Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:00 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:47 pm A while ago I started to add a few posts to Scott Hughes facebook page. He does seem like a nice guy.

Are we thinking of the same guy. I'm thinking of the sanctimonious wanker and top banana of the OPC Scott Hughes, which one are you thinking of?

Yes, the same one. I may be gullible but I cannot believe now that he is as narrow minded as those like Greta and fooloso4. If I am wrong, I'm wrong. But with all the atttention he pays to the kids I cannot believe he would so easily support spirit killing in the young. If I am being naive, that's just the way it goes.

davidm wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:13 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:11 pm

davidm wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:54 pm I wonder if you realize that a "secularist" is someone who advocates the separation of church and state? That's it. Nothing more. Many theists are secularists.

With that in mind, why in the world would a secularist find Needleman's stuff to be "poison"?

A secularist is limited to one level of reality to experience and contemplate existence. A universalist in contrast has sensed a connection between a conscious source of existence, a chain of being including Man within creation with the potential for conscious evolution. The ideas of the universalist threaten the dominance of this one level of reality creating secularism, the world, which has captured its psyche. Threatening secular dominance threatens the ego which provides their self justification and sense of meaning and purpose. It has no intention of losing its supremacy.

A secularist is someone who believes in the separation of church and state. That's it. Many theists are also secularists. Perhaps even most, in the United States.

Secularist, therefore, is not the opposite of "universalist."

One is not the opposite of ten. One exists within ten. The earth as a level of reality exists within a greater universal structure which the secularist is closed to.

So, then, according to you, a secularist theist -- of which there are a great many -- are closed to this "greater universal structure?"

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:17 pm Yes, the same one.

Yes, now that I've thought about it I can see how it would be the same one.

But with all the atttention he pays to the kids

I didn't know about that, Nick, if you have any evidence you should report it.

I cannot believe he would so easily support spirit killing in the young.

I'm afraid it's always the ones you least suspect.

davidm wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:22 pm So, then, according to you, a secularist theist -- of which there are a great many -- are closed to this "greater universal structure?"

Yes, people can call themselves anything they want. The bottom line is if a person is open to the conscious third direction of thought which connects levels of reality. Without it a person is guided by self serving egoistic emotion.

I simply suggest you find a more accurate word than "secularist." Since even a very great many religious people are secular (believe in the separation of church and state) you are attacking the wrong group of people.

davidm wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:40 pm you are attacking the wrong group of people.

I disagree. He is attacking everyone, the right group of people are bound to be in there somewhere.

davidm wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:25 pm Secularism is not atheism.

Regardless of how you phrase it, secularism dominating the animal level of the world requires the separation of the state from the multi leveled religious influence. The trouble is that without the religious influence opening a person to the human value of voluntary obligations, a free society is impossible to maintain. The struggle for prestige will rule requiring statist slavery to bring order if possible for a short period until society is compelled to hit bottom. Not a pleasant perspective.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:52 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:28 am For most, appearances and reputation is literally all that matters.

I think most paragons would fail to stand up to close scrutiny. Some of us seem compelled to invest superhumanity in our heroes, especially after they're dead.

That's been the way throughout history starting from the first global paragon called Alexander the Great!

davidm wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:40 pm I simply suggest you find a more accurate word than "secularist." Since even a very great many religious people are secular (believe in the separation of church and state) you are attacking the wrong group of people.

Why call them religious people? Simone suggests they need atheism.

That is why St. John of the Cross calls faith a night. With those who have received a Christian education, the lower parts of the soul become attached to these mysteries when they have no right at all to do so. That is why such people need a purification of which St. John of the Cross describes the stages. Atheism and incredulity constitute an equivalent of such a purification.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 418

When the lower parts of the soul interpret higher ideas, secularism results in one form or another. Atheism can serve as an awakening influence but secularism is an attitude constructed on one level of reality that can only sustain itself through spirit killing.

I'll just point out one more time. A "secular" person may be and often is a devout Christian. A "secular" person simply wants to keep Church and state separate in the constitutional meaning of the term. It does not mean that they want to eliminate religious thinking or belief from private life or the culture -- far from it. The separation clause of the constitution is intended to protect religion from control or predation by the state. This is ALL that "secularist" means. You are simply misusing the word.

davidm wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:07 pm I'll just point out one more time. A "secular" person may be and often is a devout Christian. A "secular" person simply wants to keep Church and state separate in the constitutional meaning of the term. It does not mean that they want to eliminate religious thinking or belief from private life or the culture -- far from it. The separation clause of the constitution is intended to protect religion from control or predation by the state. This is ALL that "secularist" means. You are simply misusing the word.

A devout Christian cannot be a secularist just like a Man cannot be a dog. They are different qualities of being. A devout Christian is one who follows in the precepts of Christ. Where do you find them? A devout Christian puts the church and state into balance.

Matthew 22:18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

A secularist cannot know what it means to give to God yet a devout Christian can know what it means to give to the state.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:09 pmA devout Christian cannot be a secularist just like a Man cannot be a dog. They are different qualities of being.

Simone, among a multitude of others, may have been quite brilliant in exploring and expounding perspectives according to her views and in doing so superimpose their own semantic on the established meaning of words. It's common and the reason why people have to constantly ask when arguing ideas "how do you define this or that word" which has long been predefined etymologically.

The word secular or secularization has a very limited meaning and as such a very compressed and powerful one which begins in the late 16th century when church wealth started to be confiscated into that of the state. This began the process of separating Church from State with all of its consequent ramifications. For others, however brilliant, to distort the word's fundamental meaning with their own ideational inferences leads to nothing but bogus and perverse arguments. The meaning of "secular" is rooted in ONE process; infringe that and all arguments which derive from it become meaningless. In short, the manner in which you use the word secular creates only rubble in its wake and is only another instance of the "world according to...".

A secularist cannot know what it means to give to God yet a devout Christian can know what it means to give to the state.

As per above, the meaning you apply to secular makes as much sense as putting a "a best before" label on toilet paper.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:09 pm

davidm wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:07 pm I'll just point out one more time. A "secular" person may be and often is a devout Christian. A "secular" person simply wants to keep Church and state separate in the constitutional meaning of the term. It does not mean that they want to eliminate religious thinking or belief from private life or the culture -- far from it. The separation clause of the constitution is intended to protect religion from control or predation by the state. This is ALL that "secularist" means. You are simply misusing the word.

A devout Christian cannot be a secularist just like a Man cannot be a dog.

You don't know what you are talking about, as usual. You don't even seem to realize that what we call "secular" has religious roots. It was the desire of believers not to be harassed or interfered with by the state; hence, separation of the two.

So any Christian who believes that church and state should be separate is not a true Christian? Is secretly an atheist? Or what? You are talking pure tommyrot.

Have you ever thought about how many Christians love secularism (which, again, means nothing more than "constitutional separation of church and state") because it keeps their churches tax-free?

I believe this nonsense of conflating secularism with atheism began with the Newt Gingrich and the 90s-era Rethuglicans who started railing against "secularism" as if it were synonymous with atheism. It is not as I have demonstrated, but turning our language to shit, like everything else they touch, has been the touchstone of the G.O.P. since Ronald Reagan.