Pro-God, Pro-Human Life, anti-New World Order, Anti-Nefarious Secret Societies, Pro-Civil Liberties, anti-Torture, anti-National ID Card, Pro-Family, Anti-Neo Conservativism, Pro-Net Neutrality, Pro-Home Schooling, Anti-Voting Fraud, Pro-Good Israelis & Pro-Good Palestinians, Anti-Human Trafficking, Pro-Health Freedom, Anti-Codex Alimentarius, Pro-Action, Anti-Bigotry, Pro-9/11 Justice, Anti-Genocide, and Pro-Gun Control. My name is Timothy and I'm from the state of Virginia.
“To clarify, “religion” as I use it here does not refer to a system that has necessarily to do with a concept of God or with idols or even to a system perceived as religion, but to any group-shared system of thought and action that offers the individual a frame of orientation and an object of devotion. Indeed, in this broad sense of the word no culture past or present, and it seems no culture in the future, can be considered as not having religion.
“This definition of “religion” does not tell us anything about its specific content. People may worship animals, trees, idols of gold or stone, an invisible God, a saintly person, or a diabolical leader; they may worship their ancestors, their nation, their class or party, money or success. Their religion may be conducive to the development of destructiveness or of love, of domination or of solidarity; it may further their power of reason or paralyze it. They may be aware of their system as being a religious one, different from those of the secular realm, or they may think that they have no religion, and interpret their devotion to certain allegedly secular aims, such as power, money, or success, as nothing but their concern for the practical and the expedient. The question is not one of religion or not? But of which kind of religion? -- whether it is one that furthers human development, the unfolding of specifically human powers, or one that paralyzes human growth.
“A specific religion, provided it is effective in motivating conduct, is not a sum total of doctrines and beliefs; it is rooted in a specific character structure of the individual and, inasmuch as it is the religion of a group, in the social character. Thus, our religious attitude may be considered an aspect of our character structure, for WE ARE WHAT WE ARE DEVOTED TO, AND WHAT WE ARE DEVOTED TO IS WHAT MOTIVATES OUR CONDUCT. Often however, individuals are not even aware of the real objects of their personal devotion and mistake their “official” beliefs for their real, though SECRET religion. If, for instance, a man worships power while professing a religion of love, the religion of power is his secret religion, while his so-called official religion, for example Christianity, is only an IDEOLOGY.
“… We need such an object of devotion [religion] in order to integrate our energies in one direction, to transcend our isolated existence, with all its doubts and insecurities, and to answer our need for a meaning to life. If the religious system does not correspond to the prevalent social character, if it conflicts with the social practice of life, it is only an ideology. We have to look behind it for the REAL religious structure, even though we may not be conscious of it as such – unless the human energies inherent in the religious structure of character act as dynamite and tend to undermine the given socioeconomic conditions. -- Religion, Character, and Society; To Have or To Be, by Erich Fromm.
Never heard of Darby or dispensationalism (whatever that is); but from reading one of those links; it was enough to give me an intellectual headache. So much undefined abstract la la land concepts.
I prefer people who simply and plainly explain what their ideology is, or what their spirituality is based upon, and when they use abstract terms clearly and simply define those terms. People who use lots of undefined abstract terms, and call themselves religious or spiritual are -- in my personal opinion -- nothing but egologically and ecologically illiterate snake oil salesman. Put simply their spiritually or religion is nothing but bullshit the public verbal diarhea parasitism.
According to that definition of religion, I'd say that both (a) religious zealouts like Derby and (b) the Psychological Warfare department of any Army (irrespective of whether the state is totalitarian agriculture capitalist or communist, etc) practice deliberate and intentional Psychological Propaganda Warfare for the purposes of domination and control of human and natural resources; the only difference being that the former pretend they are practicing 'religion'; while the latter are quite honest about practicing Psychological Warfare.
I don't know of much (or any in fact, although I am anything but an expert) Jesuit literature on anti-modernism; but it appears that Jesuit Black Pope Superior General Wlodimir Ledochowski had a distinct aversion -- like Nazis -- for modernists; although it appears that the Nazi's aversion to industrialization modernism (allegedly imposed by the Jews) was more ecologically based; whereas the Jesuit General's motives were more Counter-Reformation motivated.
Did you know that the naturalist-nationalist principles of Lebensraum, Heimat, anti-urbanism, concern for health of the Volk and land, closeness to and respect for nature, maintaining nature's precarious balance, and the earthy powers of the soil and its creatures were strongly held by Hitler, Himmler, Rosenberg, Walther Darré, Fritz Todt, Alwin Seifert and Rudolf Hess. Even Göring and Goebbels, who were least hospitable to ecological ideas were committed conservationists. To them being an arch-conservative meant the same thing as being a conservationist. By 1939 over 60 percent of the members of Nature protection (Naturschutz) organisations had joined the NSDAP (compared to 10 percent of adult men and 25 percent of lawyers).
Fromm's definition of religion:
ReplyDelete“To clarify, “religion” as I use it here does not refer to a system that has necessarily to do with a concept of God or with idols or even to a system perceived as religion, but to any group-shared system of thought and action that offers the individual a frame of orientation and an object of devotion. Indeed, in this broad sense of the word no culture past or present, and it seems no culture in the future, can be considered as not having religion.
“This definition of “religion” does not tell us anything about its specific content. People may worship animals, trees, idols of gold or stone, an invisible God, a saintly person, or a diabolical leader; they may worship their ancestors, their nation, their class or party, money or success. Their religion may be conducive to the development of destructiveness or of love, of domination or of solidarity; it may further their power of reason or paralyze it. They may be aware of their system as being a religious one, different from those of the secular realm, or they may think that they have no religion, and interpret their devotion to certain allegedly secular aims, such as power, money, or success, as nothing but their concern for the practical and the expedient. The question is not one of religion or not? But of which kind of religion? -- whether it is one that furthers human development, the unfolding of specifically human powers, or one that paralyzes human growth.
“A specific religion, provided it is effective in motivating conduct, is not a sum total of doctrines and beliefs; it is rooted in a specific character structure of the individual and, inasmuch as it is the religion of a group, in the social character. Thus, our religious attitude may be considered an aspect of our character structure, for WE ARE WHAT WE ARE DEVOTED TO, AND WHAT WE ARE DEVOTED TO IS WHAT MOTIVATES OUR CONDUCT. Often however, individuals are not even aware of the real objects of their personal devotion and mistake their “official” beliefs for their real, though SECRET religion. If, for instance, a man worships power while professing a religion of love, the religion of power is his secret religion, while his so-called official religion, for example Christianity, is only an IDEOLOGY.
“… We need such an object of devotion [religion] in order to integrate our energies in one direction, to transcend our isolated existence, with all its doubts and insecurities, and to answer our need for a meaning to life. If the religious system does not correspond to the prevalent social character, if it conflicts with the social practice of life, it is only an ideology. We have to look behind it for the REAL religious structure, even though we may not be conscious of it as such – unless the human energies inherent in the religious structure of character act as dynamite and tend to undermine the given socioeconomic conditions.
-- Religion, Character, and Society; To Have or To Be, by Erich Fromm.
Never heard of Darby or dispensationalism (whatever that is); but from reading one of those links; it was enough to give me an intellectual headache. So much undefined abstract la la land concepts.
ReplyDeleteI prefer people who simply and plainly explain what their ideology is, or what their spirituality is based upon, and when they use abstract terms clearly and simply define those terms. People who use lots of undefined abstract terms, and call themselves religious or spiritual are -- in my personal opinion -- nothing but egologically and ecologically illiterate snake oil salesman. Put simply their spiritually or religion is nothing but bullshit the public verbal diarhea parasitism.
According to that definition of religion, I'd say that both (a) religious zealouts like Derby and (b) the Psychological Warfare department of any Army (irrespective of whether the state is totalitarian agriculture capitalist or communist, etc) practice deliberate and intentional Psychological Propaganda Warfare for the purposes of domination and control of human and natural resources; the only difference being that the former pretend they are practicing 'religion'; while the latter are quite honest about practicing Psychological Warfare.
I don't know of much (or any in fact, although I am anything but an expert) Jesuit literature on anti-modernism; but it appears that Jesuit Black Pope Superior General Wlodimir Ledochowski had a distinct aversion -- like Nazis -- for modernists; although it appears that the Nazi's aversion to industrialization modernism (allegedly imposed by the Jews) was more ecologically based; whereas the Jesuit General's motives were more Counter-Reformation motivated.
ReplyDeleteDid you know that the naturalist-nationalist principles of Lebensraum, Heimat, anti-urbanism, concern for health of the Volk and land, closeness to and respect for nature, maintaining nature's precarious balance, and the earthy powers of the soil and its creatures were strongly held by Hitler, Himmler, Rosenberg, Walther Darré, Fritz Todt, Alwin Seifert and Rudolf Hess. Even Göring and Goebbels, who were least hospitable to ecological ideas were committed conservationists. To them being an arch-conservative meant the same thing as being a conservationist.
By 1939 over 60 percent of the members of Nature protection (Naturschutz) organisations had joined the NSDAP (compared to 10 percent of adult men and 25 percent of lawyers).