Technological progression is not an indication of moral progression necessarily, or as you called it “civility”. That is because of theivery, and what I call leeching, which is when a bad child enjoys the good environment provided for him by God, or parents better than him. Also, one need not be moral to to progress technologically. You merely need God’s willingness to allow something to happen, patience, the physical and mental ability, and the desire to accomplish a doable goal. This is demonstrated by psychopaths among us who have no morals,or rather, a bare minimum. A psychopaths morals may be: “I work to earn money, but I steal if I can get away with it.” In other words, morals of convenience. An example of a “world of psychopaths” or narcissists, is North Korea, it is a country that can only exist from the help of others who are more moral. The same with China, the atheists there were plundering and murdering and my guess is the Muslims, barely better, and the growing influence of Christians, and the goods and services provided by Christians from the outside world helped them to grow technologically. A very good example is the Soviet Union, when an atheist narcissist took charge, Stalin, he mass murderered millions, and how did his country technologically progress? They copied technology from “the west” and of course improvised. I’m not saying they only copy, because they have natural intelligence that allows them to innovate, but, a lack of morality introduces instablility which leads to de-progression. Civilizations come an go because they don’t obey God enough. An example is Israel, God stamped it out many times so that only a few were left and their country no longer existed. Another example were those Israel replaced, whom God became so disgusted with he had “better” people take their place, and that was Israel. Another example is Assyria, and a huge example was the world befor the Flood of Noah, which God completely wiped out except for Noah’s family and various land animals, and of course many sea creatures survived, though interestingly, it seems many of massive ones died out, with only a few of the majority remaining, like whales, giant fish and octopi and various sea serpants and plesiosaurs and seagaters or giant salt water crocodiles that are rarely seen. My guess is that the giant sea creatures of the Flood died out, with only their babies remaining, so that God’s symbolic teaching that it isn’t by your strength or size that you will survive, but by his mercy and will and you being humbled (signifying you being humble in heart in a loving submissive way) that you will “survive”/live in peace) would be expressed in a complete way. Surely various angels who witnessed the Flood, were able to see these massive sea creatures dying out, serving as an example to them right away, and to us humans later on when we discovered their bones.
So, is technological progression a necessary sign of a moral people? No, not at all, no more than some brutish animal feasting on the things in the environment, including more intelligent animals, then giving birth to tons of kids and taking over the nests of whatever they ate, and then giving birth to kids of their own.
My guess is, that in a purely psycopathic country, it would technologically devolve very quickly. Look again at North Korea, which still uses ancient computers, so much so, they were using it for their space agency, computers with large monitors only able to display the color green, if I saw right. I’m guessing that’s about 30 years behind the current state of technology. And I recently read that Russians went to them to help them build super emp weapons.
It seems to me one of the best examples that technological progression is not an indication of civility or more accurately: moral progression (improving or perfect obedience to God which would be the perfect fulfillment of “do to others as you would have them do to you” which Jesus commanded us to do and who introduced this concept) would be the native american world BOTH before and after the Europeans came, and not just them, but the Europeans themselves:
1. The Native Americans (including Native South Americans), despite having some morals and “civility”, were endlessly waring with other Native tribes. It seemed they never got farther than either: living in cliffs, living (and only for some) in very well made stone temples, tents, or probably leaf huts. Today we see that isolated tribes in the Amazon, despite having a rule set and civility enough to survive in a handful of groups over 100s of years, are still living in huts.
2. Then came the Europeans, who, because of their Christian beliefs (though far from perfect adherence to them), and because of the corruption of Catholocism, Lutheranism and Armenianism (corrupt forms of Christianity), were able to, because of their greater moral and motional stability and logic (which Christian belief imparts to the mind) were able to conquer the Native Americans, who the Europeans correctly saw as “savages” in comparison to them. The irony was was that those European Christians who were not truly Christian, but psychopaths or narcissists or like them, were worse in God’s eyes, because they knew the law of “do unto others”, yet disobeyed it by taking advantage of the Native Americans. Now, not all Europeans did this, I’m speaking in general. The Bible even says that if an evil man comes against you, to not resist him (that is, if he’s cornered and captured you). SO, even when Native Americans came with hostility to the Europeans, the Euros should have either remained friendly, put out food and goods for the hostiles to take, and if that didn’t appease, to barricade or run away, but not to murder and declare, “We are sovereign, God gave us the right to kill you”. I would even say that the European Christians were able to advance technologically greatly, because they aqcuired the Americas and plundered it from the Natives. It gave them a technological boost. Was that an example of “civility” in any way, to come on to land already in use, kick the dwellers there off it, or repeatedly cheat them out of the promises made to them, to murder them or harass or molest them when they protested?
3. There was also an indication that some of the giants that once lived in America had crude technology, but were they moral according to the Natives? No, just like in the pre-Flood world, the only indication of their behavior from the Natives or rather the strongest implication, was that they were bullies and war-like, and one was even said to have been a cannibal. These giants are now extinct, as far as anyone knows.
EVEN PERFECT OBEDIENCE TO GOD, even that would not necessarily be indicated by technological progression. Example: Moses and Samuel attained about as close as you can get to perfect obedience to God and were leaders of many, but did those many go on to become technological giants? Did God even say, “Here, this is how you build a UFO”? In fact, God explained how to build various things to certain people living before the Flood, so allowed them to “cheat” metaphorically speaking. He himself gave them a boost.
And finally, here is a thought experiment, or something like it, imagine a child is born with great intelligence, a Tesla type. He is taught by a psychopathic parent how to build various electronics and taught math, because that psychopath parent intents to exploit whatever the child invents. The parent even abuses his child now and then so that the child becomes arbitrarily introverted at times. That child then goes on to build great electronic devices, even a UFO, all the while the evil parent is murdering others and awaiting his little Tesla to come up with a great weapon or UFO. He comes home one day and shouts, “Hey genius, did you build anything I can use as a weapon or UFO yet? The child gives him both. The parent then uses them to slaughter and oppress the masses and has countries he conquired build more of them, and he tries to wipe out all the Christians “for sport”. He, because of his acts, has loaded the world with UFOs and extremely powerful and numerous weapons. He then goes to some other planet with human-like people who have a great civilization, and when they see him and his fleet, they say, “He must be civilized, because he has great technology,” and afterwards he destroys them. Then his child, who was made a prince splits his parent’s empire and advances them with new technology for war, and uses one half to destroy the other, but because they lack morals and because the child lacks morals, eventually they all destroy each other. Aliens from another world see what was left behind from the war, see the abandoned or broken UFOs, and say, “Surely they were civilized, maybe they were destroyed by an asteroid, a volcanic explosion or a flood or some savage race came and destroyed them.”
So, common sense thinking demonstrates that by great intelligence, some to great patience, but also by thieving and oppression, and with the help of many, who, using a base of a previously moral people’s efforts, can attain great technological progression and technology, and that mere “civility” for a time, is not an indicator of moral goodness, of kindness, of a loving civilization. It can indicate a previously good one, or one under subjegation, that is being taken advantage of most likely (like how China takes advantage of the morally better America by repeatedly swindling them and selling to them cheap toxic goods), but not moral superiority. Yes, it may have love, but a polluted type, and more likely to be lust, not “love”, and an unstable lust. Yes, the people may act orderly in various ways, and are patient in war, but it’s to enjoy oppressing. Even the atheist Gene Roddenberry seemed to realize this. IN his Star Trek world, the violent Klingon race had scientists working to progress their technology, which, because they were scientists and not warriors, were regarded as detestable and weak. And then came the “Borg”, of whom their queen said that they did not invent, but assimilated. I think that’s an unlikely absurdity, and is contradictory since the Borg would have to invent ways to assimilate and adapt, not simply take and glue things on to themselves, or let machines, which no doubt would be super stupid compared to a living being, do all the thinking. So far no one has made any greatly intelligent machines, and it would obviously take a massive amount of programming, an enormous amount, to get anything close to the intelligence of a parrot, and even then, it would have no soul, since only God can give that (with the exception that Satan will one day have the ability to create one living thing it seems, though it could be God will be the one who adds the soul to Satan’s attempt at making a living being).
On a side note, atheists proliferate mental disorders that work against civility and morality, like psychopathy and narcissistic personality disorder or introverted cowardice. Mental disorders don’t help civilize or spread morality, they destroy it. And for that reason, atheists should be banished, along with psychopaths and narcissists whom they create and enable or are.
“If CNN wanted ratings through the roof, they would hire Alex Jones as Morgan’s replacement” is what I read on infowars.com today. It should say, “should”, not “would”, and “should” should be in context: they should if they truly want to snuff out fundamentalist Christianity, because design the thin veneer of Alex being pro-Christian, it is clear he is a liberal who lumps in Christians together sloppily, and deceptively calls them “the state church”. There clearly is no state church. All churches that I know of hate the government or detest it, with exceptions of individual members who are apart of the government, some are okay with it. I met one, and it disgusted me. He was no surprise, an assemblies of God/Pentecostal Christian, the gullible type that get duped of their money in the form of “tithes”, which by the way, is unbiblical. The Bible does not say to tithe money! The core verse these deceivers an deceived use to justify modern tithing is a verse that says “test me”, but there too, God wasn’t talking about money. It was talking about sacrifices and various non-monetary offerings, and ironically, in the case of sacrifices, it said TO EAT THE SACRIFICE. If you were to convert that concept over to money as Pents illogically do, it would make zero sense. It could even mean “burn up your money and eat the ashes or metallic slag”. Moronic. The Pents are a huge number, and being ignoramuses, – and GOD it pisses me off how pastors mislead these people! I wish I could lash them in public! – and are the closest thing to a state church, the “patriot” type, however since Pent pastors lean towards being worldly, and to draw in the world is why they do that (and most apparently not being true Christians is why) infest their churches with not just constitution-over-the-Bible Christians, which are a type of worldly Christian, a false type, no offence, but they draw in of course people who don’t care what the Bible really teaches, and are “trendies” as Alex calls them, and some are bitter, just wanting to be around others for attention or to vent, or to have access to free food or counselling, or to make friends and so on. They either want to hear the classic “God’s wrath is on the world and will send those who don’t repent to Hell for all eternity, where they live in various degrees of torment depending on their sins, forever” or the lie, “God’s wrath is on those against our personal brand of Christianity, those Calvinists and fundamentalist Christians are especially angersome to God, if anyone is goins to Hells, it be dem!” They want to hear vague preaching, and a “Jesus loves you,” “just accept him into ur heart, and that’s that,” “coincidences are of God, and you can figure out what they mean, three red cars in a row means that God wants you to buy a red car,” “God will prosper you if you tithe with faith,” “Don’t judge or condemn (us Pents, or “me, your loving pastor”), cuz those judgemental people and condemning people are bad, (oh yes my tithing goats, I condemn them),” gospel and sermons.
The problem is, people like Alex are easily shot down, by, like Alex, I mean that Alex is a repeat exaggerator, and his political sins are so obvious, at least to fundamentalist Christians, and even messed up ones like the Mormons and Pents, that they burn out on him or get disgusted with his constant Christian-bashing and trying to appeal to all sides. No one wants a panderer, we all know what panderers are really like: opportunists, unreliable, self-interested. Though Alex claims the endless terrorism gets people used to it, it’s true if it’s not majorly affecting you, as in you’re not having to get molested to fly all the time and so on, but it’s also because of people like Alex, who rather than doing as he says and making a battle plan, lead the people down the false hope that preaching to the government to be nice or jump off a cliff is going to get us anyways. It’s obvious Alex wants a “civil” war despite his denial, but till someone is willing to lead the patriots and liberals into one that appears that it will at least end as a long term stalemate, we’re all sitting ducks next to wolves, who at any moment might pounce on us and rip our feathers off and tear us to pieces, or blow tons of us up.