, great posts here. I have not read them all and have been inactive because I was on vacation and doing a few urgent things.
I think you are totally right about the environmentalism thing & conservatives. I think that we do a bad job of embracing it, though, because a lot of conservatism has been hijacked by the free market types. But then again, I think that it is also true that a lot of the people on the American right prefer free markets out of the belief, erroneous or not, that free people tend to make the right decisions.
I think that is a true description of Christian people who take their Christian heritage seriously and are not facing dire consequences, but that it otherwise falls short, and the second that the market actually becomes the centerpiece of our ideology and not Christ and the American way of life, this all comes apart very quickly.
Conservatives are not without guilt on this. That is for sure.
Fr. Chad Ripperger often says that the vice of America that undercuts us all is the vice of avarice. It seems truer and truer as the years pass.
QatzelOk wrote:Well Verv and Vic, neither of you has defended the worship of Superman, nor have either of you demonstrated that heaven (partying forever with Superman) is an example of sophisticated philosophy.
You are taking one part of the theology and pretending that this is the whole of the philosophy.
But it isn't.
You could say that the philosophy is cosmic justice, and that those who are innocent, or, at least, who are repentant and with a truly contrite heart (which constitutes some degree of innocence) are the ones that receive positive outcomes, while those who are unrepentant or willfully choose to disavow religion and virtue are the ones that will be held accountable in a very negative way.
And this is fundamentally theological...
Which means that it involves revelations and interpretations of those revelations, right, and the underpinning philosophies.
Some people say that this makes theology less persuasive than philosophy because it is dependent on some level of revelations,
but it ignores the fact that a lot of philosophy is completely dependent on other givens,
and that the less dependent a philosophy is on these given points, the more unhitched it is from being practical and influential in our society.
The OP suggests that the Earth is doomed because it is dominated by people who believe that they will one day party with Superman.
That's honestly interesting. But why would that be.
It would be more persuasive to say that the earth would be doomed if it were governed by people who believed that there is no superman because there is no actual obligation to some cosmic sense of justice, I think.
Of course, if there was some absolutely ridiculous theology that was very far out of touch with reality and sustainable systems, something like a Native American system based on Aztec gods, it might be that way... But that doesn't actually describe accurately what Christian theology believes.
... Of course, it would describe that if your understanding of theology is still back at age 12 and rebelling against the old Catholic lady that ran your Sunday school. But if you stuck with it and actually got some depth out ofit you would hesitate before making some grandiose OP based off of bad takes on Christianity.
Your unqualified projection of "what First Nations would have developed into" is probably the kind of irrational thought that Superman worship leads to. And by the way, the Aztec, Mayans and Incas were all Superman worshippers. And they were also in rapid decline when Europeans found and then destroyed their civilizations. So your "point" is weak on many fronts if you want to defend "heaven" (partying forever with Superman) as a civilizational and personal objective, and claim that it's not suicidal when practiced by large groups.
They were "superman" worshipers...
Because every theology and every religion is equal, eh, Qatz?
I think this is actually one fo the ways that egalitarianism destroys thinking brains of Western people. They actually do not think it is very appropriate to insist that Christianity is superior to other religious systems
because it makes them feel bad that a French person has a better religion than an Indian, Arab, or Chinese person who follows a different tradition.
But none of these traditions are the same and none of them can be evaluated as just being equal.
It literally makes just as much sense for you to go "Marxism, Fascism, classical liberalism; democratic socialism; Islamic theocracy... Monarchy! These are all just the same.
I am a Political Universalist and I see the beauty in all political systems, and I try to learn from them all; none is better than the other.[/I]"