No trace of human DNA or Deity DNA found in local eucharist

[learnedSloth]

Recent advances in forensic science have prompted creation of cold case units to re-examine the evidence. One of the detectives that was hired for the work is J. Warner Wallace, who used to be atheist, but at the age of 35 he investigated the Gospels with the same methods he uses to scrutinize purported eyewitness accounts. He wrote Cold-Case Christianity, in which he explains the methodology and why he now believes that Jesus rose from the dead.

[CaptainFritz28]

Recent advances in forensic science have prompted creation of cold case units to re-examine the evidence. One of the detectives that was hired for the work is J. Warner Wallace, who used to be atheist, but at the age of 35 he investigated the Gospels with the same methods he uses to scrutinize purported eyewitness accounts. He wrote Cold-Case Christianity, in which he explains the methodology and why he now believes that Jesus rose from the dead.

Similar to Lee Strobel with The Case for Christ, and Lew Wallace with Ben-Hur.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I'll respond to this later, as I don't have the time to do so today, but I just wanted to say that I find it funny that every one of these arguments I have heard before numerous times, and each time they have the same flaws.

I look forward to your defense of the empirical truth of a thing that probably did not happen and, even if it did happen, is unprovable :)

I'm obviously butting in to a prolonged ongoing debate that I don't believe I'm entirely qualified to argue in, me being rather young and inexperienced, as well as me not being a theologian or philosopher or anything of the sort. However, in response to Esquire's short comment here, I'd like to say that yes, the Resurrection and Christianity as a whole is probably unprovable with empirical evidence. I'll concede that point. However, I think you're missing the point. The Bible is not a scientific research paper about how Christ rose from the dead (which I firmly believe) and, naturally, does not have a thorough list of academic sources to back it up. It is commonly accepted to have hundreds of witness accounts into the events shortly after the Resurrection, and for ancient times I'll take it. The Bible is God's message of his tremendous love for his people, and his plan to always work for them and be with them, even when they stumble and fall, even when the forsake him and each other and make horrible mistakes. The Bible shows us an alternative way to live - a way of love for each other and for God, modeled off what Jesus said. However, I'm distracting from the point I want to make here.

Suppose you're right. Suppose that Jesus was just a dude and wasn't the son of God at all. Suppose that all the eyewitnesses lied and none of this ever happened, and suppose that God isn't even real at all, and I'm following a foolish outdated belief system. To that I show you a piece of writing that I think sums it up well from CS Lewis, in chapter 12 of The Silver Chair

For some context, this is said by Puddleglum, a character in his book, as him and the other protagonists are facing the Witch of the Underworld, and beginning to lose faith that there is even an Overworld (which they just were in) at all. I think it's not hard to pick up on the allegories in this passage of Underworld = Earth, Overworld/Narnia = Heaven, Aslan = God, etc.

"Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things--trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland."

And I think that sums up the point pretty well - if this is really it, well I'm going to live with the hope of an all-loving God, and an everlasting life with him in Heaven when I pass, because man that sounds so much better than this planet. I firmly believe that God is there and loves us and Jesus rose from the dead, and I have faith in what he's said, and even if it's all false I'm going to live like it's the Truth, because it's the only hope I really have in this world. I don't feel the need for empirical evidence to back up my faith, I already have all the evidence I need.

I'm not an anti-Christian and I'm very happy you and many others get value from your beliefs. That is exactly why I think the quest to "prove" everything in the Bible as being literally true is a misguided effort. Whether or not these miracles happened is a matter of faith, these stories are valuable metaphors regardless of their empirical truth, and it is simply impossible to produce rigorous evidence of a one-time miraculous event even if it actually happened.

I don't think I'm missing the point of Christianity. I've seen many believing Christians get a ton of value from their faith. The point I'm trying to make is that Christians who are very eager to prove the scientific basis of their faith claims might be missing the point.

[CaptainFritz28]

I look forward to your defense of the empirical truth of a thing that probably did not happen and, even if it did happen, is unprovable :)

I'm obviously butting in to a prolonged ongoing debate that I don't believe I'm entirely qualified to argue in, me being rather young and inexperienced, as well as me not being a theologian or philosopher or anything of the sort. However, in response to Esquire's short comment here, I'd like to say that yes, the Resurrection and Christianity as a whole is probably unprovable with empirical evidence. I'll concede that point. However, I think you're missing the point. The Bible is not a scientific research paper about how Christ rose from the dead (which I firmly believe) and, naturally, does not have a thorough list of academic sources to back it up. It is commonly accepted to have hundreds of witness accounts into the events shortly after the Resurrection, and for ancient times I'll take it. The Bible is God's message of his tremendous love for his people, and his plan to always work for them and be with them, even when they stumble and fall, even when the forsake him and each other and make horrible mistakes. The Bible shows us an alternative way to live - a way of love for each other and for God, modeled off what Jesus said. However, I'm distracting from the point I want to make here.

Suppose you're right. Suppose that Jesus was just a dude and wasn't the son of God at all. Suppose that all the eyewitnesses lied and none of this ever happened, and suppose that God isn't even real at all, and I'm following a foolish outdated belief system. To that I show you a piece of writing that I think sums it up well from CS Lewis, in chapter 12 of The Silver Chair

For some context, this is said by Puddleglum, a character in his book, as him and the other protagonists are facing the Witch of the Underworld, and beginning to lose faith that there is even an Overworld (which they just were in) at all. I think it's not hard to pick up on the allegories in this passage of Underworld = Earth, Overworld/Narnia = Heaven, Aslan = God, etc.

"Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things--trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland."

And I think that sums up the point pretty well - if this is really it, well I'm going to live with the hope of an all-loving God, and an everlasting life with him in Heaven when I pass, because man that sounds so much better than this planet. I firmly believe that God is there and loves us and Jesus rose from the dead, and I have faith in what he's said, and even if it's all false I'm going to live like it's the Truth, because it's the only hope I really have in this world. I don't feel the need for empirical evidence to back up my faith, I already have all the evidence I need.

I'm not an anti-Christian and I'm very happy you and many others get value from your beliefs. That is exactly why I think the quest to "prove" everything in the Bible as being literally true is a misguided effort. Whether or not these miracles happened is a matter of faith, these stories are valuable metaphors regardless of their empirical truth, and it is simply impossible to produce rigorous evidence of a one-time miraculous event even if it actually happened.

I don't think I'm missing the point of Christianity. I've seen many believing Christians get a ton of value from their faith. The point I'm trying to make is that Christians who are very eager to prove the scientific basis of their faith claims might be missing the point.

Ok. With what you had said elsewhere I thought you believed differently. I think we have both been misrepresenting what we actually mean quite a lot, and I'll apologize for that on my end. I also must apologize for some of the things I've said personally about you - much of that was rash and I was a bit frustrated with going in circles.

I guess I just have one question that kind of sums up the whole argument, as I think a good portion of our argumentation, especially on the other threads, has been two ships passing in the night, leading us to say the same things over again without really getting at the core of the argument.

Would you agree, or would you disagree, that the Bible itself, not interpretations of it but the Bible itself, is a good standard on which to base one's morals?

If the answer is yes, then I assume that you are not a Christian because you don't see empirical evidence for it.
If the answer is no, what specifically about it is not good?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Would you agree, or would you disagree, that the Bible itself, not interpretations of it but the Bible itself, is a good standard on which to base one's morals?

If the answer is yes, then I assume that you are not a Christian because you don't see empirical evidence for it.
If the answer is no, what specifically about it is not good?

The Bible is only a book. It's contents can only be understood by human readers. Those readers, by necessity, will need to interpret the text. There is no objective reading of the text, which is not even written in such a way to reduce subjectivity. Who gets the final say on what the moral of the story is for each parable? Who gets to say what parts of the Bible to focus on and which parts to gloss over? Who adjudicates the moral and factual contradictions in the Bible?

Does the Bible have some good moral advice? Absolutely. It also has some moral advice that you'd want to take with a grain of salt as well (especially if you're an Old Testament fan). The same is true for the moral advice you might get from another religious text, some non-religious moral philosophy, or the wisdom of friends and family.

IMO, if you are genuinely oriented towards living your life according Jesus' teachings on love and obeying the 10 commandments (de-prioritizing the ones about making God jealous, and making some discernment about when to disobey your parents), then you're probably about as moral as one can get. But this is a very specific way to interpret Scripture, these priorities are not identical to the faith priorities of many other Christian, and even strict adherence to this approach wouldn't guarantee living a moral life or making 100% moral decisions. Even a simple and minor practical ethical question like what share of my income should I give to charity in 2023 requires some moral thinking beyond strict biblical adherence or, at a minimum, some subjective assessment that weighs various ethical principles from the Bible.

Christian belief also isn't the only way to get to these basic moral principles. Every major religion + some secular traditions independently found their way to some version of "treat others how you would like to be treated", and "value inherent human dignity and equality". Jesus wasn't the first to get there and he and his supporters were inspired by proto- and pre-Christian ideas.

And living this way isn't morally good just because it comports with at least one interpretation of the Bible (which of course you're allowed to view as a positive), but because living this way also seems to reliably improve people's lives and the lives of those around them.

In practice, Christian belief has had a real mixed effect on the morality of its adherents. The Crusaders *were* Christians (in their self-concept, in the eyes of their enemies, etc.) and, even if they were practicing what you view as a bastardization of Christianity, it demonstrates the extent to which genuine believing Christians reading the same Bible can get totally different interpretation. A lot of disgusting bigotry against gays is justified scripturally. A whole variety of views about the role of women, some of which I find to be barbaric, have scriptural basis and Christian-identifying adherents. Even if it turned out that these views were a valid part of some objective interpretation of the Bible (like literally God comes down and tells us), I would still say they're not morally good because they have bad impacts on people.

[CaptainFritz28]

Thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately, it looks like I won't be convincing you any time soon. I could respond to everything in your last post, but I have a pretty good idea how you would respond, and while I could refute that too, it just wouldn't get us anywhere. To properly have a detailed debate about these things, we would need to meet in person, but online it just takes too much of my time to write and post and respond, etc.; where I could say things in 10 minutes it takes me 45 minutes to write.

Anyways, I'll respond to some final things in the other threads, and I'll respond in this thread to what I said I would respond to yesterday, but after that I'll call it good.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately, it looks like I won't be convincing you any time soon. I could respond to everything in your last post, but I have a pretty good idea how you would respond, and while I could refute that too, it just wouldn't get us anywhere. To properly have a detailed debate about these things, we would need to meet in person, but online it just takes too much of my time to write and post and respond, etc.; where I could say things in 10 minutes it takes me 45 minutes to write.

Anyways, I'll respond to some final things in the other threads, and I'll respond in this thread to what I said I would respond to yesterday, but after that I'll call it good.

You clearly have a strong belief that your morality is *the* right one, but you don't have many good arguments to convince anyone else that (i) the Bible has only one interpretation, (ii) that you know this interpretation perfectly and can easily identify the falseness of any alternative interpretations, and (iii) that this interpretation is the sole source of proper moral thinking.

I remain deeply unconvinced on all three points, even while agreeing with you that lots of Christian moral philosophy is actually quite useful.

While there's probably no changing your mind, I hope you at least marinate on the idea that other smart Christians probably disagree with you on ethics and that, if you're motivated at all by a desire to change the minds of people who don't share your exact same faith tradition, you're going to need different arguments than "the Bible provides perfect moral guidance, so long as you interpret it exactly as I do".

[CaptainFritz28]

While there's probably no changing your mind, I hope you at least marinate on the idea that other smart Christians probably disagree with you on ethics and that, if you're motivated at all by a desire to change the minds of people who don't share your exact same faith tradition, you're going to need different arguments than "the Bible provides perfect moral guidance, so long as you interpret it exactly as I do".

The fact that others disagree with me, be they Christian or not, does not prove my position false.

Sure, others have different interpretations. I'm glad to debate those interpretations. If you want to debate the nuance of Christian theology I will. Perhaps that is what you mean by the three points you brought up. The fact that there are multiple interpretations doesn't mean one of them isn't right.

My claim is that my interpretation is the most correct one. Otherwise I wouldn't believe it. However, I do not claim to understand the Bible perfectly. I believe there is a perfect interpretation, and that mine is the closest with what I know.

My interpretation is based off of taking the Bible literally, except for the passages which are clearly poetry, such as the Song of Solomon. When it may seem to contradict itself, my method is to look at the context, both scriptural and historical, and determine the meaning through that.

Ultimately, though, when we compare the Bible to Atheism, we get this:
Atheism provides no standard on which to base one's morals. Each individual must determine their own methodology for determining that standard and then the standard itself. Some personal standards agree on points, at which point people join themselves together into societies. However, there is no way to reconcile one society's standard to another's other than fighting it out, leading to the conclusion that those who are stronger determine morality.

Christianity provides a moral standard already perfect, given to us by the creator of the universe. We may interpret that wrongly, we may incorrectly use it to justify evil, we may claim to hold to it while disobeying it, but it stands nonetheless.

[JECE]

While there's probably no changing your mind, I hope you at least marinate on the idea that other smart Christians probably disagree with you on ethics and that, if you're motivated at all by a desire to change the minds of people who don't share your exact same faith tradition, you're going to need different arguments than "the Bible provides perfect moral guidance, so long as you interpret it exactly as I do".

My interpretation is based off of taking the Bible literally, except for the passages which are clearly poetry, such as the Song of Solomon. When it may seem to contradict itself, my method is to look at the context, both scriptural and historical, and determine the meaning through that.

Ultimately, though, when we compare the Bible to Atheism, we get this:
Atheism provides no standard on which to base one's morals. Each individual must determine their own methodology for determining that standard and then the standard itself. Some personal standards agree on points, at which point people join themselves together into societies. However, there is no way to reconcile one society's standard to another's other than fighting it out, leading to the conclusion that those who are stronger determine morality.

For somebody who believes in the Bible so strongly, I find it curious that you don't see how the pen can be mightier than the sword.

[CaptainFritz28]

Because people with a faith commitment to believe something regardless of the facts are poor sources for empirical evidence.

How about people with a faith commitment to believe something because of the evidence? They had nothing to gain by believing it, but they did so anyways. They had a reason.

I've been deep underground and saw a burrowing falcon made of tungsten. Three of my buddies saw it too. Of course we're the advocates for underground metal birds - you'd be one too if you'd seen it.

If I had four written accounts of this, from four separate people from all over a continent, and none of them contradicted the others, and the writers were all gained nothing for writing them, then I might be inclined to believe it. You forget that all of history is written accounts. If we disregard the resurrection because all we have is written accounts, then we have to disregard a lot of other commonly accepted historic events.

That people were willing to die for a belief is poor evidence that the belief was true. People die for empirically wrong beliefs all the time. Moreover, once people start down the path of being persecuted for their beliefs, they are likely to even more tied to those beliefs regardless of evidence. It makes them less reliable, not more reliable. It also ignores the many other early Christians who no doubt said "nah, I didn't see anything" when interrogated by their persecutors lol. It also ignores the role of faith itself, which genuinely convinces some people "believe this thing that probably didn't happen with all your heart, even if it's not true, and the literal creator of the universe will reward you" - to some people, it's worth risking persecution in case that's an accurate worldview.

The fact that the disciples, the ones who wrote the sources, were willing to be tortured and murdered for what they wrote, and would not renounce it, gained nothing whatsoever for it and yet still believed it, is proof that they didn't make it up. If you make something up and get persecuted for it, you are going to give up what you wrote down in favor of a better life. They knew what they were getting into, and yet they did it anyways.
"once people start down the path of being persecuted for their beliefs, they are likely to even more tied to those beliefs regardless of evidence."
Yeah, you're going to need to provide some proof for that outlandish claim. If you make something up, once you start to get tortured for it you're going to renounce it.
"It also ignores the many other early Christians"
I'm talking about the writers. The sources. They were all martyred or exiled for their writings.

Eye witness testimony of a crime that happened several weeks ago is pretty faulty. Decades later opining about a miraculous one-time even not even seen by some of the authors is pretty much as bad as evidence can get.

You forget that this occurred two millennia ago. Many things that we accept as having occurred at that time are based on written accounts from decades or centuries after the events themselves. The evidence for the resurrection is pretty good when you compare it to evidence of other events at that time.

This is kind of tangential. A hardcore athiest is making a truth claim about the non-existence of God they can't back up empirically. A true agnostic needs no faith at all. Someone who believes in something that happened only once and for which there is only poor and self-referential evidence for (i.e., the Resurrection) should probably just make this as a faith claim unless there is some big new finding to corroborate their story.

Perhaps. Ultimately it comes down to faith, and on that you are correct. My point is not to say that there is no element of faith, but simply that there is more than just faith to it. Faith, yes, but supported at least on some evidence.

[CaptainFritz28]

While there's probably no changing your mind, I hope you at least marinate on the idea that other smart Christians probably disagree with you on ethics and that, if you're motivated at all by a desire to change the minds of people who don't share your exact same faith tradition, you're going to need different arguments than "the Bible provides perfect moral guidance, so long as you interpret it exactly as I do".

My interpretation is based off of taking the Bible literally, except for the passages which are clearly poetry, such as the Song of Solomon. When it may seem to contradict itself, my method is to look at the context, both scriptural and historical, and determine the meaning through that.

Ultimately, though, when we compare the Bible to Atheism, we get this:
Atheism provides no standard on which to base one's morals. Each individual must determine their own methodology for determining that standard and then the standard itself. Some personal standards agree on points, at which point people join themselves together into societies. However, there is no way to reconcile one society's standard to another's other than fighting it out, leading to the conclusion that those who are stronger determine morality.

For somebody who believes in the Bible so strongly, I find it curious that you don't see how the pen can be mightier than the sword.

Tell that to the victims, both in Israel and in Palestine, of the current war in the Middle East.
Negotiation is good, yes, but it will never solve everything. There will always be people who disagree so strongly that to them, violence is the only answer.

[JECE]

My interpretation is based off of taking the Bible literally, except for the passages which are clearly poetry, such as the Song of Solomon. When it may seem to contradict itself, my method is to look at the context, both scriptural and historical, and determine the meaning through that.

Ultimately, though, when we compare the Bible to Atheism, we get this:
Atheism provides no standard on which to base one's morals. Each individual must determine their own methodology for determining that standard and then the standard itself. Some personal standards agree on points, at which point people join themselves together into societies. However, there is no way to reconcile one society's standard to another's other than fighting it out, leading to the conclusion that those who are stronger determine morality.

For somebody who believes in the Bible so strongly, I find it curious that you don't see how the pen can be mightier than the sword.

Tell that to the victims, both in Israel and in Palestine, of the current war in the Middle East.
Negotiation is good, yes, but it will never solve everything. There will always be people who disagree so strongly that to them, violence is the only answer.

Only if they have faith! Faith is the real nemesis.

[CaptainFritz28]

For somebody who believes in the Bible so strongly, I find it curious that you don't see how the pen can be mightier than the sword.

Tell that to the victims, both in Israel and in Palestine, of the current war in the Middle East.
Negotiation is good, yes, but it will never solve everything. There will always be people who disagree so strongly that to them, violence is the only answer.

Only if they have faith! Faith is the real nemesis.

Certain faiths, yes.
But in that case you disregard the one hundred million killed by the Atheist USSR and communist China.
You also disregard the fact that murder rates are highest among Athiests.
So no... you have lied. People without faith are just as if not more violent.

And in any case you dropped the point entirely, preferring to instead direct our debate to a red herring. Now, then, I will take that as a sign that you have no refutation for that point and concede it, unless you actually respond to it.

[JECE]

Tell that to the victims, both in Israel and in Palestine, of the current war in the Middle East.
Negotiation is good, yes, but it will never solve everything. There will always be people who disagree so strongly that to them, violence is the only answer.

Only if they have faith! Faith is the real nemesis.

Certain faiths, yes.
But in that case you disregard the one hundred million killed by the Atheist USSR and communist China.
You also disregard the fact that murder rates are highest among Athiests.
So no... you have lied. People without faith are just as if not more violent.

And in any case you dropped the point entirely, preferring to instead direct our debate to a red herring. Now, then, I will take that as a sign that you have no refutation for that point and concede it, unless you actually respond to it.

Faith is not limited to religion.

Your murder rate claim is missing a citation.

I think that you're missing the point that I was trying to make. The pen (reason) can be useless against people blinded by faith. You're the one who brought up the red herring that sometimes "violence is the only answer".

[CaptainFritz28]

Only if they have faith! Faith is the real nemesis.

Certain faiths, yes.
But in that case you disregard the one hundred million killed by the Atheist USSR and communist China.
You also disregard the fact that murder rates are highest among Athiests.
So no... you have lied. People without faith are just as if not more violent.

And in any case you dropped the point entirely, preferring to instead direct our debate to a red herring. Now, then, I will take that as a sign that you have no refutation for that point and concede it, unless you actually respond to it.

Faith is not limited to religion.

Your murder rate claim is missing a citation.

I think that you're missing the point that I was trying to make. The pen (reason) can be useless against people blinded by faith. You're the one who brought up the red herring that sometimes "violence is the only answer".

So then your point about faith is not unique to Atheism or relihion, and entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

[JECE]

Certain faiths, yes.
But in that case you disregard the one hundred million killed by the Atheist USSR and communist China.
You also disregard the fact that murder rates are highest among Athiests.
So no... you have lied. People without faith are just as if not more violent.

And in any case you dropped the point entirely, preferring to instead direct our debate to a red herring. Now, then, I will take that as a sign that you have no refutation for that point and concede it, unless you actually respond to it.

Faith is not limited to religion.

Your murder rate claim is missing a citation.

I think that you're missing the point that I was trying to make. The pen (reason) can be useless against people blinded by faith. You're the one who brought up the red herring that sometimes "violence is the only answer".

So then your point about faith is not unique to Atheism or relihion, and entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

Except that faith is a fundamental tenant of all theism, so yes of course it's relevant. Differences can be resolved without recourse to violence, so long as there is an openness and willing to engage.

Still waiting on a source for your pretty outrageous murder rate claim . . .

[CaptainFritz28]

Here's one for other crimes, not including murder:
https://www.marripedia.org/effects_of_religious_practice_on_crime_rates

This study links secularization (i.e. the lack of religion i.e. Atheism) with higher homicide and crime rates:
https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1729&context=dissertation

[CaptainFritz28]

And you just claimed that faith is not limited to religion, making it non unique.

If by faith you mean extremism, then we are talking about something separate entirely.

[JECE]

And you just claimed that faith is not limited to religion, making it non unique.

If by faith you mean extremism, then we are talking about something separate entirely.

No, I did not mean 'extremism'. Try "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" or "complete trust" (the latter could perhaps be restated as an unquestioning belief in something).
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

You wrote that "there is no way to reconcile one [atheist] society's standard to another's other than fighting it out, leading to the conclusion that those who are stronger determine morality." I pointed out that the pen can be mightier than the sword, so long as true dialogue can occur. If one party rests their case on faith alone then I concede that there may be little to discuss, but societies otherwise are perfectly capable of coming to mutual agreements.

By the way, you shouldn't be capitalizing 'atheism'.

[CaptainFritz28]

Thanks for the grammatical tip. I was doing that by habit of capitalizing 'Christian'.

Fair point. But it is much easier to come to an agreement when both sides have a standard to be held to. It is much easier to determine whether a nation's actions are right or wrong when we have something like the UN's Declaration of Human Rights to measure it against. And if that standard is inherently unchanging, unlike the Declaration of Human Rights which relies on majority approval, then you have a way to evermore empirically determine the correct and incorrect side of an issue.

I should have written that as "there is no way for them to come to an agreement except by fighting it out or having a majority on both sides agree on a settlement."
So again, it's either the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of force.