re: #248 Nyet

Modern liberal versions of Christianity look more like a historical aberration.

And to anyone who claims to be able to differentiate between false and real Christians (with the exception of the objectively clear cases, like e.g. the Marranos), I can only say: on what basis? On the basis of your own interpretations of the Christian Scriptures? Why would another sect accept them? And are you sure that yours doesn’t suffer from the cafeteria approach?

Modern “liberal” versions of Christianity only exist because the whole religion was dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era by the Enlightenment.

Without a secular state to impose restrictions on what they can do now, the most fundamentalist and violent of the sects would overwhelm the others again and reimpose theocratic governance.

Contrary to the feel-good narrative about the Puritans coming to Massachusetts to escape persecution, the real reason they came was to set up a theocracy (which they did). Puritans (Congregationalists) tortured, exiled, or killed outright Baptists, Quakers, or anyone else not a Puritan.

It was the Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut who stumped hard for a clause in the Bill of Rights to include separation of church and state, because they were weak and needed government protection. Baptists today want to tear out the same separation because they no longer need protection, they wish to rule.

The American Family Association right now is stumping to have the Johnson Amendment removed the tax code so they can politick from the pulpit; a large number of various denominations of churches are right in there with them.