Can you explain why you have faith in your religion? (1 Viewer)

[shader]

The fact that the 20th century was so bloody is often used by Christian apologists such as Dinesh D'Souza, who point out that anti-religious theologies such as Nazism and Communism led to most of the killing. For what its worth, it's not a bad argument, except that it doesn't answer for all the bloodiness that resulted before the 20th century (and in some cases during the 20th century) that was a direct result of religious belief.

The fact is that both theists and secularists have been, historically, responsible for mass murder. There doesn't seem to be any objective rule which favors one group over the other, but this actually strengthens the secularist argument that religion is not necessary for morality (while it does little to strengthen the religious argument that it is.)

Of course in WW1, "Christians" were slaughtering "Christians" in wars. Religion as a whole can't blame the atrocities of the 20th century on anti-religious theologies. Religion was right there "blessing" most of the wars, as they have done before the 20th century as well.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Slavery was abolished largely before the industrial revolution.

Food supply improvement, Indoor plumbing, and air conditioning are all great but are not in any way indicative of moral progress.

Genocide, suicide, crime, abortion, oppression, and the culture of death in general are all much more prevalent in the last 125 years than ever before.

At the very least, I hope you can understand why someone may think that scientific progress is not related to moral progress, and that scientific error in no way implies moral error. You may not agree, but you're a long way from establishing a tie between the two, despite popular opinion to the contrary.

Almost every statement you just wrote is arguable. I'm not sure I agree with any of it.

If you include the world wars, it's hard to argue...

I fully disagree.

Hard to argue the math. Bloody, violent century.

Did most of the world usually try to step in when genocide and empire building started in a part of the world? In Europe? Do you think it's more moral to go to war, or let that happen?

People lined up on two sides and slaughtered each other in trenches for years and years due to politics. In WW2, America nuked two cities. There have been countless genocides, wars and atrocities in the past 100+ years. Hard to argue that, but it appears you are doing so. Do you think nuking two cities is "moral"?

Hold on and let me ask the fine residents of Gomorrah.

 

[shader]

Slavery was abolished largely before the industrial revolution.

Food supply improvement, Indoor plumbing, and air conditioning are all great but are not in any way indicative of moral progress.

Genocide, suicide, crime, abortion, oppression, and the culture of death in general are all much more prevalent in the last 125 years than ever before.

At the very least, I hope you can understand why someone may think that scientific progress is not related to moral progress, and that scientific error in no way implies moral error. You may not agree, but you're a long way from establishing a tie between the two, despite popular opinion to the contrary.

Almost every statement you just wrote is arguable. I'm not sure I agree with any of it.

If you include the world wars, it's hard to argue...

I fully disagree.

Hard to argue the math. Bloody, violent century.

Did most of the world usually try to step in when genocide and empire building started in a part of the world? In Europe? Do you think it's more moral to go to war, or let that happen?

People lined up on two sides and slaughtered each other in trenches for years and years due to politics. In WW2, America nuked two cities. There have been countless genocides, wars and atrocities in the past 100+ years. Hard to argue that, but it appears you are doing so. Do you think nuking two cities is "moral"?

Hold on and let me ask the fine residents of Gomorrah.

Quite ironic, huh?

 

[Henry Ford]

Slavery was abolished largely before the industrial revolution.

Food supply improvement, Indoor plumbing, and air conditioning are all great but are not in any way indicative of moral progress.

Genocide, suicide, crime, abortion, oppression, and the culture of death in general are all much more prevalent in the last 125 years than ever before.

At the very least, I hope you can understand why someone may think that scientific progress is not related to moral progress, and that scientific error in no way implies moral error. You may not agree, but you're a long way from establishing a tie between the two, despite popular opinion to the contrary.

Almost every statement you just wrote is arguable. I'm not sure I agree with any of it.

If you include the world wars, it's hard to argue...

I fully disagree.

Hard to argue the math. Bloody, violent century.

Did most of the world usually try to step in when genocide and empire building started in a part of the world? In Europe? Do you think it's more moral to go to war, or let that happen?

People lined up on two sides and slaughtered each other in trenches for years and years due to politics. In WW2, America nuked two cities. There have been countless genocides, wars and atrocities in the past 100+ years. Hard to argue that, but it appears you are doing so. Do you think nuking two cities is "moral"?

Depends on the decision you're making. Is it to either nuke two cities or face the very real possibility that you'll need to systematically slaughter an entire nation in order to win a war, also costing thousands and thousands of your own soldiers' lives? There's a big moral decision there, and it's a lot grayer than you seem to think it is. That's the very real scenario the U.S. was in. Japan had sworn to never surrender, to the last resident.

At any rate, on genocide: Genocide wasn't new in the 20th century. There was a new word for it - because genocide was coined in the 40s. That in itself represents a moral leap forward - the recognition that the systematic wiping out of an entire population based on nationality, religion, race, or ethnicity is a crime against humanity. Genocide has been happening for millenia. In fact, at first, that was just called "war." Because people were fully separated along those lines.

But let's compare pre-WWI to post-WWI, since that seems to be the period you want to talk about

Yes, there were many examples of attempted genocide post-WWI. Probably the most widespread (and I'm not by any means able to speak on all of them, but I believe that the two with the most deaths) were the Holocaust instituted by the Nazis and the Holodomor in the Soviet countries, primarily Ukraine. Together, those two totalled roughly 10 million deaths, based on the numbers I'm aware of. There may be better numbers - I'm open to hearing about them. That's a whole lot of people. And international courts were convened to bring charges against the perpetrators.

It's probably not as many as the Belgians killed in the Congo beginning in 1885. Estimates vary, but it's pretty clear that at least 10 million Congolese were slaughtered. Most people haven't even heard of this. No charges were brought.

The indigenous population of the Americas is estimated at about 50 million people before the Europeans showed up. That number was at about 2 million when the 20th century started. No charges have been brought.

The indigenous people of Australia lost something like 95% of their population between the 1780s and the beginning of the 20th century. No charges have been brought.

Yes, people do bad things. But we as a society have decided this is wrong and we will bring people to whatever justice we can for the crime of genocide. We didn't even recognize there was anything wrong with it as a society or even give it a name until the 1940s.

 

[KCitons]

I always love when Christians argue that you can't have morality without the Bible. It's basically an implicit admission that they are too stupid and unethical to discern that murdering and stealing is wrong without it being written down in a book for them by "God." Hah.

Having read your post in the other religion thread, I know I agree with you on a whole lot of stuff. But I think "stupid" is an overreach. I think it's often just a form of laziness, and that people find it simple to buy a prepackaged morality - but when almost everyone actually analyzes it, they realize they alreadymake the same moral judgments people with a belief system like yours and mine make every day, they just say it's because God said it. They already pick and choose from the sacred text based on what they know is immoral even about the statements in the Bible. No one's arguing for slavery because it's scriptural, because they've already dismissed that part.

I agree, it's not because they are stupid. Gullible would be a better word. The Catholic Church uses their interpretation of the Bible as a way to manipulate its parishioners. Find a Catholic Church that has been built in last 20 years. The overspending is nearly as bad as the US gov't. The Church I was married in, had a banquet room that converted to a basketball court. There is no school nearby, just something they thought would be fun. I guess the needy want to play some hoops instead of eat.

 

[shader]

Slavery was abolished largely before the industrial revolution.

Food supply improvement, Indoor plumbing, and air conditioning are all great but are not in any way indicative of moral progress.

Genocide, suicide, crime, abortion, oppression, and the culture of death in general are all much more prevalent in the last 125 years than ever before.

At the very least, I hope you can understand why someone may think that scientific progress is not related to moral progress, and that scientific error in no way implies moral error. You may not agree, but you're a long way from establishing a tie between the two, despite popular opinion to the contrary.

Almost every statement you just wrote is arguable. I'm not sure I agree with any of it.

If you include the world wars, it's hard to argue...

I fully disagree.

Hard to argue the math. Bloody, violent century.

Did most of the world usually try to step in when genocide and empire building started in a part of the world? In Europe? Do you think it's more moral to go to war, or let that happen?

People lined up on two sides and slaughtered each other in trenches for years and years due to politics. In WW2, America nuked two cities. There have been countless genocides, wars and atrocities in the past 100+ years. Hard to argue that, but it appears you are doing so. Do you think nuking two cities is "moral"?

Depends on the decision you're making. Is it to either nuke two cities or face the very real possibility that you'll need to systematically slaughter an entire nation in order to win a war, also costing thousands and thousands of your own soldiers' lives? There's a big moral decision there, and it's a lot grayer than you seem to think it is. That's the very real scenario the U.S. was in. Japan had sworn to never surrender, to the last resident.

At any rate, on genocide: Genocide wasn't new in the 20th century. There was a new word for it - because genocide was coined in the 40s. That in itself represents a moral leap forward - the recognition that the systematic wiping out of an entire population based on nationality, religion, race, or ethnicity is a crime against humanity. Genocide has been happening for millenia. In fact, at first, that was just called "war." Because people were fully separated along those lines.

But let's compare pre-WWI to post-WWI, since that seems to be the period you want to talk about

Yes, there were many examples of attempted genocide post-WWI. Probably the most widespread (and I'm not by any means able to speak on all of them, but I believe that the two with the most deaths) were the Holocaust instituted by the Nazis and the Holodomor in the Soviet countries, primarily Ukraine. Together, those two totalled roughly 10 million deaths, based on the numbers I'm aware of. There may be better numbers - I'm open to hearing about them. That's a whole lot of people. And international courts were convened to bring charges against the perpetrators.

It's probably not as many as the Belgians killed in the Congo beginning in 1885. Estimates vary, but it's pretty clear that at least 10 million Congolese were slaughtered. Most people haven't even heard of this. No charges were brought.

The indigenous population of the Americas is estimated at about 50 million people before the Europeans showed up. That number was at about 2 million when the 20th century started. No charges have been brought.

The indigenous people of Australia lost something like 95% of their population between the 1780s and the beginning of the 20th century. No charges have been brought.

Yes, people do bad things. But we as a society have decided this is wrong and we will bring people to whatever justice we can for the crime of genocide. We didn't even recognize there was anything wrong with it as a society or even give it a name until the 1940s.

I find it ironic that many who can claim that the US made a wise choice (or the only choice) in nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are then unable to give God the benefit of the doubt for Gomorrah, or Jericho, or the Flood. If the US can analyze a situation, and come to a determination, why are people unwilling to think that God would have done the same thing? The facts of the matter is that none of us were there before the flood, lived in Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. So judging God's morality on these issues is kind of silly, when we don't have the facts.

 

[Henry Ford]

I find it ironic that many who can claim that the US made a wise choice (or the only choice) in nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are then unable to give God the benefit of the doubt for Gomorrah, or Jericho, or the Flood. If the US can analyze a situation, and come to a determination, why are people unwilling to think that God would have done the same thing? The facts of the matter is that none of us were there before the flood, lived in Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. So judging God's morality on these issues is kind of silly, when we don't have the facts.

I think the only one of these I brought up was the Flood, and it was because of the virtual impossibility of what Noah did, not God. So maybe you're not talking to me.

I think I'd give God the benefit of the doubt if I thought He existed. That "benefit of the doubt" isn't unlimited though. I mean, when you set two kids on fire for putting burning incense on your altar without permission, you lose the benefit of the doubt in my world.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Slavery was abolished largely before the industrial revolution.

Food supply improvement, Indoor plumbing, and air conditioning are all great but are not in any way indicative of moral progress.

Genocide, suicide, crime, abortion, oppression, and the culture of death in general are all much more prevalent in the last 125 years than ever before.

At the very least, I hope you can understand why someone may think that scientific progress is not related to moral progress, and that scientific error in no way implies moral error. You may not agree, but you're a long way from establishing a tie between the two, despite popular opinion to the contrary.

Almost every statement you just wrote is arguable. I'm not sure I agree with any of it.

If you include the world wars, it's hard to argue...

I fully disagree.

Hard to argue the math. Bloody, violent century.

Did most of the world usually try to step in when genocide and empire building started in a part of the world? In Europe? Do you think it's more moral to go to war, or let that happen?

People lined up on two sides and slaughtered each other in trenches for years and years due to politics. In WW2, America nuked two cities. There have been countless genocides, wars and atrocities in the past 100+ years. Hard to argue that, but it appears you are doing so. Do you think nuking two cities is "moral"?

Depends on the decision you're making. Is it to either nuke two cities or face the very real possibility that you'll need to systematically slaughter an entire nation in order to win a war, also costing thousands and thousands of your own soldiers' lives? There's a big moral decision there, and it's a lot grayer than you seem to think it is. That's the very real scenario the U.S. was in. Japan had sworn to never surrender, to the last resident.

At any rate, on genocide: Genocide wasn't new in the 20th century. There was a new word for it - because genocide was coined in the 40s. That in itself represents a moral leap forward - the recognition that the systematic wiping out of an entire population based on nationality, religion, race, or ethnicity is a crime against humanity. Genocide has been happening for millenia. In fact, at first, that was just called "war." Because people were fully separated along those lines.

But let's compare pre-WWI to post-WWI, since that seems to be the period you want to talk about

Yes, there were many examples of attempted genocide post-WWI. Probably the most widespread (and I'm not by any means able to speak on all of them, but I believe that the two with the most deaths) were the Holocaust instituted by the Nazis and the Holodomor in the Soviet countries, primarily Ukraine. Together, those two totalled roughly 10 million deaths, based on the numbers I'm aware of. There may be better numbers - I'm open to hearing about them. That's a whole lot of people. And international courts were convened to bring charges against the perpetrators.

It's probably not as many as the Belgians killed in the Congo beginning in 1885. Estimates vary, but it's pretty clear that at least 10 million Congolese were slaughtered. Most people haven't even heard of this. No charges were brought.

The indigenous population of the Americas is estimated at about 50 million people before the Europeans showed up. That number was at about 2 million when the 20th century started. No charges have been brought.

The indigenous people of Australia lost something like 95% of their population between the 1780s and the beginning of the 20th century. No charges have been brought.

Yes, people do bad things. But we as a society have decided this is wrong and we will bring people to whatever justice we can for the crime of genocide. We didn't even recognize there was anything wrong with it as a society or even give it a name until the 1940s.

I find it ironic that many who can claim that the US made a wise choice (or the only choice) in nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are then unable to give God the benefit of the doubt for Gomorrah, or Jericho, or the Flood. If the US can analyze a situation, and come to a determination, why are people unwilling to think that God would have done the same thing? The facts of the matter is that none of us were there before the flood, lived in Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. So judging God's morality on these issues is kind of silly, when we don't have the facts.

I think you have that completely backwards. I personally don't give Truman a pass on Nagasaki, at least, but those that do give him a pass do so on the basis of evidence of the kind that Henry cited.

You've conceded that we don't have the facts concerning Gomorrah. Because my default moral stance is that genocide is bad, I don't give anyone a pass on genocide in the absence of facts or evidence suggesting that it was necessary. If Truman had bombed Nagasaki only because the Japanese were "disobedient", I doubt many would give him the benefit of the doubt. Then again, nationalism is a powerful force against rationality, so who knows?

 

[Henry Ford]

I always love when Christians argue that you can't have morality without the Bible. It's basically an implicit admission that they are too stupid and unethical to discern that murdering and stealing is wrong without it being written down in a book for them by "God." Hah.

Having read your post in the other religion thread, I know I agree with you on a whole lot of stuff. But I think "stupid" is an overreach. I think it's often just a form of laziness, and that people find it simple to buy a prepackaged morality - but when almost everyone actually analyzes it, they realize they alreadymake the same moral judgments people with a belief system like yours and mine make every day, they just say it's because God said it. They already pick and choose from the sacred text based on what they know is immoral even about the statements in the Bible. No one's arguing for slavery because it's scriptural, because they've already dismissed that part.

I agree, it's not because they are stupid. Gullible would be a better word. The Catholic Church uses their interpretation of the Bible as a way to manipulate its parishioners. Find a Catholic Church that has been built in last 20 years. The overspending is nearly as bad as the US gov't. The Church I was married in, had a banquet room that converted to a basketball court. There is no school nearby, just something they thought would be fun. I guess the needy want to play some hoops instead of eat.

I don't really get bothered by the overspending as much most people. I like movies, and I go to a little neighborhood theater sometimes, but usually I go to a huge multiplex that shows 20 movies and sells booze. I like to learn, and I attended an institution with enormous buildings, a bunch of unnecessary improvements, statues and several "way too expensive" sports stadiums. They had a basketball court, too.

If you dig Jesus, and want to build a big building with a basketball court in it and make it all about Jesus, good for you. Just because there are people starving in the world doesn't mean we can't have nice things.

 

[proninja]

Read the Bible.

You're not coming across very well here, fyi.

Agree. You're dismissing anything he could possibly think before you're willing to hear him out, and when you get backed into the logical corner that inevitably comes when you try to defend a very difficult position from a smart, well educated attorney, you say "read the bible" and peace out of the conversation.

I realize it's difficult to engage hard questions, but you're not doing yourself any favors here. If there are difficult questions above your pay grade, it's probably best to leave them to other people.

Why is this a hard question? Isn't the basic point of all of this religion and morals stuff the idea that we want to do good and avoid doing bad things? How on earth are you going to do that if you don't even know what "good" means?

The hard part is not figuing out what "good" means. The hard part for him is figuring out a way that you have to be a Christian in order to figure out what "good" means, which leads to all sorts of other issues. It's hard because it's wrong. That's why he's tripping all over himself.

A biblical reason why non-Christians are able to have a moral construct comes from Romans, for those who don't find it patently obvious and don't realize how offensive it is to tell sentient, intelligent beings that they have no way to tell what is moral and what isn't:

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:13-16 ESV)

According to the bible, you were made in the image and likeness of God. Though the fall has marred your reflection of him and you have chosen to reject him, you still bear a faint image of your creator, and his law is written on your heart.

 

[shader]

I find it ironic that many who can claim that the US made a wise choice (or the only choice) in nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are then unable to give God the benefit of the doubt for Gomorrah, or Jericho, or the Flood. If the US can analyze a situation, and come to a determination, why are people unwilling to think that God would have done the same thing? The facts of the matter is that none of us were there before the flood, lived in Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. So judging God's morality on these issues is kind of silly, when we don't have the facts.

I think the only one of these I brought up was the Flood, and it was because of the virtual impossibility of what Noah did, not God. So maybe you're not talking to me.

I think I'd give God the benefit of the doubt if I thought He existed. That "benefit of the doubt" isn't unlimited though. I mean, when you set two kids on fire for putting burning incense on your altar without permission, you lose the benefit of the doubt in my world.

As always, a bit of an exaggeration. But then, this is expected.

 

[Henry Ford]

The hard part is not figuing out what "good" means. The hard part for him is figuring out a way that you have to be a Christian in order to figure out what "good" means, which leads to all sorts of other issues. It's hard because it's wrong. That's why he's tripping all over himself.

Gotcha. My misunderstanding, then.

 

[Henry Ford]

I find it ironic that many who can claim that the US made a wise choice (or the only choice) in nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are then unable to give God the benefit of the doubt for Gomorrah, or Jericho, or the Flood. If the US can analyze a situation, and come to a determination, why are people unwilling to think that God would have done the same thing? The facts of the matter is that none of us were there before the flood, lived in Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. So judging God's morality on these issues is kind of silly, when we don't have the facts.

I think the only one of these I brought up was the Flood, and it was because of the virtual impossibility of what Noah did, not God. So maybe you're not talking to me.

I think I'd give God the benefit of the doubt if I thought He existed. That "benefit of the doubt" isn't unlimited though. I mean, when you set two kids on fire for putting burning incense on your altar without permission, you lose the benefit of the doubt in my world.

As always, a bit of an exaggeration. But then, this is expected.

"As always"? Have I been something other than reasonable in this thread? Or to you about your beliefs?

And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. Leviticus 10:1-2.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

The fact that the 20th century was so bloody is often used by Christian apologists such as Dinesh D'Souza, who point out that anti-religious theologies such as Nazism and Communism led to most of the killing. For what its worth, it's not a bad argument, except that it doesn't answer for all the bloodiness that resulted before the 20th century (and in some cases during the 20th century) that was a direct result of religious belief.

Such as? (note: this is NOT a denial of your statement, I just want to see what your prime examples are)

 

[proninja]

I found this, which may be interesting.

What I would like to find is percentage of population lost to war by century, and I would like to look at it as a trend.

 

[shader]

I find it ironic that many who can claim that the US made a wise choice (or the only choice) in nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are then unable to give God the benefit of the doubt for Gomorrah, or Jericho, or the Flood. If the US can analyze a situation, and come to a determination, why are people unwilling to think that God would have done the same thing? The facts of the matter is that none of us were there before the flood, lived in Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. So judging God's morality on these issues is kind of silly, when we don't have the facts.

I think the only one of these I brought up was the Flood, and it was because of the virtual impossibility of what Noah did, not God. So maybe you're not talking to me.

I think I'd give God the benefit of the doubt if I thought He existed. That "benefit of the doubt" isn't unlimited though. I mean, when you set two kids on fire for putting burning incense on your altar without permission, you lose the benefit of the doubt in my world.

As always, a bit of an exaggeration. But then, this is expected.

"As always"? Have I been something other than reasonable in this thread? Or to you about your beliefs?

And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. Leviticus 10:1-2.

I was specifically referring to the "kids" statement. They were mature men, not kids. Also, the bible doesn't explicitly define what the "strange" or "illegitimate fire" was, many have tied it to intoxication, but we really don't have all the facts.

 

[Henry Ford]

I found this, which may be interesting.

When you look at it as a percentage of total population, I would be shocked if we're not getting better, though obviously there's still a lot of bad stuff going on. What I would like to find is percentage of population lost to war by century, and I would like to look at it as a trend.

Yeah, probably in general - but I also think the reasons behind the wars are a huge thing, too.

 

[proninja]

Here are population estimates

If we assume a 280k (roughly the middle of the estimates) and 70k people lost to the muslim conquest of the indian subcontinent, 25% of the world's population died over the course of 500 years. All the wars in the 20th century don't touch that. Even if we assume a 400k population (which is probably more fair given that it lasted a long time) it's an enormous number. And if we add in the death numbers from the other huge wars over that 500 year time period, it's astonishingly high.

 

[Henry Ford]

I was specifically referring to the "kids" statement. They were mature men, not kids. Also, the bible doesn't explicitly define what the "strange" or "illegitimate fire" was, many have tied it to intoxication, but we really don't have all the facts.

Oh? How old were they on the day they died?

 

[shader]

Here are population estimates

If we assume a 280k (roughly the middle of the estimates) and 70k people lost to the muslim conquest of the indian subcontinent, 25% of the world's population died over the course of 500 years. All the wars in the 20th century don't touch that.

It's still the bloodiest century on record, whether the percentage is lower than other centuries or not. I don't really see what point you are trying to make here. It's hard for anyone to argue that the overall morality has gotten better as the years have gone on.

 

[Henry Ford]

Here are population estimates

If we assume a 280k (roughly the middle of the estimates) and 70k people lost to the muslim conquest of the indian subcontinent, 25% of the world's population died over the course of 500 years. All the wars in the 20th century don't touch that.

It's still the bloodiest century on record, whether the percentage is lower than other centuries or not. I don't really see what point you are trying to make here. It's hard for anyone to argue that the overall morality has gotten better as the years have gone on.

It's really not.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Here are population estimates

If we assume a 280k (roughly the middle of the estimates) and 70k people lost to the muslim conquest of the indian subcontinent, 25% of the world's population died over the course of 500 years. All the wars in the 20th century don't touch that.

It's still the bloodiest century on record, whether the percentage is lower than other centuries or not. I don't really see what point you are trying to make here. It's hard for anyone to argue that the overall morality has gotten better as the years have gone on.

C'mon.

 

[proninja]

I found this, which may be interesting.

When you look at it as a percentage of total population, I would be shocked if we're not getting better, though obviously there's still a lot of bad stuff going on. What I would like to find is percentage of population lost to war by century, and I would like to look at it as a trend.

Yeah, probably in general - but I also think the reasons behind the wars are a huge thing, too.

Totally agree with you. In a post-millenial escatalogical viewpoint, the influence of Christ's church on the world will increase with time until he eventually comes back and restores everything, which is consistent with death and destruction gradually getting better - and even the reason for it getting better.

This is the opposite of the viewpoint you will see featured in the new "Left Behind" movie that 'murican Christians will flock to in droves. That pre-millenial, pessimistic eschatology is what you see featured among most of the conservative right that assume everything is going straight to hell in a handbasket, so they read Hagee's new book about the blood moons and wring their hands over protecting Israel. You can probably guess from my tone and posts which viewpoint I find more credible.

You did say you had preached, so I hope I didn't just go way over your head.

 

[proninja]

Here are population estimates

If we assume a 280k (roughly the middle of the estimates) and 70k people lost to the muslim conquest of the indian subcontinent, 25% of the world's population died over the course of 500 years. All the wars in the 20th century don't touch that.

It's still the bloodiest century on record, whether the percentage is lower than other centuries or not. I don't really see what point you are trying to make here. It's hard for anyone to argue that the overall morality has gotten better as the years have gone on.

I just did. Somewhat successfully, I might add.

 

[shader]

I was specifically referring to the "kids" statement. They were mature men, not kids. Also, the bible doesn't explicitly define what the "strange" or "illegitimate fire" was, many have tied it to intoxication, but we really don't have all the facts.

Oh? How old were they on the day they died?

If you have any proof that they were kids, I'd love to hear it. Aaron was in his 80's at the time of the Exodus and Nadab and Abihu were his two oldest sons. There is no reason to think that they were kids, as they were given heavy privileges.

 

[Henry Ford]

I found this, which may be interesting.

When you look at it as a percentage of total population, I would be shocked if we're not getting better, though obviously there's still a lot of bad stuff going on. What I would like to find is percentage of population lost to war by century, and I would like to look at it as a trend.

Yeah, probably in general - but I also think the reasons behind the wars are a huge thing, too.

Totally agree with you. In a post-millenial escatalogical viewpoint, the influence of Christ's church on the world will increase with time until he eventually comes back and restores everything, which is consistent with death and destruction gradually getting better - and even the reason for it getting better.

This is the opposite of the viewpoint you will see featured in the new "Left Behind" movie that 'murican Christians will flock to in droves. That pre-millenial, pessimistic eschatology is what you see featured among most of the conservative right that assume everything is going straight to hell in a handbasket, so they read Hagee's new book about the blood moons and wring their hands over protecting Israel. You can probably guess from my tone and posts which viewpoint I find more credible.

You did say you had preached, so I hope I didn't just go way over your head.

I don't disagree.

And you're not over my head. I hate peschatology. I think people who eat fish but not meat are a blight on this country.

 

[proninja]

For reference, after some quick googling, it looks like about 160m people were lost to war in the 20th century. Population in 1959 was 3 billion. Works out to about 5%.

 

[KCitons]

I don't really get bothered by the overspending as much most people. I like movies, and I go to a little neighborhood theater sometimes, but usually I go to a huge multiplex that shows 20 movies and sells booze. I like to learn, and I attended an institution with enormous buildings, a bunch of unnecessary improvements, statues and several "way too expensive" sports stadiums. They had a basketball court, too.

If you dig Jesus, and want to build a big building with a basketball court in it and make it all about Jesus, good for you. Just because there are people starving in the world doesn't mean we can't have nice things.

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves"

- Matthew 21:12

When people are starving and your religion is based on helping others, I don't see a basketball court being a priority.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

After consulting WIKIPEDIA, I agree with Shader that these men were adult priests. Therefore it's totally cool to burn them to death for not using the holy fire, but "strange fire" in the censer.

 

[timschochet]

The fact that the 20th century was so bloody is often used by Christian apologists such as Dinesh D'Souza, who point out that anti-religious theologies such as Nazism and Communism led to most of the killing. For what its worth, it's not a bad argument, except that it doesn't answer for all the bloodiness that resulted before the 20th century (and in some cases during the 20th century) that was a direct result of religious belief.

Such as? (note: this is NOT a denial of your statement, I just want to see what your prime examples are)

Seriously? You need examples of mass killing as a result of religious beliefs?

 

[Captain Quinoa]

The fact that the 20th century was so bloody is often used by Christian apologists such as Dinesh D'Souza, who point out that anti-religious theologies such as Nazism and Communism led to most of the killing. For what its worth, it's not a bad argument, except that it doesn't answer for all the bloodiness that resulted before the 20th century (and in some cases during the 20th century) that was a direct result of religious belief.

Such as? (note: this is NOT a denial of your statement, I just want to see what your prime examples are)

Seriously? You need examples of mass killing as a result of religious beliefs?

No, I don't need them. I want yours.

 

[shader]

For reference, after some quick googling, it looks like about 160m people were lost to war in the 20th century. Population in 1959 was 3 billion. Works out to about 5%.

Kind of a silly argument, if you ask me. I think the 160M is the significant number. Of course, I could add in the 40-45 million abortions a year to further show how violent the world has gotten, but why go down that road.

 

[timschochet]

One major reason the 20th century was so bloody is that we had more people and the means to get to them.

 

[Henry Ford]

I was specifically referring to the "kids" statement. They were mature men, not kids. Also, the bible doesn't explicitly define what the "strange" or "illegitimate fire" was, many have tied it to intoxication, but we really don't have all the facts.

Oh? How old were they on the day they died?

If you have any proof that they were kids, I'd love to hear it. Aaron was in his 80's at the time of the Exodus and Nadab and Abihu were his two oldest sons. There is no reason to think that they were kids, as they were given heavy privileges.

They hadn't married yet or had sons. Which suggests a youthful age. "Kids" is a relative term when you cross 40, I grant you.

 

[proninja]

I don't really get bothered by the overspending as much most people. I like movies, and I go to a little neighborhood theater sometimes, but usually I go to a huge multiplex that shows 20 movies and sells booze. I like to learn, and I attended an institution with enormous buildings, a bunch of unnecessary improvements, statues and several "way too expensive" sports stadiums. They had a basketball court, too.

If you dig Jesus, and want to build a big building with a basketball court in it and make it all about Jesus, good for you. Just because there are people starving in the world doesn't mean we can't have nice things.

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves"

- Matthew 21:12

When people are starving and your religion is based on helping others, I don't see a basketball court being a priority.

I would have a tendency to agree. But the church has done unwise things for its entire existence as it is full of sinful people. Expecting that to stop anytime this side of Christ's return seems a bit foolish.

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (James 1:27 ESV)

 

[Henry Ford]

I don't really get bothered by the overspending as much most people. I like movies, and I go to a little neighborhood theater sometimes, but usually I go to a huge multiplex that shows 20 movies and sells booze. I like to learn, and I attended an institution with enormous buildings, a bunch of unnecessary improvements, statues and several "way too expensive" sports stadiums. They had a basketball court, too.

If you dig Jesus, and want to build a big building with a basketball court in it and make it all about Jesus, good for you. Just because there are people starving in the world doesn't mean we can't have nice things.

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves"

- Matthew 21:12

When people are starving and your religion is based on helping others, I don't see a basketball court being a priority.

I'm just saying, I don't have a prohibition against selling doves.

 

[shader]

I don't really get bothered by the overspending as much most people. I like movies, and I go to a little neighborhood theater sometimes, but usually I go to a huge multiplex that shows 20 movies and sells booze. I like to learn, and I attended an institution with enormous buildings, a bunch of unnecessary improvements, statues and several "way too expensive" sports stadiums. They had a basketball court, too.

If you dig Jesus, and want to build a big building with a basketball court in it and make it all about Jesus, good for you. Just because there are people starving in the world doesn't mean we can't have nice things.

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves"

- Matthew 21:12

When people are starving and your religion is based on helping others, I don't see a basketball court being a priority.

I would have a tendency to agree. But the church has done unwise things for its entire existence as it is full of sinful people. Expecting that to stop anytime this side of Christ's return seems a bit foolish.

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (James 1:27 ESV)

Command to keep oneself unstained from the world. Religion, as a whole, has been completely immersed in most of the warfare for the past 1500 years on this earth. Many, many wars were driven by religion and "Christians". I think that goes beyond "human imperfection".

 

[shader]

I was specifically referring to the "kids" statement. They were mature men, not kids. Also, the bible doesn't explicitly define what the "strange" or "illegitimate fire" was, many have tied it to intoxication, but we really don't have all the facts.

Oh? How old were they on the day they died?

If you have any proof that they were kids, I'd love to hear it. Aaron was in his 80's at the time of the Exodus and Nadab and Abihu were his two oldest sons. There is no reason to think that they were kids, as they were given heavy privileges.

They hadn't married yet or had sons. Which suggests a youthful age. "Kids" is a relative term when you cross 40, I grant you.

Good point. Those whipper-snappers should have known better.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I was specifically referring to the "kids" statement. They were mature men, not kids. Also, the bible doesn't explicitly define what the "strange" or "illegitimate fire" was, many have tied it to intoxication, but we really don't have all the facts.

Oh? How old were they on the day they died?

If you have any proof that they were kids, I'd love to hear it. Aaron was in his 80's at the time of the Exodus and Nadab and Abihu were his two oldest sons. There is no reason to think that they were kids, as they were given heavy privileges.

They hadn't married yet or had sons. Which suggests a youthful age. "Kids" is a relative term when you cross 40, I grant you.

 

[Henry Ford]

For reference, after some quick googling, it looks like about 160m people were lost to war in the 20th century. Population in 1959 was 3 billion. Works out to about 5%.

Kind of a silly argument, if you ask me. I think the 160M is the significant number. Of course, I could add in the 40-45 million abortions a year to further show how violent the world has gotten, but why go down that road.

Or the several million vasectomies and tubal ligations.

 

[proninja]

For reference, after some quick googling, it looks like about 160m people were lost to war in the 20th century. Population in 1959 was 3 billion. Works out to about 5%.

Kind of a silly argument, if you ask me. I think the 160M is the significant number. Of course, I could add in the 40-45 million abortions a year to further show how violent the world has gotten, but why go down that road.

You could, and the number still wouldn't be anywhere near what it was from 1000-1500. When you consider how much easier it is to kill people nowadays and the fact that most of those people got killed by someone facing them with a sword, I have no idea how you're making the argument that we're worse off now than we have been in the past.

We have sinful leaders with weapons that can kill thousands if not millions with a push of a button or a waive of the hand. Give that to the guys who were murdering a quarter of the population with long knives and we may very well have never made it to the 20th century.

 

[proninja]

I don't really get bothered by the overspending as much most people. I like movies, and I go to a little neighborhood theater sometimes, but usually I go to a huge multiplex that shows 20 movies and sells booze. I like to learn, and I attended an institution with enormous buildings, a bunch of unnecessary improvements, statues and several "way too expensive" sports stadiums. They had a basketball court, too.

If you dig Jesus, and want to build a big building with a basketball court in it and make it all about Jesus, good for you. Just because there are people starving in the world doesn't mean we can't have nice things.

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves"

- Matthew 21:12

When people are starving and your religion is based on helping others, I don't see a basketball court being a priority.

I would have a tendency to agree. But the church has done unwise things for its entire existence as it is full of sinful people. Expecting that to stop anytime this side of Christ's return seems a bit foolish.

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (James 1:27 ESV)

Command to keep oneself unstained from the world. Religion, as a whole, has been completely immersed in most of the warfare for the past 1500 years on this earth. Many, many wars were driven by religion and "Christians". I think that goes beyond "human imperfection".

Then you lack an understanding of just how imperfect people are. The church has had its hands on many awful deeds throughout the years. Since the reformation it has been much better, fortunately.

Which wars are you aware of that have been driven and perpetuated by protestants?

 

[KCitons]

I don't really get bothered by the overspending as much most people. I like movies, and I go to a little neighborhood theater sometimes, but usually I go to a huge multiplex that shows 20 movies and sells booze. I like to learn, and I attended an institution with enormous buildings, a bunch of unnecessary improvements, statues and several "way too expensive" sports stadiums. They had a basketball court, too.

If you dig Jesus, and want to build a big building with a basketball court in it and make it all about Jesus, good for you. Just because there are people starving in the world doesn't mean we can't have nice things.

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves"

- Matthew 21:12

When people are starving and your religion is based on helping others, I don't see a basketball court being a priority.

I'm just saying, I don't have a prohibition against selling doves.

I cut out the middle man and give the doves directly to the doveless.

 

[Henry Ford]

I was specifically referring to the "kids" statement. They were mature men, not kids. Also, the bible doesn't explicitly define what the "strange" or "illegitimate fire" was, many have tied it to intoxication, but we really don't have all the facts.

Oh? How old were they on the day they died?

If you have any proof that they were kids, I'd love to hear it. Aaron was in his 80's at the time of the Exodus and Nadab and Abihu were his two oldest sons. There is no reason to think that they were kids, as they were given heavy privileges.

They hadn't married yet or had sons. Which suggests a youthful age. "Kids" is a relative term when you cross 40, I grant you.

I am fully willing to admit that calling them "kids" was too strong a term. "Young men" work for everyone?

 

[shader]

I don't really get bothered by the overspending as much most people. I like movies, and I go to a little neighborhood theater sometimes, but usually I go to a huge multiplex that shows 20 movies and sells booze. I like to learn, and I attended an institution with enormous buildings, a bunch of unnecessary improvements, statues and several "way too expensive" sports stadiums. They had a basketball court, too.

If you dig Jesus, and want to build a big building with a basketball court in it and make it all about Jesus, good for you. Just because there are people starving in the world doesn't mean we can't have nice things.

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves"

- Matthew 21:12

When people are starving and your religion is based on helping others, I don't see a basketball court being a priority.

I would have a tendency to agree. But the church has done unwise things for its entire existence as it is full of sinful people. Expecting that to stop anytime this side of Christ's return seems a bit foolish.

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (James 1:27 ESV)

Command to keep oneself unstained from the world. Religion, as a whole, has been completely immersed in most of the warfare for the past 1500 years on this earth. Many, many wars were driven by religion and "Christians". I think that goes beyond "human imperfection".

Then you lack an understanding of just how imperfect people are. The church has had its hands on many awful deeds throughout the years. Since the reformation it has been much better, fortunately.

Which wars are you aware of that have been driven and perpetuated by protestants?

Protestants killing protestants count?

 

[KCitons]

money and religion - killing people since the beginning of time.

 

[proninja]

Protestants killing protestants count?

Anything that you think makes you look good

 

[timschochet]

I don't really get bothered by the overspending as much most people. I like movies, and I go to a little neighborhood theater sometimes, but usually I go to a huge multiplex that shows 20 movies and sells booze. I like to learn, and I attended an institution with enormous buildings, a bunch of unnecessary improvements, statues and several "way too expensive" sports stadiums. They had a basketball court, too.

If you dig Jesus, and want to build a big building with a basketball court in it and make it all about Jesus, good for you. Just because there are people starving in the world doesn't mean we can't have nice things.

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves"

- Matthew 21:12

When people are starving and your religion is based on helping others, I don't see a basketball court being a priority.

I would have a tendency to agree. But the church has done unwise things for its entire existence as it is full of sinful people. Expecting that to stop anytime this side of Christ's return seems a bit foolish.

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (James 1:27 ESV)

Command to keep oneself unstained from the world. Religion, as a whole, has been completely immersed in most of the warfare for the past 1500 years on this earth. Many, many wars were driven by religion and "Christians". I think that goes beyond "human imperfection".

Then you lack an understanding of just how imperfect people are. The church has had its hands on many awful deeds throughout the years. Since the reformation it has been much better, fortunately.

Which wars are you aware of that have been driven and perpetuated by protestants?

Does the name Oliver Cromwell ring a bell?

 

[shader]

Protestants killing protestants count?

Anything that you think makes you look good

 

[timschochet]

Which wars are you aware of that have been driven and perpetuated by protestants?

Does the Afrikaner (Dutch Reformed Church) extermination of the Bushmen, Xhosa, and Zulu tribes count?