Is The World Getting Better Or Worse?

None, really. Dawkins expounds on this in his book, The God Delusion where he says

quote:

---

since Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Bible have changed over the span of history so that what was formerly seen as permissible is now seen as impermissible, it is intellectually dishonest for them to believe theism provides an absolute moral foundation apart from secular intuition.

---

This idea of secular intuition has been discussed by us here at EvC before, notably by you when you said that the Tree Of The Knowledge of Good & Evil provided humanity with a great gift---which in essence would be secular intuition. Thus, you basically took that to imply that God essentially "saved everybody" through that gift universal to humanity---believer or not. This gets us back to your argument regarding Christianity as being responsible for what one does versus what one could do in any given situation...the inner conscience being present in all individuals.Biblical Christianity calls it Original Sin, which you see as merely a clever marketing ploy. And you will ask me what the evidence shows. Regarding America and Americans a hundred years ago versus today, I see where we have gotten better in some ways and worse in other ways.We would argue that God is with everybody (thus secular intuition) yet In those who accept His Spirit...His living essence which we commune with and pray to. Critics would then ask us why we are such nasty judgemental people if we in fact have this heightened awareness of God.Which is a good point. Does that answer your question?

And yet there is no more evidence for Christian morality than there is for the Holy Spirit. Which is no problem for me...I believe what I believe based on the experiences which I have had..yet will admit that what I believe is irrational and certainly not objectively provable. In a way, I think that it was all meant to be this way.

Here is a better link. Tares Among the Wheat — A Review Your assessment seems accurate, but I will review Faiths video before having any final conclusion on the matter. It has been my experience that the wiser Christians---even if they personally believe that Jesus is returning soon---don't use this belief in their scholarly approaches to current articles. After all, no one knows the day or the hour. Perhaps God is waiting on us...thats what I personally believe.

Im not really taking sides here, though I do want to point out two things that come to mind:

Christianity was birthed in an era when all of its adherents and future proselytes were under the oppression of Rome. Christianity seems to be more aptly suited for people under persecution and stress than it does conquering nations and respectable statesmen. Religion in ancient Rome Notable quotes:

​

quote:

---

The Romans thought of themselves as highly religious, and attributed their success as a world power to their collective piety (pietas) in maintaining good relations with the gods.

​

The Romans looked for common ground between their major gods and those of the Greeks (interpretatio graeca), adapting Greek myths and iconography for Latin literature and Roman art, as the Etruscans had.

​

Roman religion was practical and contractual, based on the principle of do ut des, "I give that you might give". Religion depended on knowledge and the correct practice of prayer, ritual, and sacrifice, not on faith or dogma, although Latin literature preserves learned speculation on the nature of the divine and its relation to human affairs. Even the most skeptical among Rome's intellectual elite such as Cicero, who was an augur, saw religion as a source of social order. As the Roman Empire expanded, migrants to the capital brought their local cults, many of which became popular among Italians. Christianity was in the end the most successful of these, and in 380 became the official state religion.

---

​

Jesus never intended to make a state religion.

​

Consider this: Which of these two would Jesus most likely support?
1) Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
or
Love, Joy, and Peace?

​

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

​

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

​

As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.
? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

oops..let me correct that attribution.... Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

I would argue that many of the Catholic population were ignorant victims of politics and propaganda. The true evil is/was the leaders at the top...both politically and religiously. Much the same exists today. The main difference is that the population at large can no longer claim ignorance.

What she means is that they were not Protestant Biblical Christian Actions. We could claim that the Protestants and Catholics of that day were ignorant and listened to their leaders, all of whom most certainly did not promote Christian actions. Were the Protestants even around during the Inquisition? Im going to have to check my dates and brush up on my History.

My basic argument is that the laity of the church...the churchgoers of that day were in fact ignorant of a lot of what they were taught. I say that the leaders alone were to blame.

This won't go over as popular, but I firmly believe that one won't become a better Christian through evidence, scholarly approaches to the Bible, or comparative religions classes. I agree that we are responsible for what we do rather than what we claim to believe. And whether or not the Christians were naive, willfully ignorant, or in any way justifying what was done in the name of Christianity, they (we) are still responsible, though I do disagree with you when you claim we should give the Indians back their lands---at whatever the cost. Two wrongs dont make a right, and such an action would impoverish many current dwellers, none of whom were directly responsible for the theft.I may get judged for that attitude someday, so I will leave it up to God as a perfect judge.

Give me a specific example and we can go from there. Faith and I are not Siamese twins, though we do share belief in God through Jesus Christ. I'm not into the young earth thing as he is, and I read both sides of the issue, as I recently finished Godless by Dan Barker. I also acknowledge that Christianity is simply unprovable.I do listen to some apologists, and I am aware of the honesty and track record of some vs others. I don't lump *all apologists* or *all believers* or even *all atheists* into one basket. We are each individual with differing thinking and reasoning styles. Some of us need to believe, while others are content to challenge all believers and stick to their guns of secular logic, reason, and perceived reality. I would only add that its not all a giant con game in my belief.I particularly feel a need to challenge jar specifically because he claims to "belong to the club" yet never lets his belief interfere with his critical thinking evidence-based mind. Which you no doubt applaud. I have different beliefs largely based on the experiences which I have had.Now what were we about to discuss again?

Well, I suppose that I could lump a bunch of you together and label you evidentialists*! Were you the new Sheriff, you would outlaw belief of any kind not grounded in epistemology. Thankfully, we never gave you a gun, though jar has a few you could borrow. *Evidentialism is a thesis in epistemology which states that one is justified to believe something if and only if that person has evidence which supports his or her belief. Evidentialism is, therefore, a thesis about which beliefs are justified and which are not.

I dont trust you. You will simply defend why the apologists dont...cant...or wont accept your answer by saying that they are liars. Frankly i reject this explanation as unrealistic. It plays well in a secular humanist and largely atheist forum but it is wrong. I have a strong belief based on experience that God is real...very real...apart from simply a character which must be understood in context of what the book says and by inference must mean. Im not sure why your logic appears sound. I have no evidence that your argument is wrong but i feel very strongly that it is. Why you never became a believer apart from going through the rituals of your club is and was your choice. In my opinion it is why God never revealed Himself to you and remains...for you...as a character not only in the Bible but in many religions. I believe that you quite simply missed the boat.That being said I begrudgingly will agree with the latter part of your statement. I cant magically invoke a supernatural bible in a fair way in our argument. Edited by Thugpreacha, : Clarification

Basically it is the difference between knowing God and knowing about various characters in books known as God, in so many differing names.
*sighs*
Yes, I know you will ask me to provide some sort of evidence that I *know* God. He has no YouTube. He appears in no videos. He never wrote anything that we know of, although the apologists claim that He inspired many writers. Though we could determine that an inner voice is a common human trait, we could never provide a definite source for that voice. To me, its not even so much as an audible voice...its an impression in conjunction with my prayers. This inner impression does not usually tell me what I may want to hear confirmed, though it is sort of like an internal conscience and always pushes me towards what I *should* do rather than what I may want to do in a carnal or selfish way. At times I have even questioned this impression, for I sometimes get the impression to do something the opposite of what I planned to do.Now...you will likely argue that everyone has such an inner conscience and not "just" believers. As I study people, I realize that many who profess to be believers are less rational and sane than the atheists and secular humanists that I know. A few years ago, I would have defended this observation by quoting some scripture out of context...such as "We are a peculiar people...a chosen generation...etc etc. The reason I don't trust you and ringo...particularly him..is because he is not a believer. Thinking this through, I realize that God restrained the madness of a "prophet" by speaking through a donkey, so I suppose that He theoretically could use non believers and evidentialists over staunch and untested believers.The bottom line is that I believe that God exists, that His character is displayed through the man Christ Jesus, and that Jesus *lives* today.Again, being an evidentialist, you will ask me where such evidence is.You will ask for the umpteenth time how I know or could possibly know such a thing. Just because they don't interpret the meaning of the scripture as you do does not mean that they are lying. Belief is, in my opinion, not based on evidence. Otherwise either everyone would believe or no one would believe...if objectifiable evidence were the standard. And even as I struggle to form words to defend my argument I can see the inner human tendency to make up a defense. But lets look at a synopsis of their basic argument...or at least one of them I have heard:

1 Corinthians 2:13-15: writes:

​

13And this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Yes, they will use scripture to defend the apologetic premise of scripture. That's a basic counter-argument. But if we cant use the Bible as an anchor, we have nothing...except a belief no better than those who advocate Loki, or the Spaghetti Monster, or Allah Most Merciful, or rabbit, or any of the other mythos developed by humans.

​

And that is, in my opinion, your essential teaching. that it was all stories created by man, told round the campfires, and kept alive through human ignorance at worst and mythos at best.

​

That is the explanation that I do not trust. Its not so much you, for you have taken time to talk to me for many years, and I see no evil in you apart from what all humans share.

​

We need a thread to defend and/or expose the Apologists. I have been listening to some whom I consider rather good. And I don't expect anyone around here to agree with my conclusions. Odd that.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

​

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

​

As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.
? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

Lets talk about this. First, why do you reject the story the way most of "them" want it to say?Basically that GOD allowed this empathetic animal known as Homo Sapiens to become aware of decision making and responsibility apart6 from instinct, that God allowed for the humans to fail time and time again foreknowing that they would soon need to reestablish communion, that He made this way through becoming human...(yes it was Jesus...not God disguised as a human) but yet the issue thus centers around Jesus. Who He was, is and whether he is eternal or not. You seem to think He taught us to be responsible and provided an example of all a man can do. They seem to believe that He came as a sacrificial lamb to once and forever take away our problem and mistake at trusting a source other than GOD the Creator. Whats so wrong with their way, apart from your point about it taking away the necessary element of personal responsibility? This seems to be a big theme with you.Look, we can both agree that humans make stupid decisions based on greed, selfishness, insecurity, and listening to bad advice. Humans may not have been created damned, that I agree with you in. The issue is how we humans get out of it and overcome it. They say that we overcome by the blood of the lamb and the word of our testimony. What do you say? Do we overcome solely through our own collective efforts? And really....why do you think that God simply saves everybody. Or do you think that? If not, how do you see it...we save ourselves and essentially are judged based on what we do versus what we could have done? The sheep and goats essentially describes such a judgment. We have been over this before. But I'm not sure whether I agree with you that God simply judges everyone based on what they do. It does make sense, though. The apologetic defense is that we can never do enough to erase original sin. They are stuck with that term. I see flaws with your concept of an honor system and standard, however. For one thing, it is not often easy at all, and seems a bit unfair. Let's take me, for example. One time I declared bankruptcy, 11 years ago. Had I done it according to your honor system, I would still be paying back a debt so big I never would have settled it. As a result, I would live with the consequences of a bad series of mistakes. All for what? So I could show honor to the public?But I believe that I was forgiven and given another opportunity...even at the public expense. I am grateful for such a judgment.And I believe in a God who would forgive the mistakes rather than force the people to accept full responsibility for their mistakes.You often say that we here in America will get the world we want. As if because of our flaws, we must pay the piper. The apologist would say that we can be forgiven. I will agree with you, however, that the bumper sticker "Not Perfect, Just Forgiven" is lame.

How do you want me to do that? I have listened to several apologists whom I consider to have good messages. I guess what I am challenging is first of all why you have a different message. You are admittedly not a believer. Yet you claim to show us the holy book as if you were the boy pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. None of us see it.