What if we are NOT on the verge of the Apocalypse?

Dorothy Mae said:

Materially the goods are not spread evenly but materialism is not the source of quality of life.

Click to expand...

You need to tell us what is the source of the quality of life, so that we can test your claim.

Serving Zion said:

You need to tell us what is the source of the quality of life, so that we can test your claim.

Click to expand...

Real quality of life is found in relationships. It is reported that when people lay dying, they do not ask for a bank statment, property statment, a clip of all their travelings or to hold the honors they got from man. What they seem to report, if they don't die with their fist in the air, is that people dying want to see the people they loved.

The children's fairy tale Rumpelstilskin tells of a creature who had all the wealth he wanted but was lacking one thing, a person to love. When we hear of a plane accident, we don't think of the financial loss to the airline but the people who died. If a man told a story of another man who had all the money he could possible want and then some but lived all his life all alone in a big house with no one to love or was loved by no one, we would feel sad for him. If we told the story of his gardener who lived in a very small three room flat with a loving wife and two loving children, we can easily be happy for the gardener. Test it is real life. What would the average person perfer, if it came to a choice, incredible wealth but the curse of never finding anyone to love and never ever being loved, or receiving a devoted family where love will just grow day by day and never fail? Again the conditions are unalterable once chosen. (It is not a real situation but serves to show the desire of the human heart.)

Dorothy Mae said:

Real quality of life is found in relationships. It is reported that when people lay dying, they do not ask for a bank statment, property statment, a clip of all their travelings or to hold the honors they got from man. What they seem to report, if they don't die with their fist in the air, is that people dying want to see the people they loved.

Click to expand...

And at people's funeral and people reflect on the legacy of the one who passed. Do they say,"Wow what a nice house they owned! Look at the number of luxury cars they owned! What a wonderful swimming pool they had in their back yard!" No the only thing that matter in the hearts of men is what good did they do to be a blessing to others. Were they nice, kind and helpful and was the world a little bit more blessed having their presence here.

Steve Petersen said:

I don't know. Hard to have a quality relationship with your children when half of them die before age five.

Click to expand...

Who here had half of their children die before the age of five? Does anyone know anyone who experienced half of their children dying before the age of 5? And even if it were true, the other half you have relationship wih if you are blessed. What does it matter about those who went before? You could have picked beloved parents and say it is hard to have relationship with your long dead parents whom you loved dearly.

Dorothy Mae said:

Who here had half of their children die before the age of five? Does anyone know anyone who experienced half of their children dying before the age of 5? And even if it were true, the other half you have relationship wih if you are blessed. What does it matter about those who went before? You could have picked beloved parents and say it is hard to have relationship with your long dead parents whom you loved dearly.

Click to expand...

That is what the thread is about. It was not that long ago that childhood mortality was of that order. Who here indeed has experienced the death of their children on that scale?
But before our era, the question would be, who hadn’t?
A world where a third of children do not die in childhood from childhood diseases is tangibly better than one where this was the norm.
And old people are living longer too. It is harder to have a relationship with parents and grandparents who even 50 years ago would died on average 20 years earlier than what is the case today.

Steve Petersen said:

Today is much lower. Highest infant mortality rates are Mexico (about 15%) and Turkey (about 13%) which die before age 5.

Click to expand...

So not even close to 50%

Historically, infant mortality during the Middle ages was 30 to 50%.

Surviving Infancy in the Middle Ages

Click to expand...

When someone from the Middle ages logs on to the site we can ask them about their values in life.

SolomonVII said:

That is what the thread is about. It was not that long ago that childhood mortality was of that order.

Click to expand...

According to the above poster, the middle ages. That is not "not that long ago" but fairly long ago. I mean are really introducing the middle ages and think it is a valid argument? Doesn't anyone realize that children who grew to adulthood were even more valued, not less?

Who here indeed has experienced the death of their children on that scale?
But before our era, the question would be, who hadn’t?

Click to expand...

Hate to tell you but the middle ages was a very long time ago. Very long.

And old people are living longer too. It is harder to have a relationship with parents and grandparents who even 50 years ago would died on average 20 years earlier than what is the case today.

Click to expand...

That statistic was something I doubted the first time I heard it in grade school I mean people can have offspring around 18-20 and if they mostly die at 20, the human population would end soon as the place would be full of babies and no adults. That stat is because of high infant mortality not because anyone living to be 30 was already old.

Steve Petersen said:

I don't know. Hard to have a quality relationship with your children when half of them die before age five.

Click to expand...

When half of them die.

Before age five.


Their kids will be starving at every street corner.

Not for a famine of food, but for a famine of the Word.

Dec. 8, 1961

March 2, 1962



Dec. 28, 1962



Dec. 24, 1965



April 8, 1966



July 11, 1969



Sept. 8, 1975



June 9, 2014



Nov. 14, 2016








Peaceful Sabbath.

Steve Petersen said:

Let's try to stay on topic. The apocalyptic mindset seems out of sorts with actual improvements in life on planet earth in the macro.

Click to expand...

Christianity hasn't always been identified with apocalypticism. It has been mostly restricted to the Adventist movement, which has been hugely influential in America (even outside of Adventism), and some parts of the third world. But traditional Calvinists, and some Lutherans, actually had an optimistic view of the world that tended towards post-millenialism.

Have you never wondered, "how did people let [insert violent, injust regime here] arise in their nation?"

People do not want to see their demise until it is forced upon them, and then they act out. America is being destroyed from the inside - and has been for decades - and the majority of the shots came FROM America.

Additionally, the distractions (like poorly interpreted, or exploititatively skewed figures) provide a ways to keep focus on the light against the wall, instead of the fire behind them.

You should know that when they say, "Peace," usually destruction is right behind the corner. America's numbers are "huge," but your island protectorate and States are failing. Hawaii is melting away, and Puerto Rico has been forgotten. The entire world see how American police treat their undesirable population, and how the rest of the population justifies it.

Do you think, especially given the vibrato of the president, America will have a leg to stand on when nations start calling her put for her abominations? The nation has been able to hide it from its own people (somehow,) but outside of the three coasts and polar borders, people aren't ignorant of it at all. When war begins, the militarily-exhausted, ethnically and culturally alienating, usury worshipping nation will be alone. Since America jails or kills their minority population, what do you think would happen with 70% are cut off from their homelands or connections by politics?


I don't think people are actually aware of what is going on, and I don't mean that in a conspiracy, elitist way - because I don't believe people are stupid. But, the fears are blinding. If you want to maintain the illusion of greatness, the nation has to put in great work, or the whole mass of hot air collapses.

Steve Petersen said:

This thread is about how things have gotten better for the world for at least the last 200 years.

Click to expand...

I checked the OP and I don't see the middle ages being mentioned. And the middle ages ended long before 200 years ago.

Dorothy Mae said:

According to the above poster, the middle ages. That is not "not that long ago" but fairly long ago. I mean are really introducing the middle ages and think it is a valid argument?

Click to expand...

Pinker's argument goes to the Middle Ages too. The eradication of childhood diseases through vaccinations has been a twentieth century phenomena, I think.

Doesn't anyone realize that children who grew to adulthood were even more valued, not less?

Click to expand...

Hard to put a relative worth on any child's life. I don't know that parents love their dead children more than their living ones, but perhaps the surviving children often do tend to get the impression that they are the ones the parent wished had died.
I do think that all parents value their children so much that they would have wished all of their children would outlive them.
I think it is a better world where a third of all children do not die in childhood at any rate.
If you disagree, then at least there is clarity on that.

Hate to tell you but the middle ages was a very long time ago. Very long.

Click to expand...

The mortality of the Middle Ages, which is the age preceding the modern era, was similar to what had been the case for the thousands of years of history, and the eons that preceded history. What has changed, and changed for the better, is the childhood mortality that we have today, and that has improved vastly in the last hundred years

That statistic was something I doubted the first time I heard it in grade school I mean people can have offspring around 18-20 and if they mostly die at 20, the human population would end soon as the place would be full of babies and no adults. That stat is because of high infant mortality not because anyone living to be 30 was already old.

Click to expand...

Then, you do agree that higher childhood mortality was a thing even 50 years ago!
Yes, I agree. Higher infant mortality rates do figure into life expectancies and the reason why life expectancy even 50 years ago was lower, was because children died so often in childhood, not just so long ago in the Middle Ages, but not so long ago, in the middle of the twentieth century.
But, without going all wonky on numbers and graphs, it is also very reasonable to conclude that people on average today are actually living longer than people did 50 years ago.

Dorothy Mae said:

Guano, I gather that you have never traveled much. I have been to well over 20 countries, most of which were not on vacation, and the vast majority of the world's population do not live in a literal zombie apocalypse wasteland. You would be surprised to learn of the spread of the Gospel, for example, in China. It is probably comforting to think that the rest of the world is living a lot worse than people do where you live but it is very likely to be untrue. Materially the goods are not spread evenly but materialism is not the source of quality of life.

Click to expand...

You start out with an insult and then go on to praise communist China. Sorry. I've been there many times. I bet your an iPhone user as well. Your phone was made in a building surrounded by suicide prevention nets.

While China now has more Christians than the rest of the world, the plight of the average human there is very bleak indeed. I think you have a serious case of cognitive dissonance.

Steve Petersen said:

This thread is about how things have gotten better for the world for at least the last 200 years.

Infant mortality in the Roman Empire was nearly 40%. [Estimation of infant mortality and life expectancy in the time of the Roman Empire: a methodological examination]. - PubMed - NCBI

Click to expand...

Steve, I am thinking it is getting harder for people to find a place to live, more homeless, and adult children having to live at home with their parents.

Steve Petersen said:

That may be true in places, but we are talking about the global aggregate.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking global aggregate as well.