Leaderboard

Mostly subjective, to be sure, but from where I sit: In terms of safety, I think the world in general is getting worse. In terms of disease control, it's better. In terms of altruism (which I consider a virtue), it's worse. In terms of communication abilities, it's better. In terms of literature, about the same. In terms of sports, slightly worse. In terms of music, slightly worse. In terms of television programming and theatrical arts, a lot worse. In terms of world economics, it's worse. In terms of manners, it's worse. I could go on, but in my estimation, the world and its inhabitants are on a downward trend.

I personally think it's getting worse. We may be living longer but look at all the "new" diseases there are, and while 100 years ago one died of a lot of things that we can now either cure or at least live with, the food is so far removed from the natural source that it is pretty much lab created, which brings about its own set of problems. People in general want to pop a pill that will fix whatever, than get fresh air, sunshine, exercise and plenty of water. Isolation and depression seem to be on the rise, and I blame social media for that, because it is really anything but "social". Drug/alcohol use/abuse seems to be on the rise or at least it is around here. And there have been more than one family willingly give up their children because they just couldn't afford them and they were tired of fighting life. In our area we have so many in need of foster care that unless broken bones are in the equation they won't be taken. But then you are around young people ready to take on the world, and I'm around recovering addicts/alcoholics who've had the world run them over.

It's not a trick question. I'm quite happy to show my hand. I think that, while many terrible things happen, the world is getting better. Life spans are longer, wars are fewer (rumours of wars, on the other hand... ;)), things that would have killed us a generation ago are survivable, people over all are coming to understand our shared humanity... I think it's tempting but quite unfortunate to buy into an 'everything used to be better and is getting worse' narrative. The evidence, as I see it, doesn't really support that. But by showing my hand I don't want to shut down the conversation: I'm genuinely very interested in others' perspectives.

I'm interested in people's world views. Over all, do you think the world is getting better or worse? Hopefully we can be mindful of the rules of avoiding religion or politics in this forum, and just talk from our own perspectives (although I think it's unavoidable that those perspectives are informed by our religion and politics).

Bonnie, You asked the question relative to the MN law more than once, fishing for responses from anyone, then specifically me--as stated in your post to Gregory. It would appear to have been a question of grand importance to you. That you "left it alone for 2 1/2 days" was simply due to the fact that I did not respond to you during that time. However, your subsequent response to Gregory specifying that you had asked me that question made it rather clear you still looked for an answer. In any case, I have now answered, and see no need of further elucidation on your law. I do not live in any of those 38 states you bring up, nor in any of the 50. Where I live, women get illegal abortions at the risk of their lives (sanitation/safety, not death penalty). The matter is very "hush hush" around here, but some do so anyhow. I am NOT pro-abortion. I do not see abortions as being a good thing except in limited cases. I personally would have no criticism for anyone involved (doctor, woman, etc.) who chooses to perform an abortion in cases of rape, incest, known severe birth defects, or where the life of the mother is in danger. These cases would represent by far the minority of abortions which are performed, likely less than 1%. However, I do not feel, based on the Bible alone, that I have a good medical reason or ethical reason to desire to deny people this option by force of law. To illustrate, let us look at something that is far more clear in the Bible: blood. The Bible forbids the eating of blood in no uncertain terms (see Lev. 3:17). It was "unclean," even from a "clean" animal. Humans, of course, are not "clean" animals either. Based on the Bible, I cannot deny the right of a Jehovah's Witness adherent to refuse a blood transfusion. It does appear to be against God's law. On the other hand, I would not support a law banning blood transfusions either. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind, as the Bible says. Why should my conscience become conscience for anyone else? (See 1 Corinthians 10:29.) So, instead of "pro-life" or "pro-choice" I am "anti-legislation" on the matter. This, again, highlights some of the reasons I feel no need to defend the Minnesota legislation on the matter. Blessings, Green Cochoa.

I would tend to agree but in the scenario I had in mind it wouldn't work that way. If we were transported back in time to truly be as it was we would be without any knowledge of the present or any intervening years future to what era we got stuck in, with no real advantage over anyone else in that time period. Although if we could be transported back to say the mid 19th century with all the current knowledge of today, we would be rather frustrated I think since we couldn't easily invent or develop the solutions we take for granted without a whole system of technology and inventions and discoveries that would make it possible. (Sort like the back to the wild west scenario of the Back to the Future movies. And if we tried to share our "ideas" of how to change things or what progress could bring, in terms of technology and science, I would be afraid they would lock us up in the asylum!!

If I could keep the knowledge I have now, I'd much rather live the rest of my life at a different time...

French edition for march 2016 http://adventist.ca/3dissue/lemessager/03-02b/index.html

I see the answer as very much a mixed bag. As has already been suggested, some things worse some things better. But that is more of a myopic perspective. On balance, I am inclined more toward the view that overall things are improving, better than they ever were in the past. For me the simple question is, if I could irreversibly switch places to a different time in earth's history would I be willing to do so? The answer is no. Time travel to visit of course would be fun and educational. But to be stuck in another time to live out the rest of my life, I don't think so. The reason is simple. I would likely die in a few years without the advantages of modern medicine that we all take for granted. Life would be much harder. Risks much greater. Solutions to fundamental problems of life far fewer and far less certain. Survival, opportunities for success far less certain. Life is better now.

There are many things that are better. These have been enumerated by others. The oceans are definitely worse because of what we have dumped in them. Air quality is better in LA & worse in Beijing. What the Bible says though is that "evil men & impostors will wax worse & worse." 2 Ti 2:13. So I believe it is the spiritual condition of the unregenerate that continues to get worse as we near the end of time.

I had a dream the other day…I was hanging around a bunch of kids and accidentally left my wallet behind. When I realized I had left it, I came back frantically only to find that one little girl had stolen... View the rest of this great article

While riding home from church a 4 year old girl asked her parents why her little brother cannot talk. They replied that her baby brother is only one month old and that it will be a while before he is able to talk. The girl replied "But in Bible times babies could talk." Her parents asked her what she meant and she replied "Didn't you hear the pastor read from the Bible today that Job cursed the day he was born."?

They are the “others” of the New Testament; the outcasts, the untouchables. They appear here and there in the Gospels and Acts as the people the Jews wanted nothing to do with. So naturally Jesus went out of his way to spend time with them. They are the Samaritans. Some of the most famous, and most intriguing, episodes in the New Testament revolve around the Samaritans. There is the famous parable of the “Good Samaritan”; the Woman at the Well, James and John asking to call fire down from heaven on a Samaritan town that refused them hospitality, and Simon Magnus trying to buy the Holy Spirit from Peter. In all of these stories, the Samaritans are characterized as being viewed as second-class citizens by all the Jews except Jesus, who clearly played by his own rules. But who were the Samaritans? Why did they and the Jews not get along? Nestled between the Galilee and Judea, the region of Samaria was in the heartland of the former northern kingdom of Israel, gone for over 700 years by the time Jesus came on the scene. Indeed, Samaritans and Samaria get their names from the city of Samaria, the old capital of Israel founded by Omri, the father of Ahab and by whose name the Assyrian kings would refer to Israel (Bīt Ḫumria, House of Omri). It is from disposed northerners that the Samaritans descend. It is difficult to pinpoint exactly when the break between the Samaritans and the Jews occurred. The northern tribes and Judah were always a bit out of sync; often in Joshua and Judges you will see the phrase “Israel and Judah” as if they aren’t quite one entity. Things came to a head during the reign of Rehoboam, Solomon’s successor, when he not only refused to lighten the tax load but threatened to make it heavier. The northern tribes rebelled, following Jeroboam and became Israel while Judah stayed with Rehoboam. The two sides never really gotten along after that. Indeed it was King Ahaz of Judah buying off Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria that led to Israel’s ultimate demise. For the Samaritans, the schism took place even before there was ever a king. According to them, it began when the High Priest Eli, whom they do not like, going so far as to call him “the insidious one,” moved the Tabernacle from its rightful place on Mount Gerizim to Shiloh. For the Jews, the split happened on the other end of history’s spectrum. After the destruction of Samaria and the end of Israel 722/720 BC, the Assyrians initiated a massive and complex deportation program: a majority Israelites were mostly moved to Harhar and Kiššesim (western Iran), whose people were then moved to Assur (northern Ira q/Kurdistan), whose people were moved to Hamath (Syria), whose people were moved to Samaria. Get all that? (In truth, none of that is really necessary; I just really wanted to write that so humor me). The point is the people living in Samaria were a mixture of Israelites and foreigners and they began mixing, both racially and religiously. Thus the Jews viewed these people as half-breeds, which led to tensions after the Babylonian Exiles had returned (see Ezra and Nehemiah). It should be noted, however, that none of these people are called or identify themselves as Samaritans. This simply provides the backdrop for the blood feud, showing that tensions between the north (Samaria) and the south (Judea) had existed for quite some time. Religiously, the main (and virtually only) point of contention between the two was where the temple ought to be. The Samaritans believed it was supposed to be on Mount Gerizim, hearkening back to the Pentateuch’s command to read the Blessings and Curses from Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, sister hills that sandwich Shechem in between. Meanwhile the Jews held the temple ought to be in Jerusalem, pointing out their Davidic tradition (see Jesus discussion with the Woman at the Well in John 4). For several centuries after the return of the Exiles, the two lived in an uneasy peace with a temple on Gerizim (the remains of which can be seen today) and a temple at Jerusalem. However, in 110 BC during the Hasmonean period (started by the Maccabees), John Hyrcanus launched a campaign against the Samaritans which ended up destroying the Gerizim temple. Needless to say, the Samaritans never forgave the Jews for that and the Jews continued to look on the Samaritans as second-class, half-breeds. One would think from reading the New Testament, the Samaritans and Jews were totally different. In reality, however, they were virtually identical. The Samaritan religion is, for all intents and purposes, a sect of Judaism although neither side will admit it. The Samaritans have their own Pentateuch which is remarkably similar to the Jewish version, with the differences mainly orienting the place of worship to Gerizim over Jerusalem. The Samaritans do not accept the Prophet and Writings, nor do they accept any rabbinic literature. They do have their own synagogues which are identical in layout to the Jewish version, except they orient towards Gerizim, instead of Jerusalem. Fundamentally, the only real difference between the two is over where one ought to worship, something Jesus pointed out as being rather silly since God’s believers worship him in spirit anyway. It is odd how such simple differences can drive massive wedges between people so similar. Blood feuds are the nastiest and the Samaritans and Jews are no exception, disdaining each other to the point of refusing to interact if at all possible. Petty and pathetic; thank God Jesus doesn’t care about the petty stuff. But are we so different today? Churches split over the silliest of things, like worship style, ordination, or carpet color. As one who has seen the fallout from these splits, it seems the pettier the reason, the greater the animosity between the two sides. Somehow we seem to forget the Spirit of Christ is to rise above such differences. After all, if Jesus doesn’t care, why should we? The Samaritans still exist today, about 500 or so in number, centered around Nablus where the woman went to the well and Holon, which is a suburb of Tel Aviv. And so the blood feud lives on. References Pummer, Reinhard. 1997. Samaritans. Vol. IV, in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Ancient Near East, edited by Eric M. Meyers, 469-472. Oxford: Oxford University Press. View the full article