Did Satan usher Democracy into the world?

[Apocalypse]

"But the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die! No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad.” (Gen 3:4-5)

The idea that man apart from God’s Law can decide on his-own, what is right and wrong, what is good and bad… is this not a democracy? (i.e. pornography, abortion, the death sentence, same-sex marriages, childhood-sex promoted by teachings of safe-sex, rather then the Word of God etc).

Through a democracy we become the objective norm to all that is right and wrong. Now compare this to the Islamic law of the Muslim world.

The law of Islam is built on the Koran. The Old Testament of the Christian bible is used in the Koran, this is the history of the Hebrew People and it is the point of commonality where Christianity and Islam intersect.

The Second Vatican Council (1962-5) acknowledged that Muslims “are related in various ways to the People of God” and that God looked upon Muslims “with esteem”.
It was said Muslims hold “first place” among those who “acknowledge the creator”.

Food for Thought: To destroy the foundation of Islamic law, which Afghanistan and Iraq were built upon, and to replace it with a law of democracy, are we really doing the work of justice?

Remember the book of “Daniel”! At the “End Times” the beast will go to Daniel’s land, conquer it and rule over the people (Dan 10:24). Daniel lived in Jerusalem, which was taken by Babylon (Dan 1); Here Daniel received his vision while on the great river, the Tigris (Dan 10:4), where today is located in Iraq. This is the land where Daniel lived. In the end of days, the “horrible abomination is set up” (Dan 12:7-12) on Daniel’s land.

I am not saying that Bush is antiChrist or that the “horrible abomination” is democracy set up on Daniel’s land… but what I will say is that Jesus’ message to St. Faustina was, “Before the Day of Justice, I am sending the Day of Mercy”, and has been half fulfilled by Pope John Paul II, by declaring the first Sunday after Easter to be “Mercy Sunday”. The prophecies of St. Malachy; the last popes, were also fulfilled by our past popes and our current pope, who chose the name Pope Benedict, which was also prophesied… All this stuff just makes me wonder.

This is all just coincidence, and everybody knows that these prophecies aren’t genuine… right? … really I’m not sure… What do you think?

 

[Spirithound]

The idea that man apart from God’s Law can decide on his-own, what is right and wrong, what is good and bad is not democracy, it is pride. Democracy would be if a majority decided that, however, traditionally, in the US and Canada (where i am) Christian morals have prevailed. But in short, democracy is a group project, sin is properly an individual endeavour.

I wouldn’t like to make the comparison that you do, as you equate democracy with sin and Islamic law with Godliness, and to draw on the Taliban, which you appear to be referring to, women were severely oppressed. I’m not just talking about men being the head of the family, which I believe to be God’s will, but to women not being allowed to leave the house, vote, etc.

The “prophecy” of St. Malachy was a hoax. He did not write it. It is possible to link Pope B16 to it through a series of tenuous word associations, but it’s all bunk.

So, to answer the question asked by the thread, no democracy was not introduced to the world by Satan.
To answer the question begged by your post, please do some research before you post again.

 

[thistle]

The idea that man apart from God’s Law can decide on his-own, what is right and wrong, what is good and bad is not democracy, it is pride. Democracy would be if a majority decided that, however, traditionally, in the US and Canada (where i am) Christian morals have prevailed. But in short, democracy is a group project, sin is properly an individual endeavour.

I wouldn’t like to make the comparison that you do, as you equate democracy with sin and Islamic law with Godliness, and to draw on the Taliban, which you appear to be referring to, women were severely oppressed. I’m not just talking about men being the head of the family, which I believe to be God’s will, but to women not being allowed to leave the house, vote, etc.

The “prophecy” of St. Malachy was a hoax. He did not write it. It is possible to link Pope B16 to it through a series of tenuous word associations, but it’s all bunk.

So, to answer the question asked by the thread, no democracy was not introduced to the world by Satan.
To answer the question begged by your post, please do some research before you post again.

I totally agree with you.

 

[rpp]

The idea that man apart from God’s Law can decide on his-own, what is right and wrong, what is good and bad is not democracy, it is pride. Democracy would be if a majority decided that, however, traditionally, in the US and Canada (where i am) Christian morals have prevailed. But in short, democracy is a group project, sin is properly an individual endeavour.

I agree that sin is an individual choice. However, Catholic social teachings require governments to enact just laws.

To claim that the USA and Canada have laws based on Christian morals is no longer accurate. They started out that way, but, Democracy being what it is, they were eliminated. For example, laws against sodomy have been overturned in both countries. In Canada, they have been replaced by laws that prevent people from claiming that homosexual behavior is. Then, of course, there is the militant promotion of homosexual marriage, which is the law in Canada.

In both countries, the ability for women to murder their own children on a whim, before they reach some arbitrary, age (birth) is a “Right”.

Pornography is protected both countries by a set of complex and overlapping laws and rights.

I would say that there is may be some truth to the contention that elements of democracy have diobolical origins. Even if the origins are not diobolical, there seems to be a strong diobolical influence now.

 

[Rach620]

The idea that man apart from God’s Law can decide on his-own, what is right and wrong, what is good and bad… is this not a democracy? (i.e. pornography, abortion, the death sentence, same-sex marriages, childhood-sex promoted by teachings of safe-sex, rather then the Word of God etc).

Through a democracy we become the objective norm to all that is right and wrong.

I don’t believe that democracy itself is to blame for the culture of death and moral relativism which we find in America today. There are great risks which are inherent to democracy (what you are speaking of here is tyranny of the majority), but I firmly believe that if these risks are mitigated that democracy, in its various forms, is perhaps the best form of modern human political organization.

Pope John Paul II on this very subject (Centesimus Annus):

1. The Church values the democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the participation of citizens in making political choices, guarantees to the governed the possibility both of electing and holding accountable those who govern them, and of replacing them through peaceful means when appropriate.

Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the “subjectivity” of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.

The Church respects *the legitimate autonomy of the democratic order *and is not entitled to express preferences for this or that institutional or constitutional solution. Her contribution to the political order is precisely her vision of the dignity of the person revealed in all its fulness in the mystery of the Incarnate Word.

To destroy the foundation of Islamic law, which Afghanistan and Iraq were built upon, and to replace it with a law of democracy, are we really doing the work of justice?

The question is whether Sharia law itself is just. The Koran, as far as I am aware, is self-contradictory, and Sharia law is based on a particular literal interpretation of it which is not always compatible with Christian or natural law. What should be the goal in Iraq is a government which takes into account the proper end of the human person in God, with inalienable rights which come from that understanding. Democracy in the modern age seems to have been the political system most able to do that.

However, imposing the American system on Iraq or Afghanistan isn’t going to work. Building a successful democracy happens from the ground up, and takes time. It can’t be imposed by another country. There’s been some promise in the two countries that a successful democracy might take root, but it’ll take lots of time–and we’ll need to have US forces there along the way as the two countries try to get there.

I’m not sure where you’re going with the prophecies, I don’t follow them myself.

 

[Apocalypse]

The idea that man apart from God’s Law can decide on his-own, what is right and wrong, what is good and bad is not democracy, it is pride. Democracy would be if a majority decided that, however, traditionally, in the US and Canada (where i am) Christian morals have prevailed. But in short, democracy is a group project, sin is properly an individual endeavour.

Thank you for clarifying that for me. I completely understand now The idea that man apart from God’s Law can decide on his-own, what is right and wrong, what is good and bad is pride, “an individual endeavor”.

Although America was founded on the Bible and the 10 commandments are still etched into the walls of the Supreme Court, today through a group project we have told God to leave our schools, our courts, our government buildings, our nation as a whole… in short, through democracy. Ahhh, thanks for that lesson.

please do some research before you post again.

This is my research You put it all in perspective for me! Thanks

 

[tabcom]

Originally Posted by Spirithound
The idea that man apart from God’s Law can decide on his-own, what is right and wrong, what is good and bad is not democracy, it is pride. Democracy would be if a majority decided that,
**
I agree with both statements. Man apart from God is ruled by pride. The first democracy was in the garden. Satan, Eve, and Adam voted for pride and threw out God.**

 

[rwoehmke]

Go to crisismagazine.com. In the bottom left side click on past issues then on November 2006. There is an article about Benedict XVI’s thoughts on Islam versis Chritianity and he pretty much pans the idea of Scripture or Quran without reasoning by the reader. When scripture is taken in a fundemental manner without the use of reasoning by man things get rapidly out of hand.

 

[JReducation]

In an article on Catholic News Agency Archbishop Charles Chaput, OFM, Cap had the following to say about democracy.

catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=48

***Lawmaking inevitably involves some group imposing its beliefs on the rest of us. That’s the nature of the democratic process. If we say that we “ought” to do something, we are making a moral judgment. When our legislators turn that judgment into law, somebody’s ought becomes a “must” for the whole of society. This is not inherently dangerous; it’s how pluralism works.

Democracy depends on people of conviction expressing their views, confidently and without embarrassment. This give-and-take is an American tradition, and religious believers play a vital role in it. We don’t serve our country - in fact we weaken it intellectually - if we downplay our principles or fail to speak forcefully out of some misguided sense of good manners.

As James 2:17 reminds us, in a passage quoted in the final presidential debate, “Faith without works is dead.” It is a valid point. People should act on what they claim to believe. Otherwise they are violating their own conscience, and lying to themselves and the rest of us.*

Democracy is not the work of the devil, it is a pluralistic process in which all participate according to their conscience**.

I found it very useful.

JR

 

[Author_Jerry]

Let us put it this way: historically, Theocracies have never worked well. In modern times, you need only to look at Saudi Arabia.