Christianity

[Age]

I saw you before I logged in and you were filtered out. So I've brought you back in from outer darkness, for now.

Am I to be grateful, then? Okay, Martin…I thank you for readmitting me to the land of the living.

It’s up to you, Martin. I’ll be here, doing my thing.

'They' don't exist in equality of outcome. 'They' are the most reduced, to private sufficiency. When all land and treasure is freed from ownership. To be used for public luxury. I have no slack. I'm 71 and can't afford to stop working. Lucky me to have a job.

That’s a miserable situation, Martin, I admit. But we must consider ourselves lucky indeed; the truth is that the entire Western world is in the upper 10% of humanity, even at their lowest. And if “equal outcomes” are to be achieved, the level at which we’ll all live is closer to 3rd world poverty than anything you or I have now.

This raises a further question: if “equality of outcome” is the goal, where is the border? What’s the rationale for Western nations having more than penurious nations elsewhere? Mercifully for the proponents of “equality of outcome,” this question is usually not asked.

When the point of private sufficiency of the formerly wealthy is reached, it must not be forced lower, by the masses rising up to that level.

What is “that level”? Is it the level of a Chinese peasant on a Communist farm? A middle-class Westerner? For it takes a lot less to live in the Developing World than in our Western ethos…and different amounts in every country in the West, as well.

And there will be those cannot ever be lifted up to private sufficiency.

Like the fellow at Morrison’s, presumably. You said a hundred years of therapy would not suffice to produce “equality of outcomes” for him. But then the goal is impossible, isn’t it? What then is the utility of training people to aspire to an “equality of outcome” that cannot be attained? What do we do with the drug addicts, the criminals, the indolent, the mendacious, the foolish, the incompetent, the unintelligent…

It seems to me that a spirit of charity, not of “equality” is what suits their situation. But charity implies inequality, and that would seem to be banished by the aspiration to “equality of outcome.” We might, as you suggest, improve their lot — that’s a perpetual given, from a Christian perspective anyway — but I still haven’t seen what secular warrant there would be for caring about inequality.

Welfare programs in the US aren't really aiming at equality of outcome. It's understood that a person on welfare is not going to fare as well as someone working under gainful employment. And they generally don't, albeit with some exceptions (such as the working poor who don't qualify for welfare). Welfare programs in the US have never been about equality of outcome. They've always been about preventing hunger and destitution. Not sure what "equality of outcome" has to do with anything in reality. Our programs are mostly trying to keep people from dying homeless on the street.

The liberal mantra in the US for the past 50 years and more has been equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. However, dishonest critics constantly put up the straw man of "equality of outcome" as the "real" motive.

The ultimate so-called 'straw man' and deception, here, is, 'money is necessary'.

Until you human beings get this lied to False belief 'out of your consciousnesses', as some might say, not much is really going to change, for the better, here.

[Age]

(b) Am I to be grateful, then? Okay, Martin…I thank you for readmitting me to the land of the living.

It’s up to you, Martin. I’ll be here, doing my thing.
(c) That’s a miserable situation, Martin, I admit. But we must consider ourselves lucky indeed; the truth is that the entire Western world is in the upper 10% of humanity, even at their lowest. And if “equal outcomes” are to be achieved, the level at which we’ll all live is closer to 3rd world poverty than anything you or I have now.

This raises a further question: if “equality of outcome” is the goal, where is the border? What’s the rationale for Western nations having more than penurious nations elsewhere? Mercifully for the proponents of “equality of outcome,” this question is usually not asked.


(d) What is “that level”? Is it the level of a Chinese peasant on a Communist farm? A middle-class Westerner? For it takes a lot less to live in the Developing World than in our Western ethos…and different amounts in every country in the West, as well.


(e) Like the fellow at Morrison’s, presumably. You said a hundred years of therapy would not suffice to produce “equality of outcomes” for him. But then the goal is impossible, isn’t it? What then is the utility of training people to aspire to an “equality of outcome” that cannot be attained? What do we do with the drug addicts, the criminals, the indolent, the mendacious, the foolish, the incompetent, the unintelligent…

It seems to me that a spirit of charity, not of “equality” is what suits their situation. But charity implies inequality, and that would seem to be banished by the aspiration to “equality of outcome.” We might, as you suggest, improve their lot — that’s a perpetual given, from a Christian perspective anyway — but I still haven’t seen what secular warrant there would be for caring about inequality.

(a) Already answered. I loathe that lying term being applied to a fellow human being who obviously has no choice in the matter whatsoever.

Well, now you’re adding details you omitted before. And that’s fine. But let’s take the case of a beggar on fentanyl. There are plenty of those. How do you create “equality of outcome between you and fentanyl addict who is dying on the streets?

The old, 'let us look at the, so-called, issue/problem, and fix that', never works. So, why keep doing what does not work?

The only thing that actually works is, 'let us find what prevents and stops all issues/problems from arising in the beginning'.

So, why not do 'this', instead?

[Belinda]

How is that going to work? How are you going to achieve “equality of outcome” between yourself and a mentally-ill grifter you met outside Morrison’s? Since they can’t bring him up to your level, as you say, for a hundred years, even if they had the therapy to do it, they’ll have to drag you down to his level, so your “outcome” is “equal” to his.

That’s the problem with “equality of outcome”: in reality, it means “a race to the bottom” or “everybody to the lowest common denominator.”

That is true, when equality of outcome is believed to be possible. Equality of opportunity is possible for welfare socialists. I hope, Immanuel, that you don't agree with the political stance described in the unexpurgated verse "The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them, high and lowly, And ordered their estate."

Actually, B., I would suppose you’re maybe misreading the import of that particular song…I think it’s aiming at asserting that all people are of equal value in God’s eyes, and He equally made all. But as for the “ordered their estate” part, that’s more Hindu than Christian, for sure; so I’d take exception to that line. However, high church hymns are actually not always the source of the most accurate theology, as you probably know.

The problem is this, though: what does one do about “inequalities” of all kinds? People differ in income, it’s true; but they also differ in things like athleticism, aesthetic sensitivity, musicianship, culture, background, age, skin colour, eye colour, height, weight, location of birth, genetics, sex, susceptibility to things like addiction, moral values, intellect, education, family, bone density, sensory sharpness…and so on, and so on. What, then, is “equality of outcome”? And just what measures, by whom, are required to make it happen? Who’s the judge of when we arrive at the condition of “equal outcomes”? Just how are we supposed to take seriously an objective that not only has been realized never and nowhere, but also cannot even conceivably be obtained?

For that matter, while there is some warrant for an exalted status for the poor in Christianity, (as there, we are at least enjoined to show charity and mercy to the poor, and promised God’s pleasure and reward for so doing) what’s the basis for exalting the poor from a a purely secular, unreligious perspective?

The basis for exalting the poor from a purely secular, unreligious perspective is the instinct for fairness.

When your preschooler declares, “That’s not fair!” after her brother receives an imperceptibly larger piece of cake, she’s not just being selfish. Kids have a keen sense of fairness, a characteristic that research increasingly shows is an innate part of human morality. Indeed, the latest study, published in Psychological Science, finds that even babies are disturbed by displays of injustice — and even when it doesn’t apply to them.

Time magazine
one of many scientific observations of babies and toddlers.

The God you worship did not directly and miraculously invent equality of opportunity but He (and Moses)did codify it. Jesus later on endorsed equality of opportunity.

[Belinda]

(a) Already answered. I loathe that lying term being applied to a fellow human being who obviously has no choice in the matter whatsoever.

Well, now you’re adding details you omitted before. And that’s fine. But let’s take the case of a beggar on fentanyl. There are plenty of those. How do you create “equality of outcome between you and fentanyl addict who is dying on the streets?

The old, 'let us look at the, so-called, issue/problem, and fix that', never works. So, why keep doing what does not work?

The only thing that actually works is, let us find what prevents and stops all issues/problems from arising in the beginning.

So, why not do 'this', instead?

Age, Immanuel Can does in fact do as you advocate. IC says he knows what lets us find what prevents and stops all issues/problems from arising in the beginning.
IC says Christianity does this.

The Gospel records Jesus as proclaiming that the rich man cannot enter the Kingdom. Thus , not equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity is not only socialist but also Christian.

Martin has listed the practical political adjustments needed for equality of opportunity.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

That is true, when equality of outcome is believed to be possible. Equality of opportunity is possible for welfare socialists. I hope, Immanuel, that you don't agree with the political stance described in the unexpurgated verse "The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them, high and lowly, And ordered their estate."

Actually, B., I would suppose you’re maybe misreading the import of that particular song…I think it’s aiming at asserting that all people are of equal value in God’s eyes, and He equally made all. But as for the “ordered their estate” part, that’s more Hindu than Christian, for sure; so I’d take exception to that line. However, high church hymns are actually not always the source of the most accurate theology, as you probably know.

The problem is this, though: what does one do about “inequalities” of all kinds? People differ in income, it’s true; but they also differ in things like athleticism, aesthetic sensitivity, musicianship, culture, background, age, skin colour, eye colour, height, weight, location of birth, genetics, sex, susceptibility to things like addiction, moral values, intellect, education, family, bone density, sensory sharpness…and so on, and so on. What, then, is “equality of outcome”? And just what measures, by whom, are required to make it happen? Who’s the judge of when we arrive at the condition of “equal outcomes”? Just how are we supposed to take seriously an objective that not only has been realized never and nowhere, but also cannot even conceivably be obtained?

For that matter, while there is some warrant for an exalted status for the poor in Christianity, (as there, we are at least enjoined to show charity and mercy to the poor, and promised God’s pleasure and reward for so doing) what’s the basis for exalting the poor from a a purely secular, unreligious perspective?

The basis for exalting the poor from a purely secular, unreligious perspective is the instinct for fairness.

When your preschooler declares, “That’s not fair!” after her brother receives an imperceptibly larger piece of cake, she’s not just being selfish. Kids have a keen sense of fairness, a characteristic that research increasingly shows is an innate part of human morality. Indeed, the latest study, published in Psychological Science, finds that even babies are disturbed by displays of injustice — and even when it doesn’t apply to them.

Time magazine
one of many scientific observations of babies and toddlers.

The God you worship did not directly and miraculously invent equality of opportunity but He (and Moses)did codify it. Jesus later on endorsed equality of opportunity.

All higher animals are wired for fairness. Just as they are for love, and that bar is dropping spectacularly; preying mantises, fish. Apart from the 1% of human males with extreme psychopathy. And even they can feel regret, but cannot express it. Out of the 30% of the population on the psychopathic spectrum, as is shown amply here. I dare say I'm on it.

And its equality of outcome, not opportunity Belinda. Jesus ran with the ball of his ancient culture in that regard; debt cancellation, and remarkable care for the disadvantaged, Leviticus 19:9-10 9 “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 You shall not strip your vineyard bare or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the Lord your God. Equality of opportunity without equality of outcome just accumulates privilege.

[Age]

Well, now you’re adding details you omitted before. And that’s fine. But let’s take the case of a beggar on fentanyl. There are plenty of those. How do you create “equality of outcome between you and fentanyl addict who is dying on the streets?

The old, 'let us look at the, so-called, issue/problem, and fix that', never works. So, why keep doing what does not work?

The only thing that actually works is, let us find what prevents and stops all issues/problems from arising in the beginning.

So, why not do 'this', instead?

Age, Immanuel Can does in fact do as you advocate. IC says he knows what lets us find what prevents and stops all issues/problems from arising in the beginning.
IC says Christianity does this.

What?

It is 'within' "immanuel can's" "christian world" where human beings beg for money and are addicted to drugs. So, obviously, "christianity" does not 'do this' at all.

As clearly shown and proved True.

In fact there are quite a few people who have been brought up 'within' so-called "christian families" who 'ended up' that very way. Thus, it was because of so-called "christianity" why the very reason 'ended up' 'that way'.

The Gospel records Jesus as proclaiming that the rich man cannot enter the Kingdom. Thus , not equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity is not only socialist but also Christian.

Martin has listed the practical political adjustments needed for equality of opportunity.

So what?

Is every one in agreement and acceptance, here?

If no, then something else is being missed, and needed, obviously.

Also, and as 'clear as daylight', what 'you' call "christianity" is very, very different from what "martin Peter Clarke" calls "christianity", which is obviously very, very different from what "immanuel can" calls "christianity". But, none of 'you' have ever 'stopped' to just consider this irrefutable Fact.

Now, if you, really, believe, absolutely, that "martin peter clarke" has listed all of the so-called practical political adjustments needed for some so-called 'equality of opportunity', and in 'a way' that does not need to be refined in absolutely any way at all, then so be it.

Show and prove to 'us', through explanations, how, exactly, 'that way' could and will work.

[Age]

That is true, when equality of outcome is believed to be possible. Equality of opportunity is possible for welfare socialists. I hope, Immanuel, that you don't agree with the political stance described in the unexpurgated verse "The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them, high and lowly, And ordered their estate."

Actually, B., I would suppose you’re maybe misreading the import of that particular song…I think it’s aiming at asserting that all people are of equal value in God’s eyes, and He equally made all. But as for the “ordered their estate” part, that’s more Hindu than Christian, for sure; so I’d take exception to that line. However, high church hymns are actually not always the source of the most accurate theology, as you probably know.

The problem is this, though: what does one do about “inequalities” of all kinds? People differ in income, it’s true; but they also differ in things like athleticism, aesthetic sensitivity, musicianship, culture, background, age, skin colour, eye colour, height, weight, location of birth, genetics, sex, susceptibility to things like addiction, moral values, intellect, education, family, bone density, sensory sharpness…and so on, and so on. What, then, is “equality of outcome”? And just what measures, by whom, are required to make it happen? Who’s the judge of when we arrive at the condition of “equal outcomes”? Just how are we supposed to take seriously an objective that not only has been realized never and nowhere, but also cannot even conceivably be obtained?

For that matter, while there is some warrant for an exalted status for the poor in Christianity, (as there, we are at least enjoined to show charity and mercy to the poor, and promised God’s pleasure and reward for so doing) what’s the basis for exalting the poor from a a purely secular, unreligious perspective?

The basis for exalting the poor from a purely secular, unreligious perspective is the instinct for fairness.

When your preschooler declares, “That’s not fair!” after her brother receives an imperceptibly larger piece of cake, she’s not just being selfish. Kids have a keen sense of fairness, a characteristic that research increasingly shows is an innate part of human morality. Indeed, the latest study, published in Psychological Science, finds that even babies are disturbed by displays of injustice — and even when it doesn’t apply to them.

Time magazine
one of many scientific observations of babies and toddlers.

The God you worship did not directly and miraculously invent equality of opportunity

Obviously.

Some thing that obviously does not exist could not invent, nor do, absolutely any thing.

Were you yet aware that the actual so-called 'God', which "Immanuel can" worships does not even exist?

but He (and Moses)did codify it.

Once more for 'those' who are very, very slow of learning and comprehending, 'God' is not and never could be a "he". End of story.

Jesus later on endorsed equality of opportunity.

Every young child knows, and endorses, 'equality'. It is only you older ones who do not.

[Age]

Actually, B., I would suppose you’re maybe misreading the import of that particular song…I think it’s aiming at asserting that all people are of equal value in God’s eyes, and He equally made all. But as for the “ordered their estate” part, that’s more Hindu than Christian, for sure; so I’d take exception to that line. However, high church hymns are actually not always the source of the most accurate theology, as you probably know.

The problem is this, though: what does one do about “inequalities” of all kinds? People differ in income, it’s true; but they also differ in things like athleticism, aesthetic sensitivity, musicianship, culture, background, age, skin colour, eye colour, height, weight, location of birth, genetics, sex, susceptibility to things like addiction, moral values, intellect, education, family, bone density, sensory sharpness…and so on, and so on. What, then, is “equality of outcome”? And just what measures, by whom, are required to make it happen? Who’s the judge of when we arrive at the condition of “equal outcomes”? Just how are we supposed to take seriously an objective that not only has been realized never and nowhere, but also cannot even conceivably be obtained?

For that matter, while there is some warrant for an exalted status for the poor in Christianity, (as there, we are at least enjoined to show charity and mercy to the poor, and promised God’s pleasure and reward for so doing) what’s the basis for exalting the poor from a a purely secular, unreligious perspective?

The basis for exalting the poor from a purely secular, unreligious perspective is the instinct for fairness.

When your preschooler declares, “That’s not fair!” after her brother receives an imperceptibly larger piece of cake, she’s not just being selfish. Kids have a keen sense of fairness, a characteristic that research increasingly shows is an innate part of human morality. Indeed, the latest study, published in Psychological Science, finds that even babies are disturbed by displays of injustice — and even when it doesn’t apply to them.

Time magazine
one of many scientific observations of babies and toddlers.

The God you worship did not directly and miraculously invent equality of opportunity but He (and Moses)did codify it. Jesus later on endorsed equality of opportunity.

All higher animals are wired for fairness.

Yet again, another Truly imbecilic claim. LOL 'higher animals'.

'This one' not only believes that it, "itself", is 'higher' among you human beings, but also that it belongs in 'the group of animals, known as 'human beings', which is somehow 'higher' than other animals.

Just as they are for love, and that bar is dropping spectacularly; preying mantises, fish. Apart from the 1% of human males with extreme psychopathy. Out of the 30% of the population on the psychopathic spectrum, as is shown amply here. I dare say I'm on it.

[Age]

And its equality of outcome, not opportunity Belinda. Jesus ran with the ball of his ancient culture in that regard; debt cancellation, and remarkable care for the disadvantaged, Leviticus 19:9-10 9 “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 You shall not strip your vineyard bare or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the Lord your God. Equality of opportunity without equality of outcome just accumulates privilege.

'you', human beings, are 'equal' in 'what' 'you' are. However,

'you', human beings, are 'unique and individually different' in 'who' 'you' are.

But, 'who' 'you' are, individually, never ever means that any of 'you' is better, worse, higher, nor lesser than anyone else.

'you', the individual, is the most special person in 'the world', but, 'you' are no more special than anyone else is.

Terms like 'equality of opportunity', or, 'equality of outcome', were just introduced so some could 'try to' 'justify' their own distorted views and beliefs, and/or to just bamboozle 'you', and to keep 'you', literally, 'missing the mark'. Again, 'this' is all just 'the work' of 'the devil', itself.

[Belinda]

Actually, B., I would suppose you’re maybe misreading the import of that particular song…I think it’s aiming at asserting that all people are of equal value in God’s eyes, and He equally made all. But as for the “ordered their estate” part, that’s more Hindu than Christian, for sure; so I’d take exception to that line. However, high church hymns are actually not always the source of the most accurate theology, as you probably know.

The problem is this, though: what does one do about “inequalities” of all kinds? People differ in income, it’s true; but they also differ in things like athleticism, aesthetic sensitivity, musicianship, culture, background, age, skin colour, eye colour, height, weight, location of birth, genetics, sex, susceptibility to things like addiction, moral values, intellect, education, family, bone density, sensory sharpness…and so on, and so on. What, then, is “equality of outcome”? And just what measures, by whom, are required to make it happen? Who’s the judge of when we arrive at the condition of “equal outcomes”? Just how are we supposed to take seriously an objective that not only has been realized never and nowhere, but also cannot even conceivably be obtained?

For that matter, while there is some warrant for an exalted status for the poor in Christianity, (as there, we are at least enjoined to show charity and mercy to the poor, and promised God’s pleasure and reward for so doing) what’s the basis for exalting the poor from a a purely secular, unreligious perspective?

The basis for exalting the poor from a purely secular, unreligious perspective is the instinct for fairness.

When your preschooler declares, “That’s not fair!” after her brother receives an imperceptibly larger piece of cake, she’s not just being selfish. Kids have a keen sense of fairness, a characteristic that research increasingly shows is an innate part of human morality. Indeed, the latest study, published in Psychological Science, finds that even babies are disturbed by displays of injustice — and even when it doesn’t apply to them.

Time magazine
one of many scientific observations of babies and toddlers.

The God you worship did not directly and miraculously invent equality of opportunity but He (and Moses)did codify it. Jesus later on endorsed equality of opportunity.

All higher animals are wired for fairness. Just as they are for love, and that bar is dropping spectacularly; preying mantises, fish. Apart from the 1% of human males with extreme psychopathy. And even they can feel regret, but cannot express it. Out of the 30% of the population on the psychopathic spectrum, as is shown amply here. I dare say I'm on it.

And its equality of outcome, not opportunity Belinda. Jesus ran with the ball of his ancient culture in that regard; debt cancellation, and remarkable care for the disadvantaged, Leviticus 19:9-10 9 “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 You shall not strip your vineyard bare or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the Lord your God. Equality of opportunity without equality of outcome just accumulates privilege.

Thanks for the reminder. I don't think the above amounts to a classless society which is what equality of outcome implies. Whatever, the Leviticus is a lot better than Trump or Netanyahu.

In the Leviticus extract you quoted "the alien" is a term used in that particular translation. Some individuals are alienated so that other individuals can prosper from their downgrading,

What was Durkheim's theory about alienation? Without common beliefs, values, rules, and structures for society, there is no collective consciousness. This means each person chooses their own ideas and values, isolating and alienating people from one another. Alienation is a symptom of anomie.

Karl Marx's theory of alienation describes the separation and estrangement of people from their work, their wider world, their human nature, and their selves. Alienation is a consequence of the division of labour in a capitalist society, wherein a human being's life is lived as a mechanistic part of a social class.[1]

So legalistic texts like Leviticus aim to get a people to cooperate with each other so as to set in place "common beliefs, values, rules, and structures for society,"

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can , you should fight your corner, not by trying to prove that The Bible is historically or scientifically veridical, but by showing how The Bible contains apologetics for the civilising influence of the Judeo-Christian God.

[Immanuel Can]

For that matter, while there is some warrant for an exalted status for the poor in Christianity, (as there, we are at least enjoined to show charity and mercy to the poor, and promised God’s pleasure and reward for so doing) what’s the basis for exalting the poor from a a purely secular, unreligious perspective?

The basis for exalting the poor from a purely secular, unreligious perspective is the instinct for fairness.

When your preschooler declares, “That’s not fair!” after her brother receives an imperceptibly larger piece of cake, she’s not just being selfish. Kids have a keen sense of fairness, a characteristic that research increasingly shows is an innate part of human morality. Indeed, the latest study, published in Psychological Science, finds that even babies are disturbed by displays of injustice — and even when it doesn’t apply to them.

Time magazine
one of many scientific observations of babies and toddlers.

What you’ll find of course, as anybody who’s seen a “terrible two-year-old” will tell you, is that children are much quicker to claim “unfairness” when it applies to them than when it applies to others. But let us not question your claim, and see what it gives us.

If all children had the same sense of justice, would that obligate human beings to adopt the same standard? It’s impossible to argue that it would. For one thing, children are unsophisticated and instinctively self-centred, as any developmental psychologist can tell you. An adult standard would tend to be more refined. But more importantly, the mere FACT that children have some common delusion would not imply that it was a justified delusion. “Children have an instinct” is a mere fact. “The instinct is correct and obligatory” is a value-judgment. Once again, the defense you offer falls afoul of Hume’s observation of the disconnect between fact claims and value conclusions. So we have no reason to believe that the presence of any instinct in children — even if it were perfect and universal — would warrant the claim that therefore their sense of fairness is apt, obligatory and objectively compulsory for us.

The God you worship did not directly and miraculously invent equality of opportunity but He (and Moses)did codify it. Jesus later on endorsed equality of opportunity.

I’m very familiar with Scripture, but unfamiliar with the passages you imply must exist. Where does Moses codify “equality of opportunity,” and where does Jesus Christ “endorse” it?

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can , you should fight your corner, not by trying to prove that The Bible is historically or scientifically veridical, but by showing how The Bible contains apologetics for the civilising influence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Thank you for your advice. If truth were merely about showing some utility to modern, secular civilization, it might work…at least from a strategic perspective. But truth is not like that. Truth is just true, regardless of utility concerns. We either believe it, or wreck ourselves on the iron hide of reality. Truth always wins. One doesn’t have to figure out ways to make it appealing to people who are utilitarian in orientation. They, like everybody else, will discover that truth does not beg favours of the skeptics.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

The Bible isn't even veridical with regard to the implementation of its humanitarianism. They flaunted their sin as Sodom, Ezekiel 16:49-50
New International Version 49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. The prophets all condemn social injustice. Christendom reinforces it.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can , you should fight your corner, not by trying to prove that The Bible is historically or scientifically veridical, but by showing how The Bible contains apologetics for the civilising influence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Thank you for your advice. If truth were merely about showing some utility to modern, secular civilization, it might work…at least from a strategic perspective. But truth is not like that. Truth is just true, regardless of utility concerns. We either believe it, or wreck ourselves on the iron hide of reality. Truth always wins. One doesn’t have to figure out ways to make it appealing to people who are utilitarian in orientation. They, like everybody else, will discover that truth does not beg favours of the skeptics.

But modern secular civilisation is what we have. We no longer have unquestioning faith . To rail against modernity wastes your talent for Scripture. Literal interpretation of The Bible no longer is a way to truth. The whole truth includes the modern worldview. i respect your faithfulness to Truth however your literal interpretation of The Bible is not Truth, but superstition.