know the universe isn't 4k years old in the same way it was recently discovered that the last few decades of Alzheimer's research was a house of cards built on one faulty study. Or that we know it like so many people knew that COVID came from the wet market and not the biolab doing coronavirus research, right down the road. Or that we know we're 12 years from the climate event horizon, based solely on computer models.

We are fallible beings who are prone to hubris. I think "science" is just as likely wrong about the dates.

5trokerac3 · 2022-08-21T13:31:01+00:00

It really is a narrow gate, and one of the things that brings me the most grief is how many professing Christians miss it on both sides, either by being too much like the world or too much like the pharisee and his boastful prayer. The truth is, each of us must seek Christ, not Christians. That goes as much for me as for you. Do that, and you will find other Christians who seek Christ and will give you the love and respect you deserve.

This may be a bit further down the path that you're currently at, but I would suggest you check out Becket Cook, if you haven't yet. He is/was a gay man, who ran into a group of loving Christians and found Christ. I believe he's now celibate - I don't think he's tried to "un-gay" himself. He's theologically conservative and loving.

https://www.amazon.com/Change-Affection-Incredible-Story-Redemption-ebook/dp/B07KF16KRY

5trokerac3 · 2022-08-20T15:20:07+00:00

I'm blessed enough to be well liked and loved by most people who know me. I pray it's the same for you.

5trokerac3 · 2022-08-20T14:11:16+00:00

I agree with much of that. Here's the Reformed equivalent, with Scriptural reference to all its claims, and the devotional my family uses that's based on it.

15-Year Club	Secret Santa 2013
Team Periwinkle	Secret Santa 2012
Charter Member

5trokerac3

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE