"*He wasn't a "moral perfectionist," he was perfectly moral, and was nothing but quick to forgive people, especially those who betrayed him."

"There's lots of [Jesus as a condemner] in the New Testament. Lots and lots. Very hard to ignore or compartmentalize or see in context, any more than I can compartmentalize what goes on in the prisons of a totalitarian state. I'm not a Pharisee, or any kind of Jew, but this makes me want to defend them. It chills me to read this and think that Christians are nodding at the evident morality and forgiveness of this account of Jesus."

There isn't "lots and lots" of versus illustrating Jesus as a Condemner of Men. You pick and choose, and attempt to bring to light the only thing which illuminates to you. Again- Jesus was human, in terms of his emotions. Him getting angry- or even furious- at someone or at a group doesn't mean He is damning them. And the more you actively study the Bible, the more and the easier it becomes to put this into context, because there is a context.

"I will concede that Hindu- and Buddhist-majority societies aren't qualitatively more tolerant and forgiving than any others, but I would argue that the societies which implement those values…"

Which "values?"

"I would argue that the collective, political behavior of churches in the United States, Africa, and other countries strongly suggests "some" or "a few" rather than most. This is not to detract from the actions of the few."

Again, I don't know what you meant by "implement those values," but to address that religious group- or any group for that matter- " 'some' or 'few,' rather than 'most ," when it comes to "political behavior," I would say "of course!" When acting to influence politics, any group will act for/on behalf of that group. However, when acting solely as its function- as a religious organization, in this case- the church is acting for all people.

"I would argue that one good indicator of internalization of the value of forgiveness is the amount of time and energy one spends in creating a penal system whose goal is to reform, rather than just to punish."

Really? I would argue that no modern penal or justice system concerns itself with the notion of forgiveness, whatsoever. One's sentence is not established or subsequently lessened because the victim/ family of the victim has forgiven the offender, and an offender's likelihood of recidivism (in the vein of reform) does not mean the court system has forgiven the offender by any means. Perhaps I missed the tie-in, but I am not sure what this has to do with the predominant notion of damnation steering the course for religious persons, namely Christians.

"I would suggest that a comparison of penal systems and church attendance between states in the United States, and between different countries in the world, suggests that there is a positive correlation between strong church attendance and a vindictive penal system. Thus, I would argue, Bible-reading Christians are more likely to be enthusiastic about labeling people as "evil" and inflicting punishment upon them. Ie, New York is less vindictive than Texas, and Denmark is less vindictive than the United States."

While only a "suggestion," this is a fast and loose assumption about a great many things. You yourself call this notion "highly debatable," so I don't know why you wouldn't back this assertion up, if only a little, before throwing it out there. What grounds are you basing this suggestion on? USDOJ conviction rates by state? Association of Religion Data Archives matched side-by-side? Why is New York "less vindictive" than any other state? Are you saying a judge is more likely to give harsher sentences in a state where church attendance is higher? That's pretty loose. What about conviction rates at all, or crime in general? You also state that "Bible-reading Christians are more likely to be enthusiastic about labeling people as "evil" and inflicting punishment upon them," but this must be the most unfounded of your claims thus far. People don't inflict punishment, the state does, and as far as being enthusiastic about labeling people evil or wishing harsh punishments upon offenders, well, you'll have quite a time showing those who are religious or spiritual wish for a disproportionate amount of more/harsher punishment than non-believers, or non-church-goers.

Further in talking about Div 36 of the APA, 90 percent of Americans would not profess a belief in God if there was nothing but-or predominantly- fear involved with doing so. They are not "pretending obedience," they are not following some Stalinist dictator, and damning imagery is not what keeps Christianity afloat.

"I'm saying that faith in the Biblical god itself is a negative thing, in that it shapes people's values in a negative way."

What about my faith? What about other's faiths? You have a chunk of the world's population either Christian or Jew- and denominations, sects, and inter-faith breakdowns therein: That's a lot of complexity and individualism to simply state that believing in God is a negative thing. No- you cannot look at "collective behavior" to see any sign of how people view God. Any given group or person may or may not share similarities with how they treat, view, respond to, or conduct their relationship to God, and how they subsequently view their world because of that. I would seriously invite you to re-think and restate this argument.