Is Western Liberal Democracy inherently anti-Christ or Satanic?

[Truth7t7]

I don't know that Western Liberal Democracy is inherently Anti-Christian. From some angles, it's more neutral in some respects.

I think it might be better to say instead that, from the various historical considerations we could bring to the table, it doesn't appear in hindsight that Western Liberal Democracy is inherently Christian. It all depends on the character of who's leading it and using it.

Your whole demise is in using the words "Liberal Democracy" and suggesting everybody is a liberal "Wrong"

You have tried to use your false foundation in bashing the world's "Evangelical Christians" your plot has fallen apart

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Your whole demise is in using the words "Liberal Democracy" and suggesting everybody is a liberal "Wrong"

You have tried to use your false foundation in bashing the world's "Evangelical Christians" your plot has fallen apart

How are you reading all of that into what I said? ... what?!

 

[Arcangl86]

No party flipped as you claim, the south was always democrats, while the north was largely republican starting with Abe Lincoln

As we all know the South is a bastion of the Democratic Par... oh wait.

The conservative wigs and then Republicans started and helped the underground railroad, and those involved with the abolitionist, the quakers played a major role

The wigs and Republicans were both more liberal than the Democrats, who were the conservatives of the day.

The democrats in the house and senate kept the longest filibuster going in US history, trying to stop the Civil rights bill in 1964

Yes, a small handful of conservative southern Democrats from the south. The majority of Democrats supported the bill which was pushed by and signed by a Democratic President. This was also right before the Southern Strategy and the realignment of the political parties.

 

[Arcangl86]

Your whole demise is in using the words "Liberal Democracy" and suggesting everybody is a liberal "Wrong"

No, he is using the term "Liberal Democracy" to describe a political system that most of the world's countries use or aspire to. Your mistake is trying to tie that strictly to American liberalism. (Notice I say American Liberalism because liberalism means something quite different outside of the US). Please, look up the term "Liberal Democracy" and you will quickly find it has an accepted meaning and it's not what you are claiming it is.

 

[lifepsyop]

I don't know that Western Liberal Democracy is inherently Anti-Christian. From some angles, it's more neutral in some respects.

I think it might be better to say instead that, from the various historical considerations we could bring to the table, it doesn't appear in hindsight that Western Liberal Democracy is inherently Christian. It all depends on the character of who's leading it and using it.

I think experience shows that Liberal Democracy is always destined to become anti-Christian.

Early Americans technically lived under a liberal revolutionary order, but most were not true believers in liberalism and instead ordered society around God's commandments.

Today's Americans, (even most conservatives) are mostly true believers in classical liberalism and hold individual liberty as fully sacred. (e.g. the right of a women to vote and be fully equal with men in every regard, the freedom to blapsheme God, the right to distribute inappropriate contentography, the freedom to promote homosexuality, etc.)

The conservative American may not personally appreciate some of these things, but they hold the individual freedom to do those things as Sacred liberty. They view Christianity as nothing greater than a private individual consumer choice that should have no official rule over society. Secular Liberty is the god of American conservativism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think experience shows that Liberal Democracy is always destined to become anti-Christian.

Early Americans technically lived under a liberal revolutionary order, but most were not true believers in liberalism and instead ordered society around God's commandments.

Today's Americans, (even most conservatives) are mostly true believers in classical liberalism and hold individual liberty as fully sacred. (e.g. the right of a women to vote and be fully equal with men in every regard, the freedom to blapsheme God, the right to distribute inappropriate contentography, the freedom to promote homosexuality, etc.)

The conservative American may not personally appreciate some of these things, but they hold the individual freedom to do those things as Sacred liberty. They view Christianity as nothing greater than a private individual consumer choice that should have no official rule over society. Secular Liberty is the god of American conservativism.

And if you're right, what are we Christians supposed to "do" about it?

 

[lifepsyop]

And if you're right, what are we Christians supposed to "do" about it?

We should stop worshipping modern Liberty.

As long as we are living in the midst of a revolutionary democratic order, how about Christian pastors and leaders organize their congregations to vote to abolish obvious evil in their home states? (e.g. ban inappropriate contentography, abortion, promotion of homosexuality, etc.) .. Vote to officially recognize Jesus Christ as king over their nation state. This is how a democracy made up of Christians would act.

But we are a democracy of Christians who equally venerate Liberalism, i.e. Individual Liberty. The American flag, the various statues of Liberty that occupy our high places and the revolutionary liberal order they proudly represent are sacred symbols of that liberalism. Washington DC is the shining city on the hill and the location of our sacred temples. Ideally, Christians would be at least ambivalent to the tradition of American liberal revolution, but instead American conservative Christians are consumed by it, seeing it as the ultimate force of good in the world.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We should stop worshipping modern Liberty.

Yes, Christians worth their salt do not worship or aver for Liberty of the Greco-Roman tradition.

As long as we are living in the midst of a revolutionary democratic order, how about Christian pastors and leaders organize their congregations to vote to abolish obvious evil in their home states? (e.g. ban inappropriate contentography, abortion, promotion of homosexuality, etc.) .. Vote to officially recognize Jesus Christ as king over their nation state. This is how a democracy made up of Christians would act.

Do you see the historical and practical conundrum(s) in this endeavor? They are multiple and epistemologically complicated. It's not that I wouldn't prefer a more Christian society to live in-----I most assuredly would------but I realize that some of our outcomes and our expectations for those outcomes will be dependent on our views of Eschatology and other aspects of Christian Theology.

But we are a democracy of Christians who equally venerate Liberalism, i.e. Individual Liberty. The American flag, the various statues of Liberty that occupy our high places and the revolutionary liberal order they proudly represent are sacred symbols of that liberalism. Washington DC is the shining city on the hill and the location of our sacred temples. Ideally, Christians would be at least ambivalent to the tradition of American liberal revolution, but instead American conservative Christians are consumed by it, seeing it as the ultimate force of good in the world.

Yes, you're right. Revolution is usually not the answer. On the other hand, due to my inclination toward a certain understanding of Biblical Eschatology, one that I don't require other people to understand, my expectation to be able to do something "Christian" by which to affect positive change for the better is plagued by skepticism.

Anyway, the future of our grand nation remains to be seen.

 

[lifepsyop]

Yes, you're right. Revolution is usually not the answer. On the other hand, due to my inclination toward certain a certain understanding of Biblical Eschatology, one that I don't require other people to understand, my expectation to be able to do something "Christian" by which to change affect positive change for the better is plagued by skepticism.

Anyway, the future of our grand nation remains to be seen.

I understand where you're coming from and share in your skepticism, but I've begun to realize that it's much more of a "negative" movement away from a revolutionary liberal order we are already participating in.

When American Christians get over our active worship and idolatry of modern liberty, I think a lot of things just become obvious in terms of a right and wrong way for Christians to organize society.

For example, biblically speaking, the idea that Christians should tolerate widespread freely accessible p0rnography in their communities is absurd. It should be driven out of our midst completely, but since so many American Christians worship the liberty to produce and distribute p0rnography, they cannot bring themselves collectively banish it, even if they personally dislike it.

We as American Christians are currently actively promoting and participating in this liberal revolution that holds up freedom of the individual above all. We are proud of it. We are ready to go to war against countries that might deny the rights of homosexuals.

That's why I see it much more in terms of what Christians should stop doing. Most of that skepticism should be put on the idolatry the conservative Christian community is currently absorbed with.

 

[Dale]

We should stop worshipping modern Liberty.

As long as we are living in the midst of a revolutionary democratic order, how about Christian pastors and leaders organize their congregations to vote to abolish obvious evil in their home states? (e.g. ban inappropriate contentography, abortion, promotion of homosexuality, etc.) .. Vote to officially recognize Jesus Christ as king over their nation state. This is how a democracy made up of Christians would act.

But we are a democracy of Christians who equally venerate Liberalism, i.e. Individual Liberty. The American flag, the various statues of Liberty that occupy our high places and the revolutionary liberal order they proudly represent are sacred symbols of that liberalism. Washington DC is the shining city on the hill and the location of our sacred temples. Ideally, Christians would be at least ambivalent to the tradition of American liberal revolution, but instead American conservative Christians are consumed by it, seeing it as the ultimate force of good in the world.

You understand nothing about the case for democracy.
Do you realize that Jesus was condemned by a theocracy? He was condemned by the Sanhedrin, a body of rabbis elected by other rabbis.

When I was a kid, there was a TV show called The Trials of O'Brian. The theme is that an honest man has been elected to Congress, which causes all kinds of problems.

The opener for this show contained the words: "Democracy is not a good form of government, but strengthen an uphold it. All the others are much worse."

Think about that. You obviously don't understand it.

 

[lifepsyop]

You understand nothing about the case for democracy.
Do you realize that Jesus was condemned by a theocracy? He was condemned by the Sanhedrin, a body of rabbis elected by other rabbis.

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. - Matthew 23:1-3

Jesus had no problem with the institution itself, only the corruption of its priesthood.

He tore open the veil for us so that we no longer rely on the old temple system of sacrificial atonement, but don't forget that Jesus is the high priest of the most absolute theocracy in the universe.

 

[AintNoSaint]

It seems bizarre to me how the western, mainly evangelical Christian community sits so comfortably in the liberal democratic tradition.

The thinking goes that the more individually atomized or "open" a society becomes, the more freely the "simple Gospel" message can pass in between individuals, free of any other coercive cultural or religious structures found in pre-Enlightenment society. Ironically, when the Church is cleansed from public life, this is supposed to make the sharing of the Gospel of Jesus more fluid and effective.

You can see this attitude dominate in post-Enlightenment, Americanized Christianity. The Church no longer has any place on a societal or communal level. Society is now nothing more than atomized individuals, therefore the new concept of Church can never rise above the level of individual. In our society there is no longer a Christian Family ruled over by the husband, because this would go against the now sacred tenets of Liberalism, which dictates that a man cannot have any dominant role over a woman in any capacity. They are both equal individual units. The American Church (both Conservative and Leftist) now adopts this essentially satanic dogma into their way of life.

Privately, American Christians can say that they respect the Biblical hierarchy of man and woman, and yet they simultaneously promote a Liberal Democratic order which directly opposes such a hierarchy. This is just one example of many, but it really highlights the double-mindedness of American/western Christianity. In one sense, the Gospel message flows freely throughout the individualized west, and yet it flows within the confined spaces of an ideology that hates and rejects the Heavenly order that that the Gospel descends to earth from. ("...Thy Will Be Done, on Earth as it is in Heaven") And the same Evangelizers that spread the Gospel, turn around and promote the Liberal order as a result of divine providence, and a source of "Freedom" for humanity.

American Christianity wants to combine the Cross with the Statue of Liberty, they want to combine the ultimate hierarchy of Heaven with the perpetual revolutionary shattering of hierarchy via the liberal democratic order.

From what I am seeing, the Gospel of Jesus is inherently hostile to classical liberal ideology in fairly obvious ways. (not only the "Woke" liberal, but the "conservative" 18th and 19th century American style of liberalism also)... The Liberal Democratic order actively promotes the structure of sin (or the rejection of God's order)

I think many American Christians are beginning to realize this but just don't know what to do about it. There does seem to be a 'Reformation out of Liberalism' taking place.

What bothers me is that there are so many other (mostly Boomer generation) Christian leaders who completely drank the Kool-Aid on Americanism and believe that we basically inaugurated a kind of Millenial kingdom of God when America became a hegemonic power after World War 2. They have divinized modern individual American Liberty as a sacred force for good in the world, and the "Spirit of Democracy" as equal with the Holy Spirit itself. They made secularism sacred, which explains why our sense of morality seems to be dictated from the secular world now, instead of the church, (which now begs the secular world for its approval.)

In all likelihood, our way of life is so enmeshed with the liberal order, that it's probably going to take a major social collapse in order for the Church to come out of this. That seems to be the general pattern we see in the Bible as well. We aren't willingly going to give up our Liberty idols.

1. **Matthew 7:15-16 (NIV)**: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them."

2. **2 Peter 2:1 (NIV)**: "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves."

3. **1 John 4:1 (NIV)**: "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world


The bible warns us. And the fact that it has become so wide spread is a sign of the approaching end..

 

[Dale]

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. - Matthew 23:1-3

Jesus had no problem with the institution itself, only the corruption of its priesthood.

He tore open the veil for us so that we no longer rely on the old temple system of sacrificial atonement, but don't forget that Jesus is the high priest of the most absolute theocracy in the universe.

Lifepsy: “Jesus had no problem with the institution itself, only the corruption of its priesthood.”



Let me get this straight. King Herod massacred hundreds of toddlers and infants because he feared that one might grow up to challenge him. The King appointed a man of priestly lineage to be the Chief Priest and preside over the Sanhedrin, the judicial body that condemned Jesus to death.

The Sanhedrin was divided into Pharisees and Sadducees. The Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife, they did not believe in heaven or hell. The differences between Jesus and the Pharisees were more subtle but he argued with them constantly.

Are you telling me that Jesus supported this system? He supported a Sandedrin of Sadduces and Pharisees, presided over by a Chief Priest appointed by a King of a lineage that massacred infants?

 

[lifepsyop]

Lifepsy: “Jesus had no problem with the institution itself, only the corruption of its priesthood.”



Let me get this straight. King Herod massacred hundreds of toddlers and infants because he feared that one might grow up to challenge him. The King appointed a man of priestly lineage to be the Chief Priest and preside over the Sanhedrin, the judicial body that condemned Jesus to death.

The Sanhedrin was divided into Pharisees and Sadducees. The Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife, they did not believe in heaven or hell. The differences between Jesus and the Pharisees were more subtle but he argued with them constantly.

Are you telling me that Jesus supported this system? He supported a Sandedrin of Sadduces and Pharisees, presided over by a Chief Priest appointed by a King of a lineage that massacred infants?

Are you familiar with the Old Testament? The Bible is essentially one long account of wicked rulers corrupting God's Kingdom. But it's fundamentally wrong to say the kingdom/institution/hierarchy itself is the problem. The Creation itself is a kingdom that King Adam was appointed to rule over.

The apostles were clear about this: Honor the king.

Modern man is a liberal revolutionary who believes hierarchy is evil and that all power should be diffused amongst the will of the people.

 

[helmut]

You can see this attitude dominate in post-Enlightenment, Americanized Christianity. The Church no longer has any place on a societal or communal level. Society is now nothing more than atomized individuals, therefore the new concept of Church can never rise above the level of individual.

This is to deplore.

In our society there is no longer a Christian Family ruled over by the husband

The rule of a husband is not a NT family model, but stems from other sources that crept into Christianity long ago. Up to the point that someone invented the name Junias in order to declare Junia, the female apostle in Rom 16:7 as a man. Or to split the sentence in Eph 5:21-22 lest a reader could see (which is very clear from the Greek text) that the submission in Verse 21 is part of the mutual submission in verse 21 (the love demanded from men, Eph 5:28ff is also part of mutual love!).

The NT teaches that in Christ it does not matter whether a person is man or woman, Gal 3:28. This is no hierarchy (indeed, the word kephale, translated as "head" does not imply a hierarchy of ruling and submission, but of worth and less honor). You follow a bourgeois ideology which was labelled liberal when it was the dominant ideology in Europe (and hence, USA).

This is just one example of many, but it really highlights the double-mindedness of American/western Christianity.

There are better examples. The redistribution of wealth in ancient Israel(»jubilee year«) would be called »socialism« by many American Christians, so far they have moved from the biblical teaching.

Ez 16:49 ‘ “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

In one sense, the Gospel message flows freely throughout the individualized west, and yet it flows within the confined spaces of an ideology that hates and rejects the Heavenly order that that the Gospel descends to earth from. ("...Thy Will Be Done, on Earth as it is in Heaven") And the same Evangelizers that spread the Gospel, turn around and promote the Liberal order …

I agree, though I see another ideology than you do.

But there are points we can agree in. I got first questions over the worth of democracy when I read in the then newspapers,that the first sign of democracy in post-Franco Spain was the openly selling of inappropriate contentography.

 

[helmut]

The answer is that historically, democracy gets along very well with Christianity.

AFAIK, the first modern democracy was Baptist Rhode Island colony. So your statement can be backed up by history.

 

[lifepsyop]

The rule of a husband is not a NT family model, but stems from other sources that crept into Christianity long ago. Up to the point that someone invented the name Junias in order to declare Junia, the female apostle in Rom 16:7 as a man. Or to split the sentence in Eph 5:21-22 lest a reader could see (which is very clear from the Greek text) that the submission in Verse 21 is part of the mutual submission in verse 21 (the love demanded from men, Eph 5:28ff is also part of mutual love!).

The NT teaches that in Christ it does not matter whether a person is man or woman, Gal 3:28. This is no hierarchy (indeed, the word kephale, translated as "head" does not imply a hierarchy of ruling and submission, but of worth and less honor). You follow a bourgeois ideology which was labelled liberal when it was the dominant ideology in Europe (and hence, USA).

It has nothing to do with bourgeois ideology or anything of the sort. Yes there is truth in the stronger (male) serving the weaker (female), as the the king of the universe, Jesus, humbled himself and died for his bride, the church. It is a mutual submission to each other within the role of God's holy created order... but to use such a submission to nullify or dissolve God's order is evil. Men are to be men, and women are to be women. They each have their own designated role to fulfill, and man is unambiguously meant to be the leader and head. The woman has a great honor in helping to strengthen and support the man. Women can even be leaders when men fail, which the Bible shows examples of, but these are exceptions.

Generally speaking, to be ruled by women is a curse. (Isaiah 3:12)
Men who are afraid to stand up to women is a horrifying state to be in, whether it be the family, the church, or society. (E.g. America for the last 50 years.)

There are better examples. The redistribution of wealth in ancient Israel(»jubilee year«) would be called »socialism« by many American Christians, so far they have moved from the biblical teaching.

Ez 16:49 ‘ “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

We have some agreement here. I think a majority of Boomer American conservatism worships individual property rights and 'free market capitalism'... these are the cornerstones of classical Liberalism and the American Revolution. Basically, there was an intellectual class of people who were angry that the state church was hampering their ability to make as much money as possible, and so they ginned up a violent revolution against the monarchy. America has sacralized the 'invisible hand' of free-trade ever since. But free-trade economics is essentially just a reflection of democracy. It is political power diffused or flattened into the collective will, or consumer choice.

We have mass p0rnography across America because that is what the consumer wants, and American Christians are generally OK with this, because, hey... that's Liberty. We'll go to war over a people's right to p0rnograhy, just as we'll drop bombs on a country that denies their people the freedom to pratice homosexuality. America is a permanent state of global liberal revolution.

 

[helmut]

It has nothing to do with bourgeois ideology or anything of the sort.

The 19th century was the century when the ideas of universal progress in human history became dominant (thanks to Hegel and some other philosophers). The most most primitive society was thought matriarchal (hence the myth of a matriarchal stone age society), and the patriarchate was seen the most progressive society model. Leftists have protested, and nowadays no-one would think of patriarchate as progressive.

Even before the 19th century, the role of women was more or more marginalized and confined to family. I lived in Cologne for some time, and I observed that the name of one Gasse (small alley) was changed from »Unter Seidmachern« (»among (lit.: under) silk producers«) to »Seidmacherinnengässchen« (»female silk producer alley«). For historical research revealed that all silk producer craftsmen were really women in the middle ages!

The idea that women should be ruled by their husbands and stay at home is bourgeois - the only question is whether it was some idea taken from the bible (part of bourgeois thinking was taken from the Bible, thanks to Reformation).

... but to use such a submission to nullify or dissolve God's order is evil.

I'm still not convinced that what you say is really God's order and not an human order wrongly declared to be from God.

Men are to be men, and women are to be women.

Agree.

They each have their own designated role to fulfill, and man is unambiguously meant to be the leader and head.

No, this is not so. The NT draws a somewhat different picture. There is a female apostle (Junia, Rm 16:7), there are female prophets (Acts 21:9), we see a couple (the woman is mentioned first in every instance this couple is mentioned in the NT, so she was the spiritually leading person in that marriage) that teaches a well-know evangelist (Acts 18:26), and 1.Co 11:5 states that a woman can pray and prophesy (i.e.: tell the congregation what God wants for/from them), which sheds a light on 1.Co 14:34-5, which is often read as a ban on women speaking in church) …

It seems you have forgotten that I showed that »head« (kephale) does not imply leader in ancient Greek. When Jesus is called head, this can refer to Him being of eternal origin or firstborn of resurrection (head=first one in a row), or the son of man, the judge in the last judgement (head=last in a row), or the one with the highest glory bestowed on Him (head=outstanding, more honor or worth than any other, this is always a connotation in the other meanings mentioned before). If you want to find a verse that tells he is leader, look for »lord« …

Generally speaking, to be ruled by women is a curse. (Isaiah 3:12)

Women ruled by men is the almost oldest curse (Gen 3:16). The verse is renders with »usurers rule over them» in the LXX, which seems to stem from a different Hebrew text. But this is not the main issue here: In that situation in ancient orient, women as rulers had a harder stand as men,so the lamentation about them is realistic, and should not be taken as an eternal rule or curse.

Generally speaking, the OT cannot overrule the NT. So I want NT proofs, not selected OT passages. In 2.Ki 22:13-20 a delegation from the king does not go to Jeremiah, but to a prophetess who tells them what God thinks about the king. You see, I can find and select fitting passages as you can …

 

[RoBo1988]

Democracy sounds great, but it can be dangerous without any checks and balances.

Without a moral base it can become mob rule - one would just have to build a consensus, real or imagined, to rule or eliminate the "minority", as Jezebel did in 1 Kings 21:11-14

 

[helmut]

Your mistake is trying to tie that strictly to American liberalism. (Notice I say American Liberalism because liberalism means something quite different outside of the US).

Outside of the USA, the term has more than one meaning.

In Germany, there is the difference between economic liberalism (free market etc.) and political liberalism (civil rights etc.). There are some other,minor meanings, too.