Liberalism is a frightful disease

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

ada

Banned
Aug 25, 2011
402
2
0
#1
by: Bishop Richard Williamson

Liberalism is a frightful disease, consigning to eternal Hell millions upon millions of souls. It “liberates” the mind from objective truth and the heart (will and affections) from objective good. The subject reigns supreme. It is man in the place of God, with man allowing to God only as much importance as man chooses to allow him, and that is normally not much. Almighty God is put on a leash, so to speak, like an obedient little puppy dog ! In fact the “God” of the liberals is a mockery of the true God. But “God is not mocked” (Gal.VI, 7). Liberals are punished in this life by becoming false crusaders, true tyrants, and effeminate men.

A classic example of the false crusader is provided by the revolutionary priests in Latin America, according to Archbishop Lefebvre. He used to say that priests losing the Faith under the influence of the modernizing movement in the Church made the most terrible of revolutionaries, because to the false crusade of Communism they would bring all the force of the true crusade for the salvation of souls, for which they had been trained, but which they no longer believed in.

The true crusade being for God, for Jesus Christ, for eternal salvation, then when it is no longer believed in, it leaves a correspondingly huge gap in people’s lives, which they attempt to fill by crusading for anything and everything : for a ban on tobacco (but freedom for marihuana and heroin); for a ban on capital punishment (but freedom to execute efficacious right-wingers); for a ban on tyrants (but freedom to bomb any country into “democracy”); for the sacredness of man ( but freedom to abort the human baby in the womb) – the list can go on and on. The contradictions just highlighted are perfectly consistent in the liberals’ crusade for a total new world order to replace the Christian world order. They pretend they are not fighting Christ, but the pretence is wearing thin.

Liberals also become, logically, true tyrants. Since they have “liberated” themselves from any God or Truth or Law above them, then there remains only the authority of their own minds and wills to impose on their fellow human beings whatever it may be. For example, having lost all sense of any Tradition limiting his authority, Paul VI forced upon the Catholic Church in 1969 his New Order of Mass, to fit the New World Order, regardless of the fact that only two years before a significant number of bishops had rejected a substantially similar experimental rite of Mass. What did he care for the opinions of anyone beneath him, unless they were liberals like himself ? They did not know what was good for them. He did.

Logically again, liberals become effeminate, because they cannot help taking everything personally. Yet any sane opposition to their authoritarianism is based on that Truth or Law above all human beings which the liberals are flouting. That is how Archbishop Lefebvre resisted the liberalism of Paul VI, but Paul VI could only think that the Archbishop wanted to take his place as Pope. He was incapable of understanding that there was a far higher Authority than his own, on which the Archbishop in all tranquillity was leaning. Who needs to worry that the Lord God will ever fail ?

Sacred Heart of Jesus, grant us to deserve the good leaders who can come only from you

Kyrie eleison.
 
A

asd101

Guest
#2


OMG!!! lol thats so funny!! Im not a liberal ,.. sooo i guess this is ok... seems about right tho, cuz it's not right!!! What you wrote is true!!!
 
T

TheGrungeDiva

Guest
#3
Interesting article. You seem to be defining "liberal" in a certain sense, in a negative and circular way -- Liberalism is evil because you are defining it as evil.

But Jesus loved liberally. Jesus forgave (and forgives) liberally, and commands us all to do the same. We are to give of ourselves liberally. We should be liberal in acceptance of others, liberal in faith, liberal in righteousness, liberal in justice to the poor and oppressed. If the Bible is clear about anything, it is clear about this.

It's fun to take a word that gets bandied about and make up your own definition for it. I prefer to go to God for my instruction.
 

ada

Banned
Aug 25, 2011
402
2
0
#4
Interesting article. You seem to be defining "liberal" in a certain sense, in a negative and circular way -- Liberalism is evil because you are defining it as evil.

But Jesus loved liberally. Jesus forgave (and forgives) liberally, and commands us all to do the same. We are to give of ourselves liberally. We should be liberal in acceptance of others, liberal in faith, liberal in righteousness, liberal in justice to the poor and oppressed. If the Bible is clear about anything, it is clear about this.

It's fun to take a word that gets bandied about and make up your own definition for it. I prefer to go to God for my instruction.
You have no idea what liberalism means..Educate yourself before you are posting your ignorant view.
Liberalism is not holy it is unholy cause its is trying to replace the believe in God and the Gospel with a materialistic humanistic counterfeit.Typical left wingers or communists are selling this to you as for instance sexual liberation and the freedom of the self to their manmade conditions, which is nothing else than political control of a small group of neocons.You are a slave,if you believe that twisted mindset without even knowing it..
 
R

Relena7

Guest
#5
You have no idea what liberalism means..Educate yourself before you are posting your ignorant view.
Liberalism is not holy it is unholy cause its is trying to replace the believe in God and the Gospel with a materialistic humanistic counterfeit.Typical left wingers or communists are selling this to you as for instance sexual liberation and the freedom of the self to their manmade conditions, which is nothing else than political control of a small group of neocons.You are a slave,if you believe that twisted mindset without even knowing it..
I don't think she was referring to today's mainstream meaning of liberalism.
 

ada

Banned
Aug 25, 2011
402
2
0
#6
I don't think she was referring to today's mainstream meaning of liberalism.
There is no other one..
That is the problem many people think they can mix secular things with the truth of the bible.
Sorry, but this is not so.
 
T

TheGrungeDiva

Guest
#7
There is no other one..
That is the problem many people think they can mix secular things with the truth of the bible.
Sorry, but this is not so.
And yet that is exactly what you do, when you embrace the modern, secular definition of a word, with all its evil, secular connotations that are really not part of the word at all. You mix secular things with the Truth of the Bible by claiming that "liberalism" -- which is something that God does (God loves liberally) -- is evil.

God cannot be evil, therefore, liberalism cannot be evil. Therefore, your definition of liberalism must be wrong. Upon further education, you will discover that it is your definition, not mine, that is incorrect. You are taking a very recent definition; one that has risen only in the last 20 or 30 years (in fact, in my life time, and the lifetime of many readers on this board). I remember when the word "liberal" was not a dirty word, was not spitted out with the hate and malice among civilized people as it is today. I imagine many of my sisters and brothers on this board -- devout, God-loving sisters and brothers -- remember that time, too. When "liberal" was not equated with godlessness or promiscuity.

Ada, I am quite educated. A quick look at your profile shows me that I am more educated than you. I doubt that any amount of "education," however, would cleanse the hatefulness that seems to be in your heart. Only God can cleanse you of that, and God can only do that if you ask him. I will pray for you.
 

ada

Banned
Aug 25, 2011
402
2
0
#8
You just mix the Gospel true liberation with materialistic bound liberalism which is man made for enslavement.
 
T

TheGrungeDiva

Guest
#9
You just mix the Gospel true liberation with materialistic bound liberalism which is man made for enslavement.
Ada, i am talking about the Gospel, true liberation. I am not mixing it with "materialistic bound liberalism." You were the one who started this thread, who claimed that liberalism was evil. You were the one who spoke of liberalism being made for enslavement, which is the opposite of the meaning of liberation. To liberate someone is to free them from bondage. Jesus freed us all from the bondage of sin when he died on the cross. We return ourselves to that bondage when we refuse his FREE gift of liberating grace.

Liberation, when it comes from God, is good. Liberalism, when it comes from heaven above, is life-giving.

And really, isn't that true of everything? That which comes from Christ is good, that which comes from the world is bad. You can say the same for knowledge, truth, happiness, love, beauty, just about anything.

It is true of liberalism as well.

To say something is inherently evil is dangerous. One must be careful, because to label something evil means that that thing must not have any goodness in it at all. Liberalism, in and of itself, is not evil. One can be liberally evil. One can be sexually liberal, and that is evil. One can gossip liberally, and that is evil. One can be liberal in godlessness, and that is most certainly evil. But it is not the liberalism there which is evil, but the sex, gossip, and godlessness that are sins. When one is liberal in love, kindness, forgiveness, and grace, one is emulating our Father, and there is nothing evil in that.

Love is the same way. Of course, love is not evil. But if I love money, well, the Bible tells us (you can look it up if you need to) the is root of all evil. If I love an idol more than God, that is evil. Right there in the 10 commandments, it is.

There is certainly a frightful disease. It comes from labeling things we don't understand. It comes from saying anyone who disagrees with you in one way must be "evil" in all ways. It comes from not seeking to dialogue with a brother or sister, saying this man or woman has a certain point of view, and therefore you will discard it as Satanic, rather than talk to him or her, and find out if there is any merit at all to what she says.

That is a frightful disease indeed, but it has nothing to do with liberalism.
 

tribesman

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2011
4,612
274
83
#10
Fact is that the KJV uses the word liberal, liberally and liberality in OT and NT. The question is what the original texts says.

Few things are evil in and by themselves. The term liberal may well be judged after what men puts in it.
 

ada

Banned
Aug 25, 2011
402
2
0
#11
Sigh, please check this video.

Cultural Marxism, also known as Political Correctness, is an ideology and a strategy used to socially engineer the society through the subversion of culture. Political Correctness and Multiculturalism are tools used today to undermine and destroy western culture in order then to replace it with a radically different one based on collectivist lines. These techniques are broadly based on the teachings of the Frankfurt School, first based in Frankfurt, Germany, and then spread to New York and in the rest of the world. The Soviets, communists and socialists worldwide used these techniques in order to undermine the culture and the institutions of western nations and so bring them under their control. Political Corectness is not a phenomenon that should be underestimated. It is the root of all evil and is destroying slowly our societies and civilization.
Valdas Anelauskas is a professor at the University of Oregon. He as a Lithuanian and grew up in the former Soviet Union

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3bSeO9zU20[/video]
 

tribesman

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2011
4,612
274
83
#12
Sigh, please check this video.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3bSeO9zU20[/video]
Great clip! Most informative. Surely, that kind of "so-called liberalism" (quote Anelauskas) is certainly detestable. Cultural marxism/frankfurt school/PC is really from the same root as the Soviet dictatorship. Basically with the same kind of people running it behind the scenes.

Multiculturalism and Marxism <- link

Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times <- link

The Bolshevik Influence on Political Correctness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <- link
 
T

TheGrungeDiva

Guest
#13
There was a time when being "Politically Correct" simply meant taking it upon yourself to be polite, not to insult others, to do what you could personally for the environment, etc. For example, using the term "African American" instead of "Black" was PC. Bringing your own reusable bag to the grocery store instead of using a paper or plastic bag was PC. But back then, it was never something you forced on someone else: it was a personal choice. (I'm talking about in the late 70s and early 80s.)

Soon after that, it became a way to put yourself above others, a snobbery effect. "I recycle and ride my bike to work" someone would look down their nose at another. I was a little concerned about that shift, but I didn't realize how slippery the slope was that was eroding. By the 90s, schools were forcing professors to use "PC" language in classrooms. That's when I realized it had gone to far. PC has become the opposite of what it was originally intended (at least, what I and my friends who used the term in the 80s thought of it). It was supposed to be all about personal choices and freedom, not forcing someone else to think a certain way. The way PC is now, is completely politically INcorrect, in my not-so-humble opinion.

There was a show on television for a while called "Politically Incorrect" with host Bill Maher, known for his liberal leanings. In the show, he called it like he saw it, which is why the show was called P.I. No candy-coating. So, while the original PC movement (from the 70s and before) may have come out of the left side of the political spectrum, the current trend in PC, where free speech is squashed, is absolutely the opposite of everything the word "liberal" stands for. Anyone who claims to be a liberal cannot be in favor of limiting freedoms of any sort, so the current PC movement is abhorrent to liberals.

As it should be to any American who loves the constitution.

So you see, Ada, if the whole PC thing is what you are against, then you should embrace liberalism, because it, too, is against the modern PC movement. And the enemy of your enemy should be your friend, right?
 

ada

Banned
Aug 25, 2011
402
2
0
#14
TGD did you listen to all seven parts?
It is worse it!
I am asking cause i do not think you got the whole picture.
 

tribesman

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2011
4,612
274
83
#15
...One can be liberally evil....
There can be a "liberal" policy in economics, like more or less free trade or low or no income tax etc. But liberalism as a political ideology and philosophy? Look at its fruit from a christian perspective. Liberalism has meant disastrous effects not only for western culture but also for its christianity. The breakthrough of liberalism came with the MASONIC "french" revolution. Says much. From a christian point of view, these are but dark spots in history.
 
T

TheGrungeDiva

Guest
#16
There can be a "liberal" policy in economics, like more or less free trade or low or no income tax etc. But liberalism as a political ideology and philosophy? Look at its fruit from a christian perspective. Liberalism has meant disastrous effects not only for western culture but also for its christianity. The breakthrough of liberalism came with the MASONIC "french" revolution. Says much. From a christian point of view, these are but dark spots in history.
Even in economics, "liberal" can have multiple meanings. Do you mean liberal spending, or liberal business laws? Liberal spending, like lots of government programs, social services, etc. would be a very different animal from laissez-faire government, which is another type of "liberal," meaning hands-off with regards to businesses. In that case, the word "liberal" is referring to allowing corporations more free reign to do whatever they want. For the most part, today's democratic party is more in favor of the first sense of the word, but the republican party embraces the second. Both are liberal, just in different understandings of the word.
 
T

TheGrungeDiva

Guest
#17
There can be a "liberal" policy in economics, like more or less free trade or low or no income tax etc. But liberalism as a political ideology and philosophy? Look at its fruit from a christian perspective. Liberalism has meant disastrous effects not only for western culture but also for its christianity. The breakthrough of liberalism came with the MASONIC "french" revolution. Says much. From a christian point of view, these are but dark spots in history.
I would also have to say that you are mistaken in several of your statements above.

Liberalism has meant disastrous effects not only for western culture but also for its christianity.
Again, "liberalism," in and of itself, is neither good nor evil. Or, perhaps more accurately, can be both good and evil. Yes, it has been used to disastrous ends, and it has also been used to glorious ends. The end of race-based slavery, the beginning of democracy, freedom for individuals to worship as they see fit, and not being taxed (let alone killed) for not worshiping the god or gods of the state leader.... These are all things brought to us by liberal ideals. In fact, I would argue that every great advance in the history of civilization has been from liberalism overtaking conservativism, the old giving way to the new.

The breakthrough of liberalism came with the MASONIC "french" revolution.
Ummm, no. Liberalism was around long before the French Revolution, my brother. It was argued about among the Greeks and the Romans during the Classical period. We even see evidence of it in Babylonian times. Sorry, you can't blame this one on the masons. I'll give you cred for trying though. Nice touch.
 

tribesman

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2011
4,612
274
83
#18
Even in economics, "liberal" can have multiple meanings. Do you mean liberal spending, or liberal business laws? Liberal spending, like lots of government programs, social services, etc. would be a very different animal from laissez-faire government, which is another type of "liberal," meaning hands-off with regards to businesses. In that case, the word "liberal" is referring to allowing corporations more free reign to do whatever they want. For the most part, today's democratic party is more in favor of the first sense of the word, but the republican party embraces the second. Both are liberal, just in different understandings of the word.
Sure, but the start post of this thread apparently deals with liberalism as philosophy and ideology, not etymological twists of the word itself. The former would presumably be the main topic.
 

tribesman

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2011
4,612
274
83
#19
...Sorry, you can't blame this one on the masons. I'll give you cred for trying though. Nice touch.
There is plenty of documentation about masons involvement in the french revolution. Even official masonic sources will admit this, though they are reluctant to discuss the extent of it. Anyway not a few of the leaders of the revolution were masons, Voltaire was one of them. The masons in France had also long since sworn revenge against the crown and catholic church for the execution of De Molay, the revolution fitting this aim well. The facts are out there to seek.
 
Last edited:
Nov 10, 2011
607
6
0
#20
@TheGrundgeDivia

I am very upset with you. As I read the article, I kept thinking of things to say...then as I read farther you have already said them. Now I got nothin....besides saying I totally agree with you.