Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,449 Year: 6,706/9,624 Month: 46/238 Week: 46/22 Day: 1/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Dangers of Secularism
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 190 (208724)
05-16-2005 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by jar
05-16-2005 4:21 PM


Re: Jar
I guess it depends on what you mean by a "real Christian." I used the word "sincere Christian" in regard to Hitler by which I mean that he did not really believe in Christian doctrine. I suppose by your definition, a real Christian is anyone who claims to be a Christian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 05-16-2005 4:21 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 05-16-2005 4:34 PM robinrohan has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 62 of 190 (208728)
05-16-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by robinrohan
05-16-2005 4:28 PM


Short digresion I hope onnto Hitler
I believe Hitler was a sincere Christian and his letters and speeches seem to support that. He time and time again explained that what he was doing was the Christian God's work and that his motives were Christian.
I believe we need to take him at his word and then examine Christianity to make sure what he used as justification is explained clearly so such things never happen again.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by robinrohan, posted 05-16-2005 4:28 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by robinrohan, posted 05-16-2005 5:02 PM jar has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 190 (208735)
05-16-2005 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by jar
05-16-2005 4:34 PM


Jar
Jar, do you think that the Nazi regime as a whole was Christian? Was this a religious or a secular movement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 05-16-2005 4:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 05-16-2005 5:31 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 64 of 190 (208745)
05-16-2005 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by robinrohan
05-16-2005 5:02 PM


Re: Jar
The members were pretty much Christians and justified most of their actions based on Christianity.
The government was not a Theocracy and as such, would be called Secular as would almost every government down through the ages. Even the Holy Roman Empire was primarily a secular government. The movement, like just about all such movements was a mixture of components, secular, mystic, Christian, humanistic, scientific, psuedo-scientific.
The justification for some of their specific actions such as genocide though were decidedly Christian and Scientific at the base. In both cases, science and religion were misused IMHO to achieve a political and philosophical objective, just as Christians today misuse religion in both relationships with homosexuals and as exclusionary factors to say some people are not among the elect.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by robinrohan, posted 05-16-2005 5:02 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6072 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 65 of 190 (208753)
05-16-2005 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by robinrohan
05-16-2005 1:51 PM


Re: Done to death?
I didn't know this had been "done to death."
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I didn't mean the overall topic. What I meant is that many people had already addressed (before I got around to replying) why the list of "secular" atrocities were not really "secular". For example WW2, was not the result of secularism.
My one additional comment was to point out that Soviet "communism", whether it was actually communist or not is beside the point, was not a secular movement at all.
Secularism is without appeal to gods or faiths. Soviet Russia, and Marxism as many interpret it, is basically anti-religious. Ironically Stalin ended up using Xianity when it suited his ends, but your point is taken that it was mainly anti-religious.
Most governments used to be religious; now most governments are secular.
Our gov't and the post Revolutionary French gov't were secular from their inception. I can't say for sure for all other nations and what the breakdown is.
If we saw changes coming within last century, it is not because of secular gov'ts, but rather changes within the population as a whole.
As far as I can tell fundamentalism is on the rise as people are tired of life and living and seeking an easy answer for everything. It also gives one an easy way to justify whatever moral actions one wants to make. I suppose one might call it escapism.
We could be dealing with actual issues rationally, it is much easier to choose not to.
This is not to slam religion, or spirituality, which I think separate from militant fundamentalism.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by robinrohan, posted 05-16-2005 1:51 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by robinrohan, posted 05-16-2005 7:10 PM Silent H has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 190 (208791)
05-16-2005 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Silent H
05-16-2005 5:45 PM


Holmes
I think what I am beginning to figure out is that my definition of "secular" is vague as regards governments, which leads to confusion. I never thought of WWII as a "religious" war or a war about religion. I thought it was racial, mostly, and the nationalism that accompanies that. Germany was racist; Japan was racist. So I was thinking in terms of it being about some races thinking they deserved to dominate other races.
But I wasn't thinking that the reasons in back of this racism were religious. So if not religious, then secular.
I understand that there are other factors (economics, for example), but WWII was not a religious war in the sense that the Crusades were.
However, maybe 90% of all wars have been "secular."
Perhaps I should have claimed something like this:
The early 20th century was a time of increasing secularism in world society generally,in the sense that fewer people were believers in the established religions. This tendency freed people to think of all sorts of possible solutions to problems that they had not thought of before. That was a liberalizing trend but it had a side effect which we can characterize as "extremism" whether we want to label the extremists as "secular" or not. In that way, Darwinism, let us say, helped boost Marxism.
Does that make sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Silent H, posted 05-16-2005 5:45 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by lfen, posted 05-16-2005 10:26 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 88 by Silent H, posted 05-17-2005 4:18 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4180 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 67 of 190 (208808)
05-16-2005 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Alexander
05-16-2005 2:38 PM


Re: Freethinkers
yes well i save my rancor for those who spout nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Alexander, posted 05-16-2005 2:38 PM Alexander has not replied

  
rock4jc
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 190 (208822)
05-16-2005 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
05-13-2005 7:25 PM


Religion is a way to teach people right from wrong. It also is a way to give people hope for a better future (in heaven). If there was no religion, what would keep people from, let's say, murder, sodomy, etc. There probably wouldn't be any laws since no one would know what is right and wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 05-13-2005 7:25 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by robinrohan, posted 05-16-2005 9:03 PM rock4jc has not replied
 Message 89 by Silent H, posted 05-17-2005 4:25 AM rock4jc has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1657 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 69 of 190 (208830)
05-16-2005 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Alexander
05-16-2005 7:47 AM


Re: Freethinkers
I wasn't being totally serious. But one should realize that Marx was dreaming and the path to that false dream will unerringly lead to poverty and political depredation.
and all absolute statements are false
seriously though, what marx proposed was not a political system but a goal beyond politics.
I would say that the biggest failure in his concept involves the lack of government vision to encourage the necessary political steps between {current existence} and {future utopia} -- he didn't see what would happen in the political vacuum. and that is when oligarchy stepped in.
it's not a big step to get from "I know what's good for you" to "I really know what's good for me" government.
at it's heart communism is not a form of government but a form of economy.
enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Alexander, posted 05-16-2005 7:47 AM Alexander has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Alexander, posted 05-16-2005 9:23 PM RAZD has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 190 (208831)
05-16-2005 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by rock4jc
05-16-2005 8:36 PM


the problem with morality
You've introduced a very thorny problem, Rock4JC, which Holmes can address probably more intelligently than me, but I will say this: You are right in the sense that secular morality is ungrounded, since it is based on no absolute.
So what happens is that we continually beg the question in this matter of whether a given action is right or wrong. Should I kill this person? NO, you should not. Why not? It's not right. Why isn't it right? It's not right to take another life. Why not? Because you wouldn't want somebody to take your life. So who cares? Nobody's taking my life. But you should care. Why should I care? Because it's not right not to care. Why not? etc., etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by rock4jc, posted 05-16-2005 8:36 PM rock4jc has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 05-16-2005 9:24 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 76 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-16-2005 9:32 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1657 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 71 of 190 (208835)
05-16-2005 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
05-15-2005 11:00 PM


Re: Freethinkers
faith, msg 38 writes:
...or pseudoreligions?
what the heck is a pseudoreligion?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 05-15-2005 11:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
Alexander
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 190 (208836)
05-16-2005 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
05-16-2005 9:02 PM


Re: Freethinkers
I agree, but you've got it backwards:
Communism is the ultimate form of "I know what's good for you" ,e.g. the planner will tell you what to make and what to consume, as opposed to the semi-invisible hand of a mixed economy that is motivated by aggregate individual decisions.
Anyway, I commend your attitude, and this ain't on topic.

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2005 9:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2005 9:30 PM Alexander has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 73 of 190 (208840)
05-16-2005 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by robinrohan
05-16-2005 9:03 PM


Re: the problem with morality
You are right in the sense that secular morality is ungrounded, since it is based on no absolute.
What is an absolute in religions?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by robinrohan, posted 05-16-2005 9:03 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4180 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 74 of 190 (208842)
05-16-2005 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by robinrohan
05-16-2005 3:18 PM


Re: Fascism
well. hitler called himself a christian i suppose in the manner of the church of jesus christ, christian.
staunch nazi race cultists believed they were the decendants of a master race of aliens that had landed here to conquer the earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by robinrohan, posted 05-16-2005 3:18 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1657 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 75 of 190 (208846)
05-16-2005 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Alexander
05-16-2005 9:23 PM


Re: Freethinkers
in the ultimate form there is no planner.
thanks
yes it is off topic to a degree, but that is inherent in the problem of "secular" as "atheist" when it can just as easily be "agnostic" or "your choice"
secular just means (checks dictionary):
# Worldly rather than spiritual.
# Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body.
And one thing governements are is worldly ... (ducks)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Alexander, posted 05-16-2005 9:23 PM Alexander has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024