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.

 

Social programming + the collapse of religion and values.

page: 12
30
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 



Let's take Christianity for a minute. In this story, Jesus Christ, co-equal with God Almighty the Father, comes to earth, suffers and dies, as expiation for the "sins" of humanity. However, problem is that those "sins" were set up and defined in fthe first place by the same God who then insisted that his Only Son be skewered on a Roman Cross. So, one would think that after the Crucifixion, all would be forgiven right?


Yeah, who in his right mind would ever believe a story about Jesus being skewered on a Roman Cross as payback for throwing the money changers out of the temple. They would never DO such a thing.




posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I'm also surprised nobody has addressed the point about Joe Biden letting the cat out of the bag by admitting that the media played a big role in shaping perceptions on gay marraige... That absolutly supports the point I'm making in this thread. I'm on mobile right now and I can't copy paste links, but look it up. PS- ''letting the cat out of the bag'' is a figure of speech, like saying ''pepsi is a 100 times better than coca cola''. It does NOT mean Joe Biden was literally walking around with a cat in a bag. I thought I'd explain this, given certain responses I've been reading on here.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Stormdancer777
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


I couldn't control myself.


Fair enough. Just as a side note, do you really rely on the Examiner as a news source, Stormdancer?


Although I have to admit, I'm wondering if it's a group like "the Commies" that are the alleged purpetrators of this massive mind-control scheme to make Americans abandon Christianity (which they, er, haven't) and thereby open the pit to all kinds of degenerates ... or is the Illuminati? The Satanists? The Commie Satanist Illuminati?

See what I'm saying? The argument is that there HAS TO BE A GROUP (of course, assuming the propositions of the question which are far from obvious) doing all this control and manipulation, and yet, no one seems to know, least of all the OP, who or what that might be.

Most peculiar.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   

sk0rpi0n
I'm also surprised nobody has addressed the point about Joe Biden letting the cat out of the bag by admitting that the media played a big role in shaping perceptions on gay marraige... That absolutly supports the point I'm making in this thread. I'm on mobile right now and I can't copy paste links, but look it up. PS- ''letting the cat out of the bag'' is a figure of speech, like saying ''pepsi is a 100 times better than coca cola''. It does NOT mean Joe Biden was literally walking around with a cat in a bag. I thought I'd explain this, given certain responses I've been reading on here.


Joe Biden is far from an authority on anything, in my book. So, The Gaffer is your keystone of evidence here?

Here, let me suggest an answer for you Skorp: GLAAD. Do you think that GLAAD might be the nefarious power behind the throne that is causing these massive changes? Or maybe it's the Presbyterians; they accept gays and lesbians, you know. How about the Juilliard School... we all know how "gay" ballet is right? And those actors and musicians, I think they may be prime candidates for the "Invisible Junta to Make Gay Okay in the USA" that you're postulating here.

Those are some thoughts, anyway, instead of mere shadowy suggestions and vague gestures toward an imaginary group that justifies one's own prejudices, eh?



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Gryphon66

Stormdancer777
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


I couldn't control myself.


Fair enough. Just as a side note, do you really rely on the Examiner as a news source, Stormdancer?


Although I have to admit, I'm wondering if it's a group like "the Commies" that are the alleged purpetrators of this massive mind-control scheme to make Americans abandon Christianity (which they, er, haven't) and thereby open the pit to all kinds of degenerates ... or is the Illuminati? The Satanists? The Commie Satanist Illuminati?

See what I'm saying? The argument is that there HAS TO BE A GROUP (of course, assuming the propositions of the question which are far from obvious) doing all this control and manipulation, and yet, no one seems to know, least of all the OP, who or what that might be.

Most peculiar.


I can't figure out whether you're a devoted student of Edward Bernays or simply not familiar with his teachings, which are far more enlightening than what some people claim to have learned from the bible.


...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda
www.goodreads.com...

Note that he does not name names of who's pulling your wires. Ask yourself why.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Gryphon66
reply to post by ElohimJD
 


I think you're missing a point if you reduce it merely to "my personal reaction" to your explanation. I'm trying to reach my hand over the fence to let you know that it is quite often the allocation of humanity to some blighted, sinful, diseased, childish, belittled, wretched, maligned state by too many of the Religious that puts so many of those who think differently completely off to your message and closes our ears to even the productive parts of your beliefs.

Let's take Christianity for a minute. In this story, Jesus Christ, co-equal with God Almighty the Father, comes to earth, suffers and dies, as expiation for the "sins" of humanity. However, problem is that those "sins" were set up and defined in fthe first place by the same God who then insisted that his Only Son be skewered on a Roman Cross. So, one would think that after the Crucifixion, all would be forgiven right? WRONG, humanity remains the sinful scum of the earth until they have the right kind of water applied to their heads, hands or whole body, jump through that hoop or this one, and woe, woe, woe, we're still only garbage.
edit on 14Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:22:25 -060014p022014266 by Gryphon66 because: OK


I cannot convey the truth of the natural mind of mankind to any individual human being; God, who created mankind, is qualified to define mankind. It does not matter to me whether God's own definition of our natural state, which He created us to be "puts so many who think differently off". I believe God, you believe what seems right to your personal logic, by design.

Here are some corrections for your understanding of true Christianity that might address your present feelings towards said concepts:

-Jesus Christ was the son of God, he did not eternally exist and he is not equal to Almighty God; he is the first of the first-fruits of salvation; the first member of those born from physical mankind to be "born again" of spirit composition; as our elder brother in Elohim (the purpose for all mankind is to become a part of Elohim in time). He came into existence at his physical birth through Mary.

-Mankind was created physical, we require physical things to sustain life (food water shelter), this by our very nature forces us to think selfishly (how to preserve my life) by design.

-God's law teaches mankind how to think selflessly (against our nature), when we think selfishly (for our nature) we break God's law spiritually (sin); the punishment for sin is death; therefore all human beings must die.

-Jesus Christ lived a physical life as a physical being while never thinking selfishly; He was in full agreement with God's spiritual laws the entirety of his physical life on Earth. He had a full portion of the mind of God (Holy Spirit) dwelling in union with his mind while living a physical life.

-Only the mind of God (Holy Spirit) is capable of thinking selflessly in physical life, you must receive of the Holy Spirit in order to display Agape (self sacrificial love) towards others.

-Jesus Christ died on a pole (not cross) having never committed a sin in his thinking in physical life. He was not guilty of sin, yet he was punished accordingly; through his death having not been guilty of selfish thinking (sin) he paid the penalty for the natural way of thinking found in mankind by design. He became the "Passover Sacrifice" the "Lamb of God whose sacrifice takes away the sins of mankind".

-We were created to "change our way of thinking" (Greek word repentance; transform our thinking over time) from the natural carnal selfish mind we are born with, into unity and oneness with the mind of Almighty God and his son Jesus Christ; through a lifetime of repentance (not the single act of baptism, which is only the beginning of repentance) by the choice of a free will being.

-No man is "born again" until they are born of the Spirit of God in the Elohim of God (spirit beings, like Jesus Christ presently). No physical human being has ever been "born again" in this age save Jesus Christ; those that claim they are do not know the God of Creation in spirit and in truth. 144,000 individual minds redeemed from the present age (last 6000 years) will be the "first-fruits" of salvation and they will be transformed into spirit beings (those alive today) or resurrected to eternal spiritual life (those dead and still in the ground) at the sounding of the 7th trumpet on the day of the return of Jesus Christ. That is what it means to be "born again" of the spirit.

Conclusion:

There is much contrast between what is true according to the perfect Word of God and what is presently taught from the pulpits of modern Christianity.

However I can assume you are not interested in understanding what is true in scripture, based on your reaction to the Words of God.

God does the calling, God does the conveying of truth to the minds of mankind; my words will not sway your mind one iota towards agreement with God's law; and your words will not sway my mind away from agreement with God's laws in spirit and in truth.

God bless,



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Gryphon66....

Joe Biden is far from an authority on anything, in my book. So, The Gaffer is your keystone of evidence here?

Joe Biden isn't a peon either. My point with Joe Biden is that he, gaffer or not, stated that the media shaped peoples perceptions of gay marraiges. So the proposal that societies values can be changed through the media is a valid argument backed with proof. I'd like to know why the media decided to shape peoples perceptions regarding gay marriage. Did people first ask for their societies perceptions to be changed? No. So unelected powers have succesfully altered Americans perceptions of certain issues.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


The fact that media can change people’s minds is not news – any well presented argument can influence people

As to the gay thing, maybe gay people and people who support the idea that being gay is not a problem made the media you are worried about?


Oh and as for gay people upsetting you – if you stop making pictures in your head about what they get up to it will stop bothering you – its not like its any of your business after all



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
What happened is this:



“What does Christianity mean today? National Socialism is a religion. All we lack is a religious genius capable of uprooting outmoded religious practices and putting new ones in their place. We lack traditions and ritual. One day soon National Socialism will be the religion of all Germans. My Party is my church, and I believe I serve the Lord best if I do his will, and liberate my oppressed people from the fetters of slavery. That is my gospel.” ― Joseph Goebbels


www.goodreads.com...

Between the constant battle of the Super Ego,Ego, and the Id.

The Id won.

One religion has been replaced by another one. The church was square, and Government morality is hip.

One can easily attribute the decline of religion to politics.

Wouldn't call the decline of religion 'social progress'.

In fact the opposite.

edit on 13-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   

racasan
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


The fact that media can change people’s minds is not news – any well presented argument can influence people

As to the gay thing, maybe gay people and people who support the idea that being gay is not a problem made the media you are worried about?

Oh and as for gay people upsetting you – if you stop making pictures in your head about what they get up to it will stop bothering you – its not like its any of your business after all


When the market place punishes and blackballs people (or nations) for holding a different set of values it becomes all of society's business. And although one particular instance of economic blackballing may suit one side's agenda and set of values in the short term, that doesn't mean the next round will equally suit. Once the precedent of resetting values is in motion, that swinging ball can, and probably will, come back to smack you in the head.

Sometimes I wonder what the American people would/will do when the nations of the world finally get together and sanction the US for breaking every promise and international treaty ever signed by the prevaricators in DC. But don't worry, the reasoning behind such an event will not be televised. The talking heads will still be screaming "scary muslims" and you'll believe them. Or else.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 



I decided a long time ago that faith has no place in my life. I am a God unto myself and don't need saving from anyone nor anything. But back to the point at hand, at least you're being civil about it and not just outright blaming everyone else for some perceived wrong doing or for the world not playing out exactly as you thought it would. If more christians would act in such a manner, I think a lot of problems could be solved and a lot of warring ended as well. I also think a lot of the problems w/ society and w/ people in general could be solved if everyone would just remember that life and/or any spiritual pursuits are a personal journey and should only be shared if asked of you and never forced on anyone. Basically just mind your own business lol, and society wouldn't have any major problems or seem to be collapsing(which is a result from ALL GROUPS and ANY INDIVIDUALS attempting to force each other to conform)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   

sk0rpi0n
___________ My question is who or what transformed a once conservative culture into accepting ideas and values which were the exact opposite of what was upheld for so long?

I am not sure what time period you are referring to. 40s, 50, or maybe the 1800s but it seems you are referring to an age when discrimination was not only rampant but also expected and excepted. It was hardly a golden age for all. Children knew things were not right but adults had become blind, numb, and complacent to the order of things. That was part of the conservative culture as well.

I am certain this countries forefathers knew there were many hurdles to overcome before everyone could enjoy their inalienable rights and we are still moving towards those goals.


Right and wrong for most is self evident.




Exactly who decided that the word ''progressiveness'' has to mean accepting ideas and practices that were once seen as abhorrent?


In my opinion it would be those who fear change and those who harbor I'll will towards others that try to define progressive as such.




If the collapse of religion and age-old traditional values did not occur by accident, then it would have had to have been achieved by mysterious forces working behind the scenes to program the masses into accepting strange new ideas.


You are right it didn't happen by accident. People have endured hardships some have lost their lives in the fight for equality. There are no mysterious forces at work here unless you consider the inner wisdom even a child knows at a very young age that we are all human equal in value and that causing others pain is wrong as being mysterious.

These are not strange nor are they new ideas and the forces at work have been visible and outspoken. What Ido find strange is that many seem to think oppression, bigotry, and descrimination are somehow admirable traits which defined an era and party.
edit on 13-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


christian America had its traditional values rewritten by nameless faceless entities. I.e- means unknown, unelected powers destroyed the values that America once had


Let me put a face to it. It was me.

This mystery has been going on long enough. It was me.

Also when god or creator is mentioned in those 'traditional American values' they are deistic in nature, not Christian. You're asserting America was founded as a Christian nation and it was not. It was founded on principles of religious tolerance and the importance of separating religion from State. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Yes the majority of the nation is Christian. So? Tyranny of the majority. Is that what you're advocating?
edit on 13-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


You use civil rights flavored language and appeal to emotion because thats exactly the way the mass media and celebrities word the argument.

My friend Rae is a lesbian. She was born a lesbian, and will always be a lesbian. She is not sexually or emotionally attracted to men. She cannot marry a woman she loves simply because they are both women. My other friend Kyle is a heterosexual male. He was born a heterosexual male, and will never fall in love with a man. Yet, it is perfectly legal for him to marry his girlfriend.
Kyle can marry the woman he loves; Rae cannot marry the woman she loves. By what stretch of logic is that not a civil rights issue? Discrimination exists in more flavors than just the color of your skin.

As for the "mass media" and "celebrities," I could care less what they think. My opinions regarding the issue stem from personal experience and life-long friendships, not from Twitter trends and internet "clicktivism." When I watch a movie it is to appreciate the art of cinema and storytelling; not because some actor happens to think gay people are degenerates. When I watch the news it is to get a rough sketch of the week's weather, not for topical issues.


I haven't got anything against the Lgbt communuty personally, but I am pointing out the unfair methods used by the media to shape and manipulate society.

You have nothing against the LGBT community, but, you don't think they deserve the same rights and privileges as heterosexual people. You have no problem with them, but you don't think they deserve to be able to love someone who is of the same gender. You're absolutely alright with them, but you don't think they deserve the same tax-breaks and medical visitation privileges as someone who has the opposite genitals.

Yeah, you've really got not problem with them.

Back on topic though, you seem to have missed the question in my post.

Native American customs existed before Christian customs. According to Native American customs homosexuals were perfectly healthy human beings. Their way of life was not looked at as a sickness, or a sin. Before the Christians came homosexual Native Americans could marry whomever they wanted, and were given equal rights to heterosexual Native Americans. Why do you think it is OK to reverse Native American customs, but not OK to reverse Christian customs?


~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I just wanted to say that your posts, throughout this whole thread, have been excellent.


Second.


~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 


I don't think they have the right to use the government to redefine the word and force everyone else to recognize the redefinition.

Because if what you contend is true ... that it's wrong to have the current definition of marriage as just 1 man/1woman because that is simply forcing our morality down other people's throats ... then the inverse is also true. It's wrong to redefine marriage as simply any two people because that is likewise forcing someone's morality down everyone else's throats.

If one is wrong, so is the other.

And, of course, all of that leaves out the issue of those who feel 1 man ought to be able to marry more than one woman. What about those folks? Don't they have the right to redefine marriage to suit their morality?

And where would either of us be right to enforce our stated moralities and leave them out? We'd simply be imposing our own moralities to suit ourselves irrespective of their moral beliefs ...

But even if they got their way, that leaves out that poor man who wants to marry his horse ...

Now, a reasonable person understands that where the issue of the law is concerned the best way to handle this without stepping on anyone's toes and jamming anyone's anything down anyone else's throat would be for the government to stop using marriage in their laws altogether. If two people really must have legal contractual obligations to one another through the law, then maybe the government should simply call it civil union no matter what the gender of the two involved are, and if they wish to pursue marriage, they can take that up with a religious group of their choice who will recognize their union.

Of course, the politicians would NEVER go for that because it would likely remove a useful wedge issue.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Any minority group can voice dissent. If they are loud enough society will take notice and deliberate the merits. If they have a compelling enough case then the Public mind will be swayed. People have reasons to see the oppression of LGBT as a social injustice. We don't, to borrow from the familiar slippery slope, have good reasons to believe it permissible for a bloke to marry his goat. They can continue to voice dissent. Perhaps we will change our minds. Do you think they should be allowed?


edit on 13-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Marriage is a social contract between two or more consenting adults. Period. The end.

If all of the parties involved give their consent, then there is nothing separating a polygamist, homosexual, or heterosexual in the eyes of the law. The only one that wouldn't happen (however much you slick that slope up) is the bestiality one. The horse cannot give its consent to the marriage, anymore than a roller coaster can, and yes, people have fallen in love with roller coasters before:

None-the-less, who someone loves, what orifice they enter during sex, and who they choose to spend the rest of their lives with affects only one party, and it isn't you. If you don't like the idea of homosexuality, or polygamy, then there's a really simple answer: don't marry someone of the same-sex, and don't marry multiple spouses. Plain and simple solution.

By the way, marriage is not a Christian invention. Individuals have been getting married for thousands of years before the Bible was written, and they'll continue to get married for thousands of years after the last Bible is printed. Polygamy and monogamy are, and were, all accepted marriages, even in the Bible:



So, before you complain that the gays are shoving their "definition" or marriage and morality down your throat, just remember that you shoved your definition or marriage and morality down theirs, and down nearly every other culture on Earth, and your own religion's edicts, before that.


Now, a reasonable person understands that where the issue of the law is concerned the best way to handle this without stepping on anyone's toes and jamming anyone's anything down anyone else's throat would be for the government to stop using marriage in their laws altogether. If two people really must have legal contractual obligations to one another through the law, then maybe the government should simply call it civil union no matter what the gender of the two involved are, and if they wish to pursue marriage, they can take that up with a religious group of their choice who will recognize their union.

All of this is great, until you got to the religion part. If you want your marriage recognized in the eyes of a god, then sure, go to a Church or a Temple or a Mosque and get your marriage notarized by a priest of some kind. Marriage itself though, is far, far older than Christianity, and began, not as a religious ceremony, but as a civil ceremony meant to unite land-owners.


~ Wandering Scribe


edit on 13/2/14 by Wandering Scribe because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Really interesting topic.. i'll research more about it now.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   
What happened? We became more moral. We ditched superstition. We actually began to embrace freedom over slavery. We got tired of hate and oppression, and woke up to the fact that religion as we knew it was immoral, hateful, and kept us in the dark ages. We stopped believing the majority had the right to oppress, abuse, and exploit the minority.

Now we are learning the virtues of kindness, compassion, charity, empathy, tolerance, and love. Virtues that are absent in the Christian religion as it was practiced in much of the U.S. We decided that being a bunch of brainwashed clones blindly marching to the beat of some delusional preacher was bad for society. The Christian majority is actually an incorrect assumption now. While most people might believe in god, and identify as Christians on the census, they do not subscribe to many fundementalist Christian beliefs.

Even the idea that we were ever a good Christian nation is delusional. One needs only to look behind the facade to see the realities of old times.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join