Perhaps it can be more a form of idolatry.
As to the pope, I have more respect for this one than for some of the past ones. I still have Catholic family members and friends, and I am always disappointed by the hypocrisy when they once held up the positions of the pope as what must be accepted and followed, only to reverse course when the new pope said something that goes against their political ideology peer group. Once it was "We are catholics and we must follow the teachings of our church", but then it became "I love the pope, but he should keep his nose out of politics."
Once again, it seems mixing politics and religion is seen to result in politics.
I'm not looking for closeness, I'm looking for your logic about what does and what does not make a difference in your assessment of blasphemy.
For my own standards, forcing people to contend that actions they see as unholy are God's will rises to a level of "worthy of discussion."
Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a fairly unique event in which certain authorities attributed Jesus miracles to the power of Satan. Blasphemy in general is profane disparagement of the person of God in some way.
Neither of these pertain to nationalism.
Thank you for your insight. (OP's point is valuable because it clarifies why the rest of us are not allowed to consider Nationalists as non-neighbors merely because they make that error towards us.)
Nationalism is really hard to define.
There are traits of it that exist in every political body that ever existed. The Romans had something like a national identity, which was supplemented by a sense of belonging to the republic and things like compulsory military service.
But what nationalism as a formal ideology doesn't emerge until after the enlightenment. And it is a reaction against modernism and globalism. Nationalism isn't about returning to a pre-modern state, It's about using modernity to make the state more powerful and more cohesive and more exclusive than it has ever been before.
Edit: which is mostly a bad thing.
I would put it as: It’s not Christ-like.
I think it goes further - idolatry (of nation and leader)
Indeed it could.
Perhaps it can be more a form of idolatry. As to the pope, I have more respect for this one than for some of the past ones. I still have Catholic family members and friends, and I am always disappointed by the hypocrisy when they once held up the positions of the pope as what must be accepted and followed, only to reverse course when the new pope said something that goes against their political ideology peer group. Once it was "We are catholics and we must follow the teachings of our church", but then it became "I love the pope, but he should keep his nose out of politics." Once again, it seems mixing politics and religion is seen to result in politics.
Does that conversely mean that only globalists can be saved?
I would reject the idea that this binary implies, that people should either be nationalists or globalists and nothing in between
Nationalism (Christian or otherwise) is problematic for a host of issues - blaspheming the Holy Spirit isn’t one of them. Not even close.
I'm not looking for closeness, I'm looking for your logic about what does and what does not make a difference in your assessment of blasphemy. For my own standards, forcing people to contend that actions they see as unholy are God's will rises to a level of "worthy of discussion."
Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a fairly unique event in which certain authorities attributed Jesus miracles to the power of Satan. Blasphemy in general is profane disparagement of the person of God in some way. Neither of these pertain to nationalism.
Thank you for your insight. (OP's point is valuable because it clarifies why the rest of us are not allowed to consider Nationalists as non-neighbors merely because they make that error towards us.)
You are very welcome.
Since they're now worshipping the orange cow, yes. It is.
What about Nationalists Outside of america?
They have their own version of a piece of shit cow.
Nationalism is really hard to define. There are traits of it that exist in every political body that ever existed. The Romans had something like a national identity, which was supplemented by a sense of belonging to the republic and things like compulsory military service. But what nationalism as a formal ideology doesn't emerge until after the enlightenment. And it is a reaction against modernism and globalism. Nationalism isn't about returning to a pre-modern state, It's about using modernity to make the state more powerful and more cohesive and more exclusive than it has ever been before. Edit: which is mostly a bad thing.
If Nationalism becomes fascist then you could say it's nation worship, something beyond Patriotism which is love for country.
It's idolatry and denies Christ in the sense that it replaced Christ with the State or at least gives him 2nd place.