It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Loss of Christianity induced morality is destroying America

page: 4
48
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: lambs to lions
a reply to: projectbane

No, what you just said was the dumbest thing ever. Christian values are stupid? Grow up. Yeah, all that charity work and feeding the poor is just ridiculous. Yeah yeah, and believing in honesty is the worst.



I've read the Bible and I've talked to many Christians (used to be one, myself). Those aren't the values I most associate with Christianity. They give lip service to those values. Big difference. Charity work and feeding the poor? There's almost always a string attached and they wrap that string tightly around the necks of the recipients.




posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 03:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: lambs to lions
a reply to: GENERAL EYES

I love what you said. I'm with you, just trying to do my best and give what I can. Many have done horrible deeds in the name of Christianity. They were not acting in accordance with Christian ideals any more than ISIS is with Islam.

Thanks for posting.


You might be able to convince someone of that who hasn't read the entire Bible. I have. Christian values?



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 03:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: celticdog
Maybe people see the hypocrisy in religion and also their leaders. As for the ten commandments I don't think you need them. The years between Adam and Moses is about 2500. That is a long time without the commandments so what did they do before that. Then Moses gets the ten commandments (thou shall not kill) then sees them worshipping the golden calf then he has 3000 killed. Where are the morals there? And to truly believe in the good book you can't believe in gay rights.
It says it in both old and new testament that it is bad.



What year was Adam born? What year was Moses born?



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 03:58 AM
link   
hm hm interesting perspective OP!

I didn't read all of the replays, but only briefly read some of them from both sides. And can I say I agree with both?

Why do we have to decide if it's right or wrong, good or bad if religions stays or goes? It just is! Let's face it, some people will turn a fork into weapon and some use it for well...the usual like back scratching... or eating


What I want to say is just that how something IS is totally depended of the user and is a personal thing.
And thinking along these line of thought I think that religion by itself is good. Because where else do we hear about the goodness, morality, gratitude, compassion, love... and so one. Where else can we today teach those values and what they represent. We don't have other place where people could learn those things. This place should be school in my opinion. But this is far from reality which we have today as we all know.

These expressions which religion teaches us about are forgotten more day by day. Instead we are more tuned in to the internet and other type of media which are poisoning us with opposites of those expressions. And the young ones are especially impressionable and we can see consequences of living like that today when you can see 13 or less years old drunk, drugged or having sex and many other atrocities by both old and young! Which would not be if some form of religion would have a major role in our society.

But on the other hand with religion you get groups of people/extremists which can be very violent like its happening with Islam. Than there is indoctrination where people will follow misguided rules like which hunts and so on.

So here we are. Both decisions are right and wrong, so is there a better solution? It almost always is ... its the middle path!
What if we could ban religion as we know today instead we would teach in schools about the heart of religion which is common for all religions all over the world. We could have a class in school which would teach spirituality, meditation and other religion materials.
And the same would be for adults. We would not have a religion per se, but some form of non profit organizations (run by donations by "followers") which would teach how to live properly and morally. And how to control and manage our life better, in more loving and giving way by learning different meditations and philosophies.

And then very slowly but surely when people would recognize that there is no need for religion whatsoever. When people would raise global consciousness to a level where there won't be any need to connect and confirm your beliefs with groups of people and fight those who don't agree, but instead turned within and each tries to find its own path which is waiting for everyone when born.

Because that is the point of religion which so many wannabe religious people sadly forget...so yes, I think religion is important but not in a form which we have today cuz it sucks - it brings a lot of fighting and suffering! And yes, I think everything is connected like you stated in OP.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: lambs to lions

Enjoyed reading your post and it makes sense to me.

Whatever morals that are left will also soon be gone. This is about as "good as it gets".

Western society has been racing downhill for years. Society is sick because a sick mind is guiding it.

S&F



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 04:40 AM
link   
lambs to lions:

The further we've gotten from the religion induced morality of our founding fathers, the worse off our government and nation have become...we sure could use some real men and women that believe in the golden rule and who keep the Ten Commandments.


Christianity (or any other religion) is a poor example to cite when it comes to morality. If you need to be 'commanded' by a work of fiction on how to act with, and how to react to, other people in a society, then that suggests you are incapable of being moral in your own mind, and therefore, in your own life?

A 'commandment' is an imposition upon you, and although you may follow that commandment, you might not actually agree with it, and if (for the sake of the discussion) we assume God is real, would it not be the case that God would want you to be moral by your own determination, by your own conscience, rather than for God to be the moral catalyst for you? If you are going to be 'judged', surely that 'judgement' can only concern itself with self-thought and self-determined behaviour. All behaviour from 'commandment' would be excused from judgement. When you follow a 'commandment', you are allowing the morality of that commandment to override your own morality, no matter what consequence is incurred by following that commandment. The beauty of appeal to being 'commanded' is that it excuses you from responsibility and accountability, even though in your heart you felt it was wrong to follow the it.

Voltaire's percept that "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" is quite true. I would also extend that percept by adding that it also allows for the condoning of atrocity. Compelled by a good enough adjuration from some seemingly irresistible belief or faith commandment, any horror can be committed and justified, and made morally virtuous. Let us continue with the assumption that God is real.

Has God ever committed or commanded murder or rape? Has He ever been so offended or angered that he commanded genocide upon a race of people? Or, have all these things been attributed to commandments by Him by some alleged self-declared agent of His?

Abraham (as the story goes) was willing to sacrifice his own son, Isaac, on the behest of an alleged visionary commandment from God. So fervent was Abraham's and Isaac's faith that not even death or the act of murder would prohibit them from carrying out the commandment. It took an alleged divine intervention by angel to stop the commandment from being carried out. Of course, because God commanded the act of sacrifice, Abraham did not question the commandment by his own conscience, he was, in his mind, excused all responsibility and accountability and guilt...but would he have been spared the sorrow? For a genuine moral response, Abraham should have said no, and in doing so, would have followed the 5th commandment of 'Thou shalt not kill.'

The problem with religious morality is not just its hypocritical absurdity, but its claim that it is the only font of morality in the world. The most pure font of morality in a man or woman is their own conscience, deriving its ethical principles from life experience. If you have suffered or are suffering racism, how moral or ethical is it to return racism as a response? If you have ever been persecuted for who you are, how moral or ethical is it to bring persecution upon another? If we have suffered in our life, we should find it easy to understand and empathise with those who are currently suffering, and thus offer aid to ease that suffering. Shared experience develops shared understanding...are we all not sharing in the experience of life, all its good and all its bad?

To be guided by your own heart and conscience is far more morally virtuous than any morality commanded upon you. Religious commandments offer the least righteous and least virtuous of them all.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 04:51 AM
link   
a reply to: lambs to lions

If you lack morals, religion won't help you... in that case a person just becomes one who corrupts a religion.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 05:10 AM
link   
There might be something fundamentally and horrifically wrong when people believe they need religion, especially a particular religion, to help them discern right from wrong, to guide their morality, and even more wrong to blame the destruction of anything or judge anyone based on the argument that we don't all abide by one religion.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 05:16 AM
link   
a reply to: lambs to lions I agree with your assessment completely. I would also add liberalism and progressive movement have hurt the country as a whole. Between these two ideals the people that believe in them have forgotten that are country was founded on Christian beliefs. These two ideals have help bring down much of our Christian beliefs. People have has a whole have failed to take ownership and responsibility for what they have done.

edit on 2 27 2015 by Ceeker63 because: misspelled words



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 05:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ceeker63
a reply to: lambs to lions I agree with your assessment completely. I would also add liberalism and progressive movement have hurt the country as a whole. Between these two ideals the people that believe in them have forgotten that are country was founded on Christian beliefs. These two ideals have help bring down much of our Christian beliefs. People have has a whole have failed to take ownership and responsibility for what they have done.


What about the millions of liberal and progressive Christians?

Do the two cancel each other out like matter and antimatter in your view?



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66 Liberal" Christians generally follow some of the traditional practices and morals of Christianity, but generally reject the notion of the inerrancy of Scripture. As a result, their beliefs can be very diverse. Their emphasis on doctrine is sometimes light, but sometimes very academic

"Progressive" Christians may also be "liberal", and they seek to overcome what they think are bad or sub-optimal traditions or practices.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 06:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ceeker63
a reply to: Gryphon66 Liberal" Christians generally follow some of the traditional practices and morals of Christianity, but generally reject the notion of the inerrancy of Scripture. As a result, their beliefs can be very diverse. Their emphasis on doctrine is sometimes light, but sometimes very academic

"Progressive" Christians may also be "liberal", and they seek to overcome what they think are bad or sub-optimal traditions or practices.


Here...let me source that for you, as is traditional here for when we don't use our own words.

Link

ETA: Unless of course, you are the author of the words at that site, in which case you would have my apology.
edit on 2/27/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Plenty of places in the world do just fine without Christian morality.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Yes, the OP is definitely looking at the nation's beginning with rose-colored glasses. The founding fathers' willingness to overlook the evils of slavery in order to ensure the success of the nation, the government-endorsed treatment of the native American Indians, the lack of rights for minorities, women, and children. It wasn't until the 19th century that we began as a nation to use morals in deciding how we should treat others. It wasn't until the 20th century that laws were made to stop such poor treatment of minorities, women and children.

This reminds me of a funny story my husband told me about the black comedian, Richard Pryor. He was on the Tonight show years ago along with another guest - one of the oldest women in the country at that time (I think she had just celebrated her 100th birthday). She was white, and Johnny asked her what was good about the "good old days". She started saying, "I remember how happy and simple things were back then. We had dances and picnics and music in the park, and....." At that point Richard interjected, "...and lynchings?" The good old days weren't good for everyone.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 06:32 AM
link   

edit on 27-2-2015 by kaylaluv because: double post



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: lambs to lions

Your OP is disjointed. You recognize all the social progress we've made over the years but at the same time say that our social progress is going backwards? What do you want? Why is religion even necessary? Did you know that the 50's were the most theocratic time of our country? It resulted in some of the strictest laws we've ever seen including spawning the war on drugs.

Heck every prohibition movement whether it be alcohol, marijuana, drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc can all be traced back to "religious morality". If you asked me, I'd say that religious morality holds us back as a society than brings it forward.

Case in point. The KKK was formed as a Christian organization trying to preserve Christian morals and white superiority.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: lambs to lions

Oh, if only we today were as moral as those 18th century aristocrats who owned human beings of a darker hue as chattel. One (Jefferson) even routinely raped at least one of his captives. The nation has truly lost its way since the glory days.

edit on 2/27/2015 by Monger because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ceeker63
a reply to: Gryphon66 Liberal" Christians generally follow some of the traditional practices and morals of Christianity, but generally reject the notion of the inerrancy of Scripture. As a result, their beliefs can be very diverse. Their emphasis on doctrine is sometimes light, but sometimes very academic

"Progressive" Christians may also be "liberal", and they seek to overcome what they think are bad or sub-optimal traditions or practices.


Two very reasonable and as far as I know, fact-based observations.

However, in your post that I was responding to, you stated that liberalism and progressivism have hurt the country as a whole, as opposed to Christianity, which apparently had helped the country ... so my question to you if someone embodies both Christianity AND liberalism/progressivism, do these two forces, one positive and one negative according to you, simply cancel each other out?

Thanks for your response!



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I was curious about this too. Are the progressive Christians not real Christians or something?



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I would wager that some folks are merely repeating right-wing cant when they bring up liberals and progressives as the Special Guest Villians in virtually every scenario.

I'm interested in whether that's true in this case, or whether Ceeker has applied some reasoning to come up with their position.



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join