You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-1 points

And salvation rates would presumably be tied to religious affiliation rates.

Not necessarily. Churches have struggled to retain members for various reasons. A Christian may feel disaffected of his local denominational institution, while maintaining absolute loyalty to God. The two rates are loosely related for sure, but it’s a Venn diagram.

A country with 0 christians will have 0 saved people, and a country with n christians will have n * (unknown multiplier) saved people. Does that make sense?

I suppose it depends on how you define “Christian”, but the standard definition is equivalent to “one who has been saved”, so the multiplier is 1. But religious affiliation is a separate issue.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

The two rates are loosely related for sure, but it’s a Venn diagram.

I’m not stating that they should be directly tied to one another, but surely it would be related enough to see an effect on drug rates, but we do not.

I suppose it depends on how you define “Christian”, but the standard definition is equivalent to “one who has been saved”, so the multiplier is 1. But religious affiliation is a separate issue.

Even with your definition of “Christian” the same math should apply.

(0) = (0)

(n) “christians” = (n * x) true christians

I’m sure X would vary from country to country, but you simply cannot have many “true christians”, whatever they may be that fit your definition, without lots of other “superficial” christians.


I would reply to the other two messages you sent to my lemmy.world account, but that instance is down at the moment due to the ddos attacks, so I’ll respond to those at another time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Maybe, but I’m not sure why that matters. The essence of our dispute here is over whether salvation works reliably for kicking a drug addiction.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It matters because if “true christian” population is correlated with self reported christian population, which it should be, then self reported christian population should also be inversely correlated with drug addicition.

To break it down a little further:

  1. (n) “christians” = (n * x) true christians

  2. (n) “christians” = inverse (drug addicition)

Therefore:

  1. “true christians” = inverse (drug addicition)

Does that make sense?

permalink
report
parent
reply

conservative

!conservative@lemmy.world

Create post

A community to discuss conservative politics and views.

Rules:

  1. No racism or bigotry.

  2. Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally insult others.

  3. No spam posting.

  4. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  5. Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

  6. No trolling.

Community stats

  • 631

    Monthly active users

  • 179

    Posts

  • 2.4K

    Comments