posted
I am not religios, however I realize that the guidlines, rules, and structure that our nation is founded upon are very important.
These rules are being ignored as people are becoming more self-absorbed. Familly is taking a back seat to self. As people relize that there more than likely is no God to hold them acountable for there actions, they act as if no one is. Instead of Holding themselves acountable, exersizing self controll, they just let there inhibitions go wild.
Now, this doesn't sound all bad on the surface, people stop being bound by represive rules, they can be innocent, care free, wanton. They don't have a shadow of an eternall hell wieghing over them. However, There is a reason for the rules that religion enforces. It is what seperates us from animals. Careless, impulsive acts of instant gratifcation have devastating consaquences.
Children being born out of wedlock, S.T.D's, drug adiction, and abortions are just some of the hideous ramifications that simple irrisponsibility has wrought on my generation.
We need the order religion sustaines in our society, However we need another way of convincing people to believe it. I just don't want anyone to start replacing what works with what sounds good (can't remember who said that, but it makes a whole lot of sense). I just don't want people lied to, and I don't wan't people to behave like wild animals.
Anyway, I won't make ya stumble through this horrible, public edjucation produced, spelling and wrighting anymore .
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Children being born out of wedlock, S.T.D's, drug adiction, and abortions are just some of the hideous ramifications that simple irresponsibility has wrought on my generation.
Sadly, humans have been irresponsible for thousands of years, whether they were religious or not. It is not just a feature of this godless generation.
posted
You mean a "let's agree to disagree" approach?
"Well, I think you're wrong and will burn in Hell for being a pagan or a heretic, but I respect your right to turn your face from our Heavenly Father's divine will and cast yourself into the flames of Oblivion and Damnation" sort of approach?
Which sounds a tad snarky, but Eternal Punishment is a fundamental theme for a fair number of religions and one of the quickest ways to Eternal Punishment is to not worship in the particular faith's mandated methods.
If mankind could just learn to "agree to disagree" and not bring a bag of charcoal briquettes to the discussion, life would be a lot simpler all the way around.
-Trevor
Edit: And let's not even wander into the "well, I'm torturing and mutilating your flesh, but I'm saving your soul from Eternal Damnation so I'm really doing you a favor. What? No, no need to thank me - just try not to bleed on my new shoes. Leather doesn't handle stains very well, after all."
quote:Children being born out of wedlock, S.T.D's, drug adiction, and abortions are just some of the hideous ramifications that simple irresponsibility has wrought on my generation.
The problem isn't religion, the problem is faith. If you took faith in Jesus Christ as your savior out of Christianity, you keep all of the responsibility, everything will be alright.
In my esteem, faith is inessential to civic moral life, and when it's introduced as a requirement, it waters everything else down. I think that more people feel the tug of responsibility than have faith.
Religion is about responsibility, by definition. Christianity is about Faith, and the government can and ought try to get people to undestand religion, that's what MADD, DARE, and all of the other PSAs are about. That's religion, it's just not Faith-based.
_______
quote:If you think we need to have a return to our religious roots, please help specify which religious roots you mean.
It's not about returning to a single organized religion, it's about understanding religion-- divorced from faith-- then letting people add or discover anything their heart calls for, including faith.
It's the pre-faith groundwork that needs to be explored and remembered. Religious freedom does not mean ignorance as to what religion is.
The only people who don't understand responsibility are sociopaths, and anyone who understands responsibility understands religion because they are the same thing.
Faith and religion sometimes go together, but I think that we have forgotten that they are essentially different.
quote:Ok, could you provide your definition of religion for purposes of this thread?
This is the problem discourse. It's not my definition. It's not your definition. It's what the word says. Not what Webster says the word says, but what word says.
Re: again, or concerning
Ligere: bind or tie. The word still exists as ligament.
Religion is remembering the binds which tie us. And when you negate this bond, you are negligent.
Responsibility:
Re: again, concerning sponere: pledge, call
To attend the call or pledge. That's why priests and missionaries are said to answer the call.
We are throwing these words around, and placing significance on them as if we get to make up what sense they make.
Faith is not tied to religion or responsibility. That we have divorced religion from its sense and wedded to faith is one of the roots to a bigger political problem. Religion is not a thing that's subject to organized faith.
For example, understanding what it is to be a mother is understand the binds which tie you to your child and answering the appropiate call regarding those binds. It's a nice coincidence that the Christian faith also calls attention to a mother's responsibility, but that responsibility does not depend on Faith. A mother's responsibility is clear upon understanding those unseen bonds which and answering the calls which go along with being a mother, regardless of faith.
posted
A word's etymological history does not have any bearing on the word's current definition and its immediate usage.
quote: Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back
However, I am reminded why I should never try to post in these threads.
quote:A word's etymological history does not have any bearing on the word's current definition and its immediate usage.
I don't know how you get to say that. We are not talking about usage, we are talking about what a thing is. I could use a Stradivarius as a crow bar, and that's fine, but if I keep using it as a crow bar without looking and thinking on it, well then, it's perfectly possible that I will forget what it is. When what is at stake is Stradivarius, it's a small issue, but we are talking about ignoring religion, and I don't think we should be so casual about it.
posted
Religion is a tangible thing? Something we can easily quantify and describe and clarify in no uncertain terms?
Words are fluid and dynamic, much like language which is, of course, the point. The history behind a word has little or no bearing on the meaning of the word which can change from generation to generation.
Whereas a crowbar is still a long bit of metal usually used for physical labor and occasionally settling arguments while a violin is wooden, expensive and puts people to sleep.
You will note that while the first definition listed is technically a correct one, I'm going to guess that not everyone reading this post either knew that or realized it.
And that's a lot closer to being technically correct than trying to define a word by using the etymology behind it.
quote:And that's a lot closer to being technically correct than trying to define a word by using the etymology behind it.
When did technically correct deemed by a dictionary become the truth of what a word says? Can I blame Clinton for this?
quote:Religion is a tangible thing? Something we can easily quantify and describe and clarify in no uncertain terms?
It's a thing. But what does being tangible have to do with being a thing? Hatrack is a thing. I can't hold it.
The bonds between family are not tangible, and we shouldn't expect them to be, they don't give themselves to the five senses, but really, very little that is important does.
Words maybe be fluid, but the things they refer to aren't, and if you pretend that they are, you are making a claim that they are empty of content. If people start calling me a fifteen year-old girl, it's possible, but I think we lost something. It may be harmless, but when people start expecting me to have periods-- because fifteen year old girls have periods-- then we are just confused.
That's kind of like what happened with religion. The word was sloppily merged with something that doesn't belong to it, Faith, and this gives rise to all sorts of queer expectations.
It happens with brand names and acronyms all of the time, and some people think it's happening with marriage.
posted
I so thought this thread was going to be a serious discussion of our relatonship, followed by a kind, gentle let-down that would still leave me crushed, crying, and broken. After consuming all the ice cream in the house straight out of the carton, I would stare longingly at pictures of you until my friends came and dragged me out and plyed me with alcohol to help me forget you.
Oh well. I don't think I have any ice cream, anyway.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sadly, String's observation of current society is being proved by the terrible, I say terrible, behavior of these jatraqueras..or should I sad tartraqueras?
*purses lips* *puts hands on hips* *turns stern, disproving look on frivolous young people indulging in sinful alcohol and ice cream*
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it looks like I missed the party at my house. I am very, very sad about this. But Storm...
quote: Children being born out of wedlock, S.T.D's, drug adiction, and abortions are just some of the hideous ramifications that simple irrisponsibility has wrought on my generation.
Tell me which of these hideous ramifications are gonna be brought about by ice cream and booze? If you can't, you're welcome to come over, too... katie's bringing chocolate ice cream, and I have all the ingredients for a batch of white-chocolate frozen custard. I can probably have it in the ice-cream maker by the time anyone gets here...
(And kat, you're already my friend. )
:turns up the music:
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before I respond, I want to make certain I know what you're saying. Are you saying that lack of religion is why we have these problems in society? Surely you realize that there are plenty of people who don't tie their morals to religion...
quote: I so thought this thread was going to be a serious discussion of our relatonship, followed by a kind, gentle let-down that would still leave me crushed, crying, and broken. After consuming all the ice cream in the house straight out of the carton, I would stare longingly at pictures of you until my friends came and dragged me out and plyed me with alcohol to help me forget you.
quote: No, it's a completely valid question.
Christian?
Catholic Baptist Protestant Methodist LDS (I assume they get grouped here) Etc. Islam? Buddihsm? Shintoism?
If you think we need to have a return to our religious roots, please help specify which religious roots you mean.
The particular Religion does not matter. They all make up a story to justify telling people how to live. No current religious text is without moral as well as factual flaw, but if we all respect the goal of religion, than we can weed out the good from the bad, and learn from some of thier mistakes. Aside from some major social injustices, we would all be better off if we returned to a value system like the one we had in the fiffties. Like not getting divorced after every major fight, or by actually marrying the person we have a child with. Those are just some examples, amd of course are not without exception.
quote: Sadly, humans have been irresponsible for thousands of years, whether they were religious or not. It is not just a feature of this godless generation.
Not true, Divorce rate, The number of S.T.D.'s in cases and variations are at an all time high. Abortion has never, at any other time been socialy exceptable. Every great society that has fallen has seen a rise in deviation from religion I.E. responsibility shortly before it fell apart. I just hope we can learn from our mistakes, but sadly I don't think we ever will.
quote: Before I respond, I want to make certain I know what you're saying. Are you saying that lack of religion is why we have these problems in society? Surely you realize that there are plenty of people who don't tie their morals to religion...
We need more of them.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
String, can you prove your STD rate claim? The info I've seen, particularly among young people in this country, suggests that STD rates, have been going down/plateau-ing recently.
posted
What does it matter if they have leveled off in the last 5 years? The bottom line is that would not be a problem if was not for the cultural changes that have taken place in the last 30 years.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that they WOULD be a problem... STDs have been around for thousands of years. AIDS is a new one, but others have long been a problem.
I'd be more concerned if you could point to any evidence that suggests selfishness really is becoming more of a problem. I'd argue, though, that selfishness has been in decline for almost two decades now. Volunteering is up. Violent Crime is down. The percieved value of parenting is up. Drug use and smoking is less acceptable. Even driving gas-guzzling SUVs is now considered more shameful.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not the fault of cultural changes. Things like that have been going on for ages. For example, Oedipus Rex comes to mind. It seems to be the weather of things for the most part. Ads have been done telling people to have safe sex, at the same time folks will advocate teaching abstinence only. They have the same goal, but their different methods seem to almost unravel any sort of effective change. What we really need to do is get it together. None of this right wing, left wing crap. We need to evaluate what works whether it comes from the left or the right and then do it. Teach abstinence, but also teach people how to use contraceptives and be prepared, give them truthful information. Raise children to be confident and intelligent. Stop focusing on things that don't matter like homosexuality and focus on things that do matter. There has to be a certain amount of yielding and breaking on both sides is what I think...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'd argue, though, that selfishness has been in decline for almost two decades now. Volunteering is up. Violent Crime is down. The percieved value of parenting is up. Drug use and smoking is less acceptable. Even driving gas-guzzling SUVs is now considered more shameful.
I'd bet that a lot of that is "fashion" moreso than increased altruism.
Frankly, human nature always seems to come up with new evils to replace the ones that become unacceptable. And all too often, those evils start out as great advances that will liberate humanity from the limitations of the past.
posted
Volunteering, dislike of drugs, parenting, unwillingness to commit crime, and environmentalism are not "fashion" any more than premarital sex, drug adiction, and abortions are fashion.
posted
No, but it's likely that a lot of people doing those things do so not because of a deep recognition of their necessity but because other people are doing it.
It's great that these things are getting done. But without the underlying widespread change in mores, the next new causes will replace at least some of these in the popular consciousness.
posted
"Not true, Divorce rate, The number of S.T.D.'s in cases and variations are at an all time high. Abortion has never, at any other time been socialy exceptable."
Amazingly, every single one of these sentences is false.
The divorce rate is declining from a recent peak, STDs are actually considerably less common now than they were even a hundred years ago, and abortion has been -- if not socially acceptable (and I'd argue that it's still not socially acceptable NOW, given the relatively small number of women I know who tell their mothers when they've had one) -- certainly permitted and even winked at in the past.
In other words, every single one of your claims about the decline of societal structure is hystrionic, if not outright false.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did we lose something when we stopped using 'girl' to refer to a child of either sex?
I think so. Whether that is something that ought to be cast off, is a different debate. It's when you mix and match and only pay attention to context that gets you in trouble.
The problem is that words refer to a thing, and when they don't arise from the thing, the word doesn't matter.
It's tempting to forget that words are bound to a thing, and when we divorce the words from that thing, and wed it to context--like I did with the words divorce and wed-- we do a little bit of damage. Hopefully, the solemn commitment in marriage will survive my felicitous metaphor, but it's worth being careful.
Some people call this damage creativity. But it's risky business when you start putting all that is good in the world at stake.
I think the difference the between good writers and stylish writers is that good writers have a clear perception of the thing to which they are writing. Stylish writers have great ear for context and metaphor. I don't proport to be either, but think I know it when I see it.
Octavia Butler jumps out at me for clear-sighted perception of the thing. I guess since this started out as a political thread, Barack Obama's DNC speech showed a clear understanding of the thing, and that was especially hard considering that the things were the American People.
A person's meaning, which comes from the german mein, which has the sense of mine. In other words, a person's imposition or mying of a thing is not the same as a clear-sighted sense of the thing.
quote:But it's risky business when you start putting all that is good in the world at stake.
If you believe this, you're a conservative at heart, Irami. The ideological differences are what you consider to be of value, not how you would cultivate and risk value.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always thought that the real difference between liberals and conservatives, as the terms are applied modernly, is not that one is willing to take more risks than the other, but rather that the former's definition of "good" is more provable. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always the difference was that one was based on how the world should work, and the other is based on how it does work.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with that definition, kat, is that no one can agree on which one of those two groups has it right. Whereas I think everyone can agree that the liberal definition of "good" is more universal than the conservative definition of "good." Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyway, I won't make ya stumble through this horrible, public edjucation produced, spelling and wrighting anymore
For a rant on lack of personal responsibility, I found this last line to be particularly funny. I went to public school too and can spell, write, and do math fairly well. So I don't think the problem is public schools.... Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
