Our World Is Getting Sicker

[Cornflake]

I have seen a worsening in moral standards myself in the last twenty years. Homosexuality is becoming widely accepted even to the point that in five states,they can get "married". When I was young we could pray in school. Some of my teachers in public school even used to lead us. Now you can't even pray at a graduation ceremony. Since Roe V Wade we can now kill babies in the womb. My country(America) has gone from a lender to a debtor nation. Population has gone from 4 billion to six billion in my lifetime alone. Natural resources are being depleted at an alarming rate.

Six states. Violent crime has decreased. As for the prayer in schools and Roe, those were all in place long before the past 20 years. Nevermind that Roe is being dismantled now, abortion is much more restricted and hard to obtain than it was 20 years ago.

As for the population increase, I don't get it, population is always increasing, someone could have said the population has grown from 2 billion to 4 - what does that mean?

Well now let's take a look at your argument from a scriptural viewpoint. Your whole argument is based on the fact that we have more material goods and therefore the world is a better place..Your argument is counter to scripture and it sounds a whole lot like being in love with the world and materialism to me. If we are Christians the quality of life isn't based on what we have or posses,Jesus said that. Do you have another interpretation for that?
Wow,and I am being told MY arguments have no scriptural context. OH,the IRONY!

He clearly said - "what you have today, compared to what you would have (both in material, religious, and social opportunities) compared to times past." So I have no idea where you get that his argument is based on that we have more material goods.

We are told to look for this.we were told what the signs would be for the coming of the Son of man. We were told we could know the season. At least those who really love him would be able to know.

Not to speak for another poster, but I believe the general point was that that scripture has been read by people in the 2000 years since it was written and the followers of Jesus of every generation since have felt it applied to their times. There's no real indication you've shown that it applies to ours more than any other.

You really think things will continue for another 200 years?
I suggest you offer an intelligent counterpoint to my interpretation before accepting the concept that the world is "just getting better"
This simply isn't true.

People back 40 years ago during the Cuban Missile Crisis would have said it wouldn't continue another 20 the way things were going. And yet....

How do you know it isn't true that things are better? Besides which, are we talking about the world or America, because most of what you're discussing is American.

[shepherdsword]

Six states. Violent crime has decreased. As for the prayer in schools and Roe, those were all in place long before the past 20 years. Nevermind that Roe is being dismantled now, abortion is much more restricted and hard to obtain than it was 20 years ago.

As for the population increase, I don't get it, population is always increasing, someone could have said the population has grown from 2 billion to 4 - what does that mean?

You don't get the simple equation more people = more resources needed? Natural resources are not infinite.

He clearly said - "what you have today, compared to what you would have (both in material, religious, and social opportunities) compared to times past." So I have no idea where you get that his argument is based on that we have more material goods.

I suggest you go back and re-read the posts. The only thing that isn't addressed that doesn't pertain to our "worldly life" in that particular point was "religious freedom We have alot less "religious freedom" than we had even 50 years ago. Try and pray in a classroom today.

Not to speak for another poster, but I believe the general point was that that scripture has been read by people in the 2000 years since it was written and the followers of Jesus of every generation since have felt it applied to their times. There's no real indication you've shown that it applies to ours more than any other.

Go back and read my posts on the subject. I saw when you entered the thread and when you posted. I highly doubt you read the whole thing. But prove me wrong. Come back and address my posts on this. After all"just because you say it's so doesn't make it so"

People back 40 years ago during the Cuban Missile Crisis would have said it wouldn't continue another 20 the way things were going. And yet....

How do you know it isn't true that things are better? Besides which, are we talking about the world or America, because most of what you're discussing is American.

Want to talk about Haiti? About Ethiopia? About the disasters in Japan? About the unrest in Israel? How about the murder and torture of Christians in the 10/40 window? How about peak oil production or global warming?Just what is it in the rest of the world you want to discuss?

[Cornflake]

You don't get the simple equation more people = more resources needed? Natural resources are not infinite.

You don't get that more people can produce more resources? Can we can the nastiness please?

Technology has improved, many things have improved. Just more people doesn't mean there aren't enough resources. We have the ability to feed everyone - we just don't, for a variety of reasons. However, Norman Borlaug.

I suggest you go back and re-read the posts. The only thing that isn't addressed that doesn't pertain to our "worldly life" in that particular point was "religious freedom We have alot less "religious freedom" than we had even 50 years ago. Try and pray in a classroom today.

Yes, I've read the thread. I happen to agree with the poster you were responding to when I posted. We have less religious freedom? We who? How so? As I'm perfectly free to pray in a classroom, same as I would've been 50 years ago.

Want to talk about Haiti? About Ethiopia? About the disasters in Japan? About the unrest in Israel? How about the murder and torture of Christians in the 10/40 window? Just what is it in the rest of the world you want to discuss?

Natural disasters now certainly have better results than they did hundreds of years ago. We didn't have urban rescue squads 200 years ago that would fly across the globe within hours to an earthquake site. Unrest in Israel was worse 20 years ago than now. Ethiopia was worse off 20 years ago than now. I'm pretty sure the last major tsunami in Japan, and earthquakes there hundreds of years ago killed far more people and had far larger lasting effects than this one. There have always been natural disasters - we're now better equipped to deal with them and help people than we ever were.

[teddyv]

Natural resources are being depleted at an alarming rate.In fact,just read some of the headlines in this very sub-forum.

Resources are being consumed faster, but I would hardly say they are being depleted. I remember reading my elementary school books in the '70's suggesting oil would be gone in 20-30 years. Technology and the market are powerful tools to create larger resource bases. Of concern to me though would be the basic resources of arable land and water. I can certainly see near-ish term implications.

The headlines in this subforum are rarely rational examinations of the present state of affairs.

[shepherdsword]

You don't get that more people can produce more resources? Can we can the nastiness please?

Technology has improved, many things have improved. Just more people doesn't mean there aren't enough resources. We have the ability to feed everyone - we just don't, for a variety of reasons. However, Norman Borlaug.

Who is being nasty? You said you didn't get it and I simplified it. I apologize if that sounds "nasty". Do I have to agree with the ridiculous assumption that the world is getting better to not be "nasty" or do I just have to agree the population explosion's effect on resource depletion is as vague and mysterious as you seem to suggest? A remark,that in my view was just as sarcastic as mine was. And no,more people doesn't equal more resources "production".Such things are finite and most scientists agree the current population growth rate is unsustainable.

Population growth drives depletion of natural resources:http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/12786.aspx

Population growth unsustainable:http://www.ourfutureplanet.org/news/...ion-explosion-

Yes, I've read the thread. I happen to agree with the poster you were responding to when I posted. We have less religious freedom? We who? How so? As I'm perfectly free to pray in a classroom, same as I would've been 50 years ago.

If you read the thread then why don't you post an alternative scriptural perspective? Do you have one? That is the challenge.So me a scriptural perspective for the world getting better....before the Lord's return. I think my request is a valid one and yet it is repeatedly ignored. All I hear is counter opinions without any biblical references. And no...you are not as free to pray in a classroom as you were 50 years ago if you are a public school teacher.

On elimination of prayer in schools:http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner...ol_prayer.html

Natural disasters now certainly have better results than they did hundreds of years ago. We didn't have urban rescue squads 200 years ago that would fly across the globe within hours to an earthquake site. Unrest in Israel was worse 20 years ago than now. Ethiopia was worse off 20 years ago than now. I'm pretty sure the last major tsunami in Japan, and earthquakes there hundreds of years ago killed far more people and had far larger lasting effects than this one. There have always been natural disasters - we're now better equipped to deal with them and help people than we ever were.

Natural disasters on the rise:http://www.washprofile.org/en/node/3381

world hunger getting worse:http://www.euronews.net/2009/10/16/g...worse-says-un/

peak oil production a reality:http://www.countercurrents.org/peakoil.htm

Natural resource depletion:http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...ws/latest/6628

[teddyv]

Natural disasters on the rise:http://www.washprofile.org/en/node/3381

No, more people are being affected by natural disasters.

world hunger getting worse:http://www.euronews.net/2009/10/16/g...worse-says-un/

Natural disasters have some implication with hunger, but there is such a human/political component to this issue.

peak oil production a reality:http://www.countercurrents.org/peakoil.htm

We'll see.

Natural resource depletion:http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...ws/latest/6628

I don't what's going on in here. They talk about climate change and then put in resource depletion for some reason. Though there is some crossover, it seems like some sort of shotgun propaganda approach.

[shepherdsword]

No, more people are being affected by natural disasters.

Natural disasters have some implication with hunger, but there is such a human/political component to this issue.

We'll see.

I don't what's going on in here. They talk about climate change and then put in resource depletion for some reason. Though there is some crossover, it seems like some sort of shotgun propaganda approach.

Does that mean you think natural resources are infinite and current population growth sustainable? Does it mean that you think the world will be a much better place before the Lord's return or does it mean that we don't even have to worry about the Lord's return. Because,after all,every generation has though they would be the last? That's what some are suggesting. I just want to know if your disagreement was just with the references being spurious or inadequate or with the position the OP presented entirely?

[teddyv]

I just want to know if your disagreement was just with the references being spurious or inadequate or with the position the OP presented entirely?

None of those links are what I would call useful for attempting to back up your claims. All it looks like is you googled the issue you wanted and uncritically posted the first hit that appeared to address your point.

[Cornflake]

Who is being nasty? You said you didn't get it and I simplified it. I apologize if that sounds "nasty". Do I have to agree with the ridiculous assumption that the world is getting better to not be "nasty" or do I just have to agree the population explosion's effect on resource depletion is as vague and mysterious as you seem to suggest? A remark,that in my view was just as sarcastic as mine was. And no,more people doesn't equal more resources "production".Such things are finite and most scientists agree the current population growth rate is unsustainable.

Population growth drives depletion of natural resources:http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/12786.aspx

Population growth unsustainable:http://www.ourfutureplanet.org/news/...ion-explosion-

Did you read those articles? Neither one appears to be by a scientist, though the first quotes a scientist, but it's an opinion piece about energy policy. The other is just vaguely saying that we need to get developing nations to curb their populations. I have no idea what 'our future planet' is, either, but the piece is... amateurly written.

There are two things at play - resources like water and resources like food. There's an argument to be made for water, certainly, but there's also no telling what technology will bring. As for food, that's simple mismanagement. There's also technological improvement there to be had. Most of the resource problems on this planet are about mismanagement - as one of the commenters on one of those things points out, the developed world uses far, far more than their population-sized share of resources.

f you read the thread then why don't you post an alternative scriptural perspective? Do you have one? That is the challenge.So me a scriptural perspective for the world getting better....before the Lord's return. I think my request is a valid one and yet it is repeatedly ignored. All I hear is counter opinions without any biblical references. And no...you are not as free to pray in a classroom as you were 50 years ago if you are a public school teacher.

I'm not debating that scripture says what it says. I'm saying that the interpretation of scripture that says now is the time - when the interpretation of that exact same scripture has said that exact same thing to people for the past 2000 years - perhaps is less than sure.

And no...you are not as free to pray in a classroom as you were 50 years ago if you are a public school teacher.

Now it's if I'm a teacher? Before it was just pray in a classroom. However, teachers are just as free to pray in a classroom as they were 50 years ago too, and plenty do. They cannot lead other people in prayer, no. That's not their job.

As for the rest and those kind of random-looking links - what the Hypnotoad said.

[shepherdsword]

Did you read those articles? Neither one appears to be by a scientist, though the first quotes a scientist, but it's an opinion piece about energy policy. The other is just vaguely saying that we need to get developing nations to curb their populations. I have no idea what 'our future planet' is, either, but the piece is... amateurly written.

There are two things at play - resources like water and resources like food. There's an argument to be made for water, certainly, but there's also no telling what technology will bring. As for food, that's simple mismanagement. There's also technological improvement there to be had. Most of the resource problems on this planet are about mismanagement - as one of the commenters on one of those things points out, the developed world uses far, far more than their population-sized share of resources.

It's more than just food and water although they are an issue. Raw metals,oil and even arable land are issues as well. I still haven't seen anything that disputes their depletion. I could therefore critique your response or more accurately your lack of meaningful one one as a bit amateurish as well. Do you have any sources that backup your claim that more people will in turn mean a greater production in resources?

I'm not debating that scripture says what it says. I'm saying that the interpretation of scripture that says now is the time - when the interpretation of that exact same scripture has said that exact same thing to people for the past 2000 years - perhaps is less than sure.

Perhaps it is,who knows? Perhaps the bible calls the people that hold to your position on this "scoffers".But one thing is certain,the scripture definitely speaks that things will get worse and worse as the time draws nearer. Can you dispute that? That fact alone disputes the argument that the world is getting better and better.

Now it's if I'm a teacher? Before it was just pray in a classroom. However, teachers are just as free to pray in a classroom as they were 50 years ago too, and plenty do. They cannot lead other people in prayer, no. That's not their job.

WOW,this is the first time I have a "christian" publicly state that getting prayer out of schools wasn't a restriction in religious freedom. I have heard plenty of ultra liberal atheists say that ,though. You don't think it's a teacher's job to teach "values" eh? . That's in essence what prayer in schools is,teaching kids to bring things to God.It's a pretty sad position since that actually what they are doing,anyway. And the "values" they are teaching sure "ain't" godly ones.It's ok to teach situational ethics and deny biblical absolutes. It's ok to teach homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. It's fine to teach an origin of life that excludes God but it's not their job to lead the kids in prayer. That may be fine for an atheist to condone but for a "christian" it's quite sad. I want to see your proof that "plenty of teachers pray in the classroom" in public school that is.

As for the rest and those kind of random-looking links - what the Hypnotoad said.

He didn't "say" much of anything except to say I was google searching. I haven't seen him present a meaningful response that contradicts the fact the world is getting worse. But then neither have you,so you're right, you are pretty much saying what he said.

[teddyv]

It's more than just food and water although they are an issue. Raw metals,oil and even arable land are issues as well. I still haven't seen anything that disputes their depletion. I could therefore critique your response or more accurately your lack of meaningful one one as a bit amateurish as well. Do you have any sources that backup your claim that more people will in turn mean a greater production in resources?

Anytime you see someone try to make this point, they are probably looking at current resource inventories and projecting some sort of straight line consumption. I've made this point elsewhere, but 99.99% of every metal mine discovered was found because of some surface expression of the deposit below, be it an outcropping or some chemical signature in the soil. "Blind" deposits, with no surface expression are extremely rare to locate, obviously. That does not preclude technological improvements that will assist in discovering these at a later date. Demand for metals will always be driving the exploration and extraction of minerals. Really only a fraction of the world has been explored. Much of Africa is probably a treasure trove of resources but political instability is a huge hindrance to the development of natural resources (too risky).

[shepherdsword]

Anytime you see someone try to make this point, they are probably looking at current resource inventories and projecting some sort of straight line consumption. I've made this point elsewhere, but 99.99% of every metal mine discovered was found because of some surface expression of the deposit below, be it an outcropping or some chemical signature in the soil. "Blind" deposits, with no surface expression are extremely rare to locate, obviously. That does not preclude technological improvements that will assist in discovering these at a later date. Demand for metals will always be driving the exploration and extraction of minerals. Really only a fraction of the world has been explored. Much of Africa is probably a treasure trove of resources but political instability is a huge hindrance to the development of natural resources (too risky).

Maybe all the seismic activity Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24 will bring more to the surface? I mean,I see your point but there comes a time when discovery and mining of these resources will be surpassed by usage. I mean,conceivably someone might come up with some ingenious way to economically extract precious metals that have been dissolved in the Oceans but it's a long way off. Sooner or later demand will exceed supply.

[Cornflake]

It's more than just food and water although they are an issue. Raw metals,oil and even arable land are issues as well. I still haven't seen anything that disputes their depletion. I could therefore critique your response or more accurately your lack of meaningful one one as a bit amateurish as well. Do you have any sources that backup your claim that more people will in turn mean a greater production in resources?

That, the more people = greater production, related mostly to food. As population grows, people tend to grow more food or find more ways to get more out of the food grown. Are you suggesting we don't grow more food than we did when the population was 4 billion?

As for disputing depletion, you haven't shown anything that says resources are being depleted. You just said 'scientists say' and then posted two links that didn't say that really and weren't by scientists. Also, what Hypnotoad said + two words on the "conceivably someone might come up with some ingenious way to economically extract" stuff. As I said, technology advances. Like, say, oil sands.

Perhaps it is,who knows? Perhaps the bible calls the people that hold to your position on this "scoffers".But one thing is certain,the scripture definitely speaks that things will get worse and worse as the time draws nearer. Can you dispute that? That fact alone disputes the argument that the world is getting better and better.

Are YOU reading the thread, because I discussed that earlier.

WOW,this is the first time I have a "christian" publicly state that getting prayer out of schools wasn't a restriction in religious freedom.

What in the world? I said people, including teachers, are not restricted from praying in the classroom. They're just restricted from leading people in prayer. As for -

You don't think it's a teacher's job to teach "values" eh? . That's in essence what prayer in schools is,teaching kids to bring things to God... It's fine to teach an origin of life that excludes God but it's not their job to lead the kids in prayer. That may be fine for an atheist to condone but for a "christian" it's quite sad.

So if your child's teacher is a Muslim or Satanist and would teach your child to bring things to Allah or that Satan is the answer to their troubles, you'd be fine with that, in the name of religious freedom? As far as I can tell, you feel that's part of a teacher's job.

He didn't "say" much of anything except to say I was google searching. I haven't seen him present a meaningful response that contradicts the fact the world is getting worse. But then neither have you,so you're right, you are pretty much saying what he said.

I'd be interested to know what counts as a meaningful response to you, as it seems you've said everyone who disagrees with you but has answered you pretty in depth you've dismissed as not being 'meaningful' but your random links are? As for what I was referring to when I agreed with the toad, post 66, not the one in which he discussed the links, that was basically at the same time I was posting.

[shepherdsword]

That, the more people = greater production, related mostly to food. As population grows, people tend to grow more food or find more ways to get more out of the food grown. Are you suggesting we don't grow more food than we did when the population was 4 billion?

Are you suggesting food is an infinite resource? Are you suggesting that the petroleum based products that drive it such as fuel are infinite? Are you suggesting that we have a stable climate that will allow a future increase of production?

As for disputing depletion, you haven't shown anything that says resources are being depleted. You just said 'scientists say' and then posted two links that didn't say that really and weren't by scientists. Also, what Hypnotoad said + two words on the "conceivably someone might come up with some ingenious way to economically extract" stuff. As I said, technology advances. Like, say, oil sands.

Yeah two as opposed to your none. In fact all you have provided is an opinion,one that I might add,you cannot substantiate with scripture. Only a dreamer would suggest that "oil sands" could economically replace sweet crude. Do you have any data to back this claim? A "random" link perhaps?

Are YOU reading the thread, because I discussed that earlier.

I saw a halfhearted attempt to address it,care to try again?

What in the world? I said people, including teachers, are not restricted from praying in the classroom. They're just restricted from leading people in prayer. As for

Once again I ask for facts proving that many teachers pray in the classroom in public school and all I get is some chirping crickets.

So if your child's teacher is a Muslim or Satanist and would teach your child to bring things to Allah or that Satan is the answer to their troubles, you'd be fine with that, in the name of religious freedom? As far as I can tell, you feel that's part of a teacher's job.

I have heard people with a liberal agenda use this same lame argument. It's been regurgitated so many times I wonder why someone who claims to be a Christian would even suggest it. How many satanist teachers have tried to lead a class in prayer? How many Muslim ones? Can you name any?
Show me the figures.

I'd be interested to know what counts as a meaningful response to you, as it seems you've said everyone who disagrees with you but has answered you pretty in depth you've dismissed as not being 'meaningful' but your random links are? As for what I was referring to when I agreed with the toad, post 66, not the one in which he discussed the links, that was basically at the same time I was posting.

In depth? Now THAT"S funny I haven't heard anything but a shallow repeat of opinions that are more associated with liberal atheism than Christianity. I consider something "meaningful" that has some scriptural justification but I haven't heard any. Just a scornful mocking that sounds incredibly like the scoffers Peter was speaking about. Once again I ask,how to your reconcile your worldview with what the bible says? I would consider such an answer to have some meaning,even if it was somewhat distorted. As it is all I hear is liberal touchy feeling that all is well with the world,"don't worry it's getting better,technology is the answer to all of our current problems" It reminds me of "When they say Peace and Safety then comes sudden destruction"

As for what I was referring to when I agreed with the toad, post 66, not the one in which he discussed the links, that was basically at the same time I was posting.

I was referring to your lack to back up what you say with fact,not just another opinion.

[Cornflake]

Are you suggesting food is an infinite resource? Are you suggesting that the petroleum based products that drive it such as fuel are infinite? Are you suggesting that we have a stable climate that will allow a future increase of production?

Nope. I was suggesting exactly what I suggested.

Yeah two as opposed to your none. In fact all you have provided is an opinion,one that I might add,you cannot substantiate with scripture. Only a dreamer would suggest that "oil sands" could economically replace sweet crude.

Well, good I didn't suggest that then, isn't it?

I saw a halfhearted attempt to address it,care to try again?

As, from what I can tell, anything but agreeing with you is automatically dismissed as lacking, nope.

Once again I ask for facts proving that many teachers pray in the classroom in public school and all I get is some chirping crickets.

You want me to prove that people pray during the day? Maybe there's a teacher on here who'd care to weigh in. Otherwise, what would you like as "proof" that people pray? I said that people are allowed to pray in classrooms, just as they were 50 years ago; teachers cannot lead people in prayer but yes I did say plenty of teachers pray while at work. If you've never met a teacher, I don't know what to tell you.

I have heard people with a liberal agenda use this same lame argument. It's been regurgitated so many time I wonder why someone who claims to be a Christian would even suggest it. How many satanist teachers have tried to lead a class in prayer? How many Muslim ones? Can you name any?
Show me the figures.

Why someone who "claims to be Christian" would suggest that the logical consequence of allowing teachers to lead students in prayer and teach them religious values in public school would be that some teachers who are of religions other than Christian would do that too is because those people used basic logic and reason.

You want ... figures... for something I said WOULD happen were the law different from what it is?? What? Where are the "figures" PROVING that, if teachers were allowed to lead students in prayer and teach religious values only Christian teachers would do so and no Muslims or teachers of any other religion would?

I haven't heard anything but a shallow repeat of opinions that are more associated with liberal atheism than Christianity. I consider something "meaningful" that has some scriptural justification but I haven't heard any.

Well, we've been over that, it was discussed upthread. If you don't like it, well...

I was referring to your lack to back up what you say with fact,not just another opinion.

As opposed to the "fact" that you know that YOUR interpretation of scripture is true, despite that everyone else who has thought the exact same thing for the past 2000 years has been wrong - or right, considering what I said earlier.

I officially give up on this interchange, as I'm not going to be called an atheist scoffer by someone who seems unable to read what I'm typing and refuses to acknowledge anything but agreement as worthy of discussion. This is not edifying.