Don't think the world is too secular?

[edwest2]

Let’s be on our way, dear brothers and sisters in Christ, and let us not be silent (including me). It’s time to go out among the people to proclaim the truth and act in non-violent ways.

ncregister.com/daily-news/dancing-with-two-left-feet/

Those demanding tolerance have, in too many cases, abandoned tolerance, and even logic. A cult exists among us with a well-defined belief system.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Stillness]

Much of the world is still heavily religious. And of the areas that aren’t, their populations are either much smaller or in decline. China may be an exception, though even it contains large religious populations.

 

[ChibiViolet]

It’s not so much that the world is secular as it is that PRACTICALLY EVERYONE has fallen under a kind of spell. Life is a VERY twisted fairytale. Look around you. Open your eyes and whatever you do, LOOK inside the deep cavern of your heart and your soul. Be alert at all times, but keep your wits about you and keep calm. Try to be in tune with WHO YOU REALLY are and it will work WONDERS. It will, chances are, take A LOT of time spent in prayer and reflection to find this all out. There is a time for action and there is a time for thought, although it seems best to do them both at the same time, but GO AT YOUR OWN PACE WHENEVER POSSIBLE; we were all born with a natural pace and we should go by it.

 

[JohnTomHoc]

Let’s be on our way, dear brothers and sisters in Christ, and let us not be silent (including me). It’s time to go out among the people to proclaim the truth and act in non-violent ways.

ncregister.com/daily-news/dancing-with-two-left-feet/

Those demanding tolerance have, in too many cases, abandoned tolerance, and even logic. A cult exists among us with a well-defined belief system.

God bless,
Ed

When Chesterton twitted his opponents about their intolerant tolerance, it was effective in drawing the attention of people who were accustomed to see it the other way round. I don't think its very effective now; it even smacks of whinging & complaining. Why should one expect fair treatment when one is saying 'This is of God, this is of the devil, side with God, and not the devil'? That those who support the devil's work should be blinded to the inconsistency is a good consequence; if they could behave generously & indulgently when confronted with truths based on divine faith, it would suggest that human nature was not, in fact, fallen.

‘Who does not pray to God prays to the devil’ – ‘You do the works of your father,’ our Lord tells the scribes & pharisees. Too often, people trying to impart the right teaching have sounded too much like scribes & pharisees, as those without authority, rather than the children of the Father.

 

[John_Savage]

If we’re right, we win eventually.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Let’s be on our way, dear brothers and sisters in Christ, and let us not be silent (including me). It’s time to go out among the people to proclaim the truth and act in non-violent ways.

ncregister.com/daily-news/dancing-with-two-left-feet/

Those demanding tolerance have, in too many cases, abandoned tolerance, and even logic. A cult exists among us with a well-defined belief system.

God bless,
Ed

What comes to mind is “being in the world, but not of the world.” Yes, we must evangelize the world. Like St. Francis, we must preach constantly, and if necessary, use words (or something to that effect). The trick, I think, is getting ourselves so much into God that our whole life speaks the gospel. I think Pope Francis is providing one heck of a model so far. Now if we could all mirror the love and humility of Christ, we could send waves into the world instead of weak little ripples.

 

[ChibiViolet]

What comes to mind is “being in the world, but not of the world.” Yes, we must evangelize the world. Like St. Francis, we must preach constantly, and if necessary, use words (or something to that effect). The trick, I think, is getting ourselves so much into God that our whole life speaks the gospel. I think Pope Francis is providing one heck of a model so far. Now if we could all mirror the love and humility of Christ, we could send waves into the world instead of weak little ripples.

From what I’ve read, I’ve gleaned that there are many cults among us.

 

[ChibiViolet]

What comes to mind is “being in the world, but not of the world.” Yes, we must evangelize the world. Like St. Francis, we must preach constantly, and if necessary, use words (or something to that effect). The trick, I think, is getting ourselves so much into God that our whole life speaks the gospel. I think Pope Francis is providing one heck of a model so far. Now if we could all mirror the love and humility of Christ, we could send waves into the world instead of weak little ripples.

Anything and everything is critical in it’s way–I don’t mean every idea, for there are many falsehoods, but I mean true things like Love, Compassion, Kindness, Wisdom, Understanding. The art of language is dying out among most of us and we need to learn to use it CAREFULLY so that nothing is misconstrued (or at least not of our own fault) and then not let our emotions get in the way of the way we view ourselves. Emotion is a good thing, but it shouldn’t govern us and was never meant to. Raw intellect can be quite a bad thing too, if one is not in touch enough with their in-most spirit–all that they are really, but especially that. Far too often the spirit is buried and bogged down by confusion, anger, pride and many other things.

 

[Sair]

Those demanding tolerance have, in too many cases, abandoned tolerance, and even logic. A cult exists among us with a well-defined belief system.

Two things - tolerance is only a good thing when it doesn’t involve tolerating serious harm. Tolerance of religious observance and practice in general terms does not fit this bill. Secularists attack religious interference in political and civil life because it does harm, not because they are determined to simply be intolerant of religious belief.

Secondly, when was it a bad thing to have a well-defined belief system? The major difference between religious and secular beliefs is that the latter generally have actual evidence to support them. Furthermore, secular ‘beliefs’ are largely works in progress, subject to change and development in the light of new evidence - not the immovable, fossilised knowledge claims made by many religionists.

 

[tonyrey]

Much of the world is still heavily religious. And of the areas that aren’t, their populations are either much smaller or in decline. China may be an exception, though even it contains large religious populations.

China is a superb example of secular intolerance. Forcing women to have abortions against their will is just one example…

 

[tonyrey]

When Chesterton twitted his opponents about their intolerant tolerance, it was effective in drawing the attention of people who were accustomed to see it the other way round. I don’t think its very effective now; it even smacks of whinging & complaining. Why should one expect fair treatment when one is saying ‘This is of God, this is of the devil, side with God, and not the devil’? That those who support the devil’s work should be blinded to the inconsistency is a good consequence; if they could behave generously & indulgently when confronted with truths based on divine faith, it would suggest that human nature was not, in fact, fallen.

‘Who does not pray to God prays to the devil’ – ‘You do the works of your father,’ our Lord tells the scribes & pharisees. Too often, people trying to impart the right teaching have sounded too much like scribes & pharisees, as those without authority, rather than the children of the Father.

Does condemning China for forcing women to have abortions smack of whinging & complaining?

 

[tonyrey]

Two things - tolerance is only a good thing when it doesn’t involve tolerating serious harm. Tolerance of religious observance and practice in general terms does not fit this bill. Secularists attack religious interference in political and civil life because it does harm, not because they are determined to simply be intolerant of religious belief.

Precisely when does tolerance of religious observance and practice do harm?

Secondly, when was it a bad thing to have a well-defined belief system? The major difference between religious and secular beliefs is that the latter generally have actual evidence to support them.

What is the evidence supporting secular beliefs and secular values?

Furthermore, secular ‘beliefs’ are largely works in progress, subject to change and development in the light of new evidence - not the immovable, fossilised knowledge claims made by many religionists.

Which secular beliefs and secular values are subject to change and development in the light of new evidence?

 

[D_Martin]

Two things - tolerance is only a good thing when it doesn’t involve tolerating serious harm. Tolerance of religious observance and practice in general terms does not fit this bill. Secularists attack religious interference in political and civil life because it does harm, not because they are determined to simply be intolerant of religious belief.

Secondly, when was it a bad thing to have a well-defined belief system? The major difference between religious and secular beliefs is that the latter generally have actual evidence to support them. Furthermore, secular ‘beliefs’ are largely works in progress, subject to change and development in the light of new evidence - not the immovable, fossilised knowledge claims made by many religionists.

Yes, but what is serious harm? There are many things promoted in society that bring serious harm eventually but aren’t apparent at the time, as in one thing leads to another. And why should that be tolerated? And to tolerate is merely to allow, what shall be allowed next? Shall society justify every miss placed human activity? Just because its human activity?

Expelling religion from human affairs because it’s a religion is bogus, religion is merely a system of belief, and systems of beliefs, such as Pantheism or Christianity or the US Constitution, are the basis by which any society is constructed, and maintained. Law especially criminal laws are based on a system of belief, agreed upon by the people in the society or nation. And each and every soul in the US has the right to vote according to the system of belief they trust. (Tolerance is not required in voting)

Secular hates religion (especially Christianity) because it finds itself competing with systems of beliefs other then there own system of belief, for power and influence in the world. And insists that they and their system of beliefs has the right to rule. And don’t fool your self into thinking one’s own system of belief is something new under the sun, there is nothing new under the sun, only forgotten and revisited. What you say is new is so antiquated it was forgotten that is was. Most of this “new age” or “modern world” beliefs can be found back in the Roman days before Christianity toke a grip on the western world. The Roman empire had no knowledge of Christianity then it did, now the Roman empire revisited (the US of A) wants to go back to the way it was before Christianity. And as far as new evidence, it ether supports one old system of belief or another old system of belief, depending on who found it, and interprets it first.

 

[Stillness]

Two things - tolerance is only a good thing when it doesn’t involve tolerating serious harm. Tolerance of religious observance and practice in general terms does not fit this bill. Secularists attack religious interference in political and civil life because it does harm, not because they are determined to simply be intolerant of religious belief.

Secondly, when was it a bad thing to have a well-defined belief system? The major difference between religious and secular beliefs is that the latter generally have actual evidence to support them. Furthermore, secular ‘beliefs’ are largely works in progress, subject to change and development in the light of new evidence - not the immovable, fossilised knowledge claims made by many religionists.

And then secular moralists get to decide what is valuable and “good”. They and the religious are no different from each other.

 

[JamesCaruso]

From what I’ve read, I’ve gleaned that there are many cults among us.

Meaning?

 

[JamesCaruso]

Anything and everything is critical in it’s way–I don’t mean every idea, for there are many falsehoods, but I mean true things like Love, Compassion, Kindness, Wisdom, Understanding. The art of language is dying out among most of us and we need to learn to use it CAREFULLY so that nothing is misconstrued (or at least not of our own fault) and then not let our emotions get in the way of the way we view ourselves. Emotion is a good thing, but it shouldn’t govern us and was never meant to. Raw intellect can be quite a bad thing too, if one is not in touch enough with their in-most spirit–all that they are really, but especially that. Far too often the spirit is buried and bogged down by confusion, anger, pride and many other things.

Yes, I agree, and by getting into God, I mean as your say, getting in touch with our in-most spirit, that is to say, finding that place where our spirit touches the Spirit of God. Then, emotions and intellect do the things they were meant to do and we don’t get “bogged down.”

 

[jimmy]

Anything and everything is critical in it’s way–I don’t mean every idea, for there are many falsehoods, but I mean true things like Love, Compassion, Kindness, Wisdom, Understanding. The art of language is dying out among most of us and we need to learn to use it CAREFULLY so that nothing is misconstrued (or at least not of our own fault) and then not let our emotions get in the way of the way we view ourselves. Emotion is a good thing, but it shouldn’t govern us and was never meant to. Raw intellect can be quite a bad thing too, if one is not in touch enough with their in-most spirit–all that they are really, but especially that. Far too often the spirit is buried and bogged down by confusion, anger, pride and many other things.

Chibi, I think you make some great points here, and they are points that I have thought about. It is easy to allow your spirit to be repressed by either your intellect or your emotions, or both. At that point you become something you are not. You become idiophobic, to use a word from the article. You must reflect on your inner character and find balance, between action, thought and emotion. It is hard to change, but it is also necessary.

 

[tonyrey]

Sair

 

[Sair]

tonyrey;10532224:

Precisely when does tolerance of religious observance and practice do harm?

When the beliefs that are tolerated do physical (eg: circumcision) or psychological harm - the latter through allowing children to believe that they are sinful and will go to hell if they don’t obey the commands of an imaginary being. And that’s just the harms perpetrated in the largely Christian West - even though some of the tribal religious practices (female genital mutilation, witch-doctoring, punishment of ‘witchcraft’ etc) carried out in parts of Africa, for example, might have little in common with the sophisticated philosophies developed within Western Christianity, they both spring from the same source - thinking that the world is controlled by supernatural beings and forces, and the resulting willingness to submit to being told what to believe and how to act.

What is the evidence supporting secular beliefs and secular values

?

The practice of secular values is supported by the existence of positive outcomes. For example, when people are co-operative and altruistic, the result tends to be an increase in productive activity and an increase in people’s happiness and sense of wellbeing. Similarly, when people act against altruism, when they engage in exploitation, deception or other kinds of abuse, the results are the opposite - people’s levels of wellbeing decrease, often dramatically. It doesn’t matter that there isn’t some kind of divine directive governing this kind of behaviour - the results speak for themselves.

Which secular beliefs and secular values

are subject to change and development in the light of new evidence?

Look at the treatment of various social groups - of women, of racial minorities, of homosexual and gender queer people. Even those who were irriligious or atheistic in past ages absorbed the general prejudice and flawed thinking that passed for ‘received wisdom’ in this regard, but as society has evolved and people have largely come to recognise the common ground all human beings share (well, at least in some parts of the Western world) we have come to accept that all humans should be treated equally. This has nothing to do with relgious thinking (because religious texts can be interpreted to support just about any attitude one chooses to adopt), and everything to do with - as I said - social evolution and changes in attitudes in the light of evidence and experience. And this doesn’t even touch upon the advances made by science in understanding the world, many of which directly contradict the ancient concepts imparted by religious faith.

So far no response!

I do actually have other things to do than post to CAF! This is the first I have seen of your response to my previous post, so apologies for keeping you waiting…

 

[tonyrey]

Precisely when does tolerance of religious observance and practice do harm?

Misguided beliefs are not a valid criterion of the religious values and principles which are the basis of modern civilisation. Tolerance of secular beliefs and values does harm (e.g. abortion and sterilisation) by allowing children to believe we alone decide what is right and wrong. There is no limit to the extent to which the permissive mentality can ruin people’s lives…

What is the evidence supporting secular beliefs and secular values?

The practice of secular values is supported by the existence of positive outcomes. For example, when people are co-operative and altruistic, the result tends to be an increase in productive activity and an increase in people’s happiness and sense of wellbeing.
Similarly, when people act against altruism, when they engage in exploitation, deception or other kinds of abuse, the results are the opposite - people’s levels of wellbeing decrease, often dramatically. It doesn’t matter that there isn’t some kind of divine directive governing this kind of behaviour - the results speak for themselves.

The results certainly speak for themselves when one considers the bloodstained history of humanity which amply demonstrates the inadequacy of secular values. Whether or not people profess to believe in God is irrelevant when they live for themselves as if God doesn’t exist.

Which secular beliefs and secular values are subject to change and development in the light of new evidence?

Look at the treatment of various social groups - of women, of racial minorities, of homosexual and gender queer people. Even those who were irriligious or atheistic in past ages absorbed the general prejudice and flawed thinking that passed for ‘received wisdom’ in this regard, but as society has evolved and people have largely come to recognise the common ground all human beings share (well, at least in some parts of the Western world) we have come to accept that all humans should be treated equally. This has nothing to do with relgious thinking (because religious texts can be interpreted to support just about any attitude one chooses to adopt), and everything to do with - as I said - social evolution and changes in attitudes in the light of evidence and experience. And this doesn’t even touch upon the advances made by science in understanding the world, many of which directly contradict the ancient concepts imparted by religious faith.

Science tells us precisely nothing about moral values and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity which are based on the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father. Godless regimes have certainly demonstrated how government “according to scientific principles” has led to monstrous injustice, suffering and death for millions of people. Secular values can be adapted to any ideology that suits those who seize power, notably Stalin and Mao, who implemented the principles of conformity, inequality and inhumanity to their heart’s content because they believed they alone decided what is right and wrong.

There but for the grace of God go the Godless! A salutary lesson for all who think they can dispense with a higher authority and establish their own “moral” laws…

I do actually have other things to do than post to CAF! This is the first I have seen of your response to my previous post, so apologies for keeping you waiting…

It’s my turn to apologise! Until today I didn’t realise you had replied.