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: 44
30
<< 41  42  43    45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


'It's not of benefit for humanity to value things outside of humanity more. Which is what religion would have of us."

"The greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart all your mind and all your soul and the next is like unto it; love yous neighbor as yourself"

If you are suggesting by things as material things I would suggest that most religions do not value things above people.




posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 12:38 AM
link   

LafingWithTears

Back to some ideas concerning social engineering; In the 60s & 70s there was the womens liberation movement and, ultimaely, it was good prior to women being as commonplace in all areas of work, like you see today, they had to depend on a man at least a lot more than now, that was OK if you happen to have a good man but if not... These days women have options and that is a good thing. But I would suggest that this was social engineering with an eye to develop an un-tapped workforce, broaden the tax base and shift the economy to a two-income economy. Upper middle class can still get away with a single income but solid mddle class, forget about it.
I would further suggest that the military/industrial complex has now eye-balled our girls and that is where the push to get them into combat positions is coming from, they are being viewed as an un-tapped resource, and again the buzz-word
of equality is being used to accomplish this.



I think you're correct in this theory. Atleast until the Military switches over to autonomous machines and no longer has a need for either men or women. Which is getting closer all the time.

As for the women being an untapped economic "Human Resource" you're probably correct to some degree. In fact I believe I've read that somewhere before, that liberating women meant doubling the Tax Revenue. I'm guessing that "they" who might have controlled such a move probably also thought a. enough to make sure that "Voting" was already under control as well. Since doubling the number of voters might also allow for "them" and their "taxes" to possibly be voted right out of existence and we can't have that now can we!

It's sorta like the Edward Bernays (sp?) "nudge" to get women to smoke publicly without being seen as taboo. That's a big market out there if you can change public opinion.

These examples I think can be said to be provable as having to some greater or lessar degree been as a result of Social Engineering. However, that doesn't automatically mean they were of immoral or wrongful intent or outcome. Convincing the world that Women Smoking meant Women being liberated is somewhat correct even though "Liberty Torches" was taking it a bit too far. Reversing the Taboo saying that smoking for women was wrong could be seen as just removing the old controlling idea that it was wrong for them to make that choice for themselves rather than society making it for them.

Same goes with the military. You can see it as us being reprogrammed to see Women at War is now a good idea. Or you can see it as removing the idea that Women have no possible function in war. It opens them up as being possible resources for that market. But I think they always were, only before they had no choice as to what part they played. Now, they do have some say as to if and to what degree they choose to play, or not to play.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by LafingWithTears
 


By valuing things above humanity I mean valuing the welfare of ones soul over more Earthly matters. There is no evidence for a soul in the religious sense nor god nor heaven or hell nor the preservation of consciousness after death in general. Some of the tenets concerning how one should conduct themselves in preparation for a later 'holy judgement' is agreeable to a modern secular sense of morality. However some of it is not. That bit should be abandoned but it's not. It's held fast because of Divine Command Theory; if it comes from god it's good. There is no room for modernization of those particular incompatible beliefs.

"The greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart all your mind and all your soul and the next is like unto it; love yous neighbor as yourself"

Are they of equal footing? I would quote passages that say otherwise. Look I wouldn't argue against the idea there are some moral gems in the Bible. I would come to your defense if another secularist says otherwise. For instance Matthew 7:12 which reflects the principle of the golden rule. However, it would be completely disingenuous for someone [someone who isn't a sociopath] to not acknowledge the atrociously immoral parts of the Bible. That's not even exclusive to the Old Testament. According to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus not only condones slavery but the beating of the slave even if that slave doesn't realize they are doing something wrong. The Bible is full of both wonderfully good and wonderfully evil ideas when contrasted with a modern sense of morality and justice.
edit on 2-3-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 02:31 AM
link   

LafingWithTears
and again the buzz-word of equality is being used to accomplish this.



Let's address this little issue real quick as I'm picking up a pattern here which needs to be addressed. The OP and others as well as yourself seem to get the whole "Equality" thing stuck in your craw and imply that it's either a bad idea or perhaps some kind of propagandist meme whose purpose is the fall of mankind. So let's hash this out...

First of all, "Equality" when used as a "talking point", like all talking points, loses any kind of actual meaning. There is no context for it to fit within and will be said with one intention and understood a variety of ways. Literally speaking for example Equality between the sexes is a false idea if applied to every comparison. Obviously and thankfully both male and female are not totally equal. In fact if any multitude of things is totally equal then they are really just the same thing and their multitude beyond one is just imagined. I really shouldn't have to point that out but if I don't someone of course will counter with a lame argument using it so let's just get that out of the way now.

So what is Equality all about then. Equal Rights, for example isn't about anyone getting Rights that aren't shared with everyone else. There aren't Gay Rights. Nor are there Women's Rights. Nor any other "Something Rights". There are Equal Rights only meaning from a Legal Standpoint we should be Equal Under the Law. Do we actually have Equal Rights, no f**king way. In fact it could be argued that Having Rights means being able to exercise those rights and being that it is possible to stop one from exercising them with force, they really only exist as a concept. But that's a different topic. Equal however simply means those Rights are the same for every person as an individual.

The "Equality" slogan as it's used by some media as you've pointed out seems to be a tool for mankinds destruction. That is not because "Equality" is a bad concept, but when Repackaged and Sold with Spin it's slogan might be used that way. In so far as this thread is concerned, whether or not "Equality" is being used by manipulators for an agenda makes little difference because when understood correctly the benefit remains the same.

Equality for the sexes removed the Control and Demand of only one form of lifestyle. Gender Equality is removing the Control of only one acceptable lifestyle as well. Even if at this current time there are some who use this as an agenda to push their own Control doesn't matter as long as we all are smart enough to know when to stop. Equality in this sense means that since we treat each other as Equals and since I have a choice, You also have a choice too. Sex equality gave women the option of something other than the submissive role but doesn't mandate it. Gender equality gives the option for Homosexuals to live openly and honestly as Heterosexuals do, but doesn't mandate it. This can be applied across many Equal areas of interest.

So it's not the idea or even the application of "Equality" which is incorrect although as a slogan it can be used and spun that way. Don't listen to and fall for the spin and think that reversing it will bring back some kind of grand utopia because there never was one. That was just more spin. Let the propagandists break down the old controls of authority using "Equality" as their slogan, but be smart enough to realize when those controls are gone and things really are equal to stop before they push too far the other direction. As human beings we should see and treat each other as being equal even though we have very obvious and important differences.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


We can debate about whether or not The Bible has been changed through time, or whether or not there is contradictions, but all of The New Testament writings which reveals Jesus Christ says that we fulfill the law of God by treating others as we'd like to be treated. (Romans 13:8, Romans 13:10, Galatians 5:14).

The earliest writings about Jesus Christ are Paul's Letters.

They reveal multiple times that the true God, The Heavenly Father is a God of Peace ( Romans 15:33, Hebrews 13:20 , Philippians 4:9 ):


1 Corinthians 14:33
God is not a God of disorder but of peace



They reveals that he was humble and that we should also live in peace loving others (Galatians 5:13, Philippians 2:2, 2 Corinthians 13:11):


Philippians 2:5-7
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.


How Christians should be living:


Galatians 5:13-14
You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”


Paul even warned of others who preach another Jesus and another Gospel:


Galatians 1:8-9
Even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!


Paul and the early followers of Jesus Christ knew how important it was for everyone to know that Jesus is Humble and how Humility glorifies God and important it is to live in love and serve one another so that peace can exist. This message is so important that he even said that he himself should be cursed if he ever dares to say something different than this message.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Ah.

Someone that holds the position both Jesus and the New Testament is good and moral and righteous.

Fair enough.

I appreciate that you invoked Paul into the conversation as well. As my knowledge extends there as well.

For one I really enjoy you as a member. I always have. That said I will approach this with brutal honesty.

I'll edit this post in just a bit with my true response



We can debate about whether or not The Bible has been changed through time, or whether or not there is contradictions

If you are up to it. I would most certainly be game for it.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Had a friend once who was had a turbulent and emotion packed marriage.

Then he had a adversarial divorce, thank God no children.

Twenty years later he is still talking about the marriage.

He has a score of resentments and unresolved issues that have to
deal with his marriage of twenty years ago.

He will continue to talk about it till he is dead, I suppose.

Some people never come clean, I think you know what I mean.
They're walking the wire, between pain and desire
And looking for love in between.

How would I know that he has resolved all of his personal
emotional issues? He shuts up about the failed relationsh9ip and marriage,
even when goaded or prodded into talking about it.
He will never get there though because he ain't man enough to come clean.

Just like the guy who falls away from Christianity and becomes an evangelical atheist.

They still have the baggage (morals and values) and can't stop whining about where they got them. LOL
edit on 3-3-2014 by spirited75 because: Just like the guy who falls away from Christianity and becomes an evangelical atheist.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by spirited75
 


Please stop with the religion gives us morals BS...morals are in us already,it is part of our evolution (guess you don't believe in that eh?) to help us live as a society.
What about all the un moral things in your Holy books eh? great to be able to cherry pick isn''t it...
edit on 3-3-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


If morals are part of our evolution,
and all men alive today
evolved from what was prior,
then explain Adam Lanza.

Your moniker tells me ALL I
need to know about you. lol

Since when does LL need someone
running interference for him? LOL

Be sure to give him some stars for his posts.
BF Skinner nailed it with operant and
classical conditioning at least on your alls account.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by spirited75
 


Wow you know all about me from my username.....
Adam Lanza is mentally ill, same goes for Religious priests who want others to obey them, so are the idiots who fall for others peoples idea of the big question, they are also either just idiots, mentally challenged or just plain lazy fools.
Before the Male dominated war like gods of the Abrahamic religions humanity worshipped the female form and had female gods but that wasn't good for the men of old they wanted to put down their women and so over years invented such religions to control and crush free critical thinking, just great news religion is dying off eh.
edit on 3-3-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   

boymonkey74
reply to post by spirited75
 


Wow you know all about me from my username.....
Adam Lanza is mentally ill, same goes for Religious priests who want others to obey them, so are the idiots who fall for others peoples idea of the big question, they are also either just idiots, mentally challenged or just plain lazy fools.
Before the Male dominated war like gods of the Abrahamic religions humanity worshipped the female form and had female gods but that wasn't good for the men of old they wanted to put down their women and so over years invented such religions to control and crush free critical thinking, just great news religion is dying off eh.
edit on 3-3-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)


Adam Lanza inherited his mental illness from evolution/heredity? Is that a black/white category or does it exist along a continuum?

And Religious priests are also "Mentally ill" like Adam Lanza, who shot and killed 26 children and teachers?

And the idiots who believe Religious priests are also "Mentally ill" like Adam Lanza?

So because a person is "Mentally ill" they simultaneously loose their morals and values?

Adam killed 26 people. Was that immoral of him? Was that a reflection of his values?
So if mentally ill people loose their values, what percent of people in the world
are mentally ill, and there fore have no morals and values?

I am assuming that the 74 is the year you were born, right?

Wow you got three stars almost immediately for your post, BF Skinner again.
Here is a joke to lighten things up a little.
What is the difference between a brown nose and ring around the collar?

edit on 3-3-2014 by spirited75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by spirited75
 


Morals and values are defined by society. If religion is a big part of that society, then they could originate from religion. But that by no way means that morals and values are the sole domain of religion.

This is why someone in a society (like Lanza) could show a complete lack of morals. He has rejected his society by rebelling against it the most destructive way he can. If he lived in a different society, he could excel or even be celebrated with his demonstrated morals. All they'd need to do was stick him in that society's military.
edit on 3-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 




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. If so, then who or what is it? And what do they stand to gain from rewriting social norms and diminishing religion? Could it all be a decoy to take attention away from somthing far more sinister? There is definitely a conspiracy in all of this. Discuss in your own words and keep it civil.


You'd have to read this thread I started a while back to comprehend a deeper point:
The Purest form of Christianity, was Eastern Orthodoxy, the Desert Fathers, Monks, Hermits, & Mystic
Thread Here

Western, or Amercanized Christianity, is a watered down joke. And so people in all of the West (America & Europe) are leaving in droves.

Its fine. Its normal as an evolution of society, world, culture, as well as religion and spirituality.

The only surviving Christians will be the Christian Mystics who directly experience the Divine, as well as Mystics from all paths, will continue int the future, to be Torch Bearers of the Maps & Blueprints to Truth.

I am perfectly fine with whats happening, since Change never changes and continues infinitely.

Front row seats, brethren!!!!



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by spirited75
 


Morals and values are defined by society. If religion is a big part of that society, then they could originate from religion. But that by no way means that morals and values are the sole domain of religion.

This is why someone in a society (like Lanza) could show a complete lack of morals. He has rejected his society by rebelling against it the most destructive way he can. If he lived in a different society, he could excel or even be celebrated with his demonstrated morals. All they'd need to do was stick him in that society's military.
edit on 3-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


but i thought like boymonkey said we get morals and values from evolution?
Why was not Adam born via evolution into a country that could use his morals and values?
So society defines and creates morals and values?
And Adams behavior showed a complete lack of morals and values?
His demonstration of a complete lack of morals and values is the result of what? Being born in the wrong society or being mentally ill, or just rejecting society's morals and values?

"Morals and values are defined by society" your quote.
This means that the morals and values are external to the being?

So if you moved to a radical Islam nation would their morals and values immediately infuse into you?
LOL.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by spirited75
 


First, I never claimed to back boymonkey's position on morals. Obviously my position is different then his.

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am saying that society determines what is and isn't acceptable. This means that people arent born with morals. A parent has to teach their child not to steal, to be polite, dont hurt others, etc. This certainly doesn't mean that society strips them of their free will. Someone can quite easily reject those morals. Whether it is due to mental illness or just because they don't agree with them depends on the person. Also your moving to an Islam country example is just straight up asinine. Like I said earlier, society determining values and morals doesn't mean a person loses their free will. So a person moving to a Muslim country wouldn't automatically change their moral center unless they already agreed with Muslim morals and values.
edit on 3-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
If society determines what is right or wrong,
then why do you next say that a being must be
taught morals and values by their parents (mom or dad).

So it is not SOCIETY that determines morals and values it is mom or dad?



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by spirited75
 


Are you being intentially obtuse or something? How do you think society imparts those morals and values? Osmosis? No, obviously they are taught by parental and authority figures from that very society. Parental and authority figures from other societies teach their children their societies morals and values. When those children grow up, they may even have a hand at further shaping that society's morals and values through rebellion of the norm and then changing the system. Society works and evolves through the people. Now please stop making goofy comparisons and trying to make me look like I'm contridicing myself when I'm not.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


then the morals and values are NOT determined by society,
the morals and values are determined by MOM and DAD.

you cannot have it both ways.

Either mom and dad determine and teach morals and values or they do not.
If they do not then who does? Society?

Your trite buzzword vocabulary "Society determines morals and values"
crumbles under the mildest of scrutiny doesn't it?

Buzzwords and politically correct thoughts and speech indicate
a lack of ability to critically think about an issue.

your quote:
"Now please stop making goofy comparisons and trying to make
me look like I'm contridicing myself when I'm not. "

contradicting right?


edit on 3-3-2014 by spirited75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by spirited75
 


So you are being obtuse. Got it. Well I'll try one more time to break through your logic breakdown.

Society determines morals and values which are taught to children by their parents and authority figures. Mom and dad don't just make up the morals and values. They teach them the morals and values that everyone else (society) has agreed are the accepted morals and values. Why is this so hard for you to understand? It's a big cycle. Parents teach morals to children, children become teenagers and rebel against the morals, teenagers grow up to be adults taking the knowledge of their rebellions and altering the accepted morals but largely leaving them unchanged, adults have children, and the process continues. I don't know what your definition of a society is and how it works, but that is EXACTLY how my definition works, oh and pretty much any academic you talk to as well.

One more thing, parents are only the beginning of the education children receive on the morals of society. Government, media, peers, teachers, police all teach children then teenagers then adults the morals. You are trying to oversimplify my explanation to make it look silly.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


another of your high faulting buzzwords "Obtuse"



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 41  42  43    45  46 >>

log in

join