Difference Between Christian Conservatism and Christian Nationalism

The team discusses a recent article by Mark Tooley breaking down the key differences between Christian conservatism and Christian nationalism. Skye argues that there isn't much of a difference anymore.
Link to the article
www.christianp...
Watch the full show
/ 607-gift-of-with-99816459
Listen to the full show
podcasts.apple...
open.spotify.c...
For show notes and more
holypost.com
For exclusive content
patreon.com/holypost

[@kicsms_science3729]

“Stop saying that! Stop saying it! Stop saying it. It’s bad.” I simultaneously love when Phil is willfully obtuse and want him to stop immediately. 😃

[@chuckthompson5724]

Alexander Campbell believed and taught that no nation was Christian except the church. The church is the “one nation composed of all the Christian communities and individuals in the whole earth.” Philippians 3:20 tells us “Our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ”

[@impalaman9707]

Campbell was also a politician himself, representing what was then the far northern reaches of Virginia (between Ohio and Pennsylvania) in the Virginia legislature

[@kaycee8021]

Amen, it's like what don't these people understand. I'm Christian, I know there HAS to be separation of church and state. I think Christian Nationalism is a made up fake propaganda.

[@michaeldunigan1067]

The nation state is a function of law. Law cannot produce christian character. Only the indwelling of the Holy Ghost can.

[@Superwoodputtie]

I'm gonna push back on this. Because laws do have consequences. Like if you could require everyone to be a Christian and it (roughly) worked, would this be a good idea? Like in German, they have a church tax. The gov charges folks money, that gets paid directly to fund the churches. Like you see this in Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries where religion is strongly regulated. (It's hard to be a Christian in Saudi Arabia) Thinking through this idea through the end kinda helps. Like what type of Christianity is the US gonna be? Protestant? Catholic? Mormon (finacially the largest denomination in the US)? If we don't pick one, but still require prayers (like the regent prayer that got kicked out of schools) will God listen to a generic prayer? The most religious states in the US right now, are they the most caring for the poor and minorities? If LGBTQ affirming Christians, become the majority in the country, can they mandate LGBTQ rights to all churches? I think realizing that "Christianity" means different things to each person who is a Christian (religions are internally-diverse). So the likelihood of having your presences written into law are probably unlikely. Given that you might be on the short end of the stick when it comes to enforce religion, isn't it a good idea to allow for religious freedom?

[@michaeldunigan1067]

@@Superwoodputtie I don't know how you can talk about Christianity without mentioning the Holy Ghost. It's absolutely essential.

[@bobbobberson5627]

Allowing all manner of vice and degradation to be available to the weakest and most impressionable members of our society isn’t some sort of Christian virtue. It’s the opposite.

[@bobbobberson5627]

Allowing all manner of vice and degradation to be available to the weakest and most impressionable members of society isn’t a Christian virtue. I know. What a surprise.

[@bethrossiter1857]

​@@michaeldunigan1067because there's plenty of people calling themselves Christians that are obviously not led by the Spirit. Christianity in the west has become a club with which to beat the other sinners down with, in self protection of course, 😒 not unlike the ruling religion of Jesus day sadly

[@kathierezek3515]

Right there with ya, Mike! "Disciple" is a noun, not a verb. It is a follower, an apprentice. It not some thing to be done to someone. Disciples are made by following the one they seek to become like.

[@martyschrader]

1:55 -- No! No! No! No! *NOT* to disciple the "nation-state," but to disciple the _people_ of the nation. These are completely different concepts and have nothing to do with each other. A nation filled with discipled _people_ will naturally gravitate towards a Godly nation-state, but that can't be the explicit foundation of the government of that nation. This isn't the formulation of Israel in Judea we're talking about, it's a modern, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious society made up of a collection of dissimilar pieces that, collectively, are much more potent than the sum of the parts. Forcing a single religious foundational template on to that society breaks everything that makes us who we are as a nation.

[@alexanders562]

As the gentleman on the bottom right pointed out in the beginning: a governments first job is to secure itself (presumably force), keep a tight eye on the worldly treasures they posses, and stay vigilant on the Sabbath. A true Christian government would have all eyes on the kingdom of heaven and give all the riches to their poorest (like, all of it if i recall), and turn their cheeks of forgiveness right into swift take over by some non Christian country.

[@ibablo]

I'm loving these bite-size contents. They seem to be more focussed. Thank you!!

[@danielclingen34]

They go hand in hand. Christian conservatism creates Christian nationalism. It’s a natural progression. The answer it’s not to try to make up some difference between them, the answer is to recognize the progression, recognize the problem and run in the opposite direction to the love that Christ actually commands and towards a data-based approach to all aspects of life.

[@hapennysparrow]

I wish there was room for a much longer discussion about this very topic between the three of you. I love Phil playing the devil's advocate here. Brilliant. Please find a way to prolong this format. There is not enough space to fully develop the theme. Outstanding, albeit too brief, analysis. I loved every word of it. Please continue this theme. It is so important for people to get this. What a strange moment in time in which we live. Understanding these concepts are essential. Thanks. Love Mike Erie. Please have him on more often. I wish I lived closer enough to attend his fellowship. I feel starved for this kind rational discourse.

[@2serve4Christ]

“Many of us like to ask ourselves, ‘What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?’ “The answer is, you’re doing it. Right now.” - Aaron Bushnell (RIP) 🛐 No exceptions or special circumstances can justify the murder of a living person. Murder is the most vulgar violation of the Law of God as it is expressed in all religious teachings and in all people’s conscience. - Leo Tolstoy

[@macdri]

Woah! Seriously Phil, I know you are probably joking, but what is your major malfunction when it comes to Canadians today? There is a fine line between knowing that a group that you aren't a part of generally takes things in good humor if you poke fun at them and taking advantage of that; and this kinda crossed the line. 2:17 No American has any right publicly calling out Canadians for "wiping out" First Nations people without pointing out their own country's FAR more troubled history of LITERALLY wiping out Native Americans. While Canadian under both British and Canadian rule brutally instigated campaign after campaign to affect cultural genocide, the United States government brutally instigated campaign after campaign of literal, physical on top of cultural genocide; literally wiping out the MAJORITY of Native Americans. There is a reason why Sitting Bull fled north to British controlled areas to protect his people: because as bad a track record as the British had, the U.S. track record was WAY worse. Without getting into the horrific details, there was even one "war" in the U.S. where the tribes fighters moved from their home, hoping to draw the fighting away from their wives, children and elders, and the U.S. forces instead went after those vulnerable left at home...not only slaughtering women, children and elderly...but also taking away body parts as souvenirs. 😢 Love you guys, but, Phil, this was not okay, and it wasn't okay for the others to not call him out on that... not only because it misrepresented the difference between what happened in the U.S. and Canada, but it effectively ignores just how bad it was for 'Native Americans' throughout the history of your country. Please do better!

[@bobbobberson5627]

Go drink some maple syrup over it.

[@bethrossiter1857]

I think it's because he's so focused on the word play, he sometimes forgets what they actually mean.

[@CatelynneLewis]

Agreed…@@bethrossiter1857

[@macdri]

@@bethrossiter1857 perhaps. I am just tired of KZbinland being a place that fosters the idea that Canadians somehow treated First Nations people worse than the U.S. because we are actually (finally!) willing to talk about our toxic history publicly. That's not how history works. It feels like the fire complaining about how hot the frying pan is.

[@michaelward7051]

@@macdrimay want to lighten up Francis! Aka great scene from Stripes. There is no such thing as collective guilt. Whether it is the toxic history of Americans or Canadians. It’s history. Those souls living today are not responsible for the past. So again. Lighten up. Did Western European immigrants benefit? Do today’s descendants have a better standard of living? Sure, but they don’t owe anything to anyone. The rules change over time. We waste energy debating the past and if someone should pay for the past. Move on. Be grateful for life. Stop trying do create an oppressed group today. Sure. We get it. There were oppressed groups in the past. But that’s not our responsibility to change or make today’s people guilty for the past. The fact that you are offended by Phil’s reference to Canadians vs. Americans show you somehow feel guilty for your ancestors behavior. You don’t have to. Just do a little good today.

[@bethprather9241]

At 56 I knew my family was Republican but never did I think it meant a Christian is Tepublican. I thought my pastor was Democrat ? I know abortion and the platforms somewhat but civil rights are higher in the BIBle. Idk. Both side have sins.. But bow apparently I was cluseless

[@christinacampos3375]

Why aren't the full episodes on KZbin anymore?

[@Tonoborus]

they said they are focusing their youtube account on shorter-form "bite size" content to make it easier to share etc. their full episodes are still available for free as video and podcast. check the description it has the links to the full episode.

[@christinacampos3375]

@Tonoborus thanks for the reply. I had noticed the link in the info, and tried it out as just a podcast, but I really enjoy watching the full episode on KZbin with my morning coffee 😁😂 Seeing their expressions is a fun feature that I miss if I just listen.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

Likely algorithm related. One long video on a variety of topics means that people will watch only part, and those partial views aren’t as rewarded algorithimically. Also probably get better engagement and comments on focused topics. Clickbait, basically, but the algorithm rewards that and to be successful on KZbin requires playing the algorithm.

[@SandySalmansohn]

I miss the long ones.

[@SandySalmansohn]

The entire posts are still available on podcasts. I use iPhone and iPad. I don’t know what other sources use.

[@unitedreformedchurch3849]

Couple of things. One - charitability and altruism (among other "character" values, and I can't think of a single exception) are by no means inherently or exclusively Christian. They're pan-religious. And, two - how you can have a discussion of either "Christian conservatism" or "Christian nationalism" without even making reference to racism is rather puzzling to me. Maybe - MAYBE - it doesn't belong in a discussion of Christian conservatism, but CERTAINLY racism is endemic to Christian nationalism, or at least to the massive majority of Christian nationalists, who are ethnically of northern European origin. The racism inherent in the ideology/history/strategy of Christian nationalists doesn't disappear simply because you don't mention it.

[@batmanop9254]

I don't think most Christian Nationalists have quite gotten the concept of object permanence yet.

[@jeremydavis3631]

I'm not sure a Christian nation-state is actually impossible, although, if any have truly existed, none have lasted. The Vatican is probably the closest we have, but I wouldn't call it a nation-state (it's a state, but not a nation). But wasn't Israel a Jewish nation-state from the time of Moses at least until its first kings (to the point where "Jewish" refers both to the religion and to the ethnicity)? Since it's happened once before, it's clearly possible for a people to be defined both by their separateness from others (the borders that Mike mentioned) and by their devotion to God. Similarly, I disagree in theory whenever I hear the Holy Post say or insinuate that Christians or the Church shouldn't run the government, although they may be right in practice, at least in the current situation. We should be governed by good people, and Christians try to be as good as Christ is--or, at least, that's what we're taught to do. If I see evidence of real godliness in a political candidate, I'm most likely going to vote for that person even if I don't like their particular platform. The problem with trying to grasp the power of government, especially the federal government, is that the Christians who are most inclined to do that are, or at least tend to be, the same ones who either aren't actually trying their best to be like Christ or don't know well enough what that means. The only suitable Christian to seek a position of power is one who really just wants to live a quiet life but is called by God to take that position for the good of others--and finding such a person is like finding a needle in a haystack, given how attractive power is in general. (I know that some people who read this will disagree with my theoretical ideal. It's based on the ideas that God is good and that his followers, insofar as they actually follow him, will give justice and mercy to everyone, including non-Christians. If you don't share either of those two beliefs, I understand why you wouldn't want Christians in charge, since many powerful Christians have, sadly, been neither just nor merciful.)

[@user-bz2wm4ks6y]

When Paul says in Timothy, “I am the foremost sinner,” was he serious or just engaging in false modesty? My understanding is that Christians keep needing the grace of God. As I understand it, Christians don't just get a big shot of God upon their conversation and then they're inoculated from behaving badly. But you seem to be saying that there are some Christians who, as a result of their earnest devotion to godly virtue, are more suited to lead wisely than non-Christians. In my opinion, the moral superiority of Christians is an assumption that forms the foundation of lots of bad ideas - including the idea that Christians would be somehow exempt from the bad behavior which infects other people and causes them to make bad leadership decisions. Was Paul exaggerating his own status as a sinner? Maybe other Christians are also exaggerating when they talk about being sinners and falling short of the glory of God. Or maybe these Christians are falling just a little bit short. Or maybe I have misunderstood you altogether. It wouldn't be the first time I was way off base.

[@Wren_Farthing]

I'm curious about your second paragraph. How do you envision that Christians or the Church would come to run the U.S. government? How far afield of a representative government would we have to be for that to happen? How would these Christians be installed, and by what metric would they be determined to be godly Christians? Are citizens still voting? Are non-Christians full citizens with voting rights? Also, I'm not sure I understand why there would be dissonance between a Christian's platform and his/her character and political agenda. Please don't take this the wrong way. I absolutely share your desire for godly leadership, and I am confident that all Christians- the Holy Post folks included- would agree that such leadership would be ideal. I think your last paragraph is the crux that undoes the theoretical Christian nation-state. Scripture instructs us against grasping after power for good reason, and we have multiple examples from history to illustrate that.

[@hhhieronymusbotch]

This is the Bible's opinion... "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked person from among YOU" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13

[@darlameeks]

Most European nations have Christianity as their state religion. However, church attendance in those nations is dismally low. We have no state religion, and our church attendance is relatively high. Christianity flourishes when people can freely choose it. It does not when there is any form of coercion.

[@Courage10.18]

Oh boy. In some cases are you unintentionally adding to political rhetoric? I am not a Democrat, I am not a Republican, I am not what is defined as an independent. NO ONE can call either candidate a Christ Follower, regardless of the self identifying words that come from their lips. So how do I vote? I get into the policies of each candidate. I analyze them through the lens of the Bible. I vote for policies, not a candidate. I firmly believe that is where America has got it wrong. They vote for the person with the sweet flowery words and worry about policies later. That very person may be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I’m not a fan of a person who uses less than flattering language. However if that person’s policies are closer to being in line with God’s word, then that is who will get my vote, the letter behind the name is of no consequence. EVERY politician on this earth has the capacity to choose biblical principles in their politics. I have been known to vote across party lines and I will continue to do so. I cherish God’s favor and blessings way more than any politician/human. I’m certainly not perfect at it, but am 100% repentant when I do trip and stumble. I pray for discernment for us all.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

Have to pay some attention to the candidate, because all the words on paper don’t mean much if the person implementing them has no indication that they’ll actually follow through.

[@BobandMarthaRenteria]

The identity of the institutionalized church and its leaders is not only found in the establishment of our own notions of the kingdom of God relative to earthly and temporal agendas, but our faith in God is made up of nothing more than our expectations of His fulfillment of those things. Many may look down at my understanding of the futility of this life on this earth being a forgone conclusion as a lack of character and faith. But, it’s much harder and takes much more character to stand against the “power of positive thinking” mindset and put our faith entirely in the work of the cross of Christ in its sufficiency for dealing with the issues of this life on this earth we live; not as something yet to be accomplished, but as having already been done. “It is finished”.

[@darlameeks]

Mark Tooley is correct! The U.S. was formed by the principles of Freemasonry, not Christianity. Many of the founding fathers were Freemasons (including George Washington & Benjamin Franklin). Some of those principles sound a bit Christian, but never is the name of Christ mentioned anywhere in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. Washington D.C. itself was designed by Freemasons. Freemasonry allows for the freedom of religion, but also prohibits the establishment of a state religion. (This has actually allowed Christianity to flourish here, because people freely choose it. They aren't forced into it.) The very concept of a "nation state" is relatively new, and didn't exist in the 1st century when Jesus walked the earth. Skye is correct that "nation" in Scripture means "people group", not delineated borders on a map. He is also correct that we have people groups within people groups in what is called "the United States". Jesus will not return until every "people group" has heard the Gospel, and everyone who is going to believe in Jesus, does. Here we are, marrying and giving in marriage, going about our business as usual (just as Jesus foretold), as if the Great Commission is not urgent. I will never understand why so many Christians consider conservatism to be so holy. It is not. Jesus clashed with the religious conservatives of His day. He deliberately provoked them, in fact. What He did with His ministry, death, and resurrection changed this world forever, and shattered the status quo that conservatives are always trying to protect. Conservatism draws people away from the Great Commission and tells them to view unbelievers as enemies to be feared instead of our mission of mercy. Can worldly people be dangerous? Yes, but so what? Look at what happened to the early Christians! Conservatism makes Christians fear persecution instead of welcoming it with joy as Jesus taught. Conservatism worships capitalism like it's some sort of sacrament, promotes greed, and makes people dismissive of the needs of the poor. 2,000+ passages of Scripture tell us of God's preferential care for the poor...yet, the Right demonizes them because they know that the systems and policies that perpetuate poverty benefit them. Jesus spent most of His time with the poor and marginalized. He never idolized or courted the rich as "Christian Conservatives" do. He had harsh words for them instead. Conservatives actively oppose workers' rights, which is a sin that God puts in the same category as adultery, perjury, and sorcery (Malachi 3:5). Conservatives promote militarism and incarceration of poor people to keep them from voting. Now we see that conservatism has devolved into an ugly, violent, fascist caricature of itself. This didn't begin with the Trump era. It began with Reagan and his disingenuous exaggerations about "welfare queens" and his "trickle-down economics" (tax cuts for the wealthy that are supposed to enrich everyone, but don't). Reaganomics never work long term, and always eventually lead to economic disaster once implemented. I've seen recession after recession at the hands of Republican tax-cutters. Those tax cuts have done nothing but shrink the middle class, allow our infrastructure to crumble, and concentrate most of the wealth in the hands of a tiny minority. The only President who ended his 2nd term with a budget surplus was a Democrat, Bill Clinton (after pulling us out of a recession created by 12 years of Reaganomics). Why? He raised taxes AND cut spending. There is also the "freedom for me, but not for thee" where conservatives attempt to micromanage the lives of individuals who may not believe the way they do. All they talk about is abortion, homosexuals, transexuals, "pronouns", and the evils of "wokism". I pray that God will give His people discernment so they stop falling for conservative rhetoric, which is meant to pull us away from our mission into abject selfishness. (Don't even get me started on how Ayn Rand contributed to all this, and how the right still worships her so-called "objectivist philosophy"!)

[@UnashamedCaliforniagirl]

Anton Lavey ( the founder of the church of Satan) admitted he got his ideas from mixing the writings of Ayn Rand with the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche

[@tomfrombrunswick7571]

What is America? It is a geographic expression. The United States of America is a description of a political organization and where it is

[@WillNelson73]

Can a Christian not be involved in politics at all by this reasoning? Can we not oppose pornography in public for example? Seems a silly argument to me. I’m not arguing for theocracy but a nation CAN and does have values

[@christiansmakingmusic777]

Let us do a thought experiment. Suppose a nation wanted to live in the light of the Light of the world. Then they, being desirous of wisdoms beautiful influence at all levels, and if they had the power to vote, would invest much time and effort in promoting to represent them people of godly character. Such leadership would not be authoritative, but rather understand James 3:17 and live by it. James 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. Now many bear responsibility for the failure of our “Christians” to know the difference between wisdom and folly, but it falls upon each one of us. Yet, I say, many pastors are complicit and will have much to answer to God for on that day, if they do not repent.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

There’s a great book “Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul” which discusses freedom of religion in colonial America. Living a religious life under leadership very much not in the understanding of James is a problem that existed before the revolution was even pondered.

[@bethrossiter1857]

☹

[@christiansmakingmusic777]

Without a doubt we will have to carry on, and faith in Jesus will survive every challenge. Every trial has the potential to make us grow. Prudence still guides the one with understanding.

[@Don1228]

The only thing that matters to our GOD is His Kingdom. The only nation that mattered to Him was and is Israel. People sadly elevate their nation to a position of idolatry as they try to make that more important than the Kingdom to come.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

The obsession with Israel makes little sense in a New Testament sense. Paul makes quite clear in Romans that the specific nation of Israel is the past, the old covenant which has been superseded - a stem on which a branch has been grafted. No relation to the mockery of God’s love that is that abomination Netanyahu leads. Loyalty to the fake Israel is not Godly.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

Israel is the past, not the present, not the future.

[@bobbobberson5627]

This worldview is a subtle denial of the Incarnation. The faithful are the physical hands and feet of Christ.

[@noybnoyb356]

Psalm 147:19-20 KJV - He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. HE HATH NOT DEALT SO WITH ANY NATION: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.

[@noybnoyb356]

​@@Justanotherconsumer Really? So can you explain the following and many other verses like them? Romans 11:1 KJV - I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. Jeremiah 31:10 KJV - Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.

[@claybowler751]

Clearly, the New Testament which outlines the new covenant of Christ, is about the church, not any nation. The body of Christ, the church, is a multi-national, multi-cultural, multi-lingual body of believers. The Bible states in Philippians that once we are of Christ, we are a citizen of the Kingdom of God and are in exile until the return of Christ. The Bible also tells us not to love the world. Christian nationalism uses God to achieve the worldly pleasure of political power. The Bible tells us we are to live as strangers, like a foreigner, in our land. I am a conservative, and I am a Christian. I don't understand how the Bible is thrown out in order to push this Christian nationalism. I know as a Christian, I do often feel persecuted through words, told I can't be a Christian, because I don't support MAGA.

[@humboldthammer]

"We're the Classical Liberals of Global Nationalism." Alex Jones 2015. "Every nation for itself . . . in the Name of GAUD." Trump 2017

[@claybowler751]

Great discussion from the guy in the lower left as to why America isn't and can never be a "nation." America is a union of states that represent multiple nations--nations that have traditionally not been at peace with each other throughout history. There is a great book about this titled, "American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America" by Colin Woodard. It does a great job at explaining why there is so much divide in America.

[@danielclingen34]

To say that USA is not a nation is simply a fascist trope that conservatives have been using for 200 years to oppose the top command of Christ and the fruits of the spirit. The United States is a federation. Conservatives, just love, ignoring this fact, so they can gaslight people and push their fascist agendas. “Statesrights” Has always been a conservative whistle for pushing fascism, for discriminating and oppressing and hurting and killing millions of people.

[@marklines5816]

All I got out of this conversation was the bald guy without a hat is arrogant and laughs at you if you don't understand what he just said. This will be the last time I watch an episode with him in it.

[@bethprather9241]

What happened to the longer one.. Idk.. what is a nation state...Please explain better.. confusing and u are usually not

[@76JStucki]

A nation is a people group bound together by some commonality, be it language, religion, race, or various other elements. The Kurds are a nation. The Sioux, the Chippewa, the Osage, and other native peoples are nations. A state is a geographical area ruled by a governing authority (king, president, parliament, what have you). A nation-state is when those two things are congruent, i.e., when a state is comprised of one single nation, or else when one particular nation within a state holds dominance over it.

[@keithgraff7168]

So in other words, the use of the word "Christian" today, in association with any other word, particularly those with political connotations, i.e. "conservatism" or "nationalism," is no different than when it was first used in Antioch. It's as an epithet with the intent to disparage any group that dares to identify with it!

[@Justanotherconsumer]

It got overused as a positive by people who meant simply “culturally compliant” rather than anything associated with Jesus. “Christian” Nationalism is not Christ’s, it’s just “Christian.”

[@76JStucki]

Well…. No. In this case it’s merely a descriptive modifier. Christian Nationalism is, first and foremost, a specific expression of nationalism. The nation state desired by the Christian Nationalist happens to be one where the national identity and dominant cultural force is a religious one, as opposed to language or some other element. Nationalism is always fundamentally the same. Attaching “Christian” to it is not pejorative, but merely descriptive.

[@bethprather9241]

I'm so confused

[@SantaFe19484]

"Exert social power so that Christianity is privileged in America"; a great way to word what Christian nationalism is trying to do.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

Except that it’s not Christianity, just Christians, and only a very specific subset of Christians. Definitely not there to help the Amish, for example…

[@hhhieronymusbotch]

"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked person from among YOU" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13

[@bethprather9241]

It late I'm tired abd this is too short and so confusing.. I may get some.. but what??

[@bixles]

There's a link to the full episode in this video's description, maybe that would help.

[@friedemannkemm63]

BTW, translating μαθητευω as discipling someone or even as making disciples is heavily misleading. It was invented in the 19th century. The word is just another word for teaching, a teaching like a master teaches his disciples. The other word for teaching in Matthew 28 is διδάσκω which is more like teaching children to read, write, and calculate. In this respect, old translations like KJV were more precise and less misleading than many new versions. (We have the same issue here in Germany with e.g. Elberfelder vs. Luther.)

[@jonnawyatt]

Trump isn't religious. He was asked if he believed in god in an interview decades ago and he said no. I thought that was one good thing about him.

[@okellojeremy2700]

“Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Cæsar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” In these words Christ has established a clear distinction between Cæsar and God,-between that which is Cæsar’s and that which is God’s; that is, between the civil and the religious power, and between what we owe to the civil power and what we owe to the religious power. That which is Cæsar’s is to be rendered to Cæsar; that which is God’s is to be rendered to God alone. With that which is God’s, Cæsar can have nothing to do. To say that we are to render to Cæsar that which is God’s, or that we are to render to God, by Cæsar, that which is God’s, is to pervert the words of Christ, and make them meaningless. Such an interpretation would be but to entangle him in his talk,-the very thing that the Pharisees sought to do. As the word “Cæsar” refers to civil government, it is apparent at once that the duties which we owe to Cæsar are civil duties, while the duties which we owe to God are wholly moral or religious duties. And Again, From Thomas Jefferson in The Revised Code Of Virginia, "An Act For Establishing Religious Freedom": “Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that ALL ATTEMPTS to influence it by TEMPORAL punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy Author of our religion, who, being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow-citizens, he has a naturalright; that it tends to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it; that, though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because, he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with, or differ from, his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt actions against peace and good order; and, finally, that truth is great, and will prevail if to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. “Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. “And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable, would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.”

[@FreddieVee]

I love the way that these people debate the exact meaning of words, even though the masses use a totally different set of meanings. Trump refers to Democrats as Fascists, Socialists and Communists, and his MAGA cult agrees, even though Fascism, Socialism and Communism are mutually exclusive.

[@76JStucki]

Disagree with this definition of conservatism.

[@mcpetzold]

What would be your definition?

[@ricardoconqueso]

Today's Conservatives don't know what it means. They think our founding fathers were conservative. Conservatives of that time were Georgian Loyalists. To be a conservative was to maintain the status quo of monarchical rule. They think Lincoln, while a Republican by party name, was a conservative when in reality he had a platform that would be considered "leftist" by today's GOP standards. Social conservatives aimed to preserve slavery as a long standing institution and used a twisted version of the Bible to justify it. Social conservatives aimed to maintain a legal underclass from Reconstruction until the Civil Rights Movement. And they consider trump conservative even though he has none of the tenets of conservatism. Conservatism todays is more about what it opposes ("THEM and "those people") than what it actually stands for. There is no actually substantive policy; its just about populist rhetoric.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

For me, for what it’s worth, conservatism is defined by protecting the established social order - ensuring that the rich and powerful remain rich and powerful and that the poor and oppressed remain poor and oppressed. It’s… not particularly consistent with Christ caring for the least of these, or sacrificing Himself (the greatest of these, to say the least!) to die a humiliating death to save those that were helpless and lost.

[@humboldthammer]

@@Justanotherconsumer Freedom of Speech is a Liberal Ideal -- not a Conservative Ideal. Conformity is a Conservative Ideal -- especially of thought. Individualism is a Liberal Ideal. And Apocalypse is a Greek word that has never meant destruction. Epochal Eclipse April 8th 2024 -- just 33 days. Don't stare at the sun: Matthew 16: 4. Exercise your faith -- Jonah 3: 5, 8 Jonah 4: 11.

[@mkyfinn73]

Faith Kills.

[@bobbobberson5627]

Allowing the weakest members of the society you live in easy access to vice and degradation isn’t Christian.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

Easy access to vice and degregation for the powerful too. We are ethical, we are moral, we are like Christ in what we choose to do, not by being denied the option.

[@bobbobberson5627]

Why would you want access to those things if you are supposedly a Christian? That doesn’t make any sense and it is a disservice to people who struggle.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

@@bobbobberson5627faith at gunpoint is just about the gunpoint. Living a supposedly righteous life because of outward demands is not a righteous life, because it was not chosen. Given the serious problems humans have in determining what is right is also a major problem. I’m a child of Protestants, some who engaged in tyranny that took the name in vain, but also of Friends that fled that same tyranny, as well as Catholics who had tyrannies of their own in the name of faith and lived in persecution of the tyranny of others in the name of faith… What’s the chance that my fallen self will get it right? I would rather have the option to sin and choose not to than force others to commit sin because of my fallen misunderstandings.

[@humboldthammer]

Faith CANNOT be Forced. It must be CHOSEN. Was Trump CHOSEN by God as ALL the Pentecostal Rapture Prophets on Christian TV proclaimed in 2016? Do YOU have any idea what Jesus taught about that Temple in Jerusalem? The Rapture is a LIE. "Left Behind" is an ass-backward work of fiction. Matthew 13: 30. 100's of millions deceived by false prophets. Matthew 24: 24. Which Biblical Principles? The Sermon on the Mount? But I say unto you Love your enemies . . . see Matthew 5.

[@bobbobberson5627]

Very strange response. Amazing that you can advocate for the free use of these evils and still call yourself a Christian. You all are the worst type of liberals because you drag our Lord into it.

[@gmen7131]

"Blessed is the nation whose God is Yahweh". The well being of any nation is to be conformable to the laws of God. It is true the government shouldn't mandate you to be catholic or Anglican. That does not mean God's righteousness shouldn't be the aim in the civic sphere. Today America is under the severe judgement of God where abominations are glorified by podcast like this. Gomorrah wants nothing more than to raise its flag in pride. Little do the haters of God know they have been given over to a depraved mind to be hardened until the cup of iniquity is overflowing. We are vastly approaching the day of the LORD - True believers need to be careful they are not lead astray by counterfeit Christianity represented by programs like this. REPENT - For the kingdom of God is at hand!

[@bkucenski]

Time for your meds and a nap. The church is under judgement for how it treats the poor and marginalized. Sodom was blown up for how it treated the poor. The sheep and the goats are separated based on how they treat the poor.

[@mcpetzold]

I'm puzzled by the assertation that somehow the US is NOW under the severe judgement of God. Why not at our founding, when we accepted chattel slavery? Or when we failed to mention God at all in our constitution? How about our multiple incursions into other countries just for profit (see United Fruit Company as one example)? Our racism? Our treatment of immigrants throughout history? Why is it now that we are under God's judgement? Seems to me that we should have been under God's judgement from the beginning.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

None hate God so much as those that take His name in vain for petty political ends with no love for Him or their neighbor. Public displays of virtue signaling on faith like what is posted in this comment make me believe the person is less of a Christian, not more.

[@gmen7131]

@@Justanotherconsumer - This is the typical argument that would like all Christians to put the muzzle on, keep quiet, affirm pronouns and as such you show love to your neighbor. However Jesus states - unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes & Pharisees you will in no wise enter the kingdom of Heaven. True love for neighbor is to tell them the truth in order that they would truly repent of their sin and be saved. How exactly am I taking God's name in vain? I would really like to hear that.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

@@gmen7131​​⁠​⁠​⁠not necessarily you, but the politicians who claim to be speaking for Christ. If you want righteousness exceeding the Pharisees, don’t act exactly like they do and make a big show of faith. I’m guessing from the comment about pronouns, though, that you are likely another one of those politicians. Consider the first parts of Matthew 6, for example, as the most specific teaching from Christ on the matter.