Hypothetical Question

[TheGrungeDiva]

This is a very hypothetical question, because the US Constitution is very clear that no religion can ever be favored by the government in any way.

But we always talk about how this is a "Christian" nation, and I'm curious ... IF ... IF the US changed its constitution so that it could recognize an official "religion," what religion and denomination would you want that to be?

Looking forward to hearing what others might say. Please vote and comment.

 

[simplyme_bekah]

I don't much care what any human being has to say about all that. Its just static and noise. I simply treat God like he is the answer to every question, that he is my savior, that I believe Jesus died on the cross so that I could spend eternity with him in heaven and pray for all the lost ones. I believe that once you ask Jesus into your heart as your personal savior that it is forever and always. You cannot lose your salvation. You can turn away from God and slip down into that slippery slope into sin but he is always there always holding out his hand waiting for you to turn back to him. It is just that simple. His love is forever and always as is his forgiveness. What the world has to say about it....just really doesnt matter in the greater scheme of things. It is a relationship between you and him.

 

[rainacorn]

Question: the generic Christian option says no ultimate authority. Should I assume then with the other options that the denominational authority structure would be adopted as part of our political leadership? Like if I pick Catholic, the Pope will have authority in American politics? Or like with the Methodist option, their council or bishops would have political sway?

This is a great thread, by the way. Very provocative without being hostile...a rare feat 'round these parts.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Question: the generic Christian option says no ultimate authority. Should I assume then with the other options that the denominational authority structure would be adopted as part of our political leadership? Like if I pick Catholic, the Pope will have authority in American politics? Or like with the Methodist option, their council or bishops would have political sway?

Yes, that's kind of the point when you mix church and state -- and why our forefathers didn't want to do that.

Depending on which denomination had power, it could look very different. Many European countries have official state religions, but the religious authorities do not abuse that power for the most part. But in some cases, there is abuse of power by the religious authorities. It's a tricky balance.

This is a great thread, by the way. Very provocative without being hostile...a rare feat 'round these parts.

Thank you. I try.

 

[violakat]

I'm going to say none of the above. I don't want an Atheistic "religion" as a national religion, simply because an Atheist might come into power and decide that it's illegal to worship God. Also, I believe if I remember correctly, that the USSR was consider an Atheistic Nation, when it was in existence, and I don't recall them having freedom to worship how they chose. But, then again that was when I was a child, so that might be from a child's point of view.

I also do not want any particular denomination in control, because, I don't believe any one denomination has their doctrine 100% correct, as a lot has been interpreted by man and some are not even worshipping the true God.

 

[1still_waters]

Probably Methodist. I mean if I HAD TO CHOOSE.

They seem to have a general core of standards without really being so pushy that liberty would be at risk.

 

[SkinnyGuy]

I would prefer an atheistic one simply because it seems like the path of least resistance.

 

[shawntc]

I chose the generic Christianity. I don't think it would really affect anything given its lack of doctrine or theology. Everyone would basically be permitted to continue believing as they do now.

 

[Tsalagi]

I don't want the government telling me what to believe. Secularism for the win.

 

[jonathanbchristian]

There are more Protestants in the USA than Catholics. The poll is misleading. I would vote for freedom of religon and if the government sponsored a religon I believe they should sponsor charities not denominations.

 

[tribesman]

Today your love. Tomorrow the world!

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I'm going to say none of the above. I don't want an Atheistic "religion" as a national religion, simply because an Atheist might come into power and decide that it's illegal to worship God. Also, I believe if I remember correctly, that the USSR was consider an Atheistic Nation, when it was in existence, and I don't recall them having freedom to worship how they chose. But, then again that was when I was a child, so that might be from a child's point of view.

You are correct about the USSR - religion was technically banned. However, it flourished underground, and in fact many were converted during that period in its history. When Russia moved away from the strict communist rule recently, and people again had the freedom to worship openly, churches saw a decline in attendance. Go figure. Kind of a mirror that Christianity saw its greatest increase in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, when it was illegal and Christians were actively martyred.

I also do not want any particular denomination in control, because, I don't believe any one denomination has their doctrine 100% correct, as a lot has been interpreted by man and some are not even worshipping the true God.

And that is one of the points of this poll: I would phrase it this way: no one has a monopoly on the truth -- we're all just catching a glimpse, because let's face it, we're all mortal, and none of us could possibly fathom the greatness that is God in a single human mind.

Probably Methodist. I mean if I HAD TO CHOOSE.
They seem to have a general core of standards without really being so pushy that liberty would be at risk.

LOL, stilly. I think you might be right. What most leaders in the Methodist church complain about in their congregations as lack-luster in this case would be a benefit

I would prefer an atheistic one simply because it seems like the path of least resistance.

Interesting ... hadn't thought of it that way before.

Thank you all for your input!

 

[violakat]

You are correct about the USSR - religion was technically banned. However, it flourished underground, and in fact many were converted during that period in its history. When Russia moved away from the strict communist rule recently, and people again had the freedom to worship openly, churches saw a decline in attendance. Go figure. Kind of a mirror that Christianity saw its greatest increase in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, when it was illegal and Christians were actively martyred.

Grunge, I think the reason Christianity flourishes so well when it's illegal, is because those who are true die hard Christians are going to be the only ones willing to die for their beliefs. Those who don't really believe are not going to. Not only that, it cause people's faith to flourish in ways we don't understand. And someone who's not a Christian sees how much someone is willing to die for what they believe, it causes them to think.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I chose the generic Christianity. I don't think it would really affect anything given its lack of doctrine or theology. Everyone would basically be permitted to continue believing as they do now.

Perhaps. Although, would non-Christians still be allowed their own freedoms? Would Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and even atheists lose their rights to worship as they see fit? In some countries where there is a "state religion," those who are not of that religion are tolerated, even allowed to worship. In others, those who are not part of the state religion are either extradited or executed.
I'd like to think the US would be more like the first example.

I don't want the government telling me what to believe. Secularism for the win.

I agree with you there.

There are more Protestants in the USA than Catholics. The poll is misleading.

There are more Protestants than Catholics, but the protestants are not united under one single denomination. There are also multiple Catholic denominations (called "rites," including Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, etc.), but Roman Catholicism is the largest single unified denomination, as far as adherents, in the US.

Within Protestantism, we then have hundreds of denominations, and some of them are more unified than others. Today, more Americans belong to churches that do not have any particular denominational affiliation at all. In other words, the pastor of the church is his (or her) own pope. Most of them will say their doctrine is just the Bible, but we all know that there are lots of different ways to interpret the Bible, and two people who both pray and may think their understanding is completely in line with the Holy Spirit may come up with completely contradictory interpretations of Scripture. With a non-denominational church, there is no authority as to which interpretation is correct, except for whoever happens to be in the pulpit that day. And for many Americans, that is exactly how they want it. If the preacher says something they don't like, they can find a different church where the preacher interprets Scripture the same way they do.

I'm trying not to sound condescending here. Personally, I prefer a denomination, so you have some sort of tradition, some accountability, and don't just go with whatever interpretation you want. I do understand the draw of the non-denominational option, though, so I don't want to make it sound like they are "wrong." Just pointing out that non-denominational Christians are not unified, the way those who belong to a denomination are.

I would vote for freedom of religon and if the government sponsored a religon I believe they should sponsor charities not denominations.

This is how it is now. There are lots of charities that are not religious at all, and the government can support them (and does support a lot of them).

 

[Tandemtruths]

There is a head to the body of the Church, His name is Jesus. I encourage everyone to get to know him. He's a pretty neat guy.

 

[rainacorn]

There is a head to the body of the Church, His name is Jesus. I encourage everyone to get to know him. He's a pretty neat guy.

While this is totally true, I think you may have missed the point of the thread.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

There is a head to the body of the Church, His name is Jesus. I encourage everyone to get to know him. He's a pretty neat guy.

Amen. He is one righteous dude for sure!

I guess where I was going with this thread is not to diminish the above fact at all, but to look at how we govern ourselves between now and That Wonderful Day When He Comes Back (Soon And Very Soon!)

Or, perhaps your point is that all human governments are corrupt to the core, so any attempt for a church to "wed" itself to government, or vice-versa, is bound to fail?

 

[CanadaNZ]

This is a very hypothetical question, because the US Constitution is very clear that no religion can ever be favored by the government in any way.

But we always talk about how this is a "Christian" nation, and I'm curious ... IF ... IF the US changed its constitution so that it could recognize an official "religion," what religion and denomination would you want that to be?

Looking forward to hearing what others might say. Please vote and comment.

They can accept what ever religion they want, but I would prefer they would have faith and believe in Jesus and the Bible. Christianity in many way has become a religion, a set of rules, opinions and ideas, but its not meant to be. It is a faithful relationship and walk with Jesus. Most "christians" don't really believe that the Bible as a whole is true, they take what they want and leave the rest. The Bible is not a buffet or fast food restaurant, you MUST take it or leave it! Anything else is a lie.

"Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world."
James 1:27

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. 3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.


Hebrews 11:1-3

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Christianity in many way has become a religion, a set of rules, opinions and ideas, but its not meant to be.

I am so tired of people saying, "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship." Sure, it's a relationship. It's also a religion. The definition of a religion is a set of beliefs. "Belief" and "faith" are synonyms. Therefore, if you have faith, you have religion, by definition. If you reject religion, you reject Jesus. Period. End of story. You can't redefine a word just so that you can exclude yourself from it. There is nothing wrong with being religious, so I don't know why one would not want Christianity to be called a religion in the first place.

If you say, "Christianity is more than just a religion," I'm totally with you. Although a lot of the religions in the world can make that same claim, I agree that Christianity is different. Well, for one thing, it is right, and all the others are wrong. File that one under "duh."

But to claim it is not a religion is to reject Jesus Christ and to embrace atheism. And that, my friend, lands you clearly on THAT side of right, not on THIS side.

So let me warn you: When you start out your post with this gem, it's going to be hard for me to take anything you say seriously; you've already set yourself, in my mind, as someone who isn't really thinking things through.

Most "christians" don't really believe that the Bible as a whole is true, they take what they want and leave the rest. The Bible is not a buffet or fast food restaurant, you MUST take it or leave it! Anything else is a lie.

ALL Christian pick-and-choose. Because it is impossible to accept everything in the Bible literally. Example: One of the commandments is "Honor thy father and thy mother," but then Jesus said, "You cannot love your father or your mother and also follow me." Of course, we don't take the 2nd one literally. We understand it in a different context. That is exactly my point: Every sentence in the Bible must be understood according to its context. Yes, it is all Truth-With-A-Capital-T, but it is not all literal. Even Christians who claim it is all literal don't take it all literally. See the above example. When Jesus said "I am the vine and you are the branches" he was not saying that we have all magically been transformed into flora. Its poetic speech--metaphor, specifically--and Jesus uses it all the time, as does God in the Old Testament (which makes a lot of sense, for those of us who believe that Jesus and God are one).

I suspect your problem with the Christians you want to put quotes around is that they take some things figuratively that you would rather take literally. That doesn't necessarily mean they aren't Christian. It means they have a different understanding of Scripture than you do. Some people who understand, say, the story of Noah and the Flood as figurative rather than literal are devout Christians who see that story as an allegory that God is telling, on a grand scale. And some people who believe in a literal, global flood are not Christians. Taking the Bible literally is not the same thing as understanding the Word of God as Truth. In fact, sometimes if you take it literally, you totally miss the Truth.

"Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world."
James 1:27

Not sure what this has to do with the rest of your post, but I do like this verse. James is simply harkening back to the OT prophets, who seemed to have to remind the children of Israel about orphans and widows a lot. Kind of like today. Nothin' new under the sun, huh?

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. 3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
Hebrews 11:1-3

Oh, this is one of my favorite verses. Again, I'm not sure what it has to do with your post, or with the topic at hand, but it's a great verse from the Great Book, so no complaints here.

 

[CanadaNZ]

I am so tired of people saying, "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship." Sure, it's a relationship. It's also a religion. The definition of a religion is a set of beliefs. "Belief" and "faith" are synonyms. Therefore, if you have faith, you have religion, by definition. If you reject religion, you reject Jesus. Period. End of story. You can't redefine a word just so that you can exclude yourself from it. There is nothing wrong with being religious, so I don't know why one would not want Christianity to be called a religion in the first place.

The world does not really think that despite the definition. Religion generally defined as a set of beliefs and rules, which is not what christianity is. Christianity is a set of beliefs leading to a relationship with God and in love we respond in loving obedience, which is very different.

ALL Christian pick-and-choose. Because it is impossible to accept everything in the Bible literally. Example: One of the commandments is "Honor thy father and thy mother," but then Jesus said, "You cannot love your father or your mother and also follow me." Of course, we don't take the 2nd one literally. We understand it in a different context. That is exactly my point: Every sentence in the Bible must be understood according to its context. Yes, it is all Truth-With-A-Capital-T, but it is not all literal. Even Christians who claim it is all literal don't take it all literally. See the above example. When Jesus said "I am the vine and you are the branches" he was not saying that we have all magically been transformed into flora. Its poetic speech--metaphor, specifically--and Jesus uses it all the time, as does God in the Old Testament (which makes a lot of sense, for those of us who believe that Jesus and God are one).

I suspect your problem with the Christians you want to put quotes around is that they take some things figuratively that you would rather take literally. That doesn't necessarily mean they aren't Christian. It means they have a different understanding of Scripture than you do. Some people who understand, say, the story of Noah and the Flood as figurative rather than literal are devout Christians who see that story as an allegory that God is telling, on a grand scale. And some people who believe in a literal, global flood are not Christians. Taking the Bible literally is not the same thing as understanding the Word of God as Truth. In fact, sometimes if you take it literally, you totally miss the Truth.

I don't pick and choose and I NEVER used the word LITERAL. I said that people don't believe the Bible is all True, which is very different and sad.