Declining moral values

[Kalam]

Sorry, Scooter; you don't get to slander Islam by attempting to disown a group that follows your own depraved religion.

But those aren't REALLY Christians, right? Oh no no no. For Scooter does not like or agree with their actions, so he is able to single-handedly decide what religion they do or don't believe in.

That's what I take issue with. If a group claims to fight under the banner of Islam, they're automatically considered devout Muslims and the religion itself is decried as the source of all of their barbarity. If an ostensibly Christian group does something, however, they're shrugged off as "fake Christians" and their atrocities aren't given a second thought.

 

[Foxfyre]

You're right Foxfyre, Christianity is spread peacefully.

Just tell that to the slaughtered Indians who were forced to practice Christianity by having their entire heritage destroyed because of Christians trying to "save" their souls.

Personally? I think the Native Americans are closer to God than Christians.

Really? That's going on now? Where? I'll admit I was completely unaware of it and it is indefensible and it must be stopped immediately. Just like it was more than 400 years ago.

During the past 200 years you mean. 400 years ago, this country didn't exist.

Sigh. Please read up on your history and check the dates when the Conquistadors were raiding the southwest where all those Indian incidents took place. (I swear I wonder what really IS being taught in schools these days.)

The practice had long ended long before this country came into existence, and our Constitution, written by other 'evil Chrsitians' made that sort of thing illegal forever more.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

you are in error that Christianity was or has ever been 'spread by force'.

You keep telling people to read up on their history books, but I have to question what you're reading with statements like this, as it is incorrect. Most notably, the Salem witch trials, inquisition, and crusades are perfect examples of violent Christian history.

You were better off when you were backpedaling about "but the majority of Christian spread was peaceful". Believing Christianity is or never has been spread by force is just foolish. Under the guise of "saving souls", Christian armies engaged in pillaging, murder, and massacres.

Here's a wikipedia page you might want to drastically edit to fit your demented world view: Christianization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Father Time]

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans are three times more likely to describe the current state of moral values in the United States as "poor" than as "excellent" or "good." Americans' assessment of U.S. morality has never been positive, but the current ratings rank among the worst Gallup has measured over the past nine years.

Additionally, Gallup's annual poll on moral values, conducted May 3-6, finds 76% of Americans saying moral values in the United States are getting worse; while 14% say they are getting better. Last year saw a slight improvement in these attitudes -- with 21% saying values were getting better -- but opinion has since reverted to near 2006-2008 levels.

Teen pregnancy may be #19 on the list - but I believe it is a significant factor in at least half of all the others.

What say you?

I say that this is just another example of one generation bitching that the next generation is lazy/stupid/immoral/will wreck society.

This has been going on FOREVER.

Crime has hit a pretty big low in recent years so I'm really suspicious of claims that morality is at such a low.

Here's something from 2009 about it

http://reason.com/archives/2009/01/01/the-good-news-from-a-bad-year

 

[Foxfyre]

you are in error that Christianity was or has ever been 'spread by force'.

You keep telling people to read up on their history books, but I have to question what you're reading with statements like this, as it is incorrect. Most notably, the Salem witch trials, inquisition, and crusades are perfect examples of violent Christian history.

You were better off when you were backpedaling about "but the majority of Christian spread was peaceful". Believing Christianity is or never has been spread by force is just foolish. Under the guise of "saving souls", Christian armies engaged in pillaging, murder, and massacres.

Here's a wikipedia page you might want to drastically edit to fit your demented world view: Christianization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're missing the point. I have always acknowledged the Crusades, the Inquisition, the excesses of the Spanish when they settled the Southwest, the intolerant theocracies established by some of the early colonies, the Salem Witch trials, etc. etc. etc. There is no way to defend any of that and I certainly do not.

But while some of that enriched and expanded the authority and power of some opportunisitic monarchs and unscrupulous Church leaders, I would guess that nary a soul was made a Christian by any of those things. If anything, such tactics would make any normal person recoil from the Church and in fact that is what happened. During the Medieval crusades and Inquisition, the state of the church was quite dismal. The pope finally had to order people to show up at least once a year under threat of excommunication. The restrictive and unkind treatment of people by the more rigid colony church groups also drove people far away form the church. And I doubt now that many come to the faith by being told they're going to hell.

Christians become Christian through positive persuasion, attraction, and being introduced to the One who makes us Christian. And it is THAT and nothing else that accounts for there being more Christians than any other faith in the world. It is not to escape hell or fear of punishment or retribution that makes Christians but rather attraction to something quite wonderful.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Really? Positive persuasion is how Christians get followers?

Wanna explain Uganda and their kill the gays laws that were brought over by CHRISTIAN RIGHT GROUPS FROM AMERICA???????

Take your peace and love and shove it up your ass FoxFailure..........you've been shown otherwise. By the way, what about all those loving missionaries that would beat African children if they followed their previous belief system?

Some fucking "choice".

 

[Father Time]

If moral values are 'declining' when were moral values ever on the upswing?

Well back in our day when we were kids moral values were fine and we respected out elders. But these new kids have no moral values.

Now if this sounds like something that's been repeated by every generation since the dawn of time ... shut up.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If moral values are 'declining' when were moral values ever on the upswing?

Well back in our day when we were kids moral values were fine and we respected out elders. But these new kids have no moral values.

Now if this sounds like something that's been repeated by every generation since the dawn of time ... shut up.

What exactly was "moral" about your generation? Racism? Spouse abuse? Valium for the mothers at home?

Riiiiiight....................

Furthermore.........whose "morals" are you using? Yours? What makes your morals more "right" than others?

 

[Father Time]

If moral values are 'declining' when were moral values ever on the upswing?

Well back in our day when we were kids moral values were fine and we respected out elders. But these new kids have no moral values.

Now if this sounds like something that's been repeated by every generation since the dawn of time ... shut up.

What exactly was "moral" about your generation? Racism? Spouse abuse? Valium for the mothers at home?

Riiiiiight....................

Furthermore.........whose "morals" are you using? Yours? What makes your morals more "right" than others?

Your sarcasm meter is broken dude.

 

[Foxfyre]

Really? Positive persuasion is how Christians get followers?

Wanna explain Uganda and their kill the gays laws that were brought over by CHRISTIAN RIGHT GROUPS FROM AMERICA???????

Take your peace and love and shove it up your ass FoxFailure..........you've been shown otherwise. By the way, what about all those loving missionaries that would beat African children if they followed their previous belief system?

Some fucking "choice".

Who knows my friend. Perhaps some day the blindness that plagues you will be lifted and you'll be able to distinguish between a religious group or religious faith and a few bad apples within it. I hold out hope for you because you are able to do that with every leftwing group that you seemingly adore, and allow for their really dumb prejudices, so how can I be less than charitable about yours? So yes, there's hope. Hold fast to it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Christians as they are today are some of the more intolerant people that I've met.

They continually act smug about being saved, and then sit and tell you how to live so that you can get to the same place they've got a lock on.

Tao, Judaism, Hinduism..........none of those religions tell anyone else how to believe.

Christianity and Islam are the only 2 that I've found that are this way.

 

[Father Time]

Christians as they are today are some of the more intolerant people that I've met.

They continually act smug about being saved, and then sit and tell you how to live so that you can get to the same place they've got a lock on.

Tao, Judaism, Hinduism..........none of those religions tell anyone else how to believe.

Christianity and Islam are the only 2 that I've found that are this way.

I betcha anything if those religions were the majority they'd be the same way. In fact I betcha Hinduism is like that in India right now (although that's just a guess I've never been to India).

I don't even think it's a religious thing, so much as 'these people are acting differently, and that worries us'.

 

[Foxfyre]

Christians as they are today are some of the more intolerant people that I've met.

They continually act smug about being saved, and then sit and tell you how to live so that you can get to the same place they've got a lock on.

Tao, Judaism, Hinduism..........none of those religions tell anyone else how to believe.

Christianity and Islam are the only 2 that I've found that are this way.

I betcha anything if those religions were the majority they'd be the same way. In fact I betcha Hinduism is like that in India right now (although that's just a guess I've never been to India).

I don't even think it's a religious thing, so much as 'these people are acting differently, and that worries us'.

The majority Hindus of India were extremely intolerant of other faiths when Ghandi became a spiritual advisor there, and there were a number of violent skirmishes with Muslims and Buddhists in those days. Within the lore and legends springing up around Ghandi is the one where a Hindu man had killed the Muslim father of a small boy and was feeling remorse. Ghandi told the man that he was obligated to raise the boy as his own son, but he would raise him as a Muslim.

The point is, some folks like ABiker have probably had some bad experiences with Christians and have developed irrational prejudices as a result. Much of intolerance re races or other groups happen in the same way. Once you have chosen prejudice as the M.O., it is almost impossible to see it any other way.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You're missing the point. I have always acknowledged the Crusades, the Inquisition, the excesses of the Spanish when they settled the Southwest, the intolerant theocracies established by some of the early colonies, the Salem Witch trials, etc. etc. etc.

And you are missing the truth when you say things like: "you are in error that Christianity was or has ever been 'spread by force'.". This types of statements are false. Incorrect. Wrong. Not true. Contrary to what actually happened.

Now if you want to hand waive and claim the direct evidence against such statements is "missing the point", then why did YOU make that point in the first place?

But while some of that enriched and expanded the authority and power of some opportunisitic monarchs and unscrupulous Church leaders, I would guess that nary a soul was made a Christian by any of those things. If anything, such tactics would make any normal person recoil from the Church and in fact that is what happened. During the Medieval crusades and Inquisition, the state of the church was quite dismal. The pope finally had to order people to show up at least once a year under threat of excommunication. The restrictive and unkind treatment of people by the more rigid colony church groups also drove people far away form the church. And I doubt now that many come to the faith by being told they're going to hell.

Christians become Christian through positive persuasion, attraction, and being introduced to the One who makes us Christian. And it is THAT and nothing else that accounts for there being more Christians than any other faith in the world. It is not to escape hell or fear of punishment or retribution that makes Christians but rather attraction to something quite wonderful.

These ideas are called things such as: speculation, wishful thinking, delusional perspective, happy ignorance, excluding the disagreement, and so forth. This too is false. The purpose of the Inquisition was to uproot non-believers and force people in an area to pretend to be more devout than desired, under penalty of imprisonment or death.
Are you really so naive as to believe that Christian expansion through forceful, barbaric, and bloody means suddenly stopped the carnage to give people "free choice" about their religion? How foolish!

You yourself identified that it would most likely drive people away from the religion, so how is it that you think so many people were converted after such invasion if not by force and coercion?

Perhaps you should try reading that wikipedia page, as it very clearly describes several instances that show you to be incorrect.

 

[Foxfyre]

You're missing the point. I have always acknowledged the Crusades, the Inquisition, the excesses of the Spanish when they settled the Southwest, the intolerant theocracies established by some of the early colonies, the Salem Witch trials, etc. etc. etc.

And you are missing the truth when you say things like: "you are in error that Christianity was or has ever been 'spread by force'.". This types of statements are false. Incorrect. Wrong. Not true. Contrary to what actually happened.

Now if you want to hand waive and claim the direct evidence against such statements is "missing the point", then why did YOU make that point in the first place?

But while some of that enriched and expanded the authority and power of some opportunisitic monarchs and unscrupulous Church leaders, I would guess that nary a soul was made a Christian by any of those things. If anything, such tactics would make any normal person recoil from the Church and in fact that is what happened. During the Medieval crusades and Inquisition, the state of the church was quite dismal. The pope finally had to order people to show up at least once a year under threat of excommunication. The restrictive and unkind treatment of people by the more rigid colony church groups also drove people far away form the church. And I doubt now that many come to the faith by being told they're going to hell.

Christians become Christian through positive persuasion, attraction, and being introduced to the One who makes us Christian. And it is THAT and nothing else that accounts for there being more Christians than any other faith in the world. It is not to escape hell or fear of punishment or retribution that makes Christians but rather attraction to something quite wonderful.

These ideas are called things such as: speculation, wishful thinking, delusional perspective, happy ignorance, excluding the disagreement, and so forth. This too is false. The purpose of the Inquisition was to uproot non-believers and force people in an area to pretend to be more devout than desired, under penalty of imprisonment or death.
Are you really so naive as to believe that Christian expansion through forceful, barbaric, and bloody means suddenly stopped the carnage to give people "free choice" about their religion? How foolish!

You yourself identified that it would most likely drive people away from the religion, so how is it that you think so many people were converted after such invasion if not by force and coercion?

Perhaps you should try reading that wikipedia page, as it very clearly describes several instances that show you to be incorrect.

I made the point in the first place because it is accurate. You're trying to make the point that the bad acts by monarchs and church leaders attacking or punishing non-Christians, heretics, and sinners in the past was 'spreading Christianity'. It wasn't.

The closest thing that would fit your paradign would be a few really bad Catholic clerics promoting or tolerating some very bad things done to the Native Americans. But even that was the exception rather than the norm. What few Native Americans actually became Catholics is probably quite small. The Native Americans did sometimes like the pomp and ceremony and trappings of Catholicism, however, and incorporated some of that into their own native religions, but what they wound up with sure wasn't Roman Catholicism or probably even Chrsitianity.

I'm really sorry that your experience with Christianity has been so bad to cause you to despise it so. But history simply isn't on your side for this one.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I made the point in the first place because it is accurate. You're trying to make the point that the bad acts by monarchs and church leaders attacking or punishing non-Christians, heretics, and sinners in the past was 'spreading Christianity'. It wasn't.

The closest thing that would fit your paradign would be a few really bad Catholic clerics promoting or tolerating some very bad things done to the Native Americans. But even that was the exception rather than the norm. What few Native Americans actually became Catholics is probably quite small. The Native Americans did sometimes like the pomp and ceremony and trappings of Catholicism, however, and incorporated some of that into their own native religions, but what they wound up with sure wasn't Roman Catholicism or probably even Chrsitianity.

I'm really sorry that your experience with Christianity has been so bad to cause you to despise it so. But history simply isn't on your side for this one.

Please do not try to mislead a discussion of historical accuracy with a personal straw man argument regarding my experience with a religion. This is known as projection: you are being personally threatened and so believe the person making remarks contrary to your beliefs is being personally affected. This is not the case. My stance remains factual, not emotional or personal. You continue to propagate inaccurate historical references and hand waive facts in your delusional belief about this topic. I have provided links to sources which directly contradict your beliefs. You have offered no explanation.

I know you want to believe Christianity is blameless and perfect, but historically that is just not the case. It has used barbaric methods, terrorism, and favoritism incentivisation to force its beliefs upon others.

 

[Foxfyre]

I made the point in the first place because it is accurate. You're trying to make the point that the bad acts by monarchs and church leaders attacking or punishing non-Christians, heretics, and sinners in the past was 'spreading Christianity'. It wasn't.

The closest thing that would fit your paradign would be a few really bad Catholic clerics promoting or tolerating some very bad things done to the Native Americans. But even that was the exception rather than the norm. What few Native Americans actually became Catholics is probably quite small. The Native Americans did sometimes like the pomp and ceremony and trappings of Catholicism, however, and incorporated some of that into their own native religions, but what they wound up with sure wasn't Roman Catholicism or probably even Chrsitianity.

I'm really sorry that your experience with Christianity has been so bad to cause you to despise it so. But history simply isn't on your side for this one.

Please do not try to mislead a discussion of historical accuracy with a personal straw man argument regarding my experience with a religion. This is known as projection: you are being personally threatened and so believe the person making remarks contrary to your beliefs is being personally affected. This is not the case. My stance remains factual, not emotional or personal. You continue to propagate inaccurate historical references and hand waive facts in your delusional belief about this topic. I have provided links to sources which directly contradict your beliefs. You have offered no explanation.

I know you want to believe Christianity is blameless and perfect, but historically that is just not the case. It has used barbaric methods, terrorism, and favoritism incentivisation to force its beliefs upon others.

ROFL. You accuse me of projecting, after you had really beat up on Christianity in some detail and have yet to utter a single word to commend it? By your own words I did conclude that you have a great deal of angst or animosity toward Christianity, but I claim some justification for that by pointing to your posts my friend.

And THEN you accuse me of believing Christianity is blameless and perfect after I took some time and devotied some attention to detail to describe how it is not and has never been.

I suggest you stop digging the hole now. Your logic isn't going well for you.

 

[Anguille]

Really? Positive persuasion is how Christians get followers?

Wanna explain Uganda and their kill the gays laws that were brought over by CHRISTIAN RIGHT GROUPS FROM AMERICA???????

Take your peace and love and shove it up your ass FoxFailure..........you've been shown otherwise. By the way, what about all those loving missionaries that would beat African children if they followed their previous belief system?

Some fucking "choice".

Most Christians were brainwashed into it as defenseless children.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

ROFL. You accuse me of projecting, after you had really beat up on Christianity in some detail and have yet to utter a single word to commend it?

Incorrect. My remarks have been factual in nature. My intention has nothing to do with "beat[ing] up on Christianity". This is your assessment, which moves the discussion farther and farther from historical facts of this issue, which I have supported in detail, and you have continuously hand waived and provided ZERO counter evidence.

Other people in this thread have similarly provided evidence of these facts, which you have similarly claimed were invalid despite providing no actual support to anything you say.

The historical fact still remains that Christianity has been propagated in many instanced by force, coercive incentivisation, acts of terrorism, threats, and other violent methods. This is not a judgment on Christianity. This is a historically accurate representation of events, which I have referenced previously.

 

[Foxfyre]

ROFL. You accuse me of projecting, after you had really beat up on Christianity in some detail and have yet to utter a single word to commend it?

Incorrect. My remarks have been factual in nature. My intention has nothing to do with "beat[ing] up on Christianity". This is your assessment, which moves the discussion farther and farther from historical facts of this issue, which I have supported in detail, and you have continuously hand waived and provided ZERO counter evidence.

Other people in this thread have similarly provided evidence of these facts, which you have similarly claimed were invalid despite providing no actual support to anything you say.

The historical fact still remains that Christianity has been propagated in many instanced by force, coercive incentivisation, acts of terrorism, threats, and other violent methods. This is not a judgment on Christianity. This is a historically accurate representation of events, which I have referenced previously.

Sorry but you have not refuted my point of view with anything. Changing the question or the issue at hand doesn't work. Unless you can accurately address your opponent's point, you will lose a formal debate every single time. So sorry, unless you can accurately address the point I made and come up with some way to show that it is wrong, you lose. But thanks for not being too uncivil and do have a good night.