Honest Conversation Starter for Rich2022

[Rhythmcs]

We might wonder to what extent this is a genuine belief of the people rather than an imposed ideology - but I suppose there are bound to be at least a few people who, for example, truly believe that kim jong-il was born on a sacred mountain and that at the moment of his birth a new star appeared and the seasons changed from winter to spring under a double rainbow.

Let's throw caution to the wind. For purposes of this discussion we could at least consider juche as an emerging religion - which has been done. I'll be ignoring the practical reality of juche as administered by the state so that it relates to the underlying beliefs and not whatever success or difficulty a nation has had in implementing them or remaining faithful to them for just a moment. Firstly? Is it totalitarian? It seems so, left - far left totalitarianism, but I'd enjoy anyone with an opposing view there. Central, dictatorial, and subservient. Heavily influenced by confucianism and christianity. It's been claimed that juche leadership was primarily motivated by the need to compensate for internal failures through external crises - essentially, a religion of propaganda. Insomuch as songbun rating determines occupation and educational opportunities it is a comment on the shape of a proper life. It's arguably lacking any explicit salvific claims, though expectations of societal or communal success may be practical stand-ins. The oft dreamt of workers paradise of the (always near) future.

Looking at it this way flips the earlier conclusion, presenting what would then be a very strong example of totalitarian religion outperforming literally everything else. IDK how we'd zero out the influence of the state when it comes to explaining that in this case but there was at least some moment in time when juche had not yet formed as it is that would be the window of exploration. Right around the second korean war?

Do you think that juche and songbun become dominant, to some extent, as a response to helplessness and a desire of the people for simplicity in a complex and possibly extreme situation? I don't know very much about korean history - but..if so, perhaps some examples and how the ideology was applied as a solution?

[Camaro Dude]

I think the reason that that people respond to totalitarianism in religion is that they feel helpless in the world in general and want something to assume total responsibility. Under totalitarian rule, the only thing you are responsible for is whether you can follow the given rules. Religions keep those rules fairly simple, and most are innate to the majority of humans anyway. Pretty much the only innate drive many/most religions seek to modify in various ways is sexuality. They can't forbid it totally or there wouldn't be kids to raise under their rules and the religion would die out. So, they only allow sex for procreation.

We're all subject to rules. And as long as we can follow the rules (laws) of our respective governments we can live fairly comfortably. Why would anyone need to impose additional rules from some religion? And a number of the rules placed on us by governments are the same as rules included in a number of religions. A lot of them are imposed for societal protection.

So it couldn't be the making of rules being the problem since we all understand they are needed. Why wouldn't rules already applied to us by our governments be enough to satisfy our need for security?

[Dom]

I think the reason that that people respond to totalitarianism in religion is that they feel helpless in the world in general and want something to assume total responsibility. Under totalitarian rule, the only thing you are responsible for is whether you can follow the given rules. Religions keep those rules fairly simple, and most are innate to the majority of humans anyway. Pretty much the only innate drive many/most religions seek to modify in various ways is sexuality. They can't forbid it totally or there wouldn't be kids to raise under their rules and the religion would die out. So, they only allow sex for procreation.

We're all subject to rules. And as long as we can follow the rules (laws) of our respective governments we can live fairly comfortably. Why would anyone need to impose additional rules from some religion? And a number of the rules placed on us by governments are the same as rules included in a number of religions. A lot of them are imposed for societal protection.

So it couldn't be the making of rules being the problem since we all understand they are needed. Why wouldn't rules already applied to us by our governments be enough to satisfy our need for security?

I already said most of these "rules" are innate to us, we are not solitary but have a herd drive. All herds, human or animal, have such rules.

The only such rules in religion that are opposite to what is innate are the ones concerning sex.

[Camaro Dude]

Looking specifically at n korea, we would have to focus on the minority religious population.  Shamanism, buddhism, christianity, and pantheism.  Neither shamanism nor pantheism are likely to qualify as totalitarian religions.  Buddhism breaks either way, and christianity is explicitly totalitarian.  It's notable that in n korea, at least, the explicitly totalitarian and potentially totalitarian religions are not outperforming.

I may not be understanding you here, but religions cannot outperform, or flourish in NK in any way due to religious intolerance.

I'm guessing there's more to what you're saying here.

[Camaro Dude]

We're all subject to rules. And as long as we can follow the rules (laws) of our respective governments we can live fairly comfortably. Why would anyone need to impose additional rules from some religion? And a number of the rules placed on us by governments are the same as rules included in a number of religions. A lot of them are imposed for societal protection.

So it couldn't be the making of rules being the problem since we all understand they are needed. Why wouldn't rules already applied to us by our governments be enough to satisfy our need for security?

I already said most of these "rules" are innate to us, we are not solitary but have a herd drive. All herds, human or animal, have such rules.

The only such rules in religion that are opposite to what is innate are the ones concerning sex.

I think monogamy (in it's relationship with sex) is a fairly natural rule. Secular laws may have changed somewhat, but whether one is religious or not, there's a natural jealousy that occurs when a monogamous relationship has been violated. And children are often affected by sexual betrayal amongst parents. Religion is certainly not needed in applying rules to monogamous relationship (marriage) and sexual faithfulness.

Or am I off track?

[no one]

People only get jealous, if they subscribe to the notion.


June and Ward Cleaver are relics.

Maybe, if you come out from under that rock, you'll notice.

[Dom]

I already said most of these "rules" are innate to us, we are not solitary but have a herd drive. All herds, human or animal, have such rules.

The only such rules in religion that are opposite to what is innate are the ones concerning sex.

I think monogamy (in it's relationship with sex) is a fairly natural rule. Secular laws may have changed somewhat, but whether one is religious or not, there's a natural jealousy that occurs when a monogamous relationship has been violated. And children are often affected by sexual betrayal amongst parents. Religion is certainly not needed in applying rules to monogamous relationship (marriage) and sexual faithfulness.

Or am I off track?

There is divorce, or sex before marriage, or gay or lesbian sex and what have you. Someone in an abusive relationship needs to get divorced, especially when there are children involved. Yes, monogamy is what most prefer, and yes, most get jealous. Doesn't apply to all, though. I don't have a horse in this other than caring about the quality of life of my fellow humans.

[Rhythmcs]

Looking specifically at n korea, we would have to focus on the minority religious population.  Shamanism, buddhism, christianity, and pantheism.  Neither shamanism nor pantheism are likely to qualify as totalitarian religions.  Buddhism breaks either way, and christianity is explicitly totalitarian.  It's notable that in n korea, at least, the explicitly totalitarian and potentially totalitarian religions are not outperforming.

I may not be understanding you here, but religions cannot outperform, or flourish in NK in any way due to religious intolerance.

I'm guessing there's more to what you're saying here.

We're considering juche as an emerging religion.  In that light, it's not so much that nk is religiously intolerant as juche is a religion of intolerance towards other religions.  Similar to christianity.  Have you had any thoughts about what people might find appealing with respect to totalitarian religions..like christianity, or like juche?

[Camaro Dude]

I may not be understanding you here, but religions cannot outperform, or flourish in NK in any way due to religious intolerance.

I'm guessing there's more to what you're saying here.

We're considering juche as an emerging religion.  In that light, it's not so much that nk is religiously intolerant as juche is a religion of intolerance towards other religions.  Similar to christianity.  Have you had any thoughts about what people might find appealing with respect to totalitarian religions..like christianity, or like juche?

I can see some appeal to some eastern religions, at least as being westernized for our western palates. But it's really a matter of who God actually is, which I really have no say. I can like or dislike who God is like I can any human. Or, I can reduce God to being a version of others. Or God simply being one big collection of everything we know to exist.

I don't have the right to say who God is apart from who He claims to be anymore than I have a right to claim who you are apart from who you claim to be. I can't claim you're one in entity with all the members here in this forum, or that you're another version of Dom. I personally believe God has proclaimed who He is in scripture due to the evidence I've seen, but not because I find Christianity appealing.

I actually do wonder why the idea of a personality-less/lack of individuality god is so appealing.

Now being a member of an organized religion for the sake of acceptance, power, favoritism, elitism, self-preservation is another story.

[Alan V]

I can see some appeal to some eastern religions, at least as being westernized for our western palates. But it's really a matter of who God actually is, which I really have no say. I can like or dislike who God is like I can any human. Or, I can reduce God to being a version of others. Or God simply being one big collection of everything we know to exist.

I don't have the right to say who God is apart from who He claims to be anymore than I have a right to claim who you are apart from who you claim to be. I can't claim you're one in entity with all the members here in this forum, or that you're another version of Dom. I personally believe God has proclaimed who He is in scripture due to the evidence I've seen, but not because I find Christianity appealing.

Or, if God doesn't exist, you just believe what other people have written about an imaginary being.  Ancient people couldn't understand much, so they made up stories.  It seems quite obvious, especially considering how credulous even modern humans are.

The only difficulty is admitting that WE have been credulous as well.

[Deesse23]

I don't have the right to say who God is apart from who He claims to be anymore than I have a right to claim who you are ....

Your god has never claimed anything.
People have claimed that a god has claimed something, or you attribute a personal experience to a god. Neither you nor anyone else can provide evidence that any of those claims are true.

[Rhythmcs]

We're considering juche as an emerging religion.  In that light, it's not so much that nk is religiously intolerant as juche is a religion of intolerance towards other religions.  Similar to christianity.  Have you had any thoughts about what people might find appealing with respect to totalitarian religions..like christianity, or like juche?

I can see some appeal to some eastern religions, at least as being westernized for our western palates. But it's really a matter of who God actually is, which I really have no say. I can like or dislike who God is like I can any human. Or, I can reduce God to being a version of others. Or God simply being one big collection of everything we know to exist.

I don't have the right to say who God is apart from who He claims to be anymore than I have a right to claim who you are apart from who you claim to be. I can't claim you're one in entity with all the members here in this forum, or that you're another version of Dom. I personally believe God has proclaimed who He is in scripture due to the evidence I've seen, but not because I find Christianity appealing.

I actually do wonder why the idea of a personality-less/lack of individuality god is so appealing.

Now being a member of an organized religion for the sake of acceptance, power, favoritism, elitism, self-preservation is another story.

An explanation only open to a believer.  That a totalitarian religion is constructed this way because that's just how the real god is.  Even if we might prefer the construction of some other god or some other religion, or otherwise.  I wonder if there are people who think that...not only is it written into the fabric of the universe, but that it's the true and proper way to organize the same as well?  

As for the appeal of impersonal gods.  IDK, but I do share a deists skepticism about personal gods.  It seems clear, to me, that any totalitarian claim to divine fact arises from projection.  I do think, also, that a person could object to a totalitarian god on personal grounds.  IE, a genuine belief in their personality in contrast to the above genuine belief in totalitarianism, just some different personality.  Then there's convenience.  Impersonality allows a simple mechanism to handle a wide range of possible objections.  The same kinds of objections that lead an equally committed theist to object to a totalitarian theism on objective or subjective grounds.  

Do you find christianity particularly unappealing?  That would be a first for me.  Are there pagan or eastern analog beliefs/complimentary beliefs you would prefer?  Is there a different personality of the divine that would appeal to you more than christ? The trouble being...simply..that they're not true?