Zone1 Spiritual warfare vs cultural warfare.

[BULLDOG]

I hope to frame this as a discussion rather than a statement of fact. It seems that spiritual warfare and cultural warfare have somehow merged. Opposing political goals are no longer seen as differing ideas, but are seen as the difference between good or evil.

Spiritual warfare, as discussed in the Bible shows the battlefield is internal: character, temptation, faithfulness, moral integrity. These are internal, moral, and spiritual tools (Ephesians 6). Spiritual warfare is waged to resist evil, grow in holiness, and remain faithful. The battlefield is internal, and it is about transformation, not domination. The enemy is not flesh and blood (explicitly stated in Ephesians 6:12). Humans are not the enemy. They are your potential ally. Spiritual warfare is fought to produce humility; prayer, moral clarity compassion and inner transformation. It produces character, and depersonalizes the enemy.

In cultural warfare, opponents are framed as people: liberals, conservatives, secularists, educators, activists, other Christians. The battlefield is public life and the weapons are political activism, legislation, media messaging, voting blocs. It’s goal is to produce fear, anger, tribal identity, polarization, and political mobilization. Cultural warfare personalizes the enemy, and forms factions.

The two would seem to be far from the same yet they have been joined where you can no longer tell one from the other. Charlie Kirk’s organization was purely political, but it used religious themes for political purposes to the point where many believed it to be a church, or some other sort of religious organization. Preachers and religious leaders regularly campaign for political goals and candidates from their pulpit and otherwise. Is the merging a good thing? Is it Biblical?

 

[TheInfiniteSadness]

I hope to frame this as a discussion rather than a statement of fact. It seems that spiritual warfare and cultural warfare have somehow merged. Opposing political goals are no longer seen as differing ideas, but are seen as the difference between good or evil.

Spiritual warfare, as discussed in the Bible shows the battlefield is internal: character, temptation, faithfulness, moral integrity. These are internal, moral, and spiritual tools (Ephesians 6). Spiritual warfare is waged to resist evil, grow in holiness, and remain faithful. The battlefield is internal, and it is about transformation, not domination. The enemy is not flesh and blood (explicitly stated in Ephesians 6:12). Humans are not the enemy. They are your potential ally. Spiritual warfare is fought to produce humility; prayer, moral clarity compassion and inner transformation. It produces character, and depersonalizes the enemy.

In cultural warfare, opponents are framed as people: liberals, conservatives, secularists, educators, activists, other Christians. The battlefield is public life and the weapons are political activism, legislation, media messaging, voting blocs. It’s goal is to produce fear, anger, tribal identity, polarization, and political mobilization. Cultural warfare personalizes the enemy, and forms factions.

The two would seem to be far from the same yet they have been joined where you can no longer tell one from the other. Charlie Kirk’s organization was purely political, but it used religious themes for political purposes to the point where many believed it to be a church, or some other sort of religious organization. Preachers and religious leaders regularly campaign for political goals and candidates from their pulpit and otherwise. Is the merging a good thing? Is it Biblical?

Do you think this was happening before the internet came into being?

 

[Quantrill]

I hope to frame this as a discussion rather than a statement of fact. It seems that spiritual warfare and cultural warfare have somehow merged. Opposing political goals are no longer seen as differing ideas, but are seen as the difference between good or evil.

Spiritual warfare, as discussed in the Bible shows the battlefield is internal: character, temptation, faithfulness, moral integrity. These are internal, moral, and spiritual tools (Ephesians 6). Spiritual warfare is waged to resist evil, grow in holiness, and remain faithful. The battlefield is internal, and it is about transformation, not domination. The enemy is not flesh and blood (explicitly stated in Ephesians 6:12). Humans are not the enemy. They are your potential ally. Spiritual warfare is fought to produce humility; prayer, moral clarity compassion and inner transformation. It produces character, and depersonalizes the enemy.

In cultural warfare, opponents are framed as people: liberals, conservatives, secularists, educators, activists, other Christians. The battlefield is public life and the weapons are political activism, legislation, media messaging, voting blocs. It’s goal is to produce fear, anger, tribal identity, polarization, and political mobilization. Cultural warfare personalizes the enemy, and forms factions.

The two would seem to be far from the same yet they have been joined where you can no longer tell one from the other. Charlie Kirk’s organization was purely political, but it used religious themes for political purposes to the point where many believed it to be a church, or some other sort of religious organization. Preachers and religious leaders regularly campaign for political goals and candidates from their pulpit and otherwise. Is the merging a good thing? Is it Biblical?

I disagree. You cannot separate, as much as America wants to, politics and religion. The two go hand and hand.

You ask about the Bible. Is it Biblical? The whole point of the Bible is the right to rule. When God led Israel into Canaan to destroy the Canaanites, He did it set up political security for His people Israel. When God led Europeans to America to destroy the Indians, He did to set up a political security for His people the Church. Though it involed the physical, that was very much spiritual warfare. When Jesus died on the Cross, that was physical, but very much part of the spiritual warfare.

This is why the Christian cannot separate himself from politics. We are interested in who is to rule because God is interested in who is to rule.

Quantrill

 

[TheInfiniteSadness]

I disagree. You cannot separate, as much as America wants to, politics and religion. The two go hand and hand.

You ask about the Bible. Is it Biblical? The whole point of the Bible is the right to rule. When God led Israel into Canaan to destroy the Canaanites, He did it set up political security for His people Israel. When God led Europeans to America to destroy the Indians, He did to set up a political security for His people the Church. Though it involed the physical, that was very much spiritual warfare. When Jesus died on the Cross, that was physical, but very much part of the spiritual warfare.

This is why the Christian cannot separate himself from politics. We are interested in who is to rule because God is interested in who is to rule.

Quantrill

How did you come up with the conclusion those things were done for political security? I had to look up the Canaan thing and it says it happened because God told them to wipe them out because they were bad people. As for the North American Indians it happened so their land could be taken away. This started happening before the United States came into being.

 

[Hafar1014]

I hope to frame this as a discussion rather than a statement of fact. It seems that spiritual warfare and cultural warfare have somehow merged. Opposing political goals are no longer seen as differing ideas, but are seen as the difference between good or evil.

Spiritual warfare, as discussed in the Bible shows the battlefield is internal: character, temptation, faithfulness, moral integrity. These are internal, moral, and spiritual tools (Ephesians 6). Spiritual warfare is waged to resist evil, grow in holiness, and remain faithful. The battlefield is internal, and it is about transformation, not domination. The enemy is not flesh and blood (explicitly stated in Ephesians 6:12). Humans are not the enemy. They are your potential ally. Spiritual warfare is fought to produce humility; prayer, moral clarity compassion and inner transformation. It produces character, and depersonalizes the enemy.

In cultural warfare, opponents are framed as people: liberals, conservatives, secularists, educators, activists, other Christians. The battlefield is public life and the weapons are political activism, legislation, media messaging, voting blocs. It’s goal is to produce fear, anger, tribal identity, polarization, and political mobilization. Cultural warfare personalizes the enemy, and forms factions.

The two would seem to be far from the same yet they have been joined where you can no longer tell one from the other. Charlie Kirk’s organization was purely political, but it used religious themes for political purposes to the point where many believed it to be a church, or some other sort of religious organization. Preachers and religious leaders regularly campaign for political goals and candidates from their pulpit and otherwise. Is the merging a good thing? Is it Biblical?

Religion creates culture

 

[ding]

I hope to frame this as a discussion rather than a statement of fact. It seems that spiritual warfare and cultural warfare have somehow merged. Opposing political goals are no longer seen as differing ideas, but are seen as the difference between good or evil.

Spiritual warfare, as discussed in the Bible shows the battlefield is internal: character, temptation, faithfulness, moral integrity. These are internal, moral, and spiritual tools (Ephesians 6). Spiritual warfare is waged to resist evil, grow in holiness, and remain faithful. The battlefield is internal, and it is about transformation, not domination. The enemy is not flesh and blood (explicitly stated in Ephesians 6:12). Humans are not the enemy. They are your potential ally. Spiritual warfare is fought to produce humility; prayer, moral clarity compassion and inner transformation. It produces character, and depersonalizes the enemy.

In cultural warfare, opponents are framed as people: liberals, conservatives, secularists, educators, activists, other Christians. The battlefield is public life and the weapons are political activism, legislation, media messaging, voting blocs. It’s goal is to produce fear, anger, tribal identity, polarization, and political mobilization. Cultural warfare personalizes the enemy, and forms factions.

The two would seem to be far from the same yet they have been joined where you can no longer tell one from the other. Charlie Kirk’s organization was purely political, but it used religious themes for political purposes to the point where many believed it to be a church, or some other sort of religious organization. Preachers and religious leaders regularly campaign for political goals and candidates from their pulpit and otherwise. Is the merging a good thing? Is it Biblical?

Yes, they have merged and it is not good. In this framework, political and social issues—such as LGBTQ rights, reproductive rights, etc—are viewed as demonic "strongholds" taking over institutions like education, media, and government.

But it began with secular humanists directing their warfare towards the religious. So both sides are guilty of demonizing their opposition. Which is really what you are arguing.

 

[BULLDOG]

Do you think this was happening before the internet came into being?

Yes, to some extent, but nothing compared to after the internet.

 

[BULLDOG]

I disagree. You cannot separate, as much as America wants to, politics and religion. The two go hand and hand.

You ask about the Bible. Is it Biblical? The whole point of the Bible is the right to rule. When God led Israel into Canaan to destroy the Canaanites, He did it set up political security for His people Israel. When God led Europeans to America to destroy the Indians, He did to set up a political security for His people the Church. Though it involed the physical, that was very much spiritual warfare. When Jesus died on the Cross, that was physical, but very much part of the spiritual warfare.

This is why the Christian cannot separate himself from politics. We are interested in who is to rule because God is interested in who is to rule.

Quantrill

It was mostly separated for most of 2000 years. A Cambridge University Press article explains that the idea of a Christian worldview originally emerged in the late 1800s and was explicitly shaped as a “combat concept” — a way of interpreting cultural conflict through a religious lens.

 

[BULLDOG]

How did you come up with the conclusion those things were done for political security? I had to look up the Canaan thing and it says it happened because God told them to wipe them out because they were bad people. As for the North American Indians it happened so their land could be taken away. This started happening before the United States came into being.

Canaanites were seen as evil. I'm not aware of any political beliefs that were involved.

 

[BULLDOG]

Religion creates culture

Many would say culture creates religion.

 

[otto105]

Do you think this was happening before the internet came into being?

Of course, it's part of the urban verses rural conflict.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes, they have merged and it is not good. In this framework, political and social issues—such as LGBTQ rights, reproductive rights, etc—are viewed as demonic "strongholds" taking over institutions like education, media, and government.

But it began with secular humanists directing their warfare towards the religious. So both sides are guilty of demonizing their opposition. Which is really what you are arguing.

Early secular humanism was philosophical, not combative.
It focused on reason, ethics, and human flourishing, not attacking religion. The first major confrontational framing came from religious and political groups who labeled secular humanism as a threat, especially in the mid‑20th century. There was very little conflict until the mid 20th century when secular humanism became associated with
public education, scientific reasoning, and separation of church and state and religious institutions begin to see it as a competitor.
Conflict became much worse in the late 70s and 80s when religious and political movements (the Religious Right) label secular humanism as a threat to morality, a rival “religion” and the cause of cultural decline. The conflict began reaching the current level in the 90s
Secular humanism is portrayed by some religious groups as anti‑religious, anti‑traditional, and a force behind social change.
Meanwhile, humanists defend secular governance and scientific reasoning. Secular humanism was perfectly happy with their beliefs and had no real conflict with religion, other than having different beliefs until religious groups targeted them. They joined the fray mostly in self defense.
https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/religion-and-secular-human

 

[ding]

Early secular humanism was philosophical, not combative.
It focused on reason, ethics, and human flourishing, not attacking religion. The first major confrontational framing came from religious and political groups who labeled secular humanism as a threat, especially in the mid‑20th century. There was very little conflict until the mid 20th century when secular humanism became associated with
public education, scientific reasoning, and separation of church and state and religious institutions begin to see it as a competitor.
Conflict became much worse in the late 70s and 80s when religious and political movements (the Religious Right) label secular humanism as a threat to morality, a rival “religion” and the cause of cultural decline. The conflict began reaching the current level in the 90s
Secular humanism is portrayed by some religious groups as anti‑religious, anti‑traditional, and a force behind social change.
Meanwhile, humanists defend secular governance and scientific reasoning. Secular humanism was perfectly happy with their beliefs and had no real conflict with religion, other than having different beliefs until religious groups targeted them. They joined the fray mostly in self defense.
https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/religion-and-secular-human

I think if you were to ask the religious they'd say they see it different. It's because they felt the pendulum swung too far that Trump is empowered to do what he is doing. For every action there will be a reaction. I get that you think the left didn't demonize the right, but I say both sides have done a pretty good job of doing that over the last 25 years.

 

[TheInfiniteSadness]

Yes, to some extent, but nothing compared to after the internet.

Of course, it's part of the urban verses rural conflict.

I should have worded it better. I'm talking about how quickly thoughts and ideas are spread now and things can happen in basically an instant. Take the Palestinian protests for example. It seemed to me there wasn't a first protest but that they happened all at once on the same day

 

[ding]

Many would say culture creates religion.

Come to think of it, you've been doing a pretty good job of creating a divide too. So you shouldn't really be surprised by the division.

 

[BULLDOG]

I think if you were to ask the religious they'd say they see it different. It's because they felt the pendulum swung too far that Trump is empowered to do what he is doing. For every action there will be a reaction. I get that you think the left didn't demonize the right, but I say both sides have done a pretty good job of doing that over the last 25 years.

Of course they would see it differently. They actually thought secular humanism was a competing religion. Much like many think atheism is a religion of sorts.

 

[BULLDOG]

Come to think of it, you've been doing a pretty good job of creating a divide too. So you shouldn't really be surprised by the division.

Responding to the divide is not the same as creating it.

 

[ding]

Of course they would see it differently. They actually thought secular humanism was a competing religion. Much like many think atheism is a religion of sorts.

You certainly seem to have elevated your atheism to a religion.

 

[BULLDOG]

You certainly seem to have elevated your atheism to a religion.

Imagination like that is a major cause of the divide.

 

[ding]

Responding to the divide is not the same as creating it.

That's debatable. I don't expect to convince you. All I can tell you is that for every action there is a reaction. Feel free to deny your part in the division. I don't really care. I've insulated myself from the madness.