If man is evolving, why is there still war?

[DogmaHunter]

The bible says more than half the population will die in the end. When was the last time that happened?

If I remember the rough date correctly, human population was reduced to some 2000 individuals when Toba volcano erupted some 70.000 years ago.

Then there was the black plague during medieval times that killed half of europe.

But why do you ask, since the bible (supposedly) speaks about a future event that hasn't happened yet?

You guys can't even tell us when Christ was born, or when Noah lived.

Neither can you.
The difference is that it's kind of irrelevant to "us guys", because we don't belong to your particular religion of choice.

How would you think yourself qualified to give numbers of people dead long before history started?

Recorded history and in some cases, like with the Toba eruption, genetic bottlenecks.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Assuming they're allowed to be born first.

I'll just skip over this juvenile attempt at derail.

 

[dad]

There are a massive number of reasons for that. War is essentially, when all is said and done, a fight over resources or control.

Bush waged war to ''liberate'' and that war led to the deaths of more people than Saddam Hussein killed, and who came out with power and resources? The USA did.

War has always been about power and resources or the lack of them both.

As the bible says wars come from our lusts and greed. Sin in other words...not monkeys!

 

[dad]

Its a war gene.

Not inherited from animals though, but Adam.

 

[dad]

Yes, they do, actually.

How many ants of the ant population worldwide are killed in these ant wars?

Better still how about Chimp wars? They claim they are a close relative to man! How many chimps die in endless chimp wars!!??

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll just skip over this juvenile attempt at derail.

And I'll take this:

At the same time, human society has become a lot more moral and humane. Today, there's a lot more compassion, solidarity and respect for humanity.

... with much less than a grain of salt.

 

[Mediate]

As the bible says wars come from our lusts and greed. Sin in other words...not monkeys!

''Sin'' is an ascribed term to convey the unsatisfactoriness of lust and greed, therefore ''sin'' cannot be the cause of lust and greed.

Lust and greed themselves are sins in that we adjudge them sins from a moral framework. But there is no premeditate mechanism of ''sin'' that is precursory to ''lust''. Lust is the most premeditate irreducible mechanism, psychologically, and when that lust is viewed, recognize or realized, then it is ascribed the label ''sin''.

Is sin innate in a person who doesn't sin? If sin is not innate in a person who does not sin (think ''Jesus'', in whom it is not) then sin itself cannot exist precursory to manifestation of a tangible action that can be adjudged ''sinful''. Sin must manifest to exist. If an action or thought that can be adjudged ''sinful'' does not manifest, neither does sin.

 

[AV1611VET]

''Sin'' is an ascribed term to convey the unsatisfactoriness of lust and greed, therefore ''sin'' cannot be the cause of lust and greed.

Lust and greed themselves are sins in that we adjudge them sins from a moral framework. But there is no premeditate mechanism of ''sin'' that is precursory to ''lust''. Lust is the most premeditate irreducible mechanism, psychologically, and when that lust is viewed, recognize or realized, then it is ascribed the label ''sin''.

Is sin innate in a person who doesn't sin? If sin is not innate in a person who does not sin (think ''Jesus'', in whom it is not) then sin itself cannot exist precursory to manifestation of a tangible action that can be adjudged ''sinful''. Sin must manifest to exist. If an action or thought that can be adjudged ''sinful'' does not manifest, sin does not exist.

As my pastor is fond of saying:

We aren't sinners because we sin; we sin because we're sinners.

 

[Mediate]

As my pastor is fond of saying:

We aren't sinners because we sin; we sin because we're sinners.

Then your pastor is telling you that you have an innate sinfulness even when you aren't sinning. How can you be ''sinful'' in any temporal moment if in that moment you aren't sinning?

Your pastor's wrong. You're sinful in the very moment in which you indulge in anything that can be adjudged ''sin'', and in the moments in which you are not indulging in anything that can be adjudged ''sin'', then you are not sinful.

In order to make a value judgement on the innate nature of a person you must first quantify and qualify the premises and arguments upon which you come to a conclusion on a person's innate nature.

If my skin is red and sore from the sun in this very moment, then I am sunburned. If in a particular moment next week I am not red and burned from the sun, then I am not sunburned.

If in this moment right now I feel a pang for food, them I am hungry. If I eat and in a moment five minutes from now I am full, then I am not hungry.

You are something when the conditions of your existence in a given moment qualify and quantify what you are.

Right now, I'm typing. If I stop typing, then I'm not typing. Tomorrow I can be typing again, but not until I type.

The issue with ''sin'' is more than this, though. Sin has arbitrary definitions, and it needs to ascribe abstract moral judgements on a person's nature. It's not objective. What's sin to some isn't sin to others. You could call me sinful in a moment where I used contraception, and another person might say ''no you were not sinful to do that''.

 

[AV1611VET]

How can you be ''sinful'' in any temporal moment if in that moment you aren't sinning?

Let's get the terms straight, shall we?

We are not SINNERS because we sin; we sin because we're SINNERS.

I did not say "sinful," I said "sinners."

We are all sinners in the eyes of God.

Have you ever wondered why sin is portrayed as "red" in the Bible, and not "black"?

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Launch your PAINT program and then select RED for the color.

Write the word SINNER down with the brush.

That's how God sees us -- sinners.

Now select the spray can and click on a white area of the easel, making the whole thing turn red.

What happens?

The word SINNER disappears, doesn't it?

Exodus 12:13b ... and when I see the blood, I will pass over you,

God doesn't see our sin nature when it is covered by the Blood.

 

[stevevw]

Considering the fact that in the 20th century there were more humans alive then in the 5000 years preceding it in total, wouldn't you expect that?

I don't think it says much.

It doesn't matter if there are more people back then. On a percentage of population basis the 20th century has been the bloodiest. When you consider all the political deaths from all those dictators there are even more.

Like said by someone in the thread, war is in a way no more or less then "organized killing". That's the point of going to war: to kill / get rid of the enemy.

But there is also the agreesor, the one who starts the war.

For the vast majority of human history, this happened with sticks and stones.

Imagine what some of the ancient wars and battles might have looked like if they had access to nuclear technology, cluster bombs, f16's, ak47's, P90's, tanks, etc...

Imagine the crusades. Imagine the Persians. Imagine Roman conquests. Etc.

Here's a thought:
I say that if those ancients people had this technology - then none of us would be here. Because these people were a lot more barbaric then us.
Despite the world wars etc, we seem to have enough a sense of responsibility to not destroy ourselves with these WMD's. I'm not so sure that I could say the same if the ancients had WMD's.

Thats all hypothetical. People back then didn't have the brains to have that level of tech. Therefore they wouldn't have the responsibility and lived experience that goes with that level of thinking. We have security measures and many mechanisms in place to stop the crazy use of those powerful weapons. So trying to imagine the sort of thinking of people 100s of years ago doesn't match that level of tech. They would never be seen together. They had barbaric and simple form of thinking in war back then because they didn't have the powerful weapons and only had their rudimentary ones.

If they did have WMD they would have had all the security counsels and checks like we have. Time and experience is the only reason we have powerful weapons today and we realized what damage they can do. It sort of stops everyone from pushing the first button because they know what the results would be. In fact if they did have WMD back then they would probably have ended up blowing themselves up. Its a bit like giving a kid a gun. They have no idea what the capabilities and dangers are and will end up hurting themselves more than anyone else.

 

[Split Rock]

They do claim that mutations are beneficial, no? They do claim species evolve and get better..no? There is more war today than in Adam's day. Funny, that.

I blame God for throwing SATAN and his fallen angels down to earth to tempt us.

 

[Golden Yak]

How many ants of the ant population worldwide are killed in these ant wars?

Better still how about Chimp wars? They claim they are a close relative to man! How many chimps die in endless chimp wars!!??

I posted that article about a chimp war. Didn't you read it?

Casualtie rates aren't as high as human wars, it's true. But then, chimps aren't as sophistocated as us...

 

[Gene2memE]

They do claim that mutations are beneficial, no? They do claim species evolve and get better..no?

There is more war today than in Adam's day. Funny, that.

The rate of human violence, particularly in affluent democratic states, is orders of magnitude lower than it was in the period 6000-10,000 BC. The rate of war, too.

See: Steven Pinker: Humankind Is Getting Nicer | NHNE Pulse

The rate of murder in "Adam's day", if you believe the Genesis account, was radically higher than the present day. It seems from the Bible that the leading cause was 'Death by God' - Lot's wife, Er, Onan, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and every individual on the planet.

 

[dad]

The rate of human violence, particularly in affluent democratic states, is orders of magnitude lower than it was in the period 6000-10,000 BC. The rate of war, too.

There was no 10,000 BC. Nice try. If you want to translate your imaginary time into real time, name some character or nation so that we can see what you are on about.

I look at battles old and new, and seem to notice a lot more dead in the new dept..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_by_casualties

The projected deaths for world war three pale all these combined.

The rate of murder in "Adam's day", if you believe the Genesis account, was radically higher than the present day.

Nonsense. Cain killing one guy hardly makes that true.

It seems from the Bible that the leading cause was 'Death by God' - Lot's wife, Er, Onan, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and every individual on the planet.

This may not be the place for gnashing and blasphemy.

 

[dad]

I posted that article about a chimp war. Didn't you read it?

Casualtie rates aren't as high as human wars, it's true. But then, chimps aren't as sophistocated as us...

Animals do kill animals. They fight for territory and etc. Bears will kill other bears. I do note that the 'war' you mentioned was in a park. It also was between a relative few chimps. I would be surprised if chimps would kill all life on earth and all chimps if they could just push a button.

 

[dad]

I blame God for throwing SATAN and his fallen angels down to earth to tempt us.

He didn't yet.

 

[dad]

If I remember the rough date correctly, human population was reduced to some 2000 individuals when Toba volcano erupted some 70.000 years ago.

Ha. Fairy tale. Show the basis for that population estimate.

Then there was the black plague during medieval times that killed half of europe.

In a way it saved the other half.

But why do you ask, since the bible (supposedly) speaks about a future event that hasn't happened yet?

Good as done. Literally.

Recorded history and in some cases, like with the Toba eruption, genetic bottlenecks.

There likely were no genetics as we know it now, before a certain time so forget that bottleneck business! Your whole idea is a statement of faith in a same state past where genetics existed as now.

 

[dad]

''Sin'' is an ascribed term to convey the unsatisfactoriness of lust and greed, therefore ''sin'' cannot be the cause of lust and greed.

False. Sin is the root cause, and any other use of the word is wrong.

Lust and greed themselves are sins in that we adjudge them sins from a moral framework. But there is no premeditate mechanism of ''sin'' that is precursory to ''lust''. Lust is the most premeditate irreducible mechanism, psychologically, and when that lust is viewed, recognize or realized, then it is ascribed the label ''sin''.

I disagree. I would suspect that sin causes all those sorts of evils when yielded to.

Is sin innate in a person who doesn't sin?

No such person.

If sin is not innate in a person who does not sin (think ''Jesus'', in whom it is not) then sin itself cannot exist precursory to manifestation of a tangible action that can be adjudged ''sinful''.

Jesus is God. He came here as a man for awhile and of course had no sin. He came to take away sin from earth.

Sin must manifest to exist.

Says who?

If an action or thought that can be adjudged ''sinful'' does not manifest, neither does sin.

Sin causes the action, not the other way round.

 

[dad]

Then your pastor is telling you that you have an innate sinfulness even when you aren't sinning. How can you be ''sinful'' in any temporal moment if in that moment you aren't sinning?

Because sin is not just actions.

Your pastor's wrong. You're sinful in the very moment in which you indulge in anything that can be adjudged ''sin'', and in the moments in which you are not indulging in anything that can be adjudged ''sin'', then you are not sinful.

You're wrong.

In order to make a value judgement on the innate nature of a person you must first quantify and qualify the premises and arguments upon which you come to a conclusion on a person's innate nature.

Stop trying to judge.

Right now, I'm typing. If I stop typing, then I'm not typing. Tomorrow I can be typing again, but not until I type.

I think, therefore I am.....confused.

The issue with ''sin'' is more than this, though. Sin has arbitrary definitions, and it needs to ascribe abstract moral judgements on a person's nature. It's not objective. What's sin to some isn't sin to others. You could call me sinful in a moment where I used contraception, and another person might say ''no you were not sinful to do that''.

It is not just what others call you.