The figures from those purporting a belief in God can be taken from any cross section of polls from various credible organizations. Answering out of fear would be essentially considered an outlier or hiccup in the data, but there are many controls in place to avoid/ control/account for these. The effects of faith and God, while empirically measured, can be found in an array of psychological journals (check JSTOR or project Muse).

"I would also suggest that religious people are likely to exclude certain hypotheses from serious consideration because it falls outside their belief system. Secular folks do the same thing..."

Ignoring your blanket summation of all "religious people," vice "some religious people," you counter your own suggestion in the latter half of this sentence.

"I would suggest that pro-Christianity arguments tend to be subjective -- faith does this, faith does that. Therefore, I will respond mostly with subjective assessments. It's up to you whether or not you find them convincing."

You don't have to "convince" me- My argument all along as been exactly that of subjectivity: Your argument has been one of grouping followers of a religion, (specifically Christians) and the spiritual into a group, and espousing negative traits and beliefs about them, stemming from an inherent fear of damnation as the foundation for that action. Mine has been one of individual faith, reason, and perception through that faith.

"Of course I pick and choose."

But this directly contradicts your previous argument that people shouldn't be able to do just that. You've said from the start that Christians must take the whole Bible, and then subsequently commented on the "hit and miss" of those various messages in the Bible. The Good News is the Epistles' message of salvation, i.e., Christ died to save us, and we are free from sin and fear. That's it! In a previous post, you stated, "I know several Christians who I think are brave, empathetic, honest, and optimistic. I don't quite get how they reconcile their theology with their other values," but the Good News is precisely what drives those values, and is no different than any other shaping tool for one's morals and values.

I would offer again my argument that when you make an appeal to fear, it tends to trump whatever else is in the message..."

Unless love and salvation is what trumps any other message. I am highly dubious a large population finds fear "appealing," when following Christ or their respective faith; especially when fear itself is discussed in the Bible and one of the emotions cast away by Christ. Christians aren't out to "convince" you of their faith- that would defeat the whole purpose of faith, and regarding taking the Bible as totally literal, i.e., "on face value," you just got done saying faith is subjective, so you've answered your own question on that one.

"*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 agree, but I disagree on the context. I would say that you read Jesus' words in the context of both Old and New Testaments: hell, judgment, the collective annihilation of entire communities, and the necessity of a painful "penalty" for sin."

Except much of what Christ stated was not in the context of the OT, and in fact contradicts much of the imagery and tone of it, ergo- New Testament (of Christ Jesus). There's a reason Jews don't have a New Testament. You start talking about there being "no Gentile or Jew, slave or free man," and you turn a lot of heads. The fact is that salvation, patience, love, and understanding dominate Christ's messages, and a direct countering of that chiefly described in the OT with regard to one's various relationships with God.

"At any rate, I would say that the angry hurling of threats that you don’t actually mean is an imperfection. Jesus was a very moral person, and I believed that most Christians are very moral people. But his lapses -- and the tradition he cited -- legitimize a certain kind of rage."

I don't know what you mean here. You'll have to clarify this section for me.

" * 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."

"I was thinking about sentencing, in particular legislation passed by the states."

Well, again- you'll have quite a time showing this. I would say your views on Christians would guide this rather unfounded claim, but maybe your numbers stack up....

" * 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."

"Fair enough. [Study and dialogues follows...]"

Your study shows a very narrow cross cut of Christians, in a narrow age range, and doesn't depict your original thesis about legislations passed and the harshest of judicial systems. I think you rather acknowledge this when you state that "[the study] is not as strong a peg as I would like on which to hang the argument," and in your statement that you don't really have anything to back your claims concerning prison penal/conditions and religiosity.

Your anecdote about the litigator defending those candidates for capital punishment, because that's "what Jesus would do," like those favoring capital punishment (which has in no way been linked to the same reason)- only shows the diversity of Christian faith, as does you acknowledgment that various denominations think differently on the subject. Why you still attempt to describe the "tone" of the Bible- for you is fine- but for the "mind of the reader," is still beyond me.

If there is any moral principle out there that is self-evident, I believe this is it. If there is any moral principle out there of which the world is in desperate need, this is it. Yet the entire premise of the Christian narrative story stands in opposition to it."

I don't understand what you mean by "Christian narrative story," but what exactly stands against any sort of self-evident moral principle with religion- or Christianity exclusively- you do not say.

( * 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.)

In the subsequent sentences, you attempt to qualify this argument by adjusting your statements to follow "well- not always negative, but tends to be," or, "well, I'm drawing general conclusions," or, "not believing in God is negative, rather believing in the Biblical God," or, "not all Christians, just illiterate Christian or a Christian who does not take the Bible seriously as divine revelation."

This is just getting more and more vague, but no matter- You still need to show this. How is this negative? Where do you see this moral deprivation? Where can you show this adverse condition happening?

It does seem you want to box in, label, mark, and categorize a breakdown of Christian belief, but you cannot. Everyone puts on a front. Not all believers of a faith categorize God in the same manner. You say "Well evangelicals paint God as such and such." What doe

"If Christianity were not an aggressively proselytizing religion ...”

Which faith in Christianity? Depending on the denomination, it's not an aggressively proselytizing religion" at all! This, again, is what I am urging you to understand. There is diversity in all parts of the religion, the faith, and the following. Your discussions go "in circles" when talking with Christians because depending on the Christian, the Bible and their faith mean something different ot them.

"I would say -- "Reading the Bible, treating it as divine revelation, and making a conscious effort to internalize its values is very likely to have a negative effect. I cannot say that it impacts any one individual negatively. However, I also feel that it is not unambiguously beneficial, in the way that I would expect divine revelation to be."

If you're expecting angels to appear every time someone opens the Good Book, you're setting yourself up for disappointment, and people who internalize the Bibles' various messages have a very strong positive affect.

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.

Paul says non Christians and Christians are BOTH enslaved by sin. Romans I explicitly rids the distinction of those who have the Law (Jews), and those who slander it (Gentiles) are the same. When he writes to fellow Christians in Rome, he is saying there is no distinction. The evil and adverse conditions. There is no difference to do good by way of faith- for you, St. Paul, or anyone. We are all at odds with our nature, and what we are called by God to do.

"When Christians recommended that I read the Bible, they did not tell me that I was likely to find it insulting, threatening, and morally incomprehensible."

Exactly! It's all the above! Do you honestly believe your the first person to have these emotions when reading the Bible? Whole denominations have shrugged off whole books, including or excluding books of the Bible for the very same reasons! There are portions which make you laugh, doubt yourself, find your faith, and come out only wondering at the end. Guys asking other guys to have their kids for them, fathers killing sons, self-confinement and self-denying for the sake of a cause. Of course! The whole work is challenging! Putting it in the context of your life, understanding the people described therein, how they wrestled with their faiths, how they must have felt when doubting themselves, or when everyone around them doubted. How they lived as people. It's simply amazing, and not at all easy to understand. Paul's name wasn't always Paul, after all. If it were easy all the time, it wouldn't be as deep and meaningful as it is.

“Very well -- can I detect any sign of the "righteousness that comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone" in the behavior of Christians? Certainly I can detect righteousness in Christians, but is it unique to Christians?”

You're employing the terms loosely. Christ is righteous. Christians seek to be Christ-like. If you're asking me, then "Righteous" is a term we refer to others as- I do not consider myself righteous, but as you say- you see it in others. I'm not sure how you use the term "the last whisper of a nightmare" to mean, but hopefully you can start to see that the Bible, God, and faith offer an infinitely more robust, complex, and hopeful opportunities than that.