Your position was that we "used to" follow God's order in society, "Thats because we respected Gods order for marriage and human life. We sacrificed self desires for a greater truth. But we now believe in individual desires over all else."
You said we used to do this, the problem is that when we look at the past, just the last couple hundred years, the things I mentioned were part of the fabric of American society and culture.
I don't see how one can say "we respected God's order for ... human life" when talking about when we had things like slavery, or Jim Crow, or were engaged in genocide.
I know you weren't referring to those things. The problem is that when you engage in dreaming about "the good old days" you are ignoring just how bad those "good old days" actually were.
The point is this: We weren't following "God's order" then anymore than we are now. That's a fabrication, a false story of how things used to be.
You should study more. Historically abortion was only considered wrong when it terminated a late-stage pregnancy. People talked about a distinction between a fetus animatus, and a fetus inanimatus--or the distinction between a fetus with a soul and a fetus without. A fetus was considered to be alive, with a soul, at what was called "quickening", or when the mother could feel the baby move and kick inside her.
Attitudes on abortion were actually rather nuanced in pre-modern times. As noted, a distinction was made between a fetus animatus, or ensouled fetus and an inanimate or non-ensouled fetus.
The simple fact of the matter is that over the long history of the Christian Church, most Christian thinkers followed the thought of people like Aristotle, wherein ensoulment happened several months into the pregnancy.
It's actually in the 19th century when attitudes tended to become harsher, for example in the 16th century Pope Gregory XIV in the 1591 Sedes Apostolica made a distinction between the fetus animatus and fetus inanimatus; the harsh penalties of the church canons only applied to the termination of a fetus animatus. This was changed in the 19th century by Pope Pious IX, in whch no distinction was made and all terminations of pregnancy carried the same ecclesiastical discipline.
en.wikipedia.org
Would you be interested in some statistical information?
From the Pew Research Center, a graph:
Question: Is the ability for women, granted more freedom and security in society, such that they have greater freedom to get away from abusive husbands something we should have a problem with?
Blaming feminism seems silly to me. As though this is all those pesky women's fault.
Surely you don't believe there were fewer abusive husbands before the 1960's/70's do you?
I know you want to blame feminism for "broken and dysfunctional families", but perhaps we could explore other issues. As I don't think you have much of a leg on if you are going to blame "feminism" for this. That seems like a silly scape goat that ignores real issues. Of course, if you think you can back your claim up, you are more than welcome to do so.
You disagree with cheating being not socially acceptable? How about this, do a poll and ask the question to a general audience here if cheating on one's spouse or partner is okay to do. It's unlikely you're going to get a lot of responses saying that cheating is just A-OK.
Perhaps you live somewhere different than me where cheating is celebrated. Where I'm from, however, in the godless and heathenous Pacific Northwest, famously known as the Unchurched Belt of the United States--being an unfaithful partner is considered a bad thing. Not just by Christians, but by everybody. I have my suspicion, however, that it's probably the same where you live too. And that you are just making up the sentiment about unfaithfulness--I don't see that, I don't observe that, and I doubt you have either.
And the fact that you blame feminists, gay people, and liberals for this seems silly to me. Because if you want to look at the real sources for the breakdown can be placed more into the fact that we are living in a world of late-stage capitalism where our culture has been taught to abide by an ideology of consumerism; where wealth disparity and power disparity creates discord. There is a lack of community, a lack of the village, not because of women, gays, liberals--but because Consumerism breeds a Me-First mentality.
Do you believe Donald Trump is a virtuous person?
Because when I look at Donald Trump I see the living embodiment of everything that is deeply wrong in American culture and society.
Right, anti-semitism is a sign of an unhealthy society. But so is any other form of deep racist and bigoted attidues--for example, hatred of immigrants, foreigners, or Muslims. Or, say, hatred of gay people.
Well either everyone has the right to living in a consentual legal partnership, or no.
You don't have to acknowledge a same-sex marriage as a spiritually, theologically, or religiously valid marriage. But the fundamental question is, do these people deserve the same treatment under the law as others? Is marriage, in a legal sense, a right?
Should there be laws that tell people who they may or may not live in a partnership with, and which is legally recognized?
And, I think that as long as you remain in this way of thinking, you're not going to be able to be able to actually look at what the actual fundamental problems are that we are dealing with.
You can't complain about Wienstein AND blame feminism.
We didn't curb mob lynchings of black people by blaming Civil Rights leaders, but by listening to them and affecting changes to the very structures of our society.
-CryptoLutheran
