Continuing Revelation

[LoAmmi]

That was Italy.

I doubt that the trains ever ran on time in the USSR.

Maybe cloudyday2 meant post-USSR Russia when he wrote "USSR." It would be very hard to argue, with evidence, that there was much progress under Communism in the days of the USSR.

It was Italy but the cut is the same.

 

[cloudyday2]

That was Italy.

I doubt that the trains ever ran on time in the USSR.

Maybe cloudyday2 meant post-USSR Russia when he wrote "USSR." It would be very hard to argue, with evidence, that there was much progress under Communism in the days of the USSR.

Mainly I was thinking of progress towards an religion-free society ("imagine no religion..."), but that was only one of the communist goals. There was also equality of sexes, equality of races, more equal distribution of income, investment in science, investment in economic infrastructure (factories, railroads, ...).

I'm not saying the USSR was Shangri La, but they did have some worthy goals. Unfortunately the original leaders were too willing to use draconian measures to achieve their goals, and the later leaders probably had no goals except for personal power. Plus communism was not as efficient as capitalism.

 

[Albion]

Mainly I was thinking of progress towards an religion-free society

I can't really consider that to be progress, but if that's what you meant, I see where you were coming from. My view is that one of most repressive, vicious, and backwards regimes in all human history and the word "progress" just don't go together--even if the onlooker dislikes religion.

There was also equality of sexes, equality of races, more equal distribution of income, investment in science, investment in economic infrastructure (factories, railroads, ...).

Actually, a lot of that is myth, but we might as well not go into it here. It's just a footnote to the topic of the thread.

 

[light upon light]

Mainly I was thinking of progress towards an religion-free society...

Since atheists have about 1/2 as many children as religious believers, I suspect you have an uphill road on building that one.

Tough to build an atheist future when so many atheists don't choose to help create the next generation in the most tangible and literal way possible - as parents.

 

[cloudyday2]

Since atheists have about 1/2 as many children as religious believers, I suspect you have an uphill road on building that one.

Tough to build an atheist future when so many atheists don't choose to help create the next generation in the most tangible and literal way possible - as parents.

Have as many children as you want, because after they are exposed to the facts they will probably join our ranks.

 

[smaneck]

Since atheists have about 1/2 as many children as religious believers, I suspect you have an uphill road on building that one..

I don't think our progress as a civilization depends so much on procreation. Obviously we have to have some children to have a future, but we would do just fine with at half the size we are now.

 

[Arthra]

I don't know if "cloudy" is aware of it but some of the principles of the Baha'i Faith include... "..equality of sexes, equality of races, more equal distribution of income, investment in science.." only Baha'is phrase it more like the equality of men and women, race unity or oneness of humanity, reducing the extremes of wealth and poverty, harmony of science and religion.. and establishing a representative world parliament and an international court of arbitration...

Baha'is have had an interesting history in Russia and Central Asia:

One article I read recently has the following:

A western observer of the relationship between the Soviet government and its religious communities concluded that the Bahá'í Faith was "dangerous to Communism because of its broadmindedness, its tolerance, its international outlook, the attention it pays to women's education and its insistence on equality of the sexes. All this contradicts the communist thesis about the backwardness of religion."[23.]

Another Soviet concern was the Bahá'í community's success with youth. "A Bahá'í youth organization," it was observed, "which the communists nicked-named 'Bekhamol' was set up in Ashkabad. On account of its extensive cultural activities and supranational tendencies it was a serious competitor to Komsomal (the Soviet youth organization)."[24.]

http://bahai-library.com/herrmann_history_bahais_samarkand

 

[light upon light]

I don't think our progress as a civilization depends so much on procreation. Obviously we have to have some children to have a future, but we would do just fine with at half the size we are now.

That's half as many per generation. If we estimate 4 generations per century, that results in 1/16th as many great-great grandchildren. So we can see why demography is destiny.

 

[cloudyday2]

That's half as many per generation. If we estimate 4 generations per century, that results in 1/16th as many great-great grandchildren. So we can see why demography is destiny.

The problem with this theory is that we should see increasing theism in the US, but instead we see increasing atheism. I assume the theist children are converting to atheism quicker than the theists can give birth.

 

[ContraMundum]

Mainly I was thinking of progress towards an religion-free society ("imagine no religion..."), but that was only one of the communist goals. There was also equality of sexes, equality of races, more equal distribution of income, investment in science, investment in economic infrastructure (factories, railroads, ...).

Actually all that kind of stuff is taught by religion.

I'm not saying the USSR was Shangri La, but they did have some worthy goals. Unfortunately the original leaders were too willing to use draconian measures to achieve their goals, and the later leaders probably had no goals except for personal power. Plus communism was not as efficient as capitalism.

Irony: the USSR was Marxist. Marxism has a goal to dissolve contradiction in society. The USSR became a nation of contradictions.

 

[smaneck]

Irony: the USSR was Marxist. Marxism has a goal to dissolve contradiction in society. The USSR became a nation of contradictions.

Probably Marx's biggest mistake was imagining that a dictatorship of the proletariat would lead to a withering away of the state. But then I suppose we could argue as to whether there was ever a dictatorship of the proletariat. In fact communist revolutions took place in countries that were still largely feudal by Marx's definition. IMO that is why they largely failed. Socialism was intended to an answer to the contradictions of industrial society, but they don't create an industrial society. Capitalism does a much better job of that, as does (I hate to admit) corporatism.

 

[ContraMundum]

Probably Marx's biggest mistake was imagining that a dictatorship of the proletariat would lead to a withering away of the state. But then I suppose we could argue as to whether there was ever a dictatorship of the proletariat. In fact communist revolutions took place in countries that were still largely feudal by Marx's definition. IMO that is why they largely failed. Socialism was intended to an answer to the contradictions of industrial society, but they don't create an industrial society. Capitalism does a much better job of that, as does (I hate to admit) corporatism.

Yep. I would agree. A communist revolution can advance a society (depending on the state of the society at the beginning) but once a society gets to a certain point, it is a hindrance to development.

 

[smaneck]

Yep. I would agree. A communist revolution can advance a society (depending on the state of the society at the beginning) but once a society gets to a certain point, it is a hindrance to development.

I'm actually suggesting the opposite. Communism does not create an industrial society, capitalism or corporatism does that. What Socialism can do (a la Social Democrats, Labor Party, etc.) is do something about the excesses of unbridled capitalism. At the end of the day, a mixed economy is best. All of the developed countries in the world have found this to be the case, even and especially Communist China.

 

[light upon light]

The problem with this theory is that we should see increasing theism in the US, but instead we see increasing atheism. I assume the theist children are converting to atheism quicker than the theists can give birth.

We can be pretty sure that atheist genes are being strongly selected against, though. That is not something that was nearly as strongly the case in the past. You can thank the pill, and Tinder for that. I suspect that people who are more naturally inclined towards religion will be increasingly dominant in the gene pool as atheists self-select out of parenthood.

The other thing is that religions will be adapting themselves better to modernity and post-modernity. I already see a lot of evidence of this in the beliefs of my young theist friends versus those of gen-X and baby boomer generations. For example, I find that most serious Christians of 50+ are exclusivist, while I find that most serious Christians in their 20s are much more open to the possibility that other religions might also be true.

As a Baha'i, I would say that young people of every religion are being influenced by God's will for this age, and either responding in a positive way (inclusivism) or reacting against it (think ISIS and the like).

 

[cloudyday2]

We can be pretty sure that atheist genes are being strongly selected against, though. That is not something that was nearly as strongly the case in the past. You can thank the pill, and Tinder for that. I suspect that people who are more naturally inclined towards religion will be increasingly dominant in the gene pool as atheists self-select out of parenthood.

The other thing is that religions will be adapting themselves better to modernity and post-modernity. I already see a lot of evidence of this in the beliefs of my young theist friends versus those of gen-X and baby boomer generations. For example, I find that most serious Christians of 50+ are exclusivist, while I find that most serious Christians in their 20s are much more open to the possibility that other religions might also be true.

As a Baha'i, I would say that young people of every religion are being influenced by God's will for this age, and either responding in a positive way (inclusivism) or reacting against it (think ISIS and the like).

Another factor in family size is education. People with more education usually defer marriage and children, so they have fewer children. People with more education are also more likely to be atheist.

Also if a person wants to spread their ideas, he/she can simply write a book. If the only way to promote religion is through indoctrinating children, then religion isn't going to survive.

 

[cloudyday2]

I'm actually suggesting the opposite. Communism does not create an industrial society, capitalism or corporatism does that. What Socialism can do (a la Social Democrats, Labor Party, etc.) is do something about the excesses of unbridled capitalism. At the end of the day, a mixed economy is best. All of the developed countries in the world have found this to be the case, even and especially Communist China.

Another thing that might have gone wrong with both the French Revolution and the Communist Revolution is the attempts by other nations to overthrow the revolutionaries. This created a paranoid environment that made the terror campaigns seem expedient.

 

[smaneck]

We can be pretty sure that atheist genes are being strongly selected against, though. That is not something that was nearly as strongly the case in the past. You can thank the pill, and Tinder for that. I suspect that people who are more naturally inclined towards religion will be increasingly dominant in the gene pool as atheists self-select out of parenthood..

Here is what you are not figuring into the equation. Those people having more children are also the most impoverished. Those having fewer people are the wealthy and powerful.

 

[jackcv]

Why not look at all the forms of revelation that you listed as ideas rather than commandments?

When the general makes a suggestion, it's an order.

The idea should be evaluated through reasoning, consulting friends, etc. A woman with delusional disorder told me that she tries to ask another person's opinion before reacting to anything. She gave the example of seeing a building on fire, but due to her illness she wanted to be sure that it wasn't a hallucination before calling 911.

With respect, I think your persistent implicit suggestion that personal communication from the Lord is delusional disorder in this thread is, as you noted "off topic again." However, it is certainly sane to make sure we do not confuse the two sources of ideas. That's why I said:

The bottom line seems to be: How does one distinguish between personal revelation from Above and

1. mental disorder?
2. feelings and thoughts engendered by personal emotions?
3. intuition based on past personal earthly experience?
4. spiritual communications from below?

What can we look for in order to recognize personal revelation, so as to not be confused and led into needless errors and sorrows?

You suggestion is appropriate:

So if the voice of Baal tells you to buy stock in some company, then do some research, talk to friends, and make a wise decision.

The scriptures are a rich source of research. There are precious, simple patterns there that illustrate how, where, why and how people have obtained personal revelation from God over thousands of years. Not surprisingly, those patterns are quite similar in the scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Sikhism, and Hinduism that I have read.

I have been taught and am convinced that truth from heaven will generally both think right and feel right. Not always, but most of the time. However, asking friends is hit & miss, in my experience. Like looking to the internet for truth.

 

[jackcv]

I think you are confusing a secular culture with an atheist culture. They aren't the same.

I think they are the same.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck...

 

[jackcv]

"after the USSR had made so much progress."

?!

The Soviet Union went bankrupt building weapons on the backs of starving people and killed tens of millions of its own citizens over its 70 year history. So far Putin hasn't slaughtered tens of millions of Russians.

My Czech relatives still live in Bohemia, as they did before, during and after the Communist occupation. They seem pretty clear and united that the greatest progress that the USSR ever made was to go away.