Originally posted by galveston75If we are going to refer to scripture dating back no more recently than say 100 CE then surely we should be comparing violence in modern society with that in earlier centuries, say after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West and also placing it in the context of a far smaller population prior to the modern era. Or you could look into the Viking era. A good one might be the 13th Century in Western Europe. Or you could.... And that is before you turn your attention to other regions.
CRIME: “Increasing of lawlessness.” (Matthew 24:12) Murder, robbery, rape, terrorism, corruption—the list is long and well known. In many areas people fear to walk their streets. Confirming this lawless trend after 1914, an authority on terrorism states: “The period up to the first World War was, on the whole, more humane.”23
FEAR: “There will be fea ...[text shortened]... T)
3 they will be unkind, merciless, slanderers, violent, and fierce; they will hate the good
Obviously, to anyone connected with Palestine in the first century CE then things were very rough indeed as the Palestinian Jews rebelled against the Roman Empire and lost very badly.
As for being prepared to watch violence then of course in the past severe torture was normal and public exhibitions of cruelty continued until very modern times, not least at the hands of religious agencies. Auto Da Fe was an act of faith in the Spanish era, both in Europe and in Central America.
I'd prefer to take my chances in the current age thank you very much. It was Humanism, not religion, that transformed things for the better. Still a tough world of course, but compared with the past very much more humane.
14 Jun 12
2 edits
Originally posted by finneganOne point that many are missing is the over all general moral mentality that has degraded. This of course does show up in violent crimes but it shows up in just the way we show respect to our fellow humans in our day to day life's and how we may view the more simply principles in the Bible as opposed to the more obvious laws there.
If we are going to refer to scripture dating back no more recently than say 100 CE then surely we should be comparing violence in modern society with that in earlier centuries, say after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West and also placing it in the context of a far smaller population prior to the modern era. Or you could look into the Viking era. A go r the better. Still a tough world of course, but compared with the past very much more humane.
Many do not understand what a "principle" is in the Bible and as a result cannot teach that to others and even apply that to themselves
The term " having no moral compass" has been used to explain what has been happening to our youth over the decades. They have had no direction from parents or ones who would normally be in the position to teach and show by example, then the cycle has continued down to this time and will only get worse.
These may not turn out to be murderers or rapist but many do not show the basic "love for their neighbor" and care that they should have been taught and shown to have.
Today instead of the local neighborhood youths wanting to help their neighbors with anything, they would instead grab a few cans of spray paint and "tag" everythingthing in sight.
I've made the comment about what is so boldly and proudly posted on places like YouTube with the violance that is comitted on others.
It seems now when a human is attacked, the cool thing to do to record it on ones cell phone, laugh and encourage this to continue and post it instead of stepping in and actually helping the innocent person.
This is a small thing compared to wars and natural desastors but where is this lack of a moral compass taking us?
http://conservapedia.com/Moral_decline
http://www.helium.com/items/918511-sex-and-morality-in-society
http://www.chronicleng.com/cover_story_full.php?news_id=423
http://books.google.com/books/about/Humanity.html?id=8ui7wi85JHAC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_insanity
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletters/cl-12.pdf
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v10n1/education.html
Moral Decay to Blame
"Americans may be divided about whether life in the country has improved or not, but among those who believe it is worse, opinion is overwhelming that moral decay is to blame. Nearly seven-in-ten people who see life in the U.S. as worse today than it was in the 1950s say the cause is a decline in morality — such as increased crime, the breakdown in family structure and a lack of respect for others. This belief is somewhat stronger among the very religious: 75 percent of them blame moral decay. Notably, Democrats are just as likely as Republicans to name morality as the culprit.
When it comes to the reasons why life is improved in America, the economy is again the top answer. Although references to economic prosperity are the most common responses across most demographic groups, two exceptions are worth noting. Just as many African Americans cite freedom and civil rights (27 percent) as identify the economy — only 11 percent of whites cite civil rights — and people between the ages of 18 and 29 say technology (25 percent) as often as the economy (27 percent)".
Pew Research Center. 1999
14 Jun 12
Originally posted by galveston75These are two different statements:
One point that many are missing is the over all general moral mentality that has degraded. This of course does show up in violent crimes but it shows up in just the way we show respect to our fellow humans in our day to day life's and how we may view the more simply principles in the Bible as opposed to the more obvious laws there.
Many do not understa ...[text shortened]... logy (25 percent) as often as the economy (27 percent)".
Pew Research Center. 1999
1. People think moral standards are falling
2. Moral standards are falling.
You are giving evidence of the first but not the second. What people think is highly questionable as a source of evidence for the second. The use of supporting anecdotes, however graphic, does not improve the quality of the argument.
There is massive evidence of young people having very passionate moral and ethical values. But then, even that is a statement about some young people and does not apply to some other young people. Indeed I am dubious about the significance of the category "young people" when it is used without qualification.
Violent crime for example is by all means an indicator of immoral behaviour. However, it is easy to cite evidence that levels of violent crime are correlated with all sorts of environmental factors which can be managed by and through government, both helpfully and harmfully. If we assume that people are not more or less moral just because, for a trivial example, they are walking at night through a well lit area rather than a poorly lit area, then you will start to concede that it is not all about personal morality but also about other factors. Similarly, regardless of morality, society and government has the capacity to implement policies that could increase or reduce crime without having to intervene directly in the personal morality of the people prevented or discouraged from a criminal act. Better locks on cars have reduced car theft, for example.
You are just being irrationally anxious and looking to religion for your answers when the problem you are anxious about has not even been properly defined let alone demonstrated to be real.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
14 Jun 12
Part of the problem is that too often we tend to focus on the negative and sensational stories and largely ignore the stories of exceptional behavior. For example the young homeless lady that earned a full scholorship to Harvard University.
You know, any student of history would know that the "times" we are living in aren't any worse than say the 1600's for example. Religious people who's dogma relies upon the end of the world always think they are living in the end times and always will. As far as I'm concerned the sun will rise and the sun will set and I'll enjoy a good beer. Someday the world as humans know it will end and we'll be extinct. It could happen tommorrow or it could happen 1 billion years from now. Nobody here knows so who cares.
15 Jun 12
Originally posted by finneganSo more locks would mean better morals? Why not have a need for the locks to begin with?
These are two different statements:
1. People think moral standards are falling
2. Moral standards are falling.
You are giving evidence of the first but not the second. What people think is highly questionable as a source of evidence for the second. The use of supporting anecdotes, however graphic, does not improve the quality of the argument.
...[text shortened]... em you are anxious about has not even been properly defined let alone demonstrated to be real.
I know many may live in a part of the world that relatively peaceful with little gardens in the front yard and their kids playing on the swingset, and that is awesome that there are still places like that on the earth. We all wish that and wish everyone had that.
But many of us live in a world that neighborhoods were like that once but are now long gone. And in many parts of the world even the good neighborhoods are not safe to go out at night or you have to keep your kids in the back fenced yards to keep them from being kidnapped and abused.
So the idea of just keeping you car locked to keep the bad guys morals in check is way off. They are just not being taught morals and have no sense of what they are. Many or just not mischevious as most were when I was a kid..they are down right mean and dangerous and will just as soon kick your teeth in as look at you.
If the morals were here, there would not be the need to lock your cars doors.
When I was much younger none of us hardly ever even locked the front doors to our homes especially in the rural areas. Now the rural areas are hot spots for the use and making of drugs that are brought into the cities.
So prevention is a help but only deflects the problem elsewhere.
15 Jun 12
Originally posted by Ullr‘Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as from creation’s beginning.’”—2Pe 3:3, 4.
Part of the problem is that too often we tend to focus on the negative and sensational stories and largely ignore the stories of exceptional behavior. For example the young homeless lady that earned a full scholorship to Harvard University.
You know, any student of history would know that the "times" we are living in aren't any worse than say the 1600's f ...[text shortened]... tommorrow or it could happen 1 billion years from now. Nobody here knows so who cares.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
15 Jun 12
Originally posted by galveston75"They are just not being taught morals and have no sense of what they are."
So more locks would mean better morals? Why not have a need for the locks to begin with?
I know many may live in a part of the world that relatively peaceful with little gardens in the front yard and their kids playing on the swingset, and that is awesome that there are still places like that on the earth. We all wish that and wish everyone had that.
...[text shortened]... are brought into the cities.
So prevention is a help but only deflects the problem elsewhere.
I disagree. People will construct moral reasons to do what they do; and that is because they have a sense of what morals are. It just happens that you have a different sense of what is moral. Yours is not that much unlike mine, or unlike that of most if not all who come here. But for example, the Nazis had a fully developed moral basis for their extermination camps. (It is always safe to pick out the Nazis as the apotheosis of evil, isn't it?) And people are being taught morals like this, all the time. So people do have a sense of morals and are being taught morals.
You talk about why there are locks on doors, it can be explained from the point of view of people in the the oppressed and ripped-off class being kept away from what has been stolen from them by the oppressive class. Not that I necessarily agree. But the direction the moral compass points, depends on who has possession of it. And curiously it never seems to point at them as the guilty party.
There may be a small percentage of people who celebrate their psychopathic behavior and claim they are above good and evil. It is estimated that about 3% of the population of any society consists of psychopaths, who have no sense of empathy or the other emotions that motivate socially conscious behavior.
15 Jun 12
Originally posted by galveston75What sources that challenge your assumptions have you consulted?
http://conservapedia.com/Moral_decline
http://www.helium.com/items/918511-sex-and-morality-in-society
http://www.chronicleng.com/cover_story_full.php?news_id=423
http://books.google.com/books/about/Humanity.html?id=8ui7wi85JHAC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_insanity
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletters/cl-12.pdf
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v10n1/education.html
15 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59Drugs.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2158285/Face-chewing-victim-Ronald-Poppo-pictured-awake-walking-hospital-Miami-cannibal-attack.html?ICO=most_read_module
Apart from the horror of cannibalism and drugs, I found it deeply upsetting and disturbing that passers-by could just ignore a naked man eating(!!) another naked man.
What is going on with society?
The man in question who got the munchies when he saw the other man's face was on Bath Salts. In fact, I think you will find that statistically violence and drugs go hand in hand.
As for people turing and walking away, I find this the most distrubing. The no "Good Samaratan" syndrome seems to be an indication of the real sickness withint society. For me, it is far worse than the crazed violent man trying to cure his hunger problems.
15 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWhat was, in your view, the level of the "Good Samaratan" syndrome in, say, the 12th century, the 15th century or the 17th century? You diagnose societal "sickness" in the present day. What would your diagnosis be for the above centuries.?
As for people turing and walking away, I find this the most distrubing. The no "Good Samaratan" syndrome seems to be an indication of the real sickness withint society. For me, it is far worse than the crazed violent man trying to cure his hunger problems.
15 Jun 12
Originally posted by FMFI was not comparing centuries FMF. In fact, not much has changed in my view.
What was, in your view, the level of the "Good Samaratan" syndrome in, say, the 12th century, the 15th century or the 17th century? You diagnose societal "sickness" in the present day. What would your diagnosis be for the above centuries.?
15 Jun 12
Originally posted by whodeyOh so you disagree with galveston75's assertion [across numerous threads] that things have become so bad that it is now clear that we are approaching the 'end times'?
I was not comparing centuries FMF. In fact, not much has changed in my view.
15 Jun 12
Originally posted by whodeyIf it has always been the same - and "nothing much has changed" - over the centuries, then isn't it a 'feature' or 'reality' of society, rather than a "sickness"? Isn't "sickness" an aberration? If it is an aberration, how can it be an unchanging part of what is normal?
The no "Good Samaratan" syndrome seems to be an indication of the real sickness withint society.