How did Secularism overthrow Christianity?

[junk]

In the early centuries, Christianity spread until it eventually became the State religion. In the last few centuries, Secularism, by which I mean atheism, agnosticism and the like instead of a strict dictionary definition, spread until it eventually became the State religion.

What did the early Christians do that they were able to convince the pagans that Jesus Christ is indeed Lord? What aren’t we doing to convince the Secularists that Jesus Christ is Lord? What have the Secularists been doing that they’ve been able to convince Christians that Jesus Christ isn’t Lord?

 

[GregoryPalamas]

In the early centuries, Christianity spread until it eventually became the State religion. In the last few centuries, Secularism, by which I mean atheism, agnosticism and the like instead of a strict dictionary definition, spread until it eventually became the State religion.

What did the early Christians do that they were able to convince the pagans that Jesus Christ is indeed Lord? What aren’t we doing to convince the Secularists that Jesus Christ is Lord? What have the Secularists been doing that they’ve been able to convince Christians that Jesus Christ isn’t Lord?

Secularism as we know it today was reinvented in 1648 at the end of the thirty years war with the Peace of Westphalia. I’m not sure it was intended but that was the outcome.

The reason we have slid so far, or at least one reason, despite the heroic efforts of many, is that we are infected with the disease to some degree ourselves. Everytime Catholics say “I don’t have to go to Church to be a Christian” or “Your truth is not my truth” or something like that we show that we are infected. We don’t wish the pain of ridicule and certainly not of martyrdom. It probably explains why third world Christians tend to be stronger in their faith than first world Christians.

CDL

 

[junk]

How have so many of us become convinced by relativism? The deluge that we are facing now didn’t happen in one day - 200 years ago it was probably just a trickle, 100 years ago a stream and 50 years ago a river. How did progressively greater numbers of Christians become infected with this mindset? What have we been doing wrong over the last few hundred years, and why have we been so inept at resisting it? What could we do to tackle it? What would the earliest Christians have done? Would they find it just as difficult as we do? Why do we so fear ridicule and did the earliest Christians not fear it? How did they overcome it?

Could the triumph of Secularism have been achieved by some sort of insidious distortion of Christianity’s “turn the other cheek” philosophy, or by some other means?

I know that’s a lot of questions, but they could be summarised as “how can we better be what Christ has commanded us to be in light of our failures over the last few centuries?”

 

[Allweather]

I’m not sure that secularism has overthrown Christianity. It might seem that way, though.

Daily life must be a lot different now than it was, say, 250 years ago. The difference in daily life between, say, 1750, and, say, 500, probably wasn’t nearly as dramatic as it is between, say, 1850, and 2007. In prior centuries, there was less to hold one’s attention away from Godly pursuits, and so people naturally tended to spend more time studying God and things about God.

BTW there was a pretty good program on History Channel last night, The Dark Ages. It might be repeated. I think there are also programs upcoming that deal with the era of European events subsequent to the collapse of the Roman Empire. Good stuff.

 

[Franciscan]

In the early centuries, Christianity spread until it eventually became the State religion. In the last few centuries, Secularism, by which I mean atheism, agnosticism and the like instead of a strict dictionary definition, spread until it eventually became the State religion.

What did the early Christians do that they were able to convince the pagans that Jesus Christ is indeed Lord? What aren’t we doing to convince the Secularists that Jesus Christ is Lord? What have the Secularists been doing that they’ve been able to convince Christians that Jesus Christ isn’t Lord?

This is an excellent question.

Reformation-Enlightenment-The Cult of Reason-French Revolution-Darwin-Technological boom"progress", The pill-Sexual Revolution-Abortion on demand-Women no longer “stay-at-home”-Divorce-Fertility Control-Wide-spread Narciscism fortified with Secular ideology.

These are just some of the monumental factors that shape the Secularist mindset. I didn’t even get into the giants in philosophy that gave momentum to the atheistic ‘intelligensia/academia’ that run and teach at universities.

So there is a mandatory secularist brainwashing that people have to go through beginning in gradeschool but lasting through college where it reaches its zenith in the level of intensity and arrogance.

The pagans were easier to convert because they unlike the secularists never abandoned or denied their built-in religious/sacramental nature. They didn’t have a brainwashing/indoctrination program as strong as secularists.They didn’t have an automatic hostility to religion as many secularists have.
They were able to see that Catholicism was an easy transition into a higher truth of which they already had certain elements.

For a good look at the milestones of decline in philosophy take a look a Kreefts’ articles here
catholiceducation.org/links/search.cgi?query=pillars+of+unbelief

 

[R_McGeddon]

In the last few centuries, Secularism, by which I mean atheism, agnosticism and the like instead of a strict dictionary definition, spread until it eventually became the State religion.

Atheism and agnosticism is not what secularism means. Secularism asserts freedom of religion.

What did the early Christians do that they were able to convince the pagans that Jesus Christ is indeed Lord?

They either threatened to run them through with the sword or burn them at the stake. Quite persuasive don’t you think?

What aren’t we doing to convince the Secularists that Jesus Christ is Lord? What have the Secularists been doing that they’ve been able to convince Christians that Jesus Christ isn’t Lord?

All irrelevant, there are religious secularists and non-religious secularists.

 

[junk]

Atheism and agnosticism is not what secularism means. Secularism asserts freedom of religion.

It has also taken on a meaning of “freedom from religion.” That’s why I said “instead of the strict dictionary definition” - I wanted to use the word for a whole variety of secular ideologies and belief systems associated with it, while at the same time excluding that definition. I wasn’t clear enough?
R McGeddon:

They either threatened to run them through with the sword or burn them at the stake. Quite persuasive don’t you think?

Erm, forgive me if I’m wrong, but it wasn’t the early Christians who fed the pagans to the lions, now, was it?

 

[junk]

The pagans were easier to convert because they unlike the secularists never abandoned or denied their built-in religious/sacramental nature. They didn’t have a brainwashing/indoctrination program as strong as secularists.They didn’t have an automatic hostility to religion as many secularists have.

How could we have permitted secularism to become institutionalised in such a way? Were we just oblivious to the threat?

Maybe we suffered from the boiling frog syndrome. Things happened too subtly at first, and by the 20th Century, the water was already too hot, so by the time 60s happened, we were already too weak to jump out…

 

[junk]

They either threatened to run them through with the sword or burn them at the stake. Quite persuasive don’t you think?

Erm, forgive me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think it was the early Christians fed the pagans to the lions, now, was it?

 

[Franciscan]

How could we have permitted secularism to become institutionalised in such a way? Were we just oblivious to the threat?

When you talk about America, the way it happened was incrementally. When the Scopes trial opened the door to evolution/Darwinian science to be acceptable in school that was the slippery slope that led to the complete elimination of Creationism, Bible references in textbooks, Religious references on National monuments taken out, Prayer in school.

The Christian response was divided between Majority Protestant and minority Catholic. In my opinion Catholics saw this as a win against Fundamentalist Bible only Christianity.

These changes in schools carried over to any public square ie. govt.

There were many warnings especially from the anti-Communists during the cold war.

 

[junk]

When you talk about America, the way it happened was incrementally. When the Scopes trial opened the door to evolution/Darwinian science to be acceptable in school that was the slippery slope that led to the complete elimination of Creationism, Bible references in textbooks, Religious references on National monuments taken out, Prayer in school.

The Christian response was divided between Majority Protestant and minority Catholic. In my opinion Catholics saw this as a win against Fundamentalist Bible only Christianity.

These changes in schools carried over to any public square ie. govt.

There were many warnings especially from the anti-Communists during the cold war.

The US is but one example, but the same thing has happened in the mostly Anglican UK, France, Catholic Spain and Italy, Germany, Lutheran Sweden etc.

In the UK, Anglicanism made up the vast majority of Christianity, whereas in Sweden it was Lutheranism, so there were fewer competing Christian sects than in the US. Spain was moderately religious until recently… I am really wondering what it is that can cause such a widespread capitulation to secularism in but a few generations.

Actually, also of note, Poland is one of the most religious countries in Europe, whereas its neighbour, the Czech Republic, is one of the least religious. Both countries were communist, and Poland is probably going to go the way of the rest of Europe in the next few generations, but I am curious as to what we can learn from this.

 

[Franciscan]

The US is but one example, but the same thing has happened in the mostly Anglican UK, France, Catholic Spain and Italy, Germany, Lutheran Sweden etc.

In the UK, Anglicanism made up the vast majority of Christianity, whereas in Sweden it was Lutheranism, so there were fewer competing Christian sects than in the US. Spain was moderately religious until recently… I am really wondering what it is that can cause such a widespread capitulation to secularism in but a few generations.

That’s where you go back to the bigger picture: The chain of events that set of an overall secularization of the West.
I started with the Reformation but I think the French Revolution was a perfect micro-cosm of the secular state ripping away all power from the Church and brutally replaced the Church with the ‘Cult of Reason’.

At the end of my chain I described a state of widespread narcisism: “Me, me, me mentality. I am the sole meaning of life”. Since secularism divorces religion from fromal culture it also divorces objective morality from individual morality. We’ve become little gods doing what we want and justifying it with the lack of accountability that society demands.

It’s hard to take that away from people. Modern people are repulsed by the idea of the Cross. It is absurd to them.

 

[reason]

I don’t think any of you know what the word secularism means. It doesn’t mean atheism, agnosticism, relativism or anything like that. It simply means the separation of church and state. It doesn’t mean that people within the state aren’t members of a religion. You’re confusing it with humanism.

An example of secularism would be that if adherents to a given religion oppose, say, abortion on demand, then what they should do is to not themselves get an abortion, but they should not force their religious view on the rest of the population by their control of the political legislative or judicial process. Or if you think as Christian that Sundays should be a day of rest, then rest yourself without forcing others to do the same against their will. After all, it’s your religion, not necessarily the other person’s.

There are plenty of religious people, including Catholics, who think it’s a good idea for the general welfare of everybody to keep the church and the state separate, simply because throughout the history of civilization, some of the most nightmarish societies have been ones where religion controlled the state (we still see that today in the Islamic world). Inevitably, more extreme elements within the religion or religions start taking over. Christianity is not as extreme now, but it could be, as we know it once was in the past.

As a secularist, if you tell me that abortion is wrong because God said so, I will probably dismiss you as not being worth arguing with. But if you tell me that abortion is wrong because you can demonstrate by reason that it is ultimately bad for society in general, then I will listen to you. In the former case, it can never be more than a weak position, because it’s based on superstition and fear of an imaginary god. In the latter case, if it’s based on reasonable arguments, then it ends up being a much stronger argument, not as easily dismissed.

 

[Franciscan]

I don’t think any of you know what the word secularism means. It doesn’t mean atheism, agnosticism, relativism or anything like that. It simply means the separation of church and state. It doesn’t mean that people within the state aren’t members of a religion. You’re confusing it with humanism.

An example of secularism would be that if adherents to a given religion oppose, say, abortion on demand, then what they should do is to not themselves get an abortion, but they should not force their religious view on the rest of the population by their control of the political legislative or judicial process. Or if you think as Christian that Sundays should be a day of rest, then rest yourself without forcing others to do the same against their will. After all, it’s your religion, not necessarily the other person’s.

There are plenty of religious people, including Catholics, who think it’s a good idea for the general welfare of everybody to keep the church and the state separate, simply because throughout the history of civilization, some of the most nightmarish societies have been ones where religion controlled the state (we still see that today in the Islamic world). Inevitably, more extreme elements within the religion or religions start taking over. Christianity is not as extreme now, but it could be, as we know it once was in the past.

As a secularist, if you tell me that abortion is wrong because God said so, I will probably dismiss you as not being worth arguing with. But if you tell me that abortion is wrong because you can demonstrate by reason that it is ultimately bad for society in general, then I will listen to you. In the former case, it can never be more than a weak position, because it’s based on superstition and fear of an imaginary god. In the latter case, if it’s based on reasonable arguments, then it ends up being a much stronger argument, not as easily dismissed.

Semantically,you’re right- but we all knew what the Op meant–The Fall of Christendom and the influence of the Church in the public square due to the rise of Secularism(both the classsical Liberal sort but also the secular humanist sort).
The one gave way to the other.

A great book on this topic is Kreeft’s, “How to win the culture war”.amazon.com/How-Win-Culture-War-Christian/dp/0830823166

 

[catsrus]

My answer to the question:
It was slow and insidious.
Small inroads and chipping away.
A couple hundred years at the least.
but the past hundred, it was accelerated.
And like a snowball running downhill, it became overwhelming while we were not looking.

 

[junk]

I don’t think any of you know what the word secularism means. It doesn’t mean atheism, agnosticism, relativism or anything like that. It simply means the separation of church and state. It doesn’t mean that people within the state aren’t members of a religion. You’re confusing it with humanism.

You are correct, but I stated the intended meaning clearly, though not clearly enough, it seems.

An example of secularism would be that if adherents to a given religion oppose, say, abortion on demand, then what they should do is to not themselves get an abortion, but they should not force their religious view on the rest of the population by their control of the political legislative or judicial process. Or if you think as Christian that Sundays should be a day of rest, then rest yourself without forcing others to do the same against their will. After all, it’s your religion, not necessarily the other person’s.

That’s a more liberal view of secularism. What it says essentially is that religious people have no right to enact laws because if democratically elected politicians enact laws to protect life based on their own beliefs and the beliefs of the constituents they represent, they are imposing their religious view on other people, but if an irreligious person does the same for secular reasons then they are justified in doing so. The more conservative view of secularism would almost be the exact opposite as it permits people of all religions and those of none participation in the legislative process of the State. There is more than one understanding of what secularism means, and I intended neither of the above meanings when making this post, though the liberal view does in some ways mesh with my idea of institutionalised atheism/agnosticism promoted by the State.

 

[junk]

A great book on this topic is Kreeft’s, “How to win the culture war”.amazon.com/How-Win-Culture-War-Christian/dp/0830823166

Franciscan, thanks for the pillars of unbelief and the book links.

That’s where you go back to the bigger picture: The chain of events that set of an overall secularization of the West.
I started with the Reformation but I think the French Revolution was a perfect micro-cosm of the secular state ripping away all power from the Church and brutally replaced the Church with the ‘Cult of Reason’.

At the end of my chain I described a state of widespread narcisism: “Me, me, me mentality. I am the sole meaning of life”. Since secularism divorces religion from fromal culture it also divorces objective morality from individual morality. We’ve become little gods doing what we want and justifying it with the lack of accountability that society demands.

It’s hard to take that away from people. Modern people are repulsed by the idea of the Cross. It is absurd to them.

That makes sense.

 

[Franciscan]

Franciscan, thanks for the pillars of unbelief and the book links.

There’s a pretty good overview by Farrrington here:
crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/life/the_roots__rise_of_humanism__the_challenge_to_the_church_today/17047/p1/

In it he writes:

The roots and rise of humanism Farrington

Alice Bailey and The Plan

At The ‘Europe Awake’ event in 1999, John Mulinde spoke in detail about Alice Bailey (1880 - 1949), who has been described as ‘the mother of the New Age’. Born in Manchester but later emigrating to the USA after a period in India, she began writing in 1918, and her writings started to hit the market in 1920, though they did not gain a significant readership until after World War II. She said that she wrote at the dictation of a spirit guide named ‘Djwhal Kohl’. Key to her writings was ‘THE PLAN’ - to liberate the world from the restrictions and yokes of Christianity.
The starting premise for Bailey’s strategy was this: don’t bother with the adults; target the children. If you can train the children, every generation that follows will be more receptive to The Plan than the one before it. Eventually The Plan will become normality. Any nation that will accept The Plan will be free from Christianity.
Here is the outline of the systematic programme contained in The Plan:

· Push God out of schools.
· Break the traditional Judeo-Christian family concept. Break communication between parents and children, so that parents will not pass on spiritual values to their children. Achieve this by promoting excessive child rights.
· Remove restrictions on sex. Sex is the biggest joy in life, and everyone should be free to enjoy it without restrictions People must be free to enjoy sex in all its forms. Bailey also campaigned for bestiality, orgies etc.
· Homosexuality should be on an equal level as heterosexuality.
· Abortion is a human right.
· Divorce - Bailey taught that every person develops temporary ‘soul bonds’. In order to find happiness, you must join together with that person with whom a bond develops, whether they are married or not. If they are married, you must break up their marriage if it is an obstacle to you finding your happiness. However, the soul bonds have no permanence, and wear out after a period of time, so you will then need to abandon that relationship and find the next one.
· Diffuse religious radicalism. There are two parts to this strategy:

a) Silence Christianity, and promote other faiths;

b) After the other faiths have become strong, silence them, and create inter-faith harmony
· Use the media to influence and create mass opinion - press, radio, TV, cinema.
· Debase art in all its forms - make it obscene, immoral, occultic
· Make the Church endorse every one of these changes.
The extent to which every one of these objectives has been at least in part successful over the last 70 years is both astonishing and chilling. There are of course few people who have ever heard of Alice Bailey or have been intentionally a part of the accomplishment of this plan (although, on this point, Mulinde comments that in the 1960s, 2,000 people from the criminal society in the UK made a vow to make the writings of Bailey part of UK life). Furthermore, no-one can know the precise significance of Alice Bailey’s writings when put alongside many other influences during the last century. However, the fact that her vision has to a large extent been achieved is undeniable

 

[Joseph_Mary]

Why as secular government replaced, say, the Catholic Faith in France?

Revolution, especially the one of 1789. The State destroyed the powers of the Church, and it has never been able to recover them because the State has created a stream of perpetual revolution. The “next cool thing” for kids is always around the corner, and since the State can change, but not the Church, the State becomes the sponsor of that “next cool thing”. Divorce, abortion, gay marriage, and whatever else is “the next cool thing”.

For the United States, on the other hand, it was born in a revolution against another authority, that of the King of England. It established not “perpetual revolution”, but a Faith in The Enlightenment. Sure, the State could still champion the “next cool thing”, but not at the rate or vigor of the shapeless Republics of France. The difference was, there was a strong remnant of Catholics in France to keep the country more conservative than it would have been otherwise, and there was nothing like that in the United States, which meant the country was not as conservative as it would have been.

Secularism didn’t overthrow Christianity in the United States because the United States was never “Christian”. Don’t believe that this country has ever, or will ever, have an appreciation of the Faith - Americans will pick and choose which heresies to follow, even American Catholics will do the same; “Cafeteria Catholicism”. There has been ONE(!) Catholic President of the United States. What happened to him? There would have been another, the brother of the aforementioned Catholic President, but what happened to HIM?

On this continent there is but ONE country that has any significant number of people that are true to the Christian Faith, and it is Mexico. Even Mexico has been struggling against the efforts to de-Christianize it from the very beginning. Only in the last decade have the Faithful been able to overcome the secularists. Even until relatively recently has it been illegal for a Catholic priest to walk down the street in Mexico, unless in “civilian clothes”. Because of the Mexican people’s Faith, things have changed for the better.

In short, the only way to prevent people from leaving the Faith is to prevent government from leaving the Faith. The only way to do that is to combine Church and State, and CRUSH rebellions before they get a chance to become popular. The problem is, however, that the minions of Satan will always have more power in the world, until the world is no more and Christ the King rules over us all. So, don’t fight secularism in the world, fight secularism in yourself, your family, your friends, your parish, where ever you can personally, but don’t be upset that the government of the United States allows such things as abortion.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I don’t think any of you know what the word secularism means. It doesn’t mean atheism, agnosticism, relativism or anything like that. It simply means the separation of church and state. It doesn’t mean that people within the state aren’t members of a religion. You’re confusing it with humanism.

An example of secularism would be that if adherents to a given religion oppose, say, abortion on demand, then what they should do is to not themselves get an abortion, but they should not force their religious view on the rest of the population by their control of the political legislative or judicial process. Or if you think as Christian that Sundays should be a day of rest, then rest yourself without forcing others to do the same against their will. After all, it’s your religion, not necessarily the other person’s.

There are plenty of religious people, including Catholics, who think it’s a good idea for the general welfare of everybody to keep the church and the state separate, simply because throughout the history of civilization, some of the most nightmarish societies have been ones where religion controlled the state (we still see that today in the Islamic world). Inevitably, more extreme elements within the religion or religions start taking over. Christianity is not as extreme now, but it could be, as we know it once was in the past.

As a secularist, if you tell me that abortion is wrong because God said so, I will probably dismiss you as not being worth arguing with. But if you tell me that abortion is wrong because you can demonstrate by reason that it is ultimately bad for society in general, then I will listen to you. In the former case, it can never be more than a weak position, because it’s based on superstition and fear of an imaginary god. In the latter case, if it’s based on reasonable arguments, then it ends up being a much stronger argument, not as easily dismissed.

I keep wondering if I should waste my time with this. Secularism is not defined as the separation of Church and state. Secularism is the assumption that only the secular, material, is real. Hence it is agnosticism and/or atheism. You are the one who needs to do more study.

CDL