Society Will Crumble?

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, this will turn around, in the distant future. But not because the graying, entitlement-broke society found some oh-so convenient secular, socially-liberal, hyper-individualist way to promote child-bearing and rearing in intact homes made up of father and mothers.

No, it’ll be because that old society will have replaced itself with the devout who were already among them, and with the devout they had to ship in to keep the economy and old-age welfare state going for as long as possible. These devout, actually bearing children. Basically, the righteous will inherent the earth. Again.[/quote]

You understand that the righteous have never inherited the earth, right? It’s always been the most brutal group which beats the other into submission that inherits the territory.

Funny story to that end: when the Spanish invaded what’s now Mexico City, many surrounding tribes joined their effort and converted to their God after observing that he was more powerful and blood thirsty than their own. They joined Christianity because the Christian God was more fierce in their eyes than their Gods.[/quote]

Iron, try to think a bit about peoples’ posts. Here, I spoke of religion in general. Righteousness, however it may be defined by the system. Here, I’m not defining it. The actual common theme is religion. The devout have higher fertility rates than the secular. The secular have to ship in the devout. And, WILL have to even increase this in order to fund an increasingly stressed welfare state. So, the righteous will inherent the earth, again.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, this will turn around, in the distant future. But not because the graying, entitlement-broke society found some oh-so convenient secular, socially-liberal, hyper-individualist way to promote child-bearing and rearing in intact homes made up of father and mothers.

No, it’ll be because that old society will have replaced itself with the devout who were already among them, and with the devout they had to ship in to keep the economy and old-age welfare state going for as long as possible. These devout, actually bearing children. Basically, the righteous will inherent the earth. Again.[/quote]

Looking at the current state of things, I would wager that it looks like the fire of Islam will inherit the earth. And that is beyond worrying to say the least.

The majority of the “Christian” population rides the divorce train out of convenience too. And as the system is heavily skewed in the favor of women, we hear reports of men turning to Sharia to get a fairer deal. If things get any worse, why in the name of self preservation would they not turn to Islam?

I’m talking of very weak men here, but with their ranks swelling each day…

Terror camps are built on the backs of the (mentally) downtrodden.

EDIT: Also, I’m not concerned about fertility rates so much as I am about how it offers weak people (mostly men, for the life of me I don’t see what Islam offers women) something current society doesn’t. Scoff all you want at them, but they will eventually bolster the ranks of the hate machine we call Islam.

Your assertion that the secular don’t want kids may be misguided as well. I would wager that most of the people who you put in this category are either second wave feminist females who don’t understand that the ability for them to have children exists within a limited window (i.e. they wants kids, but they don’t understand that they can’t have that high powered career at the same time), or men who are pathetic pedestal worshipers (who think bending over backward to support such idiocy will get them some form of female affection when it gets them contempt).

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
@kamui - Do you really think that’s the problem? I think the problem is that people have an easy out, so when something little goes wrong they can split and cut their losses. Back in “the day” you really had to justify a divorce (i.e. prove infidelity etc) instead of the way no-fault divorce trivializes it.[/quote]

When we decided that marriage was (and should be) a romantic love story, marriage was condemned, and entered the death row.

the legalization of divorce, and the institution of no-fault divorce is just the method used to execute this death penalty. [/quote]

Could you be a little more clear on this?

My lack of understanding probably has more to do with the early morning brain fog I have going right now, but I would like to understand what exactly you mean as I’ve found while I might disagree with some of your posts, you are no fool.

in chronological order :

Industrial Revolution — > urbanization ----> progressive end of arranged marriage —> marriage become a “love story” — > legalization of divorce ----> increase of the number of divorces — > no-fault divorce.

is it more clear now ? (brain fog is quite thick here too)

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, this will turn around, in the distant future. But not because the graying, entitlement-broke society found some oh-so convenient secular, socially-liberal, hyper-individualist way to promote child-bearing and rearing in intact homes made up of father and mothers.

No, it’ll be because that old society will have replaced itself with the devout who were already among them, and with the devout they had to ship in to keep the economy and old-age welfare state going for as long as possible. These devout, actually bearing children. Basically, the righteous will inherent the earth. Again.[/quote]

You understand that the righteous have never inherited the earth, right? It’s always been the most brutal group which beats the other into submission that inherits the territory.

Funny story to that end: when the Spanish invaded what’s now Mexico City, many surrounding tribes joined their effort and converted to their God after observing that he was more powerful and blood thirsty than their own. They joined Christianity because the Christian God was more fierce in their eyes than their Gods.[/quote]

Iron, try to think a bit about peoples’ posts. Here, I spoke of religion in general. Righteousness, however it may be defined by the system. Here, I’m not defining it. The actual common theme is religion. The devout have higher fertility rates than the secular. The secular have to ship in the devout. And, WILL have to even increase this in order to fund an increasingly stressed welfare state. So, the righteous will inherent the earth, again.
[/quote]

Oh, when you typed “righteous”, I thought you meant “righteous”:

right·eous/Ë?rÄ«CHÉ?s/
Adjective:

  1. (of a person or conduct) Morally right or justifiable; virtuous.
  2. Perfectly wonderful; fine and genuine

It didn’t occur to me that maybe “righteous” was code for religious violence and domination. I figured if you meant that you probably wouldn’t have picked such a terrible descriptor for it.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Looking at the current state of things, I would wager that it looks like the fire of Islam will inherit the earth.[/quote]

Pretty much guaranteed. The only thing that can compete would be the resurgence of religious belief in the west. And yeah, elsewhere, too.

That’s because what “Christian” population exists, is heavily comprised of near agnostic-spiritualists. Claiming Christianity for them, is like claiming the family heirloom.

Don’t know. Look, human beings don’t have to make wealth acquisition, consumer goods, sex, drugs, frivolous entertainment, the heights of education, and themselves the highest things in life. There’s no secular absolute value system that says we must. So, we can reject being ruled by those things. Religion is one avenue for finding different meaning. And Islam is one of the shops on that avenue.

In a world where people now propose ‘female-bodied’ where we might have said woman…Or, female-bodied for a transgendered man, where we might have said perv…In a world where sisters and daughters are pressured to act like whores, display a bit of lesbianism (or at least pretend at it) for their male contemporaries, get college degrees (perhaps a Master’s, or even a PHd), find a high-powered career, and think of themselves as individualists…When children are simply an economic, educational (for the woman), and romantic (limiting partners) cost…Well, delayed marriage (if ever), delayed/limited child birth (if any children) result…Contraception and the ultimate act of freedom, abortion, make their impact felt.

I’ll get to the men later…

You should be. Fertility and conversion to Islam. Fertility might even be the most important.

It doesn’t. Look at the West.

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/gen-x-women-choose-work-over-kids/

Higher Education. Wealth acquisition. Individualism. Choice. Freedom of spontaneity (tied down more with a kid. A potential ‘shackle’ to a particular partner.

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, this will turn around, in the distant future. But not because the graying, entitlement-broke society found some oh-so convenient secular, socially-liberal, hyper-individualist way to promote child-bearing and rearing in intact homes made up of father and mothers.

No, it’ll be because that old society will have replaced itself with the devout who were already among them, and with the devout they had to ship in to keep the economy and old-age welfare state going for as long as possible. These devout, actually bearing children. Basically, the righteous will inherent the earth. Again.[/quote]

You understand that the righteous have never inherited the earth, right? It’s always been the most brutal group which beats the other into submission that inherits the territory.

Funny story to that end: when the Spanish invaded what’s now Mexico City, many surrounding tribes joined their effort and converted to their God after observing that he was more powerful and blood thirsty than their own. They joined Christianity because the Christian God was more fierce in their eyes than their Gods.[/quote]

Iron, try to think a bit about peoples’ posts. Here, I spoke of religion in general. Righteousness, however it may be defined by the system. Here, I’m not defining it. The actual common theme is religion. The devout have higher fertility rates than the secular. The secular have to ship in the devout. And, WILL have to even increase this in order to fund an increasingly stressed welfare state. So, the righteous will inherent the earth, again.
[/quote]

Oh, when you typed “righteous”, I thought you meant “righteous”:

right�?�·eous/�??r�?�«CH�??s/
Adjective:

  1. (of a person or conduct) Morally right or justifiable; virtuous.
  2. Perfectly wonderful; fine and genuine

It didn’t occur to me that maybe “righteous” was code for religious violence and domination. I figured if you meant that you probably wouldn’t have picked such a terrible descriptor for it.[/quote]

Are you high? What is morally right, virtuous, perfectly wonderful, is defined by the religious system. Therefore, the righteous (the religious) will inherent the earth. I have no clue as to what code you’re referring to. I’m not offering a code. Or, what constitutes, absolutely, morally right or perfectly wonderful. I am not speaking with any particular system in mind, only in general.

[quote]ironcross wrote:

It didn’t occur to me that maybe “righteous” was code for religious violence and domination. I figured if you meant that you probably wouldn’t have picked such a terrible descriptor for it.[/quote]

Wait, who are you to judge if something is morally right, therefore, righteous? You don’t posit an absolute moral authority…

[quote]kamui wrote:
in chronological order :

Industrial Revolution — > urbanization ----> progressive end of arranged marriage —> marriage become a “love story” — > legalization of divorce ----> increase of the number of divorces — > no-fault divorce.

is it more clear now ? (brain fog is quite thick here too)[/quote]

Much more. I’m a bit conflicted with arranged marriage, I’ve seen it work and fail, and most of the time “working” ends with a miserable life (usually for the woman).

Marriage as a “love story” to a degree should be fine in theory, but by saddling it with no-fault divorce you find people turning to their more primitive nature and engaging in serial monogamy (in the sense of “I’m not a slut I only have sex with my girl/boyfriend” but having 600 “long term” monogamous partners a year).

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, this will turn around, in the distant future. But not because the graying, entitlement-broke society found some oh-so convenient secular, socially-liberal, hyper-individualist way to promote child-bearing and rearing in intact homes made up of father and mothers.

No, it’ll be because that old society will have replaced itself with the devout who were already among them, and with the devout they had to ship in to keep the economy and old-age welfare state going for as long as possible. These devout, actually bearing children. Basically, the righteous will inherent the earth. Again.[/quote]

You understand that the righteous have never inherited the earth, right? It’s always been the most brutal group which beats the other into submission that inherits the territory.

Funny story to that end: when the Spanish invaded what’s now Mexico City, many surrounding tribes joined their effort and converted to their God after observing that he was more powerful and blood thirsty than their own. They joined Christianity because the Christian God was more fierce in their eyes than their Gods.[/quote]

Iron, try to think a bit about peoples’ posts. Here, I spoke of religion in general. Righteousness, however it may be defined by the system. Here, I’m not defining it. The actual common theme is religion. The devout have higher fertility rates than the secular. The secular have to ship in the devout. And, WILL have to even increase this in order to fund an increasingly stressed welfare state. So, the righteous will inherent the earth, again.
[/quote]

Oh, when you typed “righteous”, I thought you meant “righteous”:

right�??�?�·eous/�??r�??�?�«CH�??s/
Adjective:

  1. (of a person or conduct) Morally right or justifiable; virtuous.
  2. Perfectly wonderful; fine and genuine

It didn’t occur to me that maybe “righteous” was code for religious violence and domination. I figured if you meant that you probably wouldn’t have picked such a terrible descriptor for it.[/quote]

Are you high? What is morally right, virtuous, perfectly wonderful, is defined by the religious system. Therefore, the righteous (the religious) will inherent the earth. I have no clue as to what code you’re referring to. I’m not offering a code. Or, what constitutes, absolutely, morally right or perfectly wonderful. I am not speaking with any particular system in mind, only in general.
[/quote]

I was sarcastically pointing out that you aren’t picking your words very well. Righteous only equals religious in your mind. The actual definition has nothing to do with religion. Therefore, you’re making up your own definition and then acting absolutely astounded that someone didn’t get it.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

It didn’t occur to me that maybe “righteous” was code for religious violence and domination. I figured if you meant that you probably wouldn’t have picked such a terrible descriptor for it.[/quote]

Wait, who are you to judge if something is morally right, therefore, righteous? You don’t posit an absolute moral authority…
[/quote]

[quote]ironcross wrote:

Righteous only equals religious in your mind.[/quote]

It does? What’s my favorite color?

Ok…

Where? I’m serious, where?

No, that’s amusement. Amused by you making a fool out of yourself over my imagined redefining of ‘righteous.’ All of this ‘righteous’ anger from you about it, and you have yet to quote where I DEFINED righteous at all. Much less, defined it to exclusively refer to the religious.

It’s a play on Psalm 37:29 The righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever.

I am not saying righteous = religious. I’m saying that the religious (from the context of my post) are the righteous I AM REFERRING to. However it is that THEY may determine what is righteous or not. That’s the last time I explain it to you. You messed up, it happens. Next time, be a bit more cautious when you attempt to correct someone for a wrong existing only in your head.


Sloth, there is a generally accepted definition of righteous in the dictionary. You aren’t using that one, hence you’re making up your own definition. The reason you’re making it up is so that it sounds like your little Bible quote is accurate.

You’re saying “if I just change the meaning of righteous to equal the ethics of whatever religion is dominating at the time, my God is right!”

This is so stupid I feel bad for the religion you’re misrepresenting with your own special interpretation.

[quote]ironcross wrote:

You’re saying “if I just change the meaning of righteous to equal the ethics of whatever religion is dominating at the time, my God is right!”
[/quote]

Um, you mean, like, what would be seen as righteous (morally right) in the culture of that dominating religion? How you typed that bit without going, “Ahhhhh, I see,” I’ll never know.

You like pictures, I see. Do us a favor, find some you can color in, and take a break for awhile. You seem to be the only one lost.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

You’re saying “if I just change the meaning of righteous to equal the ethics of whatever religion is dominating at the time, my God is right!”
[/quote]

Um, you mean, like, what would be seen as righteous (morally right) in the culture of that dominating religion? How you typed that bit without going, “Ahhhhh, I see,” I’ll never know.
[/quote]

As I said, I’ve gotten what you’re saying from the beginning, but it’s really just a word trick on your part to make it sound like your Bible verse was accurate.

I assure you that in the verse:

" Wrongdoers will be completely destroyed[c];
the offspring of the wicked will perish.
29 The righteous will inherit the land
and dwell in it forever. "

Was not referring to a changing definition of righteous that morphed with the dominant religion of the time. It was specific to the definitions of “righteous” and “wrongdoers” laid out by that specific religion at that specific time.

However, if you really want to argue that this verse is flexible to represent any religion’s ethics at any time, I don’t see the point in subscribing to it to begin with. You’re basically turning it into a cheap fortune cookie.

[quote]ironcross wrote:

As I said, I’ve gotten what you’re saying from the beginning, but it’s really just a word trick on your part to make it sound like your Bible verse was accurate.[/quote]

I didn’t quote it to prove the accuracy of a bible verse, for goodness sake! I quoted it, because it’s a phrase that gets usage inside and outside of Christianity! And, although I’m not speaking of Christianity in particular, from which the verse comes, it was a fitting phrase for the religious, in general.

I told you repeatedly that I wasn’t speaking for ANY particular religion. Not even Christianity! I was speaking as an observer, third party, what have you. If somehow that wasn’t obvious through my speaking of religion in general, it should have been when I agreed with Mak that most likely Islam will be the most dominant religion in the future. And I would hardly call Islam righteous, as a Christian. But they, the muslims, would…

[quote]ironcross wrote:

However, if you really want to argue that this verse is flexible to represent any religion’s ethics at any time…[/quote]

I didn’t. It’s as if I had pointed and said ‘look there,’ only to look over and see you staring at my finger and not the object of my attention.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

As I said, I’ve gotten what you’re saying from the beginning, but it’s really just a word trick on your part to make it sound like your Bible verse was accurate.[/quote]

I didn’t quote it to prove the accuracy of a bible verse, for goodness sake! I quoted it, because it’s a phrase that gets usage inside and outside of Christianity! And, although I’m not speaking of Christianity in particular, from which the verse comes, it was a fitting phrase for the religious, in general.

I told you repeatedly that I wasn’t speaking for ANY particular religion. Not even Christianity! I was speaking as an observer, third party, what have you. If somehow that wasn’t obvious through my speaking of religion in general, it should have been when I agreed with Mak that most likely Islam will be the most dominant religion in the future. And I would hardly call Islam righteous, as a Christian. But they, the muslims, would…[/quote]

So you didn’t bring up the verse to say that it was right?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

However, if you really want to argue that this verse is flexible to represent any religion’s ethics at any time…[/quote]

I didn’t. It’s as if I had pointed and said ‘look there,’ only to look over and see you staring at my finger and not the object of my attention. [/quote]

So you didn’t really mean this: “Righteousness, however it may be defined by the system.” in application to this “So, the righteous will inherent the earth, again.”, even though that’s exactly what you said?

I think you just realized how silly it sounds to take the verse out of context to make it sound more prophetic and are now trying to back track.