Rep. Lauren Boebert said humanity is in its 'last days' and Christians should 'rise up,' invoking Christian nationalist

[Quorra2.0]

Nationalism has always been a huge part of American life.

Every sports game we have is still opened up with our nation anthem, hands over heart…
Every school kid’s day is still started with a pledge of allegiance to our flag, hand over hearts still…

We’re weirdly nationalistic to other nations.

Nationalism and patriotism isn’t the same thing. It’s odd you think we are weirdly nationalistic to other countries when there are many that are nationalist countries: China, Russia, Japan, North Korea…

I haven’t said the pledge of allegiance since kindergarten and oldest was only one of my kids who started their school day with it but only when she went to K4 at a private school.

They’re the SUPER CRAZY nationalist countries…

But compared to every other Western European country were weirdly nationalist.

Pretty much every public school in the country starts the day with the pledge. We even used to do what looked like the Nazi salute before that bastard stole it and we had to change it to the hand over heart…

But I would say we fit the definition of modern nationalism.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/patriotism-vs-nationalism


“In most contexts today, nationalism is “the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one’s own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.” In short, nationalism is a kind of excessive, aggressive patriotism.
Modern nationalism is rooted, in part, in French and American revolutions that fought for the sovereignty of their people over monarchies. This historic nationalism is generally viewed favorably, a cornerstone of Western liberalism and democracy.”

“It’s used for political ideologies and movements that a more extreme and exclusionary love of one’s country—at the expense of foreigners, immigrants, and even people in a country who aren’t believed to belong in some way, often racial and religious grounds.” from your source referencing nationalism. An ideology that Christian nationalists are superior in this nation, should have privilege above others, and need to gain control of the government is neither patriotic, democracy supporting, nor even a neutral definition. There’s really no positive spin to nationalism and I disagree that modern nationalism is rooted in the American Revolution. Our early foreign policies were about as far removed from nationalism as one can get in terms of government. Policies that pretty much stayed in place until the Cold War and have treaded carefully somewhere in the middle since.

[mommy_jules]

[Deleted User 1990]

You can’t betray Christianity by quoting the Bible and using the same type of speeches that have been used since the formation of the church itself.

[Quorra2.0]

Can you expand on this please?

The Russian/Ukrainian war has nothing to do with religion, stating or inferring it is while quoting scripture doesn’t change the fact that religion had nothing to do with why it was initiated, therefore could hardly be considered a holy war despite what Kirill implies. To go a step further, are not the inhumanities that have been done throughout history in the name of Christianity a betrayal to the religion? Especially when many of these were more for secular gains than religious zealous?

You can’t betray Christianity by quoting the Bible and using the same type of speeches that have been used since the formation of the church itself.

[Deleted User 1990]

Not really… not even slightly actually.


Half of the Bible is a blueprint for war, who to kill, when to kill them and how glorified the winners will be…


Putin feels his land boundaries were changed, feels righteous in his taking it back and the Russian church agrees. Biblically, this is ok… socially it isn’t.

Can you expand on this please?

The Russian/Ukrainian war has nothing to do with religion, stating or inferring it is while quoting scripture doesn’t change the fact that religion had nothing to do with why it was initiated, therefore could hardly be considered a holy war despite what Kirill implies. To go a step further, are not the inhumanities that have been done throughout history in the name of Christianity a betrayal to the religion? Especially when many of these were more for secular gains than religious zealous?

You can’t betray Christianity by quoting the Bible and using the same type of speeches that have been used since the formation of the church itself.

[Quorra2.0]

Thank you for expanding. Interesting point of view, no sarcasm. Do you think it matters that other leaders within the same denomination disagree with Kirill? Or maybe a better question: is there a point in which it crosses the line from faith serving to self serving and be a betrayal of the religion?

Not really… not even slightly actually.


Half of the Bible is a blueprint for war, who to kill, when to kill them and how glorified the winners will be…


Putin feels his land boundaries were changed, feels righteous in his taking it back and the Russian church agrees. Biblically, this is ok… socially it isn’t.

7F7F75B8-0306-454C-8683-A26A2FF704BA.jpegBEAC85D3-1EF6-4F24-B01B-2497B88F109C.jpeg84DE2CA9-7D1C-49DD-84CD-C46ED07FFD78.jpeg

Can you expand on this please?

The Russian/Ukrainian war has nothing to do with religion, stating or inferring it is while quoting scripture doesn’t change the fact that religion had nothing to do with why it was initiated, therefore could hardly be considered a holy war despite what Kirill implies. To go a step further, are not the inhumanities that have been done throughout history in the name of Christianity a betrayal to the religion? Especially when many of these were more for secular gains than religious zealous?

You can’t betray Christianity by quoting the Bible and using the same type of speeches that have been used since the formation of the church itself.

[Deleted User 1990]

It doesn’t matter if Kirill is the head of the religion… as far as interpreting the scripture goes, whoever is the head of the specific church is the ultimate opinion on on which interpretation is true.

The only way to betray a religion by going against the religion. So it doesn’t really matter how self serving something is… in fact it might increase the feeling of righteousness the better it turns out for you because the Bible also talks about how much people will be rewarded after their wars…

Thank you for expanding. Interesting point of view, no sarcasm. Do you think it matters that other leaders within the same denomination disagree with Kirill? Or maybe a better question: is there a point in which it crosses the line from faith serving to self serving and be a betrayal of the religion?

Not really… not even slightly actually.


Half of the Bible is a blueprint for war, who to kill, when to kill them and how glorified the winners will be…


Putin feels his land boundaries were changed, feels righteous in his taking it back and the Russian church agrees. Biblically, this is ok… socially it isn’t.

7F7F75B8-0306-454C-8683-A26A2FF704BA.jpegBEAC85D3-1EF6-4F24-B01B-2497B88F109C.jpeg84DE2CA9-7D1C-49DD-84CD-C46ED07FFD78.jpeg

Can you expand on this please?

The Russian/Ukrainian war has nothing to do with religion, stating or inferring it is while quoting scripture doesn’t change the fact that religion had nothing to do with why it was initiated, therefore could hardly be considered a holy war despite what Kirill implies. To go a step further, are not the inhumanities that have been done throughout history in the name of Christianity a betrayal to the religion? Especially when many of these were more for secular gains than religious zealous?

[Lemons]

So much murder destruction violence ugliness. I’ve never read it but I never thought it was that bad.

Between Muslims using their holy book to murder and destroy and Christians using their holy book to try and force people to follow their beliefs, it’s too bad these books aren’t the one banned.

[Quorra2.0]

The Bible?

So much murder destruction violence ugliness. I’ve never read it but I never thought it was that bad.

Between Muslims using their holy book to murder and destroy and Christians using their holy book to try and force people to follow their beliefs, it’s too bad these books aren’t the one banned.

[mommy_jules]

Can you expand on this please?

The Russian/Ukrainian war has nothing to do with religion, stating or inferring it is while quoting scripture doesn’t change the fact that religion had nothing to do with why it was initiated, therefore could hardly be considered a holy war despite what Kirill implies. To go a step further, are not the inhumanities that have been done throughout history in the name of Christianity a betrayal to the religion? Especially when many of these were more for secular gains than religious zealous?

You can’t betray Christianity by quoting the Bible and using the same type of speeches that have been used since the formation of the church itself.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/just/i ... tion.shtml
https://www.gotquestions.org/holy-war.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/just-war-theory.html

https://ethosinstitute.sg/can-anyone-ju ... rspective/

https://comment.org/the-old-testament-h ... -morality/

Anyone can take scripture out of context to justify their goals or mission or whatever. That does not mean it is right or Christian. All denominations have different views on several different topics, but a widely accepted view among them is the “just war” theory.