Where did I say that. Your creating a strawman.
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.
Actually apart from around the 19th century maybe late 18th is when things started to change with abortion laws. Up until then society regarded it as wrong and only in some situations like risk to mother or secret abortions. So like other changes it began around that time with Enlightenment and questioning the authority of the church.
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
But in the late 20th century and especially post 2000 it became more acceptable in mainstream society even seen as an individual right. Not because of any life risk but because of the idea that individual rights trump all other concerns. Abortion then became more commonplace and often more to do with lifestyle. So theres been a complete revaluing of abostion and thus human life which has many follow on ethical issues which have also been comprimised.
Would you be interested in some statistical information?
From the Pew Research Center, a graph:
Just a general breakdown in families. There was a big change due to Feminism and easy divorce laws. Marriage was devalued and many sort divorce. As marriage was devalued nor was the commitment.
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?
We have generations of kids who grew up in broken and dysfunctional families. This has a knockon effect for society. A strong society is underpinned by strong families.
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.
I disagree. Marriage is less valuable, seen more as a contract with get out clauses. People are not too concerned about affairs and may even celebrate it so long as the person is individually fullfilled.
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.
That is the new measure of happiness and morality self fullfillment and happyness. Anything goes so long as it brings personal fullfillment and happiness.
Breakdown means breakdown, families ties, relationships, mental health, the knockon effects of families breaking down. Its there in the data. I think we are seeing the knock on effect of the breakdown with maybe the last couple of generations who are very fragile or mentally ill. Or Narcissistic.
I think social media has made a massive change to things. Its revolutionised how people interact and has created this distance between people where they can berate and attack each other.
Go on any media which allows individuals a platform and you will see what I mean. Its in the news, in politics the culture wars and identity politics. The cancel culture. We are finding news ways to divide ourselves and hate each other.
I remeber when though political parties were of different philosophical bent they often met in the middle on important issues when it came to the greater good. But now its polarised, people dispise opposition/ I remeber women crying when Trump got in like it was the end of the world.
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.
People hated Trump so much I would not be surprised that there is an attempt to take him out. Where seeing local radicalism growing within democratic nations. That is how radical things have become right down to the person on the street. Like I said any society that allows anti semetisim to rise its ugly head again is not in good health.
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.
No I agree everyone should be treated the same. Its more about the fundemental premise that everyoner else should have to conform to a certain unfounded assumption about human nature, reality and the truth.
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?
That we not only respect peoples choices which is right and fair so long as they don't effect others. But its another to be forced to believe the same ideology behind it. That for example identity is somehow a reality based on subjective feelings. In other word Woke indoctrination of society when there is no basis in reality. Its just another way religion is being foisted on society in the name of protecting rights.
But luckily people are coming to their senses as we see the unreality of these ideas and policies play out in society. Reality has a way of coming back to bite us.
Actually the opposite. I have good knowledge on a lot of these things as I have been studying this area for years. I have vast libraries on these topics.
To sum up how I believe society has changed more towards S&G is I read somewhere that if there was ever a society ready to accept Satan it would be todays Postmodernist one where there is no truth and everything is relative. Where people don't believe in sin any more. In fact Satan may even be celebrated as a celeb.
Wienstein, Epstein, Sounds of Freedom, the Dark Web and the other stories we hear that never get fully investigated. They are the little red flags as to what is really going on within the elites of power who govern us and pull the strings. This is the new low we have sunken to that would put any of the past to shame.
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
