America's decline of morality

[pattygreen 5]

It is true that America is still predominately Christian. But what is sad is that the christians have allowed, by their silence, for their faith of the one true God whom the founding Fathers professed, to be pushed out of government and law making. I can see how wonderful America could be if they would live according to the way that God has planned for them and if they made their decisions concerning the laws of this land based on his word. I can see how there would be no controversy over what is right and wrong and what we should accept, tolerate or deny.

[pattygreen 5]

Also, I am glad that I can still worship any way I choose in America. You are right about that.

[Lydiafree 0]

Oh, right. Maybe I should read the Bible......heh.....

Or perhaps, stop simply assuming that others haven't read it because they don't sugarcoat what it contains. Either way is fine.

[Lydiafree 0]

It will matter to you a great deal after you leave this earth.

You know what? For all you say about loving this imaginary friend of yours, you make him out to be the worst kind of sick bastard there is.

However, let's think this through a bit. If your hateful, psychotic version of god does exist and I, despite my efforts to be a good person, are sent to be tortured forever in hell because I did not believe - exactly as your god planned for me to do and knew I would do - so be it.

Because, this would also mean that heaven exists and my dearly departed, who did believe and presumably then would have been admitted into heaven for the everlasting beach party with jesus. I'm cool with that.

I'm not going to live a lie now in a self-serving, selfish ploy to maybe get rewarded for it by this looney god you worship.

If he exists and it means my loved ones are happy for eternity, hell is fine with me.

[Lydiafree 0]

It is true that America is still predominately Christian. But what is sad is that the christians have allowed, by their silence, for their faith of the one true God whom the founding Fathers professed, to be pushed out of government and law making. I can see how wonderful America could be if they would live according to the way that God has planned for them and if they made their decisions concerning the laws of this land based on his word. I can see how there would be no controversy over what is right and wrong and what we should accept, tolerate or deny.

I am in disbelief how you can, while lying and pretending to love American values, immediately disprove that and argue against them.

And as for your repeated lie that the founding fathers were christians intending that the country be an exclusively christian country:

“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” Benjamin Franklin Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.” Franklin again (and wonderfully quotable)

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson (letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787)

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)

“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.” John Adams

Just as a few examples. :ihih:

[pattygreen 5]

You know what? For all you say about loving this imaginary friend of yours, you make him out to be the worst kind of sick bastard there is.

God isn't cruel. He is very loving. But, He is also very just. If you refuse to acknowledge him, he will refuse to acknowledge you. Why isn't that fair?

However, let's think this through a bit. If your hateful, psychotic version of god does exist and I, despite my efforts to be a good person, are sent to be tortured forever in hell because I did not believe - exactly as your god planned for me to do and knew I would do - so be it.

First of all, that was not his plan for you. His plan was for you to believe in Him. "It is not God's will that any should perish."(2Peter3:9)

BTW, hell is a place of torment because the people living there know that they could be some place far better if they had not rejected their creator.

Because, this would also mean that heaven exists and my dearly departed, who did believe and presumably then would have been admitted into heaven for the everlasting beach party with jesus. I'm cool with that.

Yes, all who believed in him are in Heaven with Him.

I'm not going to live a lie now in a self-serving, selfish ploy to maybe get rewarded for it by this looney god you worship.

Who says it's a lie? Your own dearly departed believed it. Were they duped, too?

If he exists and it means my loved ones are happy for eternity, hell is fine with me. But why settle on Hell when you can have Heaven?

...........................................................

[plain 12]

Or perhaps, stop simply assuming that others haven't read it because they don't sugarcoat what it contains. Either way is fine.

Oh you've read the Bible? Then you can't be surprised when I questioned when you said:

Oh course. the bible says that rape, slavery, infanticide and genocide are all good things in god's eyes

Because, unless we're reading different Bibles, I can't for the life of me remember the passage indicating rape is a-ok. Perhaps you can un-sugarcoat my memory?

[KartMan 58]

Here are a few:

- Numbers 31 states that at the Lord’s command, Moses told his soldiers to attack the Midianites.

In carrying out that order, the Israelite army killed the Midianite men, plundered the animals and other property, took captive the women and children, and burned the cities.

When Moses met the returning soldiers, he was angry that they had spared the women. Then he told them to “kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

Telling soldiers to “keep alive for yourselves” virgin females captured in war could not carry stronger connotations of rape and other sexual abuse. That’s particularly true after the same brutes had just mercilessly killed the rest of the Midianites, including women, children, and the elderly.

- Deuteronomy 21:10-14 states that if an Israelite soldier sees a beautiful woman among the captives taken in war, he can bring her home and require her to be his wife. After the woman has mourned her father and mother a month, the soldier can have sex with her.

- John 5:45-47 Jesus criticized the Jews for not believing Moses. He told them: “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father: it is Moses who accuses you. . . . If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

- Isaiah 13:16 states that on the Day of the Lord, his punishment of Babylon will include: “Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.”

- Isaiah 3:17 says “the Lord will smite with a scab the heads of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts.”

[plain 12]

Here are a few:

- Numbers 31 states that at the Lord’s command, Moses told his soldiers to attack the Midianites.

In carrying out that order, the Israelite army killed the Midianite men, plundered the animals and other property, took captive the women and children, and burned the cities.

When Moses met the returning soldiers, he was angry that they had spared the women. Then he told them to “kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

Telling soldiers to “keep alive for yourselves” virgin females captured in war could not carry stronger connotations of rape and other sexual abuse. That’s particularly true after the same brutes had just mercilessly killed the rest of the Midianites, including women, children, and the elderly.

That's quite an assumption. Now, killing aside (and it was common to slaughter all the enemies back then to discourage insurgency), the girls were to be used as brides (thus the virgin stipulation)

- Deuteronomy 21:10-14 states that if an Israelite soldier sees a beautiful woman among the captives taken in war, he can bring her home and require her to be his wife. After the woman has mourned her father and mother a month, the soldier can have sex with her.

See above. BTW, romantic love wasn't considered an important part of marriage until the Victorian era

- John 5:45-47 Jesus criticized the Jews for not believing Moses. He told them: “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father: it is Moses who accuses you. . . . If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

Most Christians believe this references the final judgement, whereas Moses will be the "prosecutor" and Jesus Christ "the public defender"

- Isaiah 3:17 says “the Lord will smite with a scab the heads of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts.”

Personally, I think this language is symbolic. This was probably the worst thing (and probably very common at the time) that one ruler could do to his enemies. It's kind of the "I'll rip off your head and sh*t down your neck" of the Biblical times.

[wootsie73 0]

There are plenty of religious schools in this country. Most of them christian. Parents can choose to send their children there. Not to mention all those who are home schooled for that reason. Our founding fathers sought not to establish a government religion but to allow its people the freedom to choose theirs.

You are correct, there are plenty of religious schools in this country, but they are all private schools. Most American's can't afford to send their children to private school. At least I know I didn't send my daughter to private school, because I couldn't afford it.

You are also correct that the founding fathers did not want an established government religion. That was a large part of the reason from breaking away from England in the first place. Britain has The Church of England. Our founders didn't want an established government church, which does not mean they didn't want any religion at all in our schools or other public places. There is a huge difference in having a government run church, and having a prayer said prior to a sporting event beginning. Madeline O'Hare made sure all of that stopped back in the 1960's. One of the worst people that ever got her agenda passed in MHO.

And while our founding fathers could not have predicted the diversity of people or the advances of technology I think they did a very complelling job of keeping church and state separate. Now, there's a concept I support.

Again, they were definitely against a government run religion. I personally think they would be appalled by what goes on in this nations schools on a daily basis concerning the total lack of God in school. A specific religion shouldn't be taught, but the existance of God should be. That's not a religion. Kids can't even hand out candy canes at Christmas, nor learn the possibility of creationism instead of Darwin's theory of evolution in our science classes. I think both should be taught and let the kids make up their own minds, with the help of their parents discussing it with them at home. I was taught both in school, and it didn't hurt me. I don't think it would hurt today's children any more than it did us.

I have to agree with the original post that the morals of this country are in the dirt. If it feels good then it's ok seems to be the norm these days. Of course, the president making the oval office into a sex room for himself and an intern didn't teach our children any morals either. Whole different thread, so I won't get started on that.

Joan

[KartMan 58]

[/font][/color]

Personally, I think this language is symbolic. This was probably the worst thing (and probably very common at the time) that one ruler could do to his enemies. It's kind of the "I'll rip off your head and sh*t down your neck" of the Biblical times.

Well that’s not fair. You said that type of language wasn’t there to your recollection, I just refreshed your memory that not only is it there, it is in numerous passages. In fact, what I posted was only a fraction of what I found in about 5 minutes. Now don’t get me wrong, I certainly don’t think you or most other Christians today believe that that language is acceptable. I do though take issue with people like Patty saying that “everything” in the Bible is good and wonderful or folks like you that choose to pretend the bad things aren't there, neither of those seem very right or ok to me.

Edited June 11, 2009 by KartMan

[KartMan 58]

You are also correct that the founding fathers did not want an established government religion. That was a large part of the reason from breaking away from England in the first place. Britain has The Church of England. Our founders didn't want an established government church, which does not mean they didn't want any religion at all in our schools or other public places. There is a huge difference in having a government run church, and having a prayer said prior to a sporting event beginning. Madeline O'Hare made sure all of that stopped back in the 1960's. One of the worst people that ever got her agenda passed in MHO.

Since a school is a public institution, as soon as a particular religion’s prayer is sponsored in school, that religion just became the official government sponsored religion. Just how would you propose which one is the right one to choose? How would you feel if the choice was not your religion of preference?

Again, they were definitely against a government run religion. I personally think they would be appalled by what goes on in this nations schools on a daily basis concerning the total lack of God in school. A specific religion shouldn't be taught, but the existance of God should be. That's not a religion. Kids can't even hand out candy canes at Christmas, nor learn the possibility of creationism instead of Darwin's theory of evolution in our science classes. I think both should be taught and let the kids make up their own minds, with the help of their parents discussing it with them at home. I was taught both in school, and it didn't hurt me. I don't think it would hurt today's children any more than it did us.

How is teaching about God not teaching about religion? Which God would you have them teach about? Creationism is purely in the realm of religion and has no basis in science, as such it is totally inappropriate to teach in public school science classes. Again, the creationism you speak of is specific to only a few religions, if it is taught in public schools that would mean that the government is embracing a particular religion, that is simply not acceptable in a secular democracy.

[Alexandra 55]

Our founders didn't want an established government church, which does not mean they didn't want any religion at all in our schools or other public places. There is a huge difference in having a government run church, and having a prayer said prior to a sporting event beginning. Madeline O'Hare made sure all of that stopped back in the 1960's. One of the worst people that ever got her agenda passed in MHO....

I have to agree with the original post that the morals of this country are in the dirt. If it feels good then it's ok seems to be the norm these days. Of course, the president making the oval office into a sex room for himself and an intern didn't teach our children any morals either.

It's absolutely laughable to claim the America of days gone by was somehow more "moral" than today. The "sins" may have been different and the media spotlight didn't exist the way it does today so it may have been easier to ignore, that's all. There were no hidden cameras or bugged offices. Wake up: Bill Clinton was in no way the first president to use the Oval Office for illicit dalliances, you know. He was just unlucky enough to get caught.

Really, if anyone thinks America's history of slaughtering native peoples, slavery, child labor, voting inequity, political corruption on massive scales, and all the rest constitute a higher moral ground just because there may have been a morning prayer in the public schools...well, I have no words.

False piety has been used to cover up appalling behavior from time immemorial--it's high time we look to some other code of morality.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Alexandra

[gingerbug 3]

Well, I dont have anything meaningful to contribute to this thread but I wanted to take a moment to appreciate Lydiafree for this quote:

“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” Benjamin Franklin Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

Which is why it is next to impossible to have logical disagreements on subjects like this. I admire those who try. There is an awesome book by Susan Jacoby named 'Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism.'

[pattygreen 5]

Here are a few:

- Numbers 31 states that at the Lord’s command, Moses told his soldiers to attack the Midianites.

In carrying out that order, the Israelite army killed the Midianite men, plundered the animals and other property, took captive the women and children, and burned the cities.

When Moses met the returning soldiers, he was angry that they had spared the women. Then he told them to “kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

Telling soldiers to “keep alive for yourselves” virgin females captured in war could not carry stronger connotations of rape and other sexual abuse. That’s particularly true after the same brutes had just mercilessly killed the rest of the Midianites, including women, children, and the elderly.

- Deuteronomy 21:10-14 states that if an Israelite soldier sees a beautiful woman among the captives taken in war, he can bring her home and require her to be his wife. After the woman has mourned her father and mother a month, the soldier can have sex with her.

- John 5:45-47 Jesus criticized the Jews for not believing Moses. He told them: “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father: it is Moses who accuses you. . . . If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

- Isaiah 13:16 states that on the Day of the Lord, his punishment of Babylon will include: “Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.”

- Isaiah 3:17 says “the Lord will smite with a scab the heads of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts.”

In Exodus 31, the war that God instigated was for his vengeance against the Midianites for their part in seducing the Israelites to engage in sexual immorality and to worship Baal of Peor (A false God).The women were the ones who were guilty and did the seducing, therefore they were to be killed. The virgins were innocent of the indecencies at Peor, thus their lives were spared. And if the men didn't keep them for themselves as wives, who would care for them? Women depended on the men for their very survival back then. They didn't hold jobs. It was an act of mercy for the men to keep them for themselves. (they didn't rape them) Many countries have gone to war over vengence. When Pearl Harbor was hit, we didn't tolerate it. Even so, God is allowed to send his people into a Holy war against others if he so chooses.

In Deut. 21, the Lord allowed the men who went to war to take a wife from the remains of the war back with them if they so chose to. This was because the after affects of war were hard on the women. Like I said, women whose husbands were killed in a war, needed to be cared for. It's not like today. Women didn't have jobs or any means except prostitution to make a living and get food. Believe me, even though they were very upset about the war and their men being killed, they were even more grateful if someone took them home with them to be their husband. This was what was needed to be done. It's like a soldier seeing a baby or child left behind form the destruction of the war they just fought and taking the child back with them to care for them instead of leaving them there to die from lack of food or care. The Lord tells the man to give the women time to mourn before they can become husband and wife in verse 13. He is being considerate of their loss, yet gacious to still provide for them.

Isaiah 13 is a prophecy against Babylon.(present day Iran) God's judgements on the Nations are often a part of his salvation of his people. This prophecy foretells what will happen in the future. It is a warning to mankind of his fierce anger and wrath that he will pour out on "the day of the Lord" (which speaks of his return) It is those who are at war at that time who do these horrible killings, not God. The fact is that all people are affected by war.

Isaiah 3:17 There are always cosequences for our wrong doings.

Edited June 11, 2009 by pattygreen