'Christianity says Democracy is Evil'

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

If you have 30 mins and a bit of patience, from a Google ad on this forum:

http://www.realtruth.org/wtc_056_100409.html?cid=WTC0056&s_kwcid=TC

Not sure of the concrete weigh of such speeches amongst modern Christian communities, but apparently according to this Christianity says Democracy is Evil, right?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nothing surprising. By definition, fundamentalists hate democracy.

[??????????]

If you have 30 mins and a bit of patience, from a Google ad on this forum:

http://www.realtruth.org/wtc_056_100409.html?cid=WTC0056&s_kwcid=TC

Not sure of the concrete weigh of such speeches amongst modern Christian communities, but apparently according to this Christianity says Democracy is Evil, right?

Jehovahs Witness (marginally Christian) doesn't believe in any participation in government, whether it be voting, running for office or military, the Amish hold similar views. Most mainstream Christians don't hold that view from what I understand, maybe some fringe groups. Also, what do you define democracy as?

Nothing surprising. By definition, fundamentalists hate democracy.

Oh please. Not all "fundamentalists" are evil.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nothing surprising. By definition, fundamentalists hate democracy.

Oh please. Not all "fundamentalists" are evil.

[??????????]

Nothing surprising. By definition, fundamentalists hate democracy.

Oh please. Not all "fundamentalists" are evil.

Should I just put you on ignore?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Also, what do you define democracy as?

Oh well, in short, what the guy spoke about, you know, that simple stuff, voting, to elect representatives, who, yes, will hold some power, and make laws, that's about it.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Jehovahs Witness (marginally Christian) doesn't believe in any participation in government, whether it be voting, running for office or military, the Amish hold similar views. Most mainstream Christians don't hold that view from what I understand, maybe some fringe groups.

Well, yes, but I was rather wondering about the trendiness and liveliness of such speeches or speeches that would go in that sense.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If you have 30 mins and a bit of patience, from a Google ad on this forum:

http://www.realtruth.org/wtc_056_100409.html?cid=WTC0056&s_kwcid=TC

Not sure of the concrete weigh of such speeches amongst modern Christian communities, but apparently according to this Christianity says Democracy is Evil, right?

instead of 30 minutes, can you just boil it down for us in 30 seconds?  who is this group and why do they feel democracy is evil?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

If you have 30 mins and a bit of patience, from a Google ad on this forum:

http://www.realtruth.org/wtc_056_100409.html?cid=WTC0056&s_kwcid=TC

Not sure of the concrete weigh of such speeches amongst modern Christian communities, but apparently according to this Christianity says Democracy is Evil, right?

instead of 30 minutes, can you just boil it down for us in 30 seconds?  who is this group and why do they feel democracy is evil?

Well, I won't pull out the full demonstration, in short, he says that taking part in Democracy, by politically militating, voting, electing representatives who will hold some powers, is like an evil act, because for Christians only should matter 'Jesus' Church' and 'Jesus' Gospel', all the other political acts being acts of division and division belongs to Satan. Something like that, if you want to know more, enjoy the 30 mins from mister from RealTruth.com.

But the overall point of the demonstration was rather clear, Christians shouldn't take part in politics, by any means, and to an extent I guess he implied that they shouldn't recognize the power of political representatives.

And, I don't know who's this group, you'd certainly know more than me about Christian groups in US, no matter the group, once again I wondered about the liveliness and trendiness of such speeches today, especially in a country in which something like 'F**K DA BIG GOV'MENT!!' seems more and more trendy.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If you have 30 mins and a bit of patience, from a Google ad on this forum:

http://www.realtruth.org/wtc_056_100409.html?cid=WTC0056&s_kwcid=TC

Not sure of the concrete weigh of such speeches amongst modern Christian communities, but apparently according to this Christianity says Democracy is Evil, right?

instead of 30 minutes, can you just boil it down for us in 30 seconds?  who is this group and why do they feel democracy is evil?

Well, I won't pull out the full demonstration, in short, he says that taking part in Democracy, by politically militating, voting, electing representatives who will hold some powers, is like an evil act, because for Christians only should matter 'Jesus' Church' and 'Jesus' Gospel', all the other political acts being acts of division and division belongs to Satan. Something like that, if you want to know more, enjoy the 30 mins from mister from RealTruth.com.

But the overall point of the demonstration was rather clear, Christians shouldn't take part in politics, by any means, and to an extent I guess he implied that they shouldn't recognize the power of political representatives.

And, I don't know who's this group, you'd certainly know more than me about Christian groups in US, no matter the group, once again I wondered about the liveliness and trendiness of such speeches today, especially in a country in which something like 'F**K DA BIG GOV'MENT!!' seems more and more trendy.

I am not very knowledgeable on the differences between Christian sects, but the only encounter I had with that type of belief is with the followers of Herbert Armstrong.  Armstrong was NOT a fundamentalist, rather he was a fruitcake: a hodgepodge of the worst heresies of Christianity combined into a single sect.

[Derek]

It is the scum of the earth; democracy. That's why I'm proud to live in a representative republic where anything but the majority goes. This prevents the majority from making slaves out of those who vote in minority.

[The Mikado]

I've had to read (contemporary to the time) intellectual defenses of monarchy that heavily drew on Christian tradition.  Stuff like "the only two people in the Old Testament given the exalted title of 'Anointed One' were David and Cyrus, two kings," or "Paul wanted us to follow the laws and orders of the society we lived in while being good Christians, and that means submitting to a king" or "the Psalms clearly indicate support for the glory of kings and God by extension."

Nothing particularly convincing, and I've never heard people seriously claim that Christianity is incompatible with democracy.

[Derek]

I've had to read (contemporary to the time) intellectual defenses of monarchy that heavily drew on Christian tradition.  Stuff like "the only two people in the Old Testament given the exalted title of 'Anointed One' were David and Cyrus, two kings," or "Paul wanted us to follow the laws and orders of the society we lived in while being good Christians, and that means submitting to a king" or "the Psalms clearly indicate support for the glory of kings and God by extension."

Nothing particularly convincing, and I've never heard people seriously claim that Christianity is incompatible with democracy.

Put yourself in the times of the Bible though. The idea of elected your leaders was new to ancient Greece long after the first biblical stories were written. The rulers were put there by divinity and if not then they wouldn't be in power. They believed in such things the same way people now believe that Christ died for their sins. Christianity can be perverted to support alot of types of government. The Bible has been abused by many and was never meant to be in the homes of every household or taken the way we take it today.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

elf in the times of the Bible though. The idea of elected your leaders was new to ancient Greece long after the first biblical stories were written. The rulers were put there by divinity and if not then they wouldn't be in power. They believed in such things the same way people now believe that Christ died for their sins. Christianity can be perverted to support alot of types of government. The Bible has been abused by many and was never meant to be in the homes of every household or taken the way we take it today.

What an ignorant thing to say.  Why don’t you just admit you’re an anti-Christian hack posing as a Christian simply to discredit Christianity.  Even from the time of Moses, the scripture was supposed to be an integral part of the home life:

Dt 11:18 Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 19 Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 20 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates, 21 so that your days and the days of your children may be many in the land that the LORD swore to give your forefathers, as many as the days that the heavens are above the earth. 22 If you carefully observe all these commands I am giving you to follow—to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways and to hold fast to him- 23 then the LORD will drive out all these nations before you, and you will dispossess nations larger and stronger than you.


and your comment is so obviously contradicted by scripture, there is no reason for you to reply to this post

[Derek]

elf in the times of the Bible though. The idea of elected your leaders was new to ancient Greece long after the first biblical stories were written. The rulers were put there by divinity and if not then they wouldn't be in power. They believed in such things the same way people now believe that Christ died for their sins. Christianity can be perverted to support alot of types of government. The Bible has been abused by many and was never meant to be in the homes of every household or taken the way we take it today.

What an ignorant thing to say.  Why don’t you just admit you’re an anti-Christian hack posing as a Christian simply to discredit Christianity.  Even from the time of Moses, the scripture was supposed to be an integral part of the home life:

Dt 11:18 Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 19 Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 20 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates, 21 so that your days and the days of your children may be many in the land that the LORD swore to give your forefathers, as many as the days that the heavens are above the earth. 22 If you carefully observe all these commands I am giving you to follow—to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways and to hold fast to him- 23 then the LORD will drive out all these nations before you, and you will dispossess nations larger and stronger than you.


and your comment is so obviously contradicted by scripture, there is no reason for you to reply to this post

'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

If you really believe in the Bible then you must believe that the law was handed falsely by the lying pen of scribes. The common consideration for Deuteronomy was Baruch who was the scribe of Jeremiah. Jeremiah was the son of Hilkiah according to scripture. Hilkiah was the one who handed Deuteronomy to Josiah. Want proof? read the Bible.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

If you really believe in the Bible then you must believe that the law was handed falsely by the lying pen of scribes. The common consideration for Deuteronomy was Baruch who was the scribe of Jeremiah. Jeremiah was the son of Hilkiah according to scripture. Hilkiah was the one who handed Deuteronomy to Josiah. Want proof? read the Bible.

(why is it that this forum becoming dumber than dumb?!)

You obviously are not ever smart and/or have never read the bible for the priests were the scribes, which means Jer 8:8 doesn’t have to be referring to copying scripture accurately, rather it could very well have to do with the “handling” (i.e. the expository writing) regarding what the Law meant and how it was to be applied by the people.  In fact, the context proves that it is indeed referring to their expository writing and not to the corruption of scripture:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Notice all the pronouns I bolded refer to exactly the same group of people and that that group is different from the “scribes”.  Now look at verse 9, that same group are accomplices, along with the scribes, to the crime of rejecting the word of God.  So the scribes (priests) did NOT fool the people by miscopying the scripture, rather the people were well aware of what the scripture said and simply “rejected” it.  For the people to reject the word of God, they had to have been made aware of the word of God - in other words, the priests "mishandled" (didn’t teach correctly) the word of God and the people went along with the false teaching.

And it is quite a trivial matter to prove that Jeremiah meant that the actually Law was rejected by the people and not miscopied:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, obviously, the people still had the word of God and God was warning them to follow it. Therefore, why do you consider yourself smart when you are so obviously contradictred by scripture?

Lastly, Jesus Christ himself affirmed the accuracy of the written Law, so go argue with God:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Derek]

'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

If you really believe in the Bible then you must believe that the law was handed falsely by the lying pen of scribes. The common consideration for Deuteronomy was Baruch who was the scribe of Jeremiah. Jeremiah was the son of Hilkiah according to scripture. Hilkiah was the one who handed Deuteronomy to Josiah. Want proof? read the Bible.

(why is it that this forum becoming dumber than dumb?!)

You obviously are not ever smart and/or have never read the bible for the priests were the scribes, which means Jer 8:8 doesn’t have to be referring to copying scripture accurately, rather it could very well have to do with the “handling” (i.e. the expository writing) regarding what the Law meant and how it was to be applied by the people.  In fact, the context proves that it is indeed referring to their expository writing and not to the corruption of scripture:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Notice all the pronouns I bolded refer to exactly the same group of people and that that group is different from the “scribes”.  Now look at verse 9, that same group are accomplices, along with the scribes, to the crime of rejecting the word of God.  So the scribes (priests) did NOT fool the people by miscopying the scripture, rather the people were well aware of what the scripture said and simply “rejected” it.  For the people to reject the word of God, they had to have been made aware of the word of God - in other words, the priests "mishandled" (didn’t teach correctly) the word of God and the people went along with the false teaching.

And it is quite a trivial matter to prove that Jeremiah meant that the actually Law was rejected by the people and not miscopied:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, obviously, the people still had the word of God and God was warning them to follow it. Therefore, why do you consider yourself smart when you are so obviously contradictred by scripture?

Lastly, Jesus Christ himself affirmed the accuracy of the written Law, so go argue with God:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The people rejected the law in the sense that they weren't perfect as no human is. They were duped into following it for the political gain of the Shiloh priests who benefited from Josiah's policies that forced offerings to be brought to the Temple in Jerusalem as opposed to the high places. The same can be said for Solomon's levy tax.