The meek or the ruthless: who prevails in the end?

dupe

I'm aware of other theories.

Maybe. Or you just find that those theories appeal to you. I doubt you've done anything more than read popularized accounts of the theories. Which is fine but it's not as if you're a scientist who's come to these theories through rigorous independent research. These alternatives to Darwin (and personal attacks on the man) are very popular in some circles, often among the political right and within conservative Christianity and Islam.

That's ridiculous. He doesn't "demand" anything. He describes a process which he took the trouble to observe in detail.

No, he merely mentioned the effect that human society has on the process of natural selection. I alluded to this yesterday when I said, "The strongest human can be felled by a weakling — whether armed with a gun or armed with a lawsuit."



Um, this isn't a secret, nor is it necessary to place a value judgment on it — it describes what we observe in the long process of human civilization. It's neither good nor bad.

I’ve noticed the most vocal about their “Christianity,” tend to espouse the exact opposite of what Christ preached.

Atheists merely aren’t convinced, right wing “Christians” do their level best to distort and pervert genuine Christianity.

If there’s a special place in Hell for anyone at all it’s for those buggers.

Or maybe the problem is you?

Maybe you conflate Christianity with a sort of altruism.

If missionaries came to America because all the lands overseas had finally all been converted but the US had gotten lost, this is what they would find.
Scores of people who when asked if they accept Jesus, talk about how they help the poor or work to prevent climate change.

Yes, but that is not following Jesus.

Jesus tells a man to pick up his pallet and walk. He tells people that the poor will always be with them but you won't always have me. He confronts those who demand easy miracles, often requiring people to defend their faith (such as the Canaanite woman who he told "it is not right to take the people's bread and throw it to the dogs." I've probably misquoted this, but the point is, she had to basically tell Jesus that she deserved mercy to, before he finally was like "nah I was just trolling you there.") or turning his back on those who thought themselves already righteous. You'll find plenty of supposed Christians claiming simplistic notions about how Christianity is all about helping people. Yet this sort of thing is nothing secular humanism can't do. Nor Judaism. Yet Jesus clearly had a problem with the help offered by Judaism, which is why he spent the better part of his life trying to reform it.

Did Jesus die because self-sacrifice is moral good? Then I guess you would demand that all Christians basically martyr themselves. Yeah, ummm no more Christianity. And in fact, when you cross from helping others into becoming a social justice warrior, this is basically what happens, you become divorced from God. Jesus died to redeem others. If it was only to sacrifice, then why was Isaac not killed?

God says that he desires that we have life and have it more abundantly. God says we are made in his image. God says what I have made clean do not declare unclean. But Jesus had to condemn the Jews because their focus was on Sabbath, and clean hands and washing pots, and sacrifice not mercy. "I desire mercy not sacrifice," God says in Hosea.

Most Christians think that Ayn Rand was a godless selfish asshole. But she actually admired Christianity and its idea of intrinsic worth. She just didn't admire many so-called Christians. And she was probably more on target than most of them, despite being non-religious. Who is Jesus? Well for Ayn Rand, he is John Galt.

http://www.seanedwards.com/christian-objectivism/

The poor will always be with you, but you will not always have me.
It's not about being righteous. It's about living your life fully.

Me no talk to monkey.

The meek will rule !

If it’s alright with everyone else.

...hahaha!
If they cry a lot they might rule us by despair.

The bible is full of errors, omissions and contradictions. Where do you want me to start?

The Bible is written by humans.

Humans are an intentionally imperfect creation.

You should start by asking yourself why a (supposedly) perfect God would create an imperfect creation.

And no, "perhaps God doesn't exist" is a theological copout. We're here, so something/someone put us here. Made us. So back to question one: if God is perfect, either this proves God isn't perfect or....

Or this is exactly how things are supposed to be.

What the Bible says: (Psalm 37:10, 11) Just a little while longer, and the wicked will be no more; You will look at where they were, And they will not be there.  But the meek will possess the earth, And they will find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.

Nobody prevails; everyone dies.

Just peas, what about carrots?

Yeah but the meek are going to have to clean up the pollution and fallout left behind by the rule of the ruthless.

One thing for the meek to consider is the deviousness of the ruthless. If I know the ruthless--and I certainly do--they'll probably create the illusion of having been defeated by the meek so as to give the meek enough time to clean the place up as best they can for themselves. And then when things on earth are looking pretty bright and promising, the ruthless will rise up and once again prove the point that the meek come in pretty handy and have their place.

True, everyone dies for now, but there's a cure for our inherent defect, the defect that scantiest have been working on since the beginning of death.
But there's something better than science, it's basic truth. The truth lies in sin, before sin man was able to live forever. Once sin, or our inherent defect is completely removed, we will be able to live as long as we want.
Problem is, not too many believe in this cure.

Funny you mentioned that, because the Bible does speak of a time when Satan or the ruthless will be released from prison and mislead the earth again.

(Revelation 20:1-3) And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven with the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. He seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for 1,000 years.  And he hurled him into the abyss and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not mislead the nations anymore until the 1,000 years were ended. After this he must be released for a little while.

(Revelation 20:7-10) Now as soon as the 1,000 years have ended, Satan will be released from his prison,  and he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Maʹgog, to gather them together for the war. The number of these is as the sand of the sea.  And they advanced over the whole earth and encircled the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city. But fire came down out of heaven and consumed them.  And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulfur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet already were; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Scantiest? Do you mean scientists?

And can't you see that this is also a sort of worship?

The universe is a created thing, and created by God. Just ask scientists.
https://www.secretsunlocked.org/science/science-proves-the-existence-of-god
I would sat actual scientists, because many of the frauds that pose as scientists today are darlings for media support, and what our leftist media wants is for another scientist to say there isn't a God. But to put it simply, you cannot there isn't a God without saying the word God (or similar). That's the equivalent of saying "there are no such things as ghosts" while standing in an old house and trembling. Who are you trying to convince?
But don't take my word for it.
https://www.livescience.com/63854-stephen-hawking-says-no-god.html
Let's take apart Hawkings, with his own statements.
- Hawkings says "if the rules of nature are fixed, what room is there for God?" Okay I'll bite, so he's saying that because things like weather and gravity happen with predictable patterns, because you know all about them, then you know there isn't a God. But isn't it awfully arrogant to decide that? What are the underpinnings of gravity? Why should this force work the way it does? How does snow work? (Lemme put it this way, we are told water evaporates at its boiling point, yet at its freezing point we have snow clouds) But even if we were to know everything about the weather (including how to cloud seed), the fact remains that these are processes that happen on their own. That is, we do not have to ask scientists to bring us rain. Because water is designed to collect in clouds. This is a system that is created that says water vapor on this Earth behaves in this way, and because of this system, crops are able to grow. Other planets do not have water, or it is too hot or too cold for rain to do its job. Knowing about something does not disprove its creation.
-Next , they say that he's a champion of the Big Bang theory. Only one problem there. While in the Theory of Everything movie, Hawking pretends that he invented the Big Bang, the actual inventor was Lemaitre, a Catholic priest and scientist, who clearly based it off the theory that the universe is created (not eternal, as previous scientists thought). In other words, these same scientists are borrowing from the Bible then turning around and dismissing God
-Then he once again says that the combined rules of gravity, relativity, quantum physics and a few other laws could explain everything. Refer back to my statement about the weather. Just because you "know everything" doesn't mean you know there is no room for God. Nor does knowledge equal disproof of God. That's like saying, "we know exactly how plants grow and thus there is no need for pixies to tap them with their wands." Besides being oddly specific, how do we not know that pixies aren't invisibly guiding the processes of photosynthesis with those same wands? Again, knowledge does not equal disproof.
-He then says if you were to invoke God that would be more of a definition of processes anyway, and we'd be looking at a sort of deism where God did his work them stepped back and watched things on autopilot. Okay, first of all, I don't have a problem with deism, but I also think that's not as true as he thinks. The Earth has withstood many extinction level events, and while life died, the crisis was straightened out. For example, our waterways become polluted with plastic. Fish die. Their decaying corpses create a high salt salt and high acid environment. Plastic breaks down into digestible carbon solutions. Acid-loving bacteria eat the excess. All this happens naturally, so he would probably say that God didn't do anything. But I don't have a problem with things happening naturally. There was a crisis before, now it's straightened out. In a few generations, fish will be back to normal. We humans have no lasting power on this Earth. But if things were really just deism, how was it able to take care of such a problem like that? Almost as if it adjusted...
-He then concedes that God may have flipped the switch for proton-sized singularity and allowed it to pop (but then defaults to secular deism)
-Most of the rest (too many to nitpick every point) is dedicated to saying there was no time before the Big Bang. "We finally found something that doesn't have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in." Yep, Hawking has won. Only he hasn't. Remember all those things he mentioned earlier? Gravity, relativity, quantum physics? Yes, uhhh. They all involve time. For a rock to fall requires seconds. So when you have a system that needs such physical forces, you have proven to everyone that Big Bang can only be explanable with the existence of a God.

Back to this assumption that "science will solve everything, and one dat we'll live forever." First of all, I wouldn't trust any cure science gave you. You'd either wind up having you bofy put in a robotic shell like the Daleks and Cybermen ( and thus no longer be human), or have your genes modified somehow (and no longer be human). The best and most natural approach would be simply to have regeneration procedure. Cells bounce back to youth. No need to dramatically alter the genes. But this does one of two things. It wears off, because there must be a kill switch to cell replication, and sooner or later, you are old again. Or cell replication continues. I once read a story about this man who had regeneration, and he was a mass of limbs by the end of it. More likely, though, what will kill you first, is that cancer cells behave this way. There is an inherent reason we die, our physical bodies aren't designed to last forever. Religion will solve your problem, by developing spiritual bodies. Science? Science has not cured the common cold.

I know science does not have all the answers and the reasons is, most won't acknowledge that everything created had a designer and that designer is God Almighty.
It's obvious that the more scientist (spelt it right this time) search for answerers they will come to know God.

The wise prevails in the end.

And who is wise?