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

[Moontanman]

I would think that the fall of Christianity would *allow for he development of* civilization.

 

That is an interesting assertion, do you mean to say we are not currently civilized?

[plumber]

If you look at the teachings of Christ, i.e., the red letter aspect of the bible, these quotes are not the basis for the atrocities of the church.

 

Thank you Hydro! I can tell you speak from learning...and if you ever did get your hand slapped by an evil nun when you were young...I'm very glad you got over it! Resentment cannot be objective. Ever. Where is your proof blah blah....study I say, that's how I found mine! Proof that is. Proof of anything. I'm sorry, I keep thinking of some of the other things I've heard in this thread. I cant believe it is still going. Thanks again for your truthful take on things. Semantics is just an excuse to keep bashing...one way or the other. I know full well what you meant by "roman atheists" Semantics or not.

[Moontanman]

Well Plumber, possibly you could explain it to me. I'd really like to know how the Romans could have believed in so many gods, built so many statues and temples to them and been atheists at the same time.

[Buffy]

I am not sure if or not I should take your sudden involvement in this thread as a genuine desire to understand anything given that you haven't yet displayed the common cutesy of replying to my earlier post.

My involvement is hardly sudden, and if I have not replied to your liking it is solely because I did not see my questions to you addressed in any way.

 

Indeed in this response to me you do nothing to respond to my last set of questions.

 

By assuming that I am persecuting you, you do nothing but reflect upon your own behavior.

I have been sucked into responding to posts in the past only to be gratuitously abused, misquoted, and suffering the tedium of reading inaccurate tirades of bigotry etc after spending a great deal of time and effort on the responses.

 

While it is clear that you spend a great deal of time on your responses, the problem is that they go off in directions that do not address the questions or discussion points.

 

Indeed in this response to me you do nothing to respond to my last set of questions.

Was this also your intention, If it was not, and I quote, I am interested in any one is willing to politely give me any genuine and objective logical evaluation with good will of any thing I say or write. I am not interested in discussing or arguing things subjectively /emotionally and I really only want to discuss what, in reality, is my extremely academically profound concept.

 

A situation that has not really happened.

So to repeat what Freeztar says above: The discussion--which several of us have pointed out *could* be quite interesting--will not go anywhere without you actually addressing the questions rather than being directed by you into endless repetition of cries of self-pity and persecution.

 

So, to try to get things back on track:

The answer to what I might have intended a reader to understand can be found in my proposition, if I understand your question.

Is that to say that you think that the definition of "decline" and "demise" are obvious?

 

I assure you that while they may be obvious to you, they are not to the rest of us, and the reason for the original derision of the thread by many members was precisely due to assumptions being made about those specific words that do indeed render the proposition "silly".

 

If you wish to defend your proposition, I am suggesting that you begin by defining your terms--exactly what a freshman English professor would ask you to do--and restate it and clarify it until people do understand.

 

If you honestly believe that our inability to read your mind is simply because we are too feeble-minded to comprehend the obvious, then please do not allow us to waste your precious talents and brilliance. You may indeed be able to find a forum where your capabilities are better appreciated.

 

Did you mean *us* or should it have been *me*, ie, you buffy?

"Decline in Christianity" to me means that Christian religions lose membership and have decreasing direct influence on social and political culture. I think it's fairly clear this is happening world-wide and there are plenty of studies to support the notion. My first post in this thread noting the usage of "Judeo-Christian" in your proposition was quite serious: It is very common for Christian-advocates to casually throw in the "Judeo" part to appear to be Ecumenical or at least "not advocating a religion"--as your proposition points out, followed immediately by an insistence that only religions that have Jesus as the central organizing power. This is something that not only belies the claim of "not advocating a religion" but is extremely offensive to believers in other faiths.

 

"Demise of Civilization" to me means the complete breakdown of social and political organization among humans. That is the End of Civilization:

de⋅mise /dɪˈmaɪz/ –noun

1. death or decease.

2. termination of existence or operation: the demise of the empire.

 

The reason for the derision of your initial post is precisely because of the comparitive differences in extremity of the two terms. You are in essence saying "if we lose more adherents to Christianity (and by definition let either the atheists or non-Christian religions take more control) it will cause the complete destruction of society."

 

That, I'd argue, is a silly claim.

 

Now *I* have taken considerable time to address your post, in spite of the fact that you appear to continue to want to avoid direct questions put to you--which places you in violation of our rules--and I'd ask that you show me some respect and respond appropriately.

 

If you believe that your age or your education or your sex obviate the need to respond appropriately to me or anyone else on this forum, then let us know that as well.

 

To put the finger in the eye and weep, :hihi:

Buffy

[plumber]

Well Plumber, possibly you could explain it to me. I'd really like to know how the Romans

 

Ok. I am going to believe you really don't know. And that this isn't using semantics to continue the...whatever this thread has been.

IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ORIGINAL THREAD: Never once did "you know who" (don't want to get you going again) use the words "goddoms" "theocracies" "choose your own god-doms" etc. He used the words "Christian", "Christendom" So, in THAT context...their teachings have always held that there is only One God. And that is in keeping with their judeo based beginnings. Too many have gone to the gallows way before Christianity because of this belief. Because of this One true God. Ask Buffy, she already said her piece. But it is the indignation of nations past and present that want to wipe the Jew off the face of the earth. So, when these terms are used, there is no room or tolerance for other gods. Their entire belief system hinges on this. The Greek thinkers on mars hill in Athens praised their own intellect as their "gods" while calling those around them "rag pickers" who worshiped the elements and seasons...planets and days included. See what I am trying to say? In the context of the original thread, addressing christendom's role in anything...assumes the reader knows what christendom means and therefore what it believes. So you see, all others are atheists because there is only one true God. I didn't say it would make sense to you. And of course I am referring to the original teachings of the early church...not the pick and choose, blab and grab variety religiosity we see today or the horrendous self serving hypocrisies of the organized church of the dark ages. they were called dark ages for a reason. So much for semantics.

take care, plumber.

[arthur]

Arthur,

 

I don't need psycho-active drugs to inform my mystical nature, nor do I need a particular historical interpretation of my religious experience. My experience is my own.

 

But I don't begrudge others the fact that they find in organized religion what I find outside organized religion. I definitely don't begrudge people their own beliefs.

 

I believe strongly in tolerance, an acceptance and love of those unlike one's self, partly out of self-interest since my experience is my own and noone else's. In your case, I haven't quite figured out just whom I need to be tolerant of, if anyone. (I'm not saintly; I grant myself intolerance in the cause of furthering tolerance.) About half the time I agree with the people around here who believe that you should be ridden out of cyberspace on an electron rail. But then I see something in you, a gossamer something that unfortunately always seems to turn back to spider web in your next post.

 

You say you're not sure of my last post? I'm not sure of anything you've written! I love gossamer, but I don't like spiders.

 

--lemit

 

p.s. Come to think of it, I've never been that fond of gossamer. Have you ever had a bunch of that stuff wrap itself around your face?

 

 

 

 

Hello lemit

Again, with a tinge of sadness (maybe unwarranted, but still sadness) I read your post, Sadness because it seems that you have taken no consideration of the time and effort it took or of the motive for replying your post 'ref; other civilizations. Sadness because (unless I have completely misinterpreted the meaning and the reasons for you bothering to participate in a thread, the subject, of which is of no interest to you. And (because it seems) I can see that you are gradually being drawn into supporting the bias behaviour of antagonism) It seems that you are unable to see that all I have wanted from this thread, and I am now utterly sick of repeating it, sensible, objective, rati……….---------...........

 

Lemit I have no faith that anything I write to you will be meaningful, unless like the other antagonists, you are able to select a word, a snippet or something from my post to use solely as an excuse to continue or to create antagonism.

Maybe (?) as an example: It seems that you took my obvious little joke about smoking and decided that it might be used. (of course I might be wrong)

 

 

 

Quote:

"nor do I need a particular historical interpretation of my religious experience.

 

One of my greatest fears in life, one that I considered when I first replied to you, which is ' the planting of the seed of doubt', your above statement should have read "nor do I need to understand the source of my faith" because lemit you must know that 'Analysis kills Spontaneity'.

 

Quote:

"I don't need psycho-active drugs to inform my mystical nature",

 

Now here is an interesting little fact lemit. but you do, they come under the name 'hormone', with out them, you would experience nothing not even a sensation resulting from reading this post.

 

So lemit Go forth and use your faith and by example encourage the doing of 'good' works and encourage the continuation of the creed of the inaugurator of the faith for without them there *will* be Armageddon.

 

With genuine respect from my love of Mankind I wish you well. .arthur..

[Moontanman]

Ok. I am going to believe you really don't know. And that this isn't using semantics to continue the...whatever this thread has been.

IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ORIGINAL THREAD: Never once did "you know who" (don't want to get you going again) use the words "goddoms" "theocracies" "choose your own god-doms" etc. He used the words "Christian", "Christendom" So, in THAT context...their teachings have always held that there is only One God. And that is in keeping with their judeo based beginnings. Too many have gone to the gallows way before Christianity because of this belief. Because of this One true God. Ask Buffy, she already said her piece. But it is the indignation of nations past and present that want to wipe the Jew off the face of the earth. So, when these terms are used, there is no room or tolerance for other gods. Their entire belief system hinges on this. The Greek thinkers on mars hill in Athens praised their own intellect as their "gods" while calling those around them "rag pickers" who worshiped the elements and seasons...planets and days included. See what I am trying to say? In the context of the original thread, addressing christendom's role in anything...assumes the reader knows what christendom means and therefore what it believes. So you see, all others are atheists because there is only one true God. I didn't say it would make sense to you. And of course I am referring to the original teachings of the early church...not the pick and choose, blab and grab variety religiosity we see today or the horrendous self serving hypocrisies of the organized church of the dark ages. they were called dark ages for a reason. So much for semantics.

take care, plumber.

 

Ok plumber I see where you are coming from but that doesn't change the meaning of the word atheist. No matter what you believe about the nature of God the word atheist means you do not believe in any gods. Taking your explanation would mean that a polytheist would consider a Christian an atheist. Just because someone believes differently than you doesn't make them right or wrong nor does it make them an atheist. All religions believe their god or gods to be the one or many true god or gods.

[plumber]

Ok plumber I see where you are coming from but that doesn't change the meaning of the word atheist.

 

Come on dude...dang! You keep stating the boring obvious...which is in fact another rabbit hole in it's self. I keep using the word "semantics" in hopes that you will stay on point and stop running down rabbit holes. Now you are wanting to debate the misuse of a word! Giving another human being space to be messed up is a gracious thing to do. Opinions aside. Don't you see? theist, atheist are terms given to describe the "other guys" These terms are only used by 1. The other guy. 2. An outside observer who is observing both of the other guys. (isn't this sounding funny?) God or the word Theo is a vastly generic term. You must interpret them in the context in which they are refered to. Honest. The Christian God has a name...who has ever drove past the "First Theist baptist ecclesia" of the what ever? I've never seen it. The Greeks and Romans never called Apollo "Theo" They would not be able to communicate the exact nature of what they are saying! If a Greek buddhist hailed a friend by saying Hello Theophilus! (friend of god) Which God do you think he was referring to? And so...To a Christian there is only one God. Same for the Jew. However, from the outside I would have to say that mankind makes for himself many gods. People get religious about money, love, power, prestige, status...the car you want and the list goes on. To whom you obey and follow or are driven by or consumes your thoughts and energies...that is your god. "Where your treasure is, there will be your heart also"- Jesus. Any whoo...have a great day I gotta go work!

plumber

[Moontanman]

Come on dude...dang! You keep stating the boring obvious...which is in fact another rabbit hole in it's self. I keep using the word "semantics" in hopes that you will stay on point and stop running down rabbit holes. Now you are wanting to debate the misuse of a word! Giving another human being space to be messed up is a gracious thing to do. Opinions aside. Don't you see? theist, atheist are terms given to describe the "other guys" These terms are only used by 1. The other guy. 2. An outside observer who is observing both of the other guys. (isn't this sounding funny?) God or the word Theo is a vastly generic term. You must interpret them in the context in which they are refered to. Honest. The Christian God has a name...who has ever drove past the "First Theist baptist ecclesia" of the what ever? I've never seen it. The Greeks and Romans never called Apollo "Theo" They would not be able to communicate the exact nature of what they are saying! If a Greek buddhist hailed a friend by saying Hello Theophilus! (friend of god) Which God do you think he was referring to? And so...To a Christian there is only one God. Same for the Jew. However, from the outside I would have to say that mankind makes for himself many gods. People get religious about money, love, power, prestige, status...the car you want and the list goes on. To whom you obey and follow or are driven by or consumes your thoughts and energies...that is your god. "Where your treasure is, there will be your heart also"- Jesus. Any whoo...have a great day I gotta go work!

plumber

 

Sadly this has nothing to do with the thread or even the accuracy of HB's post.

[arthur]

Sadly this has nothing to do with the thread or even the accuracy of HB's post.

 

If you were able to see more clearly you would see that the contents of his posts are closer than any of your own,

 

Arthur.

[Moontanman]

If you were able to see more clearly you would see that the contents of his posts are closer than any of your own,

 

Arthur.

 

My vision is quite clear Arthur, just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me rude or emotionally unstable or wrong. So far you have done absolutely nothing to back up your claims. All you do is criticize the person who disagrees with you by suggesting there is something wrong with anyone who disagrees with you. That is sad Arthur. At least HB can discuss things in a rational manner, HB never makes pot shots at the person he sticks to the discussion. You never discuss all you do is make grandiose claims as though you are trying to impress 15 year olds. Well that won't fly for adults who have the experience to really see the world independently. I really worry about those 15 year olds you are always harping about I wonder if their parents understand what you are doing.

[arthur]

My involvement is hardly sudden, and if I have not replied to your liking it is solely because I did not see my questions to you addressed in any way.

 

Indeed in this response to me you do nothing to respond to my last set of questions.

 

By assuming that I am persecuting you, you do nothing but reflect upon your own behavior.

 

 

While it is clear that you spend a great deal of time on your responses, the problem is that they go off in directions that do not address the questions or discussion points.

 

Indeed in this response to me you do nothing to respond to my last set of questions.

 

So to repeat what Freeztar says above: The discussion--which several of us have pointed out *could* be quite interesting--will not go anywhere without you actually addressing the questions rather than being directed by you into endless repetition of cries of self-pity and persecution.

 

So, to try to get things back on track:

 

Is that to say that you think that the definition of "decline" and "demise" are obvious?

 

I assure you that while they may be obvious to you, they are not to the rest of us, and the reason for the original derision of the thread by many members was precisely due to assumptions being made about those specific words that do indeed render the proposition "silly".

 

If you wish to defend your proposition, I am suggesting that you begin by defining your terms--exactly what a freshman English professor would ask you to do--and restate it and clarify it until people do understand.

 

If you honestly believe that our inability to read your mind is simply because we are too feeble-minded to comprehend the obvious, then please do not allow us to waste your precious talents and brilliance. You may indeed be able to find a forum where your capabilities are better appreciated.

 

 

"Decline in Christianity" to me means that Christian religions lose membership and have decreasing direct influence on social and political culture. I think it's fairly clear this is happening world-wide and there are plenty of studies to support the notion. My first post in this thread noting the usage of "Judeo-Christian" in your proposition was quite serious: It is very common for Christian-advocates to casually throw in the "Judeo" part to appear to be Ecumenical or at least "not advocating a religion"--as your proposition points out, followed immediately by an insistence that only religions that have Jesus as the central organizing power. This is something that not only belies the claim of "not advocating a religion" but is extremely offensive to believers in other faiths.

 

"Demise of Civilization" to me means the complete breakdown of social and political organization among humans. That is the End of Civilization:

 

 

The reason for the derision of your initial post is precisely because of the comparitive differences in extremity of the two terms. You are in essence saying "if we lose more adherents to Christianity (and by definition let either the atheists or non-Christian religions take more control) it will cause the complete destruction of society."

 

That, I'd argue, is a silly claim.

 

Now *I* have taken considerable time to address your post, in spite of the fact that you appear to continue to want to avoid direct questions put to you--which places you in violation of our rules--and I'd ask that you show me some respect and respond appropriately.

 

If you believe that your age or your education or your sex obviate the need to respond appropriately to me or anyone else on this forum, then let us know that as well.

 

To put the finger in the eye and weep, :)

Buffy

 

Well Buffy,

 

After reading this, your, obviously sarcasm towards me (sardonic, ironic, mocking, satirical, cynical, derisive, caustic)(rude, discourteous)(crass, irrelevant, provocative and unintelligent) Quote; By assuming that I am persecuting you, you do nothing but reflect upon your own behavior." I decided to read no more.

 

Why did you feel a need to write such a silly unfounded thing????? Could it have been because you want to take the credit of forcing me to leave this thread??? Do you want me to leave this thread??? If so, Why??? Could your response to me be because you feel a certain inadequacy by a threat of being confronted with something you don’t understand???? For me just out of interest these are genuine questions, but for you, answering them may offer some important help in understand yourself,

 

Now Buffy, Was that a display of mendaciousness? or a display of what one would expect from some one who poses questions with the expectation of an answer? or was just a little jest by me in the hope that it would be a spring board launch for intelligent debate between us? or was it an educational ploy to help you understand sarcasm? What ever it was will be determined by your interpretation of the words with regards to your attitude of me, but unless you ask me, you will never know

 

And then my eye caught

 

"Now *I* have taken considerable time to address your post, in spite of the fact that you appear to continue to want to avoid direct questions put to you--which places you in violation of our rules--and I'd ask that you show me some respect and respond appropriately"

 

After reading this and because I am interested in reciprocity I felt impelled to establish if there was a hint of hypocrisy involved here, therefore I add the following posts in the hope that you will either corroborate or refute my suspicion.

 

Quote from an earlier post:

Buffy who was responsible for putting my post under 'silly claims' and how can I go about have it moved?????

 

All that it needs to show how un-silly the claim is, is for it to be read carefully with out religious prejudice, objectively, and with good will. I have no religious affiliations and I am not a bigot. I am astounded by the amount of religious prejudice and bigotry displayed by people who almost certainly have experienced Christian good will by people who have been influenced by Christianity to become doctors and nurses, aid workers, home and abroad virtually every do good organisations in the 'western world' are run by volunteer Christians, hospitals, clinics, Aid's, drugs, drink, home less-ness, marriage guidance, orphanages, youth centres, sports clubs, hostels for battered wives, wayward children, free food 'kitchens' and family free food distribution centres, the enormous number of educators of children were trained, as were many doctors, social workers in Christian colleges built run and financed by Christian donations and churches it goes on and on and on.

 

If you or anyone is still in doubt just consider the influences that resulted in ethos of the UN and WHO and other global organisations, and if you or any one is still in doubt as to the influences of Christianity consider the influences of Easter and Christmas present production on global fiscal distribution in, for example China and the far east who manufactures more that ¾ the worlds 2007's Christian religious festivals presents.and it goes on and on and on.

 

One does not have to like some thing to recognise its important. All that is needed to understand my proposition is the display of common decency of treating me with, at least, the respect that I expected from this forum as in my request for *just and honest, sensible, unbiased and rational consideration as to its merits.* Not for one moment did I expect a display of stupidity and bigotry and at no point did I expect that it would be put into a 'silly claims forum' by some one who couldn't either be bothered to read or to try to understand what I wrote.

*It 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*

 

It seems to me to be written with my normal politeness, did you notice the fundamental and important question?

 

And another earlier post which makes reference to caveats that do not exist in " So if I read your caveats to Judaism correctly, you're saying that if Christianity went away but we still had Judaism that society would be okay?"

 

My reply to Buffy quote "where are the caveats"????

Do you remember Buffy?

 

So Buffy will you corroborate my suspicion or will you refute it?

So what is required of me to continue with this thread other than politely and with objective unargumentativness trying to have other members understand my proposition?

 

Your post hints at an element of your distaste towards me. if this is true why have you bothered to engage with me? Could it possibly be for a reason other than to discuss the merits of my proposition in a sensible and polite manner? I know that this is the case with some other posters who like me also don't have to be here.

 

All that I have done is to present a pile of honest words for a review, which is giving a group of people an excuse for venting and or creating particular aspects of to their emotional dispositions. I am not upset, I am not irritated, I have no complaints, as I said to your friend, "I don’t have to be here" like you Buffy, you don’t have to be here unless you want to. Why do you want to.

 

I do feel an element of sadness at the low quality of intellect displayed and the small numbers of intelligent responses as well as to the vehemence of and the aggressiveness of the mostly illogical and irrational attacks on what the attackers select to call Religion or "the Church" etc.

 

How can one, Buffy, blame any creature for its nature? One doesn’t blame a 'mozzy' for sucking ones blood, one may not like it but one cant blame it for doing what it does. I cant blame a racist or a bigot, (what is the difference?) for the way they express their nature, I may not like it but who am I to judge? and what criterion could I use to judge? What criterion is there but the religious criterion of unfairness, immoral, unethical and unjust. the same criterion that the bigot uses to condemn that which gave them the criterion.

 

There is no other universal criterion for anything. Unless you Buffy using the same kind of logic, the same mode of rational, ie, your, "to me this means" which gives no weight to the fact that you had absolutely no understanding of the subject of my proposition to use as a criterion for determining its value, which is without any doubt what so ever a reprehensible act of intellectual prejudice that, in my opinion, should cause the perpetrator to be embarrassed. are you?

 

Was the point of this post to be a threat because you personally didn't understand, or was it just a reminder that in your bias opinion ie, "which places me in violation of our rules" but not you.

 

Do you think for one minute that I joined this thread to experience all of this b/s that you are supporting and encouraging ? If you intend to use your power to unjustly cut this thread and deprive any body who might come to recognise how academically far reaching this proposition actually is, on the basis that you don’t understand, or on the basis that you made a crass mistake by putting this thread or agreeing that this thread should be put in 'silly clames' do so and wallow in and enjoy your misuse of power, or display some integrity and let the people who want to be hear be here and if you want to moderate do so but do it justly and don’t attack me as an innocent party with emotionally inspired inaccurate silliness's.

 

Quote:

Now *I* have taken considerable time to address your post, in spite of the fact that you appear to continue to want to avoid direct questions put to you--which places you in violation of our rules--and I'd ask that you show me some respect and respond appropriately.

 

I surmise that your request; "I'd ask that you show me some respect and respond appropriately" means answer your question.

 

The answer to your question "Is to say that you think that the definition of "decline" and "demise" are obvious"? is, absolutely, without any doubt what so ever, yes, that almost any literate person will recognise the meaning or even a definition of the word decline and also will recognise the meaning and definition of the word demise

 

arthur

[freeztar]

Thanks for answering the questions, Arthur. It's a shame it only came in the last paragraph and I had to read through 5000 words about Buffy before getting to the point.

 

As a moderator, this thread is very close to being closed. If you would like to discuss the decline in Christianity being the demise of civilisation, then do so. Otherwise, this thread will be closed.

[plumber]

Please close it. I am only human, hypocrisy belongs to the atheists as well as the non atheists. I get inflamed listening to the one upmanship of this pathetic thread. I apologize for my part in this: trying to state facts to contentious and argumentative people that have some infantile axe to grind about the religious beliefs of others. Space time and dirt are much safer topics. Objective not, has this thread been...Yoda

[plumber]

sadly this has nothing to do with the thread or even the accuracy of hb's post.

 

my point exactly!

[plumber]

See, I did it again! Frail I am!

[freeztar]

The topic is "Will the decline in Christianity result in the demise of civilization?". This thread is *not* about the psychology of its participants.

 

If you can't reply with something on-topic, please don't reply.