Page 1 of 2
Should the religious world thank the secular world for improving older religious law to the level of excellence we now e
Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 12:13 pm
by Greatest I am
Should the religious world thank the secular world for improving older religious law to the level of excellence we now enjoy?
If we grade secular law against theistic laws, I think we will agree that God’s laws are unjust when compared to the laws of most lands.
Three cheers for secular world and the world’s intelligentsia. They are the Gnostics of the world and their just laws prove it.
Regards
DL
Re: Should the religious world thank the secular world for improving older religious law to the level of excellence we n
Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 4:24 pm
by Porphyry
I think it is the opposite: the secular world should thank the religious world for putting some limits on its hegemonic and totalitarian tendencies. Examples include Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kim dynasty in North Korea, Maduro, et al. The record of the secular world is, as we like to say these days, problematic.
Best wishes,
Porphyry
P.S. Why would you think that secularists are Gnostics?
Re: Should the religious world thank the secular world for improving older religious law to the level of excellence we n
Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 4:40 pm
by Greatest I am
Porphyry wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 4:24 pm
I think it is the opposite: the secular world should thank the religious world for putting some limits on its hegemonic and totalitarian tendencies. Examples include Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kim dynasty in North Korea, Maduro, et al. The record of the secular world is, as we like to say these days, problematic.
Best wishes,
Porphyry
P.S. Why would you think that secularists are Gnostics?
Most of the countries you name would not be secular states.
I called our law makers Gnostic because morality and free thinking is our forte and those would be the main tools of lawmakers.
Regards
DL
Re: Should the religious world thank the secular world for improving older religious law to the level of excellence we n
Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 5:10 pm
by Porphyry
Greatest I am wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 4:40 pm
Porphyry wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 4:24 pm
I think it is the opposite: the secular world should thank the religious world for putting some limits on its hegemonic and totalitarian tendencies. Examples include Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kim dynasty in North Korea, Maduro, et al. The record of the secular world is, as we like to say these days, problematic.
Best wishes,
Porphyry
P.S. Why would you think that secularists are Gnostics?
Most of the countries you name would not be secular states.
I called our law makers Gnostic because morality and free thinking is our forte and those would be the main tools of lawmakers.
Regards
DL
There is a pattern I have noticed. Those opposed to traditional religion demand that religions 'own' the negative aspects of their histories. I completely agree with this; I think that is a fair request. However, when secularists are asked to own the negative aspects of their histories they dodge and prevaricate. All of the regimes I mentioned were / are secular regimes.
Consider that today the two most totalitarian regimes on earth are Saudi Arabia and North Korea. Saudi Arabia is a religious state (Islamic State) and North Korea is an officially atheist / secular state. I infer from this that the darker aspects of human history, both in the past and during the present day, are deeper than whether or not the society is religious or secular.
Best wishes,
Porphyry
P.S. We must be using the word 'Gnostic' completely differently. That's OK, it's just that I don't see anything in the history of Gnosticism that would regard them as particularly moral or advocates of free thinking. Again, that's OK, and perhaps it is a topic for another thread.
Re: Should the religious world thank the secular world for improving older religious law to the level of excellence we n
Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 5:16 pm
by Greatest I am
Porphyry wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 5:10 pm
Greatest I am wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 4:40 pm
Porphyry wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 4:24 pm
I think it is the opposite: the secular world should thank the religious world for putting some limits on its hegemonic and totalitarian tendencies. Examples include Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kim dynasty in North Korea, Maduro, et al. The record of the secular world is, as we like to say these days, problematic.
Best wishes,
Porphyry
P.S. Why would you think that secularists are Gnostics?
Most of the countries you name would not be secular states.
I called our law makers Gnostic because morality and free thinking is our forte and those would be the main tools of lawmakers.
Regards
DL
There is a pattern I have noticed. Those opposed to traditional religion demand that religions 'own' the negative aspects of their histories. I completely agree with this; I think that is a fair request. However, when secularists are asked to own the negative aspects of their histories they dodge and prevaricate. All of the regimes I mentioned were / are secular regimes.
Consider that today the two most totalitarian regimes on earth are Saudi Arabia and North Korea. Saudi Arabia is a religious state (Islamic State) and North Korea is an officially atheist / secular state. I infer from this that the darker aspects of human history, both in the past and during the present day, are deeper than whether or not the society is religious or secular.
Best wishes,
Porphyry
P.S. We must be using the word 'Gnostic' completely differently. That's OK, it's just that I don't see anything in the history of Gnosticism that would regard them as particularly moral or advocates of free thinking. Again, that's OK, and perhaps it is a topic for another thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state
A secular state is an idea pertaining to secularism, whereby a state is or purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.
Regards
DL
Re: Should the religious world thank the secular world for improving older religious law to the level of excellence we n
Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 7:10 pm
by Porphyry
Thanks for the rapid reply. I don't think Wikipedia is a reliable source. At dicitionary.com here are the first three definitions:
1.
of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal:
secular interests.
2.
not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred ):
secular music.
3.
(of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
I checked with Merriam-Webster and they have the same definitions. An Oxford dictionary had basically the same.
Not all secular societies are hegemonic or totalitarian. But there is a type of secular society that is. In the same way not all religious societies are oppressive. But there are repressive religious societies. That was my point.
Redefining 'religious' and 'secular' to exclude the negative manifestations from those histories is the primary means that both religious and secularists evade their own histories. I'm not anti-secular; but I do think that those who have a secular view need to come to terms with its problematic manifestations. Just as religious people need to do so with their religions.
Best wishes,
Porphyry
Re: Should the religious world thank the secular world for improving older religious law to the level of excellence we n
Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 8:31 pm
by Red
@Porphyry Wikipedia is almost always reliable when it comes to important things, such as science, history, ideologies, etc., so here you can rely on what the article says. It's only the ones on celebrities or obscure things that often have biases and/or misinformation.
Re: Should the religious world thank the secular world for improving older religious law to the level of excellence we n
Posted: Sun May 20, 2018 3:28 am
by esquizofrenico
I agree with Porphyry somewhat but I think that his argument can be more convincing if you don't go to those extreme cases, but rather to some positions that used to be almost widespread in secular intellectuals of the past, like Eugenics and historical materialism, that were opposed by more conservative authors. There is a quote by G.K.Chesterton talking about his friend Bernard Shaw that I like a lot (this is not the actual quote, just the general idea): "He is like a nurse that seeing a baby does not like the milk in its feeding bottle, throws the baby out the window rather than the milk".
Re: Should the religious world thank the secular world for improving older religious law to the level of excellence we n
Posted: Sun May 20, 2018 10:36 am
by Porphyry
esquizofrenico wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 3:28 am
I agree with Porphyry somewhat but I think that his argument can be more convincing if you don't go to those extreme cases, but rather to some positions that used to be almost widespread in secular intellectuals of the past, like Eugenics and historical materialism, that were opposed by more conservative authors. There is a quote by G.K.Chesterton talking about his friend Bernard Shaw that I like a lot (this is not the actual quote, just the general idea): "He is like a nurse that seeing a baby does not like the milk in its feeding bottle, throws the baby out the window rather than the milk".
That's a good point. I would add, though, that I don't mean to throw the baby out the window. Looking back on my comments I can see that it might have seemed that way. I prefer living in a secular / liberal society to living in a religious state. Countries that have separation of church and state (either explicitly or culturally) are a great benefit. I can see I did not make that clear.
Your examples are good ones; thanks for the insight.
Porphyry
Re: Should the religious world thank the secular world for improving older religious law to the level of excellence we n
Posted: Sun May 20, 2018 1:26 pm
by Greatest I am
Porphyry wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 7:10 pm
Thanks for the rapid reply. I don't think Wikipedia is a reliable source. At dicitionary.com here are the first three definitions:
1.
of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal:
secular interests.
2.
not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred ):
secular music.
3.
(of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
I checked with Merriam-Webster and they have the same definitions. An Oxford dictionary had basically the same.
Not all secular societies are hegemonic or totalitarian. But there is a type of secular society that is. In the same way not all religious societies are oppressive. But there are repressive religious societies. That was my point.
Redefining 'religious' and 'secular' to exclude the negative manifestations from those histories is the primary means that both religious and secularists evade their own histories. I'm not anti-secular; but I do think that those who have a secular view need to come to terms with its problematic manifestations. Just as religious people need to do so with their religions.
Best wishes,
Porphyry
There is no arguing against you view when looking at both ends of the graph, but I go by the 80 20 rule and speak to the mean of the term.
Regards
DL