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

[arthur]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Well I'm certainly at a loss to follow your points.

How does the event in Africa that you described support your contention? What is your contention anyway? A Christian village was attacked, women and children slain, does that mean all who aren't Christian behave so? Does it prove Christianity is the only way to prevent such things? Have no Christians ever done similar things? Who were those "bad men"? Could you make your point manifest, if at all you have one?

I won't go through other non sequiturs and it seems you've been making some mighty fat assumptions about Freeztar and others around here.

Hello Qfwfq,
Let me assume that you, Qfwfq, the only person who claims to, I quote; *"find your arguiments based on some assumptions and full of non-sequiturs"* and who refuses to divulge them are not being silly, provocative or trying to be emotionally augmentative, and, let me assume that you are familiar with the concept that information read from the word (writing) is an interpretation, also, let me assume, that you are familiar with trying to be objective. (The art in being an intellectual an so objective is being able to interpret meanings without reference to bigotry, bias or prejudice) therefore on the above assumptions I will address your post.


"I won't go through other non sequiturs" you wrote.

Why not? an explanation might be helpful, and what did you mean by 'other'?

and you also wrote, "and it seems you've been making some mighty fat assumptions about Freeztar and others around here"

I'm not sure what is meant by fat but like the assumptions I made about you, above, they were the result of my objective interpretations of their posts, as opposed to, what I assume and so suspect, your tacit assumptions about me are not objectively compiled, but are interpretations based upon, and so influenced by, your subjective/emotional/hormonal feelings towards me. This will certainly result in, as can be seen throughout this thread, perversions and misinterpretations of anything that I might say.

So, Qfwfq, If I were to make the effort to reply to your slanted and rather silly questions would the relies only be used as a springboard to launch more irrationalities at me?

Have you read my proposition?, Have you read it with a view of understanding it or have you read it with a view of continuing this B/S by selecting, maybe, non sequiturs or snippets that you can make use of to ask me similar questions to use to satisfy you emotions rather than to satisfy your sense of intellectual enquiry? If the reason was not to satisfy your sense of intellectual enquiry what are posting on this thread for? and if it was, why did you not politely respond to my hope that, on the basis of understanding it, it will receive a just and honest, unbiased and rational consideration as to its merits. Well Qfwfq, why didn't you???


Arthur

[modest]

Originally Posted by arthur

Could the intensification and the increasing growth of hate, bigotry, disenchantment, violence, greed, selfishness, and such amongst the citizens result in the demise of acquiescence to the morals, values, and ethics that are integral to the functioning of a stable, free and democratic society?

Will the decline in the morals, values, and ethics that are integral to the functioning of a stable, free and democratic society promote its demise?

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

The quote above is an argument fallacy called begging the question:

• Begging The Question (Assuming The Answer, Tautology):

reasoning in a circle. The thing to be proved is used as one of your assumptions. For example: "We must have a death penalty to discourage violent crime". (This assumes it discourages crime.) Or, "The stock market fell because of a technical adjustment." (But is an "adjustment" just a stock market fall?)

A List Of Fallacious Arguments

The proposition in post one of this thread:

Originally Posted by arthur

Now, and here is the nub, consider that we all, 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.

The proposition is itself a non-sequitur. Even if every person on the planet were aware of Judeo-Christian tenets, it could not be concluded that "It is because of these tenets that, Sophisticated Civilized Society exists". It is, as an analogy, like saying, "Every person in the city has a hat. It is because of hats that the city exits". The second sentence does not follow from the first—it is non-sequitur. The analogy is proved correct only if hats are proved to be the cause of the city. Likewise, the proposition in post one is proved correct only if Judeo-Christian tenets are proved to be the cause of sophisticated and civilized society.

A means of disproving the proposition would be to find a counterexample. A proposition that Judeo-Christian tenets are the cause of sophisticated and civilized society cannot withstand an example of sophisticated and civilized society with no Judeo-Christian tenets. While I haven't kept up with this thread, I'm sure I'm repeating a very obvious fact: classical Greece was an extraordinarily sophisticated, cultured, civilized, and enlightened society which predates Judeo-Christian influence (the Septuagint was translated toward the end of the classical Greek age).

As this provides a sufficient counterexample the proposition is disproved by example. It is not possible to say:

Originally Posted by arthur

It is because of these [Judeo-Christian] tenets that, Sophisticated Civilised Society exists.

At best, a person could say that the tenets of Christianity and Judaism have helped shape western society. I would, in fact, not take this influence lightly. It is very possible that without Judaism and Christianity we would be living in a very, very different culture today. But, as demonstrated, it cannot be claimed that such an alternate culture needs be uncivilized or unsophisticated.

If nothing can be proffered in support of the OP's proposition then I propose closing this thread.

~modest

[Donk]

Arthur, Arthur, Arthur...

You aren't having a very good time here. If you're going to convince anyone, Arthur, you need a lesson or two on how to conduct yourself on the internet.

You started out, Arthur, by posting in very large type. When this was pointed out, you stopped. Good. You're clearly capable, Arthur, of learning at least one thing. You need a few more lessons though.

For instance, Arthur, it's very bad manners to keep pasting the same words over and over again. If somebody's already read them, Arthur, they have to wade through them again only to find nothing new. This makes them a little tetchy, Arthur. Maybe you didn't know that, Arthur. Perhaps you do now.

To take another instance, Arthur, if you ask somebody a question and they answer it, it's polite to acknowledge it. Maybe you didn't know that, Arthur. Perhaps you do now.

If somebody tries to get your thread back on track, Arthur, by posting what he believes is a summary of your hard-to-follow OP, it isn't sensible to say

Hello Donk, Close but not quite

and then follow it up with 475 words that are as hard to follow as the OP was. Can you understand that, Arthur? I seriously doubt it.

You said, Arthur, that your group of 15-year-old acolytes (and a professor from Nanking U) understand you. I seriously doubt that statement, Arthur. Not if you've been giving them the same as you've been giving us. More clarity, Arthur. Less words, Arthur.

Anywhere on the internet, Arthur, if you feel that you're being picked on, you should report the post. PRIVATELY, Arthur. Flaming your own thread is quite counterproductive. As you've no doubt found out by now, Arthur. If that doesn't work, Arthur, or worse still if it's a bunch of admins and moderators who are picking on you, the only sensible thing to do is to leave. The Internet isn't a democracy, and probably never will be. Can you understand THAT, Arthur?

And last, but by no means least, Arthur: continually repeating the name of the person you're talking to is the internet equivalent of standing eyeball to eyeball and poking them in the chest. I suspect you already knew that, Arthur, and did it deliberately. If not, you do now.

Will the decline of goodwill, honesty, good manners, and politeness by the participants result in the demise of this thread?

I can think of one participant who has shown little goodwill or honesty, few good manners and no politeness at all. Can you guess who I'm thinking of?

[HydrogenBond]

The idea of Atheist, Pagan and Heathen in Christian Clothing is useful. With the strong hold of Christianity falling on modern times, the above categories are able to leave the church very easily. What remains in Christianity will have less pagan, heathen and atheist influence.

Nowadays, Christianity is only a trace of its historical might and brutality, when the closet door was shut tight and the Atheist, Pagan and Heathen in Christian clothing, were averaged into the blend. The church may be getting smaller, but it is getting more concentrated with Christians in Christian clothing.

When the first Christians appeared in the first century, there was little atheist, pagan and heathen influence. When its merged with Rome, all these influences were added to the blend, since Rome was all these other things. Now that these influences are able to leave, what remains is becoming more purified again.

[Moontanman]

[quote]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

The idea of Atheist, Pagan and Heathen in Christian Clothing is useful. With the strong hold of Christianity falling on modern times, the above categories are able to leave the church very easily. What remains in Christianity will have less pagan, heathen and atheist influence.

Christianity is full of pagan influences, always has been. Most of the Christian holidays were held on the same days as the pagan holiday they were men to replace. Christianity didn't win out of Paganism because it was a superior philosophy it won by assimilation and changing to reflect the Paganism it replaced. Many pagans I have talked to recently have come from the Catholic church. They say that Catholicism is about as close to paganism as you can get with out dancing naked in the moonlight.

Nowadays, Christianity is only a trace of its historical might and brutality, when the closet door was shut tight and the Atheist, Pagan and Heathen in Christian clothing, were averaged into the blend. The church may be getting smaller, but it is getting more concentrated with Christians in Christian clothing.

If true this is a disturbing idea that the Christian church is become ever more hard core when you can see that our civilization has flourished because of the decline in the power of the Christian Church.

When the first Christians appeared in the first century, there was little atheist, pagan and heathen influence. When its merged with Rome, all these influences were added to the blend, since Rome was all these other things. Now that these influences are able to leave, what remains is becoming more purified again.

Again if true this is very disturbing, pagans are far more tolerant of other religions and philosophies than Christianity, no penalties for many of the things Christianity persecutes it's members for.

[HydrogenBond]

One has to get back to the initial Christian philosophy to see how these other influences helped shape Christianity and had an impact on its nature over the past 2000 years. The first Christians believed, as spoken by Paul, who addressed the Roman Senate, that the righteous man shall live by faith, apart from the works of law. Through the law comes knowledge of sin. Where there is no law, sin is not imputed. Christianity was originally not about a bunch of moral laws. Although Paul distinguished between the children of the promise (no law) and the children of the bondwoman (enslaved by law).

As a modern example of what Paul said in action, it was not a (social) sin to smoke marijuana 100 years ago. But once this law was create, it became a (social) sin. Sin was not imputed until we created the law.

"Through the law comes knowledge of evil". The law needs to points out the two choices, to everyone, so one can chose the proper social path. Unfortunately, this makes people aware of the negative choice, who might never have thought it is on their own. "Sin taking opportunity through the commandment produces sin of every kind". The drug problem expanded beyond what it was before it was a sin, with the drug transgression branching out into newer areas needing new laws to define these new sins. Culture then has to get stricter and tougher to maintain a sense of law and order, because of the compounding problem created by the original law.

This was actually very advanced thinking about human nature.

Rome was an empire of laws and this "without law" philosophy had the potential to be destabilizing. Say everyone in the empire stopped being under Roman laws, they could lose control. Christianity became a threat and the pressure was applied. Rome had no problems with other gods, but don't mess with their laws. When the merge came, centuries later, stricter laws for righteousness was instituted into Christianity, even though this was never taught at the beginning.

From Paul, "all things are lawful to me, but I will not be mastered by anything. All things are lawful to me, but not all things edify".

This quote below is about his philosophy in action:

1 Corinthians 9:19: “For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law, that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

Rome was in charge of the Roman Catholic church and law was how they conducted business and maintained order. Christianity, after the merge, went back to old testament type thinking of law and sin.

[Mrrzy]

I can't find my post! Help?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Mrrzy

I can't find my post! Help?

Will the decline in Christianity result in the demise of civilisation?
post #102 in this thread.