Theocracy vs Secularism

>Look at my tiny insignificant wounds and muh great suffering WAAHHH WAAHHHH worship me goy or I'll send you to hell for eternity despite making you sinful in the first place
If you ever wonder why Jesus and christcucks are so universally hated it's because of their dogmatic worldview.

True fact, he murdered innocent Egyptian babies.

>Oy vey why do they persecute me so!

Attached: R-1716240-1238843806.jpeg.jpg (600x586, 148.05K)

>The Cathedral

I think that Mencius Moldbug coined the term. For the record, last I checked, he's an atheist. I'm Christian. But he has some good insights.

The key takeaway from what I'm saying is that people as as religious as ever. It's just that they now follow a church that doesn't call itself a church.

A secular religion is a belief system typical of Modernity, Post Modernity, and Late Modernity. It is a set of principles based in Materialism. More specifically, it is often a derivative of Scientism. It posits an epistemology and philosophical presuppositions as much as other belief systems, but is often thought of as standing in a category above all other systems, hence it meets the definition of a religion. Although most modern people end up inventing their own religion, one could say that mass media, entertainment, and intellectuals form a modern Secular Religion, since they assert a common set of Materialist values, with some occasional borrowings from traditional spiritual religions.

These days we often hear a plea to such a system, asserting that it is superior to "Religion" or any other belief system and must therefore be the sole driver of law. In fact, it's just another religion. Those telling others "not to push their religion on others" are doing exactly the same thing, since they push their secular values. Whether we like it or not, each of us believes in something, and it informs our actions.

I remember when I was a 16 year old atheist too. Do you have a better way to fix society, or do you like all the degeneracy?

>making you sinful in the first place
No he didn't. When sin entered into the world, so did death.

God made the world good, and his created beings rebelled against him, breaking communion and rupturing harmony.

Forgive my typos, it's late.

Hey fucktard, I was the FIRST to believe in God and Jesus and he betrayed me bitterly for saying the Buddha suffered more than him. He sent me to hell ALIVE and to this day i'm struggling financially and in mental ruin because of J*sus and YHVH's evil ways.

WAAAAHHHHH I can't handle criticism better just send him to hell cuz i have da power!

It seems like you just want something to blame your own failures on.

>what is byzantine, hre
A christian state will get attacked immediately and keep being assaulted for over a thousand years.
Black Plague was a jewish bioattack.
Morrocan scum.
They fell because they became degenerate

No I really don't. I was literally eaten by lions and raped by demons after criticizing Jesus. He plays favorites and discards you when convenient.

Until it happens to you don't judge.

You should delete this picture and say a few rosarys just some advice take it or leave it

Why should I delete the picture?

Until he humiliates and destroys your soul and wracks you with nightmare after nightmare and bodily destruction don't judge because it could very well be you in my situation.

You do you but i can tell you know the truth. I'd rather not take my chances with eternal damnation

You choose the wrong way YOU leave yourself unprotected

HURR DURR your finite intelligence chose the wrong way and so you deserve to be tortured for eternity. FUCK YOU and christcucks. you sadistic fucks should be buried.

Don't make this thread a religious argument. It's supposed to be about the role of religion in the government and how that affects society.

>HURR DURR your finite intelligence chose the wrong way and so you deserve to be tortured for eternity.

I would contend that this is not what actually happens. God's judgement and mercy are not understandable to us.

Luke 12:48
But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

Romans 2:14-15
....for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)

Keep crying bitch nigger

Bruh

What makes you think you're wrong?

...I think deep down, you know you're wrong, and Christ is God..

blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2012/08/28/salvation-for-everyone/

"I have long believed that the God Who punishes people because they made Him mad is the God Whom atheists do not believe in. It seems some Christians don’t believe in Him, either. This is no surprise, and it’s a question that is many centuries older than these corners of Evangelical theology (and their recent occasional forays into liberal Protestantism) actually reveal. It’s not as if every “traditional” Christian for twenty centuries has believed in a God Who zaps the unrighteous and the ignorant, and now suddenly, we have this idea that perhaps God might love someone, might even be merciful(!)."

This world is made to not have a theocracy till Christ comes back. Not God Emperor no theocracy

What is this guy saying?

ah... the old jam-tomorrow trick to make dummies behave in society

Attached: 1511826588069.jpg (610x717, 122.71K)

Where do souls come from & at what point in time does a baby suddenly have a soul?

What will god do with all the souls once he has them? Eat them? Start over?

Lol you goy

Quit reading after first sentence. The problem with theocracy is infighting about theology.

>If we had a theocracy, we would not be seeing many of the problems that we have in society today.
all hail islam, then. besides if you were blind you wouldn’t see problems either.

>Where do souls come from & at what point in time does a baby suddenly have a soul?
When a child is conceived, when life begins. God creates a soul.

>What will god do with all the souls once he has them? Eat them? Start over?
After the world is finished, God will put the souls in the most appropriate place for them. They will spend eternity in communion or discommunion with Him.

Juvenile. And embarrassing.

but religious groups are always filled with perverts.

Except the juvenile and embarrassing thing is believing a desert demon god that literally tortures and murders innocent children to death and tortures the most adherent believers with the most suffering.

You talk like a kid, you argue like a kid, you shitpost like a kid. You are not shocking anyone here, we've seen it all before. Your hatred comes from ignorance. Either that, or you're just terminally disinterested and this is all some juvenile attempt of self-amusement. It's embarrassing either way.

Actually try to learn something instead of posting cringe.

Attached: 1556030095913.png (1292x8757, 3.91M)

without mention of the topic it’s impossible to tell whether you are an sjw or a christard. personal attacks, belittling, go educate yourself, the whole lot. I guess bankrupt ideologies have to resort to such behavior lest they be forced to acknowledge their lack of worth.

these things were never supposed to be either/or

fedoras get the rope

Read his posts before insinuating yourself to a conversation that does not concern you.

>If we had a theocracy, we would not be seeing many of the problems that we have in society today

no we'd be living in a theocratic shit hole like saudi arabia

Attached: slide_10.jpg (960x720, 85.32K)

as I said, there is no need. you ‘argue’ like an sjw, which entails the sad fact that your replies don’t refer to any points your opponents make.

>"The Cathedral" as described by Mencius Moldbug
a fucking jew lmaooo

If you are ignorant of Christianity, why would you allow yourself to air opinions? Ask instead. To default to being presumptuous and obnoxious is the coward's way out, you're merely communicating your lack of intellectual curiosity and presuming yourself to be correct while lacking the basic vocabulary to even carry a debate about the topic, let alone the necessary good faith. But as I said, my conversation with the other user does not concern you, it is therefore very strange that you would feel compelled to defend (?) him, however poorly. Such is the post-truth mindset, I'm afraid.

yeah, like anyone in europe could be ignorant of christianity.besides, you continue with your ‘wow you disagree with me go get educated’ schtick. sjw style, as I said.

I refuse to be christian cause of how toothless the religion has become.

>yeah, like anyone in europe could be ignorant of christianity.besides
I see no indication that you are deft on this topic. Your entire participation in this thread was simply to defend someone who hasn't the faintest idea of how Christianity works on a fundamental level. So by transitive property, I can only presume that you share his level of knowledge and/or his level of debate. So it does not surprise me in the least that you are bluffing yourself out of this by dismissing me as "an SJW", it's really transparent posturing. And speaking of "SJWs", you do share their post-truth mindset, and this is why you're employing these really shallow Alinskian tactics of accusing others of what you yourself are.

Do you want to carry his "arguments"? I'm very willing to debate.

No, I’m attacking someone, i.e. you. nobody is worth defending. I haven’t read his arguments and I don’t talk to people fond of ad hominem and the like, I just expose their idiocy.

I see. So you decided to keep bluffing. I suppose that this saves you from further embarrassment.

my thesis is that both christards and ‘progressives’ lower the level of discourse in the same way and evade discussion with the same blunt methods they think of as ‘tricks’ if not honest debate. their claims or even the truth of their claims is irrelevant, it’s the behavior I’m talking about here. like, you profess willingness to debate me but you just bailed from another debate shitting insults and sjw behavior (for which I called you out, lest you plan to feign incomprehension).

I'm not evading anything. The only one being avoidant here is you. I'm willing to lay down the Christian apologetics as to why not only it is the Truth, it's preferable to not have it divorced from government. You're just bluffing your way through this with the same insults. They're not sticking and they are awfully transparent. If you want to save face, merely go away, otherwise argue the topic of this thread.

The other kid is ignorant and in bad faith, I answered his dismissiveness in kind.

well, if you have the right to claim someone argues in bad faith - and I’m not saying he wasn’t, I’m saying it’s not your right to point this out because it is indistinguishable from a bad faith bailing from your part - then so can I. it is also the sorry case that you still don’t understand that I’m not arguing here and I don’t even know what the specific topic was between the two of you except it was something concerning christianity. I’m merely pointing out the eerie similarities between what you are doing and what sjws are doing in lieu of debate.

I'm a big fan of reciprocity. The other user was observably in bad faith and is observably ignorant of Christianity, hence why his little tantrum in this thread. You decided to take offence in his stead when the conversation did not concern you so it's quite odd that you're judging my "moral shortcomings" in a vacuum. But I understand your mindset, you identified a "christard" and you irrationally were triggered to attack --- how very SJW, isn't it?

>in his stead
no, I’m permanently on the warpath against sjwish tactics, and have simoly noticed your post. for all I care you might even be right about him; I object to the style.

>and have simoly noticed your post.
Incorrect. You simply noticed a Christian.

>I object to the style.
False. You ignored the context to pick up a fight with someone whose ideology you perceive as inferior or wrong. Your "style", ironically enough, is SJW. And let's face it, you're not even willing to speak with sincerity about what triggers you so about Christianity, hence why you slither your way trying to charge anons with their own shortcomings. Which was precisely what I was doing before you intervened, aye, but context matters and, again, that conversation did not concern you.

You are simply triggered by Christians. That is obviously the case even if you don't care to admit it to save face. But have it your way, keep insisting it's about "SJWs".

I agree, religious freedom is just a belief. It's a pillar of the religion of secularism that somehow society is better off if we allow all the false religions too. The best example for why religious freedom is wrong is Islam. Basically forbidding all other religions in your country perfectly preserves their religion in their country. Nobody dares to step out of line because their religion is made law of the land and no other religions are allowed. When we look at the bible, where on earth would you come away with the thought that you should live with a bunch of unbelievers or people of different religions? I think that a multireligious society such as what we have today is a horror scenario of the bible. Of course it can never work and it never will. One religion will eventually win and make the others illegal. Until that happens, naive idiots pretend that we can all just get along.

>The best example for why religious freedom is wrong is Islam.
I intuitively agree with this. But then as a Christian you have to rationalise the situation as to why these people have sealed themselves away from Truth. I haven't solved that problem myself, but I think it's undeniable the amount of political destabilisation that one can get away with through religious missions, this even happens all the time between different Christian denominations.