I found your statistics page. It is much too long and dense to read everything. If you have a relevant statistic please link it from it's original source. Thank you.
The link should go to the relevant section.
Your post seems to be filled with your own biases, but nothing to back it up.
You mean nothing you will take the time to look at, in addition to reason.
Christianity can be every bit as immoral as atheism. Even worse because Christians claim God is supporting their actions.
For an example the KKK are Christians, they justify their beliefs from the bible. Slavery was justified with the bible. Blowing up abortion clinics justified with the bible. The inquisition justified with the bible.
Which is an absurd fallacy. The definition of what Christianity is cannot be anything that is done under that name, but what the source of the name "Christian" teaches it is! And which clearly disallows every negative example you cite at being Christianity.
The KKK are not Christians, for while they use parts of the Bible to justify their beliefs, it clearly contradict their beliefs. Th NT was multi-racial, and are taught,
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:26-28)
Slavery in the antebellum South was not Biblical slavery, and which is not commanded in Scripture, but regulated as ameliorated form in an existing universal integral part of the societies and mainly laborious agrarian economy of the ancient near East, enabling it to be actually preferred by some in a world in which lifelong supply of food, shelter and clothes for self and family was the priority, not travel, schooling, travel etc. Escaped slaves were not to be returned their masters, thus working to prevent abuse, and disabling injury or mistreatment of wives set them free, while foreigners could actually own Hebrew servants. See more
here and
here for your needed education.
In the New Testament, the first organic church community had no slavery, but regulations for it grew in the slaves states ijn which it found itself, in which slaves likely made up half the church in many places, and which forbade even threatening by masters, (Ephesians 6:9) and enjoined equal pay, (Colossians 4:1) and obtaining freedom was advised, (1 Corinthians 7:21) and an escaped converted slaves was to be received back no longer as a slaves, but as a brother, even as Paul himself. (Philemon 1:2,10-11,15-17)
Slaves rebellions did not go well, and the small NT church had no political power, while the focus was on enduring and overcoming your situation, not upward mobility or career advancement or social revolution. Yet if it were not for the increasing Romanization of the church then the general Christian ethos of love for neighbor could have seen its outworking in abolition, as it later did when revived Christianity, which is always a remnant, helped foster it.
Blowing up abortion clinics justified with the bible.
Really? What churches advocate this or other anti-abortion violence? Just where do you see the NT church ever using or advocating the use of violence by its members to even deal with persecution, let alone killing ignorant souls in order to indirectly prevent murder. Yet how can do justify the murder of children?
Though on an individual basis subduing terrorists intent on imminently killing lost souls would be justified by the law and a Christian might be forced to do, this is not killing ignorant souls in order to possibly indirectly prevent murder, or the killing of the culpable when the mothers voluntarily choose this horrendous service, and which killing of abortionist has mainly been the work of a few individuals, and is not sanctioned by any significant evangelical or other church.
The inquisition justified with the bible.
This charge is more absurd than the last, for the inquisition depended upon and fostered ignorance of Scripture, requiring Catholic rulers to effect the extermination of all those she deemed as heretics, and punishing those who poses or printed unauthorized Bibles, and requiring special permission to read one of the few translations in the common tongue.
Which stands in stark contrast to the NT church and early history of churches.
I think the difference is that we Christians never need to apologize and make right what we do wrong. We can pray to our God, he can forgive us, and we move on. Atheists cannot do that. They must seek out the person they wronged and apologize to them, and seek forgiveness from them. This is much more difficult path to walk than we Christians.
Which is simply more ignorance, by one who claims to be a Christian. When and how were you born again, and how did your heart and life change as a result of that day of salvation? And where are you getting taught, if at all?
The teaching of Scripture is that souls are to "repent and turn to God, and do works meet for [corresponding to] repentance. (Acts 26:20) Which means obedience to all that the Lord and Scripture teaches on the transcendent moral law , which includes restitution and making things right with those you hurt (Exodus 22:1-7; Leviticus 6:5; Proverbs 6:31; Romans 13:8-10; Matthew 5:23-24; Luke 17:4)
Thus if indeed atheists are those who seek out the person they wronged and apologize to them - which as a claimed characteristic there is no evidence or solid basis for - then they are simply acting as Christians are supposed to. Thus their ideology can hardly be superior.
We all have our own morals, and I find my morals are much closer to the atheists on this forum than to the fundamental Christians on this forum. Universal healthcare, a good safety net for those on welfare, a minimum wage large enough that a working family has enough money to house clothe and feed their family without having three jobs each. I find that on this forum fundamental Christians are usually against these things.
Universal healthcare and a good safety net for those on welfare means those who work the most and try to keep in the best physical shape, and raise their families to do the same, are penalized by having to pay for the care of the indolent and slothful, who can be productive by choose not to, which basically subsidizes such and in the end hurts everyone.
Immigrants and the poor who do work should be helped by reducing the exorbitant price of housing by reducing property taxes by reducing government, by working to bring souls to be controlled from within by God and conscience, which in the past enabled smaller government. But which requires the fostering of faith and tradional families rather than being militant against such.
Universal healthcare can also actually make health care unaffordable for those who are poor enough to have to pay into the system. Which, as with typical governmental bureaucracy, will turn into a expensive growing monster, which eventually could assume responsibility for the psychological health of children, and remove them from homes of those who disapprove homosexual relations, or teach creationism. And which I have read atheists advocate.
Instead I propose the government set aside a type of social security tax to be withheld from pay for their own personal medical expenses, which can be redeemed at age 70 if not used. Those who can but will not work must depend upon the voluntary help of others, and which should be great fostered. I myself have never used any gov. medical care nor intend to, by the grace of God, those i am 65. And perhaps the purchasing of expensive medical equipment like as with military equipment, provided to hospitals at cost, and other means enabling hospitals stays to be less than 500.00 per day.
a minimum wage large enough that a working family has enough money to house clothe and feed their family without having three jobs each.
That is typical short-sighted liberal vote-getting, for raising the minimum wage simply results in raising the cost of doing business and government which is passed on to the people getting paid a higher wage, shortly resulting in a no real gain, and demand for raising the minimum wage more. By that logic why not raise it to 1,000 per hour?
Instead, as said, the cost of living is what must be addressed, and
fostering a welfare state actually increases them, placing more of a burden upon the producers who do not obtain welfare, and increasing the number of those who do, which in the increases government size and costs and hurts all.
Whether you like it or not, while the Scriptures exhort helping the poor, the latter were not lie the poor in America, who are thus described as relatively poor, among whom i live, and the means of which was private charity as well as collection of foodstuffs. And I support obtaining donated food etc. and offering it for free to the poor.
But Scripture also states, For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12)
