Mak said: I think you understand what I'm trying to say. Society is not constantly moving forward (which you agree with), and nor is it moving backwards (which you appear to insist is a belief of mine). Your earlier posts appeared to espouse the idea that we constantly learn and progress without exception. Now you appear to subscribe to my point that society ebbs and flows in no consistent direction except in response to trends. In that we both agree that things do not always change for the better, I think this whole argument is now irrelevant to the question of whether or not god is right in killing or allowing his children to be killed.
Roger Morrison wrote:IF you are, or will be, a father, i respectfully suggest you not raise your family on such negativity. I can't imagine You cannot find anything good to say about the last 75+/- years!? What has turned You off of faith in humanity to not be influenced by the "light"? Are You in recovery of abuses of sorts? Is it this seemingly anti-social attitude that brought you into LDSism?
Mak: What gives you the idea that I'm being negative? I pointed out social trends without saying I agreed or disagreed with any of them.
RM: Reread your post pasted below. IF you do not see your sentiments reflected here, then i'm powerless to convince you otherwise. Mak: """You thinks I'm unaware of this, huh? Our societies are not evolving upward, they're just mutating in reaction to whatever trends happen to appear. In the thirties poverty hit everyone. In the forties a world war hit everyone. In the fifties we started to gain affluence because of progress in industrialization and production, and adults had the opportunity to give their kids the things they couldn't have growing up in the depression. In the sixties those spoiled brats went away to the nice schools that their parents couldn't afford and decided that material pursuits were corrupt. War was laso wrong. They'd never seen a world war, and they'd never seen their liberites threatened, so they marched against war. We should be able to do away with war in this world. Kids had everything they needed, so they decided the nest step was to find something they'd never had, which was why drugs and experimental music was popular. We slowly realized war wasn't going to go away so we started to rebel against the source of it: adults and their twisted values. We hated the idea of white picket fences and a mom with an apron on because it represented the values of our parents, the war-mongers and structuralists. We chased after less structure and less rules. The seventies brought new frontiers in sex, drugs and music. Structure and morality was out the window. Morals are for squares. The real morals are whatever you want. If it feels good, do it. The eighties brought more welath, so the kids who wanted to feel good suddenly had the money to do it. Consumerism was huge, and so were expensive drugs. In the nineties the economy relaxed some and the Berlin wall became a thing of the past. Now freedom was the issue. End Apartheid! Riots broke out in LA because the black crowd wanted their turn. People were running out of money, so the new thing was trying to look rich without really being rich.
Human moral history is not a linear progression. It's reactionary, and it can move forward and back. The above is just a brief synopsis, but the sociological research on the causes of these movements and the rise and fall of certain value systems is crystal clear. The idea that we are in a constant state of progression is completely false""""
Roger Morrison wrote:Hostility toward a religion and hostility toward religion are two different things, and only one of them is new. your issue with family breakdown ignores some interesting things, though. Did you know the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians had strict laws regarding family structure? If a man tried to divorce his wife after an affair it was illegal for him to try to marry the other woman. A man who divorced a wife after they had kids had to support them. A man was given an entire year away from work after getting married. The family was the foundation of society back then, (and still is, good, bad, or indifferent) and the primary concern of government was the preservation of that building block. Unfortunately, today's governments have different priorities and spend their citizens' money on War stuff. Today the family is seen as a choice. Not all folks make good parents--obviously. Gender roles are depicted as "evil", WOW, that's a power-word! and more and more children are growing up without a parent. Some are better off for it. But, it is an effect that unfortunately can become a negative cause. Crime rises while education loses value. Yes! EDUCATION, not indoctrination, is A key! It's not getting better and it's not the same. It's getting worse. I am not as dead-end certain of that conclusion. To each their own.
I believe hostility toward religion is generally getting worse.
RM: Do you think that's all bad? Can you see any justification for that attitude? Might your word "hostility" be a bit strong?
Roger Morrison wrote:Yes, i have some awareness of those cultural high-lights. But, as Harmony pointed out before, the aristocracy that practiced such "family" idealism made up a VERY small % of the total social matrix. Similar in our own social caste environment... However 'our slaves' are 'free' to purchase themselves into la-la-land. I personally lay a lot of blame for this disparity, and 'enslavement' at the feet of Capitalistic Christianism. This misrepresentation of Jesus has served to make the rich richer and the poor on a tread-mill for centuries. That some can, and do, make it off of the belt simply reinforces the myth that keeps the wheels of competition grinding... None of which--wealth, power, exploitation--were/are taught by Jesus to bring one the fullness of life.
And our theology is perfectly consistent with that. By the way, I don't know what you refer to when you say harmony pointed out the percentage of some social matrix. I must have missed this, but if she's saying that in the ancient Near East only a small portion of society practiced the ideals I spelled out above then she is completely and totally wrong.
RM: Guess i'm wrong too. All of my reading/study indicated slavery/serfdom made up a large portion of the populations of ancient nations/tribes in power. Seems considerable concern for slaves in the Old Testament? Since you are probably more newly-read than me, will you please give me your refs?? I once had a prof (BYUH) who said he would chose ancient Greece as his place of abode. Then quickly added, "not as a slave." Roger Morrison wrote:I 'think' we might share some agreement here? However, while you seem to see the half-empty-glass, i see one that can be topped up--and is--by thinking, feeling, empathetic folks who have "climbed out of the box" and, are continuing to do so. Believe it or not, the climbers are coming from our youth-truth pool! They are not bound by the evils-of-their-fathers. (Like it says in the big book :-)
I don't know where this glass-half-empty idea comes from. I don't believe I've said anything to infer that I'm somehow pessimistic about life or society in any way, shape or form.
RM:I could be wrong about that too. Maybe more implicit than explicit?? What ARE your thoughts re the state-of-society today? I just took it you had serious issue with gender equality, women as Church Authorities, homosexual rights, family change, bratty kids, rich/poor etc. Thoughts re war in the middle east? Any connection to ancient historical claims/disputes??
Your "out'a-the-box" thinking :-) ?? Warm regards, Roger