Is Western Liberal Democracy inherently anti-Christ or Satanic?

[Dale]

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?

Rturner: “For example, some Methodist synods will marry gays, but Baptists don't.”

No such thing had ever been heard of when my mother married my father.

The Methodists differ from Baptists in accepting infant baptism and in church organization.

Denominational divisions are largely historical rather than anything modern Americans asked for. The American Baptists split with the Southern Baptists at the time of the Civil War and never got back together. The National Baptists are black Baptists.

No church makes secular law, although their members vote.

 

[Dale]

Christianity in Spain was saved. Or would you have preferred Spain develop as a Muslim country and Christians their subject to Islamic overlords? You're saying you reject the equalization and if you think WW2 was justified, millions of deaths and strategems of war designed to kill masses of civilians, while the Reconquista is simply intolerable we have different worldviews.

Therefore Saint Paul was wrong about the state wielding a sword? As Christians we know not everyone can be saved, most will not. If your actions are so heinous in life that you pose a threat to those around you or have violated what is good, so intently, the death penalty is entirely justified.


Have you read any monarchists? Particularly Christian monarchists?

Since when was it illiberal? It was at it's most liberal during the height of the revolution when the Church was marginalized and it went on a crusade to spread liberalism throughout Europe and overturn the old order. Or do you think that causing mass death is not within the realm of liberalism?

I mean you can tie the Gospel to the burning of heretics. It is the direct result of Christianity being the primary value in society that allowed states to execute heretics who violated Christian normality.

I am speaking of the USA primarily. I consider it far more dangerous and unstoppable because it is a system rather than a singular person that can be targeted.

And when we compare that sack to the later actions of secular states, does it even compare to the bombing of Dresden of the nuking of Tokyo? Are those actions justified because they are in the name of liberal democracy (in whose name we may kill in abandon to secure it)? When it comes to monarchy I am not going to justify every action done by a monarch, but I will suggest that is rather a exception than the norm in medieval warfare especially as time went on.


But I notice you try to justify latter secular wars, while thinking earlier Christian wars were entirely bad. It was not merely advances in communications technology that allowed for mass slaughter of the modern age, but the very spirit of liberal democracy itself which believes all citizens are collectively guilty for what their state does. Therefore they are a legitimate target.

Which was justified in your opinion? While all Christian wars prior were unjustified? Please explain to me why liberal democrats are allowed to kill with abandon to secure their ideology in the world.

You are justifying it.

I don't blame the political system alone for it, but it has certainty contributed to the lack of any awakening and the weakening of Christianity. When you strip away and peel all aspects of religion in public life and replace it with consumerism which targets the passions, how can there any other result?

Christianity in the Middle East collapsed due to the advance of Islam. I am curious though, do you think the Byzantines were wrong to fight against the Muslims who were invading Asia Minor?


I would need to look into that claim as I have not heard of that. Though I suspect it is not the whole truth and that the impact of the revolution on France and her identity is what caused the decline of Christianity in France. It moved the most Catholic state in Europe towards being the most secular and liberal state of Europe. That is surely no coincidence.

Democratic systems are only part of the reason why Christianity has declined, not the whole reason. I dare say that the reason why Christianity has declined is because most professed Christians don't really believe in it. The readily subordinate their Christianity to other ideologies, be it liberalism or some other thing and this is what has lead to the decline. Christianity had power when people actually believed and were willing to die for it in Rome and as result they hated (with some justification) the Paganism of the surrounding culture. Christians are not prepared to be as committed as the early Christians and so it continues to decline.

Ignatius: “And when we compare that sack to the later actions of secular states, does it even compare to the bombing of Dresden of the nuking of Tokyo?”


Tokyo wasn’t nuked. The Allied Command considered it but rejected the idea. One of their reasons is that they figured that if they destroyed the government in Tokyo there wouldn’t be anyone to surrender.

The Allied Command also decided not to bomb Kyoto because the Buddhist Temples there were an artistic treasure.


Ignatius: “Are those actions justified because they are in the name of liberal democracy (in whose name we may kill in abandon to secure it)?”

The US didn’t get into WW II to defend or promote liberal democracy. That is why the US did not declare war on Germany when France fell. The US got into WW II when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was both an attack on US territory and an attack on US military capabilities.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Ignatius: “And when we compare that sack to the later actions of secular states, does it even compare to the bombing of Dresden of the nuking of Tokyo?”


Tokyo wasn’t nuked. The Allied Command considered it but rejected the idea. One of their reasons is that they figured that if they destroyed the government in Tokyo there wouldn’t be anyone to surrender.

The Allied Command also decided not to bomb Kyoto because the Buddhist Temples there were an artistic treasure.

So are you justifying the firebombing and nuking of Japanese civilians?

Ignatius: “Are those actions justified because they are in the name of liberal democracy (in whose name we may kill in abandon to secure it)?”

The US didn’t get into WW II to defend or promote liberal democracy. That is why the US did not declare war on Germany when France fell. The US got into WW II when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was both an attack on US territory and an attack on US military capabilities.

Why did Japan attack pearl harbour to begin with? It was due in part to the inevitability of the US entering the war to begin with. Roosevelt wanted to enter the war to crush Germany and Japan despite Americans at the time wanting avoid war. But here's the thing, when the US entered the war were their actions of targeting civilians justified? Or was it evil and something the US shouldnt have done?

 

[rturner76]

No such thing had ever been heard of when my mother married my father.

My parents either. I had never heard of a church-approved gay marriage being acceptable probably until the new millennium. I wonder what changed?

The Methodists differ from Baptists in accepting infant baptism and in church organization

I grew up Methodist (AME) and they kicked out the Pastor at one point because of the rumor that he was a closeted gay. He was a really good preacher though. He used to get me fired up but according to the other gays in that church, he was living a lie.

Denominational divisions are largely historical rather than anything modern Americans asked for. The American Baptists split with the Southern Baptists at the time of the Civil War and never got back together. The National Baptists are black Baptists.

Most churches split from each other just after the Reformation and in North America. I agree. My point was, if we start making the rules or laws we live by in society, What church has the right interpretation of Christian doctrine? Like in the example you used about the Baptist Church(s). Some are completely white and some are completely black. Some believe that LGBT people should be shunned and not included in society, some have open doors to all and will even go so far as to provide same-sex marriages.

Back in the day like during my parent's lifetime, it was patently illegal to be gay in many countries. It still is in Muslim countries and in Russia. That would be an example of a church law made secular with no majority vote. the cool thing is that if enough Christians unify, they may have a majority when it comes to legislating laws based on Christian values but then we are back to "which denomination?" Americans have totally different value sets based on their specific denomination's teaching. So it seems to me, due to that fact, the country could never be united when it comes to things like abortion, sexual/gender alternative lifestyles, death penalty, welfaare/healthcare, etc.

No church makes secular law, although their members vote