Esheaun Stroakuss wrote:Punished UMN wrote:Okay, but if that struggle isn't necessarily good, then why do you object so strongly to removing those barriers to achieving our goals?
I don't object to it. I just think that removing those barriers will lead to a much better society, not a perfect one.I'm not saying you're literally a conservative, in fact I used that as an analogy precisely because I think there's a cognitive dissonance in being a progressive and being opposed to the idea of the World to Come, because progressives imo want to work towards a better world with less suffering, which is why I find it strange that someone with that position would reject the idea of a world that is literally perfect and devoid entirely of suffering.
I want less suffering. I am a realist, though, and know it will never go away. The best we can do is minimise it. I reject the perfect paradise not necessarily in theory, even if I find such an idea dull, but because it is virtually impossible. In that regard, I am much more of a Scientific Socialist than a Utopian one.I don't think you're literally a conservative, but I think the arguments you are using to reject the World to Come are, fundamentally, identical or at least analogous to those that a conservative would use to reject, say, socialism.
The arguments conservative use to reject socialism usually stem from fear of change, as well as socialism's attempts in the 20th century. In actuality, I support socialism and - to an extent - communism as a long term goal, not as a Heaven on Earth but a better system than we have now.
I don't reject the World to Come. I embrace it. What I don't embrace is a utopia, certainly not one motivated by spiritual or religious doctrine.
A proper theocracy is not the establishment of something like Heaven on earth. It's a state where there is a concerted effort to sanctify its citizens through every means at its disposal in order to prepare them for the Kingdom come.