Fox is totally mainstream and on the right, did not mean to mislead you. But all the other MSM TV news networks are left leaning to be sure. Including PBS, and PBS is anti-Christian in the way they portray "the real Jesus" and their other documentaries. BBC is anti-Christian as well in various programs and I would maintain also left leaning, yet, I find them very much more newsworthy, cover far more important issues better and worth the time. I watch BBC world news in the morning and none other. The rest of the morning "news" shows are cringe-worthy.
How is any of that "anti-Chrstian"? Is it simply because they would rather use archeological & third-party(that is, non-Christian) sources regarding the Nazarene? You're going to have to simply accept that not everyone believes in your God and his son/himself made flesh/or however you view the Jesus-YHWH-Holy Spirit and how they relate to each other. Scholarly interest is not anti-Christian because they are wary of using the Bible as an infallible source. One must remember that the New Testament was written quite a time after the son of Mary & Joseph(along with most if not all of his disciples) had died.
I have heard that before and it does help to make your case since like you said, if this rebellion and decline began in Socrates time this world would have long wasted away before now.
Well, some things are the same (e.g. moving from child to adolescent and rebellious spirit) and some things are not the same. E.g., exposure to more knowledge, opportunity for vice, and opportunity for hedonism and an easier way of life. No, things have changed since the time of the Beatles. Sexual mores and the rejection of God and God's laws in particular. And the love of self. So I will give you a quote from I believe the psalms? "He that soweth the wind reap the whirlwind."
So how did the
massive swathes of the world that had either no or extremely limited contact with Judaism or Christianity turn out just fine? China, Japan, the Mongols, the myriad of Indian(subcontinent India) societies & kingdoms, South-East Asian cultures, sub-Saharan Africa and so on.
In fact, I would argue that Christianity
tends to destroy cultures. Look at the pre-conversion Germanics(Norse/Vikings, Saxons, ect). They were vibrant cosmopolitan societies, with rich cultural history & religions. But when the Christians(having already turned Rome into a mere shadow of its former self) set off to the North with a Bible in one hand and a torch in the other they nigh-entirely destroyed them. They burned down our Oaks, they desecrated our Halls, they robbed us of our freedom. Before your God came from some eastern desert, our wives, daughters & sisters were not merely property of their menfolk be it husband, father or brother. You brought to this people, who had loved life, who lived not just for themselves but to bring honour to their kin & to make their ancestors proud. A people with Gods who did not treat us like inferiors, but as
kin. Who did not
worship their Gods so much as they praised them, without fear & without promise of reward.
These peoples,
my people, were doing just fine without your Christ and your notions of shame, your notions that people are somehow born inherently
broken.
That is what we have been experiencing since the 1960's, each passing generation becoming double rowdy, self-indulgent, apathetic, lack of remorse, greedy, rude, narcissistic and apathetic towards God. Up until then I would accept your Socrates theory --- but no more. We are in the middle of horrendous social and moral decline where the fall of Rome comes to mind. But it's far worse than that. It is all a spiritual crisis with Satan and his minions leading the whole lot of us down a scary path.
Please do not try to compare the socio-political world of today to something that has been gone for over a thousand years. You painfully over-simplify
why Rome fell, and it was
not because of their "decadence". One can pin the collapse of Rome in part on Christianity itself. It utterly destroyed the religious & ethnic tolerance that made Rome so powerful. Making such an analogy does nothing but outline your ignorance(in the traditional sense of the word, as in simply being unaware) regarding history at large.