Is Western Liberal Democracy inherently anti-Christ or Satanic?

[o_mlly]

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)

Under liberal democracy, one gets the lowest (uncommon) denominator as its moral values underpinning its legal system. Much of what Christians know to be immoral will be legally permitted.

The Church only proposes and never imposes. God did not build a fence around the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. If we are not free to sin then neither are we free to be saints.

Sin has its effects in this life as well as the next. When the pain and suffering caused by a sinful society weighs heavy enough, we will change.

 

[FireDragon76]

I found the text:
Die normale Folgeerscheinung dieses Hofkatholizismus und dieser vollendeten Weltlichkeit, gefasst in dezente, geschmackvolle Form, ist die Freigeistigkeit und der Atheismus, der in genauem Verhältnis zur Austreibung des hugenottischen Glaubensernstes zunächst in Paris und Versailles die Oberhand bekommt. Im Jahre 1689 schreibt die Pfalzgräfin-Regentin-Mutter über ihre Eindrücke: „Man sieht fast keinen jungen Mann mehr, der nicht Atheist werden will.” Sieben Jahre nach dem Tod Ludwig XIV. fügt sie hinzu: „Ich glaube nicht, dass es unter den Geistlichen oder Laien in Paris noch 100 Menschen gibt, die die wahre Religion haben oder auch nur an unseren Herrn Jesus glauben. Dela fait frémir - ich zittere, wenn ich daran denke.”

Translation (with the help of deepTranslate):

The normal consequence of this courtial Catholicism and this complete worldliness, expressed in a decent, tasteful form, is the free-spiritedness and atheism that gained the upper hand initially in Paris and Versailles in exact proportion to the expulsion of the Huguenot seriousness of faith. In 1689, the Countess Regent Mother (Elizabeth Charlotte) of the Palatinate wrote about her impressions: "There is almost no young man left who does not want to become an atheist." Seven years after the death of Louis XIV, she added: "I do not believe that there are still 100 people among the clergy or laity in Paris who have the true religion or even believe in our Lord Jesus. Dela fait frémir - I tremble when I think of it."

Some historians even think the expulsion of the Hugenots directly contributed to the downfall of the French monarchy, due to the wealth and productivity that was taken out of the country.

 

[Valletta]

I tend to agree, although the cardinal system worked for some time, up until maybe 1958. I am with the Sedevacantists who say (logically) that we haven't had a valid pope since then.

Anyone, whether they believe this or not, can look at the Catholic Church today and ... well, see the logic of that position. I mean, obvioiusly, something is very very wrong.

The Parable of Weeds among the Wheat​

24 Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants[a] of the householder came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants[b] said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he said, ‘No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’” RSVCE

The Catholic Church is almost 2000 years old, and there has been turmoil within the Church century after century. From the Arian crisis to the discord caused by controversy of the Incarnation, which led to the Council of Chalcedon, to the Iconoclasts--on and on it went. Today we have a pope who has a wonderful message of mercy yet has caused a lot of confusion, in my opinion much because of his political ties to the left. I disagree with the pope on many, many issues. But we can't be breaking away every time we disagree with a pope.

 

[discombobulated1]

Under liberal democracy, one gets the lowest (uncommon) denominator as its moral values underpinning its legal system. Much of what Christians know to be immoral will be legally permitted.

The Church only proposes and never imposes. God did not build a fence around the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. If we are not free to sin then neither are we free to be saints.

Sin has its effects in this life as well as the next. When the pain and suffering caused by a sinful society weighs heavy enough, we will change.

I agree with much of this and yet, I think it is wrong to say that the Church "never imposes." Jesus Christ imposed Himself on the people of His day in many ways. We recall the whip of cords in the Temple. He said things that were very "imposing" He said that if you deny Him before men (for instance), He will deny you before the Father. He said that the Way to Heaven is narrow and that FEW find it. (Maybe part of the reason for that is that people don't like to be "imposed" upon? just saying...)

this appears to mean that most people end up in Hell (most don't find the narrow way He spoke of).

We see the psgs about how people will attempt to enter Heaven but will not be strong enough (Lk 13). The Word does not explain what "strong enough" entails. Then there is "Not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom, but only he who does the will of the Father"

this is why we need an infallible Church: to interpret and elaborate upon psgs in the Word that are difficult or prone to misinterpretation. (Men do choose to believe what they want to believe... human nature).

In any case, i guess I have made my point?

 

[discombobulated1]

The Parable of Weeds among the Wheat​

24 Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants[a] of the householder came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants[b] said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he said, ‘No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’” RSVCE

The Catholic Church is almost 2000 years old, and there has been turmoil within the Church century after century. From the Arian crisis to the discord caused by controversy of the Incarnation, which led to the Council of Chalcedon, to the Iconoclasts--on and on it went. Today we have a pope who has a wonderful message of mercy yet has caused a lot of confusion, in my opinion much because of his political ties to the left. I disagree with the pope on many, many issues. But we can't be breaking away every time we disagree with a pope.

true enough. I always feel like there is a missing pc of the puzzle in this disunity story RE the Catholic Church in modern times. One thing I'm confused about is that the Sedevacantists say we haven't had a valid pope since Pius XII, which from all the evidence I have gathered, appears to be exactly the case. Then again, no Sede has ever answered my question (s) like: How can the Real PResence be in the novus ordo Churches if the Eucharist there is not valid, which they say it is NOT valid. So if one is not a real priest, you can't have the RP

 

[lifepsyop]

Under liberal democracy, one gets the lowest (uncommon) denominator as its moral values underpinning its legal system. Much of what Christians know to be immoral will be legally permitted.

The Church only proposes and never imposes. God did not build a fence around the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. If we are not free to sin then neither are we free to be saints.

American Christianity does impose Liberal democracy though, as the most ideal model of society. The average conservative Christian in America would actively resist the idea of abandoning liberal democracy. American Christianity is bound to a separate "revolutionary faith" that has ascended since the nation's founding. This revolutionary faith elevates an atomized individual liberty as a sacred right, at the expense of fundamental hierarchies created by God, such as the relationship between men and women.

 

[FireDragon76]

American Christianity does impose Liberal democracy though, as the most ideal model of society. The average conservative Christian in America would actively resist the idea of abandoning liberal democracy. American Christianity is bound to a separate "revolutionary faith" that has ascended since the nation's founding. This revolutionary faith elevates an atomized individual liberty as a sacred right, at the expense of fundamental hierarchies created by God, such as the relationship between men and women.

That's not a fair view of the Founding Fathers, but more like the philosophy of Ayn Rand that gained influences in 70's and 80's. The Founders valued civic virtue a great deal.

 

[o_mlly]

I agree with much of this and yet, I think it is wrong to say that the Church "never imposes." Jesus Christ imposed Himself on the people of His day in many ways. We recall the whip of cords in the Temple.

The Church is not Christ. He gave His church the authority and the duty to teach all nations but not to impose the gospel on them. Matthew 10:14.

 

[o_mlly]

This revolutionary faith elevates an atomized individual liberty as a sacred right, at the expense of fundamental hierarchies created by God, such as the relationship between men and women.

Individual liberty is also a sacred duty. We are free to do what we ought; not what we want.

 

[lifepsyop]

That's not a fair view of the Founding Fathers, but more like the philosophy of Ayn Rand that gained influences in 70's and 80's. The Founders valued civic virtue a great deal.

The 20th century saw the full inauguration of the liberal order. It was only beginning to grow in the Founders' time, as society in the 17th and 18th century was basically still running on the engine of Christendom, despite the intelligentsia promoting liberalism/enlightenment propaganda.

Even so, consider the American Revolution through the lens of Romans 13. Rebels taking up arms against a Christian monarchy. Not a good look at all for Christians. It was the beginning of a blood covenant of the revolutionary faith.... the "Tree of Liberty"... and the beginning of a perpetual liberal revolution against all hierarchy. It was slow, but inevitable that we'd eventually get to this point to where the goverment is making promises to "liberate" children from their parents for not allowing them to transition genders.

 

[lifepsyop]

Individual liberty is also a sacred duty. We are free to do what we ought; not what we want.

Christians have always had that duty. We've had that freedom in Christ for 2,000 years. We didn't need a bloody 18th century liberal revolution to get it.

Today individual liberty is considered sacrosanct in itself. The freedom to worship satan or live a homosexual lifestyle or watch pornography all day. These "liberties" are all sacred to American Christians (even if they personally disagree with such things, they are very happy others have the freedom to choose if they want.) To live otherwise would be "authoritarian" and a violation of the sacred will of the people.

 

[helmut]

I agree with much of this and yet, I think it is wrong to say that the Church "never imposes." Jesus Christ imposed Himself on the people of His day in many ways. We recall the whip of cords in the Temple. He said things that were very "imposing"

The new Temple is the Church, so the »whips« Jesus uses now are punishment for the Church, not for the unbelievers.

1.Cor 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. ‘Expel the wicked person from among you.’

this appears to mean that most people end up in Hell (most don't find the narrow way He spoke of).

So we havwe to warn them. But we cannot force them to repent, this would be a logical contradiction.

this is why we need an infallible Church:

But we see that there is no infallible church. In the RCC, there were popes who were declared heretic, for instance. Either their damnation was an error (hence the Church was not infallible when it declared this), or the Pope was really a heretic (then it was wrong to make him a pope).

 

[Dale]

The 20th century saw the full inauguration of the liberal order. It was only beginning to grow in the Founders' time, as society in the 17th and 18th century was basically still running on the engine of Christendom, despite the intelligentsia promoting liberalism/enlightenment propaganda.

Even so, consider the American Revolution through the lens of Romans 13. Rebels taking up arms against a Christian monarchy. Not a good look at all for Christians. It was the beginning of a blood covenant of the revolutionary faith.... the "Tree of Liberty"... and the beginning of a perpetual liberal revolution against all hierarchy. It was slow, but inevitable that we'd eventually get to this point to where the goverment is making promises to "liberate" children from their parents for not allowing them to transition genders.

Lifepsyop: “It was slow, but inevitable that we'd eventually get to this point to where the goverment is making promises to "liberate" children from their parents for not allowing them to transition genders.”

It wasn’t inevitable at all. I don’t see why you blame democracy. The things you are talking about were not passed by referendum. Nobody ran for office with gender transitioning as a platform. I could make a strong argument that the courts have been undermining marriage and family for decades. The problem isn’t democracy, the problem is that lawyers have too much power.

It is also true that the teacher’s unions made it their business to promote homosexuality. I know that this is true where I live, and I suspect it is true all over the country. Again, why blame democracy?

 

[rturner76]

Ignatius did not speak on equality of persons, but on equality of opinions, world-views, religion or so.

He seems to propose that the lie has no right to be equal to the truth.

So some opinions are lies? I don't compute.

Thew word has two meanings:

1. Devil-worship.
2. The philosophy you have in mind.

The philosophy I stated is what is on the front of the Satanic Bible. The official Church of Satan puts more emphasis on following one's individual desires rather than committing acts of evil. They don't see Satan as an angel or Deity but it's basically means "self-will," and "radical individualism." So if someone desires to behave as a proper Christian, the Church of Satan would likely follow your desire and become what you want or some such thing.

Yes: »Nothing is true and everything is allowed.«

I am sure that there are different varieties of Satanism but the mainstream version does not promote evil. I don't believe in following self-will only as if I followed my own self-will, I would drink and do drugs as often as possible. Some people's self will is more righteous and that is what they are encouraged to follow. Believing one was born with the wrong genitalia is an issue of psychology and physiology, it's not evil.

»You can be Christian, but don't try to convert other people, and don't make the wrong political statement« goes into that direction. The government does not say this, but some political actors want just that.

Exactly, the government is not saying this, just you and people and others who sit in judgment of others.

The majority can be evil. It can be seduced to follow an evil person - or follow a philosophy that results in evil rules.

It all depends of the individual's self-will. If one has an evil self-will and they are adherent to the Church of Saten, they will do evil things. If they don't they won't.

The laws that allowed slavery were supported by he majority for a rather long time … and I fear this is not the only example.

 

[rturner76]

My father was a Baptist and my mother was a Methodist. I can assure you that the “Baptist God” and the “Methodist God” are the same

Then, I wondered why there was a need for two different churches. Maybe they do believe in the same God (as I believe Jews and Muslims do, the God of Abraham), but they obviously don't agree on how to worship that God. For example, some Methodist synods will marry gays, but Baptists don't. So which Church should be allowed to make the secular law? Would we have to go back to the past where it was illegal to miss church on Sundays?

 

[helmut]

So some opinions are lies? I don't compute.

According to the RCC:_ Yes. Heresy (as defined by that church) is a lie, it has no right to be treated equal to the catholic truth.

This was stated by several popes. After WW2 it changed (there have been voices inside the RCC before WW2 that opposed to this statement, and they finally prevailed in the second Vatican council).

The philosophy I stated is what is on the front of the Satanic Bible.

I guessed it. But as I said, »satanism« has a double meaning …

I am sure that there are different varieties of Satanism but the mainstream version does not promote evil. I don't believe in following self-will only as if I followed my own self-will, I would drink and do drugs as often as possible.

Almost no-one promotes what he thinks is evil. Even the Nazis acted for the good of their race - according to their beliefs.

Exactly, the government is not saying this, just you and people and others who sit in judgment of others.

Oh no, not me. I say people have the right to believe or do the wrong things. This is tolerance. But I have the right to warn them - and of course, there are limits in tolerance - mass murder is not tolerated by mot people (the exceptions are virtually all those who commit mass murder).

The exact limits are not universal (Nazis are tolerated in the US, but not in Germany) …

 

[rturner76]

According to the RCC:_ Yes. Heresy (as defined by that church) is a lie, it has no right to be treated equal to the catholic truth.

I agree, I'm Catholic. I was thinking in a secular sense, people's opinions on religion are equal as far as the laws Constitution goes..

I guessed it. But as I said, »satanism« has a double meaning

I agree, I was just saying that the organized Satanic religion is not inherently evil in a littoral sense. However, (BIG however) In my personal opinion, even a religion based on self-will is setting a person up for trouble because we have a sinful nature, it's our faith in the cross and the Christian lives we live that allows us to take refuge in doing God's will and not our own.

Almost no-one promotes what he thinks is evil. Even the Nazis acted for the good of their race - according to their beliefs.

They also committed mass murder for their beliefs and invaded multiple countries killing millions. Not to righteous in my opinion. One can preserve their race without either destroying or enslaving all other races.

Oh no, not me. I say people have the right to believe or do the wrong things. This is tolerance. But I have the right to warn them - and of course, there are limits in tolerance - mass murder is not tolerated by mot people (the exceptions are virtually all those who commit mass murder).

The exact limits are not universal (Nazis are tolerated in the US, but not in Germany) …

The line that has to be drawn is to believe what you want but don't break the law. I think we tolerate Nazis in the US because even though they participate in organized crime (thinking of the prison Nazis and that's where many of them convert.), There is no Nazi army or even much of a political party. Basically, if there were to be a Nazi uprising in the States, I'm pretty sure it would get squashed quick. Especially with the Patriot Act in effect.

 

[discombobulated1]

The Parable of Weeds among the Wheat​

24 Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants[a] of the householder came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants[b] said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he said, ‘No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’” RSVCE

The Catholic Church is almost 2000 years old, and there has been turmoil within the Church century after century. From the Arian crisis to the discord caused by controversy of the Incarnation, which led to the Council of Chalcedon, to the Iconoclasts--on and on it went. Today we have a pope who has a wonderful message of mercy yet has caused a lot of confusion, in my opinion much because of his political ties to the left. I disagree with the pope on many, many issues. But we can't be breaking away every time we disagree with a pope.

I have not broken away

But I do recall Reagan saying that he didn't leave the D party, the D party left him

 

[helmut]

They also committed mass murder for their beliefs and invaded multiple countries killing millions. Not to righteous in my opinion.

I will not defend the Nazis I described their view, my view is with yout opinion.

The line that has to be drawn is to believe what you want but don't break the law.

The law describes what is tolerated and what will be punished.

 

[rturner76]

The law describes what is tolerated and what will be punished.

That's right and this is done through the majority. If Christians get enough people to vote in their interests, there will be more laws based on Christian principles as long as those principles do not violate the Constitution. Also, as we have seen, there are different ways that even that sacred document has been interpreted. I'm not against laws based on Chrstian morality, I just believe that in order to implement those values, they need to be in the majority.

I will not defend the Nazis I described their view, my view is with yout opinion.

Apologies if I made the wrong assumption. I have been watching interviews of guys who were "shot callers" in white prison gangs (prisons are still very segregated socially but not always legally. They legitimize the segregation in some prisons by not allowing people of different races live in the same cell. It's not because that is what the prison system prefers but it's a safety issue with most of the prison gangs are based on race and the new guys are often told to attack certain people in order to get the protection of that gang.

I digress but what I wanted to say about these interviews was that there are varying levels of racist actions in these gangs. For example, the Nazi and Skinhead gangs believe their race is superior and would eliminate other races or enslave them if they could. Then there are other gangs of the same color who aren't really racist, they just know there is strength in numbers. I don't remember what point I was trying to make with that but the bottom line is that most feel more comfortable when surrounded by "their own kind." It's natural for many but like we agree, it really only matters when laws are broken.