The Fruit of the Christian Church

The reason I opine about this is because it is important, to a degree, to be inclusive and exclusive about the right members. In America, and I talk about America not because I don’t love all Christians. I do. It’s just that I live here, we’re the most Christian nation on Earth, and we’ve got to, as I see it, take up the mantle first to make change. But in America, Christianity has gotten scattered and weakened. We’re not prominent in the culture, mainstream, as we should be. I’ll talk more about some of the legal aspects of this momentarily. Christians have been diluted in the culture by atheism, and by not uniting enough as to core Christian teachings. Even the Catholics and various sects of Christianity that don’t accept us all as equal have contributed to the fracturing, based on the evidence I have available.

I will begin by briefly stating that America is Protestant Christian nation. The Founders were all Protestant Christian or at least accepted the values of it. Protestantism is still the main branch of Christianity, and the leading belief or system of worldly conceptualization, in America today. This was indeed baked into our Constitution. The freedom of religion clause in the Constitution was not for protecting atheism, or Judaism, etc. but about protecting various branches of Christianity, especially Protestant branches. This is confirmed by writings by the Founders like Thomas Jefferson’s letters to the Danbury Baptists, it’s confirmed by the Courts as written about by famous justice Joseph Story, and it’s all over the place in America’s history. Even in the 1800s, people were jailed for blasphemy, because freedom of religion and speech was, originally, predicated on the supposition of inherent Christianity. There’s a famous quote by one of the Founders that the Constitution is only suitable for a “moral and religious people,” not any other. God is still on our money, and in every session of Congress I’ve ever seen, we still pray at the beginning, and have an official chaplain. There were state churches in America. The Founders gave freedom of religion so there was not a single federal church, not because they didn’t want one per se, but because they didn’t want a single branch of Christianity running the government; they still wanted it to be Christian. That’s why various states had official state-sanctioned churches, and it was acceptable.

Christianity was and is important to America. Let’s not forget. And it gave us unity. So core was Protestantism in America that the Founders, in some of their writings, were concerned about allowing Catholicism! Because they feared they might have a higher allegiance to the pope or bishops, rather than the equal community of Christians under Jesus. I will cover details about the Protestant foundation in America in an upcoming segment, yet I’ve provided decent sources here, and all of what I’m saying is rather easily confirmed.

So I’ve established that Protestant Christianity is crucial to this country. And rightly so. It gave us unity, and where the country is united and just, it still gives us that. Important to point out that the most important part of that Protestantism was the core of it: believe we’re all equal, we’re all Jesus’s church, and we can all interpret it individually. This is why there were so many Christian sects in America, but they were all Protestant as to that core teaching, and so could coexist. It’s not to say they differed a lot in what they believed. They absolutely did, and that’s great. But they could coexist, and they lived with another and solved disagreements through reason and patience.

That core Protestant teaching is important. Believe what you want, but make sure you yourself believe it, that it is not superior to another’s belief in a divine manner, and that we’re all equal. I’m not saying you can’t say or understand your belief to be better than another Christian’s. I mean that you cannot say that on behalf of God. That other person is the only one who can themselves come to understand him and his Son, so you need to speak from a place like that, through reason.

That core teaching is important. That principle. Jesus, equality, individual and patience. You accept that, you can do whatever you want. Today, we no longer have that. I think we may be being too inclusive. That’s a leading contributor. Christians are very loving and accepting, so we want to accept people who are atheists, or who mostly, superficially, or vaguely believe in Jesus. We want to accept people who say they’re with us, but ignore justice at every point. And that’s what’s fractured us. That’s why there’s no Christian values in the media, on TV, or in people as commonly as there used to.

And so it is important to say: this is who we are. We are Christians. We are Christian in that we say we are, and we truly believe we are, and we even know we are. We act that out. We do justice on behalf of Christ. No, if you are an atheist, you are not with us, and you should become Christian, or be socially ostracized. At minimum, you need to accept the values. Yet even that attitude can be troubling. It’s that attitude of at minimum, and of offering too much compassion—or rather more accurately compassion where it is unwarranted—that has resulted in our fracture. Compassion without limitation is compassion without meaning. We hold compassion for everybody, but not the murderer when he commits murder. And Christ tells us in Matthew 10:38 that “whoever doesn’t take up his cross and follow [him] is not worthy of [him].” He tells us again that those who are dead, meaning spiritually dead, must be left behind, and we must save ourselves and who we can. Look at all the dead today, my fellow Christians! Look at the atheists, or those who only superficially testify to Jesus but do not follow him. We cannot accept that. Let us forgive ourselves, let us leave them.

Now, when I say that we need to not accept atheists, I usually get some form of tacit agreement. It’s when I say that we need to be careful of even other Christians that we accept that I begin to have to be very clear and assertive.

We cannot accept phony Christians, those who profess faith in Jesus but don’t take up their cross and follow him. We cannot accept Christians who spread division among ourselves, like the Catholics or the Orthodox who profess themselves as the true and only followers of Jesus where certain of them are above other members. We need to leave those people. Did you hear me? I said we need to leave those people.

In the parable of the two sons, Matthew 21:28-32, Jesus tells us that there are those who choose to listen to him and act, and those who choose to not listen to him and not act. A man or woman who claims to believe in Jesus, but does not carry out his will, will not enter the kingdom of heaven. I have met people who like to say they have faith, but do too many unholy things. But as Christ says, a tree is known by its fruits (Luke 6:44). True faith is totally rich, if you have it. And if you do, then you do always, and without hesitation or question, and need not look further. You do.

It’s time, my Christian brothers and sisters, to pick up our cross and follow our God. Those who do not accept him, who do not believe we are all equal brothers and sisters, those who spit at him, or those who do not follow him again and again, we must leave. We must save ourselves and who we can. If we offer forgiveness to those who Christ says are “not worthy of [him],” we will fail to offer it to those who are, since it means something to follow Jesus Christ.

Yes, we must be careful to forgive those who are worthy, and not confuse the good fruit from the bad fruit. I’ll talk more about how we do that soon enough. Briefly, it involves asking whether they follow Christ at their core, or only pretend to. In the parable of the two sons, Jesus says someone who refuses to profess faith in him, but acts in service of him anyway, will be saved. When in doubt, ask yourself: No matter what this person says, or does outwardly, what do their actions truly represent? If their actions represent good, they are good and holy, they are welcome here, and we love them not only in heaven but on Earth. If they don’t, then leave them, pick up your cross, save who and what you can, and follow Jesus. The Word of the Lord. I will provide more details in an upcoming section, because this is a crucial differentiation, and there are strategies for ensuring ripe decision-making. Bear with me, and do your best, using what you know and the overarching principles I have shared, and will.

It is precisely because of our love that we must love.

But let us first acknowledge that the fracturing of the Christians across the globe, and the solution we must implement, involves saving the good fruit, and leaving the bad. Let Christ forgive the wicked, as only he can do that. We must pick up our cross. If we do, the road to Paradise, saving the country, saving the world, will be before us.

The first part of this battle involves dealing with the atheists. We need to properly form our movement and establish a shared common ground for justice. I do that here.

Hello, atheist. I'm a Christian. But don't let that word scare you. I believe in individual autonomy and the rest. Throughout this discussion I'm not going to be getting you to become a Christian, because that goes against the essence of peace and friendship I believe in. All I want to do is establish a shared ground for justice.

I'm sure we can both agree, as Americans, that the country is undergoing a significant fracturing. Polls show the majority of Americans foresee a civil war as likely. This is especially pronounced among younger Americans who are more detached from the just framework that I think formed this nation. People report feelings of isolation, detachment, and there is an undercurrent of heavy and unnecessary division I think those on both sides can agree on. We should fix this. My goal here is to identify a cause and solution. I'm certain we share this goal.

The main reason this is happening is because of the lack of a shared moral framework. People don't believe in the maxims of peace and friendship. A lot of this has to do with the left. The left has shattered the nation by peddling onto it erroneously the notion of moral relativism, where there is no definitive truth, but a series of relative truths, each person's "lived experience" consisting of a reality equally superior to every other's. Pushing your sense of justice onto another person is evil. Now, I'm not denying the reality of subjective experience. I'm denying the notion that there can be no basis for objective reality, especially that of a transcendent nature.

I'm sure we both agree that murder, rape, pedophilia, thievery, and other wanton and disgraceful acts are wrong. And not wrong on a subjective level. But moral relativism disagrees, and this is a leading contributor to the fracturing. We need to fix this by acknowledging the true existence of ultimate values, like justice, peace, and friendship. These values exist, they are superior to all others. And understanding this will heal the nation. We need to embody them in our everyday lives. Now, what justice and peace may mean to a person is, within reason, a subjective element. But it does exist, and we can certainly all agree that murder, when it takes place, is wrong. We need to emphasize this, and stress the importance of ultimate and unlimited friendship, peace, and charity through goodwill.

I would state that these values have a Christian origin, but it's not necessary to accept these values as Christian. They can be accepted on their own, with any basis, because they are truthful. Acknowledging their origin is helpful for differentiation and understanding where they come from, so we can be certain of what they are, especially against those who would demean or warp them. But all we need to do is understand that this is their origin, because they exist in their own right superior to any man-made structure. Can we agree in the transcendent importance of friendship and peace? Can we agree that understanding their origin is also important, in Christianity? You don't have to accept Christianity, and shouldn't if you don't want to or believe it's righteous. So we have clear picture of what they are, in a sense, on Earth.

Glad we can agree on that. On point two of our disagreement, you've pointed out some things that are helpful. I'll state that as long as somebody understands and embodies the core of these values, that's what matters. In regard to systems of thought originating in non-Christian traditions, I'd like to delve more into that.

There are very great and admirable schools of thought, like Stoicism, Confucianism, and Buddhism. These do share very great maxims like or at minimum very similar to peace, justice, and harmony. What they lack is the nuanced element of Christian redemption and forgiveness. When I say transcendent, I'm not even using that word to necessarily force a worldview where these values originate from a higher plane. All I am saying is that for many, perhaps us all, the idea of forgiveness and redemption from wrongdoing is such a beautiful concept it might be called transcendent. But that's not a label that's necessary to use. I'm not really trying to mean anything having to do with any type of higher plane you suggested.

What I mean is that schools of thought like Stoicism, or Confucianism, while well-versed, lack that quality of Christian redemption and forgiveness. The idea of forgiving people of their wrongdoing, of the possibility of redemption from it, by having a firm resolve in the ultimate justice and friendship of mankind, and our eventual righteous unity: that is a uniquely Christian ideal. Where cultures and schools of thought have come close to that, they are to be rewarded and applauded. Where other cultures or schools have been inspired by that, they are to be the same. But the unique Christian ideal of forgiveness and redemption, along with some similar ideals, is something that is independent of Christianity.

Make no mistake, just in case: I am still not saying you need to accept Christianity. All I am saying is that we should understand not only the importance of justice, but of redemption through resolve to unite humankind. And that we should understand this is an idea that originates from Christianity, just so we know where, on Earth, it came from, so we can ensure we get certain tenets, or or do other such things. But it's an idea that exists in its own right, and needs no testament from any human or group of humans to confirm. Is that fair, and if not, then where do we disagree?

I see where we disagree. Let's delve more closely into that. You state that Christianity does not have a hold on redemption that's unique. I would disagree strongly. And here's why.

Other schools of thought, like the ones you mentioned, do not fully possess the unique Christian ideal of redemption that is embodied in American and similar societies that we often take for granted. Stoicism, for example, does emphasize forbearance, compassion, and self-control. But it lacks the specific mechanism for doing so, the idea that a person, through a resolve in the ultimate goodness and justice of mankind, psychologically and otherwise heals a person from within simply through that resolve, or act. Stoicism asserts that compassion and forbearance are lifelong qualities, that gradually improve human nature. In fact, it's not too far-off from the truth. But Stoicism does not state that the act of resolving for the justice of mankind is itself the act that heals people.

It is important to make that distinction. I'm not saying that Stoicism doesn't come close. It actually comes pretty damn close. But if we were living in a Stoicism based society, and all the Founding Fathers here in America were Stoic instead of, as we know, mostly Christian, things would be different. Even though our culture has fractured, we do still believe in that unique aspect and process of forgiveness and redemption. When somebody does something wrong, and we act well to help them, we forgive that person when they truly admit wrongdoing, and commit to doing things better. If we were a Stoic society, somebody would do something bad, but we would have them commit to doing better, and only after seeing results, or after a few years of better behavior, would we then admit they have healed.

I noticed you brought up a few rational arguments, like studies showcasing better techniques for societal cohesion. I can use those, too, if that helps. The studies show that when you give people forgiveness right then and there, when you offer them unmitigated friendship for their resolve alone, that leads to be better behavior in both the long and short-term than rewarding them on a behavior by behavior basis. If we want a very cooperative and effective society, even from a purely carnal aspect, the best way of doing so is to offer a form of friendship that is unmitigated from the beginning, not based on rewarding behavior step by step. And yet, make no mistake: this is a quality that is unique from Christianity. It's not that other schools of thought don't have redemption: they lack this immediate and unmitigated redemption from the resolve of that person alone.

This is what American and other Western cultures to a degree are based on, and it's why, practically, our society flourishes when it does. The same goes for Buddhism and Confucianism, and rationalism. Buddhism and Confucianism do discuss aspects of forgiveness, and they often do so in very persuasive, profound ways. I respect them for that. They do not, however, preach the uniquely–historically, at least–Christian aspect of immediate forgiveness through resolve. If you look through all the texts of them, this does arise from Christianity, in this particular way. And from a purely rational basis, this is the best way of behaving to get people to cooperate. It is important, therefore, to understand that this does come from Christianity.

I want to propose something rather simple, that's something we almost surely still agree on. I'm sure as Americans we both adore free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, privacy, individual autonomy, and so on. We might disagree on specific nuances, but in general I'm sure we agree those are important in core American ways. All I want to say is that these rights, principles, are fundamental and inalienable. And these exist without any denomination. But like justice and goodwill, these rights arose from Christianity, especially Protestant Christianity. You don't have to be a Protestant or Christian. These rights arose from Protestant Christianity. That's probably something obvious about Christianity, but I'll emphasize specifically Protestantism.

Even in other Christian nations, they believed in justice and goodwill, but not all countries had free speech or individual autonomy. These principles arose from the Protestant movement, were formed into a prominent shape in England and somewhat France, and came to their fruition in America. Individual autonomy and free speech are Protestant Christian concepts, originally. The Catholics, for example, believed in justice and charity. But they didn't think that meant free speech. They didn't interpret it that way. It was the Protestants who said: we interpret justice and charity to mean free speech and individual autonomy. It was derived from the idea that we are all equal under Christ, can all interpret his Word ourselves, and that came to be embodied into the Enlightenment idea of free speech and individual equality.

That's important to recognize because even though many believe in justice, justice can mean a different thing to many people. It's important we understand that justice does mean, in the way you and I understand it–which is the correct way–justice means things like free speech and individual autonomy and integrity. That's an originally Protestant Christian formation. And recognizing its origin is important to making sure we get it right, because people sometimes want to warp those principles. They can't if we understand where they arose from.

Locke was not secular. He was a devout Christian. Locke, indeed, was the most prominent of Enlightenment thinkers American liberalism drew from, which formed our rights. His justifications for inalienable rights are sprinkled with God all over them. I can cite many sections from his Second Treatise to prove it. So, the idea that there were many secular Enlightenment thinkers who codified this, based on the way you framed it, is wrong. The most defining aspect of it, at minimum, is Protestant Christian based.

Even those like Rousseau and Voltaire who may have been more secular still drew heavily from the set of Protestant Christian ethics that paved the way and made it possible for these ideas to arise. Voltaire did not pull his thoughts from a vacuum, but derived them from centuries of Protestant Christian ethics. He's not really what I would call the foundation or origin of these rights, but more so an assistant to understanding certain small parts of them, who himself was heavily influenced by Protestant Christian ethics, without which he wouldn't have been able to form. Voltaire came up with very little new additions to what we call modern American or Western rights. What little he did come up with that was what you might call revolutionary was still inextricably tied to these ideals. It's an overstatement to say that secular thinkers uniquely codified these ideas in any real measurable way. At best you can say they assisted in small bits and pieces while drawing heavily from Protestant Christian thought. However, I would argue that's not really independence in the way you describe, as if all your arguments and tenets are Christian, you can hardly call yourself secular, at least in a really meaningful way. These are Protestant Christian ideas.

And even among these "secular" thinkers: once again, the most successful ones which really influenced Western thought were the devout Christians, usually Protestant. It wasn't Voltaire or Rousseau who heavily influenced the Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights. Even they drew almost entirely from Christian ideals, but even that wasn't deciding. It was John Locke. John Locke, primarily, and other Christian thinkers. Thinkers who were heavily Christian or who accepted the primacy, specifically, of Christian and Protestant ideals.

Acknowledging this is important to ensure the rights do not get warped, like still happens in other places like Canada. Canada, from what I understand, was not Protestant like America was, and they had or have some state-enforced version of Catholicism, am I correct in that, at least somewhat? Catholicism does not believe in individual autonomy like Protestantism did, and helped form. That's why Canadians don't have as many free speech laws. You heard about that priest in Canada banned from public speaking for saying something the government disagreed with? Doesn't happen here in the states, because we know that's wrong, because we were Protestant-Christian based. Not Catholic-based. Again, you don't need to accept Christianity. Just accept that's where the ideals come from, to make sure we don't wind up like Canada who will want to spin them a different way.

Okay, glad we can agree on that. We'll pivot to a new topic I realized is important before addressing the last item. Thus far we've been saying things I want to establish fundamentally. These are what I would call factual and objective. Now I'm moving, once more for a moment, to something new. This next item is as objective and as factual as I can make it, however it may possess elements of opinion and prescriptions from myself or those I consider to be very reliable. I've done my best to make this objective, however at times it may have subjective elements and I make no claim for this next segment to be 100% truthful. That's what I want to find out here, so we can establish an objective framework.

So as I was getting at earlier, I still do believe Protestant Christianity is important to this day. You atheists will argue you don't need to accept Christianity to be a good person. You say that anyone can practice these ideals. And you have a point: in the centuries since Protestant Christianity formed classical liberalism and what we know today as the United States, secular thinkers from all sources have contributed to these frameworks, improved upon them, and drawn from such Christian ideals to what can veritably be called a significant expansion. Even if it still draws from Christianity as the source, it has cleared up points of confusion, added new ideas, and gotten rid of some bad or troublesome ones, at least troublesome in the modern age.

What I want to argue, however, is that it's still helpful to accept Christianity, and Protestant Christianity, today. And I'll state why. Again, this is what I believe, but I think I have a point, so let's see. The secular thinkers who have contributed to the ideals of liberty, autonomy, justice, peace, goodwill, do still draw heavily from classical liberalism, which as we established is inherently Protestant Christian. They embody these core principles. They have refined them by a significant amount, and that's worthy of commendation. But they still embody core Protestant ideals. The improvements that they have made, in my opinion, cannot be totally detached from the source from which they drew.

Now, many of these people will protest that you don't need to label them, and that now these principles exist in their own right. I would question that, because as stated if you look at Canada which claims to practice the same ideals of free speech and individual autonomy that we do, they don't. They limit free speech, they limit autonomy. They claim you don't need to label the origin of free speech, because it's obvious. Then they ban people from public speaking because they claim free speech obviously doesn't include certain types of speech. Which is dangerous to an American sense of liberty, which is the best form, you and I both agree as Americans.

Now only that, but as a Christian, I would say that if you truly embody the core of Christian ideals, like free speech, justice, charity, then you are a Christian in all that matters. I'm going to cite Scripture and annoy you, but it's in praise. In Matthew 21:28, Jesus says that those who carry out the Father's will but reject belief in him, are more Christian than the opposite. In that sense, you, as an atheist believing in these ideals, are more Christian than someone who claims to love Jesus, but doesn't embody these ideals. That's all it means to be Christian.

What good I do see in the world, from secular and Christian thinkers, has to do with embodying the core ideals of Protestant Christianity. Now, these ideals have improved a lot, and they draw from the classical core in new ways. So you could come up with a new name other than Protestantism to signify that. But I think it is important for me to point out that all these ideals which we cherish, secular and not, draw fundamentally from Protestant Christianity, even the new ones today.

Those who try to warp our ideals here in America today are those who reject that core. There are some people on the left which I hope you condemn that believe in censorship! They want to make things like Canada. What's so worrying about these people is that almost inevitably they will claim to believe in free speech, and that it is important beyond recognition. But they claim that free speech does not protect certain types of speech, and can limit speech that they disagree with. We agree that free speech doesn't cover things like calls to violence. But they want to suppress, oftentimes, speech that they simply politically disagree with. This goes against the core of our Protestant Christian ideals. And I think becoming too secular in understanding where these ideals come from, and even what they are today, is in large portion a contributor to this.

If we acknowledged American ideals of free speech and individual autonomy do indeed come from Protestantism more often, and that even today they still are Protestantism, not only in origin, but in essence, this might not happen. I don't want us to wind up like Canada, and I know you don't, either. In order to protect your liberties, my liberties, everybody's, we need to recognize, in some form or way, that these ideals are Christian. Some people will accept, even, that these ideals come from Christianity, but they say they've evolved today to a point where censorship for political disagreements is acceptable. If we reject that, by pointing out that their axiom is fundamentally wrong, that these ideals still today are Protestant or Christian, we can stop that entirely.

I understand your disdain for religious labels. I get that. Yet you also firmly stand by ideals and rights which you claim to be self-evident, but which many try to warp, and these ideals we both adore are Christian, in that even today they still are directly indistinguishable at their core from Protestant Christian ethics. I don't want to force a label onto anyone, and I know you don't want to do that to me, so please don't take this the wrong way. I'm only pointing this out because the purely secular label that we've tried seems to be being undermined because it's a label that exists in a vacuum, and so people who want to do bad things, intentionally or accidentally, and undermine it. You're not doing that. I am accusing you of nothing. It's other people who do that, people you and I want to oppose. My proposal is to recognize that not only are these ideals Christian in origin, but they still are Christian in essence today, in that they still are indistinguishable at their core from those same set of classical liberal ethics that are Protestant. This will ground them in a way that no one can warp. My proposal is still secular in that it does not in any way suggest or advocate for Christianity itself being accepted. Just that its ideals are recognized in the modern sphere today. Not only in origin, but necessarily, due to the political landscape, in nature continued.

I understand you may have rationale objections. I believe my proposal to be reasonable and taking into concern them. If you have any additional ones, I'd also ask what your proposal is for addressing this issue: the issue of ideals existing in a vacuum, with no ground (or a very detached, old ground) that people are attempting, and sometimes succeed, to warp? If you do disagree, I would ask it's reasonable and takes into account my concerns, which I have already compromised in several areas. If you do disagree, then how can we balance the secular idealism you hold, with the facts that without acknowledging their real and continued Christian existence, they are at risk of being altered badly?

Lastly, if we do disagree, I'd ask to state very clearly the points we do and why, so I can explore that further.

I think we can reach a compromise here. I get that you want the uncompromising definition to be triumphant. I actually agree with that. We do need a very uncompromising definition. And yet, that definition ought to be long, cover all possible loopholes and interpretations, and have long slews of volumes in doing so. Why?

I think your argument is flawed in that it doesn't understand the illiberal notion of things like censorship and how it happens. The illiberal people today actually agree very firmly in the American definition of free speech, which is so troubling. They agree in the first amendment, that Congress cannot regulate speech in any capacity. Very often, it seems they are being truthful when they state they believe this. The problem is that even that uncompromising clarity of the definition fails very often to defend itself against the many loopholes that free speech illiberals will try to attack it from. Even in the 1A, it doesn't protect libel, incitement, or defamation.

What these people will do is argue over what constitutes incitement. They'll argue that any statement that could be potentially perceived as negative could constitute incitement. Someone might say, "I think we should have freer guns laws." And an illiberal will say that the statement is incitement, because it could be construed as them saying they want freer guns laws to commit violence. That's only a slight exaggeration; you can see people arguing things like that sometimes in certain spheres, and these people are gaining traction.

So the problem is relying purely on a modern, secular definition of a principle like free speech, which at minimum has undeniable roots in Protestant Christianity, is dangerous because it leaves too much room for interpretation. The First Amendment is one paragraph. People can interpret it in innumerable ways, and often badly so.

What I'm asking for is this, and here's the compromise: We both agree we need a better definition of free speech. And I'll touch on what the Courts have decided about this in a moment. But why can't we make that definition Protestant Christianity, from its functional aspects? What I mean is that when someone asks what free speech is, what loopholes there are, we don't have to argue for years or longer over what those loopholes are. Instead, we acknowledge that free speech in America is functionally Protestant Christian. So when someone has a question, we can point to the many centuries of Protestant Christian discussion, tradition, and continued purview of free speech, to ensure it doesn't get warped. Crucially, I am not in any way advocating for theological acceptance or instantiation of Christianity. All I am saying is that we use the functional aspects of Christianity, where it arose from, and where it continues to exist, as this uncompromisingly clear definition of the principle.

This coincides with the Supreme Court's decision to a degree, in cases like Bruen and Heller. They decided that, in large portion because of modern illiberals, that rights in the Constitution cannot be interpreted in a vacuum. They must be interpreted in the context of the "history and tradition" of the U.S., particularly in the 18th and 19th century, along with the writings from the Founders when they were codifying these rights. This helps ground the discussion in what these rights really mean. All I'm advocating for is to take that a step further. When someone has a question on free speech that even these foundational texts cannot answer, we look at what the Founders themselves based their ideas of free speech on: the functional aspects of Christianity.

It may surprise or not surprise you to know that not all of the founders were devout Christians. Some of them, like Jefferson, were deistic or rationalist, but they accepted the functional values of Protestant Christianity, and that's what allowed them to create our Bill of Rights and other wonderful, even magical, items. That is my proposal. Because illiberals and others want to warp concepts like free speech, like justice, and charity, like goodwill, and change what they mean: we look to what these concepts are in a purely secular, or secular as can be, definition. We do not peddle the theological aspects of Protestantism. I don't care, in this regard, whether you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, although I'd prefer if you did. But that's not what I'm saying here. I'm saying the functional aspects of Protestant Christianity that help form the necessary safeguard and clarity of the principle's definition should be acknowledged today. We acknowledge that the nature of concepts like free speech are, in functional essence, largely or nearly entirely Protestant Christian. That's why other places like Canada, or other nations, that are even vaguely similar on the surface, have entirely different understandings of rights than we do.

To avoid that, we need to acknowledge our rights and principles of justice, charity, peace, are functionally Protestant Christian. If we separate the theology from the function, that addresses all of your concerns. We need to stress that continued functional Christian essence today, not just in origin, but in nature.

To be clear, do we agree that we are not only using the history and tradition of the U.S., along with the writings of the Founders surrounding concepts like the First Amendment. But we also agree that we use the specific Protestant Christian tradition the Founders inherited, and that is continued to be practiced–where it is functionally today? So not just the secular writings surrounding the Founders, but the historical and existent, and continued, Protestant Christian ethos. We agree on that?

This will solve problems. So now when anyone tries to advocate for censorship for political opponents, it can be said that is wrong because free speech is a functionally Protestant Christian ideal based on certain principles. We look back at what those principles are, skepticism of sacrificing individual autonomy for social harmony, and know that to be false. When we look at arguments for and of free speech today, we look at the arguments that have at their core those Protestant Christian ideals, and which continue to evolve them, rather than those which have no regard for them and don't evolve them but undermine or destroy them.

So it isn't to say that we have a stagnant definition of these ideas. We evolve them. But the evolution needs to be consistent with what they are and what we value about them. So when we look at people who evolve them, we ensure they keep their functionally Protestant Christian core intact, and then analyze how the new ideas contribute to that core, or help shape it in a consistent manner.

It's not even to say we can't have anything radical. Protestantism and putting the individual at the forefront was radical for its time, but it was still Christian. And, interestingly enough, it was actually an argument that the Catholic Church was the radical one, and Protestantism argued for returning, as I know it, to earlier definitions of Christianity and a more ordinary reading of Scripture like in what Jesus said to Simon Peter, that we are all members of his church, there's no arbitrary human hierarchy, which the Catholics believed, and the Canadians still practice. We can have radical ideas about free speech, but they, too, need to be based on some Protestant Christian ethos, either how it has failed, or strayed from its roots, or needs to be reformed to be properly manifested, but still in conjunction with its core principles articulated. So for example, ideas that social harmony should be superior to the individual would be dispensed with, because that goes against the core, and is not only radical, but doesn't have any functionally Christian ideals of equality, individual autonomy, etc. at its core, neither recently nor going all the way back.

I propose using that Christian label more could be helpful in our culture to encapsulate the ideal form of ethical behavior. Only the ethical portion, not the metaphysical. You can use the label to mean metaphysical, and I'd use it that way, but that's not a requirement, nor something I am pushing onto others, which goes against my beliefs. So the ethical label. I think taking back the word Christian and using it to describe these things would be helpful for as a culture to solve the moral relativism and void we see, and the threats American rights face.

I could use it to distinguish between all sorts of people. Including Christians who call themselves Christians but do not carry out these principles of Jesus. And I know you don't believe in Jesus as a holy figure, but when I say Jesus, I just mean the idea of the penultimate embodiment of these principles, which all humans can strive to be a part of. If I define Jesus simply that way, in functional and ethical terms, atheists like you should come aboard if you're honest in your concerns. Because we do need a name and definition for this sort of behavior, and ethical idealism. We've got one, and it's the one we've been using and which our principles still are in nature.

Now we're delving more into my opinion, which I further cannot guarantee is 100% objective. Your atheist concerns are therefore likely more prescient. My opinion is based on my experience and the rest, which is notable in this domain, so I will substantiate it with that.

I think we should indeed adopt the term Christian. That's it, Christian. I think the only ground for membership should be to embody Christian ideals, regardless of whether you profess faith in Christ. I would personally encourage certain members or more to profess such faith, but that is not a requirement. The term Christian. So we acknowledge our Protestant Christian roots in America, and any nation that accepts American conceptions of justice and free speech, goodwill and charity. And we use that strongly to understand what I mean when I say Christian. When I say Christian, I mean a very heavily Protestant-based version of Christianity. But with a new and somewhat radical spin.

First, as I said the only requisite for membership of being a Christian is embodying our Christian principles, which are Protestant-based, or Protestant in nature. That's not to say we agree with everything the Protestants said, say, or do. But it means that of the principles we do support, they are invariably Protestant in nature. We, meaning Christians, put forth the autonomy of the individual, the importance of them before any social or hierarchical structure. The love and charity we all owe one another, if nothing more than as good stewards of the earth and to create the most harmonious society that the most people, all of us, would want to live in. We put forth that as long as you are committed to justice, which is based on many of these Protestant ideals, you are with us. How you decide to live besides that, whether you accept Christ as a divine figure, what your favorite TV show is, or anything else is irrelevant.

Interestingly, this would indeed–assuming you are being honest in your commitment to these principles–accept you as a member of Christianity yet reject many so-called Christians, like the Catholics. Because the Catholics believe in the superiority and hierarchy of the pope. It'd reject fake believers who don't embody the idea of Jesus.

Throughout history, the ideals of Christianity, which people like you might call the ideals of truth, have gotten more inclusive rather than exclusive. The Jews and many other faiths believed as long as you accepted the God of the Old Testament, and adhered to a very rigid set of laws dictating the very clothing you had to wear, you were a good person. Jesus came about, who I'm sure you believe existed and preached–as all scholars agree on that–and said that you just need to do to your neighbor what you would want them to do to you. Radical. The Catholics agreed with that, but they said you had to believe specific tenets of those ideals, practice them in a certain way, and do other things many disagreed with in accordance with that simple Golden Rule. Some Englishmen particularly disagreed, and they formed the Protestant movement, did they not? Now, there is no rigid hierarchy, and anyone can interpret Scripture, and as long as you have faith in Jesus, you are a good person. The ideals of this movement gave birth to our country, known as the United States.

And yet even Protestantism had its flaws. They believed in the universality of the community, as long as you had faith in Jesus, and you had to have faith. They believed you had to accept Scripture. More inclusive than the Catholics, but they still had certain rules.

I'm advocating for getting rid of that, too. And with it, all the names. No Catholic Christians, no Protestant Christians, no atheist Christians, which is what you are if you'll hear my definition out. Only Christians. And the only requirement is not to accept Scripture, or profess faith. It's to enact the ideals and principles of Christianity, most formatively articulated in Protestant Christianity. The bad ideals of Protestantism, like having to accept Scripture, will be tossed away or rearticulated. But the good ideals, of which there are many, like the equality of all those who enact justice, individual autonomy, justice and charity to strangers, those will remain, and be articulated in a new and better regard.

This is Christianity. So that makes you, if you're honest, a Christian since you embody the Protestant ideals of free speech, and seem to detest those who don't. We'll call this a Christian idea of free speech. There is no theological requirement to be a Christian. While I believe in that, I don't support that others have to. The requirement is to embody the idea of Jesus, and the goodness of the idea of his Father. This is Christianity, based off of Protestantism, refined into a new form, just like Protestantism itself, just like America was born, just like the world needs.

Tell me where and how you disagree.

Who says that faith is inherent to the word? Don't push your interpretation of Christ onto me or others. And don't give credence to those who demean what it means to be a Christian. The core of Christianity is not what any human on Earth says; even the Catholics, if you press them, admit that. It comes from Christ. If Christ says faith is inherent to the label Christian, then it is. If he doesn't, then it is not. But don't press your interpretation on it; you're doing what we both agree is so bad. The fact that there are many who warp the truth does not in any way diminish the truth, nor make it implausible that it can be resuscitated; it does not change that these ideas, if they do, mean something at their core which no one can deny.

I disagree that Christian is universally and primarily defined by creedal adherence. If you look at Scripture, for example, Jesus says several times that the only prerequisite for being a follower is accepting him, and his values. Do not give value to those people who warp the idea of what Jesus said by saying that they have value. I understand that many use the term incorrectly, push the Trinity, etc. But that doesn't make them right. And if they are wrong, the correct thing to do is to change the meaning of the word. At minimum, if I am a Christian, I cannot accept them using a term incorrectly, no matter how popular they are. So don't tell me that it's fruitless to change the meaning of this term when I believe I have a duty to. At least preface that by saying it's your subjective opinion. But don't tell me I'm wrong for telling people that I believe warp the word of Christ off. Didn't you say you support free speech? Embody it.

I am not using the label of Catholicism or Orthodoxy, nor contemporary Protestants. I am deriving my label solely from the words and life and existence of Jesus himself. I am not using their label. You are confusing a superficial similarity with anything deeper.

Being a Christian, a real one, does not require faith in the supernatural. Jesus specifically says this in Matthew 21:28, and please don't get mad at me for citing Scripture when I am using it to support your point. He says that those who don't believe in the Supernatural, but carry out good deeds, are Christian. I'm not using the Catholic's label: they're using mine, or Christ's, and warping it.

Based on the errors of your disagreement, I cannot accept your compromise. Here's my compromise. The word Christian means only accepting the values of Christ. Don't accept all those who say otherwise, like the Catholics. They're wrong. This is from Jesus, so my interpretation is closer to the source and true meaning than anyone else. For example, you're an atheist. You probably understand or are aware of the fact that atheists get a very bad rep in the public sphere. There are a lot of atheists who do doushy things you don't support: like mocking Christians, calling them names, and making fun of people who pray after a disaster. That's very rude and lowly, even if you don't believe in prayer, to mock them for trying to cope with a terrible situation as best they can. You don't do that, but let's be honest: there are a lot of atheists who do. Not once throughout this conversation have I associated you with those people, or said that the term atheist is inappropriate because it is the same label that they use. Not once have I ever thought that you are using the label of those rude people. You're using your own, and I understand what it really means. Extend me that same courtesy, and do not say that the word Christian means something that fools and ignoramuses say it does, when Jesus says it very clearly means, and I say myself, that it means just someone who accepts his values, and I even cite the man I claim to follow to back me up.

Let me ask you this: if you can accept that my definition only means someone who accepts the idea of Christ, and can do so however they want, whether through Scripture, through embodying his principles, and so forth, wouldn't that assuage your concerns? You can accept Christ however you want, and Christ, moreover, can mean anything to you that you want, within reason. If Jesus means the Son of God, and you can articulate why you think that, great. If Jesus means the idea of a person, or a state of being, who fights for ultimate justice, individual autonomy, peace, great. You get to accept Jesus, and acceptance and Jesus, or the idea of him, can mean whatever they want to that person within reason.

But we do need a label, and these secular ones like Functional Protestant Ethic don't work. They get warped. Let's use Christian. For these reasons. And what if I told you, moreover, that I would fight, alongside you, or alone, or with any others, vehemently against those who would use the term Christian to mean anything other than what I've said it does? What if I told you I already do that, and will continue to? Anyone who uses the term Christian to mean faith in a creed, or accepting spiritual aspects, I will fight vehemently and tear down, and I will tell them that's not what it means to be a Christian, that they are not if they force that by virtue of failing to embody Christian ideas of equality and individual autonomy, and I will make sure they understand what the term really means. Meet me along the way. This is what we need, and it gives you everything you want.

Nevertheless, I do hear your concern that the term Christian has been co-opted, and that it will be very difficult to revive. Ordinarily, this would not deter me, because justice demands doing what is right regardless of the cost. However, in this case there is a reason which would prompt some reflection over whether a new label could be superior. It's worth asking whether as a society, a world, a nation, we are ready for such an idea. I think not only might we be, but that we might need it. Not just a commodity, a necessity.

I'll spare you the theological details. The proposal is for the term to be Christ. So I am not a Christian, but a Christ. In Scripture, Jesus tells us that we are not just to become like him–i.e., to become Jesus-like or Christi-ian–we are to quite actually embody him. We are to become, as best we can, one with the body of Christ. To you, I'd probably phrase it as, become one with the idea of Jesus Christ, as best we can, or more. Therefore, the term Christian is inaccurate from the beginning, because Christian means being like Christ. Christ-ian. But no, we are to be more than just similar to Jesus, we are to, as much as a human can, embody his principles. We are to, in other words, become not just a Christian, but a Christ.

If we used this term, this would get closer to the source like I want to, it would use a different term that would make defeating the bad people like the Catholics who co-opt it, and it would appeal more to disillusioned Christians who see people professing faith but don't practice it: because the very nature of the term is not being like Jesus, or saying you like that. It's carrying it out, it's embodying.

What do you make of this? Still, once again, only used to indicate the ethical and practical, functional aspects of Christian principles, or as I should now call them, Christ principles.