Fighting for your right to free speech does not weaken the system in your favor. No, it actually strengthens the system by giving validity to the logic of the system itself.
Great post Kruptos. The question of whether institutions can, in practice, be neutral seems to be one of the primary divisions among “conservatives” or non-progressives today.
Thanks. Yes it is one of those dividing lines. I am in the camp that argues they work for the system, or at least are a part of the system for both good and bad. They are not merely empty vessels to be wielded as we see fit.
For a look into the history of the undermining of Christianity of the West, albeit a bit conspiratorial at the start for my taste, one can find Libido Dominandi over on archive.org
Second half or so covers propaganda, NGO predecessors, the Civil Rights movement, and the sexual revolution.
I am familiar with E Michael Jones Work, and even started that book, and got roughly through the French Revolution section in the book. I am not arguing for modern civil rights law you presumptuous twatwaffle, I am saying that bringing in state goons to enforce even a good morality isn't the way of Christ. If it is show me evidence from the New Testament that, that is the case.
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
That's a plee to be in the world but not of the world, not a plee to use state power to enforce morality. Surely you understand that as an extremely intelligent man? This is like Christianity 101 stuff.
The passage lays out in very simple terms the role of the king, the state, and why it should be honored. The king is God's representative, in a sense is the symbol of divine judgement among other things. The role of the crown is to enforce law, which is always an expression of morality. Even pagan kings are on their thrones because God has ordained it and thus they are responsible to his judgement. But this passage establishes the idea that it is the role of the king to enforce the limits God has placed upon human choice going back to the Garden of Eden. One of the key roles of governance is the establishment and enforcement of morality for the good of society. What do you think the "punishment of the wrongdoer" means? Liberalism would like to exempt certain facets of morality, like speech, from law.
The point is the citizen should obey the law, and not make trouble, not that Christians should seize the throne to impose the word of the lord through force. Christ always said keep your eyes pointed towards God and his laws, and go through the world as visitor not a resident. There is nothing less Christian than a desire for freedom limiting secular power.
LOL, you should talk literally all you did the whole discussion was bait me with accusations of supporting the enlightenment and the civil rights regime, you contributed nothing of substance or value, welcome to my block list.
How did Christ deal with morality, did he bring in the Roman's or Jewish law givers to enforce it, or did he say we have free will and that in choosing to follow him we must voluntarily choose to give up sinful behavior? I get your beef with the "marketplace of ideas," and how easily libertarianism because libertinism, but IMO if we are to be true to the spirit of Christ that we ought to ask people to give up sinful material like porn, arguments for child castration, etc, but state censorship is the wrong way to handle this problem, it also isn't true to "render unto Caesar..."
Thanks for the comp to respond BTW, I appreciate it.
I will try to answer this without diving into the murky waters of Reformed/Calvinist theology. Let's just say that without salvation in Christ and the indwelling of the Spirit, your ability to exercise truly free choice is not a thing. Your ability to do good comes not from the law itself, but from the influence of the Spirit in your life. Hence the fruit of the Spirit.
At the same time it is the role of the king, the state, as ordained by God, to punish wrongdoers. That means that it is the role of the king to limit speech, that is, speech as wrongdoing. The church and the crown work together to both establish and enforce those boundaries, just as the crown punishes the murder. Will this role of setting limits be abused in the same way the the liberal principle of free speech is abused? Of course. But the principle of setting limits on behavior is one established in the Garden of Eden by God himself with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. One of the fundamental ideas regarding sin is the transgressing of boundaries. In that case, it was a desire to know things which should not be known. One of the organizing principles of liberalism is that there should be no barriers to knowledge. At its most basic, liberalism is fundamentally at odds with divine law. I am not sure if there is any biblical injunction which encourages more liberalization of speech. In fact, it specifically tells us in Proverbs 10:19 "When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but he who restrains his lips is prudent." RSV Scripture preaches everywhere restrained and wise speech.
The first amendment requires a people of restrained speech.
I agree that that any state to work well requires people with restrained passions, again the way to get their is to inform the people there is a better way by following the lord.
Just as you correctly point out bureaucratic PMC hierarchical power is inherently progressive, so too is state power inherently secular. The mix of state and religious power has never worked out well. It diminishes the spirit, and leads to people being broken on the rack, which is about the least Christian behavior ever.
You cannot have a society that is free from religion in the public realm. Every society has at its core a great religious principle. If it is not Christianity, it will be something else. The idea of a secular state is a fiction. Presently the great religious impulse of our age is that of human progress. As Christianity was pushed aside after its disestablishment, the new metaphysical reality that came to replace it was the state. There is always a god at the core of society.
You aren't getting what I am saying. I am not saying the state should be secular, of course the word of God should be preached to all people including state officials and hopefully they *as individuals* will repent their sins and be saved. What I am saying is that the goal should not be to seize state power to use the state's force to enforce morality. That is not what Christ was about at at all. Again if that was Christ's goal why did he mainly preach in rural areas to mainly poor people?
I get what you are saying. I just disagree. Unfortunately your knowledge of theology and biblical teaching is lacking and your thinking is mixed up jumble of ideas that have not been worked through either philosophically or theologically. Let’s just leave this here and agree to disagree. I stand by what I wrote.
Lol, sounds like something a Pharisee would say. Have you ever seen William Blake's painting with the musical instruments up in trees, that says something like "the word kills, the spirit giveth life?" The point is you can lawyer the New Testament to death using fancy hermenutics to wring out of it what you like, but Christ's actual message is astonishingly simple, first love the lord, and second treat your neighbor as you would want to be treated. None of that is about seizing state power. All else is babble about how many angels can dance on the head of the pin.
One thing you have done today is to convince me Christian Nationalists are agents of the anti-Christ, where I was just meh on them before.
OK, you can throw me off your sub, I am done, this is not about philosophy (though I was a philosophy major at Oberlin college one of the best liberal arts schools in the country and do not appreciate your condescension) it is about living in Imitatio Christi.
If this is the case then why didn't Christ work with the authorities to try to have his moral law enforced? Because he saw it as a free choice, not one to be forced through compulsion. Christ wanted nothing to do with the state either for or against it, that is why he said pay your taxes, but do not keep the state's laws in mind, keep God's laws in mind.
Because, even though there is a divinely appointed role for the king in a sinful world, ultimately the problem could not be solved by force. It had to dealt with through sacrifice. There are lot of things which have to be held in tension. But one of the first things we must see is that mankind does not exercise free choice. His choices are stained by sin.
Look make a power play if you want, but do not do so in the name of the Lord ,that is blasphemy. Did the original desert fathers strive for power, or did they walk away into the desert to be closer to God?
Is murder immoral and does the state enforce this notion?
Just so with everything else - law is morality and the moral framework of liberalism is inherently destructive for humans. A Christian society will necessarily have Christian laws and this is perfectly in accord with normal history. The Enlightenment is a curious thing because it welds a sort of Christian universalism (all are welcome to the Body of Christ provided they die to the old man) with technique and belief in the supremacy and constant improvement of man's reasoning capacity.
Did Christ reject murders from his flock if they repented, I don't think so, as far as I know, nor did he turn harlots and other degenerates over to the state for punishment. Rather he had confidence that people through their own free will would come to see that living as a child of God leads to a better life. It's troubling to me that intelligent well read Christians would turn to the state what Philip K. Dick (a mystical Christian) called the "black iron prison." If you want to be an authoritarian fine, go join the pagans who worship at the Roman alters, but leave Christ out of it. PKD, also said "Rome never died," IMO calling on the state to enforce morality is just more Rome, is that really what we need at this low ebb of Christendom?
I'm an Orthodox Christian and I see no issue with the state and Church being united. Christ, of course, accepts all who repent. And we put murderers to death because it is healthier for the world and humanity. The Church's position on the death penalty is that it is a last resort and necessary that it not stand in the way of other's salvation or cut short their time for repentence and it is lamented because that person no longer has a chance to repent. Moreover, if we simply consent or encourage sin we are partaking of that sin. Basic Christian teaching would state you don't do that. Ergo, if you agitate for a morality which is "do what though will be the whole of the law" you are helping people along the road to hell.
Yours is the ahistorical and unusual take which is straight from Enlightenment thinking, which we know because it's all about individualism which is bizarre.l and ultimately untrue in that ignore what humans are and how we interact and what we aim to be. You are arguing that Christian morality shouldn't be instantiated- whose then, and why is it better?
It's not unusual at all. It comes from actually reading the bible. Until his life was ended by Roman and Judaic authority Christ and his flock kept far away from the seats of power in rural areas. This is not a coincidence, Christ was not interested in secular power, he was interested in spreading the word of God to save men's souls one at a time. In fact when he finally came to the city he was murdered by people with state power. If this is the direction the "dissident right" is going I will get off this choo choo train, for it sounds like you want to replace woke tyranny, with an anti-Christ secular power in the name of the lord.
Great post Kruptos. The question of whether institutions can, in practice, be neutral seems to be one of the primary divisions among “conservatives” or non-progressives today.
Thanks. Yes it is one of those dividing lines. I am in the camp that argues they work for the system, or at least are a part of the system for both good and bad. They are not merely empty vessels to be wielded as we see fit.
For a look into the history of the undermining of Christianity of the West, albeit a bit conspiratorial at the start for my taste, one can find Libido Dominandi over on archive.org
Second half or so covers propaganda, NGO predecessors, the Civil Rights movement, and the sexual revolution.
I am familiar with E Michael Jones Work, and even started that book, and got roughly through the French Revolution section in the book. I am not arguing for modern civil rights law you presumptuous twatwaffle, I am saying that bringing in state goons to enforce even a good morality isn't the way of Christ. If it is show me evidence from the New Testament that, that is the case.
Romans 13:1-5
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
That's a plee to be in the world but not of the world, not a plee to use state power to enforce morality. Surely you understand that as an extremely intelligent man? This is like Christianity 101 stuff.
The passage lays out in very simple terms the role of the king, the state, and why it should be honored. The king is God's representative, in a sense is the symbol of divine judgement among other things. The role of the crown is to enforce law, which is always an expression of morality. Even pagan kings are on their thrones because God has ordained it and thus they are responsible to his judgement. But this passage establishes the idea that it is the role of the king to enforce the limits God has placed upon human choice going back to the Garden of Eden. One of the key roles of governance is the establishment and enforcement of morality for the good of society. What do you think the "punishment of the wrongdoer" means? Liberalism would like to exempt certain facets of morality, like speech, from law.
The point is the citizen should obey the law, and not make trouble, not that Christians should seize the throne to impose the word of the lord through force. Christ always said keep your eyes pointed towards God and his laws, and go through the world as visitor not a resident. There is nothing less Christian than a desire for freedom limiting secular power.
This is the second time you have done name calling so I can only assume you are not a serious person.
And what are you doing? Do ring me up when you care to address the substantive content of what I actually said.
By your fruits ye shall know them.
Yours seem filled with hate, and I will pray for you, Mr. Raven.
LOL, you should talk literally all you did the whole discussion was bait me with accusations of supporting the enlightenment and the civil rights regime, you contributed nothing of substance or value, welcome to my block list.
How did Christ deal with morality, did he bring in the Roman's or Jewish law givers to enforce it, or did he say we have free will and that in choosing to follow him we must voluntarily choose to give up sinful behavior? I get your beef with the "marketplace of ideas," and how easily libertarianism because libertinism, but IMO if we are to be true to the spirit of Christ that we ought to ask people to give up sinful material like porn, arguments for child castration, etc, but state censorship is the wrong way to handle this problem, it also isn't true to "render unto Caesar..."
Thanks for the comp to respond BTW, I appreciate it.
I will try to answer this without diving into the murky waters of Reformed/Calvinist theology. Let's just say that without salvation in Christ and the indwelling of the Spirit, your ability to exercise truly free choice is not a thing. Your ability to do good comes not from the law itself, but from the influence of the Spirit in your life. Hence the fruit of the Spirit.
At the same time it is the role of the king, the state, as ordained by God, to punish wrongdoers. That means that it is the role of the king to limit speech, that is, speech as wrongdoing. The church and the crown work together to both establish and enforce those boundaries, just as the crown punishes the murder. Will this role of setting limits be abused in the same way the the liberal principle of free speech is abused? Of course. But the principle of setting limits on behavior is one established in the Garden of Eden by God himself with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. One of the fundamental ideas regarding sin is the transgressing of boundaries. In that case, it was a desire to know things which should not be known. One of the organizing principles of liberalism is that there should be no barriers to knowledge. At its most basic, liberalism is fundamentally at odds with divine law. I am not sure if there is any biblical injunction which encourages more liberalization of speech. In fact, it specifically tells us in Proverbs 10:19 "When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but he who restrains his lips is prudent." RSV Scripture preaches everywhere restrained and wise speech.
The first amendment requires a people of restrained speech.
I agree that that any state to work well requires people with restrained passions, again the way to get their is to inform the people there is a better way by following the lord.
Just as you correctly point out bureaucratic PMC hierarchical power is inherently progressive, so too is state power inherently secular. The mix of state and religious power has never worked out well. It diminishes the spirit, and leads to people being broken on the rack, which is about the least Christian behavior ever.
You cannot have a society that is free from religion in the public realm. Every society has at its core a great religious principle. If it is not Christianity, it will be something else. The idea of a secular state is a fiction. Presently the great religious impulse of our age is that of human progress. As Christianity was pushed aside after its disestablishment, the new metaphysical reality that came to replace it was the state. There is always a god at the core of society.
You aren't getting what I am saying. I am not saying the state should be secular, of course the word of God should be preached to all people including state officials and hopefully they *as individuals* will repent their sins and be saved. What I am saying is that the goal should not be to seize state power to use the state's force to enforce morality. That is not what Christ was about at at all. Again if that was Christ's goal why did he mainly preach in rural areas to mainly poor people?
I get what you are saying. I just disagree. Unfortunately your knowledge of theology and biblical teaching is lacking and your thinking is mixed up jumble of ideas that have not been worked through either philosophically or theologically. Let’s just leave this here and agree to disagree. I stand by what I wrote.
Lol, sounds like something a Pharisee would say. Have you ever seen William Blake's painting with the musical instruments up in trees, that says something like "the word kills, the spirit giveth life?" The point is you can lawyer the New Testament to death using fancy hermenutics to wring out of it what you like, but Christ's actual message is astonishingly simple, first love the lord, and second treat your neighbor as you would want to be treated. None of that is about seizing state power. All else is babble about how many angels can dance on the head of the pin.
One thing you have done today is to convince me Christian Nationalists are agents of the anti-Christ, where I was just meh on them before.
OK, you can throw me off your sub, I am done, this is not about philosophy (though I was a philosophy major at Oberlin college one of the best liberal arts schools in the country and do not appreciate your condescension) it is about living in Imitatio Christi.
Finis
If this is the case then why didn't Christ work with the authorities to try to have his moral law enforced? Because he saw it as a free choice, not one to be forced through compulsion. Christ wanted nothing to do with the state either for or against it, that is why he said pay your taxes, but do not keep the state's laws in mind, keep God's laws in mind.
Because, even though there is a divinely appointed role for the king in a sinful world, ultimately the problem could not be solved by force. It had to dealt with through sacrifice. There are lot of things which have to be held in tension. But one of the first things we must see is that mankind does not exercise free choice. His choices are stained by sin.
And this supports replacing a woke tyranny with a peduo-Christian tyranny exactly how?
That is a big assumption
Look make a power play if you want, but do not do so in the name of the Lord ,that is blasphemy. Did the original desert fathers strive for power, or did they walk away into the desert to be closer to God?
Without faith works are nothing.
Is murder immoral and does the state enforce this notion?
Just so with everything else - law is morality and the moral framework of liberalism is inherently destructive for humans. A Christian society will necessarily have Christian laws and this is perfectly in accord with normal history. The Enlightenment is a curious thing because it welds a sort of Christian universalism (all are welcome to the Body of Christ provided they die to the old man) with technique and belief in the supremacy and constant improvement of man's reasoning capacity.
Also please don't attribute support for the enlightenment to me. I don't support it, ask before being a presumptuous ass.
Did Christ reject murders from his flock if they repented, I don't think so, as far as I know, nor did he turn harlots and other degenerates over to the state for punishment. Rather he had confidence that people through their own free will would come to see that living as a child of God leads to a better life. It's troubling to me that intelligent well read Christians would turn to the state what Philip K. Dick (a mystical Christian) called the "black iron prison." If you want to be an authoritarian fine, go join the pagans who worship at the Roman alters, but leave Christ out of it. PKD, also said "Rome never died," IMO calling on the state to enforce morality is just more Rome, is that really what we need at this low ebb of Christendom?
I'm an Orthodox Christian and I see no issue with the state and Church being united. Christ, of course, accepts all who repent. And we put murderers to death because it is healthier for the world and humanity. The Church's position on the death penalty is that it is a last resort and necessary that it not stand in the way of other's salvation or cut short their time for repentence and it is lamented because that person no longer has a chance to repent. Moreover, if we simply consent or encourage sin we are partaking of that sin. Basic Christian teaching would state you don't do that. Ergo, if you agitate for a morality which is "do what though will be the whole of the law" you are helping people along the road to hell.
Yours is the ahistorical and unusual take which is straight from Enlightenment thinking, which we know because it's all about individualism which is bizarre.l and ultimately untrue in that ignore what humans are and how we interact and what we aim to be. You are arguing that Christian morality shouldn't be instantiated- whose then, and why is it better?
It's not unusual at all. It comes from actually reading the bible. Until his life was ended by Roman and Judaic authority Christ and his flock kept far away from the seats of power in rural areas. This is not a coincidence, Christ was not interested in secular power, he was interested in spreading the word of God to save men's souls one at a time. In fact when he finally came to the city he was murdered by people with state power. If this is the direction the "dissident right" is going I will get off this choo choo train, for it sounds like you want to replace woke tyranny, with an anti-Christ secular power in the name of the lord.
No deal!