Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: Which is more dangerous, theology or ideology? 15
This article insists that for human beings, belief is not optional. There are two basic types of beliefs- religious theology and political ideology- but all human beings, even atheists, have some form of belief.
A study of war would seem to indicate that the 20th century clearly showed that ideology is more dangerous than theology, but since fighting for religion has never really gone out of fashion, what do you think?
Most "Theology" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Real theology is about surrendering that intellect, and that selfish nature, to a greater good and attempting to deny it.
Re: (Score:2)
Real theology is about surrendering that intellect, and that selfish nature, to a greater good and attempting to deny it.
Would agree that that is real "religion". I'd argue that Theology has as its aim, the impossible - that is to render the divine as something comprehensible to the intellect and compatible with the rational basis of identity. Theology is a way to reconcile the intellect to the apprehension of God, so that it does not become a tool used to thwart the benefit of divine graces.
Concur (Score:1)
Belief is not optional (Score:1)
You have to believe your senses if you want to survive, even though the brain filters out and highly distorts most of what comes in and adds its own noise, but it creates "order" within itself, to keep the peace so to speak. What is most absent among humans is the conscious application of verification. Because everything you hear on theology and ideology is still the word of man and his noisy brain.
What is common between theology and ideology is the charlatanism. Everybody's looking for an angel... er angle
Re: (Score:2)
Everything you hear on verification is still the word of man and his noisy brain too.
http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/2014/05/using-logical-fallacies-in-argument.html [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Turtles all the way down
wow (Score:1)
A great FA. And not just because it includes what I've been thinking for a few years now, that man needs religion -- something to believe in, that's bigger than just himself -- and will make one up if need be, and Leftism is just the religion of secular Progressives, in that to them it's about redemption (collective, in their case, as Obama has mentioned), morality, and timespans beyond just one's own years.
But the identifying that theology can go bad by becoming ideology was the really interesting part to
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the strange part. The original article is from a *very* conservative Catholic website. Catholic thought on liberty goes back a long ways before libertarianism was ever thought of, and is more developed.
The freedom to do the *RIGHT* thing is paramount. Sometimes, doing the right thing means *teaching* (not forcing, teaching) theology to people who won't agree with it and who will see it as "forcing your religion on to me".
Re: (Score:1)
But that's what the Left thinks about their "religion", that it's about doing the right thing and what those right things are.
As a libertarian-minded person, I'm for minimal trampling of our rights. You have the right to teach your religion if you wish, but I have the right to not receive it if I wish. I'm okay with a small amount of civics instruction being compulsory, as part of being a citizen of this nation. But beyond that, if you should get to force your Catholic teachings on everyone, then should Pr
Re: (Score:2)
Are you against minimum trampling of our rights, or are you for supporting our wrongs?
I'm to the point that I'm against plurality. Libertarian has become just an excuse to support wrongs instead of rights; liberty just an excuse to harm your neighbor instead of a duty to love him.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm assuming you're saying you're against the notion of a pluralistic society, where people are free to have, sometimes competing, systems of ethics and values.
Here's the problem with where you're at. The Left says "elections have consequences". That's not just a catchy phrase to them. By it they mean that if they can get elected, then they should get to do whatever they want (for the greater good). Our Constitution and founding principles notwithstanding.
Thankfully our country has a long history with th
Re: (Score:2)
They should never have been allowed to exist in the first place. But if we must have them, then I'm for segregated societies- the right of a community of individuals to say who can be in association with them.
We might as well already be a Godless nation anyway, since we have to temper our "protection of the minority" to allow objective evil to exist.
Re: (Score:1)
And that could possibly lead to more wars. I tend to like your idea, but there are downsides. While we all have to live together, we're mostly committed to keeping the peace amongst everyone. Separate into tribes and we could end up like the Native Americans were, at war all the time. While abortion was happening in one place, and infidels were living in another, some groups could not stand some others' mere existence. It might be reasonable to people like us to separate into groups and everyone mind the
Re: (Score:2)
Not all Native American nations were at war. The T'Chinook trading nation wasn't, they had replaced war with the potlatch and a spirit of generosity. Though I guess the tradeoff there was death by starvation the next winter over death by war in the summer, when to "win" your chief gave away the food stores.