Secular Totalitarianism

[Albion]

Oh sure, the Christian church was a nominal force in European history, sort of like the bridge club.

Hmmm. And if I point out that "totalitarian" has been completely misused as a word and misunderstood as to meaning, does that justify a sarcastic comment attacking Christianity as your reply? How about looking up what the real meaning of the word is instead?

 

[Freodin]

Jesus surely had doubts at times, they just never became a religion.

Willful Atheism is doubt turned into a conviction, then motivated to destabilize, contaminate and destroy the faith of others.

So that is a "religion".

You know, when I see people trying to get rid of terms established for ages for themselves, and try to apply them to their opponents, I instantly know that these is something wrong with there claims.

Atheism (what is "willful" about it?) is a position of disbelief. Yes, a position of doubt. But for doubt and disbelief, there exists a simple remedy: conviction.

Just convince us. Give us a reason to believe you. Have you ever met someone who doubted the Pythagoras theorem? After they have seen the proof? Now that would be "willful"!

The general inabiliy of theists to present such convincing evidence, to provide answers to the questions we have... that can lead people to feel under attack.

But consider this: if asking uncomfortable questions is "destabilizing, contaminating and destroying" (your) faith... there is something fundamentally wrong with (your) faith.

Every sin contains within it the seeds of it's own destruction. Being that there is ultimately no spiritual truth within the Atheist and their doctrines, they really do eventually fulfill what they believe, forever dead, non-existent.

There is ultimately no spiritual truth within the Theist either... what the heck is spiritual truth that it cannot withstand questions?

I get the impression that Atheist, in order to prove their contentions, build a life that appears to compete with the lives of the religious, having all the attributes of what one might think a religious person to have, simply to prove that one doesn't have to believe in God in order to have such an apparently good life.

There may even be Atheists who try to copy the "good" sides of religion... and why not?

But as for your impression, it is based on your bias. Atheists do not have to "build a life that appears to compete" with anyone. Atheists demonstrably have lifes, not worse, not better, not fundamentally different, from the lifes of "religious persons".

They don't have to try. They just live.

 

[quatona]

No, I don't think the spirit gives victory or interferes with a war of horrific willfulness any more than he protects the innocents. Human wisdom must evolve. While the most highs rule in the kingdoms of men, their works are anonymous and imperceptible.

So again: how exactly did it turn out that God was not with them?

You made a post with nothing but Gott mit uns on top of a swastika and a bird, .....so.....I had to guess about the relevance to the topic, like a game of charades.

Well, I quoted you in the beginning of the post. The quote gives the context.

 

[Paradoxum]

Thinking back, when I was young, I had a base level belief in God, but there were a bunch of "ready made" concepts of deity in American Christian society that I did not believe in. I still don't. I think the portrayal of God in the Old Testiment is horribly inconsistent. So I have disbelief about what others believe and faith in the true character of the true God.

So you don't think the Bible is inerrant? Fair enough.

 

[Colter]

Hmmm. And if I point out that "totalitarian" has been completely misused as a word and misunderstood as to meaning, does that justify a sarcastic comment attacking Christianity as your reply? How about looking up what the real meaning of the word is instead?

It's pretty straight forward.

Websters:
Definition of TOTALITARIANISM

1
: centralized control by an autocratic authority
2
: the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority

 

[Colter]

So again: how exactly did it turn out that God was not with them?


Well, I quoted you in the beginning of the post. The quote gives the context.

The fascist, evil movement of Nazism had nothing in common with spiritual idealism. God was NOT with them.

 

[Colter]

So that is a "religion".

You know, when I see people trying to get rid of terms established for ages for themselves, and try to apply them to their opponents, I instantly know that these is something wrong with there claims.

Atheism (what is "willful" about it?) is a position of disbelief. Yes, a position of doubt. But for doubt and disbelief, there exists a simple remedy: conviction.

Just convince us. Give us a reason to believe you. Have you ever met someone who doubted the Pythagoras theorem? After they have seen the proof? Now that would be "willful"!

The general inabiliy of theists to present such convincing evidence, to provide answers to the questions we have... that can lead people to feel under attack.

But consider this: if asking uncomfortable questions is "destabilizing, contaminating and destroying" (your) faith... there is something fundamentally wrong with (your) faith.


There is ultimately no spiritual truth within the Theist either... what the heck is spiritual truth that it cannot withstand questions?


There may even be Atheists who try to copy the "good" sides of religion... and why not?

But as for your impression, it is based on your bias. Atheists do not have to "build a life that appears to compete" with anyone. Atheists demonstrably have lifes, not worse, not better, not fundamentally different, from the lifes of "religious persons".

They don't have to try. They just live.

There is the atheist idealism that you present in your rebuttal, the indifferent unbeliever who lives his life privately with no provocative interaction with the religious, and then there is you who joins a Christian forum to promote godlessness. That is the difference between neutral and willful.

It is good that there are good Atheist who are committed to being good citizens and don't cause any trouble.

 

[Freodin]

There is the atheist idealism that you present in your rebuttal, the indifferent unbeliever who lives his life privately with no provocative interaction with the religious, and then there is you who joins a Christian forum to promote godlessness. That is the difference between neutral and willful.

It is good that there are good Atheist who are committed to being good citizens and don't cause any trouble.

Considering that here you are, someone who joined a Christian forum to promote a non-Christian religion, I find this post very amusing.

 

[quatona]

The fascist, evil movement of Nazism had nothing in common with spiritual idealism. God was NOT with them.

So no answer?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So you don't think the Bible is inerrant? Fair enough.

theres nothing wrong with the bible, its just the fallen world that is evil and deceptive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-klqI4d_wbY

 

[Colter]

So no answer?

That was my answer, if the Nazis thought God was aligned with them in their ill fated attempt at dubious, racial, world domination, then they were mistaken.

Is it that you have an answer in mind and I have to keep guessing until I tell you what you want to hear?

 

[Colter]

Considering that here you are, someone who joined a Christian forum to promote a non-Christian religion, I find this post very amusing.

Which Christ-Ian religion? There are tens of thousands of branches of the Christian religion about-----> Jesus as the risen Christ. Each of those tell all the others they are wrong and therefore not Christian. I believe Jesus is the risen Christ.

But that's far different than promoting godlessness.

 

[quatona]

That was my answer, if the Nazis thought God was aligned with them in their ill fated attempt at dubious, racial, world domination, then they were mistaken.

Originally, you said that this "it turned out..." that God wasn´t with them.
That was the part I was interested in and kept asking about.

Is it that you have an answer in mind and I have to keep guessing until I tell you what you want to hear?

No, I just would like to have an answer to my question, i.e. an explanation how, when and why this "turned out".

But maybe you actually didn´t mean to say that "it turned out", but merely that you felt God wasn´t with them no matter how things would have turned out?

 

[Colter]

Originally, you said that this "it turned out..." that God wasn´t with them.
That was the part I was interested in and kept asking about.


No, I just would like to have an answer to my question, i.e. an explanation how, when and why this "turned out".

But maybe you actually didn´t mean to say that "it turned out", but merely that you felt God wasn´t with them no matter how things would have turned out?

Yes, that's it! maybe I assumed that it was self explanatory for anyone considering the rise and fall of the Nazi movement, God never was with them ever!

 

[Freodin]

Which Christ-Ian religion? There are tens of thousands of branches of the Christian religion about-----> Jesus as the risen Christ. Each of those tell all the others they are wrong and therefore not Christian. I believe Jesus is the risen Christ.

So you are here to destabilize, contaminate and destroy other people's faith! Shame on you!

But that's far different than promoting godlessness.

Oh, sure it is...

... now if you just were to understand what "promoting godlessness" means, and how it does apply to my position.

 

[Paradoxum]

theres nothing wrong with the bible, its just the fallen world that is evil and deceptive.

So, what do you think of the OT, when it claims that God commanded genocide?

Just asking.

 

[Gene2memE]

Agreed, however I think you are not understanding the context of the term "secular totalitarianism." It's not saying that anything secular is totalitarian, rather it's distinguishing between the coexistence of the secular and religious. When either one asserts it's dominance then we have an unhealthy dominance.

I think you've misunderstood what secular actually means.

Secular is separation - a split between the institutions of religion and the institutions of the state. Thus religion does not play a role in the lawful governance of civil society and its institutions (politics, law & enforcement of those laws) and the state stays out of telling people what they can/should believe in the religious/spiritual domain.

"the secular" isn't coherent as driver of human behaviour. Secularism cannot "assert dominance" because its not a thing that exists as a active movement, beyond creating the wall between state and religion. That wall is a passive thing.

In the OP those who had achieved liberation from ecclesiastical domination weren't content with mere coexistence, now they work to eliminate or discredit religious people.

You're repeatedly mis-defining secularism as active anti-theism, when its nothing of the sort.

Working to eliminate of discredit religion is not secularism. I'm not sure where you've gotten this conceptualisation of secularism and religion as polar opposites, but they're not.

"Secular totalitarianism" is an incoherent concept to me. It feels rather like a concept invented to disguise an individual's resentment at having their particular brand of religion squeezed out of the sphere of the governance of the state, losing its special place in the process.

As we cannot verify the existence of most religious/spiritual claims, the most sensible position is for the state to be religiously deaf - favouring no religion unless the beliefs/actions of particular religious individuals or groups runs directly contrary to the general welfare of the state. Getting a little Hobbesian, but that's really about it.

 

[Colter]

I think you've misunderstood what secular actually means.

Secular is separation - a split between the institutions of religion and the institutions of the state. Thus religion does not play a role in the lawful governance of civil society and its institutions (politics, law & enforcement of those laws) and the state stays out of telling people what they can/should believe in the religious/spiritual domain.

"the secular" isn't coherent as driver of human behaviour. Secularism cannot "assert dominance" because its not a thing that exists as a active movement, beyond creating the wall between state and religion. That wall is a passive thing.



You're repeatedly mis-defining secularism as active anti-theism, when its nothing of the sort.

Working to eliminate of discredit religion is not secularism. I'm not sure where you've gotten this conceptualisation of secularism and religion as polar opposites, but they're not.

"Secular totalitarianism" is an incoherent concept to me. It feels rather like a concept invented to disguise an individual's resentment at having their particular brand of religion squeezed out of the sphere of the governance of the state, losing its special place in the process.

As we cannot verify the existence of most religious/spiritual claims, the most sensible position is for the state to be religiously deaf - favouring no religion unless the beliefs/actions of particular religious individuals or groups runs directly contrary to the general welfare of the state. Getting a little Hobbesian, but that's really about it.

Websters:

sec·u·lar·ism

: the belief that religion should not play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society

Full Definition of SECULARISM

: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations.


Now reread OP.

 

[Gene2memE]

I have re-read it, and its just as wrong headed and full of fallacies and unsupported assertions as before. I think it gets worse every time I read it.

A secular society does not ignore ethics. A secular society is not based on "atheistic science". A secular state can be, but is not necessarily "tyrannical and dictatorial", nor does it "threatens to establish a new and godless type of mastery over the hearts and minds of modern man".

Secularists did not "institute a revolt against God himself". Most secularists are also religious individuals.

Secularism did not lead to the "unlooked-for harvest of world wars and international unsettledness." Yes, the 20th century was a violent one, but no more so than the 17th century, and in terms of death rates per capita (as opposed to absolute deaths) the 18th-20th centuries are most notable in their declining rates of violence, both in wars and between men.

There are few, if any, of the teachings of Jesus, that weren't recognised and preached 500 years before his ministry in Palestine. There is vastly more behind the gains of the 20th century that is attributable to the lessons of the enlightenment than there is to the teachings of the New Testament.


Again, for emphasis, I think you, and the quote in the OP, attribute vastly too much agency and intent to secularism, seeing totalitarianism where there is no evidence of it.

Rejection or exclusion of religious considerations does not equate to totalitarianism, in any sense. Ignoring something, or excluding it from areas where it has no role or business being, is not suppression of the free exercise of religion, beyond where is interferes with the free exercise of the rights of other people, who may or may not believe the same things.

 

[Albion]

.

I have re-read it, and its just as wrong headed and full of fallacies and unsupported assertions as before. I think it gets worse every time I read it.

A secular society does not ignore ethics. A secular society is not based on "atheistic science". A secular state can be, but is not necessarily "tyrannical and dictatorial", nor does it "threatens to establish a new and godless type of mastery over the hearts and minds of modern man".

Secularists did not "institute a revolt against God himself". Most secularists are also religious individuals.

Secularism did not lead to the "unlooked-for harvest of world wars and international unsettledness." Yes, the 20th century was a violent one, but no more so than the 17th century, and in terms of death rates per capita (as opposed to absolute deaths) the 18th-20th centuries are most notable in their declining rates of violence, both in wars and between men.

There are few, if any, of the teachings of Jesus, that weren't recognised and preached 500 years before his ministry in Palestine. There is vastly more behind the gains of the 20th century that is attributable to the lessons of the enlightenment than there is to the teachings of the New Testament.


Again, for emphasis, I think you, and the quote in the OP, attribute vastly too much agency and intent to secularism, seeing totalitarianism where there is no evidence of it.

Rejection or exclusion of religious considerations does not equate to totalitarianism, in any sense. Ignoring something, or excluding it from areas where it has no role or business being, is not suppression of the free exercise of religion, beyond where is interferes with the free exercise of the rights of other people, who may or may not believe the same things.