Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Do You Think America's Morality is Declining?

curling

New member
I would say yes. Just seeing the movies and shows from just 20 years ago you can see a big decline. The sex and violence has gotten much worse. Even the comedies are much more sex and vulgar humor than comedies just a few years ago. I mean take "The Sweetest Thing" in one part this chick was going to get married and Diaz told her don't worry if it doesn't work out just get a divorce. What a great message to send out to young people that may watch the film.

Then you got the other chick that gets a piercing stuck in her throat while giving head and police, neighbors and everyone is singing trying to get her to release her throat.

Then you have the homosexuality constantly bombarded on film. And everyone that is not a homo in the film saying it is perfectly ok to pratice homosexuality. In the old films this wouldn't have happened. Even beastiality(sp) is being pushed in movies which is sick and as perverted as you can get.

So what is your opinion has morality declined or stayed the same over the last 20 years?
 
Its just getting worse, in a decade, Starbucks' will be dumps, there will be an XXX movie theatre(gay hangouts) on every corner, massage parlores everywhere you look........Wait a second I'm describing Houston in the present, my bad. peace
 
havoc said:
Its just getting worse, in a decade, Starbucks' will be dumps, there will be an XXX movie theatre(gay hangouts) on every corner, massage parlores everywhere you look........Wait a second I'm describing Houston in the present, my bad. peace

You should come to Atlanta.. you can actually smell the ideals of our forefathers rotting. You can hear family values being flushed down the toilet. Atlanta is a filthy cess pool.
 
I think it is declining, but I also just believe that this is a byproduct of progress. You have to take the good with the bad. If these places strip clubs and massage parlors weren't allowed, that would mean we were regressing as a democracy and a free country, not giving people the right to earn a living any way they can. Other communist or religious fundamentalist nations haven't declined morally, but look where they are.

Would you rather have homosexuality flashed all over TV, or not allow women to go to school or show their face in public?
 
dballer said:

you can actually smell the ideals of our forefathers rotting.

Some of their ideals included slavery, and denying women the vote.

Separate but equal wenton until 1957. We are getting more moral, but we are focusing too much on trying to right wrongs of the past.
 
curling said:
Hasn't history shown when a nation's morality and family declines the nation will soon fail?

No.

(Well, yes, on Neptune that happened once. But it didn't involve people, it involved methane-breathing bacteria type creatures.)
 
MattTheSkywalker said:


Some of their ideals included slavery, and denying women the vote.

Separate but equal wenton until 1957. We are getting more moral, but we are focusing too much on trying to right wrongs of the past.

just wondering.. what kind of household you grew up in? I mean you seem so in touch with social issues.. Were you poor growing up? Did you have to work to put yourself through school? What did your parents do for a living?

To be so diverse.. you must have witnessed alot.

please fill me in.
 
dballer said:


just wondering.. what kind of household you grew up in? I mean you seem so in touch with social issues.. Were you poor growing up? Did you have to work to put yourself through school? What did your parents do for a living?

To be so diverse.. you must have witnessed alot.

please fill me in.

I'll indulge you.

I grew up on in New York City and on Long Island, NY. After my youngest brother was born, my Mom went back to work as a teacher. My Dad was middle management his whole life. never went to college. I grew up strictly middle class. Never starved, but never had vacations either. (Well, in 7th grade we all went to Disney world. But that was it)

I paid my own way through college with a basketball scholarship.
After college I joined the Army and became a Ranger.

I have lived in New Hampshire, North Carolina, Seattle, New Orleans, Crowley LA, South Florida, Atlanta, then back to NY. Recently I moved to Jacksonville. That's pretty diverse.

Anything else?
 
MattTheSkywalker said:


I'll indulge you.

I grew up on in New York City and on Long Island, NY. After my youngest brother was born, my Mom went back to work as a teacher. My Dad was middle management his whole life. never went to college. I grew up strictly middle class. Never starved, but never had vacations either. (Well, in 7th grade we all went to Disney world. But that was it)

I paid my own way through college with a basketball scholarship.
After college I joined the Army and became a Ranger.

I have lived in New Hampshire, North Carolina, Seattle, New Orleans, Crowley LA, South Florida, Atlanta, then back to NY. Recently I moved to Jacksonville. That's pretty diverse.

Anything else?



That still doesn't explain why you are so pompous...LOL
 
I still have no idea where all of this slavery shit comes from? Slavery was not a family value. That is an outside topic.

If you can honestly walk through the streets of Atlanta.. or turn on any major broadcast and tell me that this country.. (not fucking Canada) is not in a major deline when it comes to family values... then you are very mistaken and oneday.. if you ever have kids or you and your lover adopt them... you will be happy to know that some liberal like RyanH will teach him all about fisting and oral sex.... but then again.. I guess that is the stuff that you lobby for.
 
dballer said:
I still have no idea where all of this slavery shit comes from? Slavery was not a family value. That is an outside topic.

If you can honestly walk through the streets of Atlanta.. or turn on any major broadcast and tell me that this country.. (not fucking Canada) is not in a major deline when it comes to family values... then you are very mistaken and oneday.. if you ever have kids or you and your lover adopt them... you will be happy to know that some liberal like RyanH will teach him all about fisting and oral sex.... but then again.. I guess that is the stuff that you lobby for.

If you cannot swim, do not jump into the deep end. You might just get in over your head.
 
2Thick said:


If you cannot swim, do not jump into the deep end. You might just get in over your head.

Same thing applies when you live nowhere near a pool
 
dballer said:
I still have no idea where all of this slavery shit comes from? Slavery was not a family value. That is an outside topic.

If you can honestly walk through the streets of Atlanta.. or turn on any major broadcast and tell me that this country.. (not fucking Canada) is not in a major deline when it comes to family values... then you are very mistaken and oneday.. if you ever have kids or you and your lover adopt them... you will be happy to know that some liberal like RyanH will teach him all about fisting and oral sex.... but then again.. I guess that is the stuff that you lobby for.

I introduced slavery to show you that there has been some progress in moral issues. Slavery is immoral no matter how you slice it. Likewise, denying women full participation is government is immoral, and we fixed it 84 years ago. But anyway....

I just can't get on board with you here. You appear to have an image of "the good old days" when times were better.

But people have always been people. They have always been greedy and power hungry, and wanting to impose thir way on other people. There are no "good old days". The good old days is a propoaganda phenomenon designed by leaders who keep promising a return to them in order to pacify people. The good old days never existed.

Thi smetaphor works well, because the "good old days" brigns people back to tehir childhood, where (in most cases) people took care of them, there was a lot of time to play, etc. So people eat that "good old days" shit right up. You and I both know the adult world is not like that.

We can argue all days long about values. But we miss the point when we do that. Let's beging with this basic truth: People in power seek to keep that power .

In America, representatives from both parties are often corrupt, influenced by donors, etc. The two party system is a great way to keep those same people in power. Instead of blaming the corruption and influence buying that is so rampant, the right abnd left blame each other. The two party system is great because there is always an easy target.

it would be tougher if there were 6 parties. Real blame could come to the forefront.

So while you are sitting here blaming liberals for all the evils of society, ultra conservative Ashcroft is leading the charge to reduce civlil rights, conservative Bush is fomenting a war in Iraq that does not benefit the average American one bit, and Cheney is hiding under the rug because he made millions from these "bad people" in the Middle east.

This adminsitration is no better than the amoral asshole who lived at the white House for the prior 8 years. And it is exactly this 2-party stupidity that put his cunt wife in the Senate.

Instead of saying "we're losing the past" and blaming it one party, Americans need to get off their ass and do something about the present.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
Instead of saying "we're losing the past" and blaming it one party, Americans need to get off their ass and do something about the present.

AMEN!!!
 
The good ol days..

No things were diffrent. I am sure that you will agree that teen pregnacy was lower, STDs were not as common, kids did not have drug problems, murder rates were not as high, abortion rates were not as high, divorce was not as high, suicide rate was not as high, rape statistics were not as high..... I am not even gonna bring up what they incorporate into schools these days.

Changing.... for the worse..

hey Matt.. where was NAMB#* in 1967??? yeah.. we had racial problems in the south... but we did not have this kind of shit. Back then.. if NAMBL* came into our cities.. our father(who were still around back then) would have made sure that shit never came back.


Go ahead 2Thick.. prove me right and tell me racial tension is worse than molesting children... I know you will stick up for them.. go ahead.
 
dballer said:
The good ol days..

No things were diffrent. I am sure that you will agree that teen pregnacy was lower, STDs were not as common, kids did not have drug problems, murder rates were not as high, abortion rates were not as high, divorce was not as high, suicide rate was not as high, rape statistics were not as high..... I am not even gonna bring up what they incorporate into schools these days.


Think about what you are saying.

You mentioned 1967. Drug use was legendary in the 1960's. It was so legendary, that drugs became a symbol for what was wrong with this country, and led to the drug war. So I doubt the drug use rate was lower in the 60's. It doesn't make sense.

Were people not fucking in the 1960's? STD's were just as high as they are today. Why would they be lower? Did 20 year old guys not want to fuck everything in sight? Did girls not want to have sex? Doesn't make sense.

Rape, murder, etc. These things have been around since the dawn of man. Why would they be different "back then?" People have been slaughtering each other since forever. why wopuld they have been different in America.

hey Matt.. where was NAMB#* in 1967??? yeah.. we had racial problems in the south... but we did not have this kind of shit. Back then.. if NAMBL* came into our cities.. our father(who were still around back then) would have made sure that shit never came back.

NAM%$# did not invent child molestation. This was actually a big part of the original greek Olympics, and common in the Roman empire. If you want a really detailed colorful of history of men abusing boys, look at the Catholic Church over the last 1000 years. Where were the parents then? As sick as it is, it has been going on forever.


Dballer - none of these problems are new, or unique to today's American society. Drugs, sex, murder, child molestation have all been part of every human society forever. Single motherhood was not invented in America at the turn of the millennium.

The only thing that is different is that today, we have the ability to spread information instantly to millions of people. Those in power love that, because it allows rulers to galvanize "subjects" behnd things like a "war on drugs" or, in your case, "returning to the good old days".

The government loves the 'good old days' metaphor. Just give them a few more dollars, or one new tax, and they can take us all back to those good old days.

Stop believing the propganda. The government - conservatives and liberals alike - is robbing us blind.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:


I introduced slavery to show you that there has been some progress in moral issues. Slavery is immoral no matter how you slice it. Likewise, denying women full participation is government is immoral, and we fixed it 84 years ago. But anyway....


Matt, I agree with what you are saying in general, so this is not an argument, just a question. This might be a case of semantics though. What does "immoral" mean? Sure, denying women the right to vote was wrong, but was it "immoral?"

By what set of morals is everyone allowed the right to vote?
 
bigguns7 said:


Matt, I agree with what you are saying in general, so this is not an argument, just a question. This might be a case of semantics though. What does "immoral" mean? Sure, denying women the right to vote was wrong, but was it "immoral?"

By what set of morals is everyone allowed the right to vote?

Whenever the policies chosen by the elected representatives affect ALL adult citizens, ALL adult citizens should have the right to vote.

Woemn were affected by the policies, as such, they should be allowed to vote.

More logic than morals I guess.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:


Think about what you are saying.






Would you like to wager on my statistics???

Would you like to make a bet on the % of drug abuse in children from 1967 compared to now?

% of STD's per person, # of rapes comitted? all of it?

I DID NOT say that 1967 was perfect.. but since that time.. there has been a steady decline. Especially in family values.

as far as liberals and conservs... it is the liberal point of view that is causing this decline and the conservative money funding it.


back to the statistics... please let me know and I will spend MY time doing the research. You put up the cash and I will put up the stats.
 
I agree wholeheartedly with dballer.
 
this is what I said.... : No things were diffrent. I am sure that you will agree that teen pregnacy was lower, STDs were not as common, kids did not have drug problems, murder rates were not as high, abortion rates were not as high, divorce was not as high, suicide rate was not as high, rape statistics were not as high..... I am not even gonna bring up what they incorporate into schools these days.

Changing.... for the worse..

hey Matt.. where was NAMB#* in 1967??? yeah.. we had racial problems in the south... but we did not have this kind of shit. Back then.. if NAMBL* came into our cities.. our father(who were still around back then) would have made sure that shit never came back.








this is what you said.... : Think about what you are saying.

You mentioned 1967. Drug use was legendary in the 1960's. It was so legendary, that drugs became a symbol for what was wrong with this country, and led to the drug war. So I doubt the drug use rate was lower in the 60's. It doesn't make sense.

Were people not fucking in the 1960's? STD's were just as high as they are today. Why would they be lower? Did 20 year old guys not want to fuck everything in sight? Did girls not want to have sex? Doesn't make sense.

Rape, murder, etc. These things have been around since the dawn of man. Why would they be different "back then?" People have been slaughtering each other since forever. why wopuld they have been different in America.




Would you like to bet money.. point for point I can prove to you that the statistics on 2001 are worse on EVERY point than the stats of 1967???
 
dballer said:

Would you like to bet money.. point for point I can prove to you that the statistics on 2001 are worse on EVERY point than the stats of 1967???

In the words of Benjamin D'Israeli (quoted by Mark Twain) There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statstics

The stats are inconclusive. How could there be accurate stats on drug use if it wasn't a crime, or if cops were more likely to look the other way? How can there be stats on STD's when people might not even know they have one? The number of people in the US with AIDS isn't even known today.

How can we compare abortions in 1967 when it was illegal and today, when it is legal?

Rather than a bunch of "best guess" numbers that are in all likelihood skewed by incomplete nature of statstical reporting, just show me societal factors that would dictate a change in human behavior.

what was different then?
 
you could have just said.. "Nah.. I don't want to bet."

But I will give you 10 points for being creative.

common logic proves me right on this point. Go back and reread your argument to my comments, it looks like somthing RyanH would say.
 
All I know is in 1967 a dime bag was just that...a dime! LMAO!!!

You got a big ol baggy of herb the size of a supersize cheerios box for 20 bucks. Now it costs 20 bucks just to smell the smoke from someone elses joint!!!

Damn shame....
 
WODIN said:
All I know is in 1967 a dime bag was just that...a dime! LMAO!!!

You got a big ol baggy of herb the size of a supersize cheerios box for 20 bucks. Now it costs 20 bucks just to smell the smoke from someone elses joint!!!

Damn shame....

Like I said.....

DECLINE!!!!!!!
 
MattTheSkywalker said:


In the words of Benjamin D'Israeli (quoted by Mark Twain) There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statstics

The stats are inconclusive. How could there be accurate stats on drug use if it wasn't a crime, or if cops were more likely to look the other way? How can there be stats on STD's when people might not even know they have one? The number of people in the US with AIDS isn't even known today.

How can we compare abortions in 1967 when it was illegal and today, when it is legal?

Rather than a bunch of "best guess" numbers that are in all likelihood skewed by incomplete nature of statstical reporting, just show me societal factors that would dictate a change in human behavior.

what was different then?

Agreed (refer to my sig below).

Dballer, in the 60's people wouldn't know genital warts if they appeared on their face. It is a matter of education and of more open sexuality. A higher percentage of Americans today have an STD only because a higher percentage know what STD's are, and because in today's society people are more apt to talk to their doctors about it and seek treatment.

With abortions, there was no effective means of measuring the number of abortions in the 60's because they were not legal, they were not as readily available, and they were kept quiet. You can't pretend to believe that people didn't fuck as much 30 years ago.

The "statistics" back up your points because everything today is a poll. There are statistics on everything in life now, but it wasn't that way back then. There weren't more gay people back then, it's just that now it's okay or even cool to be gay.

Society has CHANGED, but it has not declined.
 
bigguns7 said:


Agreed (refer to my sig below).

Dballer, in the 60's people wouldn't know genital warts if they appeared on their face. It is a matter of education and of more open sexuality. A higher percentage of Americans today have an STD only because a higher percentage know what STD's are, and because in today's society people are more apt to talk to their doctors about it and seek treatment.

With abortions, there was no effective means of measuring the number of abortions in the 60's because they were not legal, they were not as readily available, and they were kept quiet. You can't pretend to believe that people didn't fuck as much 30 years ago.

The "statistics" back up your points because everything today is a poll. There are statistics on everything in life now, but it wasn't that way back then. There weren't more gay people back then, it's just that now it's okay or even cool to be gay.

Society has CHANGED, but it has not declined.

It is safe to say I disagree with almost everything you have said with the exception of abortion.

I guess if you are not Christian.... or if you are another religion or a satanist it is not declining.
 
dballer said:


It is safe to say I disagree with almost everything you have said with the exception of abortion.

I guess if you are not Christian.... or if you are another religion or a satanist it is not declining.

Do you disagree that there were just as many gay people in the 60's? Do you disagree that people were less educated about STD's and sex in general? Do you disagree that we perform so many more polls these days and that statistics are much more a part of our everyday lives than they were back then? If so, please explain why, because I find all of these observations to be very true.
 
dballer said:


I guess if you are not Christian....

Are you a Christian? is that what guides your morality?
 
dballer said:


I guess if you are not Christian....

KKK members claimed to be "Christians," how much of what they did was "moral?"

And what made you say that in response to my post. What would lead you to believe that I wasn't Christian?
 
bigguns7 said:


KKK members claimed to be "Christians," how much of what they did was "moral?"

And what made you say that in response to my post. What would lead you to believe that I wasn't Christian?

That was not reffering to you.. not at all.



I think Matt might be Jewish so his idea of right and wrong could be defiled due to religion. Sometimes people of diffrent religions have diffrent ideas of values and morals.


There are WAY more fags now than back in the 60's. Jesus.. do you think they would ever let a fag teach a kindergarten class in 1967?? I doubt it.. we have welcomed perversion into our homes and into the lives of children.
 
dballer said:

There are WAY more fags now than back in the 60's. Jesus.. do you think they would ever let a fag teach a kindergarten class in 1967?? I doubt it.. we have welcomed perversion into our homes and into the lives of children.

There are way more people who are openly gay, probably not way more people who actually are gay. Like I said, it is now easier to be gay, but it's not more common. Some people would argue that it was "immoral" back then to deny someone the right to teach because of their sexual orientation. To speak in Christian terms, it is "immoral" not to "love thy neighbor as thy self." To keep a person from a livelihood as a teacher because of their sexual orientation is not "loving thy neighbor" at all. Wouldn't you agree?
 
MattTheSkywalker said:


Whenever the policies chosen by the elected representatives affect ALL adult citizens, ALL adult citizens should have the right to vote.

Woemn were affected by the policies, as such, they should be allowed to vote.

More logic than morals I guess.

This is where we disagree, MATT. I favor the views of the Founders, who agreed not to guarantee the complete concept of a democracy, and chose to only allow landowners the right to vote. Madison predicted the fact that a property-less (non-workers, social dependants, etc.) would increase in number over time and threaten the concept of property ownership, as occurs everyday when a new tax is presented which is passed to fund some social program.

While I don't think that land ownership is applicable today, something more on the lines of simply having a job would be acceptable, and it must be given to all genders and races, but complete democracies are simply mob rule, as can be seen today.

I don't have it on hand, but Alexander Tyler's quote on the progression of democracies perfectly illustrates this scenario.
 
bigguns7 said:


There are way more people who are openly gay, probably not way more people who actually are gay. Like I said, it is now easier to be gay, but it's not more common. Some people would argue that it was "immoral" back then to deny someone the right to teach because of their sexual orientation. To speak in Christian terms, it is "immoral" not to "love thy neighbor as thy self." To keep a person from a livelihood as a teacher because of their sexual orientation is not "loving thy neighbor" at all. Wouldn't you agree?


BigGuns7....


God is perfect and can forgive.. I cannot. I cannot see past those traits. check this out.. I gotta go home for the day.. but this is why I do not agree. I think homosexuals are a abomination of the Christian religion. The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is as clear and plain as the Bible's condemnation of murder, adultery, premarital sex, kidnapping, lying and idolatry. Further, for me to openly condemn homosexuality theologically makes me no more a "gay basher" than I am an "adultery basher", "premarital sex basher", "kidnapper basher" or a "murderer basher". If you disagree, your argument is with God's Bible.




The homosexual community has two ways of promoting their personal choices of being homosexual through the religious forum. First, some will claim the Bible actually promotes and condones homosexuality. Second, others try to get the Bible banned from public use by categorizing it as hate literature.

For any to use the Bible to condone rather than condemn homosexual activity in the theological arena just proves such a one has absolutely no idea what the Bible actually teaches. For anyone to suggest the Bible says homosexual activity is acceptable to God, is nothing short of willful blindness. So to set the record straight once and for all, here is what the Bible teaches on the subject.

Anyone who has heard of the cities of "Sodom and Gommorah" knows that they were notorious hotbeds of homosexuality. Gen 19:5-8 "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, 'Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.'" The Greek word in the New Testament for homosexuality is literally "a sodomite". Jock is trying to redefine what the term "sodomite" means. (A term that has unchanged in 5000 years, even today- "sodomy") Apart from the fact the city was clearly destroyed by God because of homosexuality in the narrative of Gen 19, even the New Testament clearly states exactly the same thing in Jude 7 "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." Any sinner should always remember that the God who commands us to love our neighbour is the same God who will cast any and all unrepentant sinners into the "eternal fire". Here are more Bible quotes, Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers" Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

If the homosexual community chooses to practice homosexuality in privacy, that is there free choice. But let such persons know for certain that the Christian Bible condemns all such practices.
 
dballer said:


I think Matt might be Jewish so his idea of right and wrong could be defiled due to religion. Sometimes people of diffrent religions have diffrent ideas of values and morals.

There are WAY more fags now than back in the 60's. Jesus.. do you think they would ever let a fag teach a kindergarten class in 1967?? I doubt it.. we have welcomed perversion into our homes and into the lives of children.

I'm not Jewish. Jesus was a rabbi though.

All the early Christians were Jews. Among the early Christians, teh more Jewish ancestry you had, the better. It was the Roman Empire that fostered the schism between Jews and Christians in order to serve their political purposes.

Do you know a lot of church history dballer?
 
MattTheSkywalker said:


I'm not Jewish. Jesus was a rabbi though.

All the early Christians were Jews. Among the early Christians, teh more Jewish ancestry you had, the better. It was the Roman Empire that fostered the schism between Jews and Christians in order to serve their political purposes.

Do you know a lot of church history dballer?

No I do not know alot of church history. I was born Catholic and denouced that quickly.. I went to some Babtist churces when I moved to the south.. but I felt all of it was someone elses view of what the religion was intended to be. I read the Bible and make my views from there.

All it takes is a little reading to figure out that homosexuals have no place in the Christian religion.

I am not trying to say all of them are bad.. but I AM trying to say all of them are midguided lost souls.
 
dballer said:


No I do not know alot of church history. I was born Catholic and denouced that quickly.. I went to some Babtist churces when I moved to the south.. but I felt all of it was someone elses view of what the religion was intended to be. I read the Bible and make my views from there.



if you didn;t like the Catholic church, or Baptist, why did you seek your spiritual answers in the Bible, which is basically the guiding principle behind those religions?
 
MattTheSkywalker said:



if you didn;t like the Catholic church, or Baptist, why did you seek your spiritual answers in the Bible, which is basically the guiding principle behind those religions?

I am on my way out of the office...

but I did not feel like I needed another mortal man to get to God. In the Catholic church.. it is like a cult or some weird satanic cult.. I did not like it at all.

Baptist was more of my liking.. but here in the south it is a big money thing.. I did not like that.

I still go to Church sometimes though.. but I go to the Churches where they hold snakes and drink strychnine.
 
dballer said:


BigGuns7....

God is perfect and can forgive.. I cannot. I cannot see past those traits. check this out.. I gotta go home for the day.. but this is why I do not agree. I think homosexuals are a abomination of the Christian religion. The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is as clear and plain as the Bible's condemnation of murder, adultery, premarital sex, kidnapping, lying and idolatry. Further, for me to openly condemn homosexuality theologically makes me no more a "gay basher" than I am an "adultery basher", "premarital sex basher", "kidnapper basher" or a "murderer basher". If you disagree, your argument is with God's Bible.

This still has nothing to do with the fact that the number of gay people in the world has not really changed significantly.

But, since we're getting biblical here, here's what I have to say about what you said:

Perhaps the Bible does say that homosexuality is an abomination. Perhaps it is God's word. But, we must let God and only God sit in the throne of judgement. Who are you to judge these people? Who are you to condemn those whose beliefs don't coincide with your own? If you want to talk about God's word, let's talk about my prior statements.

The Bible says, "Love thy neighbor as you love thyself." No where does this exclude homosexuals or adulterers. These people will be judged when their time comes, but no where in the Bible does God enlist YOU in a crusade to rid the general public of all things homosexual or adulterous. No where does he enlist you to stop adulterers from taking office or gays from teaching school.

So let's not use some parts of the scripture to back up arguments and then forget others. You too are acting against God's word, so you are thereby contributing to what you call the nation's declining morality.

I'm not saying you're a hate monger or a racist or a bigot, I'm saying if you want to talk like a Christian, you should project a positive image like all Christains should. Live your life and let God sort 'em out.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:



if you didn;t like the Catholic church, or Baptist, why did you seek your spiritual answers in the Bible, which is basically the guiding principle behind those religions?

I was raised Catholic for 18 years. Do you really want to stand on your position that Catholicism is Christian, or more to the fact remotely Christian in today's world?
 
curling said:
Hasn't history shown when a nation's morality and family declines the nation will soon fail?


you are mistaking morality with economy & military.

rome was reaaaaaaaly amoral when it was a world power.
 
cockdezl said:


I was raised Catholic for 18 years. Do you really want to stand on your position that Catholicism is Christian, or more to the fact remotely Christian in today's world?

The roots are the same. It all dates back to a Jewish guy named Jesus approx 2000 years ago who was pissed off at Jewish leaders for being in bed with the Romans.

Here's a newflash: that "Jesus is God" stuff didn't appear until about 150 or so AD. Jesus never said he was God.

Here we go. Rome demanded total fealty from its subjects. Jews were tough to govern, and Rome recognized that Jesus was a leader that a lot of Jews gravititated toward. This is why they killed him - don't believe that Pontius Pilate handwashing stuff. Jesus was executed by the Romans.

The mocking of Jesus as "King of the Jews" was done to show other Jews who would try to speak out againt Rome that they would get the same "nailed to the wood treatemnt."

During his lifetime, Jesus had very real Jewish followers. These discples really did go out and spread that word of Jesus to other Jews. Think of Jesus as a "Jewish fundamentalist".

However, it is forbidden for Jews to proselytize. They don't seek converts, (though it is requried if you marry a Jew.) Jews do try to get "lapsed jews" back into the faith; to re-kindle the fire of those who have stopped practicing. Jesus' original followers (all Jews) went out to seek to get other Jews to believe in Jesus' message, which was Stop kissing Roman ass. You are first a Jew then a subject of the Roman empire

As the belief in Jesus's teachings grew, people like Paul, not a Jew, took it to Greece and other places seeking covnerts. Paul pretty much just made up his own version of the teachings in order to gain his own followers and gain influence.

Many of the early non-Jew jesus followers (such as Paul) just adapted local custom into the teachings of Jesus in order to gather more converts and followers. (The Church continued this practice for a long time, hence the Christmas tree and easter Bunny, but, some other time on those) That's right, they just made it up to get numbers into the church.

Most of Jesus' earliest fiollowers were (obviously) Jews. Already having some problems with the Jews, Rome sought to isolate them from the remaidner of its empire, throughout which Paul and his ilk had created numerous converts.

Rome saw this new set of teachings as a real threat. So Rome courted the non-Jew converts, and immediately began to slice them off fom the Jews. (divide and conquer - recall that the jews were tough to govern).

As this slicing off continued, the idea of jesus as Messiah came into being, since it was known teat the jews could not accept it.
Rome used teh concept of Jesus as Messiah to strengthen iots own rule. This reached its apex with Chrsitnaity being named the official sdtate relgion.

This is why teh church headqurters was moved to Rome - to align the government with the religion. Nowhere in eeh Bible does it say "Rome" and the earliest followers (jews) would have never gone there.

So have a nice day.
 
bigguns7 said:


Matt, I agree with what you are saying in general, so this is not an argument, just a question. This might be a case of semantics though. What does "immoral" mean? Sure, denying women the right to vote was wrong, but was it "immoral?"

By what set of morals is everyone allowed the right to vote?

Finally!

Anyway, if anyone here is actually interested in learning anything you will turn off the computer and go read The Way We Never Were by Stephanie Coontz.
 
bigguns7 said:


This still has nothing to do with the fact that the number of gay people in the world has not really changed significantly.

But, since we're getting biblical here, here's what I have to say about what you said:

Perhaps the Bible does say that homosexuality is an abomination. Perhaps it is God's word. But, we must let God and only God sit in the throne of judgement. Who are you to judge these people? Who are you to condemn those whose beliefs don't coincide with your own? If you want to talk about God's word, let's talk about my prior statements.

The Bible says, "Love thy neighbor as you love thyself." No where does this exclude homosexuals or adulterers. These people will be judged when their time comes, but no where in the Bible does God enlist YOU in a crusade to rid the general public of all things homosexual or adulterous. No where does he enlist you to stop adulterers from taking office or gays from teaching school.


lets put it this way dude.. I see where you are coming from.. and you ARE in fact right.

Here are a few things you may want to consider...
I as a American citizen do not HAVE to sit by and let things happen I do not like. Christian or not.. this is supposed to be a democracy. I do not have to live next door to someone I do not like. I do not have to let my kids go to school with a teacher who I feel COULD be a pervert. I have these rights as a human being. That does not give me the right to say "You may not spread AIDS and have sex with other men" They can do whatever they want.. and do it with a smile on their face. I do not have to be near it, like it or let my family be subjected to it.

I do not have a problem with a gay man.. at all.. until his sexual preference comes into the equaision. Does it have to? That is up to them.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:


The roots are the same. It all dates back to a Jewish guy named Jesus approx 2000 years ago who was pissed off at Jewish leaders for being in bed with the Romans.

Here's a newflash: that "Jesus is God" stuff didn't appear until about 150 or so AD. Jesus never said he was God.

Here we go. Rome demanded total fealty from its subjects. Jews were tough to govern, and Rome recognized that Jesus was a leader that a lot of Jews gravititated toward. This is why they killed him - don't believe that Pontius Pilate handwashing stuff. Jesus was executed by the Romans.

The mocking of Jesus as "King of the Jews" was done to show other Jews who would try to speak out againt Rome that they would get the same "nailed to the wood treatemnt."

During his lifetime, Jesus had very real Jewish followers. These discples really did go out and spread that word of Jesus to other Jews. Think of Jesus as a "Jewish fundamentalist".

However, it is forbidden for Jews to proselytize. They don't seek converts, (though it is requried if you marry a Jew.) Jews do try to get "lapsed jews" back into the faith; to re-kindle the fire of those who have stopped practicing. Jesus' original followers (all Jews) went out to seek to get other Jews to believe in Jesus' message, which was Stop kissing Roman ass. You are first a Jew then a subject of the Roman empire

As the belief in Jesus's teachings grew, people like Paul, not a Jew, took it to Greece and other places seeking covnerts. Paul pretty much just made up his own version of the teachings in order to gain his own followers and gain influence.

Many of the early non-Jew jesus followers (such as Paul) just adapted local custom into the teachings of Jesus in order to gather more converts and followers. (The Church continued this practice for a long time, hence the Christmas tree and easter Bunny, but, some other time on those) That's right, they just made it up to get numbers into the church.

Most of Jesus' earliest fiollowers were (obviously) Jews. Already having some problems with the Jews, Rome sought to isolate them from the remaidner of its empire, throughout which Paul and his ilk had created numerous converts.

Rome saw this new set of teachings as a real threat. So Rome courted the non-Jew converts, and immediately began to slice them off fom the Jews. (divide and conquer - recall that the jews were tough to govern).

As this slicing off continued, the idea of jesus as Messiah came into being, since it was known teat the jews could not accept it.
Rome used teh concept of Jesus as Messiah to strengthen iots own rule. This reached its apex with Chrsitnaity being named the official sdtate relgion.

This is why teh church headqurters was moved to Rome - to align the government with the religion. Nowhere in eeh Bible does it say "Rome" and the earliest followers (jews) would have never gone there.

So have a nice day.

Come on, Bible beaters. Read the truth. embrace your fraud.
 
Matt, Jesus did say he was the Son of God remember the last supper when Jesus was washing the diciples feet?

Btw,

Matt just what do you believe. It sounds like you have problems with the Christian faith yet you take up for Jews which Christ was. So what do you actually believe and I too like dballer would like to see you prove your statements.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:



if you didn;t like the Catholic church, or Baptist, why did you seek your spiritual answers in the Bible, which is basically the guiding principle behind those religions?

Since I believe that the manuscript (Bible) is the only guiding foundation for Christianity, I disagree that Catholicism is currently Christian. You stated that it is the principle that it is based on, but only in very few words and essentially no action. Simply because the characters are the same does not mean that it is equivalent.

"The Two Babylons" by Hislop is a good reference on the bastardization of Christianity into Catholicism. Not to mention "Goodbye, Good Men" by Rose.
 
cockdezl said:


Since I believe that the manuscript (Bible) is the only guiding foundation for Christianity, I disagree that Catholicism is currently Christian. You stated that it is the principle that it is based on, but only in very few words and essentially no action. Simply because the characters are the same does not mean that it is equivalent.



PRECISE!!!
 
2Thick said:


I think you meant to say precisely, but that is close enough.

no.. I did not.. but thank you for making me laugh again RyanH.
 
curling said:
Matt, Jesus did say he was the Son of God remember the last supper when Jesus was washing the diciples feet?

Btw,

Matt just what do you believe. It sounds like you have problems with the Christian faith yet you take up for Jews which Christ was. So what do you actually believe and I too like dballer would like to see you prove your statements.

Curling, you are seriously brainwashed.

Everything Matt has said is true. Pontius Pilate was just the
Roman Prefect of Judea. Jesus was challenging his power.
So, in typical roman fashion, he killed him.

He was NOT a deity by ANY stretch of the imagination.
He was simply ONE man trying to get his fellow jews
to not go the way of the romans.

Thats it.

Sometimes, I get the impression jesus was used as a marketing
tool to spread the jewish faith so to speak.

Truth be told, the human race will not evolve into the next
stage of human evolution until we've done away with formal religion.

Look at us. Even now, people still believe in that BULLSHIT
when there are literally THOUSANDS of texts that prove jesus
is no god. Thats what we call selective BULLSHITING in
academic circles.

Fonz
 
dballer said:


can you prove that what you posted is the truth?

well, I am going to try.


In order to attempt this, we have to establish some truths, and set up a background.

1. Jesus was a Jew, and was addressed as rabbi, or teacher. (whether you believe in his divinity or not, he was raised by Jewish parents in the jewish tradition)

2. Jews had been around for several thousand years before Jesus. In approx 700 BC, the Assyrians (under King Sennachrib) destroyed 10 of teh 12 Jewish tribes. (The so called lost tribes) However, Sennachrib was unable to destroy Jerusalem. The Jewish king Hezekiah repelled the conquering forces.

2a. This repulsion strengthened the Jewish faith so much that when Senachrib's son, Nebuchadnezzar, captured Jeruslaem and enslaved the Jews, Jews believed that God would lead them to freedom

2b. Jews value education. They still do. (Lot of Jewish docs, lawyers and accoutnants, right? Jews value education.) Because of this, Jews knew the area and udnerstood the trade routes very well. They had value to the Romans as other than just slaves. They spoke multiple languages and could interact with numerous peoples.

3. Since Jews had been through a lot as a culture before Rome came along, they were pretty tough. Their resistance to the Romans is widely known - modern day Mossad agents take their oaths at the spot where Jews fought off the Romans for months (This is the equivalent of a tiny country like Honduras fighting off the US forces for months)

4. Jews, at the time of Jesus's birth, were subjects to the Roman empire. Rome demanded total fealty from its subjects.

4a. Jews were not typical subjects. Their knowledge of trade routes, and multiple languages gave them unique value to Rome.

5. Some Jews exploited this value to curry favor with Rome.


Not much to debate above.


Jesus comes along

1. No Jew would ever say they are God. It is incomprehensible that a man could holy, according to Jews. Only God can be holy in the Jewish faith. Jews believe that the Messiah will come at the end of the world.

1a. The Bible quotes Jesus as referring to himself as the "Son of man" as well as the "Son of God". This is common for Jews. Jews use teh expression "Son of man, Son of God" to refer to the fact that they are people that believe in God and His laws, but that they are inhabitants of Earth. There is nothing controversial about this.


2. Jesus definitely had followers. His followers were all Jews. Np jew would believe in a man who says he is God. If the jews who followed him believed that it was the end of the world, and that the Jesus was the Messiah, the belief in Him would have dissipated soon after his death, when the world didn't end.

3. It is forbidden for Jews to proselytize, or to seek converts. You won't see Jews going door to door handing out pamphlets.

4. So if a Jew wouldn't follow a Man who claimed to be God, why did Jesus have followers?

Well, as mentioend before, there were Jews who had used their knowledge of commerce routes and multiple languages to curry favor with Rome. Jesus most likely spoke against these guys.

5. Jews don't believe in an afterlife. So they don't like to be occupied or subjugated. Speaking against Rome would have created a following among Jews. This is most likely exactly what happened.

6. Speaking against Rome is not a good way to make friends with the higher ups. Rome knew that the jews were hard to govern. Educated people always are. So when Jesus came along and started saying "rome sucks", Rome noticed right away. Rome didn't want to take the chances that the Jews would make trouble.

This is why the Romans executed Jesus, and mocked him as the King of the Jews: to discourage followers.


Jesus is dead, now what?


1. Jesus's followers did exactly what he told them: spread his message. And to whom did they spread it? To other Jews. If his followers had tried to tell other Jews that Jesus was the Messiah, they would have been lauhged at. it is contrary to everything Jews believe in. They would have been discredited and that would be that. The movement would be over.

(little known fact: throughout the history of Jews, there have been others who claimed that they were the messiah. None of them ever gained momentum)

So why did this message spread? Because the message wasn't "God has become man". The message was "Be true to your Jewish self. The Roman captivity will pass, as did the Egyptian and Babylonian captivities.

This message would resonate with Jews.

This message would also resonate with anyone else under the Roman occupation. This was pretty much everyone that could be easily reached.


The early church:

Rome was growing very fast. Jesus' message (fuck you Rome) had spread beyond the Jews and was now being acceopted by others. Paul (not a Jew) was making some headway on with teh Greeks. Paul wanted to be aleadre against the Romans.

To reach non-jews, Paul had to change the message. No non-Jew would accept the words of a jew. So Paul began to work around that "Jew" thing, in order to attract followers.
Many scholars refer to the early church as the "Pauline Church" for this reason. Paul was ersponsible for the "Jesus is God" stuff, largely to attract converts. As a consequence of this belief, Jews distanced themselves from thisd movement.

Thus began the schism, the turning away of the Jesus movement from Jews. Rome recognized how fast this movement was growing. As Rome struggled to keep up with its own growth, it had to placate all of those who had come to believe in this movement, and defuse a lot of the hostility toward Rome engendered by the movement.

So Rome adopted Christianity as the official state relgion. At the time, Rome was celebrating a festival called "Saturnalia" at the end of its year. Well, Romans liked the festival, but as part of the new "state religion" thing, they changed the reason for the festival to "Christmas", and celebrated Jesus's birth.

The church also moved itself to Rome. It is incomprehensible that a movement staretd by Jews, as this clearly was, would ever centralize at the seat of an occupying power. By the time that occurred, teh movement had been bastardized.


The church and the jews:

The church has a long history of antt-Judiasm. St Augustine railed against the Jews, saying that "they must survive, but never thrive". The Crusades resulted in a lot of jews getting killed, as did the Inqusition. (Fully one-third of Columbus's ships were Jews, escaping the Inquisition).

Hitler used the anti- Jewish railings of Martin Luther to fuel the SS, and in coutnries such as Poland, local Catholics had rounded the Jews up in order to present them to the approaching germans.

Why all this hatred? Because the jews were the one thing that stood out as the obvious flaw in the church's teachings. The church had to discredit Jews as much as possible. By discrediting the Jews, the church legitimized itslef. By eliminating the Jews, the church would have no group that could point out the total fraud to the church's origin. This is why there are so many effots made by the church to kill Jews.

Chrsitainty is rooted in Jews. Jews didn;t reject Jesus. The church rejected jews.

I am done. I hope you will do your own research and learn more.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:



Chrsitainty is rooted in Jews. Jews didn;t reject Jesus. The church rejected jews.

I am done. I hope you will do your own research and learn more.

I am going to copy.. and print the above post (edited for space reasons) and go home over the weekend and look into each point. I will post about it on Monday.. alot of it does not seem right to me.. but I do not have anything on hand to cross reference.. so I will do it this weekend.

I do give you props even if all that is false for memorizing all of those jewish names.
 
Fonz,

Do you ever think that it is you that have been brainwashed? If my faith is correct, then their is an evil dude names satan that tries to come up with every lie imaginable to decieve the masses to join him in his fate(misery loves company ya know) So he would stoop at nothing to come with some bs books that tell lies about what Jesus did and what he was here to do.

Just curious what is the next phase of man's evolution becuase I have been look for some ape turning into man and I just haven't seen it(him) whatever walking around yet have you?
 
curling said:
Fonz,

Do you ever think that it is you that have been brainwashed? If my faith is correct, then their is an evil dude names satan that tries to come up with every lie imaginable to decieve the masses to join him in his fate(misery loves company ya know) So he would stoop at nothing to come with some bs books that tell lies about what Jesus did and what he was here to do.

Just curious what is the next phase of man's evolution becuase I have been look for some ape turning into man and I just haven't seen it(him) whatever walking around yet have you?

Me brainwashed? LOL

Curling, I was raised catholic. I HAD to go to church every
Sunday.

Now, when i was sufficiently mature(About 14), I started to
read history(I love reading), and since I have always been interested in the Roman Empire, I took an interest in actually
becoming more knowledgeable regarding religious
texts etc..

What I mean is: If I'm going to go to church and worship some
deity WHO MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST, there better be some
damn convincing evidence that all the stories are based on
some truth.

Nobody likes wasting time. From this, it becomes painfully obvious that going to church is A WASTE OF TIME if there is NO GOD, right? In my case or any case.

From the massive amount of reading I did, I can safely say with 100% certainty that there is NO DEITY to speak of.

From NON-BIASED historical references its OBVIOUS that
the bible is a book based on innuendo, fiction and
obvious exagerration. If you think otherwise, you're
seriously deluded.

Its all there. In books. Now, if most people would actually take the time TO READ them, religion would not have humanity in such
a vice grip.

Moral of the story:

ALWAYS QUESTION EVERYTHING. Never accept anything
as fact UNLESS its based on SOUND scientific principles.

You Curling, just ACCEPTED the bible for what it is, you have
never questioned it therefore YOU in my book are IGNORANT,
and will remain so until you open your eyes and
decide to excercise your brain cells.

Fonz
 
Fonz,

Ok I can see why you have a problem with God being the Diety he is if you were raised catholic. That would have turned my stomach too.

But you keep saying all these books you read. Have anybody in those books died and rose from the grave. Probably not. So how the heck are they suppose to know what is going to happen to you when you die. They don't. Now do they? No one does so wouldn't you rather be safe than sorry?
 
That's right, they just made it up to get numbers into the church.

HA HA HA!!! see "pergatory" and the history of this concept. Perfect illustration.

2thick, your mind appears almost as large as your lats... you won´t be satisfied posting here for much longer. Strictly entertainment!

fonz. Have you read Gibbon?
 
aurelius said:




2thick, your mind appears almost as large as your lats... you won´t be satisfied posting here for much longer. Strictly entertainment!


word.
 
Fonz said:


Me brainwashed? LOL

Curling, I was raised catholic. I HAD to go to church every
Sunday.

Now, when i was sufficiently mature(About 14), I started to
read history(I love reading), and since I have always been interested in the Roman Empire, I took an interest in actually
becoming more knowledgeable regarding religious
texts etc..

What I mean is: If I'm going to go to church and worship some
deity WHO MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST, there better be some
damn convincing evidence that all the stories are based on
some truth.

Nobody likes wasting time. From this, it becomes painfully obvious that going to church is A WASTE OF TIME if there is NO GOD, right? In my case or any case.

From the massive amount of reading I did, I can safely say with 100% certainty that there is NO DEITY to speak of.

From NON-BIASED historical references its OBVIOUS that
the bible is a book based on innuendo, fiction and
obvious exagerration. If you think otherwise, you're
seriously deluded.

Its all there. In books. Now, if most people would actually take the time TO READ them, religion would not have humanity in such
a vice grip.

You can safely say with 100% certainty that there is no Deity. I would say that you are deluded. No amount of knowledge can rule out with 100% certainty that there is no creator. I am a hopeful agnostic.

Moral of the story:

ALWAYS QUESTION EVERYTHING. Never accept anything
as fact UNLESS its based on SOUND scientific principles.

You Curling, just ACCEPTED the bible for what it is, you have
never questioned it therefore YOU in my book are IGNORANT,
and will remain so until you open your eyes and
decide to excercise your brain cells.

I would say that you are deluded. No amount of knowledge can rule out with 100%certainty that there is no creator. I am a hopeful agnostic.

Fonz
 
Top Bottom