Is modern secular society headed down the path to Sodom and Gomorrah.

[Hans Blaster]

Its not so much about the Christian God in principle but the idea that humans need some external source greater than themselves to look to that represents the ideal good character and standards will unite everyone. Otherwise it becomes idols and other forms of worship or worldly gods like money or might.

You sure fooled me. It looked a lot like you were talking about the need for your god. And no, we don't need gods generally, nor do we need to "worship" anything. (I find worship undignified.)

I am not sure its like that. I think most religions are pretty easy going about their god.

Sure they are. Sure they are. SMH.

There is a large makority of polytheistic beliefs and have many gods or are more mystical and believe in Deism. I think its mainly Islam that actually preaches that Allah is the only true God to the point of enforcing it today.

I know Christianity had their period of enforcement. But today I think most people believe that its about free will and democracy. In fact the bible doesn't really push the idea that God is the only God and superior. God makes a lot of statements about His authority and who He is like "I am who I am". Or "thou shall not worship other gods". But it also acknowledges there are other gods who people think are greater.

Then you are OK with the henotheism? (and I do not recognize that alleged authority.)

Or the other way around. Or the fact there are a variety of gods shows humans inclination to believe in something beyond the material world.

Sounds like most (or all) gods are made up just to fulfill this "need". (A need I lack apparently. Never felt any compulsion to believe or worship.)

If there is some entity for the source of this inclination then it logically follows that there can only be one god and truth to all that because ultimately its about truth and there can only be one truth and not many truths.
Yep demonic worship is the flip side of godly worship and belief. Thats the ying and yang in our nature to have a good and eveil side.

Are there demons in addition to other gods you don't worship, or are they the same?

I don't know about that. It depends what you mean by god.

It's not that hard to understand what a god is -- it is a claimed or believed in or existing supernatural entity of some power.

They say money can become your god. Back in the day many gods were idols that represented earthly pleasures or in nature such as certain animals that had certain powers.

NOPE. NOPE. NOPE. Not gods. Please stop trying to pretend they are.

So gods can be very earthly but be tied to a metaphyical belief that fills the void of gods.

What void? I see no void.

Yes because the bible also says that we all know Gods laws.

I thought that was Paul. And Paul is WRONG. I had to be taught "God's laws" and I've forgotten most of them. Not very useful these laws are.

They are part of nature if God is the creature of human nature. Morality is really an innate sense of empathy with others. So you don't need God to know this.

Just being a member of an evolved social species of primates. Welcome to the tribe.

Yes as mentioned above there is a similar theme through all religions or new age beliefs about treating others good and being moral in a practical sense.

See my previous response.

What I find interesting is despite the differences which can be vast the core truths remain the same which are in line with the bible. It suggests that the core truths themselves are like laws of nature and stand above all cultural differences. Like its innate in humans to have morality and belief in some entity beyond the material world.

See my previous response

 

[stevevw]

You sure fooled me. It looked a lot like you were talking about the need for your god. And no, we don't need gods generally, nor do we need to "worship" anything. (I find worship undignified.)

Where did I mention that I was talking about my God. I was specifically talking about a basic human need to believe in something beyond themselves. It wasn't about any particular god but the natural inclination of human cognition.

The research actually says we are naturally predisposed to belief in supernatural enities. Thether thats expressed in gods, humans, idols or animals given divine status, superheros, demons or aliens with superpowers. Thats why the idea of superheros resinates so well in society as we can project all that supernatural stuff into them.

The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.
Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife.

Religion is natural
https://minddevlab.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Religion is natural.pdf

Sure they are. Sure they are. SMH.

Well lets look at the reality of what is actually happening in society. Christianity is now pushed to the fringes so if theres any forcing of ideology its non christian today. In fact its secular ideology and religion thats being pushed by the State and its agents in the form of Woke ideology.

Christians have long accepted that they have little say in society and in fact its almost taboo. But we still accept that and get on with life and leave secular society to do what they want.

Then you are OK with the henotheism? (and I do not recognize that alleged authority.)

Not in the sense that a person can just switch Gods and still believe in one God among gods.

Sounds like most (or all) gods are made up just to fulfill this "need". (A need I lack apparently. Never felt any compulsion to believe or worship.)

Or that a creator God created us with this inclination (need) to know him and that this inclinatuion has been reconditioned towards other beliefs.

All children come to the world with a natural belief in supernatural entities. so you would have had that belief as a child. As belief comes natural it is not that people are indoctrinated to believe but rather are incdoctrinated not to believe. It takes much more effort to get the belief out than put it in as our cognition is naturally thiestic.

Are there demons in addition to other gods you don't worship, or are they the same?

I don't know for other religions but for Christianity the other gods and demons are the same thing in the spiritual sense.

It's not that hard to understand what a god is -- it is a claimed or believed in or existing supernatural entity of some power.

I think its a bit more complex than that. Look at the pagan gods which represented each human desire like the Frog representing sex and reproduction thus anthropomorphising human aspects into supernatural god like qualities.

Its more than just a godhead. It can be any aspect of life given some power or ideal beyond human capability that people can look to as their source of meaning and empowerment. That way idols like money, material possessions, people, can become godlike.

Look at how many people worship celebs like their gods. It reminds me of the Pharaohs who thought they were gods. People religiously follow celebs, looking up to them like they have some super power beyond other humans. They probably think they are in some ways.

In fact when you see a lot of the Hollywood presentations and music celebs perform they are drapped in religious icons and ceremony. Thats what I have noticed recently that there is this religious aspect to a lot of ceremony and preformances in entertainment and even politics today. So at least for many who enjoy entertainment religion is far from dead.

NOPE. NOPE. NOPE. Not gods. Please stop trying to pretend they are.

Here are some examples of animals made into gods.

Animal worship (also zoolatry or theriolatry) is an umbrella term designating religious or ritual practices involving animals. This includes the worship of animal deities. The Egyptian pantheon was especially fond of zoomorphism, with many animals sacred to particular deities—cats to Bastet, ibises and baboons to Thoth, crocodiles to Sobek and Ra, fish to Set, mongoose, shrew and birds to Horus, dogs and jackals to Anubis, serpents and eels to Atum, beetles to Khepera, bulls to Apis.
Animal worship - Wikipedia

Because human beings can enter into a living relationship with the supernatural beings that surround and dominate their lives, it has always been natural to model the gods as human beings. Such anthropomorphism is most evident in the Greek tradition, in which the Homeric gods are brilliantly and unashamedly human in their passions and thoughts.
Polytheism - Animal, Human, Forms

Monetar Monetary Effervescence: A Sociological Theor escence: A Sociological Theory of Religion Applied to Money
money’s religious nature which provides the moral compulsion for people to use, and continue to uphold, money as a socially constructed concept. Two new concepts are developed: the idea of monetary sacrality and monetary effervescence, both of which serve to recharge the religious saliency of money. By developing the concept of monetary sacrality, this project shows how money acts to interpret our economic relations while also obfuscating complex power dynamics in society, making them seem naturally occurring and unchangeable.
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2001&context=etd

Worshipping money – the new faith sweeping England today
Face to faith: Worshipping money – the new faith sweeping England today

Four "Money Scripts"
There are four basic attitudes to money, according to Brad Klontz, a research associate professor at Kansas State University. He calls them "money scripts": money avoidance, money worship, money status and money vigilance.
Four "Money Scripts"

What void? I see no void.

Belief in God and religion is about meaning, metaphysical meaning, personal meaniing, a worldview. When that is taken away it leaves a void lacking in the meaing and purpose ect that the previous belief filled. If a person religiously believed in a footy team and then they were taken away they would be left with a void as to what to do, whcih team to follow.

So obviously the void that religion and Christianity filled needs to be replaced by something. I think for modern secular society that has become Woke ideology. Its a perfect fit to replace Christianity as it is moral, has sin in that any politically incorrect thinking or behaviour is frowned upon and people are punished ie cancel culture. It has its high priests in the academic ideologues, activists and experts.

Coincidently or maybe not Wokism or its earlier version PC seemed to become more popular around the same time Christianity was being dismantled from the public square.

I thought that was Paul. And Paul is WRONG. I had to be taught "God's laws" and I've forgotten most of them. Not very useful these laws are.

Yes Paul mentions this but he is not the only one. But Pauls is most relevant. He is not wrong by the simple fact he is talking about our conscience bearing witness to Gods laws without having to be taught them. We all know when we break Gods laws such as killing or stealing without having any laws written or spoken about through our conscience.

Romans 2:14-16
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Just being a member of an evolved social species of primates. Welcome to the tribe.

I think its more than evolution. Evolution cannot explain morality. We are born with this sense and it has no genetic coding to be passed down as its not based in the physical. Its there before we are taught it so its inherent and in us. We are moral and spiritual beings as well as biological.

In 1869, Alfred Russel Wallace, who along with Darwin discovered natural selection, wrote that certain human capacities — including “the higher moral faculties” — are richer than what you could expect from a product of biological evolution. He concluded that some sort of godly force must intervene to create these capacities.
The Moral Life of Babies (Published 2010)

 

[ViaCrucis]

A society whose principles and values are not aligned with empathy, compassion, nor concerned with human life and flourishing is, of course, a deeply sick society. And, looking at the Bible--big picture--such is the sickness of the human condition.

So more importantly, I'd think, is how do we answer bigger questions, like, what is the goal of human society? What is its purpose, what is--let's bring a fancy Greek word into the conversation--the intended telos of human society? The end goal, the whole point, what is the destination toward which human society should be oriented.

-CryptoLutheran

I am saddened by the fact that this didn't get further exploration in conversation.

I'd like to answer my own question about societal telos; though I think I indicated views I have already here (e.g. empathy, concern with human life and flourishing, etc).

I believe that the principle goal of human society is one which, has as its aim, human flourishing. I do subscribe to a kind of Lutheran pragmaticism, namely that we should be less concerned with upholding a particular system, and more concerned with how systems affect people. In the 16th century systems, rather than people, were emphasized; Luther and the other Evangelical fathers recognized this as a deep problem--one in which the preaching of the Gospel was being hindered (in an ecclesiastical context); and one which in a social context hindered and obstructed human flourishing--where the goal of loving our neighbor is dependent upon putting the needs of others ahead of doing things a certain way just to do it that way. Holding to the status quo, for the sake of the status quo, isn't good--not when it hurts people, not when it hinders people, not when it holds people down.

Mere idealism, whether it is an idealism of "tradition" or an idealism of "progress" is insufficient--what is necessary is a neighbor-first way of thinking. What is best for my neighbor? What is best in order that people are free to live their lives where they can prosper? How can we shape the rule of society that curbs against the wild, untamed, and hostile forces (thievery, murder, etc), and also creates a social space where people can grow, be built up, strengthened and edified through community, education, and freedom. That means a society that can grow and adapt, it means a society that is more interested in human flourishing rather than maintaining power. It's not about a particular economic model, or a particular form of government, or a particular social doctrine--not when that doctrine becomes more important than people.

I am talking, therefore, of a social moral that is neighborly. Hospitable, generous, gracious, flexible, empathetic, compassionate; where our goal should always be maximal goodness. Where goodness is measured in how well, and how well treated, my neighbor is--especially the marginalized, the poor, the sick, the hungry, the weak, the widow, the orphan, etc. That the metric of success of a society is measured by how well it treats the most vulnerable people within it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BCP1928]

So obviously the void that religion and Christianity filled needs to be replaced by something. I think for modern secular society that has become Woke ideology. Its a perfect fit to replace Christianity as it is moral, has sin in that any politically incorrect thinking or behaviour is frowned upon and people are punished ie cancel culture. It has its high priests in the academic ideologues, activists and experts.

Coincidently or maybe not Wokism or its earlier version PC seemed to become more popular around the same time Christianity was being dismantled from the public square.

It sounds like you're just jealous. But your argument won't work because "wokists" aren't using "wokism" to replace their beliefs about a higher power, whatever their religion may be..

All that is happening is that they are replacing your Western Christian Culture. Get over it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think its more than evolution. Evolution cannot explain morality.

Good grief. I just told you it could be and it would make perfect evolutionary sense to have basic moral instincts (fairness, reciprocity, empathy) and you immediately flat out reject the possibility and then make an argument that is nothing other than incredulity or presumption.

We are born with this sense and it has no genetic coding to be passed down as its not based in the physical. Its there before we are taught it so its inherent and in us. We are moral and spiritual beings as well as biological.

As I just noted, the above text is a mash of argument from incredulity and assertions and assumptions about the nature of humans as "spiritual". Humans even at birth have many instincts like grasping and suckling. Are those also explained by "spirit"? What of the instincts of the other animals? Are those spirit as well? Or... can brain development driven by gene patterns lay down basic instincts into our initial behavior and the behavior of other animals?

In 1869, Alfred Russel Wallace, who along with Darwin discovered natural selection, wrote that certain human capacities — including “the higher moral faculties” — are richer than what you could expect from a product of biological evolution. He concluded that some sort of godly force must intervene to create these capacities.
The Moral Life of Babies (Published 2010)

I don't care about Wallace's incredulity anymore than yours. (None at all, just in case you were confused.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes Paul mentions this but he is not the only one. But Pauls is most relevant. He is not wrong by the simple fact he is talking about our conscience bearing witness to Gods laws without having to be taught them.

I don't care if you think Paul is the best expresser of this idea, I still only have Paul's claim, and when Paul said that the "evidence" of "God's creation" would be obvious to all HE WAS WRONG. That whole letter starts with a string of claims by Paul about others that just do not apply to everyone.

We all know when we break Gods laws such as killing or stealing without having any laws written or spoken about through our conscience.

Gee, I wonder if that could be an instinct to empathy or fairness? All of the laws of all of the gods make the same claim about these things.

Romans 2:14-16
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Oh, look you quoted more of Paul, which I will not bother to read.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It sounds like you're just jealous. But your argument won't work because "wokists" aren't using "wokism" to replace their beliefs about a higher power, whatever their religion may be..

All that is happening is that they are replacing your Western Christian Culture. Get over it.

I've never been particularly clear about what "Western Christian Culture" is. Christianity has been influential in those cultures which embraced it, historically, both West and East; but those cultures have all been highly diverse. Spain and Ethiopia are two places which have strong historic Christian influence, but they aren't remotely alike culturally. Even in Western Europe we're going to see some pretty large differences, say, between cultures in the Italian peninsula than on the Scandinavian peninsula.

So when I hear of an idea of some singular "Western Civilization" or "Western [Christian] Culture" I'm never entirely sure what that is supposed to mean. The ways in which certain forms of Reformed Protestantism via groups like the Puritans, or less intense groups like early Baptists, Congregationalists, Anglicans, and Methodists all gave some shape to the formation of regional cultures in colonial and post-colonial America. And given a shared heritage with Great Britain means that early America had a lot in common with 18th century Britain. But, then, looking at other cultures such as Catholic nations like France or Spain, or even Protestant nations like Sweden and Prussia, things are quite different than they were in Britain, or in the newly independent US.

The point is, I don't see how even talking about a concept like this would even be meaningful. Western means almost nothing beyond relative geography; Christian is such a big tent that covers so much diversity that speaking of a "Christian culture" of any kind is essentially worthless.

As such it is very likely to only mean a very narrow thing, depending on the person using it. Depending on whether one is trying to praise it or criticize it, it can mean anything the speaker wants it to mean, rendering it further meaningless as an idea.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hazelelponi]

I am interested in this as I was speaking to some friends the other day about how especially in the media, Hollywood, Music and entertainment there seems to be this pagan or even Satanic ritualistism going on. Things like wearing these head dresses with goat horns and other pagan symbols. Its alwats very provocative and sexual as well. Almost a celebration of our animalistic side.

I think I know what is happening. Just loike in the days when people defied God they turned to nature, to animals and nature itself like Stone idols. Now that modern society is rejecting God this same belief is coming back. It may seem natural for people to worship nature as god. But primarily when this happens its not really about gods in nature but the self as god.

Also in those times people were made gods when theres no transcendent God. As self is god desires and feelings and self experience becomes the god. Therefore pleasure and all the good feelings are moral and the aweful feeling ones are sin.

So are we seeing a repeat of the down fall of society like Sodom and Gormorrah or like with how Empires have fallen where sexxual immorality and pleasure and where the created is worshipped and not the Creator.

I missed this thread until just now so I'm adding late. I apologize.

I was actually planning on doing a thread on this in the political forums but yes, we are on the dangerous path of Sodom and Gomorrah.

If you recall Unwin's work - he's a famous social anthropologist - he actually did the historical research on the fall of civilizations and he predicted the fall of any civilization, based on his research of all the failed civilizations he could find to research, within 3 generations of acceptance of sexual promiscuity in the society outside of a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman...

So within 40 years, absolute maximum I'm thinking, this society will fail if we can't turn it around according to Unwin. I'm counting us as being nearly 65 years into his generation count.

J.D. Unwin's "Sex and Culture" « XJMR

www.econjobrumors.com

He was an atheist I heard. I used the above link for the review of the work.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Belief in God and religion is about meaning, metaphysical meaning, personal meaniing, a worldview.

What if if wasn't? I didn't draw any particular "meaning" from religion or belief in God. It just was. As such, there was no "void" I needed to replace.

When that is taken away it leaves a void lacking in the meaing and purpose ect that the previous belief filled. If a person religiously believed in a footy team and then they were taken away they would be left with a void as to what to do, whcih team to follow.

Or they could just not have a favorite football team, but this has nothing to do with gods or religions. If one never followed football in the first place there would be nothing to miss even if every team shut down. Many people never had a religion, and don't need to replace it.

So obviously the void that religion and Christianity filled needs to be replaced by something.

Not really. What you think is obvious is not obvious, nor true.

I think for modern secular society that has become Woke ideology.

:facepalm:

Its a perfect fit to replace Christianity as it is moral, has sin in that any politically incorrect thinking or behaviour is frowned upon and people are punished ie cancel culture. It has its high priests in the academic ideologues, activists and experts.

Not only do I not "need" these things from "woke culture", but I didn't "need" them from Christianity. (Nor does society.)

I'm not sure what the point of this dance is about, Steve. You just don't like the non-Christian aspects of modern society around you and are complaining about it.

 

[BCP1928]

I've never been particularly clear about what "Western Christian Culture" is. Christianity has been influential in those cultures which embraced it, historically, both West and East; but those cultures have all been highly diverse. Spain and Ethiopia are two places which have strong historic Christian influence, but they aren't remotely alike culturally. Even in Western Europe we're going to see some pretty large differences, say, between cultures in the Italian peninsula than on the Scandinavian peninsula.

So when I hear of an idea of some singular "Western Civilization" or "Western [Christian] Culture" I'm never entirely sure what that is supposed to mean. The ways in which certain forms of Reformed Protestantism via groups like the Puritans, or less intense groups like early Baptists, Congregationalists, Anglicans, and Methodists all gave some shape to the formation of regional cultures in colonial and post-colonial America. And given a shared heritage with Great Britain means that early America had a lot in common with 18th century Britain. But, then, looking at other cultures such as Catholic nations like France or Spain, or even Protestant nations like Sweden and Prussia, things are quite different than they were in Britain, or in the newly independent US.

The point is, I don't see how even talking about a concept like this would even be meaningful. Western means almost nothing beyond relative geography; Christian is such a big tent that covers so much diversity that speaking of a "Christian culture" of any kind is essentially worthless.

As such it is very likely to only mean a very narrow thing, depending on the person using it. Depending on whether one is trying to praise it or criticize it, it can mean anything the speaker wants it to mean, rendering it further meaningless as an idea.

-CryptoLutheran

I think in this case it means something very like "white anglo-Protestant complacency."

 

[stevevw]

It sounds like you're just jealous. But your argument won't work because "wokists" aren't using "wokism" to replace their beliefs about a higher power, whatever their religion may be..

All that is happening is that they are replacing your Western Christian Culture. Get over it.

Isn't replacing the western Christian culture with Woke replacing a relgious belief. Thats exactly what I said.

 

[stevevw]

Good grief. I just told you it could be and it would make perfect evolutionary sense to have basic moral instincts (fairness, reciprocity, empathy) and you immediately flat out reject the possibility and then make an argument that is nothing other than incredulity or presumption.

No that reply was directly related to your comment "Just being a member of an evolved social species of primates". So I was refuting that our moral sense is Just being a member of an evolved social species of primates.

As I just noted, the above text is a mash of argument from incredulity and assertions and assumptions about the nature of humans as "spiritual".

Explain to me how its being incredulous to say that humans have a spiritual side.

Humans even at birth have many instincts like grasping and suckling. Are those also explained by "spirit"?

Now your being incredulous. You know theres a vast difference between a physical behaviour sucking thumb or brasping something because our physical hand is shaped to grasp to a cognition about something non physical in nature.

What of the instincts of the other animals? Are those spirit as well? Or... can brain development driven by gene patterns lay down basic instincts into our initial behavior and the behavior of other animals?

Its both. But spirituality and morality go beyond the material processes.

I don't care about Wallace's incredulity anymore than yours. (None at all, just in case you were confused.)

Then your calling the majority of the world incredulous. And I guess thats what the New atheists do. They believe they are superior to all these silly thiests and know better, When in fact they are the ones being incredulous in that they know God but deny Him.

 

[stevevw]

I don't care if you think Paul is the best expresser of this idea, I still only have Paul's claim, and when Paul said that the "evidence" of "God's creation" would be obvious to all HE WAS WRONG. That whole letter starts with a string of claims by Paul about others that just do not apply to everyone.

How do you know Paul was wrong. The fact is our conscience tells us when we breach Gods laws and everyone has a conscience.

Gee, I wonder if that could be an instinct to empathy or fairness? All of the laws of all of the gods make the same claim about these things.

Morality is a sense of empathy and we are born with it. Its not taught but is there from birth.

Oh, look you quoted more of Paul, which I will not bother to read.

You quote Paul and then when I post the actual post as to what he said to give proper context you want to ignore it. Seems you have it in for Paul and GOd before anything can be said. Why even argue with someone who is not even willing to listen.

 

[stevevw]

I've never been particularly clear about what "Western Christian Culture" is. Christianity has been influential in those cultures which embraced it, historically, both West and East; but those cultures have all been highly diverse. Spain and Ethiopia are two places which have strong historic Christian influence, but they aren't remotely alike culturally. Even in Western Europe we're going to see some pretty large differences, say, between cultures in the Italian peninsula than on the Scandinavian peninsula.

So when I hear of an idea of some singular "Western Civilization" or "Western [Christian] Culture" I'm never entirely sure what that is supposed to mean. The ways in which certain forms of Reformed Protestantism via groups like the Puritans, or less intense groups like early Baptists, Congregationalists, Anglicans, and Methodists all gave some shape to the formation of regional cultures in colonial and post-colonial America. And given a shared heritage with Great Britain means that early America had a lot in common with 18th century Britain. But, then, looking at other cultures such as Catholic nations like France or Spain, or even Protestant nations like Sweden and Prussia, things are quite different than they were in Britain, or in the newly independent US.

The point is, I don't see how even talking about a concept like this would even be meaningful. Western means almost nothing beyond relative geography; Christian is such a big tent that covers so much diversity that speaking of a "Christian culture" of any kind is essentially worthless.

As such it is very likely to only mean a very narrow thing, depending on the person using it. Depending on whether one is trying to praise it or criticize it, it can mean anything the speaker wants it to mean, rendering it further meaningless as an idea.

-CryptoLutheran

I could go to any of these nations and relate to the core Christian beliefs regardless of their unique cultural expressions. They are just expressing the same core beliefs in various ways. For example the traditional Catholic nations place more empahsis on traditional rituals as opposed to others who are more liberal in therir expression.

But they are expressing the same thing of a belief in Christ being Saviour and of sin, reprentence, being born again in the spirit, on God Creator ect.

 

[stevevw]

I missed this thread until just now so I'm adding late. I apologize.

I was actually planning on doing a thread on this in the political forums but yes, we are on the dangerous path of Sodom and Gomorrah.

If you recall Unwin's work - he's a famous social anthropologist - he actually did the historical research on the fall of civilizations and he predicted the fall of any civilization, based on his research of all the failed civilizations he could find to research, within 3 generations of acceptance of sexual promiscuity in the society outside of a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman...

So within 40 years, absolute maximum I'm thinking, this society will fail if we can't turn it around according to Unwin. I'm counting us as being nearly 65 years into his generation count.

J.D. Unwin's "Sex and Culture" « XJMR

www.econjobrumors.com

He was an atheist I heard. I used the above link for the review of the work.

Yes I have read this same idea from several authors. I think Camilia Paglia talks about this where as societies unravel they tend to become more androgynous. The culture moves from the masculinity and femininity which are refelected in the arts and society such as statues of young naked males being muscular and masculine to more feminin and fluid.

These societies think they are sophisticated and cosmopolitan where anything goes where it doesn't matter if your heterosexual or bi or homosexual as its all chic and being progressive. But with this also comes the unravelling morals and reality.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No that reply was directly related to your comment "Just being a member of an evolved social species of primates". So I was refuting that our moral sense is Just being a member of an evolved social species of primates.

Explain to me how its being incredulous to say that humans have a spiritual side.

This is what you wrote:

I think its more than evolution. Evolution cannot explain morality. We are born with this sense and it has no genetic coding to be passed down as its not based in the physical. Its there before we are taught it so its inherent and in us. We are moral and spiritual beings as well as biological.

That is an argument based not on facts, but on your own incredulity to even the notion that evolution could explain

Now your being incredulous. You know theres a vast difference between a physical behaviour sucking thumb or brasping something because our physical hand is shaped to grasp to a cognition about something non physical in nature.

I was talking about instincts and how they are embedded in the behaviors of newborns that can't even see properly. Do you think instincts are real and genetically embedded?

Its both. But spirituality and morality go beyond the material processes.

Then your calling the majority of the world incredulous. And I guess thats what the New atheists do. They believe they are superior to all these silly thiests and know better, When in fact they are the ones being incredulous in that they know God but deny Him.

I'm not having an argument with billions of humans, I'm having an argument with YOU. And it was YOUR ARGUMENT that was based on incredulity.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How do you know Paul was wrong. The fact is our conscience tells us when we breach Gods laws and everyone has a conscience.

Because Paul makes the worst kind of argument that you can make. (Even worse than an argument from incredulity.) Paul makes arguments telling other people he knows them better than they know themselves. All that bit in Rom. 1 about what we know about god's creation, etc.

Morality is a sense of empathy and we are born with it. Its not taught but is there from birth.

Morality is a set of rules or codes for behavior. Empathy *is* innate and not taught, but a moral code must be taught.

You quote Paul and then when I post the actual post as to what he said to give proper context you want to ignore it.

I didn't need more of the same.

Seems you have it in for Paul and GOd before anything can be said.

I've read a bit of Paul and I have no use for him or his ideas. Your god is irrelevant to me.

Why even argue with someone who is not even willing to listen.

Or read properly. I know.

 

[stevevw]

What if if wasn't? I didn't draw any particular "meaning" from religion or belief in God. It just was. As such, there was no "void" I needed to replace.

Then you did not end up having a belief which forms your worldview. I don't believe in atheism so I don't know the worldview that goes with it. Actually I do when I didn't believe in God. But the point is I know the two different worldview. Or rather difference it makes to a persons worldview.

You may through experience have developed a belief that there is no gods or supernaturalism. A worldview also consists of your personal experiences how others and conditions shaped you or how personal experiences instill in a person certain personality dispositions or even biases towards certain views of the world and reality.

Or they could just not have a favorite football team, but this has nothing to do with gods or religions. If one never followed football in the first place there would be nothing to miss even if every team shut down. Many people never had a religion, and don't need to replace it.

Your missing the point. Religious belief fills a void, following sports and all that goes with it fills a void of belonging to a groups of similar beliefs and outlooks on life as a supporter. It may not be footy, but any interest that fills your life. People choose those interests to give meaning and they are based on their beliefs about the world. If the person did not believe in footy it would be something else that gives meaning.

Not really. What you think is obvious is not obvious, nor true.

Its not what I think, its basic human cognition.

:facepalm:

Why, you don't think this is the case. Identity politics, Wokism, cancel culture, PC,. People being cancelled and shamed for saying the wrong thing ect. You don't think this prevades society now as a form of religion thats replaced Christianity. It has all the same hallmarks njust no religious garb.

Not only do I not "need" these things from "woke culture", but I didn't "need" them from Christianity. (Nor does society.)

Good for you, at least on the Woke part. But none of this negates the fact that society has gone from Christian beliefs to Woke ideological beliefs. No empty void was left like you say. If society can exist without religious belief then we would have gone from Christianity to 'No religious belief in anything' as that is what rejecting God was about, having no belief at all in any religion.

This shows as I said humans are inherently religious, and believe in supernatural entities and divine concepts, in metaphysics beyond the material.

I'm not sure what the point of this dance is about, Steve. You just don't like the non-Christian aspects of modern society around you and are complaining about it.

Perhaps its the other way around where you just don't like Christianity and you see me pointing out how society is abandoning Gods order and the repercussions of that.

Personally I am not bothered what people believe except if that belief will lead to harm or chaos for others and society. Then I will say something on that matter. But thats not about personal dislike but rather just giving some well founded critiques of whats going on. Notice I backed what I said with science.

 

[BCP1928]

Isn't replacing the western Christian culture with Woke replacing a relgious belief. Thats exactly what I said.

Yeah, but Western Christian Culture isn't a religious belief. Here's an example: Many Christians believe that homosexuality is sin, and I assume they will continue to do so. However, resisting the notion that the non-Christian citizens of a secular state should be allowed civil marriage regardless of their sexual orientation is a cultural artifact.

 

[BCP1928]

Then your calling the majority of the world incredulous. And I guess thats what the New atheists do. They believe they are superior to all these silly thiests and know better, When in fact they are the ones being incredulous in that they know God but deny Him.

Where did you get the idea that "woke ideology" is atheistic?