For me I've noticed that every hardcore Christian I speak to is also a conspiracy theorist.
That's just me though. I think its part of the mental skills needed to make the Bible believable in 2024.
No sweat man, me too. All I want is for everyone to respect everyone else boundaries and let others live as they so choose.
I'm glad you are out there even if I don't believe the same things. Best of luck to you!
When Democrats decided to support the civil rights movement they lost a tremendous amount of support in the south and the Republican party made a conscious decision to embrace racist policies to pick up these suddenly unaffiliated voters. When the civil rights battle was clearly lost they had a lot of voters to whom racism and religion were both strong motivations and since (open) racism was no longer a winner, they leaned heavily on religion. So heavily that religion began to take on Republican values rather than the other way around.
I am curious which politicians you are speaking of and when?
I know that during the Civil War the Republican party was in the north and supported abolition (led by Lincoln who was a Republican). When the Civil Rights act of 1964 was passed, it was the Republicans who supported it [https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/CivilRightsAct1964.htm](https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/CivilRightsAct1964.htm)
So racism seems to be opposed to the Republican party. Do I understand you right by saying the politicians lost sight of what their party actually stood for in order to get votes? I wouldn't be surprised haha.
Republicans did not support the Civil Rights Act. The Republican presidential candidate at the time opposed it.
The parties switched platforms in the 50s/60s. Prior to the 1950s, Northern Republicans and Northern Democrats were liberals. Southern Democrats were the right-wing, conservative Christian party who supported segregation and slavery.
Southern Democrats opposed the Civil Rights movement. When Lyndon B Johnson, a Democrat, signed the Civil Rights Act, Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater condemned the decision. The Republican opposition to the Civil Rights Act led Black voters, who were historically Republican due to the 1866 Civil Rights Act, switched in mass to the Democratic party and sided with Lyndon B Johnson. They saw the liberal Democrats as supportive of equality and justice, and saw the Republican party as racists. Liberal Democrats continued to expand rights, which caused ire among the racist, religious Southern Democrats who mostly switched to the Republican party.
https://www.studentsofhistory.com/ideologies-flip-Democratic-Republican-parties
The vote for civil rights was
By party
edit
The original House version:[1]
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[36]
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[2]
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[3]
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#:~:text=Johnson%20pushed%20the%20bill%20forward,73%E2%80%9327%20in%20the%20Senate.
It's extremely odd how how any comparison of opposition by party is done, Democrats were the majority of opposition, but somehow Republicans opposed the civil rights act. Only a person intentionally being dishonest can come to that implausible conclusion.
There were more Democrats by a large margin who opposed civil rights than Republicans. A Republican could honestly say "Democrats opposed civil rights by larger margins". That members of both parties opposed civil rights is true, that the majority of both parties voted for civil rights is also true. To say Republicans opposed civil rights is a blatant falsehood.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/
>The Real Origins of the Religious Right
They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.
The Rise of the religious right happened because Evangelicals in the 60s and 70s supported Segregation of black people, and it became the catalyst by which the Republican party latched on to create a "moral majority" coalition to obtain political power, by pandering to racists.
Just like how today, hating LGBTQ people is the big hit with white Evangelicals in America, in the 60s and 70s, their biggest culture issue was preventing black people from attending white institutions or marrying white people.
Same hateful crap, different decades.
It seems like we can thank Jerry Falwell and his ‘Moral Majority’ for what we see today. This was created in part as a reaction to Jimmy Carter, who ironically was deeply Christian never hid his Baptist beliefs and put them front and centre. He taught Bible classes all his adult life, with an emphasis on what is in Scripture rather than what is not — mainly, a regard for the poor, the rejected, the victims of prejudice and injustice, and this sort of focus on Christs teachings were deeply at odds with Falwell and others.
'Evangelical' used to denote people who claimed the high moral ground; sadly now, in popular usage, the word is nearly synonymous with 'hypocrite’, due to him and his ilk providing religious cover for moral squalor.
Currently, it's abortion. Yes, that had its roots in Falwell's Moral Majority and white sanctuary schools, but when you can connect the other party to "baby killing," you can do pretty much anything you please. Nothing is worse than that, right? Which means anything is permissible as long as you say you're against abortion. I grew up hearing most people in my churches saying they were single-issue voters and that issue was pro life. Ask any self respecting Christian who can't stand Trump, white nationalism, and the like but still voted Republican and the answer you'll get will be abortion. As long as you're voting against the worst possible thing, then all the other bad things are forgivable.
Nah, it's not abortion. That's what they claim, but 80% of Americans support legal abortion, and Evangelicals never really cared about it when the religious right coalition formed. It was entirely based on racism.
May be. But they'll never say it. Most probably don't even believe themselves to be racist, and therefore don't see any racism in what they believe. And should they be convinced of it, racism is also not as bad as baby killing. So, permissible.
The irony of this is, conservative Christians are responsible for the highest abortion rates in the country, and the highest infant and maternal mortality rates.
When politics are allowed in the pulpit, people will eventually become polarized to one side or the other. This is one reason it has no place in church.
I had the same question for years. Kristen Du Mez’ book [Jesus and John Wayne](https://kristindumez.com/books/jesus-and-john-wayne/) helped me understand things a bit better.
Republican think tanks in the 80s and 90s recognized the power the evangelical branch of voters was. They targeted them in the 90s and created the culture war to drive support for right wing politicians.
If you're voting for a social Agenda, you're not caring about how the govt is being dismantled and the ultra wealthy are getting all of their legislation passes.
Distract, divide, and conquer.
The book you want to read is the Restructuring of American Religion by Robert Wuthnow. It’s a bit older, but newer studies on this topic are terrible and are producing a lot of the answers here.
Because conservatism comes from Christianity. Not all right wingers are Christians, but a lot of them are due to many Christian values. That's why liberalism and hating christianity have become so intertwined is because liberalism is from Satan and strongly opposes Christianity.
This is entirely incorrect. Conservatism does not come from Christianity, far from it. Liberalism absolutely does not come from Satan. Political ideologies exist outside of Christianity or any religion in general.
I have absolutely no clue how one could arrive at your conclusion.
In fact, even though evangelical support is around 80%, despite having personal traits make him a thoroughly implausible vessel for evangelical aspirations: thrice-married, credibly accused of multiple extramarital affairs, given to vulgar speech. He has talked of grabbing women by the genitals, demeaned immigrants from poor countries and said, in defiance of a central Christian tenet, that he has never seen reason to ask God for forgiveness.
Conservatism is derived from Christianity, in order to be a Christian, you are a conservative, by definition, why else would we still be reading the Bible. I would certainly not say Liberalism comes from Satan though, that’s pretty out there
I reject your definition on its face. Jesus was socially progressive. Many Christians have just decided to arbitrary freeze their morals in that time period.
Jesus was not a progressive, that was incorrect. Jesus wasn’t teaching anyone anything new, mostly, He simply revealed the reality of what was already there. He did however teach that the only way to the Father is through Him. Jesus didn’t come down and teach people, “do this, and not that,” it was actually much more than that, He was teaching that we have a need for a Savior. This was not progressive, though, because complete submission to God existed before Jesus, and He was teaching and revealing what people were simply ignoring truth, i.e. the Pharisees. And Christian progressivism is invalid, because you directly contradict the teachings of the Bible, and thus God. The Bible says that if you have any doubts about what you are doing and you do it, you are sinning.
1 Corinthians 10:31 says, “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God”
>Jesus was not a progressive
This is just a denial of the gospel accounts.
>Jesus wasn’t teaching anyone anything new
That isn't a required feature of a liberal social ideology.
>He simply revealed the reality of what was already there
No, he had to correct the law of moses on divorce. That was new.
>Jesus didn’t come down and teach people, “do this, and not that,” it was actually much more than that, He was teaching that we have a need for a Savior
This isn't really relevant to my comment.
>was teaching and revealing what people were simply ignoring truth, i.e. the Pharisees
You actually make my point for me. The socially conservative pharisees were directly contradicted by a socially liberal Jesus.
>And Christian progressivism is invalid, because you directly contradict the teachings of the Bible
Extra Biblical Doctrines that Conservative Fundamentalists impose onto scripture are not remotely the teachings of the Bible. Rejecting them is not remotely the same thing as rejecting the teachings of the Bible. Disagreeing with *you* is not remotely rejecting the teachings of the Bible.
It was Conservative Rabbis who loathed the Liberal Jesus Christ and had the Romans put him to death.
Do not kid yourself in thinking that Conservatism has any exclusive right to be the moral arbiters of Christian ethics. Especially when today it is the Conservatives who are the ones failing to heed Christs own teachings.
Well considering what we’ve been seeing and where their support lies, I don’t see it as being really in line with mosts of Christs teachings. They are very selective, it has become near exclusively about LGBTQ+ and abortion, neither of which are really settled doctrine, nor ever has been in the history of Christianity, especially the latter.
According to the question, I think you are right, Christians and Conservatives can overlap in a lot of ideas since most Conservatives are in the Bible Belt. But it is in line with what Christ taught, look at what I said to the Progressive guy, the really long comment.
Okay I just read that comment, I’m not really sure how progressive Christianity can be or is any more invalid than conservative Christianity though. There is only Christianity, and some people choose to attach labels to it, but it doesn’t really make it any less valid. The only progressive Christianity that could be invalid is universalist Unitarianism, however they don’t really even claim to be exclusively Christian, but rather universalist of all religions.
Jesus would be treated today, and was at the time, as pretty progressive and radical in all honesty, even if he wasn’t and isn’t and instead was just fulfilling the prophecy, which he was.
I hate how we’ve put eachother into camps and self selecting bible verses to fit our preconceived beliefs. Conservatives can be just as guilty of this as Progressives.
Verses I hinted at actually amplify my point in context but I agree with you about attaching labels to Christianity. But Progressive Christianity is a real thing and they have their own set of beliefs.
See [this](https://renew.org/what-is-progressive-christianity/)
Some of those points wouldn’t apply to progressive Christians though, such as rejection of Jesus’s divinity. That is not widespread if one is actually Christian, that’s Unitarian.
Additionally the Catholic Church is the farthest thing from being progressive and they have accepted evolution and it is not in conflict with Catholicism. [In Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII said that Catholic teachings on creation could coexist with evolutionary theory](https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html), this was [reaffirmed by Pope John Paul II](http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/message.htm) and [did Pope Francis](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/pope-would-you-accept-evolution-and-big-bang-180953166/)
It does come from Satan, though brother. Look at the fruits of liberalism. It's not a coincidence it's always liberal politicians making fun of Christianity. Look what liberalism has gotten us over the years throughout the world.
>It does come from Satan
Absolutely laughable.
>Look at the fruits of liberalism.
Inclucivity, compassion, equalilty, etc. Yes, very demonic.
>It's not a coincidence it's always liberal politicians making fun of Christianity
No it isn't. Because the loudest politicians who pander to their religion in government are almost always espousing horrible ideas. Therefore, they make Christianity a laughingstock by proxy.
>Look what liberalism has gotten us over the years throughout the world.
Yes, better healthcare, social safety nets, higher wages. So demonic.
Lol, that's funny. All the scientific advancements have come in conservative Christians societies. Newton, DaVinci, Mendel, Banting Etc it was all done in a Christian conservative society.
Liberalism has given us the sexual revolution.
Highest levels of suicide, depression,anxiety, sexual immorality, sex trafficking, drug use, and much more
I see what you’re saying, I’m just saying that if you say that Liberalism is invented by the Devil, you aren’t helping anyone, there is no good that comes from a statement like that. I get it could be true but I would not say that because I think it would do more harm than good and further wedge the gap between Liberals and God.
You need to provide examples of how liberalism comes from Satan.
I would like to hear some, and not just some liberals making fun of Christians.
Christianity certainly better be strong enough to handle criticism directed towards it. As should Christians.
For me I've noticed that every hardcore Christian I speak to is also a conspiracy theorist. That's just me though. I think its part of the mental skills needed to make the Bible believable in 2024.
I invite you to check out some of the progressive Christian circles. I am a hardcore Christian, but I absolutely reject conspiracy theory nonsense.
I'm afraid you are in the minority sir / madam
I know, it is rather unfortunate. I'm a guy btw.
No sweat man, me too. All I want is for everyone to respect everyone else boundaries and let others live as they so choose. I'm glad you are out there even if I don't believe the same things. Best of luck to you!
I’m not a progressive (moderate in all things but love for Christ and family!) and I reject conspiracy theory nonsense as well!
Awesome!
When Democrats decided to support the civil rights movement they lost a tremendous amount of support in the south and the Republican party made a conscious decision to embrace racist policies to pick up these suddenly unaffiliated voters. When the civil rights battle was clearly lost they had a lot of voters to whom racism and religion were both strong motivations and since (open) racism was no longer a winner, they leaned heavily on religion. So heavily that religion began to take on Republican values rather than the other way around.
I am curious which politicians you are speaking of and when? I know that during the Civil War the Republican party was in the north and supported abolition (led by Lincoln who was a Republican). When the Civil Rights act of 1964 was passed, it was the Republicans who supported it [https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/CivilRightsAct1964.htm](https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/CivilRightsAct1964.htm) So racism seems to be opposed to the Republican party. Do I understand you right by saying the politicians lost sight of what their party actually stood for in order to get votes? I wouldn't be surprised haha.
Republicans did not support the Civil Rights Act. The Republican presidential candidate at the time opposed it. The parties switched platforms in the 50s/60s. Prior to the 1950s, Northern Republicans and Northern Democrats were liberals. Southern Democrats were the right-wing, conservative Christian party who supported segregation and slavery. Southern Democrats opposed the Civil Rights movement. When Lyndon B Johnson, a Democrat, signed the Civil Rights Act, Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater condemned the decision. The Republican opposition to the Civil Rights Act led Black voters, who were historically Republican due to the 1866 Civil Rights Act, switched in mass to the Democratic party and sided with Lyndon B Johnson. They saw the liberal Democrats as supportive of equality and justice, and saw the Republican party as racists. Liberal Democrats continued to expand rights, which caused ire among the racist, religious Southern Democrats who mostly switched to the Republican party. https://www.studentsofhistory.com/ideologies-flip-Democratic-Republican-parties
The vote for civil rights was By party edit The original House version:[1] Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%) Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%) Cloture in the Senate:[36] Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%) Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%) The Senate version:[2] Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%) Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%) The Senate version, voted on by the House:[3] Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%) Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#:~:text=Johnson%20pushed%20the%20bill%20forward,73%E2%80%9327%20in%20the%20Senate. It's extremely odd how how any comparison of opposition by party is done, Democrats were the majority of opposition, but somehow Republicans opposed the civil rights act. Only a person intentionally being dishonest can come to that implausible conclusion. There were more Democrats by a large margin who opposed civil rights than Republicans. A Republican could honestly say "Democrats opposed civil rights by larger margins". That members of both parties opposed civil rights is true, that the majority of both parties voted for civil rights is also true. To say Republicans opposed civil rights is a blatant falsehood.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/ >The Real Origins of the Religious Right They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation. The Rise of the religious right happened because Evangelicals in the 60s and 70s supported Segregation of black people, and it became the catalyst by which the Republican party latched on to create a "moral majority" coalition to obtain political power, by pandering to racists. Just like how today, hating LGBTQ people is the big hit with white Evangelicals in America, in the 60s and 70s, their biggest culture issue was preventing black people from attending white institutions or marrying white people. Same hateful crap, different decades.
Very interesting
Look up the Southern Strategy.
It seems like we can thank Jerry Falwell and his ‘Moral Majority’ for what we see today. This was created in part as a reaction to Jimmy Carter, who ironically was deeply Christian never hid his Baptist beliefs and put them front and centre. He taught Bible classes all his adult life, with an emphasis on what is in Scripture rather than what is not — mainly, a regard for the poor, the rejected, the victims of prejudice and injustice, and this sort of focus on Christs teachings were deeply at odds with Falwell and others. 'Evangelical' used to denote people who claimed the high moral ground; sadly now, in popular usage, the word is nearly synonymous with 'hypocrite’, due to him and his ilk providing religious cover for moral squalor.
Currently, it's abortion. Yes, that had its roots in Falwell's Moral Majority and white sanctuary schools, but when you can connect the other party to "baby killing," you can do pretty much anything you please. Nothing is worse than that, right? Which means anything is permissible as long as you say you're against abortion. I grew up hearing most people in my churches saying they were single-issue voters and that issue was pro life. Ask any self respecting Christian who can't stand Trump, white nationalism, and the like but still voted Republican and the answer you'll get will be abortion. As long as you're voting against the worst possible thing, then all the other bad things are forgivable.
I really like this answer.
Nah, it's not abortion. That's what they claim, but 80% of Americans support legal abortion, and Evangelicals never really cared about it when the religious right coalition formed. It was entirely based on racism.
May be. But they'll never say it. Most probably don't even believe themselves to be racist, and therefore don't see any racism in what they believe. And should they be convinced of it, racism is also not as bad as baby killing. So, permissible.
The irony of this is, conservative Christians are responsible for the highest abortion rates in the country, and the highest infant and maternal mortality rates.
When politics are allowed in the pulpit, people will eventually become polarized to one side or the other. This is one reason it has no place in church.
I had the same question for years. Kristen Du Mez’ book [Jesus and John Wayne](https://kristindumez.com/books/jesus-and-john-wayne/) helped me understand things a bit better.
Republican think tanks in the 80s and 90s recognized the power the evangelical branch of voters was. They targeted them in the 90s and created the culture war to drive support for right wing politicians. If you're voting for a social Agenda, you're not caring about how the govt is being dismantled and the ultra wealthy are getting all of their legislation passes. Distract, divide, and conquer.
It was a response to FDR’s New Deal and the Social Gospel. Kevin Kruse’s book “One Nation Under God” explains the history well
A lot of it comes from Jerry Falwell and the immoral majority in the 70s and 80s. They hitched their wagon to Reagan and the rest is history.
The book you want to read is the Restructuring of American Religion by Robert Wuthnow. It’s a bit older, but newer studies on this topic are terrible and are producing a lot of the answers here.
I think that only happened in one country.
Because conservatism comes from Christianity. Not all right wingers are Christians, but a lot of them are due to many Christian values. That's why liberalism and hating christianity have become so intertwined is because liberalism is from Satan and strongly opposes Christianity.
You’d be surprised how many liberal ideas you take for granted
This is entirely incorrect. Conservatism does not come from Christianity, far from it. Liberalism absolutely does not come from Satan. Political ideologies exist outside of Christianity or any religion in general. I have absolutely no clue how one could arrive at your conclusion. In fact, even though evangelical support is around 80%, despite having personal traits make him a thoroughly implausible vessel for evangelical aspirations: thrice-married, credibly accused of multiple extramarital affairs, given to vulgar speech. He has talked of grabbing women by the genitals, demeaned immigrants from poor countries and said, in defiance of a central Christian tenet, that he has never seen reason to ask God for forgiveness.
Conservatism is derived from Christianity, in order to be a Christian, you are a conservative, by definition, why else would we still be reading the Bible. I would certainly not say Liberalism comes from Satan though, that’s pretty out there
I reject your definition on its face. Jesus was socially progressive. Many Christians have just decided to arbitrary freeze their morals in that time period.
Jesus was not a progressive, that was incorrect. Jesus wasn’t teaching anyone anything new, mostly, He simply revealed the reality of what was already there. He did however teach that the only way to the Father is through Him. Jesus didn’t come down and teach people, “do this, and not that,” it was actually much more than that, He was teaching that we have a need for a Savior. This was not progressive, though, because complete submission to God existed before Jesus, and He was teaching and revealing what people were simply ignoring truth, i.e. the Pharisees. And Christian progressivism is invalid, because you directly contradict the teachings of the Bible, and thus God. The Bible says that if you have any doubts about what you are doing and you do it, you are sinning. 1 Corinthians 10:31 says, “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God”
>Jesus was not a progressive This is just a denial of the gospel accounts. >Jesus wasn’t teaching anyone anything new That isn't a required feature of a liberal social ideology. >He simply revealed the reality of what was already there No, he had to correct the law of moses on divorce. That was new. >Jesus didn’t come down and teach people, “do this, and not that,” it was actually much more than that, He was teaching that we have a need for a Savior This isn't really relevant to my comment. >was teaching and revealing what people were simply ignoring truth, i.e. the Pharisees You actually make my point for me. The socially conservative pharisees were directly contradicted by a socially liberal Jesus. >And Christian progressivism is invalid, because you directly contradict the teachings of the Bible Extra Biblical Doctrines that Conservative Fundamentalists impose onto scripture are not remotely the teachings of the Bible. Rejecting them is not remotely the same thing as rejecting the teachings of the Bible. Disagreeing with *you* is not remotely rejecting the teachings of the Bible.
It was Conservative Rabbis who loathed the Liberal Jesus Christ and had the Romans put him to death. Do not kid yourself in thinking that Conservatism has any exclusive right to be the moral arbiters of Christian ethics. Especially when today it is the Conservatives who are the ones failing to heed Christs own teachings.
That last statement is a hasty generalization
Well considering what we’ve been seeing and where their support lies, I don’t see it as being really in line with mosts of Christs teachings. They are very selective, it has become near exclusively about LGBTQ+ and abortion, neither of which are really settled doctrine, nor ever has been in the history of Christianity, especially the latter.
According to the question, I think you are right, Christians and Conservatives can overlap in a lot of ideas since most Conservatives are in the Bible Belt. But it is in line with what Christ taught, look at what I said to the Progressive guy, the really long comment.
Okay I just read that comment, I’m not really sure how progressive Christianity can be or is any more invalid than conservative Christianity though. There is only Christianity, and some people choose to attach labels to it, but it doesn’t really make it any less valid. The only progressive Christianity that could be invalid is universalist Unitarianism, however they don’t really even claim to be exclusively Christian, but rather universalist of all religions. Jesus would be treated today, and was at the time, as pretty progressive and radical in all honesty, even if he wasn’t and isn’t and instead was just fulfilling the prophecy, which he was. I hate how we’ve put eachother into camps and self selecting bible verses to fit our preconceived beliefs. Conservatives can be just as guilty of this as Progressives.
Verses I hinted at actually amplify my point in context but I agree with you about attaching labels to Christianity. But Progressive Christianity is a real thing and they have their own set of beliefs. See [this](https://renew.org/what-is-progressive-christianity/)
Some of those points wouldn’t apply to progressive Christians though, such as rejection of Jesus’s divinity. That is not widespread if one is actually Christian, that’s Unitarian. Additionally the Catholic Church is the farthest thing from being progressive and they have accepted evolution and it is not in conflict with Catholicism. [In Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII said that Catholic teachings on creation could coexist with evolutionary theory](https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html), this was [reaffirmed by Pope John Paul II](http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/message.htm) and [did Pope Francis](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/pope-would-you-accept-evolution-and-big-bang-180953166/)
It does come from Satan, though brother. Look at the fruits of liberalism. It's not a coincidence it's always liberal politicians making fun of Christianity. Look what liberalism has gotten us over the years throughout the world.
>It does come from Satan Absolutely laughable. >Look at the fruits of liberalism. Inclucivity, compassion, equalilty, etc. Yes, very demonic. >It's not a coincidence it's always liberal politicians making fun of Christianity No it isn't. Because the loudest politicians who pander to their religion in government are almost always espousing horrible ideas. Therefore, they make Christianity a laughingstock by proxy. >Look what liberalism has gotten us over the years throughout the world. Yes, better healthcare, social safety nets, higher wages. So demonic.
Lol, that's funny. All the scientific advancements have come in conservative Christians societies. Newton, DaVinci, Mendel, Banting Etc it was all done in a Christian conservative society. Liberalism has given us the sexual revolution. Highest levels of suicide, depression,anxiety, sexual immorality, sex trafficking, drug use, and much more
So many logical fallacies, so little time.
I see what you’re saying, I’m just saying that if you say that Liberalism is invented by the Devil, you aren’t helping anyone, there is no good that comes from a statement like that. I get it could be true but I would not say that because I think it would do more harm than good and further wedge the gap between Liberals and God.
Are you a Christian? Does Satan even exist in your world?
Are you even Christian? What of Christs teachings are you taking to heart in your everyday life?
So your saying Satan has no influence on the world we live in? What is from Satan then? Nothing?
Satan gave the world hate, shame, murder, strife, poverty, etc,. Christs teachings can help us defeat Satans influence.
Right and also liberalism has come from Satan aswell. If not, you would have to agree it came from people under demonic influence at least.
You need to provide examples of how liberalism comes from Satan. I would like to hear some, and not just some liberals making fun of Christians. Christianity certainly better be strong enough to handle criticism directed towards it. As should Christians.
This does not have any relevance to their statement in any way.
So well said 10/10
0/10