From a historical Judio-Christian context, is the world more evil
today than it was two thousand years ago? Please site facts and
statistics.

---

Request for Question Clarification by justaskscott-ga on 16 Oct 2002 22:30 PDT

What specifically do you mean by "a historical Judeo-Christian
context"?  Are you interested in the relative evilness of the world
from the perspective of fundamental Judeo-Christian values (for
example, the Ten Commandments)?

What kinds of statistics do you want in the answer?

---

Clarification of Question by chunke-ga on 16 Oct 2002 23:30 PDT

Basically from a Jewish/Christian perspective, the evil in the 'last
days' will match the degree of evil in Noah's day (prior to the
flood). What statistics can be given to prove that the world/mankind
is getting more evil over its existence, instead of becoming more
good. So, yes, from a fundamental Judeo-Christian value perspective,
is the world becoming better or worse? These values include: contempt
for God, adultery, murder, greed, stealing, lying, etc.

---

Request for Question Clarification by digsalot-ga on 17 Oct 2002 08:16 PDT

Hi chunke

From your last clarification, it sounds as though you do not want any
kind of an objective answer from a researcher, but an answer that
supports your already established beliefs.  Is that true?

In your list of examples, you list the first 'crime' (word mine) as
"Contempt for God."  That alone takes this question out of the
"objective" category and turns it into straight theology, a study in
which 'objectivity' is the first victim.

---

Clarification of Question by chunke-ga on 17 Oct 2002 09:51 PDT

Ok- Judeo-Christians often make assertions that the world is
digressing in terms of morality.

What evidence is there to support this assertion? Obviously we don't
have statistics of worldwide murder rates for the last 1000 years.
This isn't a theological or philisophical question- its simply seeking
support for the assertion that Jews/Christians make. I can see holes
in the assertion, I don't need these pointed out. What logical or
factual arguements are there that supports this Judeo Christian
viewpoint?

---

Request for Question Clarification by shananigans-ga on 18 Oct 2002 05:19 PDT

Isn't the answer to this question sort of a given? Unless everyone in
the world 'back then' was totally evil, there is more evil in the
world today simply because there are more people around to have evil
thoughts.

---

Request for Question Clarification by journalist-ga on 19 Oct 2002 10:11 PDT

Because evil is based on perception, could you define evil?  For
instance, I beieve the acts Hitler sanctioned were evil but he and his
agreeing cohorts probably didn't think they were evil at all.

The statistics must be considered on a per capita basis. God doesn't
tally based on groups, but on individuals.
It would be difficult to measure evil thoughts, but number of evil
actions(for today) could be realistically estimated. Idle hands are
the devils playground is a truism, put in other words, as freedom to
choose increases(more time, money, tolerance), more and more people
will choose evil. In this man's opinion the world today is 2 hours of
freedom per day + 20 hours on the weekends(ish) / 6 hours of freedom
2000 years ago(includes opportunities to do evil) = 5 times more evil
today. If humanity can be buffered from reality (subsidised food and
housing, cheap material goods), world humanty should be able to
achieve 90%-99% evil(estimated on the number of people willing to do
whats right and damn the consequences(BTW most of those that would
damn the consequences are ignorant, not good(ignorant not as a put
down, but as its true meaning)). Complete reality buffering will
probably require infrastructural development throughout the world, a
guesstimate would be 150 years; so I would guess we will achieve
almost total evilness within 200 years.

One of the biggest problems with either affirming or repudiating your
thesis is the fact that, while just about everything these days is
tracked statistically, up until about 200 years ago the
communications, tracking, reporting, and recording technology did not
exist in any kind of sufficient form to create comparative statistics.
Therefore any comparison between now and "then" (regardless of what
"then" you choose) must by nature be merely apocryphal (of doubtful
authenticity).

People in olden times did quite a bit of lying, stealing, adultering,
raping, murdering, and pillaging. We just don't have any kind of
quantitative data to make a comparison to the amount of those same
nasty things going on today. My personal opinion is summarized by the
old French adage "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose" (The more
things change, the more things stay the same). I don't think the level
of evil has gotten any worse. We just notice it more because we're
actually keeping track now.

Can't believe I'm stepping into this morass...

But I am because I have argued for many years that the world is indeed
becoming less evil (just call me Shirley Temple). I don't make this
argument based on (nonexistent) statistics, but rather on observations
regarding social behavior, and, believe it or not, the positive
influence of improving technology.

Going back only a couple of hundred years, and looking from there to
the dawn of humanity, things such as slavery and racism were almost
universally accepted. While those uglinesses still exist to much too
great an extent, they are no longer the norm in every region of the
world. Much of humanity has come to grasp that active oppression of
whole groups of people is a poor social strategy. Just think how
different the world would look today if Columbus, a man not known for
such enlightened views, had not believed slavery a normal function of
a "superior" society (imagine the U.S. with a Native American
majority). So, while slavery still exists, can you name any country in
the world where it is officially sanctioned?

The concept of empire, as once embodied by the English, the Turks, the
Italians, the Chinese, and any number of others, doesn't wash anymore
although the Germans and Japanese test drove it in recent memory. We
are moving, sometimes with insufficient vigor, toward a global
philosophy of universal human rights. The philosophy of Empire,
wherein one country/group/race dominates and exploits many others is
moving toward extinction. We have a very long way to go as Bosnia,
Rwanda, and many other places remind us, but we are slowly getting
there.

Here are other examples of changes in our talk if not always in our
walk that show a slow, but demonstrable, diminishment of evil in the
world:

   - the status of women is moving toward that which men have always
accorded themselves
   - the use of torture as normal treatment of prisoners has lessened
and is widely reviled (study the Middle Ages use of that technology if
you don't believe it)
   -  few religions now condone forced conversion (Native Americans
once had their hands chopped off by their Spanish conquerors if they
would not accept Christianity)
   -  far more nations now boast a political model wherein all
citizens have at least some say in their government
   -  The Simpsons is still on the air

It is discouraging that we continue to take that step backward for
every two forward. For every accomplishment such as the United Nations
which offers, if not a panacea, at least a forum for discussion, there
is an al-Queda. And, with the turmoil in the world body politic today,
it's easy to lose sight of how far we've come. That is one reason
history is so important. It is not only a guide to mistakes we ought
to avoid, it is also a report card showing us we are making progress,
however glacially.

One of the reasons we have made notable progress in the last couple of
hundred years is the rapid improvement in the technology of
communications and travel. It is now customary for news of events in
almost any part of the world to be globally disseminated within
minutes rather than days or months (and sometimes never). It's now
much harder for people to hide evil deeds. Vietnam is sometimes called
the first "media war" - that is to say, its misery and destruction
were available for viewing almost real-time on television evening news
right in most people's homes. Anyone who does not believe those
horrible images didn't hold the politicians prosecuting it more
accountable and help bring about a quicker end to the conflict wasn't
there at the time (Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were unable to
respond coherently to the demand: "Remind us again what we're doing
here"). Other recent examples of the benefits of better illumination
of the deeds of evil men, such as in Bosnia, abound.

When I was a kid growing up in Texas, New York City and its denizens
were regularly ridiculed - we thought it must be a dreadful place. You
don't hear that kind of talk around here anymore - haven't in years.
Why? Because (1) we see a lot more of NYC (and its Blue) on TV and in
movies, and more importantly (2) with the proliferation of affordable,
fast air travel since WWII, a lot more Texans have been there and
discovered what a great city it is. We have, through personal or
electronic association, become comfortable with the place and the
people who live there. That same phenomenon is occurring on a global
scale. It is slower to manifest, but it's happening. It is no
coincidence that Osama bin Laden, though rich, has hardly visited the
West he so loathes. It is harder to hate and destroy people you've
spent time with.

As is probably obvious, I could expound ad nauseum, but the point is
made. I believe, in spite of all the nastiness we see in the newspaper
every day, in spite of renewed prospects of war, in spite of suicide
bombers and all the rest, that trait which makes us human - the
ability to contemplate consequences and act accordingly - is slowly
becoming more dominant. It must be remembered that man, as we define
that creature, has only been in existence for the blink of a geologic
eye. Perfection takes time.

I shall now post this and wait for the inevitable dissent arguing that
technology is not our salvation, but, indeed, will ultimately cause
our destruction :)

Ooo, ericynot, that response was so cogent and well-reasoned, you gave
me goosebumps! I would really like to hope that you are right!

In response to your last clarification post, chunke, I don't think you
can find much in the way of logical or factual arguments that support
this Judeo-Christian viewpoint -- or the opposing viewpoint, for that
matter. It is by nature a philosophical question. And in my
experience, most people who believe that the day of Revelations is
rapidly approaching aren't open to logical and factual arguments.

The solution to your question could be found by tracking down one of
Jehovah's Witnesses and asking them to bring you literature that
proves that we are living in "The Last Days". I am a former Jehovah's
Witness, and I know that they have publications filled with evidence
that the world is more "evil" since 1914, the year they believe Satan
was cast from heaven and onto earth.

Hi,

Please remember in answering this question and commenting on it that
from a "Judeo-Christian" perspective, what God thinks is evil may be
different from what we think is evil. According to the bible, God is
angered by sin which is turning out back on God. The present evil in
the world is a result of mankind's sin. So any analysis of the evil in
the world must be judged from what God defines as sin and evil and not
from what society's definition.

For example, society might think that the ease with which married
couples can get divorced these days is an improvement to society. But
according to the bible, God thinks that marriage is for life since its
a joining of the flesh of two people and to divorce them is to break
what God has joined. Read Mark 10:1-12.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Mark+10

So please work out what God thinks is evil before working out whether
the world has become a less evil place from the "Judeo-Christian"
perspective.

Thanks for the question and comments,

Jenjerina-ga

Well to be quite frank, "sin" is an archery term meaning "to miss the
mark".

Since the new Testament is now in effect there is really "less sin"
than before the New Testament, since your view of sin is something
that is angering God and not forgiven by God. And as you say,
Biblically, "sin" was not a particular action but the motivation
behind that action. For instance, murder was a sin, unless of course
God told you to go kill those 3000 members of a heathen race, and then
it was okay. In fact he helped you do it. Adultery, and incest was a
sin, unless God got you drunk and told your daughters to sleep with
you, so that your name would carry on, since he just wiped out your
whole family and turned your wife into a pillar of salt.

Put into this context, we have no way of researching this, even if we
had perfect stats all the way back to God's first light. The stats
would not show motivation or God's intervention, so any conclusion
based on this definition would be false, unless the Researcher could
claim to know God's thoughts.

So the question is flawed in logic. We can not define sin, as it says
in the Bible, Judgment is Mine sayith the Lord. If we can not define
it, then we can not compare it to points in history.

webadept-ga