Social programming + the collapse of religion and values.

EnPassant

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by EnPassant

 

All true religions share these things. I don't 'follow' what is false in religion. I acknowledge what is good in them and live by conscience.

You acknowledge what is good in them and dismiss what is bad in them. You do so by the discernment of your own conscience.

Exactly.

That's the whole point of what we've been saying. We decide what is moral.

Conscience: an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.

And because we do, we don't depend on religion for morality.

As for you bit about fundamentalism and Dawkins. I think you're confused on what Christian fundamentalism is. When the term originated it had five fundamentals:

Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
Virgin birth of Jesus
Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
Bodily resurrection of Jesus
Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

Many Christians on ATS alone hold all those to be true and would be deemed fundamentalists as the term was originally intended.

The majority of Christendom appears to hold those views as well. At least that's been my experience. So holding it against Dawkins that he only debates with those kinds of Christians seems absurd to me. Additionally, you make it sound like Dawkins picks and chooses who he debates every time. Would you say the same of Sam Harris and Christopher Hitches [RIP]? You realize these atheists get invited from the other side of the fence to debate right?

I didn't say atheists are motivated by rage, I said Dawkins is motivated by hatred

What does that even mean? Elaborate.

edit on 17-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

Conscience comes from God.

We are at cross purposes as to what fundamentalism is. As I pointed out earlier even the Jews in Jesus' time did not take the bible literally. They saw the Old Testement as allegorical or as stories about God.

Through people like Abraham, Moses, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Buddah...God gave revelation to mankind. This revelation was turned into religion, which is only an echo of God's word. But there is great guidance in the Bible as to God's Will if we read it with intelligence and conscience. Everything we need to know about God has already been said by those mentioned above and by the mystics and saints. What we need is to let God inform us when we read these works. If we read in a spirit of prayer God will, by His Grace, illuminate the words and fill us with understanding.

I read The God Delusion. It is hateful. Dawkins hates religion.

And what proof do you have that these men weren't simply just extremely brilliant people who said some great things? Which then got turned into a religion?

It is not about proof. Outside mathematics there is no proof. It is about using our minds to form an opinion as to what is the best explanation for the world. My conviction is that these people were inspired by God. Earlier I mentioned The Axial Age. This represents a kind of spiritual equivalent of the Cambrian explosion. Suddenly, the world moved forward by a whole movement of enlightenment. There are many many reasons why I am a theist. Theism is, in my thinking, the most comprehensive explanation.

Well to me, that sounds insulting to the ingenuity man. Man couldn't POSSIBLY come up with these concepts on his own, it HAS to be an outside force, a divinity per se.

Ingenuity by itself is not necessarily good. It produced the atomic bomb. My whole point is that without spiritual lights, the ingenuity of man will serve evil. Given man's history, I hardly need to argue the point.

So because you can come up with examples of human ingenuity being detrimental to humanity, it disproves that human ingenuity could come up with positive concepts for humanity? In other words all human ingenuity naturally gravitates towards evil and that all good ingenuity is guided by divine light. That is absurd and AGAIN is hugely insulting to the brilliant people who came up with these concepts.

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by EnPassant

 

All true religions share these things. I don't 'follow' what is false in religion. I acknowledge what is good in them and live by conscience.

You acknowledge what is good in them and dismiss what is bad in them. You do so by the discernment of your own conscience.

Exactly.

That's the whole point of what we've been saying. We decide what is moral.

Conscience: an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.

And because we do, we don't depend on religion for morality.

As for you bit about fundamentalism and Dawkins. I think you're confused on what Christian fundamentalism is. When the term originated it had five fundamentals:

Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
Virgin birth of Jesus
Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
Bodily resurrection of Jesus
Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

Many Christians on ATS alone hold all those to be true and would be deemed fundamentalists as the term was originally intended.

The majority of Christendom appears to hold those views as well. At least that's been my experience. So holding it against Dawkins that he only debates with those kinds of Christians seems absurd to me. Additionally, you make it sound like Dawkins picks and chooses who he debates every time. Would you say the same of Sam Harris and Christopher Hitches [RIP]? You realize these atheists get invited from the other side of the fence to debate right?

I didn't say atheists are motivated by rage, I said Dawkins is motivated by hatred

What does that even mean? Elaborate.

edit on 17-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

Conscience comes from God.

We are at cross purposes as to what fundamentalism is. As I pointed out earlier even the Jews in Jesus' time did not take the bible literally. They saw the Old Testement as allegorical or as stories about God.

Through people like Abraham, Moses, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Buddah...God gave revelation to mankind. This revelation was turned into religion, which is only an echo of God's word. But there is great guidance in the Bible as to God's Will if we read it with intelligence and conscience. Everything we need to know about God has already been said by those mentioned above and by the mystics and saints. What we need is to let God inform us when we read these works. If we read in a spirit of prayer God will, by His Grace, illuminate the words and fill us with understanding.

I read The God Delusion. It is hateful. Dawkins hates religion.

And what proof do you have that these men weren't simply just extremely brilliant people who said some great things? Which then got turned into a religion?

It is not about proof. Outside mathematics there is no proof. It is about using our minds to form an opinion as to what is the best explanation for the world. My conviction is that these people were inspired by God. Earlier I mentioned The Axial Age. This represents a kind of spiritual equivalent of the Cambrian explosion. Suddenly, the world moved forward by a whole movement of enlightenment. There are many many reasons why I am a theist. Theism is, in my thinking, the most comprehensive explanation.

Well to me, that sounds insulting to the ingenuity man. Man couldn't POSSIBLY come up with these concepts on his own, it HAS to be an outside force, a divinity per se.

Ingenuity by itself is not necessarily good. It produced the atomic bomb. My whole point is that without spiritual lights, the ingenuity of man will serve evil. Given man's history, I hardly need to argue the point.

So because you can come up with examples of human ingenuity being detrimental to humanity, it disproves that human ingenuity could come up with positive concepts for humanity? In other words all human ingenuity naturally gravitates towards evil and that all good ingenuity is guided by divine light. That is absurd and AGAIN is hugely insulting to the brilliant people who came up with these concepts.

You are taking what I said to extremes. I'm saying that the scales will tip in favour of evil and drag everyone with it. Have you seen the recent reports on CNN about North Korea? The whole world would becom a North Korea, as Orwell and Huxley warned.

@frazzle........ where base instincts and desires increasingly rule over common sense and decency, and not only with regard to homosexual issues. You don't have to be a "bible thumper" to recognize human devolution on a grand scale when it waves what should be its private issues and private parts in your face.

Exactly. And well said. The world around us has indeed devolved... With the concept of a higher spiritual self nearly eliminated from the minds of people, everything is designed to appeal to peoples lower instincts. From societal norms to what passes off as ''entertainment'' to what kids are doing....its all going downhill. YET non-theists love to claim that its religion that is holding back progress. However, we see all around us that godlessness produces not only degeneracy, but stupidity as well. Mindless trash like ''Jersey Shore'' and whorish entertainers like Miley Cyrus were products of a godless atheistic media, NOT religion. The more godless society turns, the more stupid and degenerate it becomes...as far as one gets from 'rational' and 'scientific minded', (and whatever else atheism lays exclusive claim over)

@ Krazysh0t....You do realize that there are churches here in America that accept homosexuality and not only accept it, allow them to get married right? These homosexuals who attend these churches are then what you would call religious. Therefore you are MORE ok with two non-religious (read: non-believers) getting married rather than two religious (read: belivers) getting married ALL because they are of the same sex?

Churches were not marrying off gays a few decades ago. Its a more recent development...most probably the result of churches adapting to accomodate new social norms. As for who can marry, it isn't a matter of ''our guys'' vs ''your guys''. Heterosexual unions are universal, so an atheist marriage(or a shaman marriage) is 100% valid as a marriage whether or not we agree with their views on religion. However, a gay marriage is invald even if the ''couple'' otherwise believes what we believe. The church leaders who are marrying off gays obviously subscribe to some warped interpretation of scripture or are rewriting their own rules to fit in. A foolish move, because atheists would anyway ridicule them for their beliefs. There is no hypocrisy.

@daskakik...,Actually that seems to be the complaint of the OP and, by the looks of it, you too.

Those on the other side would just grant them the right and be done with it.

No. The OP deals with the issue of declining morality and the acceptance of it as a norm. The focus is on the mechanism that brought about this change. The issue of ''who can marry'' was brought up as its the best example of this engineered change.

sk0rpi0n

@ Krazysh0t....You do realize that there are churches here in America that accept homosexuality and not only accept it, allow them to get married right? These homosexuals who attend these churches are then what you would call religious. Therefore you are MORE ok with two non-religious (read: non-believers) getting married rather than two religious (read: belivers) getting married ALL because they are of the same sex?

Churches were not marrying off gays a few decades ago. Its a more recent development...most probably the result of churches adapting to accomodate new social norms. As for who can marry, it isn't a matter of ''our guys'' vs ''your guys''. Heterosexual unions are universal, so an atheist marriage(or a shaman marriage) is 100% valid as a marriage whether or not we agree with their views on religion. However, a gay marriage is invald even if the ''couple'' otherwise believes what we believe. The church leaders who are marrying off gays obviously subscribe to some warped interpretation of scripture or are rewriting their own rules to fit in. A foolish move, because atheists would anyway ridicule them for their beliefs. There is no hypocrisy.

You are being intellectually dishonest. You said that marriage isn't the sole domain of Christianity, therefore as LONG as there is a religion (any religion) that accepts gays and marries them, then it should be legit. I am using YOUR reasoning to show you the flaw in your logic. Just because the religion is new doesn't mean you have a point. All religions were new at one point.

Every religion warps scripture to suit their needs. How are homosexuals warping it to make marriage ok between them any different? You really don't have a leg to stand on, I knew you would try to dismiss the homosexuals' religion as invalid, but your religion is just as invalid as the homosexuals. You have no more proof for you being correct then the homosexuals. You are wrong. I'm sorry, but it is true. The fact that you cannot see this means that you have been blinded by the brainwashing from your own religion, which makes you another sort of hypocrite since this whole thread is about you calling out others for being brainwashed. It's such a sad thing to see. I'm not even religious and I feel sorry for your irrational hate. Love everyone.

EnPassant

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by EnPassant

 

All true religions share these things. I don't 'follow' what is false in religion. I acknowledge what is good in them and live by conscience.

You acknowledge what is good in them and dismiss what is bad in them. You do so by the discernment of your own conscience.

Exactly.

That's the whole point of what we've been saying. We decide what is moral.

Conscience: an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.

And because we do, we don't depend on religion for morality.

As for you bit about fundamentalism and Dawkins. I think you're confused on what Christian fundamentalism is. When the term originated it had five fundamentals:

Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
Virgin birth of Jesus
Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
Bodily resurrection of Jesus
Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

Many Christians on ATS alone hold all those to be true and would be deemed fundamentalists as the term was originally intended.

The majority of Christendom appears to hold those views as well. At least that's been my experience. So holding it against Dawkins that he only debates with those kinds of Christians seems absurd to me. Additionally, you make it sound like Dawkins picks and chooses who he debates every time. Would you say the same of Sam Harris and Christopher Hitches [RIP]? You realize these atheists get invited from the other side of the fence to debate right?

I didn't say atheists are motivated by rage, I said Dawkins is motivated by hatred

What does that even mean? Elaborate.

edit on 17-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

Conscience comes from God.

We are at cross purposes as to what fundamentalism is. As I pointed out earlier even the Jews in Jesus' time did not take the bible literally. They saw the Old Testement as allegorical or as stories about God.

Through people like Abraham, Moses, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Buddah...God gave revelation to mankind. This revelation was turned into religion, which is only an echo of God's word. But there is great guidance in the Bible as to God's Will if we read it with intelligence and conscience. Everything we need to know about God has already been said by those mentioned above and by the mystics and saints. What we need is to let God inform us when we read these works. If we read in a spirit of prayer God will, by His Grace, illuminate the words and fill us with understanding.

I read The God Delusion. It is hateful. Dawkins hates religion.

And what proof do you have that these men weren't simply just extremely brilliant people who said some great things? Which then got turned into a religion?

It is not about proof. Outside mathematics there is no proof. It is about using our minds to form an opinion as to what is the best explanation for the world. My conviction is that these people were inspired by God. Earlier I mentioned The Axial Age. This represents a kind of spiritual equivalent of the Cambrian explosion. Suddenly, the world moved forward by a whole movement of enlightenment. There are many many reasons why I am a theist. Theism is, in my thinking, the most comprehensive explanation.

Well to me, that sounds insulting to the ingenuity man. Man couldn't POSSIBLY come up with these concepts on his own, it HAS to be an outside force, a divinity per se.

Ingenuity by itself is not necessarily good. It produced the atomic bomb. My whole point is that without spiritual lights, the ingenuity of man will serve evil. Given man's history, I hardly need to argue the point.

So because you can come up with examples of human ingenuity being detrimental to humanity, it disproves that human ingenuity could come up with positive concepts for humanity? In other words all human ingenuity naturally gravitates towards evil and that all good ingenuity is guided by divine light. That is absurd and AGAIN is hugely insulting to the brilliant people who came up with these concepts.

You are taking what I said to extremes. I'm saying that the scales will tip in favour of evil and drag everyone with it. Have you seen the recent reports on CNN about North Korea? The whole world would becom a North Korea, as Orwell and Huxley warned.

This is what you said:

Ingenuity by itself is not necessarily good. It produced the atomic bomb. My whole point is that without spiritual lights, the ingenuity of man will serve evil. Given man's history, I hardly need to argue the point.

How am I taking it to extremes? YOU are the one who said that with out God's hand then ingenuity will serve evil. Now you are trying to back peddle and pretend that wasn't the case.

The fact that you think without religion, we'd become North Korea is just straight up laughable. We've already SHOWN secular societies in this very thread that prove that point wrong. Try a different approach.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

It is one of the arguments, the main one, put forth by you.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Bad programming and stupid pop acts are proof of the fall of mankind? Your argument gets weaker page after page.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Matt 24:37-39
"But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating (unclean foods) and drinking (in excess), marrying (unlawful marriage) and giving in marriage (unlawful arrangements), until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be..."

The natural mind lusts for self governance (create their own laws as to what is right and what is wrong); the demonic spiritual realm which influences high places on the Earth desires mankind to lust for self governance.

Therefore mankind indulges in self governance by design in this present age about to come to an end.

God Bless,

ElohimJD
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

Matt 24:37-39
"But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating (unclean foods) and drinking (in excess), marrying (unlawful marriage) and giving in marriage (unlawful arrangements), until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be..."

The natural mind lusts for self governance (create their own laws as to what is right and what is wrong); the demonic spiritual realm which influences high places on the Earth desires mankind to lust for self governance.

Therefore mankind indulges in self governance by design in this present age about to come to an end.

God Bless,

Prove that Noah's ark actually happened and you may have an argument. Though math says that the existence of the ark is impossible and engineering says that the boat wouldn't even hold together in the water. So good luck with that.

Though I wonder how Mathew (someone who lived LONG after Noah's ark happened) would know anything about the conditions on Earth pre-flood.

reply to post by daskakik

Bad programming and stupid pop acts are proof of the fall of mankind? Your argument gets weaker page after page.

No, its proof that godlessness causes degeneracy and stupidity.

sk0rpi0n
reply to post by daskakik

 

Bad programming and stupid pop acts are proof of the fall of mankind? Your argument gets weaker page after page.

No, its proof that godlessness causes degeneracy and stupidity.

Just because stupid people are swayed easily isn't proof that godlessness causes stupidity. Before all this crappy pop and media to hold stupid people's attention, they had religion which tells them to hate other people for dumb reasons. (eta) Why do you think this happened? Salem Witch Trials At least with media and pop music stupid people are just destroying themselves. When religion is involved, stupid people destroy other people.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Though math says that the existence of the ark is impossible and engineering says that the boat wouldn't even hold together in the water.

Bible says god created the land animals the same day he created man some 6,000 years ago. Noah was told to take pairs of each land animal.

So imagine a male-female pairing of each dinosaur.

An impressive engineering feat indeed!

reply to post by Krazysh0t


I don't know if you simply missed my last post about the insanity of signing up for the social contract or if you could see where it was going and didn't want to go there ~ straight back to OPs claim about the collapse of religion and values.

Despite the hoopla about how religious people are hampering gay people's "rights" to marry whomever and whatever they choose, churches were about much more than just marriage. Sure they married people, they baptized babies, they held funerals for their passed members but more than that they were about charity and giving, seeing to the needs of their local communities, caring for the sick and the elderly and the poor. Teaching people to give a $%$% about their neighbors and about brotherly love. Instead of shipping the coins in their collection plates to the World Church to squander, they kept the money at home where they could make sure it was distributed properly. They were the hub of a community, the heartbeats of America, you could say.

What is the hub of a community now? City Hall? The Department of health and human services? DES? The local bar and grill? What?

And how did we get from there to here?

Well, it was done through a series of very clever hops and jumps. Government began to put out memes that they would be far better at taking care of all those messy old needy people than the churches and they recruited the news media to push those memes, one at a time. Social Security, Welfare, Medicare. Now the ACA.

ALL WE'D HAVE TO DO IS SEND THEM OUR MONEY and all would be well. Sign up right here, you believers (wink wink nudge nudge) And in the end, government ousted God and replaced him with a series of amoral godless humanists in the white house and on capital (capitol) hill.

So how's that working out for us?

reply to post by frazzle

Despite the hoopla about how religious people are hampering gay people's "rights" to marry whomever and whatever they choose

'Whoever' is a person of the same gender they love. 'Whatever' is a human being.

reply to post by frazzle


Blah blah blah. The church is about donations and helping the less fortunate. I've heard that BS before. First off, there are just as many secular charities in existence. Second off, you talk about the government wanting our money. Explain tithing. Also explain how you know where your tithing money is even going. You can't, because the church doesn't have to report that information. They TELL you that it's going to charities, but there is no accountability to prove it.

How Rich Is the Catholic Church?

Pope Francis is not just the spiritual leader of one of the world’s major religions: He’s also the head of what’s probably the wealthiest institution in the entire world. The Catholic Church’s global spending matches the annual revenues of the planet’s largest firms, and its assets—huge amounts of real estate, St. Patrick's Cathedral, Vatican City, some of the world’s greatest art—surely exceed those of any corporation by an order of magnitude.

The legal framework that allows for this funny business has been constructed in the name of religious freedom but hardly seems required by that important principle. America has a robust ecology of secular nonprofit groups that manage to abide by fairly stringent accounting and disclosure standards. These help donors know where their money is going and reassure residual claimants that there’s some consistent theory of whose assets are whose. Religion is big business—the Catholic Church the biggest of all—and it deserves to be treated as such in the relevant ways.

It's funny that you put this in your post:

ALL WE'D HAVE TO DO IS SEND THEM OUR MONEY and all would be well. Sign up right here, you believers (wink wink nudge nudge)

Because that is EXACTLY what the church has been asking and saying for the last 2000 years. Remember, the church used to sell indulgences. Though they like to claim that they never endorsed that practice, but we don't endorse the corruption in the government, doesn't mean it doesn't happen or is widespread throughout it.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by frazzle

 

Despite the hoopla about how religious people are hampering gay people's "rights" to marry whomever and whatever they choose

'Whoever' is a person of the same gender they love. 'Whatever' is a human being.

Glad to see you "outing" yourself by addressing grammar rather than the point of the post. What a surprise. /sarcasm

reply to post by frazzle

That had absolutely nothing to do with grammar…

You're insinuating those in support of gay marriage are asking for the right for gay people to marry "whatever they want". You're attempting to invoke some ludicrous slippery slope argument.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by frazzle

 

Blah blah blah. The church is about donations and helping the less fortunate. I've heard that BS before. First off, there are just as many secular charities in existence. Second off, you talk about the government wanting our money. Explain tithing. Also explain how you know where your tithing money is even going? You can't, because the church doesn't have to report that information. They TELL you that it's going to charities, but there is no accountability to prove it.

Secular charities are well known for withholding up to 90% of donations. Government likewise, where is FEMA when you need them? Giving away asbestos drenched trailers and shoving aside offers of civilian assistance? I know where the Red Cross is in an emergency ~ out there selling coffee and donuts to people who's homes have just been demolished.

And keep in mind, the modern church is not what I was describing. I can give no argument that now they're pretty much all about money, investments and the market. And, of course, preaching from the re-revised Scofield Bible.www.rayofhopechurch.com...

I am making no claim that modern day churches are committed to the communities they allegedly serve, or to charity. They have been emasculated over many generations.