Christians say the world is worse as Christianity has declined

[Wertbag]

I've seen this several times, where a Christian has this image of the past as one of happiness and sunshine, while today is bleak and evil.  This seems to be in part pushed by various fire and brimstone pastors, as well as the constant stream of negative news from the media.  The algorithms see "engagement" with horrible stories, so push more of that content, which in turn means it is more of the content you see to engage with, creating a self-fulfilling loop.

 

Of course, there are also Christians who are apocalypticists, believing that the world being full of war, natural disasters, crime and immorality are signs of the end times and therefore the second coming of Christ.  The hundreds upon hundreds of failed end of the world prophecies show this idea is still alive and well despite its continued failure.  Many just want to be the generation to be included in the rapture, they want to be special and see the world reborn.  Generation after generation have asked for Jesus to "please come soon" and thousands of years have passed with that not happening.

 

I had a look at the NZ crime stats after a Christian here said "Crime is on a constant rise since the bible was taken out of schools".  What I found was the homicide rate in 1932 was 10 per million, homicide rate in 2020 was still 10 per million.  
Youth crime is at an all-time low, continuing the downward trend.  It's about quarter of what it was 15 years ago according to the justice.govt.nz trends.
And even if it had gone up, there is no way to link that change with the reduction in Christianity in NZ.  You'd need to overlook the more plausible causes such as higher population, higher population density, change in amounts of poverty, change in political structures, change in access to work, technology changes, changes in drug production/distribution, changes in organised crime and numerous other factors.
The US has ~80% Christians and a murder rate triple that of NZ.  We have ~25% Christians and a murder rate so low that any death is front page news.  The two stats do not align.

But even the US stats show a downward trend (U.S. Murder/Homicide Rate 1990-2023 | MacroTrends).  The murder rate in 2020 was 6.5, which is down from 9.3 in 1990, around 30% decrease in 30 years is a positive trend, and yet Christianity is reported at its lowest levels ever.

[pantheory]

On 1/18/2023 at 12:27 PM, Wertbag said:

I've seen this several times, where a Christian has this image of the past as one of happiness and sunshine, while today is bleak and evil.  This seems to be in part pushed by various fire and brimstone pastors, as well as the constant stream of negative news from the media.  The algorithms see "engagement" with horrible stories, so push more of that content, which in turn means it is more of the content you see to engage with, creating a self-fulfilling loop.

 

Of course, there are also Christians who are apocalypticists, believing that the world being full of war, natural disasters, crime and immorality are signs of the end times and therefore the second coming of Christ.  The hundreds upon hundreds of failed end of the world prophecies show this idea is still alive and well despite its continued failure.  Many just want to be the generation to be included in the rapture, they want to be special and see the world reborn.  Generation after generation have asked for Jesus to "please come soon" and thousands of years have passed with that not happening.

 

I had a look at the NZ crime stats after a Christian here said "Crime is on a constant rise since the bible was taken out of schools".  What I found was the homicide rate in 1932 was 10 per million, homicide rate in 2020 was still 10 per million.  
Youth crime is at an all-time low, continuing the downward trend.  It's about quarter of what it was 15 years ago according to the justice.govt.nz trends.
And even if it had gone up, there is no way to link that change with the reduction in Christianity in NZ.  You'd need to overlook the more plausible causes such as higher population, higher population density, change in amounts of poverty, change in political structures, change in access to work, technology changes, changes in drug production/distribution, changes in organised crime and numerous other factors.
The US has ~80% Christians and a murder rate triple that of NZ.  We have ~25% Christians and a murder rate so low that any death is front page news.  The two stats do not align.

But even the US stats show a downward trend (U.S. Murder/Homicide Rate 1990-2023 | MacroTrends).  The murder rate in 2020 was 6.5, which is down from 9.3 in 1990, around 30% decrease in 30 years is a positive trend, and yet Christianity is reported at its lowest levels ever.

 

Yeah, I agree. Many see the past as better than the present or future -- global warming, habitat destruction and species extinctions,  etc.  But looking at all the advances in medicine and in modern science, I would much prefer to live in the present than the many decades and longer that I lived in the past. The only advantage that I can see for living in the past was that I was younger then   As to religion, few preach the advantages of the present, and few news outlets rant on about the good happenings of today. The sensationalism of bad news captures the readers interests to bring in more readers and money.  

 

"Christians say the world is worse as Christianity has declined." I also agree that they present no direct evidence for these beliefs other than assertions of such a correlation. How about the crusades, the children's crusade, burning of witches, and the inquisitions?  The average person in the Christian world was much more religious in those "fun" times.

[pantheory]

Declining Christianity, and the humor of belief and disbelief:

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14746700.2020.1755530

[older]

On 1/18/2023 at 12:27 PM, Wertbag said:

I've seen this several times, where a Christian has this image of the past as one of happiness and sunshine, while today is bleak and evil.

 

I think fear is perhaps the most powerful, basic, root-level, emotion of the human species. I was recently listening to a lecture about fascism and how one of the first things a leader of such a movement needs to do is to create an enemy, generate fear, and then come forward with the solution. We see that tactic in marketing all the time.

 

And part of that marketing is to tell only that part of the story that supports the generation of fear. There is a saying that history is written by the victors. It is convenient to leave out that which one does not wish to acknowledge. But some digging will reveal that no particular era is all that much better than any previous one. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

4 hours ago, older said:

 

But some digging will reveal that no particular era is all that much better than any previous one. 

 

True.

[older]

11 hours ago, pantheory said:

Declining Christianity, and the humor of belief and disbelief:

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14746700.2020.1755530

  

Three reactions to this piece:

- The author quotes Sam Harris as labeling Islam as a death cult. Please note that Christianity is obsessed with death, its symbol being a dead body nailed to two pieces of wood. (Side note: My wife's best friend is a fundy who said she can't wait until she gets to meet Jesus.)

- The author also quotes Harris as saying “The only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own." I haven't read Harris but I'd need to read his entire work before taking this at face value. Quoting out of context is common. 

- Regardless of the above, Harris is one person. What worries me over Harris's one-man thought to nuke the Muslims are the numbers of end-times Christians who, like my wife's friend, are in a hurry to get to the promised land, and what could happen if they get possession of the nuclear codes. If you study the Cuban missile crisis you'll learn about the submarine officer, Vasily Arkhipov, who refused to agree with the submarine captain who wanted to launch nuclear torpedoes, an act that would have resulted in all-out nuclear war. If Arkhipov had been an end-times Christian, we might not be enjoying this forum today. And let's not forget that a single Trident submarine contains enough nuclear weaponry to completely destroy this planet, and that about 65 percent of our military identifies as Christian.

 

[pantheory]

4 hours ago, older said:

  

Three reactions to this piece:

- The author quotes Sam Harris as labeling Islam as a death cult. Please note that Christianity is obsessed with death, its symbol being a dead body nailed to two pieces of wood. (Side note: My wife's best friend is a fundy who said she can't wait until she gets to meet Jesus.)

- The author also quotes Harris as saying “The only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own." I haven't read Harris but I'd need to read his entire work before taking this at face value. Quoting out of context is common. 

- Regardless of the above, Harris is one person. What worries me over Harris's one-man thought to nuke the Muslims are the numbers of end-times Christians who, like my wife's friend, are in a hurry to get to the promised land, and what could happen if they get possession of the nuclear codes. If you study the Cuban missile crisis you'll learn about the submarine officer, Vasily Arkhipov, who refused to agree with the submarine captain who wanted to launch nuclear torpedoes, an act that would have resulted in all-out nuclear war. If Arkhipov had been an end-times Christian, we might not be enjoying this forum today. And let's not forget that a single Trident submarine contains enough nuclear weaponry to completely destroy this planet, and that about 65 percent of our military identifies as Christian.

 

 

Older.

 

Lots of interesting information and insight in your posting. Thanks for that.   I think the humor in the link is great, a lot of tung-in-cheek stuff.  What do you think of it?

[older]

9 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Older.

 

Lots of interesting information and insight in your posting. Thanks for that.   I think the humor in the link is great, a lot of tung-in-cheek stuff.  What do you think of it?

Thx. I've got grandkids until Sunday so this will have to wait.

[pantheory]

4 hours ago, older said:

Thx. I've got grandkids until Sunday so this will have to wait.

Ok, great, Looking forward to what you think of the Christian humor in the link. I was impressed by it.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

13 hours ago, pantheory said:

Ok, great, Looking forward to what you think of the Christian humor in the link. I was impressed by it.

 

I also thought some of it was witty.

[Wertbag]

Yes, the Sam Harris quote about nuking the religious is taken out of context (I can tell you are all very surprised). The full quote:

 

"What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns."

 

 

[pantheory]

8 hours ago, Wertbag said:

Yes, the Sam Harris quote about nuking the religious is taken out of context (I can tell you are all very surprised). The full quote:

 

"What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns."

 

 

Good followup Wertbag. Yeah, the author,Ted Peters, writing style here is sardonic, using many ironic phases. and taking statements out of context is part of this literary style of humor. I've never used this style myself, but in this case I think his style of humor is very funny. One could even use the word "stile" for this humor. We all can realize that the author believes little or nothing of what he is saying

[older]

8 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Good followup Wertbag. Yeah, the author,Ted Peters, writing style here is sardonic, using many ironic phases. and taking statements out of context is part of this literary style of humor. I've never used this style myself, but in this case I think his style of humor is very funny. One could even use the word "stile" for this humor. We all can realize that the author believes little or nothing of what he is saying

After reading this a second time I agree with you. And thanks for the whack on the side of the head. I was in a crabby mood when I wrote my post above and not feeling receptive to humor. (But had a good time with the grandkids. The 10-year-old has a future as a stand-up comic.)

[pantheory]

59 minutes ago, older said:

After reading this a second time I agree with you. And thanks for the whack on the side of the head. I was in a crabby mood when I wrote my post above and not feeling receptive to humor. (But had a good time with the grandkids. The 10-year-old has a future as a stand-up comic.)

 

Thanks. Maybe someday your funny grandchild might laugh at such humor, but not everybody would laugh at such sardonic humor, but it impressed me. Cheers

[quantum]

My manager is an amazing lady, but she blames the ills on the world on the loss of faith. 

 

The actual ills are:

 

Too much corporate greed

Far too many people crammed into cities and towns that cannot cope.