33 sats \ 9 replies \ @Dash_1971 10 Jul \ on: Do you know anyone that self identifies as a Christian Nationalist? meta
I think the idea is that America was founded as a protestant nation. (At least, the founders were by and large protestant, as were the majority of the population). So then, why is it that we now have a Roman Catholic president? Why is there only one high court judge who is evangelical? What the hell happened?
It's the feeling that America was sort of snatched from protestants and the desire to reset the clock and get power back.
And the fruits of this are plain for all to see: trans kids, STDs running wild, debauchery on TV, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, a nation obsessed with sports, legalized gambling, pot, etc etc.
So a "Christian Nationalist" would be someone who believes America was founded on biblical, evangelical values, and that it would be good for America to get back to that. But I don't think many would actually call themselves "Christian Nationalist"
One of the best covering this kind of topic is Aaron Renn who has a podcast The Aaron Renn show and wrote a book "Negative World" about the place culturally Christians have found themselves in in the US since roughly 2016.
The way forward for Christian relevance is not so clear. I personally think that America has a state religion which is progressive leftism. Curtis Yarvin writes extensively about this. He argues that it is a non theistic Christianity that mutated from Puritanism. I believe that we will see the bible censored in our lifetimes, as the globohomo rainbow religion grows stronger and more bold and as the boomer Christians begin to die off. It probably won't be an outright ban, but rather there will be pressure on Amazon to stop selling the Bible, for example. There will probably also be leftist translations that come out with certain politically incorrect verses "reinterpreted". We have already seen that to some extent with the NIV for example rewriting the bible to be more "gender inclusive".
So for bible believing, evangelical Christians there will increasingly be demands to choose between a pinch of incense to globohomo vs being true to the gospel. There will be increasing social penalties paid for being a faithful Christian. There will be barriers to many jobs, educational facilities, banking, etc. Hence the importance for building out alternative institutions and other means of opting out of the state machinery such as home schooling.
In the sense of me worrying about these things, I think people might brand me a Christian Nationalist. I am not one in the way they think, although I am probably something far worse and far more reactionary from a progressive point of view. I am increasingly thinking a divine rights kind of Monarchy is the best kind of model. I like what Bukele is doing in El sal and my respect for him grew when he spoke about faith and prayer in a recent interview he did. My expressing these kinds of opinions has offended many fellow bitcoiners, actually. They are not woke/progressive but they are die hard libertarians whom I have actually come to think of as essentially leftist.
Thanks for your thoughtful commentary.
Leftism hates all religions except the Party and its collectivist agenda.
Individuals don't matter, what matters is the group, the collective, etc. Leftist ideas matter more than actual people who are dispensable if they don't embrace the revolutionary spirit.
Leftism hates all religions except the Party and its collectivist agenda.
Individuals don't matter, what matters is the group, the collective, etc. Leftist ideas matter more than actual people who are dispensable if they don't embrace the revolutionary spirit.
A couple minor points:
*Gorsuch is Anglican or Episcopal. He met his wife in England when he was a Marshall scholar. *Thomas Jefferson was a deist. *Founding Fathers were a diverse religious group, most importantly they believed in religious freedom and tolerance and no state church like the Church of England.
reply
why is it that we now have a Roman Catholic president?
I agree with much of what you said, however this tidbit jumps out at me. I'm not aware of many catholics who consider that Biden is a good representative.
In fact, there is quite alot of effort to publicly distance him from the church. There are several archbishops who have called for Biden to be either refused communion and/or others who have called for him to be actually ex-communicated.
In fact, archbishop Vigano has gone a step further and basically said the entire WEF / trans kids / rainbow religion as directly satanic....but thats a whole different saga....
reply
Maybe but the pope is an "ally" of the rainbow people and my understanding of the Roman church is that he claims theologically to be the infallible head and therefore any dissenting views from his are heretical. I think Biden and Francis see eye to eye on most leftist issues including trans "rights" and climate change. Also, I think Roman Catholicism must be incompatible with any ideas of "Christian Nationalism" since, again, by their own theology, their interests and loyalties are inherently internationalist with their head and center in the Vatican. How any professing Roman Catholic is allowed to be president is a mystery to me. In the UK Catholics were prevented from certain positions, including Prime Minister, for this reason. How can Biden lead America when, in theory, he is supposed to accept any Papal decree ex cathedra as binding? Of course, it's a joke as most Roman Catholics don't take their own theology seriously, and most would just assume (correctly, imo) Biden would just ignore any pope who dissented from globohomo consensus. He is of course "Catholic" in name only. I don't want to turn the thread into a sectarian argument between Roman Catholics and protestants and I am sure there are many good, bible believing Roman Catholics, but I have to say I think Biden is very representative of the Magisterium as it currently sits under Pope Francis. To be fair, protestantism has its own issues and leftist protestants are even worse than Roman Catholics when it comes to corrupting the gospel to fit a leftist agenda. (Anyone who wants a wake up call should look up the "sparkle creed" video led by a female "pastor" Lutheran.)
reply
I don’t think Jill and Joe attend church ⛪️ on Sundays.
Hunter should be excommunicated
reply
I generally agree with many of your points + I also have no desire to descend into sectarian arguments, but I think the concept of "papal infallibility" is widely misunderstood and often a red-herring argument.
- Not everything a pope says is 'infallible'
- "Papal Infallibility" is a very narrowly defined concept, that extends only to rulings of doctrinal nature formally ruled ex cathedra (as you said).
- These doctrinal issues are just that....things like nature of Trinity, Immaculate Conception, etc.
- Such infallible doctrinal issues only extend to "Divine Knowledge" (ie. The church recognizes 3 types of knowledge (a) Divine Knowledge, (b) Definite Knowledge, and (c) Ordinary Knowledge. The pope can only infallibly rule on Divine Knowledge, which are things expressly mentioned in the Bible).
- The pope is not considered "inerrant" (ie. the pope cannot claim "the sky is green" - moreover this would fall into Ordinary Knowledge that the pope cannot even infallibly rule on).
All social systems require a final authority that make doctrinal decisions (ie. SCOTUS, CEOs , etc) - and in the end "papal infallibility" is just a formalized name of that within Catholicism. I mean the Southern Baptist Convention could itself be designated as exactly such an authority.
Would you consider the SBC to be "infallible"?
Would you consider a Baptist President to be incapable of holding office because he is beholden to SBC?
reply
Fair points on the Papel infallibility. I don't suppose Francis is going to issue anything of national strategic significance to America "from the chair" anytime soon.
With the SBC, I don't think they have a claim to exclusive truth to quite the same extent. My understanding is their claim is limited to speaking on behalf of the denomination, not for Christendom in totality. So a hypothetical Baptist president who took issue with a doctrinal position of the SBC could choose, for example, to leave the SBC and join some other baptist group, and still have a credible claim to be orthodox while also having confidence in his own individual salvation. The Roman church won't say it clearly these days, but my understanding is that orthodox Roman doctrine is essentially ex ecclesiam nulla salus, with the Roman church as the only "true church".
Also, at least the SBC is American. Someone being a faithful Roman Catholic is, in my mind, similar to someone who has a foreign nationality and a loyalty to a foreign government. Which is also an issue with the Biden administration, I believe, with Israeli-American dual nationals. That's a rabbit hole for another day.
reply
Rabbit or Rabbi hole? You can shoot me now
reply
Yep, as I said I pretty much agree with you....including that SBC is not quite exactly the same thing as "papal infallibility". But generally these arguments just become semantics at a certain point.
Moreover I do fully agree with your main point, that the founding fathers specifically wanted to craft a political system that expressly excluded Catholic / Anglican / any other external religious body from any official involvement in governance.
reply
2 Presidents have been Catholic:
JFK
Biden
reply