Professional Atheist Dawkins Says Christianity ‘Bulwark Against Something Worse’

[ecco]

Do you think the Inquisition was something Christian, as in the Way of Christ?

Inquisitions were carried out by Christians in the Name of Christ for the Glory of Christ.

You may not like history, but you cannot change it.

 

[Locutus]

Where did i do that?
Do you think the Inquisition was something Christian, as in the Way of Christ?
Do you not even know what you detest?

Of course .... bad Christians are not Christians, so don't blame Christianity.

Works for Muslims and Islam, too. Whoops-a-daisy

And yes, I know what I dislike. The FRUIT tells me regularly, even in a place where your deity has been cut down to size.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

It was not atheists that decided to include to writings of the ancient Hebrews into holy scripture. It was Christ quoting Christians.

Genesis, and God approving of slavery and rape, are just as much biblical truth as are the stories of the crucifixion.

You may not like it, but that is the basis of your religion.

So this is what you resort to when faced with the fact that the NT, which i specified, supports what the Renaissance and the Enlightenment is credited with bring Modern Christianity to support? I should have mentioned that primary evangelical leaders, from Spurgeon to Wesley to Finney and many others supported and fostered the abolition if not all nor alone.

So I can see you have been drinking from the atheistic well. So you do understand the manifest different types of laws, and the difference btwn basic transcendent universal laws and those applied to culture? And that slavery was not a monolithic institution but it was an inherent part of the ANE and Greek and Roman slaves states, and which Biblical laws came to deal with and ameliorated. With freedom being granted even for a broken tooth caused by the master (which in principal under jurisprudence could be expanded), and an escaped slave was not to be returned to his master? And besides such things which fostered good care, with rest every 7th day and year, the culture was radically different, and with just having steady food and shelter being a challenge.

And that "rape" has different definitions, and saving women of wicked nations from death, and providing husbands (not sex slaves) for them, and a month to mourn their losses, and freedom was to be granted to those sold into slavery (usually by their own people) if they did not receive equal care as the freeborn wives. And the Bible nowhere supports beating or abuse of such.

And that the NT church further regulated slavery in the slave states it existed in, requiring equal pay and forbidding threatening, and with obtaining freedom being encouraged, and requiring an escaped Christian slaves to be received back as a brother, not a slave, but as Paul himself.

Yet slavery is nowhere commanded, nor did it exist in the first Christian community, and the normal outworking of the general Christian ethos of love supported casting it off when cultural conditions enabled it.

Yet we encourage Christians imprisoned for their faith to obey their masters.

Meanwhile the mental slavery of the welfare state and its victim-entitlement mentality is inherently evil and cannot be more morally tolerable.

But an objective analysis work be contrary to the atheistic goal of presenting its adherents as morally superior to God, and thus justified in rejecting Him.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Inquisitions were carried out by Christians in the Name of Christ for the Glory of Christ.

You may not like history, but you cannot change it.

Rather, it is you who may not like history, but you cannot change it, as the history of the NT church in Scripture, which must be the standard since even the word "Christian" comes from it, and describes them, simply cannot support the Inquisitions, and in fact Rome repressed free access to Scripture.

If you want to try, make a case for the Inquisitions from the NT.

 

[Hieronymus]

Of course .... bad Christians are not Christians, so don't blame Christianity.

Christianity as a whole is not always Christian.
I could throw a bomb in a crowd shouting: In the Name of Jesus Christ!
'nuf said.

... but you'll stick to your opinion anyway ...

 

[Hieronymus]

Inquisitions were carried out by Christians in the Name of Christ for the Glory of Christ.

You may not like history, but you cannot change it.

This seems to be another thing impossible to grasp for many atheists...

 

[ecco]

It was not atheists that decided to include to writings of the ancient Hebrews into holy scripture. It was Christ quoting Christians.
Genesis, and God approving of slavery and rape, are just as much biblical truth as are the stories of the crucifixion.
You may not like it, but that is the basis of your religion.

So this is what you resort to when faced with the fact that the NT, which i specified, supports what the Renaissance and the Enlightenment is credited with bring Modern Christianity to support? I should have mentioned that primary evangelical leaders, from Spurgeon to Wesley to Finney and many others supported and fostered the abolition if not all nor alone.

If you would accept that the OT is part of Holy Scripture for Christians, I would not have to RESORT to reminding you.

So I can see you have been drinking from the atheistic well.

What does "drinking from the atheistic well" mean?

So you do understand the manifest different types of laws, and the difference btwn basic transcendent universal laws and those applied to culture? And that slavery was not a monolithic institution but it was an inherent part of the ANE and Greek and Roman slaves states, and which Biblical laws came to deal with and ameliorated. With freedom being granted even for a broken tooth caused by the master (which in principal under jurisprudence could be expanded), and an escaped slave was not to be returned to his master? And besides such things which fostered good care, with rest every 7th day and year, the culture was radically different, and with just having steady food and shelter being a challenge.

RE: transcendent universal laws and those applied to culture

Southern slave owners justified the practice by referring to "Holy Scripture". Specifically the OT which you apparently choose to ignore. Secular laws in civilized Nations like the USA and Briton outlawed the practice.

And that "rape" has different definitions, and saving women of wicked nations from death, and providing husbands (not sex slaves) for them, and a month to mourn their losses, and freedom was to be granted to those sold into slavery (usually by their own people) if they did not receive equal care as the freeborn wives.

It is really very disturbing that you feel this way. It is no different than what ISIS is doing right now, and for exactly the same reasons.

And the Bible nowhere supports beating or abuse of such.

Nonsense. I'll not waste my time by quoting scripture that you and I both know justifies slavery, beating of slaves and rape.

And that the NT church further regulated slavery in the slave states it existed in, requiring equal pay and forbidding threatening, and with obtaining freedom being encouraged, and requiring an escaped Christian slaves to be received back as a brother, not a slave, but as Paul himself.

Please show where "the NT church" did this.

Perhaps more to the point, please show what "the NT church" is.

 

[ecco]

Inquisitions were carried out by Christians in the Name of Christ for the Glory of Christ.

You may not like history, but you cannot change it.

Rather, it is you who may not like history, but you cannot change it, as the history of the NT church in Scripture, which must be the standard since even the word "Christian" comes from it, and describes them, simply cannot support the Inquisitions, and in fact Rome repressed free access to Scripture.

If you want to try, make a case for the Inquisitions from the NT.

I don't have to any more than Christians throughout the ages have had to. The OT is as much a part of Christian Holy Scripture as the NT. If you want to separate them for your own beliefs, OK, but you cannot go back through time and change things. Throughout the ages Christians, held inquisitions and Christians burned witches. That is the history of Christianity.

 

[ecco]

Inquisitions were carried out by Christians in the Name of Christ for the Glory of Christ.

You may not like history, but you cannot change it.

This seems to be another thing impossible to grasp for many atheists...

Your response makes no sense.

 

[Hieronymus]

That was kind of funny.

 

[Hieronymus]

However, if they could speak, I think a lot of Jews who were tortured in the Inquisitions and a lot of Christians who were accused of being "witches" and were burned at the stake and a lot of Protestants and Catholics who were beheaded in Europe because their Countries changed religions, might disagree with you.

Christianity TODAY isn't as bad as the religion that is CURRENTLY chopping off heads and throwing people off buildings.

Can't deny that...
The difference is in what the main prophets taught.
So a fundamentalist Muslim wields a sword, whereas a fundamentalist Christian turns the other cheek.
Rather different fundamentals.

 

[redleghunter]

If you would accept that the OT is part of Holy Scripture for Christians, I would not have to RESORT to reminding you.


What does "drinking from the atheistic well" mean?



RE: transcendent universal laws and those applied to culture

Southern slave owners justified the practice by referring to "Holy Scripture". Specifically the OT which you apparently choose to ignore. Secular laws in civilized Nations like the USA and Briton outlawed the practice.


It is really very disturbing that you feel this way. It is no different than what ISIS is doing right now, and for exactly the same reasons.

Nonsense. I'll not waste my time by quoting scripture that you and I both know justifies slavery, beating of slaves and rape.


Please show where "the NT church" did this.

Perhaps more to the point, please show what "the NT church" is.

I believe you really need to read and study the Scriptures before trying to opine on them. You are really showing your 4th point of contact on how much you don't know.

 

[ecco]

I believe you really need to read and study the Scriptures before trying to opine on them. You are really showing your 4th point of contact on how much you don't know.

I see you have now chosen to discuss my knowledge of scripture. Previously you were saying that Christians weren't responsible for the inquisitions. Previously you were saying that the OT is irrelevant. Previously you were referring to the Church of the NT.

Why the change?

 

[redleghunter]

I see you have now chosen to discuss my knowledge of scripture. Previously you were saying that Christians weren't responsible for the inquisitions. Previously you were saying that the OT is irrelevant. Previously you were referring to the Church of the NT.

Why the change?

I believe that was the most lucid line of questioning yet. It is because your accusations are all over the map and disjointed.

Show me the precursors for the Spanish Inquisition in the NT church.

No, the OT is not irrelevant as Christ clearly pointed on how to find Him in the Law, Prophets and Writings TaNaKh. None of which leads to a textbook on how to demolish Canaanite cities and how to stone people to death for violation of the Mosaic civil laws. As evidenced with Christ challenging those intent on stoning an adulterous woman caught in the act. That alone should be evidence enough.

What you take issue with are the theocratic civil laws of the OT. And as one poster @PeaceByJesus pointed out was benign with regards to peer empires and societies. Which of course you would have to identify with either Assyria, Babylon or Persia as an atheist or pagan if you want to have modern Christians identified with Israel.

If one does not approach the TaNaKh (OT) as a progressive revelation leading up to the first advent of Christ and then after His resurrection, you will continuously fail at making proper comparisons.

As in then comparing the actions of robber barons wearing the titles of religious figures as acting on the Truth of the NT church founded by Jesus Christ. You cannot find Christ in the murderous and oppressive regimes of Christendom. And that is where many err on the matter. Christianity is not Christendom. The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor even Roman.

Yet the common parroted specious polemic of the left, mostly Muslim apologists, continue to push an unintelligible 'moral equivalency' between the Bible and Quran. Which we see is not comparable because on the one hand (the Bible) we have a new covenant in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the sins of mankind and a call to love God and love neighbor (the foundation of the Law) and to love our enemies; on the other hand a religion (Islam) which began oppressed by outside forces and then preaching tolerance, yet when attaining power switched to the sword to defend the religion as they expanded beyond their lands. Even to the skeptical eye we have the complete reverse in Islam to what progressed through the NT.

But where does that leave the atheist, non-believing or secular legacy? With those same pagan secular empires who conducted the most brutal offenses to mankind. Some burning their small children alive for their state or gods to attain power and prestige. Slave markets, brutal slavery. Sex slavery. The list goes on to genocide and ethnic cleansing. All of which had no connection to Islam or Christianity or Judaism.

Therefore, if you want theocratic Israel to cling to Christians and want the Spanish Inquisition of Christendom to apply to the NT church and today, then those who are not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim must accept the genocide of Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin clinging to them like a pair of Tiberian bats.

 

[ecco]

I believe that was the most lucid line of questioning yet. It is because your accusations are all over the map and disjointed.

Show me the precursors for the Spanish Inquisition in the NT church.

I asked before. I'll ask again - What is the NT Chruch?

What does the NT Church, whatever it may be, have to do with Christian persecutions as evidenced by the Inquisitions and the witch burnings?

No, the OT is not irrelevant as Christ clearly pointed on how to find Him in the Law, Prophets and Writings TaNaKh. None of which leads to a textbook on how to demolish Canaanite cities and how to stone people to death for violation of the Mosaic civil laws. As evidenced with Christ challenging those intent on stoning an adulterous woman caught in the act. That alone should be evidence enough.

You can pick and choose all you like. It doesn't alter the fact that Christians have used parts of Christian Scripture to justify a lot of really bad things.

What you take issue with are the theocratic civil laws of the OT.

I'm not "taking issue" with them. I am acknowledging they exist. Something you, apparently, would just as soon ignore.

...
As in then comparing the actions of robber barons wearing the titles of religious figures as acting on the Truth of the NT church founded by Jesus Christ. You cannot find Christ in the murderous and oppressive regimes of Christendom. And that is where many err on the matter. Christianity is not Christendom. The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor even Roman.

You are a Christian saying other Christians were/are not real Christians because those other Christians did not or do not believe the way you do. Yeah, there has been a lot of that throughout the history of Christianity resulting in a lot of Christians killing other Christians.

But where does that leave the atheist, non-believing or secular legacy? With those same pagan secular empires who conducted the most brutal offenses to mankind. Some burning their small children alive for their state or gods to attain power and prestige. Slave markets, brutal slavery. Sex slavery. The list goes on to genocide and ethnic cleansing.

What pagan secular empires are you referring to?

Therefore, if you want theocratic Israel to cling to Christians and want the Spanish Inquisition of Christendom to apply to the NT church and today, then those who are not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim must accept the genocide of Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin clinging to them like a pair of Tiberian bats.

I've noticed that when you get angry, your comments make less and less sense as evidenced by the above last two paragraphs. "Tiberian bats"?

 

[redleghunter]

I asked before. I'll ask again - What is the NT Chruch?

What does the NT Church, whatever it may be, have to do with Christian persecutions as evidenced by the Inquisitions and the witch burnings?



You can pick and choose all you like. It doesn't alter the fact that Christians have used parts of Christian Scripture to justify a lot of really bad things.


I'm not "taking issue" with them. I am acknowledging they exist. Something you, apparently, would just as soon ignore.


You are a Christian saying other Christians were/are not real Christians because those other Christians did not or do not believe the way you do. Yeah, there has been a lot of that throughout the history of Christianity resulting in a lot of Christians killing other Christians.



What pagan secular empires are you referring to?




I've noticed that when you get angry, your comments make less and less sense as evidenced by the above last two paragraphs. "Tiberian bats"?

There was no anger expressed in my post. I sometimes have natural flair to link concepts to physical manifestations which can be classical.

The NT church is the New Testament Church as evidenced in the New Testament.

So now that you know NT is not an operating system but the New Testament Church, you can resubmit your comments.

Other than that you just regurgitated your previous comments.

 

[Hieronymus]

I for one welcome my new atheistic overlord.

Maybe he will start a church for the lost atheist souls.

 

[TheBear]

Now, that made me chuckle.

Me too.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Cool, so why would you be opposed to an influx of Muslims, if theocracy is what you're looking for? Many Muslims would love a theocracy - and can give you all the god honouring you could want. Allah is a supreme law-giver, so you'll be safe and happy.
Or if you have an aversion to Islam, perhaps you'd like a Hindu theocracy?

Theocracy, with the church ruling over those without, is contrary to the NT.

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. (John 18:36)

For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (1 Corinthians 5:12-13)

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds (2 Corinthians 10:3-4)

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6:12)

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (Romans 12:19)

But actually it is Islamic faith which is seeing increasing favor and protection from government, not traditional Christianity.

Oh hang on a minute ...... I see now that it's not secularism you're opposed to at all. You just want more Jesus in America. Maybe you realise that expecting one particular religion to have rights and privileges no others have is perverse in a democratic nation in 2016...

Your strict seperationism is is both wrong and unworkable, for it is impossible for separate moral laws from the basic belief system they at least generally mainly flowed from, directly or indirectly, as held but its founders and or reflective of the people. Which in America was not Islam was Christianity, that being the "civil religion." generally and basically speaking.

As Alexis de Tocqueville testified:
The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live...

Thus religious zeal is perpetually warmed in the United States by the fires of patriotism. These men do not act exclusively from a consideration of a future life; eternity is only one motive of their devotion to the cause. If you converse with these missionaries of Christian civilization, you will be surprised to hear them speak so often of the goods of this world, and to meet a politician where you expected to find a priest.

Thus when Jefferson had preachers in the house of representatives, it was a variety of Christian ones, not Muslims. And John Quincy Adams stated:
"The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity."

Also, Abraham Lincoln:
"Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulties."

Sources and more.

However, as the beliefs of those who elect the interpreters of a countries constitution deviate more from its Founders and original electors, then so also do the laws, as votes reflect the beliefs of the people (or gullibility) for good or for bad, resulting in the increasingly secularization of society, and morally confused people, with its well evidenced deleterious effects.

hence the pretence that it's secularism which is the enemy.

Secularism, with its ever morphing morality and views (even with a government that cannot seem to comprehend the threat of Islam or how to deal with it) and antagonism toward any governmental expression of religious faith (at least Christianity) is the enemy, and contrary to the manifest understanding of Founders of America overall. Thus Washington engaged in such expressions of faith in addressing the Legislature of the United States:

"I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection...that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion.

Likewise in Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation, while not allowed today:
"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God,"
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion."

And John Adams:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The OT is as much a part of Christian Holy Scripture as the NT. If you want to separate them for your own beliefs, OK, but you cannot go back through time and change things. Throughout the ages Christians, held inquisitions and Christians burned witches. That is the history of Christianity.

What kind of statement is that? Do you really think that the title "Christian" is equally valid no matter what, as if it does not have a defining source? Apparently for you it does not if it befits your purpose.

Would you even allow the evils that were done under atheism to define it?

It is actually you you do not want to separate the OT from the NT due to your own beliefs,as that would mean you cannot support the Inquisitions and the like as being Christian in the light of the NT, which i have invited you to attempt to do!

And the history of Christianity is that the more it progressively subjected Scripture to having a second or third class status, and incorporated traditions and morphed into an institutionalized hierarchical form too much like the empire it had found itself in, then the more it relied upon the physical means of the latter. Even by the early fourth century you have a "pope" employing a murderous mob to secure his seat. For that and more brief history see here.

Of course, there is also Atheism's Body Count - Ideology and Human Suffering