I think we have a different definition of respect. I respect all decent people by your definition. I’m saying that giving their opinion more weight isn’t justified just because they are old. That was part of respecting your elders that I grew up with. Obeying without question because they are elder. These things don’t make sense to me. I treat old people well though if that means respect.
Give everyone a minimum level of polite respect and adjust from there based upon their actions and words. Be more tolerant of the very old, and the very young. But I won’t be weighting the opinion of an older person more, strictly due to their age.
3 Likes
This is what I meant to say. You’ve said it more elegantly than I did.
So there are overlaps in cultures for different reasons. Like I’m been saying, you can’t over simplify things that have developed over hundreds to thousands of years just to push a narrative.
In addition, I’m assuming what “can’t be mentioned” is the previous/current monarchal system both in Sweden and China. I honestly don’t think it’s anything controversial but these 2 countries are UNCOMPARABLE. I did a little reading on Sweden myself since I was pretty sure it developed in a similar manner as the UK system and, yeah, it’s pretty similar. China was not even in the same ballpark.
If anyone wants me to expand on this, I can, but I’ve not touched this subject in 15 years so I could be wrong about a lot of things so cut me some slack.
EDIT:
Actually, I can’t really be bothered because it would be a long ass post so…
Hint:
If you want to look at “monarchies”, you have to look at their royal prerogative and judicial/ legislative systems. Of course, this is also a slight over-simplification but these are the key words you can start googling with and work your way to more in-depth stuff from there. Start from the 18th centuries. Check out stuff by Sir William Blackstone in particular.
You can’t just say “this was a monarchy”, “so was that” so they’re the “same”.
Continued:
Seriously, check it out. It’s pretty interesting shit, i guarantee you:
https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/blackstone-on-the-absolute-rights-of-individuals-1753
Had a blast going through all this stuff again.
1 Like
Well first, this isn’t in the Protestant versions of the Bible. And the OT is brutal in many ways, sexual in many ways, nuts in many ways, but it’s part of our Judeo-Christian history.
Kids learn about WW2 and that was royally fucked up too.
The significance of this particular story is it’s the first OT reference to Hell and Heaven as we understand it.
1 Like
I will say, where authoritarianism runs high, social trust also runs high. I guess you know what you can and cannot say or do by penalty of death and people end up looking out for each other in that circumstance.
We have to figure out how to restore societal trust in the U.S. And, for most people, I believe it requires religion.
That does not mean I don’t think atheists can’t be good, nor that they cannot function using ‘reason’ alone and function well in a society. It’s that most people who are godless are not also reasonable. They are just godless and hence lawless.
Those who are godless and reasonable are few and far between and that’s the problem. The country needs Jesus…
1 Like
Well, each of those examples have strict social order and norms that are enforced coercively. Sweden is not an exception here as their culture and norms are enforced from the top down too.
And yes, that is strengthened and enforced partially due to the cultures being largely homogeneous.
It seems to me, that for our country we need a common force to be able to get behind. Prior to the fall of the USSR, the U.S. had far more social trust. And the potential reason is that we knew we could be nuked off the face of the Earth by a common enemy who had no qualms about doing such a thing only stopped by the threat of retaliation. So I believe there is something to this.
We are divided right now, but we cannot stay this way. We are going to go either one way or the other, but we cannot, nor will we stay under constant tension. Something is bound to break.
I bet you are sick of me today, but I agree here.
I think you could argue most people are not reasonable / rational. That doesn’t apply just to atheists. When we look at how different demographics in society function, we don’t see many negative things with disbelief. IIRC, divorce was actually a bit lower than average if it was an atheist couple. Crime rates among different belief / non-belief don’t support the claim that atheists are lawless (you could argue that the data supports that atheists / Jews are a lot less likely to commit crimes, but there are some issues with self reported religious affiliation in prisons).
Personally, I respect laws that make sense. I don’t respect a law just because it is a law. I have not been waiting much at left turn signals lately if it is safe to go. I figure that the law requiring me to wait there like a dumbass while nobody is around doesn’t make sense, and therefore no need to follow it. I do follow some silly laws because I don’t want to get punished.
I mean, is the rapist, drug dealer, burglar in prison because of Christian theology? Maybe they identify out of family tradition. I know many outside of prisons who do exactly that. They don’t attend services. They have nothing resembling a prayer life. There is little in the way of “fruit” to suggest they actually have any roots at all. They have no concept of Trinity, Grace, regeneration. Many of them are likely to suggest Jesus was a really holy guy. But grannie said we were Baptist every time I visited! And mom took us to Christmas service every other year.
Then there may be benefits to associating with a prison based ministry. Perhaps just for inauthentic benefits.
Then, for those remaining, perhaps sinners with lots of time on their hands desire salvation.
I think religiosity is more telling than simple self-identification.
There are multitudes of self id’ing Christians who look no different than the world.
I mean, I bet a significant amount of prisoners also identify themselves as innocent of their crimes…
This is a bit of a no true Scotsman, but is relevant to the discussion of whither or not religion is needed to have a “good” society.
I question how much benefit religion has if very few of the followers buy into it. Do you think it is possible in the modern world for a country like the US to become highly religious (in a way that most people buy into it)?
Agree. I don’t have a problem admitting that there are issues with the prison study that showed atheists are less likely by large margin to not be inmates. The only thing we can conclude from the study is that people who self identify as atheists are underrepresented by about a factor of 10 in the prison system. Lots of questions regarding self reporting, demographics and education levels of atheists, etc.
Another question I have in regards to the benefits of religion within a society is: what benefits does religion provide that could not be provided by a secular organization?
I have met far more self id’ing Christians who’d look at me completely puzzled at the mention of the Beatitudes.
³Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
⁴Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
⁵Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the Earth.
⁶Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
⁷Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
⁸Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
⁹Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
¹⁰Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
¹¹Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
¹²Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
From wiki
Oh you don’t need religion for a “good” society. Most anything is “good” to someone. There’s a “good” society for everyone.
The rise of civilization. I doubt it coincidence that man has evolved to experience faith. Or that religion has been a nearly universal experience around the world. Religion has been proving itself from the first time man ceremonially buried his dead, placing their spear and such with the body so as to bring it into the afterlife. Secular/athestic society aint but wee babes with a foundation already laid for them.
Perhaps we can’t agree on what “good” means. I feel many would agree that a society that values the well being of it’s members is a start.
I thought that was the discovery of agriculture? At least that’s what I have heard from most historians. Or at least that is what has lead to massive population growth.
I am not sure what you mean here.
Read above. Edited.
Agriculture isn’t the only development that provided order in human society. In fact, why could people come together (or at least leave others in peace) and feel, be able to, settle? Shared beliefs which were found in both religion and law.
It means just that. Religion is one of the most most common features of mankind around the world and throughout history. Almost as if it was investable emergent property of man that proved to be adaptive.
I think there are explanations for these things. The latter stems from a near universal fear of dying. The former is explained by the types of faulty logic that humans are especially bad at identifying.
It proves it exists with humans. I am not sure what else it proves?
Same could be said about Christianity. The flood story is found in older religions, many of the morals are similar to religion of that time and before.
1 Like
Your position is that atheistic secularism could’ve settled the world and kicked off flourishing societies anywhere near the scale that it actually did under the religious reality that actually existed?