Will the decline in Christianity result in the demise of civilisation?

[freeztar]

 

Society is not inextricably linked to Christianity or any other religion. Religions do great good in the world, but they also cause great harm to society.

 

A better question might be: Are we better off without Christianity? (Or any religion for that matter?)

 

But I don't want to go there. We've already been there.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/14108-is-religion-harmful-to-society.html

[arthur]

The honoring of contracts. These courts of law are expressly secular - according to them, a contract entered into by a muslim carries as much weight as one entered into by a christian. The personal beliefs of the individuals is of no interest to the court. What matters, is that the contract is adhered to. And that results in civilization.

 

quote:

The honoring of contracts. These courts of law are expressly secular - according to them, a contract entered into by a muslim carries as much weight as one entered into by a christian. The personal beliefs of the individuals is of no interest to the court. What matters, is that the contract is adhered to.

 

To take only the above point:

 

Even though as you say 'courts of law are expressly secular.' (I add here, "in our sophisticated civilized societies", for, in many "third world" unsophisticated countries the "western" concept of law being determined by, in effect, the meaning of The Word the law is determined by the courts interpretation and judgement of intent, as is happening more and more in our sophisticated societies) So therefore, make no reference to religion, but, the legal principles of determination by the courts evolved within the influence of morality which includes right and wrong as opposed to correct and incorrect. A court will determine the legality of something with reference to an establish legal code, which was influenced by the tenet of Christianity and Roman Catholicism's interpretation of the tenets of Judaic religious law which did give guidance as to right and wrong as opposed to good or bad or correct or incorrect, which did involve fairness and unfairness which defined the concept of justice that has become an integral aspect of you as a human being as well as of your sophisticated society.

 

quote

a contract entered into by a muslim carries as much weight as one entered into by a christian.

 

In Islamic countries where The Law is determined by interpretations from The Quran a Legally binding contract or a promise is so if it was agreed with the invocation of "In the name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful, I agree to etc" A breach of such an agreement, is a breach of "Thou shalt not use God name in vain" and a capitol crime whereas just a written agreement is/was not, As was and still is in some of our sophisticated societies where the law on blasphemy prevails as it was at one time in the whole of Christendom to, for example, "swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help me God" or "I swear by almighty god to uphold the law etc" or "I swear by God to protect and serve" etc, etc, etc.

 

Please read more of my silly claim that says "virtually every aspect of this Sophisticated Civilised society to the extent that the "religions" and society are so intertwined as to be inseparable"

 

Arthur...

[arthur]

 

Society is not inextricably linked to Christianity or any other religion. Religions do great good in the world, but they also cause great harm to society.

 

A better question might be: Are we better off without Christianity? (Or any religion for that matter?)

 

But I don't want to go there. We've already been there.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/14108-is-religion-harmful-to-society.html

 

Hi,

What a beautiful picture of the parents of the next generation, are they your children?

 

I wonder if they understand the meaning of what they are advertising, and I wonder if you will-are-might encourage them to learn the truth and not that religious clap trap and learn that to keep their civilisation and themselves together they must understand that all they are, are just self programming independent biological machines, and that they have no inherent purpose for existing? Should they be given to understand the "scientific" reality is that any roles or aspirations, that any rhyme or reason for their being or existing will have to be psychologically contrived or faked in the future? Should they be given to understand they are only an assembly of lifeless chemicals which as the result of a few spontaneous electro-chemical reactions develop in them a delusion of 'self'? AND, Should thes children be encouraged to understand that the way to maintain their delusion of self should be no more that the pursuit of anything, using any expedience what so ever, that might appease the biological stresses, which are caused by the spontaneous effects of particular chemicals in them responding to environmental influences thereby promoting activity for self gratification at any expense as the Dawkinites, his acolytes and disciples overtly encourage, and, as a great many other, supposedly intelligent, people who through ignorance or lack of concern inadvertently encourage? Then having so educated the children should we, that is you and I, who have this decency and morality thing as an integral aspect of our being (intellectually??) question, why 'they' act as they do?

 

Because in a world controlled by nothing more than expediance love, beauty, charm and such stupidity does not exist, but as what you wrote implies 'what do children or indeed any body need all of that stuff for' Perhaps there will not be a next generation.

 

 

Very sadly ...Arthur Webb

[C1ay]

Is America an example of civilization based on Christianity?

 

YouTube - American Christianity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgWCFa7lo50

[Donk]

Arthur, you should look at ALL the facts.

 

Jesus was Jewish. His message was for Jewish society, not humanity in general. If he were to come back, he'd preach in a synagogue, not a church. Judaism is a tough religion, one which doesn't look for converts. If someone wants to join their faith they have to spend a long time in study and examination.

 

The religion we call Christianity should more correctly be called Paulism. Paul took the Jesus story, added a few ingredients from Mithraism and a few other sources, and put them together with his own Big Idea: eternal salvation on the instalment plan :)

 

Paulism was about Instant Conversion. No mucking about with years of study - just Believe and Be Saved. The payment comes later: good works, church administration or plain hard cash. And most of all, Recruitment. It worked. The new faith snowballed, helped by a few doctrinal tweaks, like the one that says that the king is appointed by God, and therefore any attempt to unseat him is heresy. What ruler wouldn't want to sign himself and his people up to that one? ;)

 

The big problem with Christianity is its instability. As conceived, it gives preferment to charismatic preachers. Great for recruiting, but such men are usually too arrogant to take orders from the head of the church. So the church schisms. And again. And again... Mahomet was an early breakaway. Later the Orthodox churches split with Rome. Then Protestantism, which was different in that it had no single charismatic, authoritarian leader and so was even more liable to schism than the other denominations.

 

Looking at history, and looking at my own neighbourhood, I can see churches showing two different faces. If they're trying to recruit they're kind, loving, forgiving, full of charitable good works. If they've already recruited as many as they're likely to get, the other face shows. They become authoritarian, judgmental. They use the unholy trinity of Shame, Blame and Duty to keep their flock together (and keeping them well-shorn). Not a pretty sight, but people fall for it. I've known people more scared of being "sat down" by their church elders than they would be if they were threatened with jail.

 

Nobody is arguing with your statement that Christianity has had a profound effect on western civilisation. We're arguing with your implied statement that without it we wouldn't be civilised at all. And we're trying to answer the thread title:

 

No, the decline in Christianity will NOT result in the demise of civilisation.

[C1ay]

Here's a sample of a nice Christian organization looking for members to help them better civilization as they see it ...

[lemit]

Arthur,

 

I am a Midwestern Methodist. I'm sure you've noticed that in my other posts. I'd like to help you here, since I think that, although you and I might disagree, we probably are closer to each other than I am to my colleagues here at Hypography.

 

I must apologize, though, because I can't quite figure out what you mean by "Sophisticated Civilised Society." (I take it by your spelling that you are English. Is that just an example of how unsophisticated I am?) Could there be a sophisticated civilized society without Christianity, or are the two inextricably intertwined? And if the two are inextricably intertwined, can your question have any meaning?

 

We Methodists try to maintain our humility in the presence of God and man. I don't want to seem other than a good Methodist. It's just that I can't quite make sense out of your questions. Sorry.

 

--lemit

[arthur]

Arthur, you should look at ALL the facts.

 

Jesus was Jewish. His message was for Jewish society, not humanity in general. If he were to come back, he'd preach in a synagogue, not a church. Judaism is a tough religion, one which doesn't look for converts. If someone wants to join their faith they have to spend a long time in study and examination.

 

The religion we call Christianity should more correctly be called Paulism. Paul took the Jesus story, added a few ingredients from Mithraism and a few other sources, and put them together with his own Big Idea: eternal salvation on the instalment plan :)

 

Paulism was about Instant Conversion. No mucking about with years of study - just Believe and Be Saved. The payment comes later: good works, church administration or plain hard cash. And most of all, Recruitment. It worked. The new faith snowballed, helped by a few doctrinal tweaks, like the one that says that the king is appointed by God, and therefore any attempt to unseat him is heresy. What ruler wouldn't want to sign himself and his people up to that one? ;)

 

The big problem with Christianity is its instability. As conceived, it gives preferment to charismatic preachers. Great for recruiting, but such men are usually too arrogant to take orders from the head of the church. So the church schisms. And again. And again... Mahomet was an early breakaway. Later the Orthodox churches split with Rome. Then Protestantism, which was different in that it had no single charismatic, authoritarian leader and so was even more liable to schism than the other denominations.

 

Looking at history, and looking at my own neighbourhood, I can see churches showing two different faces. If they're trying to recruit they're kind, loving, forgiving, full of charitable good works. If they've already recruited as many as they're likely to get, the other face shows. They become authoritarian, judgmental. They use the unholy trinity of Shame, Blame and Duty to keep their flock together (and keeping them well-shorn). Not a pretty sight, but people fall for it. I've known people more scared of being "sat down" by their church elders than they would be if they were threatened with jail.

 

Nobody is arguing with your statement that Christianity has had a profound effect on western civilisation. We're arguing with your implied statement that without it we wouldn't be civilised at all. And we're trying to answer the thread title:

 

No, the decline in Christianity will NOT result in the demise of civilisation.

 

 

 

Hi Donk, I am not quite sure who you are, but I don’t think that you are the person who answered my reply to your post? A shame because I was looking forward to your reply.

 

Anyway, thank you for a sensible and polite post.

 

I have no need here to re-look at any details concerning religions particularly Christianity or the non-Christian Roman Catholicism because this, as I have tried to emphasize many times is not part of a religious debate. It has nothing to do with the veracity of The Bible, of God, of ones religious convictions or of Christianity per se.

 

You have used the same term, Paulism that I used in my first school religion essay over 70 years ago, and even then, as a lad had to suffer the same kind of outrageous bigotry that I am putting up with this proposition. It is because of Paul's perversion of the teachings of Jesus and his linking of Jesus'ism with the Hebrew Torah that I define Roman Catholicism as a religion distinctly different from the Christianity religion, And, I am fully aware that the Vatican's foundations are built on the pain hell and horror that it inflicted on innocent souls.

 

quote:

Nobody is arguing with your statement that Christianity has had a profound effect on western civilisation.

 

I wish that were true and If this had been expressed at all in a language that was not full of invective and not a language of religious bigotry I would have asked "What is the profound effect that Christianity has had on the evolution of western civilisation"?

A question, Donk, that I ask you "What is the profound effect that Christianity has had on the evolution of western civilisation"?

 

quote:

We're arguing with your implied statement that without it we wouldn't be civilised at all.

 

I haven't seen anything that supports your above statement, and, In my proposition there is nothing to imply such a thing and if you read the posts to me you will find very little good will shown towards me and next to no reference made to my proposition as if it didn’t exist except as a catalyst for religious bigotry.

 

If you do read the proposition I will be very happy to discuss any point of interest with you.

 

 

Regards …arthur..

[Donk]

Hi Donk, I am not quite sure who you are, but I don’t think that you are the person who answered my reply to your post? A shame because I was looking forward to your reply.

Not understood. I've posted twice in this thread - three times now. I've been the same person every time. Do you see some sort of inconsistency in what I'm saying?

as I have tried to emphasize many times is not part of a religious debate. It has nothing to do with the veracity of The Bible, of God, of ones religious convictions or of Christianity per se.

My post was strictly on-topic - the effect of Christianity on civilisation. I haven't mentioned my religious convictions, or whether I think the Bible or Christianity is true. You should try reading what I actually write, instead of trying to read between the lines, looking for some "religious bigotry" to get yourself upset about.

quote:

Nobody is arguing with your statement that Christianity has had a profound effect on western civilisation.

 

I wish that were true and If this had been expressed at all in a language that was not full of invective and not a language of religious bigotry I would have asked "What is the profound effect that Christianity has had on the evolution of western civilisation"?

A question, Donk, that I ask you "What is the profound effect that Christianity has had on the evolution of western civilisation"?

A very big question, that would need an essay-length, or maybe a book-length answer. Off the top of my head: (a) blind obedience to authority; (:) destructive war, fought by and against entire populations rather than just between armies; © the demise of logical, reasoned argument and its replacement by appeals to emotion.

quote:

We're arguing with your implied statement that without it we wouldn't be civilised at all.

 

I haven't seen anything that supports your above statement, and, In my proposition there is nothing to imply such a thing and if you read the posts to me you will find very little good will shown towards me and next to no reference made to my proposition as if it didn’t exist except as a catalyst for religious bigotry.

 

If you do read the proposition I will be very happy to discuss any point of interest with you.

I assure you that I read it in full. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have felt qualified to reply. I winced at the misplaced apostrophes and occasional grammatical flaw, but I didn't let those minor problems detract from the message. I've read much worse ;)

 

You seem to think that it's new, unique and important. I would disagree on all three points.

[arthur]

Arthur,

 

I am a Midwestern Methodist. I'm sure you've noticed that in my other posts. I'd like to help you here, since I think that, although you and I might disagree, we probably are closer to each other than I am to my colleagues here at Hypography.

 

I must apologize, though, because I can't quite figure out what you mean by "Sophisticated Civilised Society." (I take it by your spelling that you are English. Is that just an example of how unsophisticated I am?) Could there be a sophisticated civilized society without Christianity, or are the two inextricably intertwined? And if the two are inextricably intertwined, can your question have any meaning?

 

We Methodists try to maintain our humility in the presence of God and man. I don't want to seem other than a good Methodist. It's just that I can't quite make sense out of your questions. Sorry.

 

--lemit

 

 

 

Hello lemit

There is no need to apologise. If you read my reply to Zithrin it is explained there

 

Are you asking these question so that you can give me a critique of my proposition? If you are, please remember that this is not a religious debate, my propositions is not concerned with Christianity but concerned with the product of its affect and influence on, in and to a society. I have had 15 year olds read it and after a little chat about it the response has always been that it is obvious.

 

 

quote:

Could there be a sophisticated civilized society without Christianity,

 

Yes,

The references in the proposition are to this/your/the person next doors sophisticated civilised society

 

never in the history of the earth has so many people been so wealthy, well fed, well housed, so free and so secure. Never in the history of any society have so many people spent so little of their resources and time on

the acquisition of food, No society in history has had such a complex and sophisticated economic system for the universal distribution of wealth. No other society has had a universal education or a universal health system or universal suffrage. And no other society in history has had so many of its members spending so much of their time and their resources caring for the infirm, the feckless and the unfortunates of the society because to do so is a requirement of their faith

 

quote:

It's just that I can't quite make sense out of your questions.

Like all questions, to be able to answer them one needs to understand them, I only know what it means in relationship to the proposition, perhaps the person who relegated this thread to 'Silly Claims' knows what it means.

 

 

..arthur..

[arthur]

Not understood. I've posted twice in this thread - three times now. I've been the same person every time. Do you see some sort of inconsistency in what I'm saying?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This was the post in question, and one doesnt have to look between the line to see the bigotry

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthur

Hello Donk,

 

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that we need Christianity because

 

(1) our moral tenets come from Christianity, and

(2) most charitable organisations are Christian. True.

 

No, I am not saying that we *need* anything, But, I do say that the moral values, codes, and taboos which we use to allow us to live in comparative harmony this sophisticated society initially came as the result the tenets of Christianity.

 

Arthur this has been shown not to be true over and over on these forums, you repeating it will not make it true. Please stop saying it.

 

 

 

Quote:

quote:

Most people, of any religion or none, have a moral code.

 

True but if the moral code of, for example, city street gangs, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, FPMR, ELN, Islamic Jihad, ANO and the ALIR just to name a few of the rapidly increasing number of malcontent groups that are increasingly destroying the lives of (world wide) millions of innocents and putting enormous pressures on Christian voluntary aid organizations, and who's aims, stated or not, are to destroy all of the codes and values that allow this sophisticated civilised society to function one would have difficulty in relating the word morality to any of their values.

 

Oh the poor Christians trying to save the world, can you be anymore disingenuous? So you claim that anyone who doesn't agree that Christianity is the only way is trying to destroy the world? Hell even Christians cannot get along, until quite recently Protestants and Catholics were killing each other in Ireland. All the religious groups you mentioned think they have the final say on who should run the world, all Christianity wants is to proselytize their own way. No better than any of the others if pushed to the wall. Christians have over the years also done horrible things in the name of their religion. They are no better than any of the others.

 

 

Quote:

quote:

The ten commandments isn't particularly Christian.

 

True they were Jewish.

 

quote:

the golden rule, ( I didn't know that the ethic of reciprocity ie, love thy neighbour as thy self, was called the golden rule)

 

Mrs Be done by as you did and Mrs Do as you would be done by, being characters from Kingsley The Water Babies and being a Christian morality tale works well in the situation where people have empathy, sympathy and a desire towards peacefulness with others, but in the cut and thrust of the "real" world and in nature where there are no morals only expediency and competition the golden rule will not work in maintaining harmony. As one can see in forums such as this when debate turns to argument.

 

As i have said before religion did not create these ideas they hijacked them for their own use. Please stop claiming otherwise.

 

 

Quote:

quote:

"if you didn't treat contraception as a sin there wouldn't BE so many unwanted children!"

 

To me it make little sense that the RC edict on artificial contraception has much of an effect, if any at all, on the numbers of children in the world or to world population, Certainly not in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, China, most of Africa, Near and Mid east, Russia in fact any where.

 

Over much of the world where the Catholic church holds sway this policy does indeed contribute to over population not to mention the spread of aids and other sexually transmitted disease. Latin America and Africa happen to be hot beds of Catholic influence. You really need to think about what you are saying Arthur.

 

 

Quote:

quote:

But as Society secularises, that work is being taken over by Society.

 

No, In the climate of recession the amount of help being given by governments is diminishing word wide, as is the amount of money from charitable contributions is falling at an alarming rate. If one wants to see the gradual break down of a civilised society one only has to look at counties like S Africa and inner cities.

 

Yes this is true and religion is beginning to feel the heat of not being able to fill their coffers to proselytize and build more huge worthless buildings to the glory of god. Only a small percentage of church money goes to anything but making new converts and building new buildings and into the pockets of televangelists.

 

 

Quote:

My regards and thank you for a polite post, ..arthur..

 

You're welcome.

[Donk]

Clear as mud. You've quoted some stuff by me, some by others. I asked you to point to some inconsistency in my replies. You've signally failed to do so. Please try again, be a little clearer, and maybe learn to use the quote function? Thank you.

[Moontanman]

Donk, real good posts dude, but I think we are trying to discuss this with a person who only wants to hear agreement, nothing against his views are ever answered with anything more than vitriol about us being rude or somehow less than good people because we disagree. He mentions talking to 15 year olds and getting a better response than we give him, i am not surprised, when i was 15 i would have agreed with him too. I'd have probably been afraid to have disagreed with him.

 

But them i was inexperienced and had no idea about the way the world really worked. I freely admit the Catholic church has had a telling influence on our civilization in many ways even a good influence in some ways but for him to say that with out Christianity we would not be as civilized as were are or that somehow Christianity is totally responsible for the good in our society is totally wrong.

 

Christianity took away at least 1000 years of civilization, (probably closer to 1500 years) it reduced us as human beings to be nothing more than surfs owned by Kings who's power was granted by the Pope and therefore god. Many of his claims are indeed true but those things came at a great expense in human lives and centuries of bondage to a religion that basically destroyed the humanity of every one it controlled.

 

He has yet to answer my assertion that real civilization only got started after the governments gelded the power of the church. Up until that time the influence of the church was like swimming with a boat anchor tied to your feet. I expect that the influence of the church will continue to decline and that we will continue to become an ever more advanced, more humane, and far more civilized society as the church declines.

 

Unless of course we let some other upstart fire breathing religion take it's place then we will be in big trouble.

[arthur]

Hi,

What a beautiful picture of the parents of the next generation, are they your children?

 

I wonder if they understand the meaning of what they are advertising, and I wonder if you will-are-might encourage them to learn the truth and not that religious clap trap and learn that to keep their civilisation and themselves together they must understand that all they are, are just self programming independent biological machines, and that they have no inherent purpose for existing? Should they be given to understand the "scientific" reality is that any roles or aspirations, that any rhyme or reason for their being or existing will have to be psychologically contrived or faked in the future? Should they be given to understand they are only an assembly of lifeless chemicals which as the result of a few spontaneous electro-chemical reactions develop in them a delusion of 'self'? AND, Should thes children be encouraged to understand that the way to maintain their delusion of self should be no more that the pursuit of anything, using any expedience what so ever, that might appease the biological stresses, which are caused by the spontaneous effects of particular chemicals in them responding to environmental influences thereby promoting activity for self gratification at any expense as the Dawkinites, his acolytes and disciples overtly encourage, and, as a great many other, supposedly intelligent, people who through ignorance or lack of concern inadvertently encourage? Then having so educated the children should we, that is you and I, who have this decency and morality thing as an integral aspect of our being (intellectually??) question, why 'they' act as they do?

 

Because in a world controlled by nothing more than expediance love, beauty, charm and such stupidity does not exist, but as what you wrote implies 'what do children or indeed any body need all of that stuff for' Perhaps there will not be a next generation.

 

 

Very sadly ...Arthur Webb

 

Hi, I have just been informed that the logo's on the childrens T shirts are part of a no smoking drive. Is this correct? ..arthur..

[arthur]

Clear as mud. You've quoted some stuff by me, some by others. I asked you to point to some inconsistency in my replies. You've signally failed to do so. Please try again, be a little clearer, and maybe learn to use the quote function? Thank you.

 

The post in question is #29 (permalink ) which I see was posted by your chum Moontanman.

 

It is a little sad that you imagined that I quoted some stuff by you and some by others to creat a post of bigotry that prompted you to say "Please try again"

 

..a...

[lemit]

Hello lemit

There is no need to apologise. If you read my reply to Zithrin it is explained there

 

Are you asking these question so that you can give me a critique of my proposition? If you are, please remember that this is not a religious debate, my propositions is not concerned with Christianity but concerned with the product of its affect and influence on, in and to a society. I have had 15 year olds read it and after a little chat about it the response has always been that it is obvious.

 

 

quote:

Could there be a sophisticated civilized society without Christianity,

 

Yes,

The references in the proposition are to this/your/the person next doors sophisticated civilised society

 

never in the history of the earth has so many people been so wealthy, well fed, well housed, so free and so secure. Never in the history of any society have so many people spent so little of their resources and time on

the acquisition of food, No society in history has had such a complex and sophisticated economic system for the universal distribution of wealth. No other society has had a universal education or a universal health system or universal suffrage. And no other society in history has had so many of its members spending so much of their time and their resources caring for the infirm, the feckless and the unfortunates of the society because to do so is a requirement of their faith

 

quote:

It's just that I can't quite make sense out of your questions.

Like all questions, to be able to answer them one needs to understand them, I only know what it means in relationship to the proposition, perhaps the person who relegated this thread to 'Silly Claims' knows what it means.

 

 

..arthur..

 

Thank you for the clarification. Just to be sure I understand, you don't have any subtext, do you? If I say "Yes, from the evidence we have now, the development of a sophisticated, civilized society seems to take place to the same degree with or without Christianity," would that be an answer to your question, albeit not necessarily one you'd agree with?

 

I used to have a friend who would make the most trivial requests in an extremely harsh, imperious tone, just to see if people were paying attention to what he was saying. I hope that is what you have been doing, because I love that sort of thing. If not, I'll let other people respond in whatever ways they have of responding.

 

Good luck, assuming . . . .

 

--lemit

 

p.s. My "Yes . . . " answer is what I truly believe.

[arthur]

You seem to think that it's new, unique and important. I would disagree on all three points.

 

 

 

quote:

You seem to think that it's new, unique and important. I would disagree on all three points.

 

 

At last Donk,

I have stumbled upon some one who by default ("I would disagree") implies that they understand my proposition. For what educated or objective person would disagree with something that they did not understand?

 

To me it obviously is not new but it is original, having been devised by me when I was a young man, but according to six of my young www dot whiz kid friends who say that after scouring the web and finding no corroboration for it it must be new which if this is true it would obviously be unique.

 

As you well know to determine the actual importance or the value of anything per se is obviously impossible simply because any determination would be an individuals intellectual assessment of the impact that the thing in question has upon some aspect of their existing knowledge/experience.

 

But in the case of my proposition, the importance is, as you know, in initially understanding it and then in the power that that understanding will give one in being able to accurately determine and explain, with out reference to ones subjectivity, most, if not all, of the phenomena that impacts on the individual and on 'mankind as a whole' as well as that which impacts on all that comes under the heading of biology.

 

Of course, there will be no meaning of this last paragraph, as you know, until the academic ramifications of understanding the following is understood, and here I quote from the proposition "that you, me and every person who we know and every person who we have ever known or met and every person who we have ever seen, and, every person who we have ever heard of and every person who lives or has lived in a Sophisticated Civilised Society; AND, Everything that you or I and any of these other people have ever done, thought, wanted or owned as well as every judgement and decision that you, I or they have ever made has been, or is, directly or indirectly influenced by or is the product of the tenets of Christianity and the Judaic ten Commandments irrespective whether you, I or they are conscious of the fact. It is because of these tenets that, Sophisticated Civilised Society exists. It is because of them that you, me and anyone else, whether you or I or they are clever or thick, intellectual or not, has the freedom to pander to their or our expectations of and enjoy the freedom, the security and protection that the society affords, irrespective of any contribution that any of us has made to it"

 

As I have said else where, this is obvious even to 15 year olds, but the 15 year olds have not had enough experience of life to have developed the intellectual prowess to understand the ramifications, and of course, they may never develop it particularly if their life experiences had developed solely from subjective self gratification at any expedience.

 

So Donk given that you and I, irrespective of your posts, do understand the integral role that unchristian Catholicism and Christianity has played in the evolution of this sophisticated civilised society and understanding that we are both products of the same unchristian Catholicism and Christianity can we get together and develop, (what "science" calls a model) a scenario which academically illustrates the affect on and the effects to our civilisation as Christianity declines?

 

I have over the years as the supposed "intellectual" condemnation of the two religion has increased and as the world population has increased (doubled) developed a few potential scenarios of the collapsing of world orders and the results of the subsequent chaos's many of which have been remarkably accurate. The ones related to the demise of mankind and the finale demise of "this civilisation" I really need some help with and it would obviously need to be some one who does understand the proposition and also some one who at least an inkling of the dynamics of bio economics and of course some one who has the intelligence and the intellectual integrity to be able to be non subjective in evaluating things that they don't understand

 

So Donk if you happen to be that person or if any other reader has any ideas or sensible questions please let me know.

 

With interest and regards ..Arthur..