Woke has replaced christianity in western society as a code of morals and ethics

[maxirater]

We all know that western society which comes out of europe starting about a 1000 years ago was entirely based on christianity, which is not just as a religion but as a system of social behavior, its scriptures layout a system of behavior based on forgiveness and compassion. Every society has a moral code, a set of unwritten rules and customs which everyone accepts. Even today if youre an athiest you unwittingly take part in a system of social behavior that is based on christian ethics. Within the last 10 years woke ideology has replaced christianity in all western nations (europe/anglosphere) and is not a counter to christianity but is in fact an outgrowth and a simplified distillation of christian values. Woke ideology is based on empathy and compassion and the idea of equality and fair distribution of resources that are outlined in the new testament of the bible. Woke removes all the ideas of condemnation and shame from christianity. So woke is not anti-christian, it has simply replaced it with something everyone agrees is more fair and more compassionate than christianity so that christianity is simply no longer taken seriously and appears to be simply ritualistic and lacking of any hard enforcement of fairness and compassion. Many christian churches have become woke and fully accept lgbt rights.

[trevor123]

Left-wing and right-wing liberalism are both fundamentally interested in the self. They are really just two sides of the same coin. They both agree that every person's role in society is to focus on what they perceive to be true, and to "pursue happiness". The only difference is a prudential matter of how to set up society so that people can most easily carry out that end en mass. True Christian virtue, however, is primarily interested in the two laws that Christ gave us: loving God, and loving neighbor.

Both communism and capitalism are fundamentally atheistic ideas, incompatible with any Christian foundation for society. Communism as an ideology understands this very well, and is very open about the fact. This is why it is so evil, because there can really be no room whatsoever for the promulgation of religious ideas, which then compels those with the most power to do unthinkable things to their subjects to root out loyalty to God from their country.

Societies dominated by capitalism, though, are much more clever about hiding their intentions. Church and state can never really be separate entities, since if the Church truly is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3.15), then of course legitimate state would have to derive its authority from the Church.

But instead, capitalists perform a bait and switch, and say that it is really in the Christian's best interest if he does not require that his God be worshiped communally, because then everyone can get along and do business together. The result of the acceptance of this is twofold:

• the implicit acceptance that the primary motivating factor for a Christian can in any way be his material wealth, and not that of God's Kingdom
• it is not a pressing matter to ensure that God is worshiped communally

And both of these points render the Christian religion truly impotent in compared to the power and necessity of the state.

Once atheism is accepted as the state religion, there is a void in the heart of the country that needs to be filled, or pretended to be filled. The prescription of communism is some kind of brotherhood, and the prescription of capitalism is the pursuit of material wealth. On a large scale, they are really not that different, the only thing that matters is that both say that the focus should not be God.

[maxirater]

Church and state can never really be separate entities, since if the Church truly is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3.15), then of course legitimate state would have to derive its authority from the Church.

I have noticed a lot of posts on this forum advocate for the christian church being the rightful law that rules governments. But from my reading of the new testament Im quite sure that Jesus did not advocate for this. The bible clearly states that ALL governments on earth are ordained by God and that man has a moral obligation to respect ALL governments as they carry out God's justice. The new testament makes it very clear that christians should show themselves adept at handling matters of politics and business dealings in a astute manner to show themselves as being responsible and therefore trustworthy individuals.

[nyquistfrequency]

Church and state can never really be separate entities, since if the Church truly is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3.15), then of course legitimate state would have to derive its authority from the Church.

I have noticed a lot of posts on this forum advocate for the christian church being the rightful law that rules governments. But from my reading of the new testament Im quite sure that Jesus did not advocate for this. The bible clearly states that ALL governments on earth are ordained by God and that man has a moral obligation to respect ALL governments as they carry out God's justice. The new testament makes it very clear that christians should show themselves adept at handling matters of politics and business dealings in a astute manner to show themselves as being responsible and therefore trustworthy individuals.

Compare this modern translation:

Romans 13:1-2 (New International Version)
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

To this traditional one:

Romans 13:1-2 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)
Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.

Modern secularized translations have fundamentally altered the metaphysics of the text by changing "higher powers" (potestatibus sublimioribus in the Vulgate, and notably "higher powers" in the King James Version as well) into "governing authorities."

You are reading a degraded translation. Notice the massive structural difference: "higher powers" does not necessarily mean secular, temporal powers of worldly governance. Divine power is higher than the power of the natural order, and secular and civil powers sit far below that of nature.

When you look at it through this traditional lens, temporal governments only possess legitimate power to the exact degree that they subordinate themselves to the higher celestial and natural laws.

Luke 16:13 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Likewise, if a secular government cuts itself off from God and the Church, it ceases to be a legitimate "higher power." It becomes a rogue mechanism of inversion. As Saint Thomas Aquinas explicitly argued, an unjust law is not a true law at all, but an act of violence. Therefore, resisting a corrupt, atheistic state is not "rebelling against God" - rather, it is defending God's true hierarchy against a secular counterfeit.
As it says in Acts 5:29 "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men."

[maxirater]

nyquistfrequency, that is very interesting information about the translations. Im no longer a very religious person so I no longer ponder of such things. But still, very interesting.