• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

The American State Religion

andrew

Administrator
Staff member
Real Person
Male
When I mentioned Sexual Utopia in Power yesterday I almost also mentioned a YouTube blogger dba "Turd Flinging Monkey" for some related "not for the faint of heart" thinking on yesterday's subject. I resisted the temptation at the time simply because he's a young MGTOW guy who's often really vulgar (in a funny, young male calling em the way he sees em, the objects of his derision deserve it kind of way).

And then yesterday he came out with this—featuring an unusual degree of maturity and self-control. I'd be interested in y'all's thoughts.

 
There's a diagram he puts up during the talk that's hard to read, so I've posted it here for reference. (NB - The green check marks indicating "politicians closest to me" were put there by the person I snagged this from, not me.)

Political-Triangle.png

(In case anybody notices the green check marks and the legend that says "politicians closest to me", those are not my check marks, but those of the guy I borrowed this graphic from.)
 
I'd put myself in three places depending on the topic: Anarcho-Capitalism, Tribes, or Czarism. Anarcho-Capitalism if we are talking about ideal human responsibility before God. Tribes if we are talking about family structures, 'circles of separation', and interaction between human hierarchy levels. Czarism if we are talking about the overall image of government structure God intended (God is an absolute king, ruling over his Lords (men), leading their ladies and fiefs, etc)
 
I'd put myself in three places depending on the topic: Anarcho-Capitalism, Tribes, or Czarism. Anarcho-Capitalism if we are talking about ideal human responsibility before God. Tribes if we are talking about family structures, 'circles of separation', and interaction between human hierarchy levels. Czarism if we are talking about the overall image of government structure God intended (God is an absolute king, ruling over his Lords (men), leading their ladies and fiefs, etc)

This guy :rolleyes:
 
"The Overton Window has shifted so far to the left that the democrats of yesteryear are now considered literally Hitler."

He is right about progressivism being a religion that hid God under the carpet. Actually it's more accurate they forgot God. Or rather rejected Him when He became inconvenient to their desires. Yet their utopian ideals, which themselves ran back centuries, kept going. The rise of SJWs in recent years was interesting to me because while the phenonomen was kind of new, the language was old and familiar...it came out of the old line Protestatnt churches. They'd been using that language for decades. The fundamentalists used to rail against it as the social gospel.

Today those same churches are still around, but greatly diminished and dying. Any who cared about the true Gospel, about holiness, about truth left long ago. These are the ones with the rainbow flag out front or a woman in the pulpit. Their beliefs look like little more than liberal progressivism with a thin veneer of Christianity thrown on top to make themselves feel better. But seemingly they were once honest to God Christians. I'm not sure where the genesis of this movement was; it goes back centuries; though the histories won't tell you that.

Of course, social justice is but one part of this movement; though I'm sure they had their hand in the other parts: feminism, free love, racism, consumerism, darwinism, totalitarianism.

That last part is notable. Because this isn't only an issue of the left.

In this country we have many holidays; most of them celebrating the state, state power, or its theologies: Independence Day, Veterans Day, Labor Day, Memorial Day, Presidents Day, MLK Day, valentines (romance), Christmas (consumerism). Holiday....holy day. A day set aside from work. Like the Sabbath, this is a very ancient form of worship. About the only holidays that aren't that way are thanksgiving and Easter; although the churches are trying real hard given they increasingly think of the latter, like Christmas, in terms of how much cash it will bring in.

The AFL has long sought to outlaw flag burning.... an act protected for crosses; no movement to ban cross burning, even with it's association with the KKK.

And if society has a problem to whom do we turn (even on the right)? Poverty, drug abuse, crime, etc. etc. Always to government. Even conservatives look to government to solve all their problems, meet all their needs. 'There ought to be a law."

And what is the Christian's solution to winning the culture war? Why, political activism. State power.

But in doing so they are blind. Politics is down stream from culture, which is itself made up of religion. If they spent as much effort on actual evangalism as politics they've had made more progress. But that is hard to do when you loose your salt, when you're more afraid of name calling from the left than of God, when money and popularity are more important than holiness.

The 'culture war' the right so long rails against goes back to the free love movement of the 60's; well, that's when we lost it anyway. And we didn't just loose that war, we adopted the beliefs of the victors. The church is a staunch defender of equality and feminism (by other names if necessary). They abandoned the old ways of forming marriage for dating and then free love. Sure they rail against fornication; but they look the other way while it happens, abdicate their role in preventing it and refuse to condemn those most responsible for it. They complain about abortion of babies, but reject the idea of punishing the real murderer (the one person who could stop it). They worry about their children leaving the faith while abdicating to the atheistic state their role to raise them.

There is a greater point here other than just providing background history. TFM rightly presents this as a religious fight between two factions. But there is a reason one faction keeps loosing: they are constantly defending as 'conservative' things which their forefathers opposed as liberal transgressions. But once taken they dutifully defend beach heads the left established a generation prior. And there is a reason: fundamentally at their core they believe the same things as their opponents.They just find the outward manifestations (i.e. the end results of the matter) distasteful. They are too afraid of the world to stand strong against being accused of wrong think. They have completely lost sight of history; they don't even know what came before, that they are more liberal than the liberals of 30, 60, 90 years ago.

We are our own worst enemies. We will keep loosing this battle until the time we find the stones to stand against popular opinion and feel-bads and actually fight it.

Actually now that I think about it, with the possible exception of the atheism portion of darwinism, American Christians have embraced all the core tenants the current progressive religion.
 
Hate to be the grinch, but even Thanksgiving is tainted. All we hear about in public schools is Pilgrims and Indians, but the Thanksgiving we celebrate as a national holiday was instituted by Lincoln in 1863 after the Union victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg.

We are our own worst enemies. We will keep loosing this battle until the time we find the stones to stand against popular opinion and feel-bads and actually fight it.
Truth.
 
Ya in that respect, Thanksgiving is a celebration of the founding of the country.
 
So not to be argumentative...

But arent all nations just really large family clans?

What is the difference?

Cus I feel like, if we take this idea of the patriarchal clan to its logical conclusion, eventually it would look the same. You'd have a bunch of families and their kids all led by one eldest son when the father dies, or by the father while he lives. My father is 67 and has two sons, my brother and I. I have one son right now and my brother is single. Just doin math: even if dad had me when he was 16, and then me, and so on, I think youd get 4 generations of fighting age men. If my dad had say 7 wives and each had 3 sons and so on... you could get an army numbering in the thousands. At that point... isnt that a nation?

Israel is called a nation whom God treats as a singular entity in metaphors. While He did not originally intend then to have a king, He did intend for them to be a distinct nation, with their own military strength, laws, etc. His prophecy about Ishmael suggests God has destinies for other nations as well.

So where does it cross from just being a super huge plural clan (in an ideal world) to a 'state'?
 
And what is the Christian's solution to winning the culture war? Why, political activism. State power.

But in doing so they are blind. Politics is down stream from culture, which is itself made up of religion. If they spent as much effort on actual evangalism as politics they've had made more progress. But that is hard to do when you loose your salt, when you're more afraid of name calling from the left than of God, when money and popularity are more important than holiness.
This is very important to keep in mind. The solution we can tend to jump to is to try and fix the problems we see, and the most logical way to fix them is through political activism. But it won't work, because fixing it is not our job. Our job is to spread the Kingdom. If we're abundantly successful, the other problems will become irrelevant, if we're less successful than that we'll still have done our job.

I say this as someone who keeps having to re-learn this lesson and isn't very good at it...
 
So not to be argumentative...

But arent all nations just really large family clans?

What is the difference?

Cus I feel like, if we take this idea of the patriarchal clan to its logical conclusion, eventually it would look the same. You'd have a bunch of families and their kids all led by one eldest son when the father dies, or by the father while he lives. My father is 67 and has two sons, my brother and I. I have one son right now and my brother is single. Just doin math: even if dad had me when he was 16, and then me, and so on, I think youd get 4 generations of fighting age men. If my dad had say 7 wives and each had 3 sons and so on... you could get an army numbering in the thousands. At that point... isnt that a nation?

Israel is called a nation whom God treats as a singular entity in metaphors. While He did not originally intend then to have a king, He did intend for them to be a distinct nation, with their own military strength, laws, etc. His prophecy about Ishmael suggests God has destinies for other nations as well.

So where does it cross from just being a super huge plural clan (in an ideal world) to a 'state'?
"Nation" actually comes from the same root as "natal" and "nativity", and originally was the plus size of "tribe". The problem in the modern world is the "nation-state", or simply the "modern state", which is an arbitrary exercise in line drawing that often separates ethnic groups or combines diverse groups that don't get along--groups that do not have any identifiable ancestor in common and not much else in common either.

So the short answer to your question is: No, all nations aren't just really large family clans.
 
So not to be argumentative...

But arent all nations just really large family clans?

What is the difference?

Cus I feel like, if we take this idea of the patriarchal clan to its logical conclusion, eventually it would look the same. You'd have a bunch of families and their kids all led by one eldest son when the father dies, or by the father while he lives. My father is 67 and has two sons, my brother and I. I have one son right now and my brother is single. Just doin math: even if dad had me when he was 16, and then me, and so on, I think youd get 4 generations of fighting age men. If my dad had say 7 wives and each had 3 sons and so on... you could get an army numbering in the thousands. At that point... isnt that a nation?

Israel is called a nation whom God treats as a singular entity in metaphors. While He did not originally intend then to have a king, He did intend for them to be a distinct nation, with their own military strength, laws, etc. His prophecy about Ishmael suggests God has destinies for other nations as well.

So where does it cross from just being a super huge plural clan (in an ideal world) to a 'state'?

Agreed. I'm not sure anyone here is arguing against the nation-state as a concept; unless I missed it from TFM.

From that perspective a state would be government that crosses clan/tribal boundaries; often encompassing all peoples of a given ethnicity.
 
This is very important to keep in mind. The solution we can tend to jump to is to try and fix the problems we see, and the most logical way to fix them is through political activism. But it won't work, because fixing it is not our job. Our job is to spread the Kingdom. If we're abundantly successful, the other problems will become irrelevant, if we're less successful than that we'll still have done our job.

I say this as someone who keeps having to re-learn this lesson and isn't very good at it...
This is a false dichotomy.

While we live in a democratic republic, even if it is mostly in name only, we have a voice and a vote, and it is an abdication of male responsibility to take the position that it is "not our job" to participate in the process. Meanwhile, there is no inherent mutually exclusive relationship between spreading the gospel and participating in the political process, and participation in the political process actually creates more opportunities to "spread the Kingdom", and vice versa.
 
Agreed. I'm not sure anyone here is arguing against the nation-state as a concept; unless I missed it from TFM.

From that perspective a state would be government that crosses clan/tribal boundaries; often encompassing all peoples of a given ethnicity.
You and I cross-posted, taking somewhat different perspectives in our responses. I think the resolution is something like:

The word "nation" etymologically and historically came to us from the idea of an ethnic group that grows to be pretty large. A really big "tribe" or clan", ultimately, after the die-off of the founding ancestor and a few more generations, led by a cluster of elder men that would be heads of sub-clans, probably cousins of some sort.

Over time, the trading and retrading of lands owned/governed by particular clans and kingdoms has created a rather arbitrary and not-particularly-sympathetic-to-family-relationships drawing of boundaries surrounding lands that are governed by modern bureaucracies, so let's call that the 'bureaucratic state' or just 'modern state'.

In the 21st century, the word "nation" becomes problematic, because it retains both connotations, and it's not always clear in what sense one is using it.

Personally, I prefer not to use "nation" to describe modern bureaucratic states, and try to reserve "nation-state" to situations in which the "nation-state" in question actually has an identifiable ethnic basis.
 
A state is basically sovereign government; there are different forms. Until recently most European states were nation-states (a state composted of a single ethnicity or majority thereof). In colonial areas many of them are states, not nation-states, because the lines were drawn specifically to split tribes and bunch together competing tribes so as to nullify tribal power. The US is a multi-ethnic empire; though we used to more or less be a nation-state. We used to be mostly British; then we took on a distinctly American character. But that now has been diluted and denied to the point we've forgotten and our rules deny we ever had a culture.

I agree it is a both and situation. But I also think that Christians in the last 30 years put all their faith in political action and little to none in the transforming power of the Gospel.

In fact quite the opposite, they have studiously abandoned holiness and obedience in an attempt to appeal to the world, and in fear of rejection by the world, in order to do 'evangelism'. They've lost their salt.

I see we're still cross posting. It's all good :). I think we're on the same page.
 
We continue to cross. All good; it appears to me we're saying similar things from different perspectives.

I agree with your assessment of the modern church, particularly the modern "religious right", which is basically a tool of the plutocracy. My interest is at the individual level for "men like us". We can think "religiously" and "politically" at the same time, and in fact are doing so, even if we deny it.
 
And I was cross posting initially as well, as my comment was more about considering the variation between ethnic groups and nations and where they become a state.

Like, I am the only male in my family tree to carry my great great grandfather's name. I already have one son and intend to have more. I believe it is my responsibility to grow the family God has blessed me with.

So ultimately I guess my question is: do I get to be a nation? ;)
 
Go for it!! :cool:
 
While we live in a democratic republic, even if it is mostly in name only, we have a voice and a vote, and it is an abdication of male responsibility to take the position that it is "not our job" to participate in the process.
This is true. My point was that, when there's a problem (like our current political issues here), my first gut reaction is "lobby politicians, make formal submissions, get involved with political organisations". When in reality, my first gut reaction should be to pray. My primary role is as a citizen of a heavenly Kingdom, and I am to take matters first to my King.
Then, it may be appropriate to also engage with the human authorities. By voting in a democracy, or otherwise in other systems (I wonder how many Christians in China are working up the ranks in the Communist party?). This is legitimate - but should not be our first response.
I have to continually relearn these priorities.
 
Back
Top