SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Great point.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jordan Peterson on Sex
- Thread starter Kenny
- Start date
I assume historians just report history. I haven't read every historian there is so I can make a sweeping statement.
It is supported in that the deterioration of any great nation apparently included a deterioration of morality, sexual and otherwise.
I don't think the issue is Freud but rather deterioration of society and the eroding of sexual boundaries
Except.... it didn't, as you've already been shown. Rome was doomed by Christian puritanism. China thrived under its system of Concubines. Scandinavian countries are both the most sexually permissive and economically sound in the world. Your desperation to confirm your bias is not supported by Unwin. Sorry.
You make it sound like "POOF" - it is gone when, in reality, it is over a period of time. I think you are looking desperate. Is it because I have a moral stance?
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
According to you and Unwin.
I didn't 'poof' anything. I gave you the historical reality. You're welcome to ignore it. That's on you.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
There's no real correlation for that. America especially highlights how wrong it is because for all the uptight prudery it struggles and suffers in ways much of the decadent and debauched Europe doesn't.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
There's no deterioration and sexual boundaries are healthier and stronger than ever.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
and leadership.
And we can certainly say that our leadership is not only corrupt but filled with promiscuity. I think promiscuity and being corrupt are conjoined.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I agree with you on the first point, but "promiscuity" would need to be clarified in terms of what exactly it's referring to. An adage of "do no harm" to me is very important as pretty much all major religions tend to agree that this shouldn't be done, and yet some don't quite see it that way, which is fine to a degree.
Many with read the word "promiscuity" and attach all sorts of things to it that may not or don't violate the "do no harm" principle. Capital punishment, for one example. Supporting and/or fighting in wars may be another. Disparity of income that leaves many in harm's way is possibly another. Etc.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
It seems you're the one looking desperate at this point. All you seem to have to back up your claim is some book from 1934 that's got a bunch of issues with it.
You are true to your name !!
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Nice evasion.You are true to your name !!
13 It is these things that we talk about, not using the expressions of the human intellect but those which the Holy Spirit teaches us, explaining things to those who are spiritual.Nice evasion.
14-16 But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with—they just don’t make sense to him, for, after all, you must be spiritual to see spiritual things. The spiritual man, on the other hand, has an insight into the meaning of everything, though his insight may baffle the man of the world.
no need for me to answer... this covers it.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Oh, I see. You're special, according to your special book. Okay then.
There is a difference between spiritual and natural... Not that one is special and the other isn't but rather a difference in understanding. If you want to classify "me" along with another 6 billion people as "special" - I thank you.
Like any other subject, one can become spiritual if one desires.
Last edited:
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
He has an insight into the meaning of everything. Can't you read?!
exchemist
Veteran Member
Well no, historians examine the causes of events, as gleaned from the sources available to them. So if Unwin were right we should expect to see his ideas reflected in historical theories.
As has been pointed out, the (Western) Roman empire fell for other reasons, after Christianity had been adopted as the official religion. And besides, who is to say that the fall of the empire indicated any deterioration in the society? Perhaps it improved, became less bloodthirsty and brutal. Nowadays we frown on imperialism, don’t we?
And going - for the sake of argument- by the rather fascist yardstick of empire as a measure of social vitality, there are plenty of other counterexamples, for instance the USSR.
Or, to look at other societies today with a strict religious code, do we think Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan, are model societies we should strive to emulate?
Last edited: