striktlymi: I don't think the so called 'Good' country index is a good basis to argue for Christians or Christianity. Though I think the yard stick they used to measure how good a Country is from the Christian perspective is quite flawed considering that the Christian thing is not just about how an action seems to be good but on the disposition of the individual giving out goodness.

If an individual is only giving out in order to have a lion's share of the comparative advantage i.e giving in order to enjoy some benefits from other countries then the overall objective of being good is defeated because the individual is not just being good for goodness sake but on the contrary, the individual is just demonstrating that he or she is an ardent student of the archaic barter system.

Our world today is driven by the 'selfish' motive irrespective of the economic system adopted. This tool has proven over time to be very effective in promoting seemingly 'good deeds'. A good businessman sets out to satisfy the wants and sometimes needs of others but this good is really not why he is in business. His bank account has to be great in d long run (though the short run is not ruled out).

Judging how Christians or Christianity is doing based on how much 'wants' or 'needs' are satisfied by the typical Christian businessman is quite frankly not a good basis to judge, looking at it from the Christian angle. I look forward to a day where committee of Nations would stand and do stuff because it is right as against as against using the selfish motive as the yardstick to determine their level of goodness; but for now I am contented with the humanitarian efforts put in by some irrespective of their motives.

Actually I think the statistics are very well rounded from a Christian perspective because nations like the US where it is obvious that they "do good" around the world so as to obtain a comparative advantage like a businessman, are not ranked high in those things that they do. Whereas nations like Nigeria, though ranked low overall, are ranked 9th in peace-keeping presumably for their selfless military assistances. That is just an example to show this is not a "typical businessman" case of "doing good".

If you can give examples to buttress your claims of highly ranked nations on the list that you feel have "done good" with selfish motives, that might help.

InesQor:
Actually I think the statistics are very well rounded from a Christian perspective because nations like the US where it is obvious that they "do good" around the world so as to obtain a comparative advantage like a businessman, are not ranked high in those things that they do. Whereas nations like Nigeria, though ranked low overall, are ranked 9th in peace-keeping presumably for their selfless military assistances. That is just an example to show this is not a "typical businessman" case of "doing good".

If you can give examples to buttress your claims of highly ranked nations on the list that you feel have "done good" with selfish motives, that might help.

No it's not as rounded as you made it sound; from the Christian perspective that is. Simon Anholt made it clear that he and his team were not concerned about morals, this in itself makes their research a bit more secular than Christian. No need to give examples to prolong the argument when Simon has made it clear from the beginning.

striktlymi:

No it's not as rounded as you made it sound; from the Christian perspective that is. Simon Anholt made it clear that he and his team were not concerned about morals, this in itself makes their research a bit more secular than Christian. No need to give examples to prolong the argument when Simon has made it clear from the beginning.

Did Inesqor run away?

Was it Kay17 or so that i was telling that polls change and differ?

striktlymi:
No it's not as rounded as you made it sound; from the Christian perspective that is. Simon Anholt made it clear that he and his team were not concerned about morals, this in itself makes their research a bit more secular than Christian. No need to give examples to prolong the argument when Simon has made it clear from the beginning.

We obviously have differing views on what a "Christian perspective" is, so I am willing to pass on this argument.

TheBigUrban2:
Did Inesqor run away?

Some of us have interesting lives outside Nairaland, you know.

TheBigUrban2:


First off you are talking to a black African man.

Your country, USA, was built on the backs of slaves. Black African slaves

Before that, the land was stolen from the indians who were killed anyhow.

More land then stolen from mexico



If slavery, colonization and theft all equal christianity, then be my guest.



The usa is not the most developed or fair country. In fact, the USA fails on many issues that other western developed countries excel. Healthcare, life expectancy, literacy, foriegn policy, etc

black people built USA? Oh what happened to the free ones in Africa, they don't know how to build? Stop being racist.

InesQor:


Some of us have interesting lives outside Nairaland, you know.

You must feel so special and interesting......

Image123:

black people built USA? Oh what happened to the free ones in Africa, they don't know how to build? Stop being racist.

If I called you a "dumbazz religitard that has comprehension problems", people would say that I'm abusive.



Here is my comment again;

TheBigUrban2:
First off you are talking to a black African man.
Your country, USA, was built on the backs of slaves. Black African slaves

Here is your ridiculous interpretation;

Image123:

black people built USA? Oh what happened to the free ones in Africa, they don't know how to build? Stop being racist.

I clearly said that USA was built on the backs of African slaves. That is different from saying that Africans built America


Please, do not unreasonably call me a racist again out of your ignorance

TheBigUrban2:




You must feel so special and interesting......

TheBigUrban2:


If I called you a "dumbazz religitard that has comprehension problems", people would say that I'm abusive.



Here is my comment again;


Here is your ridiculous interpretation;






I clearly said that USA was built on the backs of African slaves. That is different from saying that Africans built America


Please, do not unreasonably call me a racist again out of your ignorance

Your comment was racist. You sound like you suffer from family problems BTW.

Image123:

Your comment was racist. You sound like you suffer from family problems BTW.

Racist towards what race exactly?


You are one to talk about family problems when your slow reasoning seem to be the result of generations of inbreeding.

Image123:
Your comment was racist. You sound like you suffer from family problems BTW.

TheBigUrban2:


Racist towards what race exactly?


You are one to talk about family problems when your slow reasoning seem to be the result of generations of inbreeding.

Guys no vex, please take this funky pettifoggery off my thread abeg.

op, most of those countries are not xtian...

dunno where you get your data from, but countries like Finland are well known for their lack of concern for religion. well known. using mobile now so can't quote, but I'll be be back and we can compare them with numbers from those with good and proper xtian countries, ice those where well over 90 percent believe any day now some pissed off Jew will return to take his 'benign' sheeple on an intergalactic cruise. since you speak only of xtianity we can ignore truly religious governments, eg our good friends the Islamic states, and focus on xtian majorities

I also think you ignore or muddle up a few things that are essentially cultural, geography etc. some associated with xtianity , true (but not exlusively so mind) , others not. the age of enlightenment was not particularly aided by xtianity; this more or else a fact. thank your god for the xtian Galileo and his peers, mostly European and well influenced, crucially, by the Greek, who stuck to their guns and established the age of reason. we also cannot ignore, of course, inventions like the printing press, the spread of info as a result (look at the a Arab spring and the internet for instance, doesnt even compare in terms of scope or impact ultimately, of course) etc. else we'd still be in truly xtian nations. etc etc

InesQor:



Guys no vex, please take this funky pettifoggery off my thread abeg.

wiegraf: op, most of those countries are not xtian...

dunno where you get your data from, but countries like Finland are well known for their lack of concern for religion. well known. using mobile now so can't quote, but I'll be be back and we can compare them with numbers from those with good and proper xtian countries, ice those where well over 90 percent believe any day now some pissed off Jew will return to take his 'benign' sheeple on an intergalactic cruise. since you speak only of xtianity we can ignore truly religious governments, eg our good friends the Islamic states, and focus on xtian majorities

I also think you ignore or muddle up a few things that are essentially cultural, geography etc. some associated with xtianity , true (but not exlusively so mind) , others not. the age of enlightenment was not particularly aided by xtianity; this more or else a fact. thank your god for the xtian Galileo and his peers, mostly European and well influenced, crucially, by the Greek, who stuck to their guns and established the age of reason. we also cannot ignore, of course, inventions like the printing press, the spread of info as a result (look at the a Arab spring and the internet for instance, doesnt even compare in terms of scope or impact ultimately, of course) etc. else we'd still be in truly xtian nations. etc etc

I just like the way Weigraf started in bold.

Simple and short.

Those countries aint "christian"

InesQor:



Guys no vex, please take this funky pettifoggery off my thread abeg.

lol, sorry.

wiegraf: op, most of those countries are not xtian...

dunno where you get your data from, but countries like Finland are well known for their lack of concern for religion. well known. using mobile now so can't quote, but I'll be be back and we can compare them with numbers from those with good and proper xtian countries, ice those where well over 90 percent believe any day now some pissed off Jew will return to take his 'benign' sheeple on an intergalactic cruise. since you speak only of xtianity we can ignore truly religious governments, eg our good friends the Islamic states, and focus on xtian majorities

I also think you ignore or muddle up a few things that are essentially cultural, geography etc. some associated with xtianity , true (but not exlusively so mind) , others not. the age of enlightenment was not particularly aided by xtianity; this more or else a fact. thank your god for the xtian Galileo and his peers, mostly European and well influenced, crucially, by the Greek, who stuck to their guns and established the age of reason. we also cannot ignore, of course, inventions like the printing press, the spread of info as a result (look at the a Arab spring and the internet for instance, doesnt even compare in terms of scope or impact ultimately, of course) etc. else we'd still be in truly xtian nations. etc etc

Hi wiegraf

I never said they are Christian countries.

One report is about doing good, and the other is about religions (or irreligions) as claimed by residents in nations. I was just comparing two independent sources. Feel free to chuck it up as coincidence, but the links are clearly there, and I have not manipulated the sources.

I also never said anything about some - in your words - pissed off Jew or an integalactic cruise. You should know me better, I'm an offbeat Christian and don't share many mainstream Christian thoughts.

As far as I am concerned, Christianity has a lot more to do with
(a) taking good care of the planet's natural resources, flora and fauna (which is one way you can show that you respect God as you're his regent here on earth) and
(b) doing what is right by your fellow man (the second way, which is how you demonstrate you love God).
The rest of it involves qualifications of the two.

The last paragraph of your riposte does not seem to be relevant to this topic, or maybe I'm the one who's currently slow. It is well known that Islam-inclined nations did a lot more for science in medieval and ancient times than pagan ones, and Christian ones even impeded development.

May I remind us that this thread is about comparing TWO separate indices (that have NOTHING to do with one another) and trying to see why those with more people claiming to be Christian, seem to top the list of doing good. Whether or not they are actually flying spaghetti monster devotees - but claimed to be Christian in an independent survey - is an exercise for the reader.

This is one step to changing nigerian
and africa to accelerate development.

www.nairaland.com/1808167/how-separation-church-mosque-state

InesQor:


As far as I am concerned, Christianity has a lot more to do with
(a) taking good care of the planet's natural resources, flora and fauna (which is one way you can show that you respect God as you're his regent here on earth) and
(b) doing what is right by your fellow man (the second way, which is how you demonstrate you love God).
The rest of it involves qualifications of the two.

The bold is a lie. A VERY BIG LIE

Christianity is not about taking care about the earth's resources or vegetation.


-When the movie "Avatar" came out, christians in America (especially conservative christians) were calling the theme of "environmentalism" in the movie "paganism"

-Jesus cursed a fig tree

-There is no bible verse in the new testament that tells a christian it is his or her duty to tend to the earth/vegetation/natural resources. Neither does the new testament say that God is pleased when a christian goes "green"

-The old testament at best just gives man dominion over the earth

-Green christians or enviromentalist christians all lack scriptural backing for their green beliefs.

TheBigUrban2:
The bold is a lie. A VERY BIG LIE
Christianity is not about taking care about the earth's resources or vegetation.
-When the movie "Avatar" came out, christians in America (especially conservative christians) were calling the theme of "environmentalism" in the movie "paganism"
-Jesus cursed a fig tree
-There is no bible verse in the new testament that tells a christian it is his or her duty to tend to the earth/vegetation/natural resources. Neither does the new testament say that God is pleased when a christian goes "green"
-The old testament at best just gives man dominion over the earth
-Green christians or enviromentalist christians all lack scriptural backing for their green beliefs.

@TheBigUrban2 Glad to get your goat, then.

InesQor:

The last paragraph of your riposte does not seem to be relevant to this topic, or maybe I'm the one who's currently slow. It is well known that Islam-inclined nations did a lot more for science in medieval and ancient times than pagan ones, and Christian ones even impeded development.

Another falsehood. You are now lying for Islam?

The muslim Golden age has always been OVERHYPED by muslims.

You do realise that the more civilized Chinese were pagan when Mohammed was just beginning his ministry?
You do realise that if we compare ancient christian contributions to science, it would dwarf the islamic golden age, despite christianity impeding science at times?

InesQor:

@TheBigUrban2 Glad to get your goat, then.

Thanks for the insult


#we know how people behave rudely when they have been thoroughly corrected and have nothing to comeback with

#address the message not the messenger

TheBigUrban2:


Thanks for the insult


#we know how people behave rudely when they have been thoroughly corrected and have nothing to comeback with

#address the message not the messenger

LOL!!! Insult?

Pele, you see, it is a simple English expression. Google it.

TheBigUrban2:


Another falsehood. You are now lying for Islam?

The muslim Golden age has always been OVERHYPED by muslims.

You do realise that the more civilized Chinese were pagan when Mohammed was just beginning his ministry?
You do realise that if we compare ancient christian contributions to science, it would dwarf the islamic golden age, despite christianity impeding science at times?

This is new information to me so I cannot sensibly discuss it right now. I will find time to check it out, and - maybe - revert to you.

Adios

InesQor:
LOL!!! Insult?

Pele, you see, it is a simple English expression. Google it.

Doesnt that expression mean that I'm angry/mad?


Can you stop with the lies?

TheBigUrban2 is making all the sense needed .. InesQor u just won't agree!! Well stand on ur philosophy..for me I don't go with it at all

That's no riposte, you'd feel a bit more if it were. Besides it's too long. All these sensitive xtians sef. You are waiting for a pissed off jew to come carry you off on an intergalactic cruise; fact. That's xtian doctrine. If it doesn't apply to your particular interpretation, that's cool. But that does not stop it from being official xtian doctrine, not at all. And that's what the vast majority of xtians expect.

Anyways, here's my point

you:
The last paragraph of your riposte does not seem to be relevant to this topic, or maybe I'm the one who's currently slow. It is well known that Islam-inclined nations did a lot more for science in medieval and ancient times than pagan ones, and Christian ones even impeded development.

The age of enlightenment entails more than just science. Sure, science was the basis, but a lot of 'good' was the critical byproduct. Eg, the information splurge I mention, economics, 'better' ethics etc. Lives have been immeasurably improved since then. And you concede xtianity even impeded that development, so why do you think it plays a critical or positive factor here?

For instance, looking at the site you reccommend, here's the top 30 according to their 'good' ie

[img]http://1.1.1.3/bmi/static2.businessinsider.com/image/53b1d2aaeab8ea3421e6b5e3-1200-2400/bi_graphics_goodcountryindex-01.jpg[/img]

Now, looking at the PEW index, below first you have the top 30 countries with the highest ratio of xtian citezens, from Tokelau with 99.8% xtians, to Congo with 95.8 (sellouts, what happened to their ancestors?? If they want to believe in a god couldn't they choose those??)

The second list features those with the highest ratio of unaffiliated. Note, with PEW unaffiliated doesn't equate to atheist/agnostic, they could still very well be theists of some sort (and usually the majority are IIRC), but this is what we have to work it. And they do give their reasons for this somewhere on the site, and it sort of makes sense though you might disagree. For instance, while you call yourself xtian, you just made it clear that yours is a bespoke version, yes? So, you're not necessarily going to agree on say governmental issues with the mainstream xtian/catholics, etc, correct?

Anyways, these are the numbers we have to work with, and they should do. Now, I likely am wrong, my concentration is shot (I start getting high early, and tend to multitask variably, etc etc), but I could not find just one of those countries in the 'good' 30 in the xtian population dominated societies. I'm very sure I'm wrong on that, so please do a recheck.

Whereas with the countries featuring unaffiliated populations, Netherlands, Sweden, France, Spain, UK, Belgium, Spain, Japan, Finland, Luxemborg, Germany. Probably others I missed, do verify if you've got the time as well.

This alone should be enough to bring home my point. I'll add though that you're IMO you're conflating secular humanist ideals with xtianity, and they don't go hand in hand. Like you noted, xtianity did try to impede progress on such fronts (you overstate Islam IMO, certainly not in ancient times, just a few maybe hundred years during mediavel times, and they quickly turned that to absolute $hit eventually, but that's another issue). I also think you're ignoring geopolitics, history etc to a certain extent.

^^This may not be a thorough response (time, abeg), but I hope my position is clearer now?

TheBigUrban2:


Thanks for the insult


#we know how people behave rudely when they have been thoroughly corrected and have nothing to comeback with

#address the message not the messenger

lol, you're Mr rude don't you think? You got banned yet again? gotta be like your tenth nl handle or something, nawa oh.

TheBigUrban2:


Doesnt that expression mean that I'm angry/mad?


Can you stop with the lies?

What flipping lies? Guy can you at least try and make sense? How can "I'm glad I got you angry" be an insult rather than trying to evade a confrontation?

Rather than confess that you didn't know the meaning, you're still here claiming trash.

@wiegraf:

Thanks for your very well put response. Sadly, I'll pass.

InesQor:
What flipping lies? Guy can you at least try and make sense? How can "I'm glad I got you angry" be an insult rather than trying to evade a confrontation?

Rather than confess that you didn't know the meaning, you're still here claiming trash.

First you say that I'm angry (when I am not)

then you now claim that I'm looking for a confrontation


All the rude talk to avoid accepting that you were corrected by this comment;

TheBigUrban2:
The bold is a lie. A VERY BIG LIE
Christianity is not about taking care about the earth's resources or vegetation.
-When the movie "Avatar" came out, christians in America (especially conservative christians) were calling the theme of "environmentalism" in the movie "paganism"
-Jesus cursed a fig tree
-There is no bible verse in the new testament that tells a christian it is his or her duty to tend to the earth/vegetation/natural resources. Neither does the new testament say that God is pleased when a christian goes "green"
-The old testament at best just gives man dominion over the earth
-Green christians or enviromentalist christians all lack scriptural backing for their green beliefs.

InesQor: @wiegraf:

Thanks for your very well put response. Sadly, I'll pass.

Would it kill you to accept that you're wrong?



#runaway