Social programming + the collapse of religion and values.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Sorry im drifting off topic, i realize there are other factors involved, but war is indeed rather a large part of "there" social engineering agenda. When they fire there weapons in anger and death, they do so in the name of God, that's how they justify their actions!

Ephesians 6:12
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Spiritual forces are much stronger than we are. They influence leaders of nations, possess people in the spotlight. Lead the massed astray.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


"Christian conservative values" being a good thing. . When i think of Christian conservative values I think of hate against others (religion, race, sexuality, greed).

I am myself not promiscuous and will not date people who are promiscuous since we do not have that idea in common. Does that mean that promiscuity is wrong for all people? No. Just be open with what you are and do not lie about it since the non promiscuous have a right to be with non promiscuous people. And please think before you set a child into this world.

I rather follow Jesus/Rumi/Buddhas/Nanak:s example. . Lovely lovely beings. Namaste

sk0rpi0n

@ unb3k44n7,...;It's really an easy answer.
Technology.
Technology has mostly caused the declination of religion.

Technology simply facilitates the communication required to program the masses. It can be used for anything, even spreading conservative values. In this case, it is being used to program people to accept something that was not accepted earlier. Joe Biden let the proverbial cat out of the bag when he stated that mass media has been instrumental in influencing/manipulating people into becoming more accepting of homosexuality. Thats all it is, a manipulation of the masses by outside forces, into re-writing social norms.

Another "I do not like homosexuality to exists based on religious indoctrinated hate" thread. Bah. And religious people wonder why people after a while hate man made religion with a vengeance. with all the dualistic judging hate it is spewing.

Where is the love that Rumi and Jesus talked about? At least god sent MACKLEMORE to preach the message.

When I was at church they taught me something else If you preach hate at the service those words aren't anointed That holy water that you soak in has been poisoned When everyone else is more comfortable remaining voiceless Rather than fighting for humans that have had their rights stolen I might not be the same, but that's not important No freedom 'til we're equal, damn right I support it

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

You have shows and movies unmarried people, even teenagers sleeping around because thats whats being accepted as ''normal'' in the real world...because thats depicted as ''normal'' in entertainment land.

Sex is a normal biological function, and the urge kicks in with puberty/adolescence. It's not a filthy, "whorish" thing. People have always had sex. It was not always thought to be "bad."

As for your conspiracy idea:
the reason that values are changing is because people in the USA are more and more tolerant and respectful of others' rights, realizing that others are not doing them any harm. And, as others have said: we have the internet. We no longer live in isolated communities that are unaware of the outside world.

There is more compassion, and more education.
We are human beings. We procreate by having sex. Sex is biologically pleasant. Those are the cold, hard facts.

Why is there more atheism? Because there is more EDUCATION, and a movement away from rigid, fabricated, patriarchal domination.

Why can't it be many things? Sure there may be powerful forces driving opinion in this regard, but let's look at this realistically. You offer up a time frame of 64 years (1950 - 2014). Within that time frame 3 or 4 new generations of people have come of age and influenced society with their views. We also know that every generation, when they hit their teenage years, rebels against the older generation's values and rules. Eventually these teenagers grow up, and while they may even out and not rebel as much, they do keep some of those same values into adulthood. Look at the evolution of the skirt throughout the 1900's. Back in early 1900's, the skirt went all the way down to a woman's feet. Then in the 1920's it was hiked up to the calves or just above the ankles. Then with each subsequent generation of teenagers, girls kept hiking up the skirt until eventually the mini-skirt came about.

Couple things like the above example with growing technology, easier means of communicating, and looking up information (looking up the fallacies of religions gets easier and easier) and mindsets will change. It's hard to not care about the suffering of oppressed people when it is easier to find it all the time.

Another thing to consider, oppressed groups (minorities) have been gaining more and more say in how this country is being run. No longer can white men shun women, blacks, asians, homosexuals, or any other minority by marginalizing their opinions. Each of these groups has their own values and beliefs that they want honored and upheld. Many times these values and beliefs contradict white man's Christian morals.

All of this is called social evolution, which you dismissed in favor of some conspiracy push by the elite to strip the moral foundation of the country. Not to say that the elite isn't doing that, but I believe that it is more that the elite rebelled against these morals as teenagers and then when they took power from their parents as they got older, they started enacting their own changes to change how society functioned.

"Times, they are a changing." -Bob Dylan

@wildtimes ....Sex is a normal biological function, and the urge kicks in with puberty/adolescence. It's not a filthy, "whorish" thing. People have always had sex. It was not always thought to be "bad.

that was not my point at all. A lot of people, both theists and atheists.. got the point of the Op. Not going to bother breaking the OP down for people who missed the point....not going to derail my own thread doing so.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


I can admit when I'm wrong, apparently you can't. I showed evidence that most atheists are formerly religious, you don't want to believe it so you "plug your ears" and call it biased. The poll is there, the poll says most atheists are formerly religious, so unless you can prove it is biased instead of that just being your opinion, they are innocent until proven guilty. I guess since the poll goes against what you WANT to be the truth, it's guilty until proven innocent, right?

I guess if someone proves you wrong you have to ignore them? Real big of you. I'll take it as a compliment though, I must make some kind of sense for you to just ignore me like that because I can't be the ONLY person to ever debate you on something. Those with cognitive dissonance usually choose to ignore the information that proves their belief wrong, so thanks.

@ Krazysh0t... Other people have brought up the idea that ''information'' was a driving force...in changing peoples mindsets. I've also pointed out that its been admitted that people have been manipulated by the mass media/entertainment industry...by some high profile politician. Can you name the people who influenced former conservative America into changing their value system? My belief is that Americans allowed unelected people and private organizations into rewriting social norms.

sk0rpi0n
Can you name the people who influenced former conservative America into changing their value system?

Too many to even start. I might as well name every person in the country. But I'll narrow it down some for you within the time frame that you provided in the OP. See the hippie movement with free love and all that fun stuff. Those cats have now grown up and are influencing policy and decisions on how the country is ran.

My belief is that Americans allowed unelected people and private organizations into rewriting social norms.

And -I- said that it is probably ALL of these things. What you believe as well as social engineering as well as information as well as technology as well as whatever other reasons other people come up with in this thread. All these things combined form the answer to your question. The error with your op is that you are looking for one easy answer to your question. There is no one easy answer. Like I said, there are many answers, all with varying degrees of contributions to the situation.

I have a question for you though. Do you believe that these changes are for the better? Your op seems to hint that you are a little upset with these social changes, but I don't want to assume anything about you. Do you believe that America was a better place to be when we hid all our dirty laundry deep in the closet and pretended it didn't exist? Or do you believe it is better to talk about these things so that we can come to an understanding about the best way to accept them? Because that is really what this thread boils down to.

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?

I wouldn´t say sinister. But in a Technological advanced and progressive society, religion has no place. Simple as that. It started slowly, and today reached to a point were those people who believe in God are labeled from media more often as "Backwards", "Mentally Ill", "Unscientific", "Illogical" etc.

Also i would like to add that, in my opinion those labels on religious people have lead many to abandon their religion. But this is another thema for another thread.

Peace

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Another "slippery slope" thread, but a fascinating discussion potential.

In my opinion at the highest level of conceptualizing, this occurred because mankind by nature wants to do whatever it desires to do (lusts after) in life.

Some of those desires (lusts) are labeled in scripture as sin against God.

So, in a government created with "Christian values" as the core structure; you must discredit God in order to gain social acceptance of a desire that is labeled sin according to His word.

The first thing you do (as many respondents in this thread have already shown) is you change "christian values" to "religious dogma". Knowing America is mostly protestant, using a word like "dogma" automatically creates a feeling of avoidance; since the word is catholic in origin. Also, adding the word "conservative" in between "christian" and "values" has a similar effect in a nation with a democrat majority in the populace.

You teach in science classes that since that which is spiritual cannot be observed with physical tools (scientific method), that all things pertaining to God and the spiritual realm are placed in equivalence with Greek Mythology and moved into the realm of fantasy. Knowing you cannot prove something spiritual; physically (scientifically), some one with "christian values" cannot refute the lack of physical evidence. Then you call those people words like "ignorant", "uneducated", "backwards", and "hillbilly" until they change their beliefs to fit the physically capable observations of science (limited to only that which can be observed/measured in the physical realm).

Knowing that human nature does not desire being told their lusts should not be permitted, over time the numbers of "progressives" far outweighed those who wanted to maintain the "christian values" core of our laws. It is more attractive for your natural mind to indulge in what seems right to self ("there is a way that seems right unto a man, but the ends of which lead only to death" - Prov 16:25). We want to do what we feel is best for ourselves, it is right in our eyes and benefits us; but the opposite is to want to do what God says is best for all society around us; even if it is not best for us (forces us to not indulge in our desires).

As the mob on one side grew naturally, they received the political sway to begin to force others into accepting their belief structure or be ridiculed for it. Peer pressure and the desire to be looked upon as "progressive" (pride) added to the natural carnal mind's inner desires (lusts) are the core concepts which drove the movement witnessed today.

In conclusion in my opinion it is combination of the natural mind at odds with God's spiritual laws ("For the natural mind is hostile to God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" - Roman 8:7). And social engineering applying large scale group peer pressure to force society to accept their definition of right and wrong; while seemingly being the opposite of God's definition of right and wrong. I do not know the degree of cooperation across the spectrum, but these changes can be fueled simply by the natural mind and its created state of defiance against the laws of God found in scripture.


God Bless,

@... Krazysh0t Too many to even start. I might as well name every person in the country. But I'll narrow it down some for you within the time frame that you provided in the OP. See the hippie movement with free love and all that fun stuff. Those cats have now grown up and are influencing policy and decisions on how the country is ran.

So what influenced those ''cool cats'' to adopt their values? And were hippies born that way? Or did something else influence them?

sk0rpi0n
So what influenced those ''cool cats'' to adopt their values? And were hippies born that way? Or did something else influence them?

You seem to already have some answer to that question and are trying to sway others in a specific direction. Why not just say it yourself??? I can't imagine anyone would be born a hippy. Nobody is born with a certain ideological perspective of the world, you have to learn those as you grow up.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


What influenced them? Drugs that make you feel REALLY good for a long period of time as well as alter the way you think about things. It was other things in addition, but I really don't feel like giving you a history lesson on the birth of the hippie movement. If you are interested, look up Ken Kesey and his acid tests, the monterey pop festival, acid rock, oh and the beatnik culture of the 50's that the movement grew out of.

By the way, you never answered my question(s).

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Hmm, well I've seen a lot of research showing that the less religious a person is the less likely they are to be violent homophobic etc. So the lower rates of religiosity probably have a lot to do with the kinder less oppressive society we now have.

The break down of the family unit across the west has more to do with the welfare state making it viable for single women to have kids without the fathers hanging around. Then we rewarded them by chucking free housing and an unquestioned income at them until the kids are 16.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Gimme a break, sk0rp. I used the word YOU used: "whorish". YOU brought up promiscuity and unmarried sex between consenting people. I spoke about mass-media and your conspiracy idea, and addressed your allegation that without "religion", the US is a nation devoid of morals.

Were you even around 50 years ago? What makes you qualified to be persecutor, prosecutor, judge, and jury on how others decide to live?

Don't treat me like I'm an idiot (that goes for Dead Seraph, too). I read your OP twice, and responded to it.
You don't like Western Civilization, and even though you are not a US citizen, NOR a Christian, you continue to blame popular culture for what you percieve as debauchery.

Plenty before me have mentioned that Christianity (indeed, ALL major religions) were built on manipulation of "media" - keeping people ignorant and telling them their lives. You know this.

Your post is disingenuous. People can turn off their televisions. They can choose to immerse themselves in the Bible or Koran, or websites dedicated to stroking their egos and 'holier-than-thou' attitudes.

So - what would be your plan of action, if YOU were in charge?
You don't want "Christians" because they're not Muslims; you don't want atheists because they're not Muslims. You don't want people to be free because ....... why, again?

You want to round up the entertainers and cut their tongues out? Remove the eyes that watch them? You don't want exposure of the facts/histories that show Patriarchal religion being manipulative, coercive, brainwashing (which it is)?

YOU asked the questions. I provided answers from my point of view. Education, freedom, and mutual respect (at least on the part of some people) are leading to a more secular, "progressive" society.

What are you so worried about? Surely not the 'souls of others'. Nono. I think you're more concerned with the (appropriate) diminution of respect that (dogmatic shaming) religions once enjoyed.

If people get comfort from religion, if they feel hope and solace, that's fine. When they start condemning others who aren't that way - they become dangerous.

Someone just sent me this interesting link:
tell me what you think of THIS:

www.israeltoday.co.il...

Nazareth Christians Warned Against 'Slandering' Allah

As Christians of every stripe in Jesus' hometown of Nazareth begin to again take a real stand for their faith, local Muslims are warning them not to overstep the boundaries of their traditional place in the Middle East (hint: they must remain dhimmis, or second-class).

A large billboard hanging at a central point in Nazareth features a picture of an Israeli stop sign, along with the English translation of a verse from the Koran cautioning Christians (and Jews) to speak only the "truth" regarding Allah.

The poster (and Koran 4:171) reads:

"O people of the Scripture (Christians)! Do not exceed the limits of your religion. Say nothing but the truth about Allah (The One True God). The Christ Jesus, Son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God and His word conveyed to Mary and a spirit created by Him. So believe in God and His messengers and do not say: 'Three gods (trinity)'. Cease! It will be better for you. Indeed, Allah is the One and the Only God. His Holiness is far above having a son."

This is appropriate "mass media", then?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

So what influenced those ''cool cats'' to adopt their values? And were hippies born that way? Or did something else influence them?

Being one of "them", I will take these questions. Partly what Krazyshot said is it....
but - you don't understand that yes, babies are BORN with morals....I just saw an(other) article about experiments showing that they recognize bullying, helplessness, pain, etc.

Recently I watched an experiment clip that showed a toddler standing near his seated mother; a man comes in holding a stack of books, and bumps up against the cabinet in the corner. Clearly his hands are full and he can't open the door. So he bumps it a couple more times - the toddler walks over to this man (a total stranger), and opens the cabinet door for him without ANY prompting from his mother.

THAT is inborn altruism and helpfulness. It's cooperation and non-violence.

"We" the "baby boomer hippies" (I was born in 1958, when the original 'hippies' were teenagers) lived through the Viet Nam war - we grew up with images of people going 'back to the Earth', relaxing, enjoying one another, protesting war and greed and 'materialism.' We were influenced by our peers - many of my classmates had older siblings returning from Nam who were crippled (physically and emotionally) - we saw riots in our towns...we saw hatred and armed police forces....
One of my earliest memories is the day JFK was shot - my cartoon was interrupted to televise it...

we learned how to be critical of the system and to speak up about it. We did "duck and cover" drills at school, in case we got bombed by the Soviets (the sirens are now used as tornado/emergency warnings). We watched as Apollo landed on the moon. We watched as Nixon resigned, got in a helicopter, and flew away. Our President.

We realized that VIOLENCE was wrong, that CORRUPTION was wrong, that LYING and PRETENDING was wrong, that people COULD live "off the grid", share their resources, and live at peace with one another.
My parents were very conservative. They attempted to forbid us from listening to "pop" music. They never talked about the war or political problems. I learned about it from my peers. Perhaps very influential was my conservative parents' decision to bring us up in a working-class neighborhood rather than the "rich suburbs"...we went to school with kids of all skin-tones and ethnicities. We were taught to respect them, get to know them, make friends with them. We learned not to "hate" people who were different from us...

We learned how to 'self-medicate', and how 'going to church' wasn't helping us.

STAY IN SCHOOL
LEARN THE SYSTEM
THEN CHANGE THE SYSTEM
--- hippy mantra

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


I will affirm your recognition of a conspiracy. You seem at a loss to understand the motive - I will give a simple answer, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

'Progressive' thought is entirely a conspiracy. The word 'progressive' is symbol, it is more than a word. A symbol is something that has meaning attached to it beyond the superficial level - that is it is charged with meanings, and these meanings are attached to emotional states. Implied is the assertion that the antonym of progressive is retarded - ya, not conservative - retarded.

Symbols are like teflon coated bullets - they pass through the cognitive mind with almost no interaction, they then drive deep into the subconscious and deliver their payload.

For myself I am an agnostic, most would call me an atheist - so I come at this issue from an entirely different perspective than yourself. However, I consider myself to have the highest ethical standards possible (its not a consideration - its a fact), I willingly subject myself to the Universal Law of Equilibrium - that is the highest state of order. This means that I find no distinction between ethics and law, but I entirely reject morality - because it is subjective and associated only with human beings and their cultural value judgements.

While I find most organized religion to be abhorrent, it is necessary to inculcate ethics, and appropriate philosophy into human culture. This requires use of mythology, historical narrative, ceremony, tradition, music and art in order to reinforce a philosophy. This is completely ethical - and this is what religion is - the problem with religion is that in almost all cases the underlying philosophy is flawed (I will allow Buddhism a general pass, but not in all cases).

The question is - what is a useful philosophy - for me it means an absolute minimum standard of recognition of the pre-eminence of Natural Law - of the universal law of equilibrium. This means that private property - the mind, body, labor, product of labor, papers, liberty and privacy (and all related properties) of a human being are inviolate - and that all the Earth is an equal inheritance of all human beings. It requires that human beings consent where their property is involved, and that consent requires complete disclosure.

To more perfectly establish and fulfill the Natural Law requires human beings to be compassionate, tolerant and respectful. To keep private matters (such as sexuality) private, and not to intrude in public spaces with such things - as this may incite the passions of others (passion [emotion] being an involuntary aspect of human cognition - ie. without consent), and to maintain a complete transparency in public matters.

Yes, there has been an intention of the controlling powers ( Psychopath's Really in Charge - PRIC's) to usurp natural law - and in the process the fundamental tenets of some religious teaching - while I am opposed in general to most modern religion (due to application of subjective law, instead of natural law), I am also completely aware of its necessity as a fundamental instrument to calibrate cultures to ethical norms.

There is a conspiracy to destroy the ethical fabric of society in order to disassociate individuals from communities and families - because an individual alone becomes dependent on authority, on the state - on centralized powers.

Every individual is endowed with the power to know good and evil, to know right and wrong (I recognize no external ethical authority higher than myself - and neither should anyone else) - aside from concerns of morality - they know when they inflict loss on others, or incite unwanted passions - but to deny people family and community means to deprive them of the power to assert their own judgement, and to centralize that power in the hands of the few - into the hands of those who would control us.

Your assessment is correct, the PRIC's do not want us to have the (questionable) benefits of religion and the (substantive) benefits of modesty - because it deprives them of their goal of centralization of authority and power.

Amagnon
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

I will affirm your recognition of a conspiracy. You seem at a loss to understand the motive - I will give a simple answer, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

'Progressive' thought is entirely a conspiracy. The word 'progressive' is symbol, it is more than a word. A symbol is something that has meaning attached to it beyond the superficial level - that is it is charged with meanings, and these meanings are attached to emotional states. Implied is the assertion that the antonym of progressive is retarded - ya, not conservative - retarded.

Symbols are like teflon coated bullets - they pass through the cognitive mind with almost no interaction, they then drive deep into the subconscious and deliver their payload.

For myself I am an agnostic, most would call me an atheist - so I come at this issue from an entirely different perspective than yourself. However, I consider myself to have the highest ethical standards possible (its not a consideration - its a fact), I willingly subject myself to the Universal Law of Equilibrium - that is the highest state of order. This means that I find no distinction between ethics and law, but I entirely reject morality - because it is subjective and associated only with human beings and their cultural value judgements.

While I find most organized religion to be abhorrent, it is necessary to inculcate ethics, and appropriate philosophy into human culture. This requires use of mythology, historical narrative, ceremony, tradition, music and art in order to reinforce a philosophy. This is completely ethical - and this is what religion is - the problem with religion is that in almost all cases the underlying philosophy is flawed (I will allow Buddhism a general pass, but not in all cases).

The question is - what is a useful philosophy - for me it means an absolute minimum standard of recognition of the pre-eminence of Natural Law - of the universal law of equilibrium. This means that private property - the mind, body, labor, product of labor, papers, liberty and privacy (and all related properties) of a human being are inviolate - and that all the Earth is an equal inheritance of all human beings. It requires that human beings consent where their property is involved, and that consent requires complete disclosure.

To more perfectly establish and fulfill the Natural Law requires human beings to be compassionate, tolerant and respectful. To keep private matters (such as sexuality) private, and not to intrude in public spaces with such things - as this may incite the passions of others (passion [emotion] being an involuntary aspect of human cognition - ie. without consent), and to maintain a complete transparency in public matters.

Yes, there has been an intention of the controlling powers ( Psychopath's Really in Charge - PRIC's) to usurp natural law - and in the process the fundamental tenets of some religious teaching - while I am opposed in general to most modern religion (due to application of subjective law, instead of natural law), I am also completely aware of its necessity as a fundamental instrument to calibrate cultures to ethical norms.

There is a conspiracy to destroy the ethical fabric of society in order to disassociate individuals from communities and families - because an individual alone becomes dependent on authority, on the state - on centralized powers.

Every individual is endowed with the power to know good and evil, to know right and wrong (I recognize no external ethical authority higher than myself - and neither should anyone else) - aside from concerns of morality - they know when they inflict loss on others, or incite unwanted passions - but to deny people family and community means to deprive them of the power to assert their own judgement, and to centralize that power in the hands of the few - into the hands of those who would control us.

Your assessment is correct, the PRIC's do not want us to have the (questionable) benefits of religion and the (substantive) benefits of modesty - because it deprives them of their goal of centralization of authority and power.

Exceptional contribution to the discussion!
Thanks for your post Amagnon.

God Bless,