If I were an adherent of any religion, my third choice would be Quaker, after Taoist and Buddhist. But it would be my last choice too -- after that, I'd give up entirely on religion and focus instead on g-strings, much as I do today.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can "secular" ideologies/institutions be as violent as "religious"?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
If I were an adherent of any religion, my third choice would be Quaker, after Taoist and Buddhist. But it would be my last choice too -- after that, I'd give up entirely on religion and focus instead on g-strings, much as I do today.
I wouldn't expect anything less
(fist-pump)But seriously, Quakers and the other peace churches are the best exemplars of Christianity IMHO and any religion or none would be lucky to have them.
I share a great affinity with these denominations.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
They originated as a radical, mystical Christian sect in the 17th century, with a strong egalitarian and pacifist social message: founded by the Englishman George Fox, who experienced Christ as an inner light and taught that anyone of any faith, nationality or gender could as well.
However, while the majority remained orthodox Chtistians (believing all the conventional dogmas of the incarnation, Trinity and so in), the movement also developed to encompass Nontheist Quakers whose spiritual practice is not reliant on the existence of a Christian God but who retain the morality, mysticism and social activism of the Christian message.
Much of the early abolitionist anti-slavery movement and push for better working conditions for the urban poor was spearheaded by Quaker Christians in the english-speaking world. They were also incredibly entrepreneurial, creating jobs and opportunities for uncountable numbers of disadvantaged people. They founded banks and financial institutions, including Barclays, Lloyds, and Friends Provident; manufacturing companies, including shoe retailer C. & J. Clark and the big three British confectionery makers Cadbury, Rowntree and Fry etc.
Beyond doubt, they come closest to the example set by Jesus himself, them and the Catholic mystics and saints IMHO.
George Fox was one of the greatest Christian mystics. He picked up many of the same themes first articulated by the medieval Catholic mystics who preceded him (like Blessed Julian of Norwich in England) but furthered them to their logical conclusions.
Last edited:
Of course they can. The one has nothing to do with the other, so the one doesn't prevent the other.
Shad
Veteran Member
Yes. Look at communism.
Secularism works best when there is no agenda. No Holy Books, no priests, no religious bias.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Secularism is different than the secular form of government, which provides equal justice and is equitable to everybody whether one belongs to Secularism or not or in belongs to some Religion or to some non-Religion. Right, please?
Secularism also has an agenda. Is it correct, please?
Regards
What agenda would that be, pray tell?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey said: ↑
Secularism is different than the secular form of government, which provides equal justice and is equitable to everybody whether one belongs to Secularism or not or in belongs to some Religion or to some non-Religion. Right, please?
Secularism also has an agenda. Is it correct, please?
Regards
If I am wrong, my friends to please correct me with reasons and arguments.
Regards
Secularism is different than the secular form of government, which provides equal justice and is equitable to everybody whether one belongs to Secularism or not or in belongs to some Religion or to some non-Religion. Right, please?
Secularism also has an agenda. Is it correct, please?
Regards
to restrict religion and to promote Atheism, not necessarily to promote secular form of government. Right, please?
If I am wrong, my friends to please correct me with reasons and arguments.
Regards
WW1 and WW2 are poor examples?
Possibly some form of religious banners were used but, bottom line, the wars were waged not due to any religious differences but due to, ultimately, Economics. In fact great depressions result in the onset of world wars. Point being the biggest wars ever waged were not remotely religious as the primary driving force.
What needs to be understood is that the same factors work for all wars in the modern day. Economic recession combined with selfishness leads to competitiveness and ultimately war. The war in Iraq against Saddam was not fought for religion ... it was fought for oil. That enabled militants to gradually take over and with military aid from foreign countries ISIS thrived. This is the key to understand. Claiming religion as the cause or blaming religion when there are obvious Economic causes of selfishness at work is really an oversimplification.
Rather, religions when evaluated at their origin are the only causes that deter war and create peace. Before the onset of Prophets of God the world is filled with chaos and disorder. Prophets bring religions that turn hell into heaven.
Possibly some form of religious banners were used but, bottom line, the wars were waged not due to any religious differences but due to, ultimately, Economics. In fact great depressions result in the onset of world wars. Point being the biggest wars ever waged were not remotely religious as the primary driving force.
What needs to be understood is that the same factors work for all wars in the modern day. Economic recession combined with selfishness leads to competitiveness and ultimately war. The war in Iraq against Saddam was not fought for religion ... it was fought for oil. That enabled militants to gradually take over and with military aid from foreign countries ISIS thrived. This is the key to understand. Claiming religion as the cause or blaming religion when there are obvious Economic causes of selfishness at work is really an oversimplification.
Rather, religions when evaluated at their origin are the only causes that deter war and create peace. Before the onset of Prophets of God the world is filled with chaos and disorder. Prophets bring religions that turn hell into heaven.
That's not secularism. Secularism is separation of state and Church. Not really the same as promoting athiesm, merely allowing people to live free of other people's religious rules.
