|Sent on:||Tuesday, June 10, 2008 1:35 PM|
"We never see acts of violence carried out
by Christians in the first century." is
a pretty lame thing to be proud of, but he's right. Christians really
didn't start their wave of murders, genocide and cencorship until about
the 4th century, continuing to the 19th century, and even to the present
day to a lesser extent.
Show me a Jain or Buddhist act of mass murder.
> We've seen this argument a thousand times. It was bullshit the
> they posited it, it is bullshit now, and will always be bullshit.
> Skydivers don't knock on death's door; they ring the bell and run away...
> It really pisses him off.
> The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
> AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS# 8808
> EAC Chairman, Division of Skydiving and Sushi consumption.
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Jeff Wismer <[address removed]>
>> *Atheists are hypocritical in blaming atrocities on Christianity
>> * *
>> *Robert Meyer
>> *Robert Meyer* <http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/meyer>
>> June 9, 2008
>> Editorial letters and columns often cite religion, particularly
>> Christianity, for much of the world's past and present brutality and
>> atrocity. Such was repeated in a recent diatribe printed in my local
>> I have no trouble in apologizing for atrocities involving my religious
>> tradition, though I wasn't personally responsible, except for the guilt
>> association in claiming to be personally a Christian. Presumably, if I
>> called myself an atheist, I wouldn't have been held ideologically
>> by this detractor.
>> However, critics must be honest and objective in their condemnations of
>> atrocities whether caused by religion or secular movements, lest we
>> their intentions are really gratuitous attacks against religion, not
>> condemnation against atrocities altogether.
>> Therefore, to atheists and humanists who want to make this charge, you
>> should be equally considerate, apologizing for the proportionally larger
>> atrocities committed by cultural leaders, espousing godless,
>> Utopian ideologies, within the "enlightened" 20th century alone. Because
>> whatever principle makes me guilty of the former, makes you equally
>> of the latter.
>> The point is not that any such examples of secular violence would excuse
>> diminish religious atrocities, but rather, that the critic who uses
>> of religious atrocities without making reference to crimes motivated by
>> secular ideologies, is obviously biased and short-sighted in his
>> Critics will say that demagogues, such as Stalin, Poll-Pot, and Mao (who
>> among the greatest mass murderers of all time), didn't really act on the
>> basis of their atheism, but because of fanatical political and economic
>> Yet their policies were informed by a view of man consistent with
>> metaphysical atheistic/evolutionary dogmas. Lenin retorted that, you
>> have to
>> crack a few eggs to get an omelet, and Stalin obliged him as the
>> cook, carrying out his purges that viewed the masses of humanity as
>> expendable instruments to achieve a cause.
>> We must also be careful to observe that when people commit atrocities in
>> "name of Christ," or under some similar ecclesiastical declaration of
>> authority, these acts are clearly abuses, for they do not represent the
>> values of Christ himself. We never see acts of violence carried out by
>> Christians in the first century. These violent activities largely result
>> from improper convolutions of the jurisdictions in church/state spheres
>> sovereignty. These errors can be corrected though a proper application
>> the Christian world view.
>> On the other hand, secular violence can be directly related to the
>> application of materialist/evolutionist metaphysical narratives carried
>> to their logical end. Fortunately, most secularists are inconsistent, in
>> that they do not live or reason in a way that comports with their stated
>> ultimate view of reality. The correct application of such world views
>> themselves lead to the violent ends that secularists claim to loath
>> pointing their collective fingers derisively at religion.
>> One must honestly ask the question, which claim about reality is likely
>> produce a more harmonious world, if carried out faithfully to its
>> end? The assertion "God created man in his own image," representing the
>> Judeo-Christian tradition, or the manifesto by atheist/evolutionist
>> Dawkins, representing the ideological epitome of the atheist movement,
>> universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if
>> is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but
>> pointless indifference."
>> We must point out that if Dawkins' assessment of an atheist universe is
>> correct, it leaves critics, such as the one remonstrating in my
>> with nothing left to complain about.
>> Robert Meyer is a hardy soul who hails from the Cheesehead country of
>> upper midwest. Robert is known by his opponents as a "clever
>> who often exposes the fallacies of knee-jerk arguments presented in
>> papers. Seeking to develop precepts for every aspect of life — based on
>> conservative Christian worldview — Robert often gleans inspiration from
>> looking off his back deck, over the scenic Fox river and recalling the
>> counsel of those who mentored him. To bark about this editorial, contact
>> Robert at Junkyarddog58@<NOSPAM>msn.com <[address removed]>.
>> (c) Copyright 2008 by Robert Meyer
> Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on
> this mailing list ([address removed])
> This message was sent by Kevin Grishkot ([address removed]) from The
> Baltimore Atheists Meetup Group.
> To learn more about Kevin Grishkot, visit his/her member profile:
> To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here:
> Meetup Support: [address removed]
> 632 Broadway New York NY 10012 USA