Secular Totalitarianism

[Paradoxum]

I bet that after a couple generations the kids that live in those nutral, mostly White, Euro-Atheist countries begin to rebel against their parents doctrines of doubt. In another 100 years, if those nations still exist some of those young people may be on this site promoting personal faith in the Heavenly Father.

Perhaps.

I wouldn't call my worldview a doctrines of doubt though. No more than you would call your lack of belief in fairies a doctrine of doubt. I used to believe in God, and I still wanted to believe when my doubts grew stronger. It wasn't as if I purposely tried to lose belief in God. I would have said I loved God back then.

 

[Freodin]

I bet that after a couple generations the kids that live in those nutral, mostly White, Euro-Atheist countries begin to rebel against their parents doctrines of doubt. In another 100 years, if those nations still exist some of those young people may be on this site promoting personal faith in the Heavenly Father.

Well... we seem to have young people right now on this site promoting personal faith in the Heavenly Father (and some others, promoting faith in whatever deities suit your fancy).

I always thought that these people had (at least some) convictions leading them to this position.

But now I know that they are just rebelling against their parents doctrines of doubt... so it is just a phase and sooner or later they will get reasonable.

Yet I really do wonder... how to you rebel against doubt without doubting?

 

[Colter]

Perhaps.

I wouldn't call my worldview a doctrines of doubt though. No more than you would call your lack of belief in fairies a doctrine of doubt. I used to believe in God, and I still wanted to believe when my doubts grew stronger. It wasn't as if I purposely tried to lose belief in God. I would have said I loved God back then.

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.

 

[Colter]

As it turns out, he wasn't. Man has a willful habit of projecting his own corrupt desires onto God, creating God in mans own image.

 

[durangodawood]

When the world was religious, totalitarianism was.... religious!

When the world got secular..... so did totalitarianism!

Amazing how that works!

 

[quatona]

As it turns out, he wasn't.

Huh?

Man has a willful habit of projecting his own corrupt desires onto God, creating God in mans own image.

Indeed. Thanks for your honesty.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Like a shia teacher said, there are subjective sides to our religion. Any "religious experience" we have or will have, is formed partially by our own perspectives.

Meeting your maker, then, is also meeting your own making. Namaste, through a glass darkly?

 

[Colter]

Huh?

Indeed. Thanks for your honesty.

....."as it turns out he wasn't" was in answer to your use of the Germanic embalm which bore the inscription "Gott mitt uns" which means "God with us."

GOD WITH US – "Nobiscum deus (Gott mit uns) was a battle cry of the late Roman Empire and of the Byzantine Empire, used for the first time in German by the Teutonic Order. In the 17th century, the phrase Gott mit uns was used as a ‘field word’, a means of recognition akin to a password, by the army of Gustavus Adolphus at the battles of Breitenfeld (1631), Lützen (1632) and Wittstock (1636) in the Thirty Years’ War. In 1701, Frederick I of Prussia changed his coat of arms as Prince-Elector of Brandenburg. The electoral scepter had its own shield under the electoral cap. Below, the motto Gott mit uns appeared on the pedestal."



​

Source: About “Gott mit uns” | Gott mit uns! German Military History 1848-1945

 

[Colter]

Well... we seem to have young people right now on this site promoting personal faith in the Heavenly Father (and some others, promoting faith in whatever deities suit your fancy).

I always thought that these people had (at least some) convictions leading them to this position.

But now I know that they are just rebelling against their parents doctrines of doubt... so it is just a phase and sooner or later they will get reasonable.

Yet I really do wonder... how to you rebel against doubt without doubting?

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.

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.

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.

"see, we can do everything you can do-better"

​

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

It's motivated by the politics, intolerance, and bigotry of religious people. It's not about being some kind of mustache-twirling villain.

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.

We all have finite lives. Spirituality isn't going to preserve you after death.

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.

One doesn't need to believe in God in order to have a good life. I do try to live a good life, but only for the sake of living a good life. This might shock you, but my life doesn't revolve around you and other theists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

It's motivated by the politics, intolerance, and bigotry of religious people. It's not about being some kind of mustache-twirling villain.

I do understand that in part, but Atheist can be just as intolerant of others, all while enjoying a kind of immunity from scrutiny. Politically speaking, in America I find leftist to be some of the most intolerant, dishonest, angry people that I have ever dealt with. They are themselves everything they project onto conservatives and hate them for.

We all have finite lives. Spirituality isn't going to preserve you after death.

oo, oo, now I get to say it, unsupported assertion, unsupported assertion, unsupported assertion....

One doesn't need to believe in God in order to have a good life. I do try to live a good life, but only for the sake of living a good life. This might shock you, but my life doesn't revolve around you and other theists.

I believe you, and you are right, one can live a good life without attributing goodness to what I believe is it's source. In the eyes of God as I understand it, we are both loved and adored by our heavenly Father. We are siblings, no better no worse. I have a gay Atheist sister, a gay nephew, gay friends etc. We get along fine, I don't bore them with my religious beliefs.

 

[niye]

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.

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.

Your definition of totalitarianism is too broad to be useful.

Cultures are comprised of individuals who, to an extent, share a worldview. That means there will be a dominant worldview in every culture. You turn that into the definition of 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 can think of plenty of cultures where being religious or atheist does not lead to discrimination, but I can't think of a single one which split 50-50 between secular and religious, and where no debate took place between the secular and the religious.

A question: Give me an example of a non-totalitarian culture.

 

[quatona]

....."as it turns out he wasn't" was in answer to your use of the Germanic embalm which bore the inscription "Gott mitt uns" which means "God with us."

GOD WITH US – "Nobiscum deus (Gott mit uns) was a battle cry of the late Roman Empire and of the Byzantine Empire, used for the first time in German by the Teutonic Order. In the 17th century, the phrase Gott mit uns was used as a ‘field word’, a means of recognition akin to a password, by the army of Gustavus Adolphus at the battles of Breitenfeld (1631), Lützen (1632) and Wittstock (1636) in the Thirty Years’ War. In 1701, Frederick I of Prussia changed his coat of arms as Prince-Elector of Brandenburg. The electoral scepter had its own shield under the electoral cap. Below, the motto Gott mit uns appeared on the pedestal."



​

Source: About “Gott mit uns” | Gott mit uns! German Military History 1848-1945

http://gottmituns.net/about/
Ah, I see now what you meant: "As it turns out God wasn´t with them." Right?
(Thanks for the effort in educating me about German, but, oh well, I happen to be German. The language was not the problem - it was me being a bit thick.)

Ok, so how exactly did it turn out that God wasn´t with them?
http://gottmituns.net/about/

 

[Colter]

[/URL]
Ah, I see now what you meant: "As it turns out God wasn´t with them." Right?
(Thanks for the effort in educating me about German, but, oh well, I happen to be German. The language was not the problem - it was me being a bit thick.)

Ok, so how exactly did it turn out that God wasn´t with them?

http://gottmituns.net/about/

With the Natzi's, things didn't go well for them, your post had a medallion in it that had a cross cramponnée on it so I assumed you were claiming the Krauts were ordinary Christians, that Hitler was a real spiritual fellow.

 

[Colter]

Your definition of totalitarianism is too broad to be useful.

Cultures are comprised of individuals who, to an extent, share a worldview. That means there will be a dominant worldview in every culture. You turn that into the definition of 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 can think of plenty of cultures where being religious or atheist does not lead to discrimination, but I can't think of a single one which split 50-50 between secular and religious, and where no debate took place between the secular and the religious.

A question: Give me an example of a non-totalitarian culture.

A non-totalitarian culture? I would say that most are not totalitarian, but the OP is saying that the secularist went to far and atheistic science was in a anti-God battle, decidedly secular in the 1930's.

 

[quatona]

​

Ok, so how exactly did it turn out that God wasn´t with them?

With the Natzi's, things didn't go well for them,

Ah, so we do determine whom God is with by the outcome of their wars?

your post had a medallion in it that had a cross cramponnée on it so I assumed you were claiming the Krauts were ordinary Christians, that Hitler was a real spiritual fellow.

No, of course that was not my point at all. I´m leaving the "Real/TrueChristian/Spiritual/...?" discussion to self-professing Christians or Spiritualists - I simply don´t have the psychic powers to answer such questions.

However, it appears to be a bit adventurous to make a point about "secular totalitarianism" when this totalitarianism - in the good old tradition of religious totalitarianism we have been discussing - has the word "God" written on it.

 

[Albion]

I agree with anyone who has pointed out either that the OP is gobbledygook, that the "Urantia Book" has no credibility, or that there never has been such a thing as "religious totalitarianism."

Totalitarianism has been much studied, and it's definitely not simply the use of state power to enforce conformity to any particular religious faith.

 

[Colter]

I agree with anyone who has pointed out either that the OP is gobbledygook, that the "Urantia Book" has no credibility, or that there never has been such a thing as "religious totalitarianism."

Totalitarianism has been much studied, and it's definitely not simply the use of state power to enforce conformity to any particular religious faith.

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

 

[Colter]

​

Ok, so how exactly did it turn out that God wasn´t with them?

Ah, so we do determine whom God is with by the outcome of their wars?


No, of course that was not my point at all. I´m leaving the "Real/TrueChristian/Spiritual/...?" discussion to self-professing Christians or Spiritualists - I simply don´t have the psychic powers to answer such questions.

However, it appears to be a bit adventurous to make a point about "secular totalitarianism" when this totalitarianism - in the good old tradition of religious totalitarianism we have been discussing - has the word "God" written on it.

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.

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.

 

[niye]

A non-totalitarian culture? I would say that most are not totalitarian, but the OP is saying that the secularist went to far and atheistic science was in a anti-God battle, decidedly secular in the 1930's.

I asked because you defined totalitarian culture as one where either secular or religious view "asserts its dominance." Normally, there's rarely a perfect balance between these two, and that lack of perfect balance doesn't mean the culture is totalitarian. Secularism grew naturally in post-war Europe, and, today, probably a majority of Europeans would describe themselves as secular, spiritual but not religious, agnostic, atheist, whatever. That doesn't make these nations totalitarian. It just means that Christianity doesn't have the social and political clout it enjoys in more religious places, like Uganda or the US. That's just democracy.

btw "totalitarian" is a subjective term. I guess someone could define Finland as totalitarian, but that defines the term so broadly that it no longer has a meaning.