Professional Atheist Dawkins Says Christianity ‘Bulwark Against Something Worse’

[PeaceByJesus]

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

If you would accept that the OT is part of Holy Scripture for Christians as understood under the New Covenant, with its spiritual versus physical theocratic kingdom, and separation of powers, and spiritual, versus physical means of warfare, and abrogation of like retaliation, and of racial, national distinctions, etc., then i would not have to RESORT to reminding you that your support of the argument that Catholics and Protestants do not kill each other as brutally as Sunni's and Shia's do now is because it's been tempered by the humanistic values of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, is absurd.

Again, if you really do believe the NT supports the Inquisitions and Islamic type religious violence , then go ahead and try to make that case, if you will act s that foolish.

What does "drinking from the atheistic well" mean?

It means you are expressing the effluence of atheistic reasoning. A least you have contended that Hitler was a Christian, and that God sanctioned father-daughter insect and the like.

RE: transcendent universal laws and those applied to culture
Southern slave owners justified the practice by referring to "Holy Scripture".

And you and rulers justified "Christian" Inquisitions by referring to "Holy Scripture," and which have no case, while Southern slave owners were opposed by the most primary evangelicals of the time, and certainly to abuse of them, and slavery in the antebellum South was hardly that of Biblical slavery overall.

See here for some good study in slavery. "Does God condone slavery in the Bible?", by Glenn M. Miller

Specifically the OT which you apparently choose to ignore. Secular laws in civilized Nations like the USA and Briton outlawed the practice.

Now you are acting like a myopic ignoramus even more, as first, of course it was secular laws, because neither the US or the UK were operating under a theocracy of Bible Christians, yet secondly, the strong support of Christians as well as others (including humanists) that led to the abolition of slavery, Wilberforce being a primary example, though not alone.

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.

That is a superficial and ignorant statement. We are talking about taking the wives of enemies captive and marrying them, which presumes the enemies are evil and that taking the captive wives would be better than death but wrong as opposed to giving then freedom as widows, and that there is no distinctions or moral consequence btwn Israel's actions regarding this and those of ISIs, yet there are fundamental and and multiple distinctions. And in which we must deal with what makes this evil. All the below must be considered together:

# 1. First, we must deal with why something is evil. Can God (if you can allow the hypothesis), if just, omniscient and almighty, both define what and who is evil, and punish it while making the consequences work out for good? In this case, would destroying a evil people so thoroughly as to prevent another generation from rising up, while taking the innocent to Heaven, but giving virgins husbands with the victors, and thus children, be evil, especially in the long run?

Or is something necessarily evil because of its immediate and or temporal effects, and instead all these women should have been set free with a packed lunch to go to other evil nations?

Or is your premise that God did not have the right to order such conquests, or if He did, in your omniscience you know it was evil? Explain how you are wiser than God, or that you refuse to judge according to what the context of Scripture provides.

2. As the above presumes such a God as being in control, according to Scripture, were the conquests of Joshua preceded by such abundant unmistakable supernatural attestation and manifestations as to leave no doubt that the author of these commands was indeed God?

If so, show how ISIS can claim the like context, of abundant unmistakable supernatural attestation and manifestations (we are going to go by the Bible here, not atheistic intolerance) as was provided for Moses and Joshua. What do you have? Muhammad could not read and started a religion with skewed versions of Biblical stories which he appropriated in order to lend support for his radical religion, and simply had a few notable military victories, and not be supernatural intervention
and means?

3. Were the conquestorial commands for Israel universal, to physically conquest all people, till the religion of all the world be of Allah, or limited to those in a geographical and or distinct people?

4. Were the nations condemned as evil due to simply not following the Hebrew religion, or due to the fruit of idolatry in generational gross basic iniquity, such as sacrificing their own children to Molech. etc.?

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

Meaning you are either incapable or unwilling to critically and objectively examine such in order to maintain your atheistic presuppositions that is behind your attempted mud slinging.

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.

Why do you attack Scripture when it seems your only knowledge of it comes from atheistic sites?

equal pay,:
Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1)

and forbidding threatening:
And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him. (Ephesians 6:9)

with obtaining freedom being encouraged,;
Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. (1 Corinthians 7:21)

requiring an escaped Christian slaves to be received back as a brother, not a slave, but as Paul himself:
And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:... I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me:..For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself. (Philemon (Philemon 1:2,10-11,15-17)

There they are!

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

The NT church is first,

The body of Christ:
"Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." (Ephesians 1:23)

Into which every born again believer is placed at conversion/regeneration:
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13)

Which believers have different gifts by the same Spirit, which Christ bestowed after His resurrection:
"But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet ; [poured out on all believers] because that Jesus was not yet glorified." (John 7:39)
Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:4)

The NT church is second:
A structured organic fellowship of believers (though unlike the one true church, the mystical body, the visible church has wheat" and "tares"):

"He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:" (Ephesians 4:10-12)

Paul was an apostle, and his words on masters of slaves were to those of the church.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The Spanish Inquisition weren't true Scotsmen Christians.

That is a logical fallacy itself, as it invoked one that is invalid due to a lack of defining standard to invalidate one that has one. Or do you really think "Christian" can be validly used for anything?

 

[quatona]

That is a logical fallacy itself, as it invoked one that is invalid due to a lack of defining standard to invalidate one that has one. Or do you really think "Christian" can be validly used for anything?

Do you want us atheists to decide who is a "true Christian" and who is not?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Do you want us atheists to decide who is a "true Christian" and who is not?

Yes, reasonably reasoning from Scripture, as in such a basic case as teaching that the NT church supported such things as religious violence as in the Inquisitions, with the church killing merely theological opponents, and theocratically ruling over those without with the sword of men, and requiring its rulers to exterminate all the heretics. Even an atheist, despite their typical compulsion to see what they want in Scripture, should be able to notice that this is foreign to both the teachings and example of the Lord Jesus and the NT church.

If you disagree, then make your case based upon Scripture. An apparent atheist has already displayed typical atheistic ignorance or deliberate miscontruance of Scripture by ignoring the distinctions btwn old and new covenants, and even btwn ISIS religious violence and that under Joshua, and with a superficial consideration of morality, but such attempts can likewise be an opportunity to educate them.

Moreover, do not atheists themselves object to men as Stalin or Mao, Pol Pot etc. being classified as atheists, and or to their atrocities (if indeed they are judged to be so under the objectively baseless moral reasoning of atheism) being attributable to atheism?

 

[Uncle Siggy]

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.

 

[Locutus]

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.

It doesn't matter what the bible does or doesn't say about it - Christians did it for Christ. Christians, whether you approve them or not, ARE Christianity.

 

[Locutus]

Yes, reasonably reasoning from Scripture, as in such a basic case as teaching that the NT church supported such things as religious violence as in the Inquisitions, with the church killing merely theological opponents, and theocratically ruling over those without with the sword of men, and requiring its rulers to exterminate all the heretics. Even an atheist, despite their typical compulsion to see what they want in Scripture, should be able to notice that this is foreign to both the teachings and example of the Lord Jesus and the NT church.

If you disagree, then make your case based upon Scripture. An apparent atheist has already displayed typical atheistic ignorance or deliberate miscontruance of Scripture by ignoring the distinctions btwn old and new covenants, and even btwn ISIS religious violence and that under Joshua, and with a superficial consideration of morality, but such attempts can likewise be an opportunity to educate them.

Moreover, do not atheists themselves object to men as Stalin or Mao, Pol Pot etc. being classified as atheists, and or to their atrocities (if indeed they are judged to be so under the objectively baseless moral reasoning of atheism) being attributable to atheism?

Atheism has no dogma. It's a 'non'. It can't inform actions outside those in protest at imposed religion. My atheism does not encourage anything, nor discourage anything. Oncenagain, it's a non. It's the opposite of 'reason to do or not do a, b, or c. I have no idea what you can reasonably 'attribute' to atheism other than lack of religion. If you do wish to attribute certain actions, could you please advise where the 'lore' inspiring these actions is found? Is there an ancient codex? Certain superstitions? Old myths? Because I'm not aware of any of these.

FTR ... I have no objection to theists referring to 20thC despots. On the contrary - doing so actually helps atheism. So by all means, rip into them

 

[Locutus]

That is a logical fallacy itself, as it invoked one that is invalid due to a lack of defining standard to invalidate one that has one. Or do you really think "Christian" can be validly used for anything?

Christian is a self identification. If someone believes themselves a Christian, they are. You can no more decide who is and isn't (of those who claim it) than you can determine if those who say they love chocolate really do.

 

[quatona]

Yes,

Ok, noted. But I refuse to do that job for you. You self-professing Christians have to sort that out amongst yourselves.

Moreover, do not atheists themselves object to men as Stalin or Mao, Pol Pot etc. being classified as atheists,

No, these were clearly atheists, and this fact isn´t in dispute.

and or to their atrocities being attributable to atheism?

Yes, they do. So?
You just need to know a basic definition of atheism to see that nothing but lack of belief in Gods can be attributed to it. You needn´t read pamphlets, you needn´t read long old or new highly interpretable books.
Also, it isn´t in dispute among atheists, whereas the interpretation of the bible is among Christians.

 

[ecco]

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.

The fact that you are a member of a denomination of Christianity that calls itself the New Testament Church does not mean that your beliefs take predominance over other Christian's beliefs.

The fact that you are a member of a denomination of Christianity that calls itself the New Testament Church does not change the history of how Christians behaved over the Centuries.

If you want to argue that the Christians who burned witches In God's Name were not NT Christians, I would not necessarily disagree.

If you want to argue that the Christians who burned witches In God's Name were not Real Christians, I would disagree, and so would they.

I have heard similar comments made about Catholics, 7th Day Adventists, Baptists, Calvinists, etc, etc. Members of every denomination of every religion believe their way is the Real Way and the other guy's way is the wrong way.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Christian is a self identification. If someone believes themselves a Christian, they are. You can no more decide who is and isn't (of those who claim it) than you can determine if those who say they love chocolate really do.

What!? Do you know where the term comes from? Do you know it describes what manner of faith and persons they were?

Your rejection of any supreme definitive source standard renders any basic classification of beliefs systems or those of movement to be meaningless. A Christian could actually believe like a Hindu or vice versa. Is this what atheistic "brites" come up with?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

It doesn't matter what the bible does or doesn't say about it - Christians did it for Christ. Christians, whether you approve them or not, ARE Christianity.

That is absurd! So according to your atheistic reasoning, a NE Patriot player can be one who purposely acts contrary to the playbook, coach and off the field contractual ethics by raping the wives of opposing players, shooting fans or even scoring points for other side, as long as claims to be playing for the Patriots.

And Stalin could validly claim to be a capitalist and Trump to be communist, and we must accept them as being so, regardless of what they say or do contrary to what those ideologies are understood to mean. Of course, all such understanding is essentially meaningless as they can apply to whatever and whoever may appropriate them.

And since motive determines definitions, then dictionaries should be abolished or are essentially meaningless.

Well, thanks for the testimony of where your rejection of a supreme definitive standard leads to (or is it only the Bible that you reject as being do?).

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Atheism has no dogma. It's a 'non'. It can't inform actions outside those in protest at imposed religion. My atheism does not encourage anything, nor discourage anything. Oncenagain, it's a non. It's the opposite of 'reason to do or not do a, b, or c. I have no idea what you can reasonably 'attribute' to atheism other than lack of religion. If you do wish to attribute certain actions, could you please advise where the 'lore' inspiring these actions is found? Is there an ancient codex? Certain superstitions? Old myths? Because I'm not aware of any of these.

FTR ... I have no objection to theists referring to 20thC despots. On the contrary - doing so actually helps atheism. So by all means, rip into them

That is a superficial understanding, as if atheism can negatively means it rejects a supreme supernatural moral authority, as expressed in objective substantive document, to which it can be held to, even if subject to interpretation, then the adherent is thus either left with the individual atheist being the supreme moral authority, or some natural entity.

And which means the evils of atheistic communism can be attributable to its objectively baseless basis for morality, just as Islamic jihads can be attributable to the doctrine of its founder.

Of course according to your atheistic objectively reasoning in rejecting any definitive source and standard for a term/title (or is it only the Bible that you must reject as such?), what a person is representing is based upon what they claim to be or be acting for. Thus rendering this debate over what Christianity can be credited or blamed for to be essentially meaningless.

 

[quatona]

Your rejection of any supreme definitive source standard renders any basic classification of beliefs systems or those of movement to be meaningless. A Christian could actually believe like a Hindu or vice versa. Is this what atheistic "brites" come up with?

It´s not a problem of or connected to atheism. You should tell this to your fellow self-professing Christians who believe differently than you, in the first place.

 

[quatona]

That is a superficial understanding, as if atheism can negatively means it rejects a supreme supernatural morality authority to which it can be held to, even if subject to interpretation, then it is thus either left with the individual atheist being the supreme moral authority, or some natural entity.

No. We are talking about different brands of Christianity along with their different understandings of Christian morality.

And which means the evils of atheistic communism can be attributable to its atheistic basis for morality, just as Islamic jihads can be attributable to the doctrine of its founder.

Well, the difference is that Islamic jihadists themselves attribute it to it.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Ok, noted. But I refuse to do that job for you. You self-professing Christians have to sort that out amongst yourselves.

Oh, we do! But that is usually on non-essential aspects, not whether the engine is not even running due to fundamental basic errors. In contrast, there is another atheist here who argues that what defines a Christian is simply his own self ID.

You just need to know a basic definition of atheism to see that nothing but lack of belief in Gods can be attributed to it. You needn´t read pamphlets, you needn´t read long old or new highly interpretable books. Also, it isn´t in dispute among atheists, whereas the interpretation of the bible is among Christians.

But the issue is that since atheism rejects a supreme supernatural moral authority, as expressed in objective substantive document, to which it can be held to, even if subject to interpretation, the adherent is either left with the individual atheist being the supreme moral authority, or some natural entity.

And if the former, it means the evils of atheistic communism can be attributable to its objectively baseless basis for morality, just as Islamic jihads can be attributable to the doctrine of its founder.

 

[redleghunter]

It doesn't matter what the bible does or doesn't say about it - Christians did it for Christ. Christians, whether you approve them or not, ARE Christianity.

Did what exactly for Christ?

Things He condemned as sins the sons of destruction exhibit?

Christendom is not Christianity.

 

[redleghunter]

Christian is a self identification. If someone believes themselves a Christian, they are. You can no more decide who is and isn't (of those who claim it) than you can determine if those who say they love chocolate really do.

Based on the above neither can you decide who is or is not a Christian or accept every man-made interpreter of such.

However we do have an absolute standard which defines what are fruits of followers of Christ. We find them in the New Testament.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

If you want to argue that the Christians who burned witches In God's Name were not NT Christians, I would not necessarily disagree.

So at least you seem to accept the descriptive source (Acts 11:26) of the term "Christian" NT as being a basic definitive standard.

If you want to argue that the Christians who burned witches In God's Name were not Real Christians, I would disagree, and so would they.

So "Real" can be defined regardless or because of what the NT says? If the latter, which is valid and a change for the better in your argumentation (though the Inquisition provide a better case), then the issue becomes what is basically determinative of being a Christian, and at what point does aberration from such basic render one doubtful or unfit as being worthy of that name.

I have heard similar comments made about Catholics, 7th Day Adventists, Baptists, Calvinists, etc, etc. Members of every denomination of every religion believe their way is the Real Way and the other guy's way is the wrong way.

And? Truth is exclusive by nature, yet we were dealing with basic issues here, and in any ideological movement or group there will always be both core defining essentials so that we can say that Billy Graham was not a Hindu, and Ronald Reagan was not a Communist (esp. capital C), as well as more peripheral issues. All the groups save for perhaps the SDAs you mentioned subscribe to the Apostles Creed, and officially uphold the same basic morality, while all but most Catholics concur on the essential means of salvation. But to invoke groups such as Baptists and Calvinists is tangential hair splitting.

Would you want to engage in a reasonable objective civil discussion about what is basically essential to being a Christian, versus what denotes one who is not?

 

[Blondepudding]

If obtuse had an awards show ....

I agree Dawkins is a professional atheist. He transferred his attentions from his former circle as an ethologist and evolutionary biologist to that of a writer committed to condemning Theism and Theists. Christians especially.
Much like the warped agenda of one Christopher Hitchens. His was a rabid drunken pursuit against the people of the book.
And his own brother was a Theist. Those must have been some interesting family holiday dinners.

Now Dawkins has labeled himself a secular Christian. And here he's saying what amounts to, Christianity may be inane but at least it's better than the competition.

Does Richard really speak for or to the social framework in America? Or does he just enrage his target audience and pander to his fan base? The latter is my vote.