About the Romantic Christianity and liberalism

I think your theory of Romantic Christianity is flawed.

According this theory, during the Enlightenment, mankind was at the verge of a «great leap forward»: an awareness of conscience. Traditional Christianity (with its blind adherence to rules and churches) was going to be replaced by Romantic Christianity (with the individual adherence to the Good and its expansion of conscience).

Then people refused this change and used their individualism to follow evil. Not only during the Enlightenment but for the last three centuries. Not only collectively, but individually, billions and billions of people. Not only once, but billions of times.

The problem is not about Romantic Christianity. The problem is about billions and billions of people that don’t use it well billions of times.

Now, in the previous paragraphs (from «According to this theory» on), replace «Romantic Christianity» with «liberalism» and you will be one of the propagandists of the current system. It is not that liberalism produces evil, it is only that people don’t do liberalism well.

Being human beings broken and imperfect (original sin), a system that only works when operated by angelic beings is a lousy system. John Adams said: «Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other». This is like saying «Our hospital is only for healthy people. It is wholly inadequate to the healing of any other».

For a moral and religious people, any Constitution and any government is good. The goal of government regulations (such as the Constitution) is to handle the cases where people are not moral and religious (the role of the law is to handle the cases that the conscience and social pressure have not handled well, see my previous comment).

This does not mean that Romantic Christianity never works. It works in isolated cases, such as brainy types like you. But evidence shows that does not work as a basis of a society because the vast majority of people reject it. No «great leap forward» was going to follow the Enlightenment. It was only the freeing of the selfish impulses that have been previously repressed. This had to be sugarcoated in some way so it was sold as an awakening of conscience, like the hippies telling they were entering the age of Aquarius while having sex and drugs.

The utopist is big in you. I think it is a case of lingering liberalism (which all modern Christian people have, including myself). But it is easier to see it from the outside.

I don’t think you will agree with me. I have only written this comment for other people to read. If you don’t think it is worthwhile, feel free to delete it.

Since I plan to keep on reading you and keep on learning from you (and I occasionally feel the urge to leave a comment), please have you the last word on this topic.