A Brief Summary of the Christian Bible

[Rhea]

Yes, it reinforces all that terrible stuff: universal love, compassion, mercy and aid for the poor...
.

I do math; I think of the world i math-like terms and ideology does not intrude on the math.

So I read things like this (you hear it all the time from Christians) and I am compelled by my math impulses to contemplate: if 85% of Americans claim to be Christian, and if Christianity is actually promoting MAINLY love, compassion and mercy for the poor, and if Christianity is even marginally successful at instilling this in it’s followers, what does the mathematical model of Christian effect have against poverty?

It should be gone.

Subtract out the effect of the secular community who addresses poverty typically through socialistic spending measures, and what does it actually look like to seek Christianity as a solution to poverty?

The math suggests that 85% of the population is not practicing their religion if it is mainly universal love, compassion, mercy and aid for the poor... Suggesting the religion is weak and ineffective.

 

[Rhea]

It's probably because they lack sufficient scientific understanding to discard that comforting old identity, even though they see their religion as insufficient to explain their observations. Their gods still make miracles happen like saving a kids life or explaining the beauty of a flower. And I should add they remain very loyal to that old group identity.

I guess what you're upset about is that many people weather these conflicts without losing their faith, and you believe that they ought to lose their faith,

No. He said, and Floof said, quite clearly, that they ought to lose their identification with the ideological umbrella that covers all of those who don’t see their religion as insufficient to explain their observations.

They said this plainly, and you replied with “lose their faith?”

Politesse, I assume you are an intelligent person from your posts. You do NOT, however, demonstrate that you can understand a different viewpoint. You keep snapping like a rubber band back to ideological identity.

 

[Politesse]

It's probably because they lack sufficient scientific understanding to discard that comforting old identity, even though they see their religion as insufficient to explain their observations. Their gods still make miracles happen like saving a kids life or explaining the beauty of a flower. And I should add they remain very loyal to that old group identity.

I guess what you're upset about is that many people weather these conflicts without losing their faith, and you believe that they ought to lose their faith,

No. He said, and Floof said, quite clearly, that they ought to lose their identification with the ideological umbrella that covers all of those who don’t see their religion as insufficient to explain their observations.

They said this plainly, and you replied with “lose their faith?”

Politesse, I assume you are an intelligent person from your posts. You do NOT, however, demonstrate that you can understand a different viewpoint. You keep snapping like a rubber band back to ideological identity.

Ideological identity? As what, exactly? I'm a confirmed agnostic, always have been. I have a fairly strong Christian background, and spend the majority of my time in Pagan communities these days, but I wouldn't call either of those traditions the source of my identity. The fact that I am sympathetic to the faith you despise is what defines my identity to you, not to me.

 

[Politesse]

Yes, it reinforces all that terrible stuff: universal love, compassion, mercy and aid for the poor...
.

I do math; I think of the world i math-like terms and ideology does not intrude on the math.

So I read things like this (you hear it all the time from Christians) and I am compelled by my math impulses to contemplate: if 85% of Americans claim to be Christian, and if Christianity is actually promoting MAINLY love, compassion and mercy for the poor, and if Christianity is even marginally successful at instilling this in it’s followers, what does the mathematical model of Christian effect have against poverty?

It should be gone.

Subtract out the effect of the secular community who addresses poverty typically through socialistic spending measures, and what does it actually look like to seek Christianity as a solution to poverty?

The math suggests that 85% of the population is not practicing their religion if it is mainly universal love, compassion, mercy and aid for the poor... Suggesting the religion is weak and ineffective.

You're making a lot of assumptions there. That this is the main effect of Christianity, that it would always be successful if so, that claiming an identity is the same thing as meaningfully dedicating resources to living out its values, that we have a clear model of what a Christian vs non-Christian society would look like, that there are no other traditions or sources that might have the same effect, that poverty is soluble by good actors in the first place... Where are all of these assumptions coming from? None of that has to be true in order for my statement, that the faith has both virtues and flaws, to be true.

 

[Rhea]

No. He said, and Floof said, quite clearly, that they ought to lose their identification with the ideological umbrella that covers all of those who don’t see their religion as insufficient to explain their observations.

They said this plainly, and you replied with “lose their faith?”

Politesse, I assume you are an intelligent person from your posts. You do NOT, however, demonstrate that you can understand a different viewpoint. You keep snapping like a rubber band back to ideological identity.

Ideological identity? As what, exactly? I'm a confirmed agnostic, always have been. I have a fairly strong Christian background, and spend the majority of my time in Pagan communities these days, but I wouldn't call either of those traditions the source of my identity. The fact that I am sympathetic to the faith you despise is what defines my identity to you, not to me.

Your responses, then, speaking for religious people of whoom you are not one, don’t offer an explanation for why you mischaracterized floof’s statement as an admonsihment to lose faith when it was not one.

 

[Rhea]

Yes, it reinforces all that terrible stuff: universal love, compassion, mercy and aid for the poor...

if 85% of Americans claim to be Christian, and if Christianity is actually promoting MAINLY love, compassion and mercy for the poor,

You're making a lot of assumptions there. That this is the main effect of Christianity, that it would always be successful if so, that claiming an identity is the same thing as meaningfully dedicating resources to living out its values, that we have a clear model of what a Christian vs non-Christian society would look like, that there are no other traditions or sources that might have the same effect, that poverty is soluble by good actors in the first place... Where are all of these assumptions coming from? None of that has to be true in order for my statement, that the faith has both virtues and flaws, to be true.

You’ve changed your statement. But I think I agree withh this new one:
That this is NOT the main effect of Christianity, that it is NOT successful at it, and that claiming a Chrisian identity is NOT the same thing as meaningfully dedicating resources to living out its values,

You are right, it would take assumptions for all those to be true and they would be bad assumptions since it is not true. Having faith makes not one bit of difference in creating good behavior.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You're making a lot of assumptions there. That this is the main effect of Christianity, that it would always be successful if so, that claiming an identity is the same thing as meaningfully dedicating resources to living out its values, that we have a clear model of what a Christian vs non-Christian society would look like, that there are no other traditions or sources that might have the same effect, that poverty is soluble by good actors in the first place... Where are all of these assumptions coming from? None of that has to be true in order for my statement, that the faith has both virtues and flaws, to be true.

You’ve changed your statement. But I think I agree withh this new one:
That this is NOT the main effect of Christianity, that it is NOT successful at it, and that claiming a Chrisian identity is NOT the same thing as meaningfully dedicating resources to living out its values,

You are right, it would take assumptions for all those to be true and they would be bad assumptions since it is not true. Having faith makes not one bit of difference in creating good behavior.

Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia and Fascist Italy all arose from christian roots. It's tough making a convincing argument that christianity is an answer with incontrovertible historical proof that it can directly give rise to such monstrous inhumanity.

 

[Learner]

Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia and Fascist Italy all arose from christian roots. It's tough making a convincing argument that christianity is an answer with incontrovertible historical proof that it can directly give rise to such monstrous inhumanity.

I don't know ... I mean if they were fighting against people and nations who were predominantly Christian, they must have confused the perspective to "love your enemies" in a different way, so to speak.