Hi, would you give details of this study please Linear? This does not correspond with the reality within my own country.
See the study
here [14] Correlations between popular acceptance of human evolution and belief in and worship of a creator and Bible literalism are negative (Figure 1). The least religious nation, Japan, exhibits the highest agreement with the scientific theory, the lowest level of acceptance is found in the most religious developed democracy, the U.S.
This demonstrates, to anyone familiar with Japan, that a peculiar definition of "religious" is employed. Shrines are everywhere in Japan, and they aren't neglected. I do not claim to understand Shintoism, but the Japanese have an impressive (and growing) number of gods. Merely printing the kanji name of one of the luck gods (there are dozens) on a piece of merchandise suffices to increase sales.
If one is willing to take the time to carefully (mis)define terms, and cherry-pick data, one can get statistics to say almost anything one desires. This description of Japan leads me to believe Gregory S. Paul has not taken sufficient care to be objective.
[4] Although its proponents often claim that anti-evolution creationism<1> is scientific, it has abjectly failed in the practical realms of mainstream science and hi-tech industry (Ayala et al.; Crews; Cziko; Dawkins, 1996, 1997; Dennett; Gould; Koza et al.; L. Lane; Miller; Paul and Cox; Shanks; Wise; Young and Edis). {snip}
One who takes the word of Dawkins, Dennett, or Gould at face value in these matters is going to have a hard time avoiding the conclusions these propagandists wish one to accept. I suspect the author may not be up to the task. I'm afraid to look up the other names, lest I come to a firm conclusion.
Secondly. If a person truly took onboard Christ, they would not be out there committing crimes and outdoing the atheists and any fall from grace is regretted and repented by such - if in fact they are sincere. So the word "Christian" can be thrown around by anybody, but may not mean they are sincere. There are many practical atheists around who toss around "yeah I'm a Christian" whilst they live completely contrary to Christ.
And we all know some pose as "redeemed" to fool others too. A well known trick. But let us not confuse sincere Christianity with the greater committing of crimes. This is dishonest.
This is called the "True Scotsman defence." You say a Christian wouldn't do/believe something. I show you an example of a Christian doing/believing just that something. You then say "He wasn't a 'true' Christian". So, what is the criteria for a 'true' Christian? How do I tell him from someone who just says he is a "Christian".
"True" Christians would never massacre American Indians or forcibly make them study the Bible. Those people weren't true Christians.
True Christians would never burn someone at the stake.
True Christians would never torture someone to make them confess Christ.
True Christians would never arrest Joseph Smith and then leave him to the crowd to murder.
Yet, many of the people who did just those things thought they were true Christians. They prayed daily in many cases.
I find it remarkable that one who is said to be "knowledgeable about scripture" should be so unaware of what is written about discernment.
None of those people were true Christians by your definition. So true Christians never sin? Never give in to hate or angry words?
So Bex has suggested such? Ha!
The point being there is no means of determining if someone is a "true" Christian.
Perhaps. But the heretic isn't always difficult to identify.
Again, please provide the studies that support your claims, since the teachings of Christ are completely contrary to crime and preach the opposite. There are the true Christians, who far from committing crimes, devote their life teaching the ways of Christ, hoping to turn such criminals away from sin and to the light of Christ.
I can't produce a study that meets your criteria because it seems that your criteria requires that the moment a person commits a crime or gets divorced, they could not have been a Christian.
Doesn't seem that way to me. How would it be in the interest of Christians to forget all the scriptures which teach us about these matters?
Whatever studies these are - if in fact legitimate? Would still be bogus in respect of describing a sincere Christian walking with Christ. So again, they would continue to be meaningless - since Christians in name, walking in practical atheism do not count as a true depiction of Christianity and the teachings of Christ in no way endorse, support or encourage criminal behaviour, but instead give one many more means and reasons to turn from such.
The studies dealt with statistics from surveys that asked how much each person went to church, believed in the literal Bible, and prayed. Didn't really ask if they were a Christian, per se. I guess people could lie about their belief in the Bible and their church/prayer time, but why would they when asked by a survey representative?
Why do people lie about the very same thing on other occasions? If you prefer, why did Judas Iscariot follow Jesus? Must we understand the hearts before we can acknowledge that we observe the deeds?
But there may be a better question. Why would any God-fearing follower of the Lord Jesus have Christians include heretics and unbelievers in their number? I can understand why Satan would have us do so. I can understand why the atheist and the heretic would. But it seems contrary to the interests of the church, the Christian, and the Lord Himself.
And just to keep the record straight,
The Irrational Atheist does not bother with excluding heretics and pretenders. The results of research still don't favour atheism. To me, this implies that even
pretending to be a Christian may serve as a check on immoral activities. That is, to the extent one can accept implications from statistical margins of the type involved.
