View Full Version : Britain in moral decline
i wonder do u think that the reason for moral decline in britain today is due to the fact that we r far from the holy GOD? i think this it is so..
lady penelope
27-Aug-07, 18:14
I believe morality is from within, not from God. If children and young adults are respected for who they are and treated with respect then,as adults they should have good morals. Treat others as you would like to be treated. This is nothing to do with beliefs.
I think the government intruding too far into our sitting rooms is the main problem, when the way we bring up our children is being dictated to us by people who are nameless and faceless it is bound to end in tears.
No, I don't believe it's a God thing.
I believe it's a PC culture, where too many minorities are given too many rights.
Family values get harder with each generation to uphold - you can't smack your kids, although sometimes they deserve a damn good hiding. The local bobby isn't allowed to clip them round the ear, & if they should tell the kids off, the parents will most likely be outraged!
Moral decline in Britain? Yes.
But let's not forget as human beings we set boundaries for ourselves - and then see how far we can push them - it's how we learn as children, as adults, as sexual beings. Each generation pushes that little bit further again - I'm glad I won't be around in another 150 years!
percy toboggan
27-Aug-07, 19:10
The baby of respect was thrown out with the bathwater of deference.
Deference needed to go. The decline you speak of has coincided with a drift away from home grown organised religion. Initially I welcomed this drift but now I see the lack of fear of any form of higher authority -be it spiritual or physical is at the root of these problems. Respect is a commodity now in shortish supply too. It's intrinsic meaning has been warped by imported cultures who use the word in justification of retribution. I'm not sure they understand the true meaning of the word, as it's bandied about in street shorthand.Those who demand it the most seem the least inclined to earn it.
Remember thought that the media is there to deliver only bad news it seems. There is a plot to unsettle us all, make us fearful and submit to manipulation from media and Government. The bad out there is still heavily outweighed by the good.
There will be no return to a God fearing mentality in anyones lifetime who could read this, it's gone and it's gone for good. The balance will only be swayed a hundred or two years down the line when imported religion takes over. You know the one I'm talking about and at least under that religion it will be safe for women to walk the streets once more - that's assuming they will be allowed out of doors.
Highland Laddie
27-Aug-07, 19:23
I think the government intruding too far into our sitting rooms is the main problem, when the way we bring up our children is being dictated to us by people who are nameless and faceless it is bound to end in tears.
And do the nameless and faceless also allow kids as young as 8 years old run around the streets in the early hours of the morning.
Quite often on Thursday to Sunday, when getting home from work,usually around 1:15 in the morning there are quite a lot of them still running around, is this the fault of the nameless and faceless, or the parents who are probably faceless after being at the pub all night.
percy toboggan
27-Aug-07, 19:30
And do the nameless and faceless also allow kids as young as 8 years old run around the streets in the early hours of the morning.
Quite often on Thursday to Sunday, when getting home from work,usually around 1:15 in the morning there are quite a lot of them still running around, is this the fault of the nameless and faceless, or the parents who are probably faceless after being at the pub all night.
Seldom see a kid out after dark around here.
Decent ex-council estate, not overly large &
fairly tidy with a 70-30 mix of tenants/owners.
The more I hear about the far north's largest town the
more surprised I become.
Maybe outer Manchester ain't so bad after all.
i wonder do u think that the reason for moral decline in britain today is due to the fact that we r far from the holy GOD? i think this it is so..
I do not think God has a leg to stand on when it comes to morality in the aftermath of all those child molestations by the clergy.
i wonder do u think that the reason for moral decline in britain today is due to the fact that we r far from the holy GOD? i think this it is so..
I guess the moral decline is no different from the decline in other spheres - for instance in spelling, grammar, punctuation and English usage. For proof just look at your own posting!
percy toboggan
27-Aug-07, 20:15
I agree with Cattach. I must have been over eager to shoot my mouth off once more because I'd normally ignore text type expressions and abbreviations. Is it really too much effort to use whole words?
T
There will be no return to a God fearing mentality in anyones lifetime who could read this, it's gone and it's gone for good.
This is very true. In fact, the problem seems to be that there is no fear of anything!!
What is the worst case scenario for a potential murderer in this country? A lifetime of being housed, fed and clothed at the expense of the tax-payer? In addition, they will probably be subject to rehabilitation and get better help in looking for future work than the average Joe will get.
Of course, the murderers are simply poor souls, victims of a society who let THEM down. Did anyone see the professional apologist on Sky News who said that we need to feel sorry for the person/people who murdered Rhys Jones? They were ALL victims according to the woman who wittered on about how we (society) have failed these young people.
What is it coming to when an innocent 11 year old lad is gunned down in broad daylight and we are told by some "expert" that we need to go up and put our arm around the teenager who pulled the trigger and say:-
"There, there son, it's not your fault. Just let me look into your background, and I'll come back to you when I find out who's fault it is"
Highland Laddie
27-Aug-07, 20:36
Seldom see a kid out after dark around here.
Decent ex-council estate, not overly large &
fairly tidy with a 70-30 mix of tenants/owners.
The more I hear about the far north's largest town the
more surprised I become.
Maybe outer Manchester ain't so bad after all.
I may be wrong, but weren't Myra Hindley and Ian Brady from the Manchester Area.
And you wonder why you never see kids out in the dark.
I agree with Cattach. I must have been over eager to shoot my mouth off once more because I'd normally ignore text type expressions and abbreviations. Is it really too much effort to use whole words?
It must be the fact we no longer use the correct English of Shakespeare's time that is causing gun crime etc.
Surely encouraging communication on any level is one way to keep a society cohesive.
j4bberw0ck
27-Aug-07, 21:51
Surely encouraging communication on any level is one way to keep a society cohesive.
No. Why do I want to grunt at someone in a hoodie just because they grunt at me? Setting standards as a minimum expectation might be amove in the right direction. Standards not simply of language, of course. Of manners, of respect for others and their property, of the need to earn a living, amongst other things.
No, I don't believe it's a God thing.
I believe it's a PC culture, where too many minorities are given too many rights.
Family values get harder with each generation to uphold - you can't smack your kids, although sometimes they deserve a damn good hiding. The local bobby isn't allowed to clip them round the ear, & if they should tell the kids off, the parents will most likely be outraged!
Moral decline in Britain? Yes.
But let's not forget as human beings we set boundaries for ourselves - and then see how far we can push them - it's how we learn as children, as adults, as sexual beings. Each generation pushes that little bit further again - I'm glad I won't be around in another 150 years!
that is a fair post which i personally agree with.
"
I do not think God has a leg to stand on when it comes to morality in the aftermath of all those child molestations by the clergy."
Hiya...thought I'd chip in if thats alright. I'm Andrew Clark, new Salvation Army bloke in the town. I guess I'd just offer two points about the above quote.
1) God is as unchuffed about clergy molesting children as you and I are and much more. I suppose plenty of times those who profess Christianity can be a bad advertisement for the Big Man.
2) many of you will know of the stuff that The Salvation Army does and has done in the town especially for the youth, through our JAM Club and Youth club. I'd hope that we, as regular decent Christian folk, are instilling some good life experiences, in these kids in their youth.
Just a couple of thoughts :o)
Andrew C
No. Why do I want to grunt at someone in a hoodie just because they grunt at me? Setting standards as a minimum expectation might be amove in the right direction. Standards not simply of language, of course. Of manners, of respect for others and their property, of the need to earn a living, amongst other things.
There are so many people much more intelligent than you in towers of thicker ivory. Why should others grunt at you? What do you offer?
The example to set should be one of openness. The mistake you made with the typo "amove " may influence dictionary compilers in the future to include your usage. That is the way language develops. I have no doubt that the abbreviations used in common text will be there soon, if it not already. Let us demonstrate preparedness for progression instead of stagnation. Attacking a person for the use of a method of communication that is used by countless people (that I incidentally, am not yet comfortable with) seems a poor way of encouraging manners, respect etc.
If she were still alive at 109, I am sure my grandmother would find your, currently acceptable manners, j4bberw0ck, inconceivably course.
If she were still alive at 109, I am sure my grandmother would find your, currently acceptable manners, j4bberw0ck, inconceivably course.
Or, as this grandmother would say, coarse :roll:. Not that I'm necessarily agreeing, but since we are talking about spelling .....
"
1) God is as unchuffed about clergy molesting children as you and I are and much more.
I wonder how God conveyed that fact to you? It may well be that God adopts a Laissez-Faire attitude as far as what goes on in his World.
If I were a child suffering molestation at the hands of a Clergyman, I would be wondering why the God who loves me, and is angry about what is happening to me, does absolutely hee haw to help me? Would the answer be that I was a Pawn in a twisted game of Chess that involved someone else's faith in God being tested by the revelation of my misery? Perhaps it would be MY faith that was being tested, by a God who is just a wee bit paranoid about his followers?
In my opinion, we will be waiting an awful long time if we are to wait for God to provide a solution to the evils carried out by the supposed "Men of the Cloth"
Or, as this grandmother would say, coarse :roll:. Not that I'm necessarily agreeing, but since we are talking about spelling .....
But surely I was talking about a tolerant and progressive view. I was a remedial schoolchild but my view is still valid
Hi... I guess if God was to deal with every evil in the world in the next ten minutes we may all find ourselves in a bit of trouble. The question 'why does GOd not do stuff about evil' is a real but old one. That is no attempt to rationalise why people suffer or a throw away comment, but where do you stop with evil?
I suppose the logical position is that if you don't believe in God, then justice may never be carried out in the case of the paedophile, but for those of us that do believe, even if people (clergy or not) aren't caught up with in their lifetime, they certainly get whats due when they die.
I'm travelling down south to give evidence in a court case soon where a young person was able to have a trusting, loving and secure enough relationship with me (a 'man of the cloth') and our female youth worker that she was able to share that she had been sexually abused by a family member. Maybe thats just one way that God has provided help for her.
Was just trying to make the point that its the bad apples who end up in the news, not the countless volunteers who work hard week by week trying to make our communities a better place.
I'd close by saying that a wolf in sheeps clothing is very likely never to have been a sheep at all.
Thanks for your honest comments Scorrie.
Andrew C
......
I suppose the logical position is that if you don't believe in God, then justice may never be carried out in the case of the paedophile, but for those of us that do believe, even if people (clergy or not) aren't caught up with in their lifetime, they certainly get whats due when they die.....
Andrew, I mean you no disrespect whatsoever, and I think our world is an amazing place - many 'miracles' occur, but can be easily explained in a scientific way. OK, it might not sound so romantic when you understand at cell level just how we manage to be created, but it's still a wonderful thing - as is mixing potassium permanganate with water - it goes a gorgeous colour!
But God? Nope. Sorry, I don't believe at all. I understand many do & that's their choice. But it's not for me - history has showed us time and again that religion causes wars and divisions - evildoers don't get punished by God & you say they have to wait until they die to get their retribution, so why doesn't the big man call their number up early?
Sorry Andrew, I have admiration for the work that you do, just not your boss.
Aaldtimer
28-Aug-07, 02:10
AndrewC, forgive me if I'm mistaken, but are you really a man of the cloth, ordained etc.?
Also..."I'd close by saying that a wolf in sheeps clothing is very likely never to have been a sheep at all.".... that's a pretty stupid statement...it's a wolf whatever clothing it is in!
Welcome to the org Andrew. ;)
j4bberw0ck
28-Aug-07, 07:35
There are so many people much more intelligent than you in towers of thicker ivory. Why should others grunt at you? What do you offer?
Thanks, stratman. Frankly, I'd rather people wouldn't grunt at me.
Hi... I guess if God was to deal with every evil in the world in the next ten minutes we may all find ourselves in a bit of trouble. The question 'why does GOd not do stuff about evil' is a real but old one. That is no attempt to rationalise why people suffer or a throw away comment, but where do you stop with evil?
I suppose the logical position is that if you don't believe in God, then justice may never be carried out in the case of the paedophile, but for those of us that do believe, even if people (clergy or not) aren't caught up with in their lifetime, they certainly get whats due when they die.
I'm travelling down south to give evidence in a court case soon where a young person was able to have a trusting, loving and secure enough relationship with me (a 'man of the cloth') and our female youth worker that she was able to share that she had been sexually abused by a family member. Maybe thats just one way that God has provided help for her.
Was just trying to make the point that its the bad apples who end up in the news, not the countless volunteers who work hard week by week trying to make our communities a better place.
I'd close by saying that a wolf in sheeps clothing is very likely never to have been a sheep at all.
Thanks for your honest comments Scorrie.
Andrew C
Welcome to the org !
Sorry Andrew but God certainly hasn't provided her with help, shes just had the guts to come forward and put a stop to it .The time must be right for an individual to open up about these horrific things, some people will never confess about things that have happened to them, others need to get it in the open to start the healing process. janx
Lolabelle
28-Aug-07, 08:47
I do not think God has a leg to stand on when it comes to morality in the aftermath of all those child molestations by the clergy.
I don't believe that those clerymen have anything to do with God, just with religion.
Hi people,
thanks for all your responses. There are so many great and valid questions that you are all raising which do have some answers, but forums are very rarely the place to discuss them. In fact, its not a place to give them the treatment they deserve. But still, it doesn't look like God gets a good press at Caithness.org lol We are all, of course, entitled to our beliefs and I respect you for yours.
Just a few quick responses to a few things by different folks. I'm not up to scratch with all the technical bits of the forum, so forgive me if it looks a bit botched up.
Sorry Andrew but God certainly hasn't provided her with help, shes just had the guts to come forward and put a stop to it .The time must be right for an individual to open up about these horrific things, some people will never confess about things that have happened to them, others need to get it in the open to start the healing process. janx
Obviously, if you don't believe in God, then of course you wouldn't see it as God helping her. And, without betraying any confidences, we were this girls only lifeline. She did indeed have guts, but needed a lot of encourgement and security to open up.
For me, having been in an abusive home as a child, God made all the difference. I certainly wasn't brought up as a Christian and my parents don't darken the door of a church, but it was Salvation Army people that gave me what I needed, whether you beleive that God uses them or not.
I could find some sort of statistics for you somewhere if I looked, but I'd reckon that for every one child that is harmed by a so-called clergyman, there are hundreds who are actually rescued and helped. In my 9 years in Salvation Army ministry, in Glasgow, London, Bristol and now Wick, I can't count on two hands the times we've had to literally 'rescue' children from a variety of awful situations.
I'm not asking you to believe in God or anything, I guess I'm just suggesting that there is an imbalance in our view in that we often only see the negative because it suits our position.
None of us would say that we know everything, in fact they say that we know something like 0.000000000000000000001% of all that there is to know about life and the universe...could it just be that the full truth about God lies in the 99.999999999etc% we don't know? Still, God has made it possible to know something about him and I guess many of us, even if we wouldn't say we were Christian or whatever, have a sense of 'something out there.'
Aaldtimer says: AndrewC, forgive me if I'm mistaken, but are you really a man of the cloth, ordained etc.? Also..."I'd close by saying that a wolf in sheeps clothing is very likely never to have been a sheep at all.".... that's a pretty stupid statement...it's a wolf whatever clothing it is in!
Hi Aaldtimer...yeah, our ID cards read "Captain Andrew Clark is a commissioned Salvation Army officer and as such is an accredited minister of religion." Commissioned and ordained are similar terms, we simply use that because it make sense within the context of the 'military' idea that The Salvation Army uses.
On your second point, you've managed to catch the very essence of my statement. Someone might say they are a Christian, but they may actually not be. Wolf in sheeps clothing. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was getting at.
jsherris says: history has showed us time and again that religion causes wars and divisions
I agree, religion causes wars and divisions. Thats why I'm not into religion. Faith in God is about relationship, not religion.
I hope my short responses don't trivialise anyone's questions....feel free to contact my one to one if my answer hasn't satisfied.
Thanks again for your open and honest comments everyone...
Andrew C
I don't believe that those clerymen have anything to do with God, just with religion.
Doesn't God appoint his clergy based on merit?:confused
Hi... I guess if God was to deal with every evil in the world in the next ten minutes we may all find ourselves in a bit of trouble. The question 'why does GOd not do stuff about evil' is a real but old one.
Andrew C
If you believe in a God that is truely omnipotent then to summise that He cannot cure evil then you are putting your own limitations on an entity that can do anything.
If He doesn't cure evil then either He is a party to it, he mischieviously loves to watch us wallow in it or He doesn't exist.
Which seems more likely?:confused
Rheghed says: If you believe in a God that is truely omnipotent then to summise that He cannot cure evil then you are putting your own limitations on an entity that can do anything.
If He doesn't cure evil then either He is a party to it, he mischieviously loves to watch us wallow in it or He doesn't exist.
Which seems more likely?
I didn't say he couldn't cure evil, I said that there is a problem of evil. If God were to deal with evil the way we were to do it, we may find a different outcome because his standards are higher than ours. Its like the little girl who sees a sheep in a field and says, what a lovely white sheep against the green grass. Then it starts to snow, the ground gets covered and the little girl says 'What a dirty sheep against that pure white snow."
By our standards, we conclude that its only murderers and child molestors that God should deal with because we see ourselves as ok. Yet God's standard is higher. If you know much about the gospel you may remember the line of thought that suggests that Jesus died to cleanse us because our own efforts don't match up.
God could indeed wipe us all out, but the fact that he doesn't shows much more consideration! But where should he stop? Murderers, theives, liars? God said that hatred was like murder without the courage of your convictions. God hates evil and the reason that Jesus was sent was to satisfy God's desire that evil (or sin) is punished. Its like we broke the law and Jesus paid the fine. That is God's cure for evil. Thats what the bible teaches.
I'd like to offer a third option to your question....could it be the case God has provided a way to deal with evil but we don't embrace it? Could it be that the hypocrisy in the church stems from people who are Christians by name but not by nature?
Again, simply presenting the Christian perspective.
Originally Posted by Lolabelle
I don't believe that those clerymen have anything to do with God, just with religion.
Rheghed says: Doesn't God appoint his clergy based on merit?
I'd add that perhaps there is a skewered perception of what ordination is. God does indeed 'ordain' or appoint people according to his chosing, but again the church can get it wrong. Just because a church gives someone a robe and a collar and calls them ordained doesn't necessarily mean that God has set the same seal of approval.
On the flip side of that, there are people that God may well have 'ordained' or 'appointed' and they are doing what he wants them today but may never have put on a dog collar in their life.
Hope that makes sense a bit
Andrew C
Highland Laddie
28-Aug-07, 12:59
War, Volcanos, Earthquakes Tsunamis ?????
what is he trying to say there ????
Highland Laddie,
the suffering caused by natural disasters is devastating, always has been and will be. We mustn't neglect that or leave it out of the question when we attempt to give reasons for the place of God in them. The question 'where is God in them?' is another common one but the answer has to be 'right there in the middle of it.' He is the God of the suffering...as I've said, the bible tells us that God despises injustice, suffering, hate etc..its the opposite of who He is.
Within an hour of the 2006 tsunami, I know for a fact the Salvation Army people on the ground had already swung into action. Regardless of the fact that they had been hit themselves, their first response was to 'others.'
With regards to why they happen, the bible teaches that the problem with evil doesn't just lie in the hearts of people. You'll remember the message carried by the story of Adam and Eve of how going against God brought a 'fall.' It wasn't just men and women that suffered the consequences of that, it was the physical landscape of the world too. What happened to the garden of Eden? Well, the geographical location of that place is expected to have been in the middle of a modern day Iraqi dessert! It certainly suffered somehow.
Join that up with todays theories on global warming and we see the illustration carried forward. Its man's treatment of earth that is causing many problems.
I appreciate you may not believe that God created a perfect world and that man and woman messed it up, but thats what the bible teaches and so just presenting it as that.
hope that makes sense.
yours
Andrew C
connieb19
28-Aug-07, 13:33
So really everyone in the word would have to believe in God for him to be able to make a difference, is that right?
helenwyler
28-Aug-07, 13:36
Its like the little girl who sees a sheep in a field and says, what a lovely white sheep against the green grass. Then it starts to snow, the ground gets covered and the little girl says 'What a dirty sheep against that pure white snow."
Was the sheep an albino then?
I don't mean to sound ungracious Andrew, but I hate facile allegories:mad:.
LOL! Andrew.....I like you but I disagree with you on a few points.
Yes, God get's a bad press on the Org.....some because of the "miracle" of modern science and it's "know-all" attitude, and some because of the hypocrisy of the church in all it's forms.....and some because of reasons of their own......
Rheghead....it's blatently clear that God doesn't appoint the clergy. Inquistions, crusades, blessing the troops on both sides of a war? Where is God in all of that? He isn't anywhere near it.
In fact the Bible makes very clear why the world is as we see it today....and it tells us it's going to get worse before it gets better.
Let me ask you this Andrew........who rules the world?
If He doesn't cure evil then either He is a party to it, he mischieviously loves to watch us wallow in it or He doesn't exist.
You forgot another option.......maybe he does exist and he does care and he's going to do something about it, but timing is everything!
To Connieb19:
No, but one person can make a big difference on their own. A group of people can make a bigger impact and the whole world will make the world of a difference. Even if you take the Christian aspect out of it the principle of 'every little helps' is something that even Tesco recognise.
In another post I'm looking for ideas about what the Sally Army migh tbe able to do for the youth of the town. We have a bit of money and a little hall that is sitting empty at the moment (not the main SA hall, but the one attached to our house on Victoria Place) and we want to do something positive for secondary school age. All suggestions welcome! The post is intitled 'Wick Youth'
To helenwyler:
no offense taken helen...will try to do better next time ;)
Just to add a few words: Its not my intention to be arguementative, I hope that people don't mind me responding to the questions asked. Also, if you happen to bump into me down the street, feel free to say hello...I don't bite (most of the time!)
What happened to the garden of Eden? Well, the geographical location of that place is expected to have been in the middle of a modern day Iraqi dessert!
yours
Andrew C
There is certainly a "sweet" irony in this statement ;o)
Hi Saveman....yes, I agree with you about hypocrisy. There is nothing worse than a hypocritical Christian...thats where the discussion started I think. Also, just to say that I'd go to the death to defend your right to disagree with me! Can't beat a decent conversation!
Your also right in saying that the Bible describes the worlds situation well.
With regards to the inquisition, crusades etc etc, you are right, another example of the church getting it absolutely wrong!
As to your question
Saveman says: Let me ask you this Andrew........who rules the world?, it might surprise orgers to know that the bible says that it is the devil who rules the world. Jesus descibes the devil as the prince of the world. Christians see it as their role to push back evil.
Back when the old Sally Army was started, this is and was at the heart of who we are. We try to fight evil, injustice, poverty...to be the invading force to claim back and instill again the goodness that God intended. Sort of clash of the kingdoms thing but where the seemingly terrifying enemy is nothing compared to the force of good when its mobilised. Its a war to be fought.
Scorrie: I though you'd like the irony in that fact! :o)
Highland Laddie
28-Aug-07, 14:12
Let me ask you this Andrew........who rules the world?
THE ILLUMINATI !!!!!
Scorrie: I though you'd like the irony in that fact! :o)
I don't think you caught my drift Andrew. Perhaps, I'm not "Pudding" myself across clearly enough ;o)
<snip>
As to your question , it might surprise orgers to know that the bible says that it is the devil who rules the world. Jesus descibes the devil as the prince of the world.
<snip>
Hence the reason for the moral decline, the disasters, the wars etc. etc.
To reverse moral decline: standards would have to be set and eventually met. Whose standards do we set, yours? mine? Our elected leaders? Sometimes their morals leave a lot to be desired. The Bible sets out standards for morality that many reject as being too restrictive, old fashioned. (And no I'm not talking about the Law given to the Israelites in the Old Testament)
Yet there are many who have tried these standards in their life and immediately begin to see the benefits. Long-term they are happier and more fulfilled.
But who wants to conform? "You joking? That's for old fuddy duddys.....I believe in freedom!" and let's watch the worlds morals go down the drain and our children's future with it.....
But God has other plans....
Scorrie: I though you'd like the irony in that fact! :o)
I hope your argument doesn't begin to "crumble!" ;)
I agree with you Saveman. It is for freedom that Jesus sets us free, not to be kept in slavery. When we discover the Truth, the Truth will set us free. My experience is that we find this in God and his son Jesus. I don't necessarily think that finding a new set of morals is going to solve it...it didn't work for the Israelites. The law simply showed them their need for something out of themselves to rescue them. The Christian position is that Jesus and a relationship with Him is the answer to moral decline.
Saveman and scorrie...my ultimate downfall is that I've never been able to distingish between dessert and desert...makes for interesting mealtimes! ;)
As to your question , it might surprise orgers to know that the bible says that it is the devil who rules the world. Jesus descibes the devil as the prince of the world. Christians see it as their role to push back evil.
It was the Christian religion which gave Lucifer his evil reputation and it is debatable whether it was deserved. Good and evil is a man-made dichotomy which does not exist in the natural world. There has been more 'evil' perpetrated by the Christian Church than by any other cult or religion. If the Church were to clean up its own backyard then it might generate a little more respect.
This world was given to the Morning Star on his exile from heaven as his rightful inheritance because he disagreed with His Father about the creation of the human race and felt so strongly that he went to war over this subject. The supreme insult came when the human race was then put on this poor benighted planet.
The Devil cannot be held responsible for the crimes of the human race. In fact, if God and religion are hand in hand, then God, not the Lightgiver, is responsible for the evil in the world. Over three billion Christians in this world. One wonders how few worshippers Lucifer has in comparison.
The Devil cannot be held responsible for the crimes of the human race. In fact, if God and religion are hand in hand, then God, not the Lightgiver, is responsible for the evil in the world. Over three billion Christians in this world. One wonders how few worshippers Lucifer has in comparison.
Righty...interesting. Thats sounds like a discussion to be had over a cup of tea not a forum! :o) Thanks for the comment.
Another problem is Andrew who has the Truth?
When there are so many different "Christian" denominations all with slightly different beliefs, surely God can't accept them all when their interpretation of Biblical morals can be loose to say the least?
Some believe Jesus is God's Son, some believe Jesus is God the Son, some believe Jesus is equal to God, some don't......some take the Bible to be the word of God, some don't....some believe we're in the last days, some don't.....some believe all good people will go to heaven and bad people to hell, some believe some will go to heaven and some will stay on Earth, some say hell doesn't exist....
Basically they can't all be right....they can't all be the Truth. They can't all have God's blessing....
It was the Christian religion which gave Lucifer his evil reputation and it is debatable whether it was deserved. Good and evil is a man-made dichotomy which does not exist in the natural world. There has been more 'evil' perpetrated by the Christian Church than by any other cult or religion. If the Church were to clean up its own backyard then it might generate a little more respect.
This world was given to the Morning Star on his exile from heaven as his rightful inheritance because he disagreed with His Father about the creation of the human race and felt so strongly that he went to war over this subject. The supreme insult came when the human race was then put on this poor benighted planet.
The Devil cannot be held responsible for the crimes of the human race. In fact, if God and religion are hand in hand, then God, not the Lightgiver, is responsible for the evil in the world. Over three billion Christians in this world. One wonders how few worshippers Lucifer has in comparison.
I agree with your point about the "Christian Church."
However can the creation rightly disagree with the perfect Creator?
This "Lightgiver" lied to the human race....and is laughing at us as we speak......this "poor benighted planet," is a beautiful oasis in the desert of the universe. Perfect for man's inhabitance.....but of course man and the "Morning Star" think that they are better left to their own devices and look at the result! Death, disease, disaster.
Independence is not all that the Devil would have you believe it is cracked up to be. The last thing Satan wants you to have is humility.
Saveman says:
When there are so many different "Christian" denominations all with slightly different beliefs, surely God can't accept them all when their interpretation of Biblical morals can be loose to say the least?
God says in the bible that he will separate sheep from goats (back to sheep again!) :o) The bible does also say, as it seems you will know, that there will be many who will come who are false teachers.
Who has the Truth? Not so much about who has it, but who it is. Jesus said that he was the Truth. Good enough for me.
I agree with your point about the "Christian Church."
However can the creation rightly disagree with the perfect Creator?
This "Lightgiver" lied to the human race....and is laughing at us as we speak......this "poor benighted planet," is a beautiful oasis in the desert of the universe. Perfect for man's inhabitance.....but of course man and the "Morning Star" think that they are better left to their own devices and look at the result! Death, disease, disaster.
Independence is not all that the Devil would have you believe it is cracked up to be. The last thing Satan wants you to have is humility.
The perfect Creator is the interpretation of the Created and all we know of Him comes in the words of men. How and when did Leviathon lie to us. He has no bible to contain his truth. This planet was a perfect reproduction of Heaven and indeed an oasis as you say until the human race in all its arrogance began to transform it into the ecological disaster it is today. Lucifer was left to his own devices and was then landed with us, the final slap in the face to the exiled Archangel whose only sin was to disagree with his father over another creation. We all disagree with our fathers at one time or another, it is part of growing up. In the interim period, Satan seems to have been right as there seems to be no end to the depradations of the human race.
Freedom is an essential ingredient to the individual and the race if progress is to be made. We must have the freedom to make up our own minds and create our own destiny for better or for worse. We cannot do this if we all adhere to a code laid out thousands of years ago. It is essential for the individual to go into the world alone, away from father authority, in order to develope as an individual. The same thing applies on a racial level.
Obey the teachings of Christ but set aside all question of Divinity or Diety and the childishly arrogant concept of 'worship' and you can be indeed free on a moral or a kharmic level. Any entity who needs or wants the praise and worship of the insignificant human race is indeed not worthy of the worshipping.
rob murray
28-Aug-07, 16:35
Gleber : what has destroyed the planet is mans greed, or rather a system of living ( modern capitalism ) which is driven by the destructive exploitation of resources ( including humans ) ie focus on and explain the means of destruction. The vast majority of us do not not condone destruction but as we live and actively participate within modern capitalistic structures, we are all, to a degree, part of the same hypocricy...and you included
Go and read the works of Schumpeter, an Austrian economist who lays it all out, "capitalism is a perennial gale of destruction"
The perfect Creator is the interpretation of the Created and all we know of Him comes in the words of men. How and when did Leviathon lie to us. He has no bible to contain his truth. This planet was a perfect reproduction of Heaven and indeed an oasis as you say until the human race in all its arrogance began to transform it into the ecological disaster it is today. Lucifer was left to his own devices and was then landed with us, the final slap in the face to the exiled Archangel whose only sin was to disagree with his father over another creation. We all disagree with our fathers at one time or another, it is part of growing up. In the interim period, Satan seems to have been right as there seems to be no end to the depradations of the human race.
Freedom is an essential ingredient to the individual and the race if progress is to be made. We must have the freedom to make up our own minds and create our own destiny for better or for worse. We cannot do this if we all adhere to a code laid out thousands of years ago. It is essential for the individual to go into the world alone, away from father authority, in order to develope as an individual. The same thing applies on a racial level.
Obey the teachings of Christ but set aside all question of Divinity or Diety and the childishly arrogant concept of 'worship' and you can be indeed free on a moral or a kharmic level. Any entity who needs or wants the praise and worship of the insignificant human race is indeed not worthy of the worshipping.
Wow, what a twisting of the facts!
I've seen Satan's version of freedom.....it's not pretty. And he was never an Archangel.
You know Gleber2, Satan wants your worship. At the minute it sounds like he is getting it.
Freedom is important, but how much freedom do you give a young child? There has to be boundaries! Just look at the state of the world! This isn't personal development or progress! It's a nightmare!
The human race is less than a young child before our Almighty Creator, and we presume to know where to set the boundaries?
(This reminds of the the good ole days of the Org....welcome back G2! :D)
Wow, what a twisting of the facts!
I've seen Satan's version of freedom.....it's not pretty. And he was never an Archangel.
You know Gleber2, Satan wants your worship. At the minute it sounds like he is getting it.
Freedom is important, but how much freedom do you give a young child? There has to be boundaries! Just look at the state of the world! This isn't personal development or progress! It's a nightmare!
The human race is less than a young child before our Almighty Creator, and we presume to know where to set the boundaries?
(This reminds of the the good ole days of the Org....welcome back G2! :D)
Firstly, define 'facts'.
Secondly, Please explain Satan's version of freedom which you have seen. And, according to most occult writings, Lucifer was an Archangel, Angel of the Morning Star.
Thirdly, Satan does not need or ask for worship in any book that I have read. This aspect is a fiction of the Christian religion. As for me worshipping The De'il, nonsense. I feel no need to worship anything or anybody.
Children are given boundaries but only up to a point and then they must be left to develop for themselves in order to progress as individuals. Whatever they make for themselves is up to them when the hand of control is taken away. Some excel and some die. Is it not the same for races? Trouble is, we do not seem to be able to learn from our mistakes and continue to make the same ones over and over again and, as the population continues to increase, the effect of these mistakes gets greater and greater.
We are responsible for our own salvation and we are all responsible for the mess we are in. No help from above and no help from below, we must make our own salvation.
Yes, Saveman, it has been a while since we locked horns on this subject. I could not resist being, literally, the Devil's Advocate. A lawyer does not need to know whether a client is guilty or innocent. All that is required is that he convinces others of his innocence.
percy toboggan
28-Aug-07, 17:37
I may be wrong, but weren't Myra Hindley and Ian Brady from the Manchester Area.
And you wonder why you never see kids out in the dark.
Indeed they were, and just up the road from where I once lived, and where I live now.
Surely though you're joking. Although I know a good deal about the Moors Murders having studied the subject in some its detail - the final detection of the killers was fascinating - since the death of Hindley the constant regurgitating of the crimes in the local press has tailed off a tad. Their house has been demolished - 'twas in the middle of a terrace of four or five 1960's built homes. A nasty stain on the area which was only partially eclipsed by the foul deeds of Harold Shipman in the same neck of the woods. Pensioners around here still call their Doctors though so your logic doesn't hold water.
An interesting proposition nevetheless.
percy toboggan
28-Aug-07, 17:49
It must be the fact we no longer use the correct English of Shakespeare's time that is causing gun crime etc.
Surely encouraging communication on any level is one way to keep a society cohesive.
Why would we continue to use middle English when that verison has been superseded ? Sarcasm is all very well when it makes a semblance of sense.
If one wants to be taken seriously a little attention to detail is a good idea. Linguistic shortcuts denote laziness or lack of education. Not good in my 'umble opinion.
Forsooth I think you might find crime of most varieties was more rampant in Shakespearean times, proportionate to population anyway.
I'd wager cohesion is best served by one common language and not various sub-divisions dependant on whatever electronic gadget one carries today.
Firstly, define 'facts'.
Secondly, Please explain Satan's version of freedom which you have seen. And, according to most occult writings, Lucifer was an Archangel, Angel of the Morning Star.
Thirdly, Satan does not need or ask for worship in any book that I have read. This aspect is a fiction of the Christian religion. As for me worshipping The De'il, nonsense. I feel no need to worship anything or anybody.
Children are given boundaries but only up to a point and then they must be left to develop for themselves in order to progress as individuals. Whatever they make for themselves is up to them when the hand of control is taken away. Some excel and some die. Is it not the same for races? Trouble is, we do not seem to be able to learn from our mistakes and continue to make the same ones over and over again and, as the population continues to increase, the effect of these mistakes gets greater and greater.
We are responsible for our own salvation and we are all responsible for the mess we are in. No help from above and no help from below, we must make our own salvation.
Yes, Saveman, it has been a while since we locked horns on this subject. I could not resist being, literally, the Devil's Advocate. A lawyer does not need to know whether a client is guilty or innocent. All that is required is that he convinces others of his innocence.
LOL very true.....I can see you now in one of those lawyers wigs...
Facts = The Bible's version of things.
Satan's freedom = this world = one big mess.
Occult writings are pants. ;) Satan wasn't an Archangel....he was the covering cherub, until unrighteousness was found in him = pride.
The Bible says he wanted the worship only due to God.
Society needs boundaries. Humans need boundaries and guidance.
Salvation will be a matter of faith.
Agree to disagree?? (again) ;)
LOL very true.....I can see you now in one of those lawyers wigs...
Facts = The Bible's version of things.
Satan's freedom = this world = one big mess.
Occult writings are pants. ;) Satan wasn't an Archangel....he was the covering cherub, until unrighteousness was found in him = pride.
The Bible says he wanted the worship only due to God.
Society needs boundaries. Humans need boundaries and guidance.
Salvation will be a matter of faith.
Agree to disagree?? (again) ;)
The bible, as a guide to all good things, is not where it is at. The words of men and no more. Poor fact, poor fiction and too much war and bloodshed.
All I can say, the bible is pants!! If everything you quote is from an unproven source then you cannot be sure of your facts. All evidence for the truth of the bible and that it is the unchangable voice of God is, at best, circumstancial. If indeed it is God against Devil, then anything written by the opposition is bound to be contencious.(sp)
Humans need guidance indeed but it is not forthcoming. It must come from within and not dependant on anyone elses' assumed wisdom.
The faith you seem to depend upon is, in itself, a barrier to advancement spiritually.
percy toboggan
28-Aug-07, 18:05
Surely if the Christian faith hath no basis in fact it's still a good value system that kept people on a fairly benign,even charitable path. The great savagery that gleeber alludes to was over and done with centuries ago.
The hierarchical nature of the Christian faith turns me off but I could never be so certain as to deny the existence of any spiritual overLord/ladyLord. I doubt it, but certainty lies with the seasons, the planets and the sun. The only other thing we have is conjecture, and science. Given what I know of science, I'll settle for conjecture. Certainty in these spiritual matters is for the foolish, or the callous. Belief , which is perhaps even harder to explain than certainty, is for the optimist.
Surely if the Christian faith hath no basis in fact it's still a good value system that kept people on a fairly benign,even charitable path. The great savagery that gleeber alludes to was over and done with centuries ago.
.
The life philosophy preached by Christ and the rules of the Commandaments would make for a good world if they were applied by Christians as well as non-believers.
If you are calling me Gleeber, I am Gleber2, a different kettle of fish. The savagery is now visible in every aspect of society and unfortunately does not lie in the past but is with us now all over the world.
The bible, as a guide to all good things, is not where it is at. The words of men and no more. Poor fact, poor fiction and too much war and bloodshed.
Have you read the Bible?
All I can say, the bible is pants!! If everything you quote is from an unproven source then you cannot be sure of your facts.
Faith is not the possession of all men.
All evidence for the truth of the bible and that it is the unchangable voice of God is, at best, circumstancial. If indeed it is God against Devil, then anything written by the opposition is bound to be contencious.(sp)
Unless you believe God always tells the truth.
Humans need guidance indeed but it is not forthcoming. It must come from within and not dependant on anyone elses' assumed wisdom.
The guidance that comes from within is destroying the world.
The faith you seem to depend upon is, in itself, a barrier to advancement spiritually.
Spiritual advancement in which direction? Satan's or God's?
percy toboggan
28-Aug-07, 18:19
The savagery is now visible in every aspect of society and unfortunately does not lie in the past but is with us now all over the world.
I have to take issue with this statement. I have been a 'member' of this society for some fifty six years. I have never witnessed savagery. Mayube I have been lucky. I witness unpleasantness sometimes , and , even more rarely violence. ' Savagery' is one hell of a word to use and is largely confined to isolated incidents. I was in the Machars only last week and there was no sign of 'savagery' there. I'd wager there was none of it in Caithness today, either.
Your comments were reminiscent of fire and brimstone preaching gleeber2 - thanks for the distinction by the way. My mistake.
Your comments were reminiscent of fire and brimstone preaching gleeber2 - thanks for the distinction by the way. My mistake.
Like the human race, Percy, you need to learn from your mistakes. I am GLEBER2.
Look at many parts of Africa, the Middle East, many parts of South America and so on, and you will see savagery that has never before existed and more of it, due to the infinitely greater population of the world today. We are killing each other at a greater rate than ever due to the effectiveness of our weapons. And now we are shooting each other in the North of England in our early teens. Feel blessed, Percy, that you are living in a society that has not yet irrevocably crossed the line. Anarchy is closer than ever and none of us will be safe.
Another problem is Andrew who has the Truth?
If you go along to Loch Watten on a night you can stand and watch the reflection of the moon in the water. If you walk along to the other end of the loch the moon will follow you and you will see the reflection of the moon at the other end. Line 200 people up along the side of the loch and they will all see the reflection of the moon in a different place. That is the nature of truth.
But to find Truth you must work out where the reflection of the moon is when nobody is looking.
percy toboggan
28-Aug-07, 19:47
But to find Truth you must work out where the reflection of the moon is when nobody is looking.
What about those who are trying to fish it out of the loch with a rake ?
What about those who are trying to fish it out of the loch with a rake ?
I've come across the moonraker legend in quite a few areas of England but never in Caithness.
George Brims
28-Aug-07, 20:14
...too many minorities are given too many rights.
Family values get harder with each generation to upholds for ourselves
Bigotry is not a family value. Rights are not given. We are born with them.
percy toboggan
28-Aug-07, 20:53
...... Rights are not given. We are born with them.
The rights you speak of were actually fought and struggled for by our ancestors. We must always be grateful. And mindful of that. Any rights the common people hold now were hard won. Ruling elites would have given us nothing of worth. Not ever. Not even the dirt from their fingernails save a few noble philanthropic employers - and even they had ulterior motives.
j4bberw0ck
28-Aug-07, 20:55
And at the risk of upsetting anyone, we may be born with them, but the right to exercise them is earned.
percy toboggan
28-Aug-07, 21:20
And at the risk of upsetting anyone, we may be born with them, but the right to exercise them is earned.
I'm not upset but you are wrong.
Anyway, rights do not need to be exercised at all. Excorcised perhaps - some of 'em anyway to make way for some responsibilities.
I didnt understand what morals were when I was younger and even today when I think I understand them, I understand them even less.
Most of my confusion surrounds other peoples morals, or at least how they speak them. Whether people stand by thier moral code, or not, is something that interests me about humans and morals.
Consider people like Jeffery Archer or Jonathan aitken or even Poor John Prescott. Imagine if any of these people stood up 30 years ago and pronounced to the world, the contents of thier hearts, or wherever morals are born, I think they would have been run out of town before dawn, probably by people whose own morals would be a bit dodgy if the truth be told.
Moprals are closely related to peoples spiritual foundations and beliefs, concerning stuff of a supernatural nature. Some of the The most memorable people I've met have alwys had a background of and a notion of a god or some other domain that can only be reached, either by death or some kind of life long earthy ritual. From the earlier posts salvation seems to be the goal. Now, If I was a superstitios chap, a Captain from the Salvation Army would certainly be a good fellow to know.
To be honest, although the dialogue in this thread has been interesting to say the least, between the differing religous folks, I struggle with the morality that everlasting life and a loving God should be considered as a foundation for peoples morals in the modern world.
I disgree totally with Saveman when he claims, the guidance coming from within is destroying the world and I disagree with Glebers cynical view of mankind
Mankind is changing and in my opinion is changing for the better not because we have turned from God, but more because we are questioning the notion of a god. Its not going to be easy, but I believe that because mankind is basically good at heart he will find that the God he thought was out there, was perhaps inside all along.
Thats a very insightful post gleeber. I'd just say that eternity is not so much the issue....its about the change God makes in the here and now that improves morality.
And yes, I am a good chap to know but you don't need to be supersticious! :o)
j4bberw0ck
28-Aug-07, 22:27
I'm not upset but you are wrong.
Anyway, rights do not need to be exercised at all. Excorcised perhaps - some of 'em anyway to make way for some responsibilities.
Yes......... that was rather what I meant........ :lol:
Thats a very insightful post gleeber. I'd just say that eternity is not so much the issue....its about the change God makes in the here and now that improves morality.:o)
God cant make the changes without my help. Why?
As I understand it we are born as nothing ,with nothing, other than perhaps a will to aurvive.
What we make of our life is down to how we are nutured,what we are taught, what knowledge we choose to assimilate and how we act on the information we recieve.
If we are given no moral code, taught no respect and have neither the inclination or the will to better ourselves then the whole of society will be reduced to anarchy.
By better ourselves I do not mean the acquistion of material goods, merely that we use our knowledge to the best of our abilities to improve ourselves .
If we have belief in what we are in an unselfish way then the other elements will follow.
We can walk the path of life with our eyes closed, looking only inward but with a little courage we can open them and be a better person for it.
If you go along to Loch Watten on a night you can stand and watch the reflection of the moon in the water. If you walk along to the other end of the loch the moon will follow you and you will see the reflection of the moon at the other end. Line 200 people up along the side of the loch and they will all see the reflection of the moon in a different place. That is the nature of truth.
But to find Truth you must work out where the reflection of the moon is when nobody is looking.
You could be looking at the moon through a telescope or by the naked eye, who would see more of the truth?
The moon could be waxing or waning, be full, new, half or gibbous!!
There might be a man IN the moon or a man ON the moon. There could be cheese there. Wensleydale, Camembert etc. Without Wallace and Gromit taking a Grand Day Out to prove it beyond doubt, we simply don't know.
Could be a Bad Moon Rising, Blue Moon Of Kentucky or a Shining Harvest Moon, depending on who is looking at it and where they are looking at it. Maybe we should have asked Keith Moon, WHO would have known?
David Niven believed that The Moon's a Balloon and Cher was Moonstruck. Was it the same moon they were talking about?
I am sure many others are "watten" to know the answers.
None of us would say that we know everything, in fact they say that we know something like 0.000000000000000000001% of all that there is to know about life and the universe...Who are 'they' and where did you obtain this figure from? Not from the Good Book surely. I suspect you may be havering my good man. Do you think the rest may be dark energy or a collective cosmic consciousness?
The baby of respect was thrown out with the bathwater of deference.
Deference needed to go. The decline you speak of has coincided with a drift away from home grown organised religion. Initially I welcomed this drift but now I see the lack of fear of any form of higher authority -be it spiritual or physical is at the root of these problems. Respect is a commodity now in shortish supply too. I think you make some good points there Percy. We must now work out how to take society forward in a way that doesn't revert to fear of, or deference to, either superstitious figures or our fellow human beings. Whether this will take the form of an eco-religion such as paganism or the 'religion', for want of a better word, of rational scientific thought, or something entirely new I obviously do not know. Maybe one day we shall become morally enriched by enlightened visitors from the stars.
For the record, I think your fears of a certain imported religion taking over are mostly unwarranted.
Mankind is changing and in my opinion is changing for the better not because we have turned from God, but more because we are questioning the notion of a god. Its not going to be easy, but I believe that because mankind is basically good at heart he will find that the God he thought was out there, was perhaps inside all along.I like this idea too.
If you go along to Loch Watten on a night you can stand and watch the reflection of the moon in the water. If you walk along to the other end of the loch the moon will follow you and you will see the reflection of the moon at the other end. Line 200 people up along the side of the loch and they will all see the reflection of the moon in a different place. That is the nature of truth.
But to find Truth you must work out where the reflection of the moon is when nobody is looking.Why is that then?
Why is that then?
Because the journey is more important that the arrival.
Rights are not given. We are born with them.
I am not sure what rights you are talking about. There are societal rights but I can't think of any rights, like "human rights", that you are born with.
A facinating thread indeed. It reminds me of the famous "Mankind is Insane" thread from a while back.
Gleeber, your optimism in the human race is incredible IMHO. Perhaps you don't watch the news or perhaps you think that Caithness is a small cross-section of the whole world.
Of course I "know" you better than to believe that of you but I'd interested to hear how you explain away the suffering that is taking place on an epic scale on the Earth today and somehow see mankind in a process of improvement or changing for the better?
G2, you're obviously a deep thinker and I believe you see the world for what it is....doomed. However your form of spirituality leaves me cold. Although I share your view of world conditions, I possess a strong faith in God's right to rule mankind and an assured expectation that He will. Satanic propeganda is transparent.
Crayola, I don't know why, but whenever I read your posts I'm sure I can hear the theme from X-Files.....
AndrewC, helping people in the here and now is admirable, however even Jesus knew that in his relativily short ministry he couldn't solve all the problems in Palestine. But he spent the majority of his time teaching people about the permenant solution to mankind's problems....God's Kingdom.
"...thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven......"
Fred, err.......what? ;)
Scorrie, thank goodness for your puns!
And to everyone else who has contributed........isn't the Org great? :D
God cant make the changes without my help. Why?
Sure, God can make changes. But he can't change our morality without us co-operating with him. He gave us freedom to choose to do what we like, and so he won't invade that. We sometimes need his help to choose the better part.
The most damning example of moral decline is the sadism of the people who post on the org - as dimwitted a combination of thuggery, floggery, and self righteousness as one could find anywhere on the net. For shame!
Rheghead however poses an in interesting question. He/she/it says God does not have a leg to stand on. So how many legs does God have????
Rheghead however poses an in interesting question. He/she/it says God does not have a leg to stand on. So how many legs does God have????
I took it to mean that God has no legs. It could be, however, that God has just the one leg but it is not one that he can stand on. It may well be that, as in the ZZ Top song, She/He's got legs, of an unknown quantity, and simply does NOT know how to use them.
Hope that helps clear the Muddy Waters.
The most damning example of moral decline is the sadism of the people who post on the org - as dimwitted a combination of thuggery, floggery, and self righteousness as one could find anywhere on the net. For shame!
Rheghead however poses an in interesting question. He/she/it says God does not have a leg to stand on. So how many legs does God have????
We will have to wait and see.
You may have a long wait because it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for rich to enter the gates of Heaven:-)
NickInTheNorth
29-Aug-07, 17:47
i wonder do u think that the reason for moral decline in britain today is due to the fact that we r far from the holy GOD? i think this it is so..
botheed, what do you mean by moral decline?
Are you using morality in the sense of the distinction between good and evil, or between acceptable and unacceptable conduct?
If the former then I would have to keep out of the discussion as to my mind good and evil are purely religious constructs and as such they are not something that I have any insight into.
If you mean the slide into what is more and more unacceptable conduct then I do not believe that god could have anything to do with it. As a fictitious character foisted upon humankind in many different guises it is rather like blaming the tooth fairy for greed in children.
Standards of behaviour are learned from our parents and peers. What is acceptable behaviour seems to shift from one generation to another. The media also appear to have a large role in defining acceptability. Perhaps we need to look very close to home to find the cause of Britain's (and the rest of the world's) moral decline?
botheed, what do you mean by moral decline?
Are you using morality in the sense of the distinction between good and evil, or between acceptable and unacceptable conduct?
If the former then I would have to keep out of the discussion as to my mind good and evil are purely religious constructs and as such they are not something that I have any insight into.
If you mean the slide into what is more and more unacceptable conduct then I do not believe that god could have anything to do with it. As a fictitious character foisted upon humankind in many different guises it is rather like blaming the tooth fairy for greed in children.
Standards of behaviour are learned from our parents and peers. What is acceptable behaviour seems to shift from one generation to another. The media also appear to have a large role in defining acceptability. Perhaps we need to look very close to home to find the cause of Britain's (and the rest of the world's) moral decline?
hi! what i am saying is. is Britain in moral decline because its turned its back on the Holy God and his ten commandments
NickInTheNorth
29-Aug-07, 18:35
hi! what i am saying is. is Britain in moral decline because its turned its back on the Holy God and his ten commandments
Which I reject totally. Folks do not need god to behave in a morally acceptable way. I have known many many devout christians who's behaviour was and is reprehensible. However I think that most folk that know me and my family would say that we exhibit sound "moral" behaviour. In general looking for such simplistic solutions as a moral decline due to a distancing from god is part of the problem not the cure. Which god, which view of god? The Christian god, the muslim god, the jewish god, or the pantheon of gods represented in many other religions.
I'd rather believe in hobbits.
The post is going round and round in circles now :) It's been interesting but I'll bow out gracefully as we're getting nowhere ;)
percy toboggan
29-Aug-07, 19:10
[quote=crayola;263973]
For the record, I think your fears of a certain imported religion taking over are mostly unwarranted.
quote]
Crayola I always welcome your comments on anything I say.
I don't think the religion I speak of will ever hold sway as far north as Caithness, for if it does, then North America will have fallen back to it's
'splendid isolation' policy.
It's all down to numbers, breeding patterns, folk holding on to the past and it's more ardent followers preferring to believe rather than think for themselves.
I note with interest and amusement that most everyone in this discussion has no doubt whatsoever that we are in "moral decline."<br> But how do we know this? What are we comparing our "moral decline" to?<br> It would be wonderful reading I am sure if Orgers posted their own struggle against this decline. How many of us have tottered over the abyss into utter depravity. How many are clutching, white knuckled on the brink of the pit.<br>And how many of us are cheating on our spouses and the taxman. I want details! (As for myself, I am a beacon of virtue and getting better every day.)
(As for myself, I am a beacon of virtue and getting better every day.)
There you go Saveman. I rest my case. :)
The post is going round and round in circles now :) It's been interesting but I'll bow out gracefully as we're getting nowhere ;)
These things always go the same way. There is no evidence that God exists and it cannot be proven that he does not. People will believe what they choose to believe.
Of all the supernatural things I was told as a child, only the notion of a God remains as not having been revealed to be untrue. You reach an age where tooth-fairies, Santa etc can be unmasked and shown to be the creations of the human imagination. Hey, it was a heart-breaker at the time but we learn to live without the silver sixpence and in any case most of the Hampsteads have been cashed in anyway.
God is offering heaven and eternal life, that is not too shabby, even compared to the BOGOFs in Tesco. People want to be part of that action, as it is a much more enticing and enduring concept than the sappy offerings St Nicholas is lobbing doon the chimney.
I choose to believe that the notion of God is man-made. The human mind is very creative and the bible came upon a mankind that was still very much in its infancy. Science does not have all the answers but we have been able to show much of the ancient hokum for exactly what it was.
I believe that the human race could get along just fine if we were to accept the responsibilty for our own actions and work on the principle that this is the only life we will have.
Ah, so Britain in moral decline....
well, you all know I think it IS in a moral decline & we're told & we spout that the children have to be taught respect by the parents... but what if the problem has started with said parents?
Here's a lady who knows absolutely nothing about respect and used to be a parent.... you might recognise who this is about - interesting that her 4 siblings all have decent jobs & relationships & also have well mannered children themselves, so it's not a case here of her having a bad childhood herself either.
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/blackpool-news/Reveller-at-pub-lifted-up.3153976.jp
These things always go the same way. There is no evidence that God exists and it cannot be proven that he does not. People will believe what they choose to believe.
The way I see it is if you believe in God then if you're right and he exists when you die you go to Heaven and if you're wrong there's no harm done.
If you don't believe in God and he doesn't exist then there's no harm done but if he does exist when you die you get to spend eternity in Hell.
Logic dictates it's better to believe in God.
percy toboggan
29-Aug-07, 19:57
Moral or not Britain is in some kind of social decline. A steady gradient rather than a downward plunge.
Surely anyone over the age of forty five will realise that.
If you don't 'rich' then maybe you aren't here or you're still wet behind the lug holes.
Moral or not Britain is in some kind of social decline. A steady gradient rather than a downward plunge.
Surely anyone over the age of forty five will realise that.
If you don't 'rich' then maybe you aren't here or you're still wet behind the lug holes.
Older folks might remember when guns were plentiful after WWII and armed robbery common, they might remember bopping in the aisles when Blackboard Jungle came to th'Electric and Rock and Roll being branded the Devil's music and they might remember Mods and Rockers fighting on the beach at Brighton.
People have been saying that the country was in moral decline for as long as I can remember.
Whitewater
29-Aug-07, 20:49
This has been an intresting thread, read through it all and had a chuckle here and there.
Welcome to the org Andrew C, may your principles be always high, and your hopes for the world or even a small part of it be fullfilled.
It has been many years since I attended Sunday school, but one of the things that has always remained with me was the very simple but effective phrase "Do unto others as you would have done to you".
It doesn't matter if you beleive in God or not, these simple few words are the clue to world peace and if we all applied them they would also end the moral decline in the world today.
We can argue for ever about the existance of God, the worth of Religion, the wrongs of the church etc. Truth is you do not have to be a believer in any God or Religion, just remember and live by the simple few words.
"Do unto others as you would have done to you"
percy toboggan
29-Aug-07, 21:13
People have been saying that the country was in moral decline for as long as I can remember.
which seems to be a lot longer than I.
I guess it's all down to the people that were saying it and in what numbers.
Grumbling old retired Colonels in their leather armchairs are one thing, the mothers of growing numbers of dead kids and the siblings of drug soaked addicts are quite another.
If you do not realise that there have been many changes for the worse in recent decades then you live in a fools paradise. To extrapolate allegedly valid comparisons between post war Britain and the land we live in today is comparing apples with oranges.Immediately post WW2 we had a settled population in the main and were not made up of disparate groupings striving for material wealth, the benefits of which were not churned over nightly by an illuminated screen in the corner of uz sitting rooms.
WildChild
29-Aug-07, 21:33
The most damning example of moral decline is the sadism of the people who post on the org - as dimwitted a combination of thuggery, floggery, and self righteousness as one could find anywhere on the net. For shame!
Rheghead however poses an in interesting question. He/she/it says God does not have a leg to stand on. So how many legs does God have????
IMO I think God has as many legs as you want Him/Her/It to have! LOL:Razz He/She/It is in everything and everyone, there is no getting away from Him/Her/It! :Razz
I have read through all of this thread, and I'm not surprised by all the different views especially on religion - God or no God - bearing in mind that if I use the Arabic word then we would have riots, and would be blown up or something.
I am a pensioner and have seen the moral standards of this country - and many more - decline. I have to admit that i don't think we can get much lower.
Credo can help all who have belief in something, but its not the answer on its own.
Children should be taught to respect their parents - rubbish - they should be taught self respect, then they will have respect for others.
The kids running wild on the streets, have been allowed to by their parents, who put up their hands - shock - horror, my GOOD boy/girl has fallen into bad company. Maybe - but who let them go astray.
We did'nt have mobile phones, but we knew what our children where up to, and with who.
We - that is all adults - have a responsibility for the morals of our country, and especially for our children.
THe PC prats of this world have a lot to answer for, and to think that some of them are parents.
I could go but i am afraid it is futile.
It's like Global warming - the last time it happened we were under half a mile of Ice.
The way I see it is if you believe in God then if you're right and he exists when you die you go to Heaven and if you're wrong there's no harm done.
If you don't believe in God and he doesn't exist then there's no harm done but if he does exist when you die you get to spend eternity in Hell.
Logic dictates it's better to believe in God.
I wouldn't have anything to do with a creed that recruited followers through the use of fear. Anyone who did join up for the reasons you give would be doing so solely to save their own sorry ass and for no other benefit.
I will live my life with due respect to my fellow humans and remain within the realms of common decency. If that is not good enough then I'll take whatever awaits after my time has come. Heaven, as I would imagine it, would not be Heaven if some sad individual, who has to put the frighteners on punters to get them through the gates, is running the show.
Heaven, Hell and all of God's anger in the Bible are man-made creations. I have no fear and my logic dictates that it is better to live by the truth within your heart, rather than falsely follow something because you are afraid.
Children should be taught to respect their parents - rubbish - they should be taught self respect, then they will have respect for others.
The kids running wild on the streets, have been allowed to by their parents, who put up their hands - shock - horror, my GOOD boy/girl has fallen into bad company. Maybe - but who let them go astray.
We did'nt have mobile phones, but we knew what our children where up to, and with who.
We - that is all adults - have a responsibility for the morals of our country, and especially for our children.
Jim, as far as I am concerned you have hit the nail on the head, this is what is wrong with our society
Heaven, Hell and all of God's anger in the Bible are man-made creations. I have no fear and my logic dictates that it is better to live by the truth within your heart, rather than falsely follow something because you are afraid.
Not often I agree with you scorrie, but this time I am with you 100%, I was brought up to fear Hell and Gods anger also, but I decided at a certain time in my life, I had no need to fear any of the afore mentioned, as I did not believe in them. I have tried to live my life as a fairly decent person, using my own judgement what was decent and moral. I do not look down on the believers, thats their right, and if they find solace in the Bible then good luck to them.
Because the journey is more important that the arrival.Are you trying to be deeply allegorical or are you just chucking meaningless adages in my direction in the hope that I'll be impressed?
That's a serious question. :confused
The post is going round and round in circles now :) It's been interesting but I'll bow out gracefully as we're getting nowhere ;)Should I take this to mean that you can't answer the question in my previous post here (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=263973#post263973), or did you not see it first time around?
For the record, I think your fears of a certain imported religion taking over are mostly unwarranted.
Crayola I always welcome your comments on anything I say.
I don't think the religion I speak of will ever hold sway as far north as Caithness, for if it does, then North America will have fallen back to it's
'splendid isolation' policy.
It's all down to numbers, breeding patterns, folk holding on to the past and it's more ardent followers preferring to believe rather than think for themselves.Does that mean you think it will hold sway over, say, the whole of England and up to Glasgow?
Thank you for your kind words by the way.
The most damning example of moral decline is the sadism of the people who post on the org - as dimwitted a combination of thuggery, floggery, and self righteousness as one could find anywhere on the net. For shame!Whilst it may be possible to argue in favour of your thesis, your choice of words is as insulting as any I have seen on this forum in recent months. Would you care to rephrase in a more gentlemanly fashion?
Why do you feel the need to make sporadic visits in order to eject what its recipients might be justified in labelling as venomous bile? Does it make you feel morally superior or are you simply being rude?
Are you trying to be deeply allegorical or are you just chucking meaningless adages in my direction in the hope that I'll be impressed?
That's a serious question. :confused
Then the serious answer would have to be neither.
As Saveman had asked the question before I thought his desire to know was great enough for him to think about an answer.
If passing exams is so important why don't we just give the entrants a list of the answers beforehand? Because they would know all the answers but never understand the questions. It's understanding the question which is important not the answer, the years of schooling not the exam, the journey is more important than the arrival.
It's understanding the question which is important not the answer
The question was "What is two plus two?"
I knew what two was and I understood fully that I had it to add it to itself to solve the question. I answered "five" and cannot grasp why it was marked as incorrect, because that part is not the important part.
The answer, my friend, is wind blowing out of somewhere ;o)
The question was "What is two plus two?"
I knew what two was and I understood fully that I had it to add it to itself to solve the question. I answered "five" and cannot grasp why it was marked as incorrect, because that part is not the important part.
The answer, my friend, is wind blowing out of somewhere ;o)
Well now lets take a closer look.
x = 2, y=2 therefore x = y
add x to both sides x + x = x + y
therefore 2x = x + y
subtract 2y from both sides 2x - 2y = x + y - 2y
therefore 2(x-y) = x + y - 2y
and 2(x-y) = x - y
now if you divide both sides by x - y you find that 2 = 1
The question about truth was a metaphysical one and when dealing with the infinite things don't always add up as you think they should.
Fred, you're incredibly hard work - easy enough to understand the words you type, even if they makes less sense than Andy on a saturday night after the pub...
However, when I went back to college at age 34, our senior tutor was a sociology tutor... Her one piece of advice to us throughout the year, was 'if in doubt, bullshit with confidence'.... Do you know her by any chance?
Either that, or you're a politician, they can never give a straightforward answer either......
Well now lets take a closer look.
x = 2, y=2 therefore x = y
add x to both sides x + x = x + y
therefore 2x = x + y
subtract 2y from both sides 2x - 2y = x + y - 2y
therefore 2(x-y) = x + y - 2y
and 2(x-y) = x - y
now if you divide both sides by x - y you find that 2 = 1
The question about truth was a metaphysical one and when dealing with the infinite things don't always add up as you think they should.
anything divided by nothing is infinity so 2/0 does indeed equal 1/0
but 2 doesn't equal one
Fred, you're incredibly hard work - easy enough to understand the words you type, even if they makes less sense than Andy on a saturday night after the pub...
However, when I went back to college at age 34, our senior tutor was a sociology tutor... Her one piece of advice to us throughout the year, was 'if in doubt, bullshit with confidence'.... Do you know her by any chance?
Either that, or you're a politician, they can never give a straightforward answer either......
I can give you a straightforward answer if you want one, hang on a minute while I go fetch my dictionary.
Here we are "truth" it says "in accordance with fact", when I look up "fact" it says "something which is true".
You have your answer but are you any wiser?
OK Fred, you're a politician then.
percy toboggan
30-Aug-07, 18:04
Should I take this to mean that you can't answer the question in my previous post here (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=263973#post263973), or did you not see it first time around?
Does that mean you think it will hold sway over, say, the whole of England and up to Glasgow?
Thank you for your kind words by the way.
You're very welcome.
In answer to your question I think it will possibly consume England eventually.
Democracy will have fallen away by then of course. This doomsday scenario
is not the product of fevered imagination, but the considered comments of a layman. One who relies on history and arithmetic to light the way. Everything in life is temporary. The only real alternative to my 'doomsday' scenario lies with a willingness to resist (which seems sadly absent) Whereby the bulk of the country might be saved.
Think of the timespan of religious conflict - close on a thousand years. Think of the changes we have endured in the last score of years. A relative blink of an eye in time. Some communities do not move on. They are rooted in the past and draw strength from wrongs to be righted.
I almost pm'd you with this because it's not strictly 'on thread' - no matter.
helenwyler
30-Aug-07, 19:54
Hello percy, interesting points as usual...can you clarify a few things?
Democracy will have fallen away by then of course.
Do you mean specifically in GB? Democracy has rarely or never existed in many Christian (or 'non-imported' religious countries), although of course Christianity itself was an 'imported' religion there a few hundred years ago...
Everything in life is temporary.
Some communities do not move on. They are rooted in the past and draw strength from wrongs to be righted.
If 'everything is temporary', might not the 'imported' religion, just like the fundamentalist Christianity of the Crusaders and the social and religious structures which upheld it, be susceptible to change...say over a 1000 years, like with Christianity?
Thanks
Helen
Well now lets take a closer look.
x = 2, y=2 therefore x = y
add x to both sides x + x = x + y
therefore 2x = x + y
subtract 2y from both sides 2x - 2y = x + y - 2y
therefore 2(x-y) = x + y - 2y
and 2(x-y) = x - y
now if you divide both sides by x - y you find that 2 = 1
The question about truth was a metaphysical one and when dealing with the infinite things don't always add up as you think they should.
To put it far more simply. x/x should always be 1 but if x=0 the answer is infinity. The very definition of "infinite" tells all that is necessary. It is clear that, like the politician, you are simply talking without saying anything.
percy toboggan
30-Aug-07, 20:38
Hello percy, interesting points as usual...can you clarify a few things?
Thanks
Helen
I did mean British democracy. Not perfection but I dunno of anything much which has been better.
Re:Temporary? - some things are more temorary than others. Let's face it, the human race will one day prove to have been 'temporary'.
Didn't Christianity arrive here a few centuries before the concept of 'Crusaders'? I was stood inside St.Ninian's cave last week on the shores of the Irish Sea and I seem to recall he was there c.6/7th century. Since the crusaders what I consider to be the 'indigenous' religion has undergone much change and a period of enlightenment. It has also moved sideways - quite rightly - to occupy a less than pivotal role in the hearts and minds of most of it's followers. It's surely become a sign to a path, rather than a furrow with high walls of oppression and dogma. Can we afford to take a chance with something that has been stuck in a groove for about seven hundred years?
I'm not a religious person - don't subscribe to much with a hierarchical nature...even works chain of command p's me orf a bit.* So, I don't find the followers of rigid structures easy to contemplate.
(*they seldom bother me - they think I'm a bit of an oddball I think.I see reluctance in their eyes when they do take an issue about anything. I do my job and go home.)
the journey is more important than the arrival.
I will relate a story to you that completely disproves this statement.
A few years ago I had the misfortune to eat some shellfish that had been undercooked. For the next three days I barely ate anything, despite being diabetic. By the Saturday night I felt that I was over the worst of it and had my first proper meal for some time. We settled down to watch Still Game and, about 15 minutes in, it became clear that my crustacean friends had not fully cleared from the system. It was then that my journey started. Anyone familiar with the saying "touching cloth" will know that I now faced a race against time. Thankfully, it was only the 14 and not the 39 steps that lay ahead of me. Like a pale version of Linford Christie (minus the lunchbox but still carrying the lunch) I shot up the stairs, four at at time, clocking a reasonable time, considering that I was unbuckling a belt and undoing buttons at the same time. I do have to concede, though, that my figure WAS wind-assisted. Luckily the toilet door was unlocked, otherwise it would be bearing the teethmarks to this day. A Paul Daniels like flick of the wrist brought trousers and boxers to the ankles in one, lightning fast, swipe. Buttocks dropped towards the wooden bullseye of sanctuary like a falcon at a rabbit and the "bomb doors" were open before skin met pinewood. What came next sounded akin to a family of otters entering the river simultaneously and it was in that very moment that I realised that it was INFINITELY more important to arrive, than to take the journey ;o)
I am going to regret saying this, but upon arrival did a whole new journey not begin?
Highland Laddie
30-Aug-07, 21:02
Fantastic m8, a real side splitter.
Should I take this to mean that you can't answer the question in my previous post here (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=263973#post263973), or did you not see it first time around?
I missed it crayola, sorry. Erm....I had a look for the quote that I was hinting at. Here it is.
"We do not know one millionth of one percent about anything." said the great scientist Thomas Edison (creator or the light-bulb etc etc).
I was simply making that point that we don't know everything, so could it be possible that those of us who haven't experience the reality of God in their lives have yet to experience it?
yours
Andrew C
I missed it crayola, sorry. Erm....I had a look for the quote that I was hinting at. Here it is.
"We do not know one millionth of one percent about anything." said the great scientist Thomas Edison (creator or the light-bulb etc etc).
I was simply making that point that we don't know everything, so could it be possible that those of us who haven't experience the reality of God in their lives have yet to experience it?
yours
Andrew C
Altenatively, could it be possible that you are deluded?:)
Altenatively, could it be possible that you are deluded?
:) equally, could it be that you are? :)
:) equally, could it be that you are? :)
Of course. What about you? Could you be deluded?
Of course. What about you? Could you be deluded?
I could be, however the evidence is stacked against it in my own personal life. I'll tell you about it some time if you're interested.
Even if I am, and you're right, I lose nothing.
But if I am right, and you're wrong, you lose everything.
I guess we'll just have to see how it pans out! ;o)
I could be, however the evidence is stacked against it in my own personal life. I'll tell you about it some time if you're interested.
Even if I am, and you're right, I lose nothing.
But if I am right, and you're wrong, you lose everything.
I guess we'll just have to see how it pans out! ;o)
Weve all got our stories to tell, but it's how we intepretate them where the morals lie.
That's also one of the more threatening christians lines where the choice is eternal hell or everlasting life. I don't like it. It preys on the base intincts of man.
IMO I think God has as many legs as you want Him/Her/It to have! LOL:Razz He/She/It is in everything and everyone, there is no getting away from Him/Her/It!
The Universe is in everything and everyone and there is no getting away from it/that either. I think my Universe is your God and your God is my Universe.;)
Welcomefamily
31-Aug-07, 10:51
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#How%20radiometric%20dating%20works%20i n%20general
With Darwins theories now having been total disproved, by the Geneotype Project which shows that mutation could not have happen in the time scale. DNA studies which showned that his missing link skeletons where in fact two different ones. Modern natel scanning techniques have disproved the concept of us going through each evolution stage in the womb.
At the time Darwin provided an answer, I might suggest a religion with less evidence than there is for Christ as there are some references in early roman books and I would have to research it to find which one.
There is a major move back towards the idea of a young earth and the concept that Dr Libby (Nobel Prize) theories might be correct. When using carbon dating the earth is under 6000 years old.
A recent study of rocks from the American volcano of 17 years ago showned these rocks being tested against all dating method, C14 gave an age of 17 years, the rest showed ages of between 50 and 200 million years old.
As a scientist the mistery of man kind is still waiting to be answer, for my self the concept of conversions such as Paul from tax collect to christian is hard to understand, more recently a number of Professors on the Geno Project have also done the same. Do we not allneed something to follow?
References can be supplied for all works quoted.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#How%20radiometric%20dating%20works%20i n%20general
With Darwins theories now having been total disproved, .
I appreciate a lot of science is based on theory (some of it can be a bit shaky) which is one reason why theories in science evolve (so to speak). I also appreciate that many theories may never be proved to every-ones satisfaction. However I am sure that your link has not shown that Darwin's theories have been totally disproved.
WildChild
31-Aug-07, 11:37
The Universe is in everything and everyone and there is no getting away from it/that either. I think my Universe is your God and your God is my Universe.;)
Ill go with that Rheghead! :Razz
Welcomefamily
31-Aug-07, 11:59
Sorry the link was for carbon dating, the geno project has proved that we could not have evolved, if you let me know what you disagree with I will find you a research paper on it. However all of the following have agreed with the above expressed view.
Prof Felix Ahula, Howard Universit Collegeof Medicine,
Prof Aw Swce Eng Biochemistry University of Singapore,
Prof Giuseppe Sermonti, Genetics University of Palermo.
Prof Donald Chillick, Phyical Chemistry,Oregon State.
Prof Henry Schaefer 5 time nobel nominee, Chemistry, Georgia.
Prof Maciej Giertych, Genetics, Poland.
Prof Mills, Biochemistry, Texas,
Prof W Harris, Medicine, Missouri,
Prof D Mentor, Anatomy, Missouri,
Prof I Muereadic Principal reseatch Scientist, Biomedical Institute Austrialia,
Other Profs include. Chaffin, Physics. C.Filerman Biology. D Englin Geophysics. J Harris, Biology. L Koroclkin, Molecular Biology, G Kim, Biology.
H Kim, Biochemistry. J Kim, Biochemistry. J Kuon, Physics. C Osborne, Biology. Rendle Short, Pediatrics.
Plus I have a list of a few hundred more, most have produced paper on the topic with in the last 5 years.
Welcomefamily
31-Aug-07, 12:03
As you said theories do evolve and the study of its evolution is a science in its self.
Do you have a link to your site.
I appreciate your list but it would be just as easy, if not easier, to find a list of scientists from some top notch universities saying the opposite.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that Andrew C's avatar looks like the Rolling Stones tongue?
Meanwhile, back at the original thread opener..............
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that Andrew C's avatar looks like the Rolling Stones tongue?
Avatars can be so deceiving, scorrie!
There was johno's previous one, that I wasn't alone in mistaking for a donkey...then I spent ages trying to swat Jeid's new insect avatar off my screen :lol:
Hopefully mine is fairly obvious...and it's not that bad a resemblance, except for the wings... ;)
Welcomefamily
31-Aug-07, 14:00
Do you have a link to your site.
I appreciate your list but it would be just as easy, if not easier, to find a list of scientists from some top notch universities saying the opposite.
http://www.theoryofevolution.us/
But back to the arguement, yes I think Britain is in moral decline and many parents have to take resposibility for this.
Some psychologist would agure that we are all born with a blank plate on which all experence is ingrained, if that is the case then childhood interaction must be the cause.
George Kelly might agrue that the individual being unable to make sense of his personal world and his standing in it is the cause of moral decline. If that is the reason, then again parents and schools are the cause.
If Skinner is correct then again the parents have not reinforced good behaviour. Bad Behaviour does not just happen, it is an acculumative effect, a child gets away with some thing small and this slowly builds up until the child is un controllable. Parents have to be firm at an early age.
Good parents or a good parent is in most cases all a child needs.
The difference between a princess and a flower girl is how she is treated
Weve all got our stories to tell, but it's how we intepretate them where the morals lie.
That's also one of the more threatening christians lines where the choice is eternal hell or everlasting life. I don't like it. It preys on the base intincts of man.
It certainly is the bottom line of Christianity, but by no means the whole of it. It does certainly prey on the base instincts of man. Some heartless Christians will use it unlovingly and with no compassion at all...almost like 'well, I don't like you so go to Hell', which is not what is at the heart of the gospel.
Even although I don't know you, my life is wrapped up in the purpose of saying,
"regardless of whether I like you or not, know you or not, I love you enough to be able to put aside my own personal lifestyle, popularity, natural timidness and human instinct to call out the unpopular message 'there is a choice to be made...please choose the better part.'"
Did you know that the bible says that "God has set eternity in the hearts of man" - in other words, that base instinct is God given. Its a 'survival' mechanism which God has given us to help us seek him. As is our conscience - gives us a knowledge of right and wrong. We very rarely like to listen to our conscience...it can be a pain in the neck!
On that note, that is a point towards the orginal discussion...moral decline in Britain. Leaving God out of the equation (although I don't think you can), society will improve even in part if people even listen to the voice of their conscience. Some people dull theirs and the more they dull it the less they can hear it. Somehow, that collective conscience must be reawakened. Thats not necesarrily a Christian statement, but a general one.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that Andrew C's avatar looks like the Rolling Stones tongue?
I guess that proves that the Salvation Army Band ROCKS!!!
[lol]
I guess that proves that the Salvation Army Band ROCKS!!!
[lol]
Have you seen the Salvation Army Band recently? We're the hippest band in town :)
:) great thread makes good reading lol lol lol
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#How%20radiometric%20dating%20works%20i n%20general
With Darwins theories now having been total disproved, by the Geneotype Project which shows that mutation could not have happen in the time scale. DNA studies which showned that his missing link skeletons where in fact two different ones. Modern natel scanning techniques have disproved the concept of us going through each evolution stage in the womb.
At the time Darwin provided an answer, I might suggest a religion with less evidence than there is for Christ as there are some references in early roman books and I would have to research it to find which one.
There is a major move back towards the idea of a young earth and the concept that Dr Libby (Nobel Prize) theories might be correct. When using carbon dating the earth is under 6000 years old.
A recent study of rocks from the American volcano of 17 years ago showned these rocks being tested against all dating method, C14 gave an age of 17 years, the rest showed ages of between 50 and 200 million years old.
As a scientist the mistery of man kind is still waiting to be answer, for my self the concept of conversions such as Paul from tax collect to christian is hard to understand, more recently a number of Professors on the Geno Project have also done the same. Do we not allneed something to follow?
References can be supplied for all works quoted.charles darwin was a very wise man, he asked jesus in to his life and died a christian:Razz
How did all the Creationist nonsense get on this thread?
charles darwin was a very wise man, he asked jesus in to his life and died a christian:Razz
I was sure I heard this was an urban myth......but I could be wrong....
I was sure I heard this was an urban myth......but I could be wrong....
The story of Christ could be an urban myth also.[evil]
charles darwin was a very wise man, he asked jesus in to his life and died a christian:Razz
Absolute rubbish apart from the fact he was a very wise man...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin#Religious_views
I missed it crayola, sorry. Erm....I had a look for the quote that I was hinting at. Here it is.
"We do not know one millionth of one percent about anything." said the great scientist Thomas Edison (creator or the light-bulb etc etc).
I was simply making that point that we don't know everything, so could it be possible that those of us who haven't experience the reality of God in their lives have yet to experience it?
yours
Andrew C
A millionth of 1% is 0.000001% not 0.000000000000000000001%. Why exaggerate?
Anyways, Edison wasn't a scientist, he was an inventor and a Wizard. :D
Absolute rubbish apart from the fact he was a very wise man...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin#Religious_views The Org's Christians don't seem to be very good at facts or truth Rheghead. It's most disappointing.
With Darwins theories now having been total disproved, by the Geneotype Project Another blatant untruth. How sad.
charles darwin renounced his revlutionary theory and became a christian on his death bed
he was reading the book of hebrews in the new testament and said"i regard my writings about evolution to be questions that people make in to a religion..:cool:
The Org's Christians don't seem to be very good at facts or truth Rheghead. It's most disappointing.
LOL! Nice try but you'll not get me taking the bait by generalising about Christians!
Doh!
:p
Well now lets take a closer look.
x = 2, y=2 therefore x = y
add x to both sides x + x = x + y
therefore 2x = x + y
subtract 2y from both sides 2x - 2y = x + y - 2y
therefore 2(x-y) = x + y - 2y
and 2(x-y) = x - y
now if you divide both sides by x - y you find that 2 = 1
The question about truth was a metaphysical one and when dealing with the infinite things don't always add up as you think they should.
anything divided by nothing is infinity so 2/0 does indeed equal 1/0
but 2 doesn't equal one
To put it far more simply. x/x should always be 1 but if x=0 the answer is infinity. The very definition of "infinite" tells all that is necessary. It is clear that, like the politician, you are simply talking without saying anything.The Org's Christians aren't very good with facts but at least one atheist isn't very good at arithmetic. x/x is not infinity when x = 0. x/x =1 unless x = 0 in which case it doesn't have a value unless you take a limit. Nor is 2/0 equal to 1/0, neither have a value.
I'm sure fred knows what's wrong with his little bit of math; the division by (x-y) is division by zero as has already been pointed out. That's not allowed so the conclusion is amusing but wrong.
It's easy to fix. Imagine that x is a teeny-weeny big bigger than y, say x = y + d where d is teeny-weeny. Setting d = 0 would give x = y.
Start with x = y + d with teeny-weeny d.
add x to both sides x + x = x + y + d
therefore 2x = x + y + d
subtract 2y from both sides 2x - 2y = x + y + d - 2y
therefore 2(x-y) = x - y + d
now if you divide both sides by x - y you find that 2 = 1 + d/(x - y)
but (x - y) = d so d/(x - y) = 1 and you find that 2 = 1 + 1.
Dividing by (x - y) is allowed here because x - y = d which is teeny weeny but not 0.
You can choose y = 1 if you like but 1 + 1 = 2 for any values of x and y. :)
Easy but a bit silly. :)
charles darwin renounced his revlutionary theory and became a christian on his death bed
he was reading the book of hebrews in the new testament and said"i regard my writings about evolution to be questions that people make in to a religion..:cool:I'd always believed that Jesus encouraged his followers to tell the truth at all times. It appears that some of his followers prefer the road to ruin.
I am a witch, botheed. Will you burn me?
Never, 'cause Saveman is sensible and he'll save me from your clutches.
I'd always believed that Jesus encouraged his followers to tell the truth at all times. It appears that some of his followers prefer the road to ruin.
I am a witch, botheed. Will you burn me?
Never, 'cause Saveman is sensible and he'll save me from your clutches. no!no! i wont burn you i love you too much:Razz
It takes one to love one. Are you a witch too? ;)
The Org's Christians aren't very good with facts but at least one atheist isn't very good at arithmetic. x/x is not infinity when x = 0. x/x =1 unless x = 0 in which case it doesn't have a value unless you take a limit. Nor is 2/0 equal to 1/0, neither have a value.
I'm sure fred knows what's wrong with his little bit of math; the division by (x-y) is division by zero as has already been pointed out. That's not allowed so the conclusion is amusing but wrong.
It's easy to fix. Imagine that x is a teeny-weeny big bigger than y, say x = y + d where d is teeny-weeny. Setting d = 0 would give x = y.
Start with x = y + d with teeny-weeny d.
add x to both sides x + x = x + y + d
therefore 2x = x + y + d
subtract 2y from both sides 2x - 2y = x + y + d - 2y
therefore 2(x-y) = x - y + d
now if you divide both sides by x - y you find that 2 = 1 + d/(x - y)
but (x - y) = d so d/(x - y) = 1 and you find that 2 = 1 + 1.
Dividing by (x - y) is allowed here because x - y = d which is teeny weeny but not 0.
You can choose y = 1 if you like but 1 + 1 = 2 for any values of x and y. :)
Easy but a bit silly. :)
It was the English that was faulty. Should have read infinite not infinity. I did actually quote the definition of "infinite", which, in mathematics means not finite. My maths teacher always referred to 0/0 as "infinite", that was some 20 odd years ago and it would seem that indeterminate is the correct term. Apparently some gadgie thinks it should be called nullity:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/12/06/divide_zero_feature.shtml
The proof of the pudding is supposed to be here for all the Wizards to enjoy:-
http://www.bookofparagon.com/Mathematics/SPIE.2002.Exact.pdf
[QUOTE=scorrie;265849]It was the English that was faulty. Should have read infinite not infinity. I did actually quote the definition of "infinite", which, in mathematics means not finite.
But which infinite? There are a lot of them and some are bigger than others.
That was a nice escape by scorrie. Blame it on his teacher. I think he's right, his teacher was rubbish if he said that. :)
I looked at the first link and watched the video which is rubbish too but I'm not sure I'm ready to digest the fancy math in the second link. I think I might need my sexy math prof for help here.
LOL! Nice try but you'll not get me taking the bait by generalising about Christians!
OK, you all have Faith in God and you ignore empirical scientific evidence.
That is a generalisation based in fact that applies to all Christians.;)
To return to the beginning of the debate, I wonder if anyone who believes in our moral decline would care to define the point in time that we have apparently been declining from? :confused :confused
OK, you all have Faith in God and you ignore empirical scientific evidence.
That is a generalisation based in fact that applies to all Christians.;)
Please please show me empirical scientific evidence I am ignoring!
Please please show me empirical scientific evidence I am ignoring!
Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution?:confused
Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution?:confused
I can't speak for Saveman but I'll answer your question in the affirmative and I suspect a lot of Christians would do the same because they too know that evolution has been observed in our laboratories. Their clear answer is that evolution is God's way of creating or seeding the conditions for intelligent life out of inert Bing Bang Soup. His laws of nature are those needed for the task, no more and no less. Well, no less for sure, who knows about no more? :D
Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution?:confused
LOL! Oh c'mon Rheghead lets not go down this road again!
I can quite happily quote science book after science book that shows the gaping holes in the theory and I'm sure you can quite happily quote science book after science book that propound the theory as fact.
Far from ignoring this so-called science I've studied it in depth. The conclusion I've come to is that it just doesn't fit, and the evidence points to intelligent design. Many many scientists agree. Many many disagree.
:)
Ill bet most of these science books youve read will have authors with a biblical background and hide behind a very right wing brand of Evengilistic Christian fundamentalism. The Christian right are the most discriminatory bunch of characters i have ever met and I havnt met many but theres plenty of them on God TV.. Some of them are also very nice folk.
It's a shame about people who believe in inteligent design. I think it's a fantastic concept and I wish I could believe in it too.
The shame is that inteligent designers throw the baby out with the bath water. For them, Science has to be shaped to fit the words of the bible.
That doesnt seem right to me.
Science says the world is 5 billion years old.The universe 14 billion years old. Inteligent designers believe it's between 6 and ten thousand years old. Somethings amiss there? Thats a total rejection of modern knowledge.
I can quite happily quote science book after science book that shows the gaping holes in the theory.Go on then. Show us your sources.
Far from ignoring this so-called science I've studied it in depth. The conclusion I've come to is that it just doesn't fit, and the evidence points to intelligent design.I'm trying to get my head around this. Evidence? What evidence points to intelligent design? Why? How? What am I missing?
I removed your last two sentences because they cloud your point.
<snip> I can quite happily quote science book after science book that shows the gaping holes in the theory and I'm sure you can quite happily quote science book after science book that propound the theory as fact. <snip>
:)
Theory is great, in theory. Fact is fact. In my own time-limited experience Britain is in moral decline. It's got something to do with all of us & little to do with religion, maths or witchcraft.
Theory is great, in theory. Fact is fact. In my own time-limited experience Britain is in moral decline. It's got something to do with all of us & little to do with religion, maths or witchcraft.How's about shoes? ;)
I can categorically state that my own morals have not declined. I used to be much, much worse. :eek:
Shoes are good too Crayola - I like shoes. However, I firmly believe shoes are not the be all and end all.......
My own morals have not declined either - I just never took the chance to be as bad as I could have been :).....
Sounds like you regret it. ;)
Ill bet most of these science books youve read will have authors with a biblical background and hide behind a very right wing brand of Evengilistic Christian fundamentalism. The Christian right are the most discriminatory bunch of characters i have ever met and I havnt met many but theres plenty of them on God TV.. Some of them are also very nice folk.
It's a shame about people who believe in inteligent design. I think it's a fantastic concept and I wish I could believe in it too.
The shame is that inteligent designers throw the baby out with the bath water. For them, Science has to be shaped to fit the words of the bible.
That doesnt seem right to me.
Science says the world is 5 billion years old.The universe 14 billion years old. Inteligent designers believe it's between 6 and ten thousand years old. Somethings amiss there? Thats a total rejection of modern knowledge.
I believe in intelligent design, but I'm not a creationist, there is a difference.
You've lost your bet.....because the sources I'm going to quote (for Crayola's benefit) are certainly not pushing a "christian" or "biblical agenda."
The scientific magazine Discover: “Evolution...is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.”
Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe: “For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble."
New Scientist: “an increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists...argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all...Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p250: “To suppose that the eye...could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
Would you like more?
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p250: “To suppose that the eye...could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Always check your sources Saveman.
I would rather hear more about your brand of inteligent design. I do understand your difficulties with Darwin but to claim that science is having doubts about evolution by natural selection is absurd.
Seeing as evidence doesnt swing your thoughts about evolution, what criteria do you use to believe in inteligent design.
Is it more than a feeling?
I would rather hear more about your brand of inteligent design. I do understand your difficulties with Darwin but to claim that science is having doubts about evolution by natural selection is absurd.
Seeing as evidence doesnt swing your thoughts about evolution, what criteria do you use to believe in inteligent design.
Is it more than a feeling?
I thought that science always had doubts about everything, hence it is always questioning and searching.
Always check your sources Saveman.
Thanks Fred.......
I would rather hear more about your brand of inteligent design. I do understand your difficulties with Darwin but to claim that science is having doubts about evolution by natural selection is absurd.
Seeing as evidence doesnt swing your thoughts about evolution, what criteria do you use to believe in inteligent design.
Is it more than a feeling?
Perhaps an old illustration can help.......
You are wandering lost through a desert when you stumble on a beautiful house. It has running water, it has heating, it has food, it has everything that is required for life........would you ever conclude that it just happened by chance? Would you ever conclude that all the right parts came together to form this haven for life without a designer and builder?
No one in their right mind would ever conclude that it just appeared from nowhere....it had to have a creator.
The desert is the universe, the house is the Earth except infinitely more complex.
The right distance from the sun, the correct tilt for seasons, the water cycle, the oxygen cycle etc. etc. etc.
I've said it before.....you cannot get something from nothing and we've got a whole lotta something!
Professor Wald of Harvard University, Scientific American “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.”
Evolutionist C. F. A. Pantin former professor of zoology at the University of Cambridge “the operation of natural selection did not account for all the special features of the natural world.”
I've said it before.....you cannot get something from nothing and we've got a whole lotta something!
OK Fair enough. So where did your designer come from?
I thought that science always had doubts about everything, hence it is always questioning and searching.
Yes.
Science knows that the universe is governed by laws but it hasn't a clue where those laws came from.
Was mathematics invented by man? Did it evolve? Or was it created?
George Brims
05-Sep-07, 20:37
I thought that science always had doubts about everything, hence it is always questioning and searching.
Exactly! The people expressing doubt about Darwinian evolution are saying it isn't quite complex enough to explain the observed facts, and to incorporate what we've been learning about heritability and genetics during the DNA revolution of the last half century in biology. In a way biology is at the same point as physics was at the turn if the 20th century, although I don't think there's the scope for a biological Einstein to come along and shock everybody. We don't have a biological Michaelson-Morley experiment or photoelectric effect to explain.
Perhaps an old illustration can help.......
You are wandering lost through a desert when you stumble on a beautiful house. It has running water, it has heating, it has food, it has everything that is required for life........would you ever conclude that it just happened by chance? Would you ever conclude that all the right parts came together to form this haven for life without a designer and builder?
Let us look at this illustration in more depth. You are wandering lost through a desert, thousands of years ago. You come across a simple mud hut, no running water, no heating, some uncooked meat is lying there. You repeat the scenario many years later. There is a crude wooden structure and a small fire, food is cooking but no running water. We move on many years later and chance upon a concrete structure, it has gas central heating and running water of the cold AND hot variety. You move on yet again and find a home made from eco-friendly materials, equipped with low energy appliances and packed to the rafters with features to make the "creator" both comfortable and able to remain in harmony with the environment. Amazing, how did we get from such a pathetic beginning to such a sophisticated conclusion? The simple answer is the Evolution of Mankind. No mystery instruction manuals suddenly dropped by God, nobody dying on our behalf to save our souls. Just a simple and, in relative terms, a rapid learning process. Many people seem keen to run Mankind down as being "Johnny come lately" who knows nothing about anything. I would rather celebrate what we have achieved, with all its faults, than embrace a culture of being doomed from birth as a sinner. Perfection is an alien term to me, I can think of little more tedious and predictable than a world where everyone is of one mind and not a crossed word is heard.
We exist because all the conditions were met. If it were not so, then we would not be having this conversation. If the conditions were very slightly different, we might be having a very slightly different conversation. If the TV were not crap tonight, I might not be writing this now, if the PC fails before I post, then you will not be reading this etc etc
Life is all about chance, the chance of anything occuring can be many billions to one against but still it happens. If something is 2 billion to one against and there are 4 billion opportunities for it to occur, then it is two to one ON that the event will happen. Unless you can calculate how many opportunites exist in the universe and what the odds on our planet being the way it is, by chance, are, then you cannot evaluate the probablility.
I would say that the chances of the planet Earth having been created spontaneously or the planet Earth having been created by some mystical "being" are, at best, about equal. Since nobody tried to peddle anything to me regarding the spontaneity option, I concluded it was the more likely.
OK Fair enough. So where did your designer come from?
Imagine a Being with no beginning and no end.
A Being completely self-contained and omnipotent.
A Being who exists from eternity to eternity.
A Being who needed noone or nothing but who created out of pure love, to share life with others.
The Supreme Being.
Can you imagine such a being?
Then you'll be getting close to our Designer.
Or imagine a room full of chimpanzee's and a PC. And imagine the chimpanzees typing the full works of Shakespeare!
Pick your miracle to believe in.
Very profound Saveman. Your a lucky man.
Also very arrogant.
Why couldnt the universe have lasted forever? You cant claim all the good ones for yourself.
Very profound Saveman. Your a lucky man.
Also very arrogant.
Why couldnt the universe have lasted forever? You cant claim all the good ones for yourself.
My apologies, it wasn't my intention to be arrogant nor did I realise I was coming across that way. I was trying to explain myself as best I could.
The human spirit is enough of a miracle to me!
karia
Go on then. Show us your sources.
I'm trying to get my head around this. Evidence? What evidence points to intelligent design? Why? How? What am I missing?
The scientific magazine Discover: “Evolution...is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.”
Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe: “For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble."
New Scientist: “an increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists...argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all...Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p250: “To suppose that the eye...could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
Would you like more?Pffffft, Saveman! I asked for sources, not a few context free quotes cut and pasted from a fantastically biased little web page.
For everyone's benefit, I should like to point out that Saveman has almost certainly copied all of his 'sources' from a web page entitled Evolution-quotes for its absurdity (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.quizilla.com/users/IwuvcHoColAte/journal/124033/evolution-quotes_for_its_absurdity/?page=2)
Is that it? That page surely doesn't exemplify the depth of your knowledge and understanding of the evolutionary process?
I am most disappointed with your response and even more disappointed if you thought you could fob me off with such a careless trick.
I want scholarly publications, Saveman. You know, erudite articles in which people put forward arguments in a serious and objective fashion and then discuss them openly.
Before you go any further, you might wish to learn or revise some relevant mathematics. I suggest you start by googling for 'stochastic processes' before you post another analogy as simple minded as your 'house in the desert' one. Before that, why not read fred's post in which he quotes Darwin in full in order to put what you'll learn into context?
I'd expected you to put up a bit of a defence of your case. As things stand, I won't be stirring you from your slumbers again.
There are extremely important detailed discussions to be had about the exact nature of the evolutionary process but they begin at a much higher level than anything we've witnessed in your posts.
I hope you've enjoyed being stripped intellectually naked in public by this pale blue witch and in return I'd like to extend the hand of friendship with an invitation to you to come and join us. We'll share our intellectual joy and pagan delights with you and we can all have fun together.
We can move this world forwards by sharing and reflecting on our knowledge and ideas via open discussions. Make Love not War. ;)
Yes.
Science knows that the universe is governed by laws but it hasn't a clue where those laws came from.
Was mathematics invented by man? Did it evolve? Or was it created?
Some of it was invented by woman. ;)
Or imagine a room full of chimpanzee's and a PC. And imagine the chimpanzees typing the full works of Shakespeare!
Pick your miracle to believe in.For goodness sake man, go forth and read up on stochastic processes before you waste any more time on these naive and totally irrelevant analogies.
Life is all about chance, the chance of anything occuring can be many billions to one against but still it happens. If something is 2 billion to one against and there are 4 billion opportunities for it to occur, then it is two to one ON that the event will happen. Unless you can calculate how many opportunites exist in the universe and what the odds on our planet being the way it is, by chance, are, then you cannot evaluate the probablility.Phew, we're making a little headway. No, it's not two to one on, I reckon the chance of it not happening is 13.5% or 1 in 7.389 (approximately). So the chance of anything occurring is approximately 86.47%. Could someone check this please?
I would say that the chances of the planet Earth having been created spontaneously or the planet Earth having been created by some mystical "being" are, at best, about equal. Since nobody tried to peddle anything to me regarding the spontaneity option, I concluded it was the more likely.Two to one on or 86.47%? Whichever, I can't think of a better qualitative argument than yours scorrie, but keep on practising the old math, eh? ;)
Imagine a Being with no beginning and no end.
A Being completely self-contained and omnipotent.
A Being who exists from eternity to eternity.
A Being who needed noone or nothing but who created out of pure love, to share life with others.
The Supreme Being.
Can you imagine such a being?
Then you'll be getting close to our Designer.
Man created the designer to answer some basic unknowns in his environment so the Creator did have a beginning.
Pffffft, Saveman! I asked for sources, not a few context free quotes cut and pasted from a fantastically biased little web page.
For everyone's benefit, I should like to point out that Saveman has almost certainly copied all of his 'sources' from a web page entitled Evolution-quotes for its absurdity (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.quizilla.com/users/IwuvcHoColAte/journal/124033/evolution-quotes_for_its_absurdity/?page=2)
Is that it? That page surely doesn't exemplify the depth of your knowledge and understanding of the evolutionary process?
I am most disappointed with your response and even more disappointed if you thought you could fob me off with such a careless trick.
I want scholarly publications, Saveman. You know, erudite articles in which people put forward arguments in a serious and objective fashion and then discuss them openly.
Before you go any further, you might wish to learn or revise some relevant mathematics. I suggest you start by googling for 'stochastic processes' before you post another analogy as simple minded as your 'house in the desert' one. Before that, why not read fred's post in which he quotes Darwin in full in order to put what you'll learn into context?
I'd expected you to put up a bit of a defence of your case. As things stand, I won't be stirring you from your slumbers again.
There are extremely important detailed discussions to be had about the exact nature of the evolutionary process but they begin at a much higher level than anything we've witnessed in your posts.
I hope you've enjoyed being stripped intellectually naked in public by this pale blue witch and in return I'd like to extend the hand of friendship with an invitation to you to come and join us. We'll share our intellectual joy and pagan delights with you and we can all have fun together.
We can move this world forwards by sharing and reflecting on our knowledge and ideas via open discussions. Make Love not War. ;)
No, I didn't get them from that web site or any other web site for that matter. Though I will look at the one you have provided with interest.
Perhaps you could provide me with some of these "scholarly publications," and "erudite articles" that contradict the quotes I have used....or start their examination of evolution from a "higher level"? (By this do you mean the books are on the top shelf in the library?)
Yes I have enjoyed being "stripped naked publicly" because your reply is transparent in it's bombastic pomp. A very nice try Crayola, but that's all.
I appreciate your offer to educate me in your obviously superior way of existence, but no thanks.
Yes I have enjoyed being "stripped naked publicly" because your reply is transparent in it's bombastic pomp. A very nice try Crayola, but that's all.
I appreciate your offer to educate me in your obviously superior way of existence, but no thanks.Nice try? Is that all you can say when you've been whupped in public. :)
Superior way of existence? It has nothing to do with ways of 'existence' but everything to do with observing the world around us and working out why it is the way it is. Your arguments are plain wrong and all you can do is resort to sarcasm. I take that as an admission that you are out of your depth.
Nice try? Is that all you can say when you've been whupped in public. :)
Superior way of existence? It has nothing to do with ways of 'existence' but everything to do with observing the world around us and working out why it is the way it is. Your arguments are plain wrong and all you can do is resort to sarcasm. I take that as an admission that you are out of your depth.
I notice you have resorted to vagueness rather than specifics in order to perpetuate your belief in having "won," as if that is something to strive for?
I'm not interested in winning arguments Crayola. I'm interested in defending my beliefs and countering bias. I'm all about open debate and well reasoned discussion. Winning or losing is all a bit "playground."
So you think you've "whupped" me in public? Well done you! Extra rep points for Crayola!
Saveman is lying bleeding on the floor and Crayola is standing over him with her chest puffed out and a triumphant smile on her face!
I think however that is for others to judge.
My faith is unaffected.
Or imagine a room full of chimpanzee's and a PC. And imagine the chimpanzees typing the full works of Shakespeare!
If you have an infinite number of monkeys sat at typewriters one of them would type the complete works of Shakespeare.
You don't have to look far to find an example of what the others would type.
Or imagine a room full of chimpanzee's and a PC. And imagine the chimpanzees typing the full works of Shakespeare!
Pick your miracle to believe in.
There is no miracle or even a purely random event happening. Evolution is not a random process though the underlying mutations are random.
Lets picture that scene of a room full of monkeys at their typewriters again. They all type a random set of characters then they all have a look at eachothers 'words' then they pick out what is a word, discard the rest. They then type some more random letters, again sort out the nonwords but they start to put the words together that make simple sentences. They keep doing this until the have bigger sentences then they put the sentences together.
That is more like evolution, nothing random really.
There is no miracle or even a purely random event happening. Evolution is not a random process though the underlying mutations are random.
Lets picture that scene of a room full of monkeys at their typewriters again. They all type a random set of characters then they all have a look at eachothers 'words' then they pick out what is a word, discard the rest. They then type some more random letters, again sort out the nonwords but they start to put the words together that make simple sentences. They keep doing this until the have bigger sentences then they put the sentences together.
That is more like evolution, nothing random really.
So that wouldn't be a miracle?
Amino acids forming togegther in chains to make proteins, proteins coming together to make the building blocks of life?
No lab in the world can replicate under any conditions that process.
There are hundreds of amino acids that occur in nature, but only about 20 kinds are found in most proteins. These amino acids can be arranged in an almost endless number of combinations.
If just 20 amino acids form a chain 100 amino acids long, that chain can be arranged in over 10 to the power of 100 different ways—that is, 1 followed by 100 zeros.
But it all came together just right?
Am I being thick here?
So that wouldn't be a miracle?
Amino acids forming togegther in chains to make proteins, proteins coming together to make the building blocks of life?
No lab in the world can replicate under any conditions that process.
There are hundreds of amino acids that occur in nature, but only about 20 kinds are found in most proteins. These amino acids can be arranged in an almost endless number of combinations.
If just 20 amino acids form a chain 100 amino acids long, that chain can be arranged in over 10 to the power of 100 different ways—that is, 1 followed by 100 zeros.
But it all came together just right?
Am I being thick here?
If you are making the arguement on the basis of probability then surely the chances that a supreme being could put all those amino acids together by himself and he knew what he was doing purposefully is the most unlikely scenario![lol] But go and talk to a geneticist, he will tell you about all the junk DNA that contains residual strands from our evolutionary past, an indicator for empirical change of evolution. Of course, God could be the monkey, that would explain it all
There is no miracle or even a purely random event happening. Evolution is not a random process though the underlying mutations are random.
Lets picture that scene of a room full of monkeys at their typewriters again. They all type a random set of characters then they all have a look at eachothers 'words' then they pick out what is a word, discard the rest. They then type some more random letters, again sort out the nonwords but they start to put the words together that make simple sentences. They keep doing this until the have bigger sentences then they put the sentences together.
That is more like evolution, nothing random really.
With an infinite number of monkeys, one monkey WILL type Shaky's work purely randomly.
With an infinite number of monkeys, one monkey WILL type Shaky's work purely randomly.
Purely an assumption, or have you tried it in order to be so certain? All sides of the preceding arguments are based on assumptions are they not? No-one can prove the existance or nonexistance of God, no-one can actually prove or disprove Darwins ideas and it would be awfully hard to gather an infinite number of monkeys who could use a typewriter. Must all therefore be a matter of opinion based on the individual's early conditioning, education and experience which creates a different reality picture for each individual. We are all possibly right and we are all possibly wrong. From Crayola's childish competition to the Sally Ann certainty, each opinion is valid to the individual.
Purely an assumption, or have you tried it in order to be so certain? All sides of the preceding arguments are based on assumptions are they not. No-one can prove the existance or nonexistance of God, no-one can actually prove or disprove Darwins ideas and it would be awfully hard to gather an infinite number of monkeys who could use a typewriter. Must all therefore be a matter of opinion based on the individual's early conditioning, education and experience which creates a different reality picture for each individual. We are all possibly right and we are all possibly wrong. From Crayola's childish competition to the Sally Ann certainty, each opinion is valid to the individual.
I have to come down on the side of the Sally Ann on this one - purley because they used to do great picnics:)
Purely an assumption, or have you tried it in order to be so certain? All sides of the preceding arguments are based on assumptions are they not. No-one can prove the existance or nonexistance of God, no-one can actually prove or disprove Darwins ideas and it would be awfully hard to gather an infinite number of monkeys who could use a typewriter. Must all therefore be a matter of opinion based on the individual's early conditioning, education and experience which creates a different reality picture for each individual. We are all possibly right and we are all possibly wrong. From Crayola's childish competition to the Sally Ann certainty, each opinion is valid to the individual.
Not an assumption, it is a certainty. It is a/an hypothesis. We have our infinite number of monkeys and all they have do do is hit the keys at random. Some monkeys will type "shfowajfpof" and others will type "fgbgnhfjqaqp"
Because the process goes on infinitely, a monkey will eventually type "Gleber2 weds Kate Moss", purely by chance. Another monkey will type "Is this a dagger that I see before me?" whilst his mates Cheeta and Kong score near-misses with "Is this a lager that I see before me?" and "Is this Mick Jagger that I see before me?"
Granted, it WILL take a beeg, beeg shedload of monkeys to trot out Shaky's work, particularly as he was a man who hated to use 2 words where 5000 would do!! However, our hypothesis allows for enough chimpy chattering of the keyboards to get the job done and also complete numerous works that exceed the output of Jeffrey Archer.
I have to come down on the side of the Sally Ann on this one - purley because they used to do great picnics:)
Ah, but if Carlsberg DID do picnics, THEY would probably be the best picnics in the world ;o)
Not an assumption, it is a certainty. It is a/an hypothesis. We have our infinite number of monkeys and all they have do do is hit the keys at random. Some monkeys will type "shfowajfpof" and others will type "fgbgnhfjqaqp"
Because the process goes on infinitely, a monkey will eventually type "Gleber2 weds Kate Moss", purely by chance. Another monkey will type "Is this a dagger that I see before me?" whilst his mates Cheeta and Kong score near-misses with "Is this a lager that I see before me?" and "Is this Mick Jagger that I see before me?"
Granted, it WILL take a beeg, beeg shedload of monkeys to trot out Shaky's work, particularly as he was a man who hated to use 2 words where 5000 would do!! However, our hypothesis allows for enough chimpy chattering of the keyboards to get the job done and also complete numerous works that exceed the output of Jeffrey Archer.
So you reckon that sooner or later Rangers will win the CL;)
Not an assumption, it is a certainty. It is a/an hypothesis. .
Since when did hypothesis equal certainty? We must use different lexicons.
Since when did hypothesis equal certainty? We must use different lexicons.
Aah, the Dictionary, the last refuge of the struggling poster.
OK. let's look at these definitions.
Hypothesis:-"Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation"
For the purpose of investigation, I have taken the concept of an infinite number of typing monkeys to be true. Now where is your problem with that?
Certainty:-"Something that is clearly assured"
As I have already tried to explain, sufficient entry of random letters will lead to words, sentences, paragraphs etc being written purely by chance.
Source:- The Young New Lexicon Puppeteer
So you reckon that sooner or later Rangers will win the CL;)
As Souness would say, "For Sure". Over an infinite time scale a team called Rangers would win the Champions League. For now, however, the best chance of that happening would be the letters SPL being deemed acceptable as equating to the letters CL. In addition, the banning of teams starting and ending with the letter C would enhance the probability still further. ;)
Purely an assumption, or have you tried it in order to be so certain?
Not an assumption, mathematical certainty, not only that you would get one monkey typing the complete works of Shakespeare, you would get an infinite number of monkeys which typed the complete works of Shakespeare.
Not an assumption, mathematical certainty, not only that you would get one monkey typing the complete works of Shakespeare, you would get an infinite number of monkeys which typed the complete works of Shakespeare.
Easier to believe in divine control!!!!!
Aah, the Dictionary, the last refuge of the struggling poster.
OK. let's look at these definitions.
Hypothesis:-"Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation"
For the purpose of investigation, I have taken the concept of an infinite number of typing monkeys to be true. Now where is your problem with that?
Certainty:-"Something that is clearly assured"
As I have already tried to explain, sufficient entry of random letters will lead to words, sentences, paragraphs etc being written purely by chance.
Source:- The Young New Lexicon Puppeteer
Struggling poster!!!! Insolent bird!!!!
Quite a difference between taking something to be true and something clearly assured?
Yok Finney
06-Sep-07, 15:55
Was Shakespeare anti-english?
He certainly never portrays them in any flattering light. Usually he mocks them.
Struggling poster!!!! Insolent bird!!!!
Quite a difference between taking something to be true and something clearly assured?
You ARE clearly struggling to grasp the concept. You are comparing two words which are being used in different contexts. The word Hypothesis is being used to illustrate that we are accepting something is true for the sake of discussion. Once we accept that, the scenario we are discussing becomes a certainty.
I am a bloke, rather than a bird, by the way. ;o)
You ARE clearly struggling to grasp the concept. You are comparing two words which are being used in different contexts. The word Hypothesis is being used to illustrate that we are accepting something is true for the sake of discussion. Once we accept that, the scenario we are discussing becomes a certainty.
I am a bloke, rather than a bird, by the way. ;o)
Bird as in Scorrie? Concept is obvious, even to a struggling old poster. Still, no point in playing this game, it's only words.:D
How can you say Shakespeare was anti-English? Go read the speech he gives Henry V on the eve of Agincourt. Midsummer Night's Dream is filled with love of the English countryside - "I know a bank whereon the wild thyme grows" etc etc.
Is it me - or has this thread disappeared somewhere in the translation?
or am I just too old to understand ?
What's with all these windfarms in Caithness anyway?
Has anyone seen my cat?
I can't wait for ASDA!!
;)
What's with all these windfarms in Caithness anyway?
Has anyone seen my cat?
I can't wait for ASDA!!
;)
Elephants still live!!!!!!!
Bird as in Scorrie? Concept is obvious, even to a struggling old poster. Still, no point in playing this game, it's only words.:D
And so it came to pass that humour died and the thread was lost, due to people taking things personally.
Check out the Dictionary content for the word "Take" :-
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/take
"Take" what you will from it.
This "door" seems closed, may the keeper(s) of the key(s) feel free to to turn said in a clockwise direction.
And so it came to pass that humour died and the thread was lost, due to people taking things personally.
Check out the Dictionary content for the word "Take" :-
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/take (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/take)
"Take" what you will from it.
This "door" seems closed, may the keeper(s) of the key(s) feel free to to turn said in a clockwise direction.
You see the death of humour but I see no corps. Perhaps we have a different sense of ..... but I TAKE no offence at your petulance.:D
Yok Finney
06-Sep-07, 20:14
with love of the English countryside -
"I know a bank whereon the wild thyme grows" etc etc."
It doesn't cut it as a Kingussie chat up line. Nor would it work in Wick.
Doesn't God appoint his clergy based on merit?:confused
Does GOD appoint clergymen? Isn't it MEN (and women) who appoint them? And as for men of the cloth interfering with kids - they have nothing to do with god, except using the church as a means to an end. Real evil if you ask me.
mostlyharmless
07-Sep-07, 14:06
Yep that lot takes me back to 'Is science the new religion' but lets not get restarted on that .
There was an important little post if I remember that asked what we are declining from? or when we are declining from? Indeed what are we measuring as a moral norm?
Perhaps the question arises because we all have moral codes better than those we see around us?
Or perhaps we feel guilty that we don't do enough to keep them at a 'norm' acceptable to ourselves?
I don't know but anyone on here that at least tries physically to make a difference to hold back the stream[or torrent depending on who you listen to]
can at least see enough positives to keep going and spend less time judging peoples morality.
Those that sit back and watch it... well they'll probably find more and more moral decline and eventually...well become more cynical and puritanical.
Anyway rather than bashing peoples moral standards with 'higher' standards from various places perhaps we could treat some other root causes; poverty,violence,social inbalance and give everyone a dose of self worth;
Victor Hugo [The author of Les Miserable] wrote
"render property democratic, not by abolishing it, but by making it universal, so that every citizen, without exception, may be a proprietor, an easier matter than is generally supposed; in two words, learn how to produce wealth and how to distribute it, and you will have at once moral and material greatness."
Oh well just another angle on the question.
To return to the beginning of the debate, I wonder if anyone who believes in our moral decline would care to define the point in time that we have apparently been declining from? :confused :confused
I have brought Angela's comment back to the fore, as it did not get much of a response before.
I couldn't put a set time time to when any moral decline may have started and it does remain a matter of opinion as to whether we are any worse today than we were in the past. As my "point of reference", however, I look to the music I listened to in my teens and compare it to what the "hip" kids of today have blasting from their I pods. Slade, Sweet, T-rex, and Gary Glitter dominated the charts in my day. For Slade, "She" knew how to squeeze them and pleeze them. T-rex were on the edge with "I'm your toy, your 20th Century Boy". Gary Glitter teetered about on platforms constructed by Wimpey wondering if a girl had "Told that naughty boy not to call", risque or what!! Sweet were the "Bad" boys of the time though, long hair, scary make-up and a song that was a call to violence, with the line "And the man at the back said everyone attack and it turned into a ballroom blitz".
Looking back it is all very lame and if you compare it to much of today's output which is obsessed by sex and violence, it makes you wonder the affect that it has on those of an impressionable age. I couldn't even contemplate quoting some of the lyrics in today's Hip-Hop or describe the videos that go along with them. Even mainstream girl bands nearly always have a video nowadays that parades their "assets" all too clearly. "Pensioners" like Kylie and Madonna still seem to see the need to flash the flesh to maximise their audience. The gang and gun culture is also a major theme for many of the popular "rappers" and then we wonder why 13 year old kids are killing lads younger than themselves with no apparent motive?
Whether this situation is a cause of a decline or a symptom of it, is a matter of speculation but I know that I had no "inspiration" to get myself a gun and go shoot anyone from the music I listened to at a similar age. Neither did I go about calling women "Hoes".
"Grandad" descends from the pulpit.
Ah scorrie, thank you for reviving my post!
I must be a decade older than you....so of course I became a teenager in the supposedly Swinging Sixties. Many of my parents' generation, and certainly my granny's generation, lamented the appearance of long hair (on boys), mini skirts, women wearing trousers, transistor radios, Pan's People on TOTP, and other "evils" of the modern world....emanating from far off places such as London, Liverpool and America!
Even in the 50s, as a wee girl, I remember rants about the Wick teddy boys and their winkle pickers and fluorescent socks, hanging about the street corners, obviously "up to no good!" (Any Orgers out there who were these boys? ;))
For me, looking back, all that seems another world, relatively safe and innocent. To many of my parents' generation, it was the beginning of a new post- war world they felt they had little control over and didn't much like.
Before the 1950s, there were no teenagers, no separate youth culture in the way there is now. Perhaps this cultural change has proved to be more significant than it seemed at the time? Or does every generation feel this?:confused
I have brought Angela's comment back to the fore, as it did not get much of a response before.
I couldn't put a set time time to when any moral decline may have started and it does remain a matter of opinion as to whether we are any worse today than we were in the past. As my "point of reference", however, I look to the music I listened to in my teens and compare it to what the "hip" kids of today have blasting from their I pods. Slade, Sweet, T-rex, and Gary Glitter dominated the charts in my day. For Slade, "She" knew how to squeeze them and pleeze them. T-rex were on the edge with "I'm your toy, your 20th Century Boy". Gary Glitter teetered about on platforms constructed by Wimpey wondering if a girl had "Told that naughty boy not to call", risque or what!! Sweet were the "Bad" boys of the time though, long hair, scary make-up and a song that was a call to violence, with the line "And the man at the back said everyone attack and it turned into a ballroom blitz".
Looking back it is all very lame and if you compare it to much of today's output which is obsessed by sex and violence, it makes you wonder the affect that it has on those of an impressionable age. I couldn't even contemplate quoting some of the lyrics in today's Hip-Hop or describe the videos that go along with them. Even mainstream girl bands nearly always have a video nowadays that parades their "assets" all too clearly. "Pensioners" like Kylie and Madonna still seem to see the need to flash the flesh to maximise their audience. The gang and gun culture is also a major theme for many of the popular "rappers" and then we wonder why 13 year old kids are killing lads younger than themselves with no apparent motive?
Whether this situation is a cause of a decline or a symptom of it, is a matter of speculation but I know that I had no "inspiration" to get myself a gun and go shoot anyone from the music I listened to at a similar age. Neither did I go about calling women "Hoes".
"Grandad" descends from the pulpit.
Right on!!!! Project the music back to 1955 and follow it through and you will find, I think, that your theory holds true. The power of music is vastly underrated in our materialist society. It has been said that Earth is the noisiest and out of tune planet in the universe, a hypothesis I am prepared to believe after a lifetime(57 years, my first performance at six) singing, playing and studying music. Was it not said that Rock and Roll was the Devil's music?
Boozeburglar
07-Sep-07, 17:36
Most of the what I like has origins in both the Gospel church and the Devil's music.
;)
mostlyharmless
07-Sep-07, 18:12
Angela's...Thanks Scorrie thats the one I was trying to remember in my post just before yours ..
helenwyler
09-Sep-07, 10:35
Before the 1950s, there were no teenagers, no separate youth culture in the way there is now. Perhaps this cultural change has proved to be more significant than it seemed at the time? Or does every generation feel this?:confused
Older generations have bemoaned the decline in "standards" in the following generations since classical times.
I've been looking at at John O' Groats Journal courtesy of www.ambaile.newspapers/search (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.ambaile.newspapers/search) from 1836 to 1864 which contains summaries of articles (well over 2000 on law and order, assault, murder) for those 28 years.
Here's a taste of 'moral decline' in the John O'Groats area...
1844 "fighting and rioting at Canisbay market"
1855 "X jailed for 5 days for conducting herself in a riotous and disorderly manner by cursing and swearing and assaulting her husband."
"drunken disturbace"....."drunken brawling and fighting"....."thugs"
"market farmer attacked by ruffians"
...various people attacked "with knife"....."with bayonet"..... "stabbing".....lots of "window smashing"....."cruelty to animals"..
And then there's
"reckless driving of cart and causing death of old woman"...."furious
driving"...."driving a cart with no name" (unlicensed vehicle!)....even "driving a cart with no reins"...
not to mention
"child murder"....the discovery of "the body of a mutilated infant"..."murder by poisoning"....
and "insolence to the police" :eek:!
And of course the public drunkenness which resulted in Wick going 'dry' for 25 years?
And wouldn't it have been many times worse in the industrial slums of Glasgow? And they didn't even have drugs and guns....I think if they had, The JOG of 150 years ago might have made very familiar reading to us!
Helen
Older generations have bemoaned the decline in "standards" in the following generations since classical times.
I've been looking at at John O' Groats Journal courtesy of www.ambaile.newspapers/search (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.ambaile.newspapers/search) from 1836 to 1864 which contains summaries of articles (well over 2000 on law and order, assault, murder) for those 28 years.
Here's a taste of 'moral decline' in the John O'Groats area...
1844 "fighting and rioting at Canisbay market"
1855 "X jailed for 5 days for conducting herself in a riotous and disorderly manner by cursing and swearing and assaulting her husband."
"drunken disturbace"....."drunken brawling and fighting"....."thugs"
"market farmer attacked by ruffians"
...various people attacked "with knife"....."with bayonet"..... "stabbing".....lots of "window smashing"....."cruelty to animals"..
And then there's
"reckless driving of cart and causing death of old woman"...."furious
driving"...."driving a cart with no name" (unlicensed vehicle!)....even "driving a cart with no reins"...
not to mention
"child murder"....the discovery of "the body of a mutilated infant"..."murder by poisoning"....
and "insolence to the police" :eek:!
And of course the public drunkenness which resulted in Wick going 'dry' for 25 years?
And wouldn't it have been many times worse in the industrial slums of Glasgow? And they didn't even have drugs and guns....I think if they had, The JOG of 150 years ago might have made very familiar reading to us!
Helenhelen do you think it is due to us as a nation being far from the holy god?
helenwyler
09-Sep-07, 10:47
helen do you think it is due to us as a nation being far from the holy god?
No, botheed. But I think this has already been discussed somewhere recently, no?[lol]
No, botheed. But I think this has already been discussed somewhere recently, no?[lol]helen it is still being discussed, this is the thread[look at the orig thread]so u say no, but why?
helen do you think it is due to us as a nation being far from the holy god?
I think you'll find that people were a lot closer to orthodox religion in those days than now.
I once knew a born again Christian who told me of a time when he was walking home and found a shed that was unlocked, he looked inside and there were some expensive power tools inside. He said he knew when he saw them that God had directed him to the shed and that God wanted him to have them, his reward, the tool owners punishment.
And so it goes from people to presidents, God is so often the excuse for immoral acts. Being close to religion and being close to God are so often two entirely different things.
I think you'll find that people were a lot closer to orthodox religion in those days than now.
I once knew a born again Christian who told me of a time when he was walking home and found a shed that was unlocked, he looked inside and there were some expensive power tools inside. He said he knew when he saw them that God had directed him to the shed and that God wanted him to have them, his reward, the tool owners punishment.
And so it goes from people to presidents, God is so often the excuse for immoral acts. Being close to religion and being close to God are so often two entirely different things.yes i did say god and not religion:eek:
helenwyler
09-Sep-07, 11:06
helen it is still being discussed, this is the thread[look at the orig thread]so u say no, but why?
I think you'll find that people were a lot closer to orthodox religion in those days than now.
Good point fred.
Botheed, I used to be an evangelical christian many years ago, but gave it up. It was a lot easier than giving up smoking. I have also found that my 'morals' have neither improved nor worsened since then.
Older generations have bemoaned the decline in "standards" in the following generations since classical times.
And of course the public drunkenness which resulted in Wick going 'dry' for 25 years?
And wouldn't it have been many times worse in the industrial slums of Glasgow? And they didn't even have drugs and guns....I think if they had, The JOG of 150 years ago might have made very familiar reading to us!
Helen
I don't disagree Helen - I'm was just asking those people who believe society has declined morally, to say from what point they believe it has declined -and indeed what it has declined from! Before considering why that might be the case....
Is it human nature to look back at an era within our own lifetimes as being better then the present day? I've noticed my own grown up children bemoaning the behaviour of schoolkids these days...and saying "We never did....." [lol]
helenwyler
09-Sep-07, 12:37
To return to the beginning of the debate, I wonder if anyone who believes in our moral decline would care to define the point in time that we have apparently been declining from? :confused :confused
This is a very good question Angela!
It seems to me that the concept of 'moral decline' has existed from time immemorial and has been lamented by every generation since.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6982805.stm
Found this article on the BBC today. Related to this thread.
The biggest moral issue that is facing Britain is Global warming. I think Christ said something to the effect that we should not smite our neighbours and that we should not close the door on them. Well, through our actions (burning fossil fuels) we are causing harm to our neighbours (chiefly those that are financially least prepared to deal with the consequences) by causing the conditions that cause drought and rising sea levels, yet we know that this is happening but we still carry on and we ignore their plight, ie we are smiting them then shutting the door on them.
Phew, we're making a little headway. No, it's not two to one on, I reckon the chance of it not happening is 13.5% or 1 in 7.389 (approximately). So the chance of anything occurring is approximately 86.47%. Could someone check this please?
Two to one on or 86.47%? Whichever, I can't think of a better qualitative argument than yours scorrie, but keep on practising the old math, eh? ;)Did anyone ever check my math?
"Originally Posted by Angela http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=266279#post266279)
To return to the beginning of the debate, I wonder if anyone who believes in our moral decline would care to define the point in time that we have apparently been declining from? "
I think the decline starts when we grow a bit wiser and come out of the cocoon that we live in as innocent children and find that the world is not as good and straight forward as we were lead to believe from our parents, school, Sunday school etc., etc.
I read an interesting book many years ago about a young female who was considered insane and was incarcerated for being honest. Her parents put great store on being truthful and this she did with the result that she told the truth at all times leading to some very embarrassing moments for those around her. This continued into her adulthood with none of the "little white lies" that we all tell from time to time and eventually she was pronounced insane and prevented from being free in the outside world; the lesson being that we don't always want to hear the truth. Those of us who are considered sane learn to use language to suit our own needs and those of others thus avoiding confrontation in our every day lives. Not that that applies to the postings on the org of course!
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.