Secular Intolerance

[Greta]

Christianity is not lovey dovey.

My impression is that very many Christians believe love to be a key component of their religion:
http://www.allaboutgod.com/christian-love.htm

Christian Love - Christ's Commandment
What's at the heart of Christian love? Jesus said, "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). John, inspired by the Holy Spirit, once wrote, "We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death" (1 John 3:14). And "by this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:2-3).

Simply, time and again you have demonstrated obvious and rather obsessive hatred for those who do not believe in your religion - and you are therefore yourself at odds with your religion's key stated goals.

Besides, if you cared about people's growth you'd attempt to bring the best out of them rather than the worst.

[Harbal]

I do hope I'm wrong

You always have been before, you've got a pretty unblemished record as far as being wrong is concerned. I don't see why it should be any different on this occasion, the chances of you getting anything right are negligible so stop worrying about something that will probably never happen.

[Nick_A]

Nick if God himself/herself/itself/none of the above disagreed with you you would accuse him,her,it,none of the above of secular intolerance.

By the way, you still have not grasped what Weil was saying about the will of the people. Or perhaps you did and just wanted to gloss over it. Although she was prone to extremes she was far more moderate than you in her views of society. So much so that you would accuse her of secular intolerance if you did not know it was her who wrote a statement you disagree with.

Can you find a dictionary that defines secular the way you do? Of course not, but perhaps you think the reason is that they are all controlled by the Great Beast and secularly intolerance of those who define secular as you do.

A friendly word of advice: do not continually tell us what a secularist will find poisonous or horrifying. We don't. It is a form of antagonism and hardly accurate. Unless it is the attention you thrive on it is far more likely that you will find people more receptive to what you have to say if you were to simply state your views and not attempt to defend them by attacking "secularists". The implication is that we cannot think for ourselves and your assumption is that the fact that we do not agree with you is evidence of the fact that we cannot think for ourselves.

As to the passage from Matthew, it does not mean that you should use the internet to find targets to attack. It means that Jesus' message was in some way at odds with certain beliefs (And perhaps practices depending on the extent of Paul's influence on the author of Matthew and where he stood with regard to the faction between the Jewish followers of Jesus who followed the Law and the Jewish and Gentile followers of Paul who claimed it was no longer necessary.) and so those who are to follow him (or Paul's version of him) will be at odds with their own families who follow these other ways and teachings. He is not referring to secularism or the Great Beast but to religious Jews who opposed the claim that he was the messiah. The destruction of families was not the goal but a consequence of having to choose.

Fooloso4

Simone Weil was one of those rare ones fluent in both bottom up inductive reason necessary for science and top down deductive reason necessary for religion as opposed to fantasy. She appreciated the human condition as like creatures of reaction living in Plato’s cave. As such there is no conscious will. There is only mechanical reaction to desire that we call will. There is no will of the people - just collective desire.

From Dictionary.com

secular
[sek-yuh-ler]
Spell Syllables
• Examples
• Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
of or relating to worldly things or to things that are notregarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal:
secular interests.
2.
not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed tosacred ):
secular music.
3.
(of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligioussubjects.

Your trouble is not that you don’t know what secularism is but rather that you don’t know what sacred means. You consider secularized interpretations of the sacred to be sacred when they are actually secular. You have yet to psychologically distinguish between the secular and the sacred.

John 15: (NIV
18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

This is basic. If you refuse to open to the division between the secular and the sacred, you will always exhibit secular intolerance.

You call recognizing this essential division “attacking secularists” There is no attack. You are offended by basic human psychology and consider it insulting. It is also why the world must hate the Christ yet love secularized versions of the Christ which support self justification. Recognition of the human condition is emotionally intolerable for you.

You don’t understand the passage from Matthew because you’ve secularized it. The question is if our allegiance is to attachments to the world or to the conscious potential for rebirth. They are opposed. It is a sacred concept which by definition is absurd for the secularist who only recognizes themselves as a creature of the world.

[Nick_A]

I do hope I'm wrong

You always have been before, you've got a pretty unblemished record as far as being wrong is concerned. I don't see why it should be any different on this occasion, the chances of you getting anything right are negligible so stop worrying about something that will probably never happen.

You will make an excellent ex wife.

[Nick_A]

Christianity is not lovey dovey.

My impression is that very many Christians believe love to be a key component of their religion:
http://www.allaboutgod.com/christian-love.htm

Christian Love - Christ's Commandment
What's at the heart of Christian love? Jesus said, "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). John, inspired by the Holy Spirit, once wrote, "We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death" (1 John 3:14). And "by this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:2-3).

Simply, time and again you have demonstrated obvious and rather obsessive hatred for those who do not believe in your religion - and you are therefore yourself at odds with your religion's key stated goals.

Besides, if you cared about people's growth you'd attempt to bring the best out of them rather than the worst.

Greta, do you recognize any difference between secular and Christian love? If you don’t, how can you feel free to discuss Christian love?

What is my religion?

Besides, if you cared about people's growth you'd attempt to bring the best out of them rather than the worst.

The Ways are awakening influences. They are hated just like an alarm clock is hated. Who wants to wake up? Secularism defines concern for human growth as putting people to sleep. It feels good. The Ways, and not the secularized versions, are concerned with awakening which is not flattering but people always act their best as they are being flattered.

[Nick_A]

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein

From Simone Weil’s Draft for a Statement of Human Obligation

Profession of Faith

There is a reality outside the world, that is to say, outside space and time, outside man's mental universe, outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.

Corresponding to this reality, at the centre of the human heart, is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world.

Another terrestrial manifestation of this reality lies in the absurd and insoluble contradictions which are always the terminus of human thought when it moves exclusively in this world.

Just as the reality of this world is the sole foundation of facts, so that other reality is the sole foundation of good.

Secularism believes that the good arises with the Beast and defined by the Beast. It is too much a victim of egoism that it cannot admit that hypocrisy arises with the Beast and has perverted the original influence of the good originating with higher consciousness. Secularism becomes intolerant of the religious influence necessary to combat hypocrisy and this intolerance assures the loss of anything resembling freedom.

Einstein and simone Weil appreciated the natural complimentary relationship between science and the essence of religion - facts with the "good" - facts of the world with the quality of consciousness connecting above and below.

If this thread is any indication, what is obvious to developed minds will be denied by both religious fanaticism and secular intolerance exhibited by those like Greta and fooloso4.

The saving grace is that there are individuals and organizations free of the effects of religious fanaticism and secular intolerance that do understand the natural relationship between the horizontal duality of facts and the vertical reality or chain of being. If some young people are fortunate to throw off the influences of secular intolerance they are assaulted with during what for some reason is called their education, they can discover those around the world who have reasonable answers for their questions which annoy the secular intolerants and religious fanatics. I'm on their side and wish them the best on their search for human meaning and purpose as opposed to indoctrination.

[Harbal]

From Simone Weil’s Draft for a Statement of Human Obligation

Another Simone quote, what a treat.

[Dubious]

So, I contend that for humanity to survive technology it will need a new understanding of god as well as a new understanding of Man:

The understanding of god is not even equivalent to understanding a vacuum and therefore of no use at all. If you wait for that you're screwed, the worst advice possible. To survive technology as leveraged by the same human stupidity which always existed mandates us to examine ourselves and not depend on any extraneous other-worldly power which never once manifested itself on this planet.

Unfortunately, to create the future hoped for requires a gradual psychological reformation of the psyche which exceeds that of the technologies created or about to be if we do not wish to whisper in our dreams of walking silently and irrevocably into that final Good Night which at this time seems to be its path. If so, the only ones left to weep, will be the mortals who caused it.

[davidm]

Secularism believes that the good arises with the Beast and defined by the Beast.

Secularism, supported by theists, means the constitutional separation of church and state, as I have explained.

Moron.

[Nick_A]

Secularism believes that the good arises with the Beast and defined by the Beast.

Secularism, supported by theists, means the constitutional separation of church and state, as I have explained.

Moron.

So the dictionary is wrong. How am i supposed to know these things?

From Dictionary.com
secular
[sek-yuh-ler]
Spell Syllables
• Examples
• Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
of or relating to worldly things or to things that are notregarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal:
secular interests.
2.
not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed tosacred ):
secular music.
3.
(of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligioussubjects.

[Nick_A]

So, I contend that for humanity to survive technology it will need a new understanding of god as well as a new understanding of Man:

The understanding of god is not even equivalent to understanding a vacuum and therefore of no use at all. If you wait for that you're screwed, the worst advice possible. To survive technology as leveraged by the same human stupidity which always existed mandates us to examine ourselves and not depend on any extraneous other-worldly power which never once manifested itself on this planet.

Unfortunately, to create the future hoped for requires a gradual psychological reformation of the psyche which exceeds that of the technologies created or about to be if we do not wish to whisper in our dreams of walking silently and irrevocably into that final Good Night which at this time seems to be its path. If so, the only ones left to weep, will be the mortals who caused it.

It does seem hopeless. Dominant secularism will fight to its last breath to avoid an experiential appreciation of God that will not insult the scientific mind but satisfy the needs of the heart.

Rather than striving to understand what the human organism is, secularism will seek to change it through indoctrination into some sort of PC animal. If this is the case i cannot see any way our species avoids self destruction.

[Greta]

Christianity is not lovey dovey.

My impression is that very many Christians believe love to be a key component of their religion:
http://www.allaboutgod.com/christian-love.htm

Christian Love - Christ's Commandment
What's at the heart of Christian love? Jesus said, "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). John, inspired by the Holy Spirit, once wrote, "We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death" (1 John 3:14). And "by this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:2-3).

Simply, time and again you have demonstrated obvious and rather obsessive hatred for those who do not believe in your religion - and you are therefore yourself at odds with your religion's key stated goals.

Besides, if you cared about people's growth you'd attempt to bring the best out of them rather than the worst.

Greta, do you recognize any difference between secular and Christian love? If you don’t, how can you feel free to discuss Christian love?

How can you feel free to constantly sprout your beliefs in the minds of secularists?

Double standards. Besides, agape love is naturally always the same, no matter the conduit.

What is my religion?

Christian, as you have said many times.

Besides, if you cared about people's growth you'd attempt to bring the best out of them rather than the worst.

The Ways are awakening influences. They are hated just like an alarm clock is hated. Who wants to wake up? Secularism defines concern for human growth as putting people to sleep. It feels good. The Ways, and not the secularized versions, are concerned with awakening which is not flattering but people always act their best as they are being flattered.

Indulging in the reckless luxury of hatred you try to claim it is for the sake of others. Tough love. The hard wake up call.

This is the same rationalisation as used by all who cling to their hatreds. If hatred was easy to let go then everyone would do it, because nothing is more self destructive. Devising rationalisations is much easier to do.

[Nick_A]

Greta

Double standards. Besides, agape love is naturally always the same, no matter the conduit.

But what is agape love and how does it differ from secular love?

Christian, as you have said many times.

I am not a Christian. I am a pre-Christian. I am attracted to the great depth and purpose of Christianity but unable to follow in the precepts of Christ. I am a pre-Christian with the potential to become Christian.

Mahatma Gandhi — 'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'

Ghandi met pre-Christians and non-Christians so his reaction is understandable. I doubt if he ever met a Christian.

Indulging in the reckless luxury of hatred you try to claim it is for the sake of others. Tough love. The hard wake up call.

I put topics up related to ideas expressed by the list of characters because they are necessary. Even if they are hated by secularists they cannot just vanish from philosophy for the sake of secular intolerance. From the cave analogy:

[Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

I know these ideas are hated and why they are hated. They refer to an awakening that threatens the very existence of cave life. If these ideas were not hated they would have lost their meaning and become just secularized interpretations. This isn’t tough love. It is truth. If Socrates is right we can either hate, complain, ridicule, shoot to kill or open to impartial conscious contemplation of what he means and the implications of what it means if he is right.

This is the same rationalisation as used by all who cling to their hatreds. If hatred was easy to let go then everyone would do it, because nothing is more self destructive. Devising rationalisations is much easier to do.

You are the one captivated by hatred and you don’t understand it. This hatred of yours is a reaction to what you don’t understand but somehow still resonates within you. That is why secular intolerance is so natural for you. It is an emotional reaction to what you don’t understand and as a result feel threatened by it.

[Greta]

Greta

Double standards. Besides, agape love is naturally always the same, no matter the conduit.

But what is agape love and how does it differ from secular love?

"Christian" and "secular" are tribal labels and, often, affiliations. Agape love is universal. I thought you might have known that.

Christian, as you have said many times.

I am not a Christian. I am a pre-Christian. I am attracted to the great depth and purpose of Christianity but unable to follow in the precepts of Christ. I am a pre-Christian with the potential to become Christian.

John Lennon said it, Nick - all you need is love. Or at least goodwill. Or at least not to feel hostile about most people and things.

The problem is that humans are damn hard work. They are amazing beings, even the very stupid ones, but our "wiring" makes us difficult. That is, our urge to control the behaviour of others to fit one's particular idea of a good member of society. There is constant pressure, cajoling, pushing, bullying, a plethora of manipulations, etc from all quarters - demands for others to stay within the bounds that they think are important.

Personally, I love animals and humans are animals, so I have sympathy for them, despite some mistreatment that threw me off course for a few decades. However, life is easier and usually better for me when I limit your exposure to other humans to tolerable levels. We are not bad IMO so much as difficult and naive. I believe that most people mean well and try to do the right thing as far as they know.

Indulging in the reckless luxury of hatred you try to claim it is for the sake of others. Tough love. The hard wake up call.

I put topics up related to ideas expressed by the list of characters because they are necessary. Even if they are hated by secularists they cannot just vanish from philosophy for the sake of secular intolerance.

No, you simply routinely spew bile and hatred with occasional interesting snippets from Plato and Simone Weil.

The hatred has nothing to do with "secularists" or any other victims of your hate speech. It's you. You can't hide from this with tricky turnarounds. "It's not me, it's YOU!" games. Not this time.

Everyone on the forum has seen your hatred flow nonstop over the month or more. I am merely pointing out the obvious that others here are probably too bored and sensible to say. No offence, but most would be thinking "Why poke a rabid dog in the eye?" and leave you to it. I suppose I'm stuck with you, being your primary target of self-righteous fury.

I admit to being prone to ham-fisted sledgehammer diplomacy, but I don't hate for long. Maybe a day or two at best. No, lasting hatred an attribute of yours, not mine, but you avoid owning it because that would involve casting your judgemental eye within rather than at everyone else.

[Nick_A]

Greta

No, you simply routinely spew bile and hatred with occasional interesting snippets from Plato and Simone Weil.

The hatred has nothing to do with "secularists" or any other victims of your hate speech. It's you. You can't hide from this with tricky turnarounds. "It's not me, it's YOU!" games. Not this time.

Everyone on the forum has seen your hatred flow nonstop over the month or more. I am merely pointing out the obvious that others here are probably too bored and sensible to say. No offence, but most would be thinking "Why poke a rabid dog in the eye?" and leave you to it. I suppose I'm stuck with you, being your primary target of self-righteous fury.

This is just silly. You cannot find one expression of hatred on any of my posts. Secondly there is no need for hatred. I believe we live in Plato’s cave blind to what we are. As Socrates said: “I know nothing.” That being the case, all the arguments you read are just one idiot calling another idiot an idiot and feeling justified through idiocy. This is tragic. Why hate a tragic situation? This hatred you refer to is just your imagination. It is an emotional reaction to my recognition of idiocy as it exists in the world and in me. Hatred is an egoistic reaction to an imagined attack on our pride. The human condition is what it is. There is no reason to hate it. It is far better to understand it and its implications.

John Lennon said it, Nick - all you need is love. Or at least goodwill. Or at least not to feel hostile about most people and things.

There are basically three qualities of love. There is biological animal love which is selective. Love is an energy that moves through a person corresponding to their type. Some contain more of it than others which is why plants often thrive in the presence of this energy and die in the presence of people who just absorb it.

The highest possible love is conscious love which includes Christian love. It is a love of life itself. It serves to help others and creatures become themselves. Conscious love is for the benefit of others but requires consciousness in order to give it.

The third type which is both celebrated and dangerous is emotional love. It isn’t natural and just an egoistic expression. More often than not it becomes its opposite. As opposed to conscious love, emotional love serves egoism. A man for example can swear he loves this woman because her presence makes him feel something. Then she does this or that and now he hates her. Conscious love is the capacity to give while emotional love must take in order to retain the feeling. True Christian love provides the energy of love allowing a person to progress in Christian development to become what they are. It is conscious giving.

There is nothing wrong with secular love. Anyone can help another. But Christian love serves a conscious purpose selective secular love remains unaware of.

I admit to being prone to ham-fisted sledgehammer diplomacy, but I don't hate for long. Maybe a day or two at best. No, lasting hatred an attribute of yours, not mine, but you avoid owning it because that would involve casting your judgemental eye within rather than at everyone else.

That is your way and the way of the world. One moment we hate and then emotionally love on the next. This is the norm for cave life but is that all a human being worthy of the name is capable of or is it possible through conscious evolution to open to the experience of objective conscience which reveals the triviality of our normal emotional states?

Accepting conscious evolution means higher consciousness already exits. We live in a conscious universe. Once a person experiences this they can no longer be a secularist glorifying the Beast as the highest quality of consciousness. Secularism must then become intolerant to protect itself. Unfortunately it is the kids who must suffer the results of intolerance.