Many anti-Christians love to invent stories about Christians. They also like to perpetuate myths which have long ago been found to be lacking in any real historical substance. The favourite is that Christians invented slavery or, in the very least, are the most culpable because they supposedly propped it up for so long. As we all know, it was Christians who strove to make it illegal. Here's a fascinating video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2237312499464971431
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
43 comments:
That's right! CHRISTIANS are the ONLY ones who wanted to end slavery... The bible was never used to justify it and it was the atheists who wanted slavery to continue! The atheists who fought to keep slavery legal! church leaders, men and women of faith - all were against slavery!
NOWHERE in the bible does Jesus say that slavery is anything but an abomination, Jesus talks at length about how slavery should be ended and never said that slaves should be good little slaves and obey their masters!
Come on now. Christians INVENTED slavery? I have NEVER heard someone claim that ever. Even if they did say such a thing the simple fact is it's completely not true. But your claim that it was the Christians who strove to make slavery illegal is a bit of a dishonest claim as well is it not?
What a fantastically well-reasoned, objective and superbly well-researched response.
Been smokin' some of the good weed young man and have we just poked our well-informed, rational presence into the blog between bongs?
I'm sorry I must've missed the memo that went around. Are creationists demanding rationality and thought now? I must make pains to remember such a thing. And to ignore evidence to the contrary, like posts lamenting the lack of recognition given to all the Christians who ignored Jesus' and God's teachings by trying to end slavery.
Tell me though John : you claim that Christians were the ones trying to end slavery. By not acknowledging any OTHER groups of people, are you intentionally implying that Christians were the only ones against slavery? Are you trying to imply that there weren't any Christians (let alone a rather large percentage of them) that used scripture to justify keeping slavery legal? Why didn't you qualify your claims of Christian moral superiority with information that counters your implication of said superiority?
Oh, Healy, come up for air between sessions have we?
Please explain what's wrong with keeping a slave.
This video was a bit one sided. For a more balanced view please read Rodney stark "For the glory of God". He goes through Christian slave trade country by country and tells who were the Christians for and against slavery.
Christians have a long tradition to be on both sides of the issue. For example early Christians paid to free slaves, but pro-slavery Southern Baptist Convention distanced itself from the slavery only in 1995.
Peter I suppose you are saying (and I would agree) that those who claim to be Christian don't always live that way. I suppose it is just the problem of being human. Come Lord come!
Being a fan of Dawkins I thought you may like this comment of his;
In this 2009 Charles Darwin anniversary year, 150 years since publication of "Origin of Species", consider the irony in this statement by Richard Dawkins: "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." Duh!
(December 2004 interview with Bill Moyers).
This is typical creationist out of context quoting. Dawkins clearly refers to the whole theory/process of evolution from common ancestor to jellyfish, apes and humans. Nobody was there to observe the whole evolution process. Listen/read the whole article. Why are you trying to mock the opposite side by mispresenting them?
Warrick,
Re slavery. My point is that the Bible can be interpreted in many ways; both pro and anti-salvery. For example Philemon or 10 commandments. Christians can be pro or anti slavery. There is no single Christian way.
Peter -'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' doesn't do it for you?
Or love your neighbour (your fellow man) as yourself.
If I have misrepresented Dawkins please let us know what he went on to say which changes what he clearly said in this quote.
Evolution has been observed but not while it's happening indeed! Imagine if a witness in court said such a thing. Yes your honour I witnessed a murder but not while it was happening!
I think it's somewhat the same nonsense he came out with on the DVD Frog to prince. Have a listen to the DVD and see him stumped, by what should be a simple question if microbe-to-man evolution is a fact. Then wait for his nonsense no answer which does not in any way answer the question.
Defend the faith Peter.
Peter (and Healy, if you can put down the pot for a few moments),
Will you provide an exhaustive list of atheists and what they actually did in ending the slave trade?
John : Unlike yourself I didn't imply that every member of my "religion" held the same view. I'm not asking for a list of or statistics regarding the numbers of Christians who held each view : I'm asking that you acknowledge that a great number of Christians were pro-slavery and used the bible to justify it.
And Warwick: No, "do unto others" does NOT satisfy. Read what ELSE Jesus says regarding slavery. Things like it being okay to beat your slave with a rod, and as long as it takes him more than 3 days to die it's okay. Things like telling slaves to continue to BE slaves, and not telling anyone to abandon slavery.
Healy, stop pulling billies and answer a very simple question: Will you provide an exhaustive list of atheists and what they actually did in ending the slave trade?
Warwick said...
Peter -'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' doesn't do it for you?
No it does not. Now that we have moved past the homogenous tribal society a better one would be "do unto others as they would have you do unto them", but of course that can also be improved.
Warwick said...
Or love your neighbour (your fellow man) as yourself.
I can quote the Bible too.
"Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him."
So much for the real neighbourly love...
Warwick said...
If I have misrepresented Dawkins please let us know what he went on to say which changes what he clearly said in this quote.
Read my comment again and read the whole article.
Warwick said...
Defend the faith Peter
It always makes me chuckle when people of the faith try to negatively describe science as faith. People don't seem to understand that while misrepresenting facts they are undermining their own faith position. A real own goal.
John said...
Will you provide an exhaustive list of atheists and what they actually did in ending the slave trade?
It is a good idea not to try to focus on Christianity when talking about slavery. Paul's slavery views were more pro-slavery than Jewish views at the time. Christian world had slavery 1800 years and now they try to take credit of abolishing it. Yeah right! Please read the Stark's (who is a Christian) book for the real reasons why slavery disappeared. And just look at the USA; more conservative christian a state was/is more pro-slavery it was.
No, John. Because, as I said, I don't claim that all atheists were against slavery. All I'm looking for from you is the SAME admission regarding Christians and their use of the bible o back both sides of the debate. Is there a reason you can't state facts if they contradict your rose-tinted perception of Christians? Is there a specific REASON you don't want to admit that many Christians did in fact support slavery, that they used the bible to do it, and that Jesus himself did not try to abolish slavery but told slaves to keep their places?
Peter, note that the full title of Stark's book, which I agree is excellent, is For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery. Here is a short summary article by Stark, where he pointed out: ‘The problem wasn’t that the [Church] leadership was silent. It was that almost nobody listened.’
CMI's article Anti-slavery activist William Wilberforce: Christian hero points out that slavery was ubiquitous, and it was Christians who abolished it on biblical grounds. I.e. they mixed religion with politics and imposed their morality on others!
Unfortunately, misotheists love to attack Christians for evils affecting almost all human societies throughout history, and ignoring their contributions to expunging these evils.
Stark AFAIK is an agnostic. But he recognizes the huge benefits of Christianity in the foundations of science, capitalism and the abolition of slavery.
Thomas Sowell's book Black Rednecks and White Liberals argues that the southern culture was not that conservative or Christian. The title refers to his documentation that so-called "authentic black culture" including "ebonics" is actually a relic of a highly disfunctional white southern redneck culture that existed even in pre-Independence America. This in turn came from the rough English-Scots borderlands in Britain they immigrated from. According to Sowell, this culture included vicious feuding, promiscuity, indifference to education, drunkenness, and recklessness toward life.
It wasn't all anti-Christian, but even the preaching was "a style of religious oratory marked by strident rhetoric, unbridled emotions, and flamboyant imagery. This oratorical style carried over into the political oratory of the region in both the Jim Crow era and the civil rights era, and has continued into our own times among black politicians, preachers and activists."
Note also, Lincoln didn't free slaves in the NORTH. Dr Walter Williams, himself African-American, as is Sowell BTW, noted the irony:
The New York World wrote, "He has proclaimed emancipation only where he has notoriously no power to execute it. The exemption of the accessible parts of Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia renders the proclamation not merely futile, but ridiculous." The London Spectator mocked, "The principle (of the Proclamation) is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States."
Peter I wasn't describing science as faith. I was describing evolutionary belief as faith. Which it is.
Having worked in a medico-scientific field I am well aware that anything which cannot be demonstrated to be fact by the testable, observable, repeatable scientific method is of faith.
Peter as regards Dawkins I am assured he indeed uttered that nonsense.
BTW I wrote of the DVD Frog to Prince. Have you watched it and seen how he was stumped by a question which should be simple to answer if microbe-to-man evolution is fact. Did you see the non-answer he gave after having time to think? Nothing to do with the question.
You said he has another view of the matter however the complete tape shows he is wrong.
Peter we each choose who enters our homes. There are people who I would not want here. Nonetheless Jesus' command is that we love even our enemies. I may not want Bin Laden in my house however I do pray for him. I pray that he will be saved and inherit eternal life. I do not (as commanded) wish him ill.
Peter I have yet to see it however a scientist friend suggests I have a look at the DVD "The God Delusion Debate" between Dawkins and fellow Oxford don, Dr John Lennox. He says Dawkins looked rather red-faced, literally, as Lennox showed flaw after flaw in his book.'
Maybe you should have a look at it too? But you know Peter it may be a fake. Dawkins may say I wuzn't even there.
Ktisophilos, according to your link Stark believes in creator God and some atheists disagree with his views, anyways it is worth reading.
Note that when Pope wanted to kill Trinity deniers inquisition was organised and the job got done. If Pope had wanted to get rid of slavery they could have done a better jobs. According to Stark some high ranking Vatican people and Jesuits had slaves and Pope did not always do much about it.
Note that Stark acknowledges that science did not develop in Christianity between 400 - 1250 and capitalism emerged furthest away from the centre of Christianity. Read about more details in his books.
I might be repeating myself but:
- it was Christians who abolished slavery on biblical grounds
- it was Christians who supported slavery on biblical grounds
Warwick, read about the truth and relevance about your "Frog to Prince" Dawkins claim:
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102_1.html
I don't think I have seen the "The God Delusion Debate". Blog about it with a link to watch it and lets discuss.
You seem to have a hangup about Dawkins. Why is it so important for you to try to attack him?
Peter said: "I might be repeating myself but:
- it was Christians who abolished slavery on biblical grounds
- it was Christians who supported slavery on biblical grounds"
Well, I might be repeating myself, but, it wasn't atheists who abolished slavery!
John said...
Well, I might be repeating myself, but, it wasn't atheists who abolished slavery!
John you are right. At the time when abolishing slavery were discussed and advocated by Popes Christians were burning alive people who denied Jesus or trinity.
The question Christians should ask is why was there slavery in the Christians world for 1500 years. Only when the slow rise of secular thought started slavery disappeared.
Peter as regards Frog to Prince access the link creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/-and see the uncut video footage. He, a supposed world authority on evolution,is stumped by what should be an easy question if microbe to man evolution is a fact. How can he deny what is on tape?
I have criticized Dawkins as he is an atheistic activist crudely attacking Christianity, seen as some as an 'apostle of atheism.'
However when put to the test he is less than impressive as shown in Frog to Prince, the God Delusion debate, and his incorrect comments about the eye.
Why should I not criticize him? You seem to be keen on criticism.
I don't have a link to the God Delusion debate but the video is available. As my contact says Dawkins is most obviously embarassed when the very many errors in his book are pointed out by an Oxford Don.
Warwick, so Dawkins messed up that part of the interview, so what? It was not a live interview so there was no problem with that. He has also given some excellent live interviews. What is your point? Let me tell you another secret. He and FFRF also messed up one of his recorded interviews last year. But so what?
It is just a bit odd that you seem to repeatedly address me while criticizing Dawkins. While I agree with him a lot, I also disagree with him in some issues and he does not represent me. Imagine if I would quote repeatedly Cardianal Pell, Fred Phelps or the Pope Alexander VI to you and show what mistakes they made. Would that weaken your Christian position or just make me look silly?
If you want to criticize Dawkins, write a blog post against the issues he has written. Remember to do your homework and reference the quotes so we know that you are not misquoting him. Just drop the petty stabs about mistakes he has made in front of a camera, that is just sad.
No Peter you don't get off that lightly.
You, as I see it, are just another who has been duped, accepting the evolution myth without understanding it. I suppose it gives you intellectual support for your anti-Biblical/Christian campaign. Salves the consience!
Dawkins is a God-hating front-man for the evolutionary faith. Reality demonstrates he lacks answers to important questions.
The Frog to Prince DVD does not show 'mistakes he has made in front of a camera,' but that he cannot answer a critical question. One which would be easy if microbe-to-man evolution was indeed a fact. And he the expert! I agree 'that is just sad.'
His comments on the eye were contradicted by an expert. A scientist obviously far more knowledgeable than Dawkins. This demonstrates he pontificates outside his field, despite illustrating his lack of the necessary scientific knowledge.
However this lack has never stopped him.
The 'God Delusion' debate revealed that he made serious errors in this book.
So the evidence is 'the emperor has no clothes.' He is a man who attacks and ridicules the faith of others while being ignorant of his own.
Hypocrites deserve criticism. The more public and agressive they are the more they deserve it.
'Many anti-Christians love to invent stories about Christians.'
How correct that is.
Regularly we see anti-Christians rambling on about the crusades, how the wicked Christians attacked those poor Muslims. They forget at least two things.
Islam is a violent militaristic politico-religious organization which converts by invasion. The Muslims were invaders of the Holy land so we have one pack of invaders attacking another.
Secondly I think it a bit of a stretch to call the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the perpetrators of the crusades, Christian. It was (and some say still is) a pagan organization with a veneer of Christianity.
Consider how the RCC exterminated the French Cathars at the same time as it carried out the crusades. Their crime? They did not want to be under the RCC's authority. I visited a number of Cathar castles last September-October and wondered at how this vile organization pursued the Cathars to their mountain-peak castles, to kill them to the last person. All they wanted was to be left alone.
As some of you know I have French Huguenot ancestry, they being protestant. The RCC also would not tolerate their wishing to worship in their own way and slaughtered them as well.
I only wish the anti-Christians would get their facts right and apportion blame where it is due.
But hey why spoil slander with facts!
Yes, Islam sucks in the 'Left' time and time again so that the 'Left' are exposed as fools.
See how the haven for many Lefts, the United Nations, were exposed as fools for believing the story that Israel bombed the UN International School in Gaza during the fighting last month. One UN soggy heart called for an investigation of Israel for war crimes.
It has now been revealed Israel did not bomb the school. The bombs were near the school but not in it. Some 'Palestinians' gave away the story Hamas had been putting out.
I believe the UN has put out a statement of rectification.
Neil
Peter said: "Only when the slow rise of secular thought started slavery disappeared."
Is that 'Secular' as in Karl Marx, the same Karl Marx who had his own slave, didn't pay her a farthing in wages in 30 years of hiring her?
Or is that Lenin, Mao etc who murdered millions?
Or is that the French Revolution, in men like Robspierre who did likewise?
Or maybe Rousseau, who had a rather "charming" way of begetting children?
So, Peter, just who would you nominate as your perferred candidate for secularist of the ages?
Hey, guys,
We're still waiting for a short list of atheist organisations who were at the coal face in the 18th and 19th centuries attempting to eliminate slavery.
Peter,
Let's see what the real situation was with the Enlightenment folk and their attitudes to slavery. From an article at http://www.realhistories.org.uk/articles/archive/philosophy.html
"But as the quote at the top of this article emphasizes, the Enlightenment project was coterminous with the expansion of slavery. While we must be careful in causally linking or directly blaming Enlightenment philosophers for slavery, their writings have been strongly condemned by more recent social theorists. For example, the two most influential Enlightenment figures in Britain, John Locke and David Hume, clearly held that black Africans were inferior to Europeans. Locke was a shareholder in the Royal African Company and authored the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina in which ‘every freeman’ was allowed to have ‘absolute power and authority over his negro slaves’. In his discussions on human nature, Hume suggested some natural differences according to national character, going so far as to state
I am apt to suspect the negroes to be naturally inferior to whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation.
Of all the Enlightenment philosophers, however, Kant is the most influential in contemporary moral philosophy. His influence stems mainly from his idea that all persons are owed respect and ought not to be treated in humiliating ways. One way to think of this ideal is that all persons have equal moral worth. Human rights law, and indeed modern liberal morality, clearly derives from Kantian arguments that we all share a basic moral status that governments and, indeed, other individuals cannot violate. As modern philosophers put it, Kant’s thought is characterized by its universalism. That is to say that, for Kant, ethical principles should be consistent and rational, which requires that they apply equally and rationally to all persons.
Unfortunately, however, even Kant was not immune to a European inability to perceive non-Europeans as equal human beings. He denied that non-Europeans had the same status as Europeans, and to do so he was led to suggest an essential intrinsic difference between Europeans and non-Europeans, particularly native Americans and Africans. Indeed, Thomas McCarthy, an influential philosopher, has recently argued: ‘In fact, it seems to have been Kant who first introduced the idea of explaining racial differentiation by postulating in our original ancestors a fund of four germs or seeds, each of which contained… one set of racial characteristics’.
So while Kant is arguably the greatest influence on modern moral universalism and the ideal of human equality, he is also one of the most important sources of race-based differentiation within humanity. His view was that different races had different inherent capacities: ‘in short, this fellow was quite black from head to foot, a clear proof that he was stupid.’ While this may be Kant’s most notorious statement on human racial difference, it is hardly unique."
However, Mill believed that slavery was wrong, not because it was wrong qua wrong (how could he - there are no absolutes in Utilitarianism!), but that it has a bad influence on the society who owned them. He also believed that slaveowners should be compensated for their loss after the slaves were emancipated.
Peter, the biblical verse that states all men and women are made in the image of God sets up an epistemological basis for ending slavery. If God exists and the Bible is truly His word, then there is nothing an atheist, beginning from an atheist worldview, can say that categorically and absolutely rules out slavery. All an atheist can say, presuming they are against slavery, which, by Hume's example, isn't necessarily the case, is that slavery is wrong because, well, ahh, let me think, well, it's wrong because, ahh, hmmm, well it's just not right. Note the circularity.
Warrick wrote:
"Dawkins is a God-hating front-man for the evolutionary faith."
"His comments on the eye were contradicted by an expert."
"Regularly we see anti-Christians rambling on about the crusades, how the wicked Christians attacked those poor Muslims. They forget at least two things.
Islam is a violent militaristic politico-religious organization which converts by invasion. The Muslims were invaders of the Holy land so we have one pack of invaders attacking another.
Secondly I think it a bit of a stretch to call the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the perpetrators of the crusades, Christian. It was (and some say still is) a pagan organization with a veneer of Christianity."
Today's competition is how many fallacies you can find in Warwick comments. Bonus points from the issues I have already addressed, but Warwick has ignored. Who ever identifies the most gets fame, fortune and "The God Delusion" ebook.
John asked:
"So, Peter, just who would you nominate as your perferred candidate for secularist of the ages?"
It is a touch call. There are so many Nobel laureates, philantropists and famous but unknown scientists like Marc Van Montagu. I would have to think about this, but biologist who have developped vaccines and women's right activists would be high on the list.
You had charming examples of secular people. Who would you nominate as the "secularist of the ages" or "Christian of the ages" with the same criteria?
I don't think there were purely atheist organisations in the 18th century attempting to eliminate slavery. I was not good for your health to be openly atheist at the time. It is like asking where are the Christian organisations in Saudi-Arabia? The real question you should be asking is where were the Christian anti-slavery organistations 320 AD - 1700 AD?
John said:
Peter, the biblical verse that states all men and women are made in the image of God sets up an epistemological basis for ending slavery
John, the biblical verse that states do not covet your neigbours slaves clearly shows that the God of the OT has no problem with the slavery. Paul also sent a run-away slave back to his master to keep the status quo. Christians always pick and choose verses to match to the currect cultural thinking.
John said:
If God exists and the Bible is truly His word, then there is nothing an atheist, beginning from an atheist worldview, can say that categorically and absolutely rules out slavery.
This is a non sequitor. Atheism just addresses the God issue, not the slavery issue. Atheist ethic systems are also independent of if the Bible is God's word. Please try again.
C'mon Peter don't be shy, don't keep us in suspenders. You will have to spell out my many fallacies.
Peter,
Been meaning to ask you this for some time and your last entry only stressed how important it is I do so:
Do you and Healy share the same drug dealer?
No it's Warwick Preter.
It looks like Peter isn't going to inform us about my 'fallacies' so I will endeavour an answer so that no winner has 'The God Delusion' flung at them. Especially as fellow Oxford don Dr John Lennox pointed out the books many flaws in "The God Delusion Debate." Apparently Dawkins was very embarassed by his exposure.
THE FALLACIES?
Dawkins is a God-hating front-man for the evolutionary faith."
Warwick says-How is this a fallacy f'revens sake?
"His comments on the eye were contradicted by an expert."
Warwick says-they were as previoiusly detailed.
"Regularly we see anti-Christians rambling on about the crusades, how the wicked Christians attacked those poor Muslims. They forget at least two things.
Islam is a violent militaristic politico-religious organization which converts by invasion."
Warwick says, fair suck of the sav. Peter this is an understatement. History shows that by and large Islam has been spread by terror, as the Koran commands.
This terror continues on a world-wide scale today. In Islamic countries infidels (that includes you Peter) are murdered/executed, simply because they are not Muslim. Not because they oppose Islam but because they will not submit to it. Only a person ignorant of reality would not know this.
"The Muslims were invaders of the Holy land so we have one pack of invaders attacking another."
Warwick says-Muslims were not there in 10BC, or 10,AD or even 100AD. They came much later as invaders. Where is the fallacy in this?
"Secondly I think it a bit of a stretch to call the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the perpetrators of the crusades, Christian. It was (and some say still is) a pagan organization with a veneer of Christianity."
Warwick says-How is this fallacious? Roman Catholic doctrine contains many tennets which are anti-Biblical. For example, forbidding men to marry, the proliferation of statues, praying to the dead, Mary worshiped as the Queen of Heaven, indulgences and so on.
I visited a church in Le-Puy-En-Velay in France on 5th October last, and directly behind the main altar was a large statue of Mary in all her divine radiance, with people praying to her.
In the Gorge du Tarn above a village called Maléne is a metal frame cross with Mary standing in the place of Jesus.
And you doubt it is pagan organization!
If it waddles like a duck and looks like a duck it's probably a duck.
I'm shocked & disappointed. It seems that my fallacies weren't fallacious after all.
My experience with people like Peter is that they have a self-vaunted opinion of their own intellect and knowledge. Mostly those on the same 'bus' as him will ridicule any who believe the Bible is a true record of history.
On another site one man described me as old and ignorant, a fool, a moron, scientifically ignorant, a rabid Catholic, and a Seventh-day Adventist; all to him insults.
What I have discovered is the 'think-tank' of indoctrination at which they drink, teaches them folk such as we know nothing, been nowhere. One called an associate a scientific moron, unaware that his opponent is a physicist working for NASA! The evolutionist said-I have a degree in science so I know what I'm talking about! Wow, I'm impressed, a degree!
Above, I wrote about Mary on the cross at Meléne, and people worshiping Mary 'Queen of Heaven' at the main altar of a church in Le-Puy-En-Velay. On another site a Peter type called me a liar when I said that. I was going to offer photographic evidenve but he crawled off.
Many who blog here, defending God's word have been there, done that but it doesn't fit with what the God-haters have been taught.
Once again, a misotheist like Peter damns the Church for an evil institution that flourished the whole world over, and was finally abolished thanks to Christians—and thanks to a correct (originalist or grammatical-historical) understanding the Bible. Sure, some tried to read slavery into the Bible, but that is the same sort of eisegesis Peter's ilk advocate when they demand that Christians read evolution into the Bible.
Peter rambles: "I don't think there were purely atheist organisations in the 18th century attempting to eliminate slavery. I was not good for your health to be openly atheist at the time. It is like asking where are the Christian organisations in Saudi-Arabia? The real question you should be asking is where were the Christian anti-slavery organistations 320 AD - 1700 AD?"
Can anyone point out to Peter his fallacies? There are several.
Healy's original argument from silence duplicated by most atheists: "NOWHERE in the bible does Jesus say that slavery is anything but an abomination, Jesus talks at length about how slavery should be ended and never said that slaves should be good little slaves and obey their masters!"
Christ didn't mention abortion, homosexuality, child sacrifice, bestiality etc, but we can be sure that Christ thought these were wrongs and that society shouldn't practise them.
Christ i.e. God, gave Christians a rule-of-thumb, to love your neighbour as yourself. To treat a person as something less than a human is clearly something that Christ would not approve. Similarly, to murder a child while she is in its mother's womb, to end a life of another human as though they aren't human, a practice that atheists, to the man, seem to approve, is something that was wrong and which Christians from the beginning were against.
Warwick,
Re God-hating: mischaracterization of one's position
Re faith: Equivocation?
Re eye: mischaracterization of one's position and then attacking it. We discussed this before.
Re "a bit of a stretch to call the Holy Roman Catholic Church": Why do you get to define who is a Christian not Catholics?
Re "Islam is a violent militaristic politico-religious organization.. inviding holy land": 2 wrongs make it right?
I just wanted to point out that you are defending your faith with constant fallacies. Casual reader would interpret your position irrational.
Warwick said...
"History shows that by and large Islam has been spread by terror, as the Koran commands.
Pot, kettle, black?
John said...
"Do you and Healy share the same drug dealer?"
Yes, I think we do. It is called science, reason and logic. You should try it, I think you would like it :-)
Ktisophilos,
once you become a good apologist you will understand that there is no need to vilify your opponent to make you feel safer in your beliefs and there is no need to build strawmen to attack in your arguments.
Peter you wrote:
'Re God-hating: mischaracterization of one's position.
I don't agree. The evidence is that he is passionately and rudely anti-Christian. He is a man on a mission.
Peter wrote: 'Re faith: Equivocation?'
A little to cryptic for me!
Peter wrote: 'Re eye: mischaracterization of one's position and then attacking it. We discussed this before..'
Indeed we have discussed this before but you wouldn't accept the facts. And I am sure you won't now-too inconvenient.
The facts are that Dawkins made claims about the eye which an expert in the field rebutted.
Dawkins said the vertebrate eye was wired backwards-not good design. When we say someone has especially keen sight we say they are eagle or hawk-eyed. Being wired 'backwards' hasn't limited their extraordinary vision, rather the opposite. Dawkins is wrong, again.
The Frog to Prince information is also there for all to see. He was stumped by the question and asked for time to think about it. He then gave a nonsense answer. All there for anyone to see.
You wrote 'Re "a bit of a stretch to call the Holy Roman Catholic Church": Why do you get to define who is a Christian not Catholics?
Easy: Study the book and see who is complying with God's directions. The RCC has numerous doctrines which are contradicted by Scripture. The worship of Mary "Queen of Heaven' being just one. Salvation by works is another.
If I should wish to see if a cricketer, for example, was obeying the rules I would look at the accepted rules of cricket. By analysis anyone can thereby define who is playing by the rules and who isn't.
No different with Christianity.
Peter wrote:'Re "Islam is a violent militaristic politico-religious organization.. inviding holy land": 2 wrongs make it right?'
The crusades occurred because the Muslim invaders of the Holy Land stopped Christian pilgrims from going there. It would appear the RCC thought this was worth fighting over.
At the same period of time the RCC also attacked and wiped out the Cathars who were a peacable separatist Christian sect. Even if their views were wrong that is no reason for such slaughter. I visited some of tbeir mountain-peak castles last year. First-hand research is the best.
Peter wrote 'I just wanted to point out that you are defending your faith with constant fallacies. Casual reader would interpret your position irrational.'
I can see no fallacies in what I have written, nor any lack of rationality. I think you are somewhat ignorant of the issues. Maybe you need to do some travel. Get your nose out of antiChristian books and feed on the facts.
Peter quotes me: "History shows that by and large Islam has been spread by terror, as the Koran commands.'
Peter comments 'Pot, kettle, black?'
Not at all. Only blind Freddy would be unaware that so-called 'Christians' have done some dreadful things. Some have attempted to spread the faith by compulsion. However you would have also to be blind Freddy to miss the fact that anyone behaving this way is behaving exactly in opposition to what Jesus our creator and redeemer has said.
There are therefore not Christian, no matter what they claim.
Conversely the Koran commandsviolence against 'infidels.' Islam has consistently been spread by conquest. By Koranic rules those conquered have three choices: 1) refuse and die. 2) Refuse but accept to become tax-paying slaves. 3) Convert.
Peter I don't think you know much about these issues. You are just anti-Christian so simply feel the need to attack and ridicule those who you define as Christian.
Actually Warwick, you're wrong with regard to the 2nd choice for a non-Muslim. To pay jizya, or poll tax, was a very limited option. It was only permitted for Jews or Christian i.e. dhimmi, to pay this and remain non-Muslim.
Peter,
May I suggest you read Bat Ye'or's 'The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam'. It contains most of the original documents after Muhammad that had to do with how Islam treated the other two.
Post a Comment