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: 31
30
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 

You keep trying to toss that red herring into the coversation and while it may be a more important issue to you, it really isn't the topic of the thread.




posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

sk0rpi0n

@Krazysh0t....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.
Churches marrying off gays are contradicting their book...and are by themselves a symptom of this media driven change of societal norms. Christian or nor, any new ''religion'' that seeks to marry gays would be a result of the changing norms of society. The only marriage that prevailed across the world for thousands of years was not the gay weddings being conducted by certain ''churches''.


How do you know it is contradicting their book? You aren't even Christian. Not to mention, you seem to be advocating that if it has been done this way for a long time then it is correct. Well I guess Hinduism is more correct than Christianity. Stances of Faiths on LGBT Issues: Hinduism


“Same sex desire and even sexual activity have been represented and discussed in Indian literature for two millennia, often in a nonjudgmental and even celebratory manner,” according to Hindu scholar Ruth Vanita. For example, the erotic sculptures on ancient Hindu temples at Khajuraho and Konarak, and the sacred texts in Sanskrit constitute irrefutable evidence that a whole range of sexual behavior was known to ancient Hindus. The tradition of representing same-sex desire in literature and art continued in medieval Hinduism.


Also keep in mind, Indian culture is older than European culture, especially that Christian culture of the Middle Ages. These guys are surviving just fine and are not only ok with homosexuals, but at times celebrate it.

You know what else is contradicting Christians' book? This:


Deuteronomy 21:18-21
King James Version (KJV)
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.


So how many Christians do you see getting all the men in their towns together and stoning their stubborn and rebellious children? If they aren't, OBVIOUSLY they are contradicting their book. I mean if you are going to use the bible as a basis to hate gays, you might want to look at some of the more ugly stuff in it that it tells Christians to do, which they don't.
edit on 18-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   
sk0rpi0n-
''No, its proof that godlessness causes degeneracy and stupidity.''


Those things have always existed with and without religion.

Maybe so, but today degeneracy and stupity have been placed on a pedestal by the godless media. It simply proves godlessness breeds godless stupidity and degeneracy...and NOT ''rational'' behavior and ''scientific outlooks'' as usually postured. Without religion and God-consciousness, the masses, driven by their lower instincts.. are much more likely to absorb degenerate and stupid behaviour, as real-time evidence all around us shows.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 



How would I know who's idea it was? Isn't part of being on ATS to talk about these conspiracies. You are making an assumption about the beliefs of people that you don't even know their names, much less their private lives. Frankly, I'm not sure it's relevant anyways, since bad people can corrupt any society; secular, non-secular, or both, it doesn't matter what they believe. At the end of the day they are still assholes.


Oh please, I didn't ask for names or biographies, just whether it was religious or secular institutions that turned formerly independent people into fully dependent citizen subjects over the course of a few generations. You can deflect and twist language to avoid admitting it, but you DO know the answer.

And to be perfectly honest, there was complicity by religious institutions in that turning, as well, and I added a link on the last page to the name and biography of one of those a$$holes you referenced who successfully changed the wording of the Bible again and again and again, beginning in 1909, to make it easier for secular institutions to insinuate "new" ideas into religious institutions by rewording the basic instruction manual. They said: "Hey look, we're making it easier to read .... ". I'll link it again in case anyone cares to check it out. www.rayofhopechurch.com...



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   

sk0rpi0n
sk0rpi0n-
''No, its proof that godlessness causes degeneracy and stupidity.''


Those things have always existed with and without religion.

Maybe so, but today degeneracy and stupity have been placed on a pedestal by the godless media. It simply proves godlessness breeds godless stupidity and degeneracy...and NOT ''rational'' behavior and ''scientific outlooks'' as usually postured. Without religion and God-consciousness, the masses, driven by their lower instincts.. are much more likely to absorb degenerate and stupid behaviour, as real-time evidence all around us shows.


Bread and circuses


"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games) (from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the creation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace,[1] as an offered "palliative." Juvenal decried it as a simplistic motivation of common people.[2][3][4] The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the commoner.

...

Juvenal here makes reference to the Roman practice of providing free wheat to Roman citizens as well as costly circus games and other forms of entertainment as a means of gaining political power. The Annona (grain dole) was begun under the instigation of the popularis politician Gaius Sempronius Gracchus in 123 B.C.; it remained an object of political contention until it was taken under the control of the autocratic Roman emperors.


Surely you aren't going to tell me that the Roman Empire was a secular society right?
edit on 18-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   

frazzle
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 



How would I know who's idea it was? Isn't part of being on ATS to talk about these conspiracies. You are making an assumption about the beliefs of people that you don't even know their names, much less their private lives. Frankly, I'm not sure it's relevant anyways, since bad people can corrupt any society; secular, non-secular, or both, it doesn't matter what they believe. At the end of the day they are still assholes.


Oh please, I didn't ask for names or biographies, just whether it was religious or secular institutions that turned formerly independent people into fully dependent citizen subjects over the course of a few generations. You can deflect and twist language to avoid admitting it, but you DO know the answer.

And to be perfectly honest, there was complicity by religious institutions in that turning, as well, and I added a link on the last page to the name and biography of one of those a$$holes you referenced who successfully changed the wording of the Bible again and again and again, beginning in 1909, to make it easier for secular institutions to insinuate "new" ideas into religious institutions by rewording the basic instruction manual. They said: "Hey look, we're making it easier to read .... ". I'll link it again in case anyone cares to check it out. www.rayofhopechurch.com...


Whatever man. You know who else successfully changed the wording of the Bible? Martin Luther. But I guess since he did stuff that you approve of, he gets a pass in your book, but those evil secularists are making it worse so they should be denounced.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I tell you what is pretty damn stupid about this thread, its that all these bible pushers are the product of social programing, and they don't even know it.

What is even worse is that they think the bible is moral. The bible is full of filth and indecency towards mankind. They want to cherry pick pieces of it and hold them up as the backbone of their religion well as far as I know there is no secret decoder ring which says what parts are true or which parts are embellished.

Sorry but the holly rollers don't have any high ground to stand on preach. Their religion was forced on the world through wars and inquisitions their entire faith is bathed in blood of the innocents. There is nothing moral about the bible.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


I've been saying that for about 16 pages now and they haven't gotten it through their heads. They are putting more weight on evidence that supports their position, but then write off any evidence that contradicts them completely. I've watched them argue themselves into corners, then subsequently used their own logic to prove them wrong, and they STILL can't see the hypocrisy of their argument. It's quite amusing really, watching them try to justify their hate. But hey no one ever said that hate is a rational concept. It takes the irrational mind to hate and there are plenty of them within religions.
edit on 18-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: typos



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 

I think that the only thing that has been proven is that you are now a member of the fuddy duddy demographic.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   

@ Krazysh0t ... you seem to be advocating that if it has been done this way for a long time then it is correct.
Complete strawman. The main topic was about the underhanded manipulation of people to reverse morals and standards that were already in place. The gay issue is but one example...and seems to have taken on a life of its own in this thread.

Well I guess Hinduism is more correct than Christianity. [url=http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-hinduism] ........ Also keep in mind, Indian culture is older than European culture, especially that Christian culture of the Middle Ages. These guys are surviving just fine and are not only ok with homosexuals, but at times celebrate it.

So its the old ''x is fine because those guys over there were doing it back then'' argument. This time its the ancient hindus.
edit on 18-2-2014 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Oh I have been reading the thread.

This is simply a case of them using their bible to justify their own immorality. They use it as a sword, but its like they do not realize that sword is double edged it cuts both ways.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

sk0rpi0n
So its the old ''x is fine because those guys over there were doing it back then'' argument. This time its the ancient hindus.

Yep, the same one you used 2 posts ago.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

sk0rpi0n

Krazysh0t ... you seem to be advocating that if it has been done this way for a long time then it is correct.
Complete stawman. The main topic was about the underhanded manipulation of people to reverse morals and standards that were already in place. The gay issue is but one example...and seems to have taken on a life of its own in this thread.

Well I guess Hinduism is more correct than Christianity. [url=http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-hinduism] ........ Also keep in mind, Indian culture is older than European culture, especially that Christian culture of the Middle Ages. These guys are surviving just fine and are not only ok with homosexuals, but at times celebrate it.

So its the old ''x is fine because those guys over there were doing it back then'' argument. This time its the ancient hindus.


Ancient Hindus? You do know that Hinduism is still practiced by a large majority of India right?

The gay issue is NOT an example of reversing morals. It IS however an example of society going in a direction that you don't approve of. BIG difference.
edit on 18-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Krazysh0t

sk0rpi0n
sk0rpi0n-
''No, its proof that godlessness causes degeneracy and stupidity.''


Those things have always existed with and without religion.

Maybe so, but today degeneracy and stupity have been placed on a pedestal by the godless media. It simply proves godlessness breeds godless stupidity and degeneracy...and NOT ''rational'' behavior and ''scientific outlooks'' as usually postured. Without religion and God-consciousness, the masses, driven by their lower instincts.. are much more likely to absorb degenerate and stupid behaviour, as real-time evidence all around us shows.


Bread and circuses


"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games) (from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the creation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace,[1] as an offered "palliative." Juvenal decried it as a simplistic motivation of common people.[2][3][4] The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the commoner.

...

Juvenal here makes reference to the Roman practice of providing free wheat to Roman citizens as well as costly circus games and other forms of entertainment as a means of gaining political power. The Annona (grain dole) was begun under the instigation of the popularis politician Gaius Sempronius Gracchus in 123 B.C.; it remained an object of political contention until it was taken under the control of the autocratic Roman emperors.


Surely you aren't going to tell me that the Roman Empire was a secular society right?
edit on 18-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)
I've made my points rather clearly. Copy-pasting articles on ancient Roman and hindu history does nothing to help your argument or refute mine.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   

sk0rpi0n
I've made my points rather clearly.

Opinions, yes, you have made them rather clearly but with nothing to back them up that is all they are.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Krazysh0t....Ancient Hindus? You do know that Hinduism is still practiced by a large majority of India right?

Yes. And you do realize that the indian government recently placed a roadblock on efforts trying to legalize gay marriage, right? Officials comments ranged from ''its unnatural'' to ''its against religion'' to ''we really have bigger problems our hands''.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

daskakik

sk0rpi0n
I've made my points rather clearly.

Opinions, yes, you have made them rather clearly but with nothing to back them up that is all they are.
Evidence has been presented... only to be dusted under the carpet. Please read back a few pages and address the issue of Joe Bidens revelation about the mass media shaping perceptions.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Points of the thread have been:

1. Morality depends on religion.
2. Everyone is brainwashed except the religious.
3. Modern media is the cause of people now accepting LGBT.

I believe all of these have been successfully refuted.

Not that they needed to be refuted.

As Christopher Hitches said "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   

sk0rpi0n

Krazysh0t

sk0rpi0n
sk0rpi0n-
''No, its proof that godlessness causes degeneracy and stupidity.''


Those things have always existed with and without religion.

Maybe so, but today degeneracy and stupity have been placed on a pedestal by the godless media. It simply proves godlessness breeds godless stupidity and degeneracy...and NOT ''rational'' behavior and ''scientific outlooks'' as usually postured. Without religion and God-consciousness, the masses, driven by their lower instincts.. are much more likely to absorb degenerate and stupid behaviour, as real-time evidence all around us shows.


Bread and circuses


"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games) (from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the creation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace,[1] as an offered "palliative." Juvenal decried it as a simplistic motivation of common people.[2][3][4] The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the commoner.

...

Juvenal here makes reference to the Roman practice of providing free wheat to Roman citizens as well as costly circus games and other forms of entertainment as a means of gaining political power. The Annona (grain dole) was begun under the instigation of the popularis politician Gaius Sempronius Gracchus in 123 B.C.; it remained an object of political contention until it was taken under the control of the autocratic Roman emperors.


Surely you aren't going to tell me that the Roman Empire was a secular society right?
edit on 18-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)
I've made my points rather clearly. Copy-pasting articles on ancient Roman and hindu history does nothing to help your argument or refute mine.


Oh? You make this claim:



Christian or nor, any new ''religion'' that seeks to marry gays would be a result of the changing norms of society. The only marriage that prevailed across the world for thousands of years was not the gay weddings being conducted by certain ''churches''.

Which is another way of saying that Christianity of old is correct because it is thousands of years old. So I give you an example of a religion that is older than Christianity and is still practiced today that not only accepts homosexuals, it celebrated them at times.

Then you make this claim:



Without religion and God-consciousness, the masses, driven by their lower instincts.. are much more likely to absorb degenerate and stupid behaviour, as real-time evidence all around us shows.


So I give you an example of a religious society that did the same thing to its people and you claim that BOTH of these things do not refute your argument. They are LITERALLY examples of you being wrong. America doesn't exist in a vacuum, if you make a claim and there is another group or country doing the opposite and experiencing the opposite of what you claim, then you are wrong. That is called contradictory and is most certainly a refutation of your argument. The fact that you cannot see this is hilariously an effect of YOU being brainwashed, not by media, but by religion.
edit on 18-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 

I have read the entire thread and I don't recall anyone saying that mass media doesn't shape perceptions.

The part that is just an opinion on your part is you thinking that it is leading to degeneracy and stupity because you see things in todays world as degenerate and stupid while turning a blind eye to the degeneracy and stupidity that has always existed, even in your precious US of the 50's.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join