Religions and supernatural beliefs are the enemy of world peace, as shown by 5000 years of war.

Today, Jews are equated with all of Israel in many circles. I don't. I view my Jewish family as possibly in the Tribe of Judah. The reason is that Judah returned to Jerusalem from captivity. Half of Benjamin as well. But, when the Northern kingdom of Israel, the other 10 tribes were carried away, they never returned and assimilated into the gentile world as well as perhaps other parts as well. Jews are mostly of Judah. To be Jewish is something else. To be Jewish is to take in the teachings of all Israel and all tribes as well.

You accurately point out a difference in the Old Law and the New Law with respect to deal with idols and idol worshipping. It's interesting that Israel wants to follow the New Law in today's world with respect to their neighbors. At the same time, not participate in the sacrificing of animals as well. In some ways, I think their hearts have changed but are also hardened in their stubborn traditions that keep them from accepting Jesus Christ as the Messiah.

As far as gays? Romans Chapter 1 is what the New Law says about homosexual behaviors. It's hard to outlaw certain behaviors. It's better to teach the correct truth and let people decide for themselves if they will follow the Lord's commandments. With that said, God has ordained man to set up worldly governments to keep from anarchy and have order in society. It's hard to do that and not step on personal freedoms.

 

Jews like African Americans, arent called Africans or Hebrews, the same way Italian Americans are sometimes called Italians. They are unique ethnic groups in that regard. Jews generally arent called Israelites and Israelites. Similar to African Americans who are more white than African immigrants and Africans, and Mestizos, Ashkenazi Jews are a mixed race ethnic group. Does your family believe you descend from Judah or Benjammin or Jerusalem or any paticular parts of Israel. Jewish sounds like Judah. To be Jewish means to one degree or another, havng a connection of Israel and its tribes or their teachings through Moses.

Do you think that the purpose of the Old Law had to do with pointing to the Messiah, or making Israel holy, or possibly giving them an ethno cultural religious identity? God is a jealous God, but he sometimes gives people a spouse because He knows that they are but flesh. What traditions do you think keep Jews from accepting Jesus Christ as the Messiah?

 

When the book of Romans says even their women, do you think that implies that its more of a choice in women? Meaning its less genetic in females?

 

If poverty is not imposed as stated, then tell us how it is imposed.

Your bitching, denial and complaining is not an argument.

Regards
DL

 

Poverty comes largely from external economic forces and sometimes from personal decisions outside the scope of current governmental action. Govt is mostly guilty of gross neglect in the face of those forces, as opposed to imposing them top down. There is a difference between being a contributing factor that exacerbates poverty where I think there is a case to be made, and being the direct cause.

 

Correct, like taxes.

Who sets the taxes and minimum wages if not governments?

Regards
DL

 

Lets see if you can think of other forces/ circumstances that may induce poverty on someone other than the two you mentioned. Let's see how broad your imagination can be, not how narrow it can be. I have trust in you. Make a list in which you are not cherry picking. I know 12 year olds that can do better than two.

Regards.

 

RE: Religions and supernatural beliefs are the enemy of world peace, as shown by 5000 years of war.
SUBTOPIC: Forces Influencing Poverty
⁜→ btthegreat, et al,

I read this forum almost every day; but, I seldom make a contribution. The quiet man lurking in the background. However, on this issue, I was moved to comment.

BLUF: There are several basket-full of factors (Economic, Social, Geographical, Resource Depletion, Production Technology Changes, Education, Environmental, Business Culture Changes, Political Corruption, Poor Leadership, Corporate Greed, etc) that can influence a trend towards poverty.

(COMMENT)

But, I think that many people see poverty as something they experience; and that experience is reflected in their perception of poverty.

When I was a young teenager, a significant number of my family worked in the steel industry. And when the steel mills in Pittsburgh failed to reinvest to upgrade production facilities, the mini-mills flourished and the mills where my family worked went under. Thousands lost their job overnight. No jobs - no income. No income - poverty. Now, we all know that this is just one anecdotal hard-luck story, out of the millions and millions that could be told. You could probably tell a few yourself.

When I came back from Vietnam, I could not find a job paying enough to feed my family. I had a college education and technical skills. But guess what, vacuum tubes were out, semi-conductor were the new thing, and America quit building TVs and Radios. Even today, much of the higher-tech commodities are outsourced.

( ∑Ω )

Yes, I suffered through Econ Courses at The Ohio State, and I can regurgitate the stock answers to economic and industrial models. But that doesn't put food on the table. My children went to college. But that did not save them from "under-employment" (not unemployment). I helped them buy a home so that they would not have to live in a trailer park like I did when the Aircraft Industry took a nosedive and my parents lost our home.

There is a huge difference between speaking academically about poverty and living in poverty. And the perceptions of the condition (poverty) is altered by that reality.

Just My two-cents worth...


Most Respectfully,
R

 

Of course there are other personal factors, goof.

The main reason is that the tax man sets the rates of poverty.

Think minimum wage laws and lose the personal garbage you spew.

Regards
DL

 

No argument that many factors contribute to poverty.

When in hard luck, you and yours relied on government dole etc. Right?

That is the government using the tax system and government tax handouts to the needy to determine just how poor you were going to be.

Regards
DL

 

Except nothing I wrote was 'personal garbage' I see poverty as a complex problem which involves external economic forces ( only some of which are govt induced via taxes or minimum wages). Global Macro economic cycles exist and they produce economic havoc personal situations, and personal choices .

 

A comprehensive study by Charles Phillips & Alan Axelrod in their 3 volume history the 'Encyclopedia of Wars' noted that out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts (as of 2005, the date of publication) only 123, or 6.98% of all wars had religion as the primary driver of the conflict! Other studies produce similar results. So you are WRONG (well 93% wrong).

Facts, learn what they are, then try using some - its fun!

 

No argument.

The tax system is still the main factor and key to the poverty door.

It would decide how much havoc will enter the poor persons life.

Regards
DL

 

Let's look at facts.

How many wars since 2005 were begun by countries where the vast majority were not religious?

None. Right?

Or are you suggesting that the minority of atheists manipulated the religious to go to war?

Further. Try all 5,000 years of history instead of just recent history, or trying to say that the religious were manipulated by the minority of non-religious.

Regards
DL

 

No.

What I'm saying as per my original post is that even since 2005 religion has not been the primary driver of wars in the regions concerned. Nor were they before that. Look at any nation or region on the map where wars have been fought the last couple of decades (or earlier) and you see these key elements;

1) Widespread inter-generational poverty;
2) Huge disparities in income distribution;
3) Endemic corruption;
4) High birth rates & infant mortality;
5) The lack of a functioning legal system and the hence the rule of law;
6) The failure of the State to provide even basic levels of service (medical care/education etc) and/or the gradual breakdown and failure of those services that were provided previously due to gross mismanagement;
7) Persistent economic decline/stagnation;
8 ) Historical territorial disputes (Your ancestors beat my ancestors 100 years ago so now I have to beat you -(usually used by desperate politicians as a means of maintaining or gaining power).

Place those elements together and eventually the State fails - leading to civil war which in turn then drags in other nationals nearby in an attempt to stabilize the situation and/or gain some for of political advantage form the mess.

You can even chart the drop in wars against economic development. There's a clear link. As global poverty declines and developing nations built up infrastructure and services the number of wars drops. Its still dropping. The numbers are irrefutable. There's a site called 'Our World in Data' that might help clarify this issue for you.

So find one recent war where most or all of these factors haven't been at play. Then look at nations that don't have those factors but still have extensive religious minorities. How many wars has Brazil started recently or Ireland for that matter?

In summary? I could take a perfectly functioning nation of red headed atheists - drop most of the above factors into play in their country over successive generations and still reach a point where the socioeconomic pressures lead to State failure and war. That doesn't make being 'ginger' a prime indicator of your propensity for violence!

 

RE: Religions and supernatural beliefs are the enemy of world peace, as shown by 5000 years of war.
SUBTOPIC: Forces Influencing Poverty
⁜→ Greatest I am, et al,

(ANSWER)

Short Answer: NO (Remembering that Unemployment Compensation is a compulsory governmental insurance system, not taxes on individual citizens.)


Most Respectfully,
R

 

Stats belie what you think.



The vast majority has always claim religious affiliations and to suggest that most wars are nor religiously driven, is to try to say that the minority manipulated the majorities.

Look at all of our 5,000 years of war history, not just a little piece that suits your foolish thinking.

Regards
DL

 

So is ours. We get it from the government.

I am not surprised if your country left it to private enterprise. More bribe money from that quarter.

You do not seem to recognize that a user fee, forced by your government, is the same as paying taxes.

Regards
DL

 

So that's you overpowering evidence is it? One snippet from a single website listing a single year's statistical weighting on a 'peace index'. As opposed to the evidence I offered i.e. a detailed analysis of every single war in recorded history? And you accuse me of foolish thinking. Lets just look at the flaws in your ... err case is being overly generous we'll use that word rather than some of the accurate terms I can think of that might be banned on this site.

Firstly, did you even bother to run any of the factors I listed in my post across the list of countries concerned. No. If you had you would see all but Saudi Arabia are currently subject to several of the stresses from my list and have been in most cases for decades. Are you seriously suggesting Afghanistan or Yemen don't meet those parameters? And even in the Saudi's case you have deliberately or other wise chosen to ignore the point I made about case you ignore the point I raised about other nearby nations being drawn into conflicts 'in an attempt to stabilize the situation and/or gain some for of political advantage'. Which fits the Saudi's current military endeavors to a tee. And even it its case there's no evidence to suggest the Saudi governments military intervention has popular support amongst the general population. If its there you find it. I couldn't.

Secondly you 'cherry picked' only those countries on the list that supported your case ignoring counties with large religious minorities, even perhaps majorities that don't meet your requirements. I listed a couple previously. So that's just wishful thinking on your part not evidence. Its also scientifically dishonest. Come back your your own detailed historical analysis and you might actually have a point.

Thirdly you have deliberately or not chosen to completely misinterpret my point. Populations can be 'manipulated' into conflict by ambitious leaders, yes. But, as I put it but in the absence of the drivers I listed previously the ability of the manipulators to start armed conflict is severely limited. Stability and prosperity a strong counters to civil unrest, always have been and always will be. In fact if history shows us anything its that wars are mainly driven by a competition for scarce resources (like in most species).

So if those doing the 'manipulating' as you call it are going to start a war and lead an otherwise peaceful country into armed conflict one of more of the drivers I listed plus a need for resources have to be in play. The manipulators also have to find levers that will tend to overcome any populations normal reluctance to engage in mass violence.

And those levers are almost always a combination of any of the following;

- previous historical grievances i.e. a history of conflict with neighboring states leading to a perception that those countries are a threat;
- racial differences,
- ideological/political differences;
- a perceived need for resources (land/water) etc; and
- religious differences. (last on the list - which as previously proven is the main driver in about 7% of historical conflicts after all of the above)

Yo initiate a conflict you generally need to make the population think in terms of 'us' and 'them' with 'them' being differentiated by one of the above.

Unfortunately for you, to date you haven't provided any conclusive evidence to support your contention about religion begin the route cause of conflict. Which makes it a prejudice not a fact. And if a theist was to allege that somehow atheism was responsible for most of the worlds violent or anti-social behavior without (like you) producing any evidence to support their argument I'd say the same thing to them.

 

I am sure you did a good job. It is just that your conclusions are wrong.

Look at the long view.

We begin 25,000 years ago and see relative peace and harmony without the need of fortified cities, --- under female gods. A naturalist religion with males revering females.

Then, when metals are discovered, we had better and easier ways of killing each other, and did, and thus the fortified cities are invented for defence. All under the male gods of war, like Yahweh/Allah.

%,000 years of war and you want to focus on what, 2%.

Seriously?

I can give you that for much of our last 5,000 moving towards the present, church and state were connected at the hip, but the vast numbers of us are instinctively tribal and because of substance dualism, will run to a church before we run to the king.

That condition has only recently passed the tipping point and all religions will eventually die. Secularism has made religions redundant.

Regards
DL

 

sure because they used a voodoo form of sorcery to terrify them into subservience. Then I suppose atheists came along and ruined for them.

 

OK, firstly if I may it appears you've shifted the goal posts (again) by choosing to now argue your case solely based on an entirely different span of human history. Presumably because after having lost the argument the argument by referencing the original period.

So to begin with a list of flaws in your argument;

- Warfare in the neolithic age (and earlier) ; https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news...toric-massacre-extends-the-history-of-warfare

- or this one? https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news...toric-massacre-extends-the-history-of-warfare

- or that old standby Wikipedia; 'The most ancient archaeological record of what could have been a prehistoric massacre is at the site of Jebel Sahaba, committed by the Natufians against a population associated with the Qadan culture of far northern Sudan. The cemetery contains a large number of skeletons that are approximately 13,000 to 14,000 years old, almost half of them with arrowheads embedded in their skeletons, which indicates that they may have been the casualties of warfare'





Indeed the painting above (dated to about 3000 to 5000 BCE is an image of people, what was the term you used" 'living together in peace and harmony' not.

- or how about an analogue for 'pre-historic' warfare that was documented; https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195071986.001.0001/acref-9780195071986-e-0618

The above link relates to warfare in native American cultures prior to and after the arrival of Europeans. FYI I have referenced this particular group of cultures because they are, as a group, better better documented than others,
not because the native Americans were somehow more warlike than other per-contact cultures. In fact prehistoric warfare has been documented on every continent on Earth except Antarctica (for obvious reasons). The chief limitation being population density. Harsh climates/low population densities reduce the chance of hostile interaction to the point where regular bouts of organized violence become rare.

Next point. The neolithic revolution and the founding of the first permanent villages, towns and later cities in the fertile crescent and elsewhere predates the smelting of metal by about 5000 years or so. And in fact was based on one key element the discovery of agriculture. Only the discovery of organized farming generated the food reserves needed for large static populations and the subsequent diversion of labor. The forging of metals had nothing too do with the foundation of the first towns.

Next point ' We begin 25,000 years ago and see relative peace and harmony without the need of fortified cities, --- under female gods. A naturalist religion with males revering females.' This statement completely lacks any supporting evidence. You are sighting the verified existence of female fertility figures etc as proof of the existence of female dominated religious practices. Firstly, proving one thing (the existence female orientated religious beliefs) does not automatically disprove the existence of male orientated religious beliefs. Indeed there is evidence of male spiritual beliefs in the archeological record as well. (Can be sited if needed.)

Next you have zero evidence linking the relative lack of prehistoric warfare to a particular set of religious beliefs (male or female or anything else). That's just pure supposition/wishful thinking on your part. The reason for the lack of evidence is internationally accepted among paleontologists/anthropologists etc. It is also blindingly obvious.
In prehistoric times the human population density was so low and humans so widely dispersed accross the planet that the opportunities prior to the foundation of the first villages for organized warfare were extremely rare. Oh it happened, (as documented in that little painting) but it was rare! Secondly with such limited populations and lack of advanced artifacts/metals etc the chance of ever finding the evidence is also equally rare. Simply put? You won't fight your neighbor very often if he lives 5 days hike away and you have to find food every day just to survive. And that's assuming you even want to fight!

So there you have it. Not a female dominating religious culture of peace love and mung beans. Simple numbers. Lastly - the reason I used the academic study I referred to originally was because it used all wars in documented history . And therefore could be evidence based. You just shifted the goal posts to undocumented history, presumably because it would prevent this from occurring again. Wrong.

 

Atheists? Not likely are there were likely none. Not openly anyway.

Prosperity was likely a big factor. More to fight over.

Regards
DL