In John 10:10 Jesus promises His followers abundant life. This blog is about my life as His follower.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Terrific Tuesday with JD from Trees for Lunch

Today's Terrific Tuesday guest is JD who writes at Trees for Lunch. I can always count on JD's posts to be thoughtful; he's the kind of person who reads a LOT, is straightforward about what he believes, is not constrained by political correctness, and has a passion about the world around him.

Here's what JD has to say today:

First, a hearty "Thank You" to Tracy for letting me guest-blog at her site.

Over at my blog I've been doing a series of entries based upon the book What if Jesus Had Never Been Born? by Dr D. James Kennedy and Dr Jerry Newcombe. The book seeks to examine the impact of Jesus Christ upon Western Civilization in a variety of ways. One of those areas which I wanted to discuss today was the role of women in society before Christ's coming and after.

For female infants born in ancient times, the outlook was pretty bleak. On page 15 we read a quote by author Robin Lane Fox from his book Pagans and Christians which states the following concerning life in ancient Rome.

"In antiquity, this pattern [the postponement of marraige] is not so evident, because of the widespread habit of exposing female babies at birth. Adult girls were in shorter supply and thus their age at marraige tended to be low...Habitual exposure of babies was a further brake on the size of a family and the balance of the sexes".

Greek culture was no better as R.J.Rummel relates..

"In many cultures, government permitted, if not encouraged, the killing of handicapped or female infants or otherwise unwanted children. In the Greece of 200 B.C., for example, the murder of female infants was so common that among 6,000 families living in Delphi no more than 1 percent had two daughters. Among 79 families, nearly as many had one child as two. Among all there were only 28 daughters to 118 sons. ... But classical Greece was not unusual. In eighty-four societies spanning the Renaissance to our time, "defective" children have been killed in one-third of them."

India was another area in which the plight of women was improved by Christianity. On page 16 we read, "..infanticide-particularly for girls-was common in India, prior to the great missionary William Cary. Cary and other Christians detested seeing little ones tossed into the sea. These centuries-old practices, suttee (the practice of widows throwing themselves atop the burning funeral pyres of their dead husbands) and infanticide, were finally stopped only in the early nineteenth century and only through missionary agitation to the British authorities."

RJ Rummel provides some statistics as to how widespread this practice was in India...


"In India, for example, because of Hindu beliefs and the rigid caste system, young girls were murdered as a matter of course. When demographic statistics were first collected in the nineteenth century, it was discovered that in "some villages, no girl babies were found at all; in a total of thirty others, there were 343 boys to 54 girls. ... [I]n Bombay, the number of girls alive in 1834 was 603."

Kennedy-Newcombe go on to give account of two Norwegian women missionaries to China in the late 19th century, Sofie Rueter and Anna Jakobsen who wrote the following...

"It is an exception that a couple would have more than one or two girls. If there would be more born, they would be disposed of immediately. It was done in different ways. She could simpy be put out as food for wild dogs and wolves. The father would sometimes take her to a "baby tower" where she would soon die of exposure and starvation and be discovered by birds of prey. Others again would bury the little ones under the dirt floor in the room where they were born. If there is a river flowing by, the children would be thrown in."

Kennedy and Newcombe also mention..."

"A second century "Letter to Diognetus"... in which the writer states that Christians "marry..they begat children; but do not destroy their offspring. "the implication in this statement is that child killing was common at the time, except among Christians"

Kennedy-Newcombe go on to explain.."Jesus gathered the little children unto Himself saying "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them" (Matthew 19:14). His words gave new importance that bestowed dignified treatment upon them. Ater Jesus said that God was our Father, not only did this radically alter the attitudes of fathers toward children, but fatherhood in this life assumed a completely new form as well....Foundling homes, orphanages and nursery homes were started to to house the children. These new practices, based on a higher view of human life that persists to this day... And It all goes back to Jesus Christ. If he had never been born, we would never have seen this change in the value of human life."

And what about the status of adult women in ancient times? Julia Duin of The Washington Times wrote an article in which Illinois College professor of sociology (retired) Alvin J. Schmidt related the following.

"In what countries have women lacked freedom?" he says. "Where Christianity is not present, especially in the Middle East. Were it not for Christianity, Gloria Steinem would still be walking about in a veil." He continued, "Christ was never quoted as saying anything demeaning or derogatory to women. Women in Greek days could hardly leave their homes. When her husband had guests over, she was not even allowed to sit in the same room. Their status was extremely low among the Romans, where the father of the family had the power of life and death, even over his wife. "In [the Gospel of] John, Chapter Four, Jesus was asked what he was doing talking to a woman in public, as you only talked with prostitutes in public. When he taught Mary and Martha in Luke 10, that was a behavior you did not do with women. "Christianity also nullified polygamy, as Jesus made it clear a man has one wife. If a Greek man was walking about outside with a woman, that was his mistress, not his wife. Christianity also made it clear widows were to be taken care of."

John McArthur of Grace to You writes, "Pagan religion tended to fuel and encourage the devaluation of women even more. Of course, Greek and Roman mythology had its goddesses (such as Diana and Aphrodite). But don't imagine for a moment that goddess-worship in any way raised the status of women in society. The opposite was true. Most temples devoted to goddesses were served by sacred prostitutes--priestesses who sold themselves for money, supposing they were performing a religious sacrament. Both the mythology and the practice of pagan religion have usually been overtly demeaning to women".

Another radical departure from the thinking of the time was that the Bible stated that women were to be taught. 1 Timothy 2nd chapter makes this clear. Professor John Carlisle Kilgo of Duke University wrote that "The earliest Christian communities met in people's houses; they didn't have churches yet for quite some time, and throughout the New Testament, particularly Paul's letters in the Book of Acts, we find out that women owned the houses in which the early Christians met. This I think is significant because I don't think the women who owned the houses were simply providing coffee and cookies, in effect, for the Christian community. I think that this probably gave them some avenue to power... in the church."

Thank you for reading my blog entry here on Tracy's wonderful site. One last thing re: women and Christianity before I go. Were you aware that "A wealthy Christian woman, Fabiola, a disciple of St Jerome, is credited with having built the first hospital in the Western world, in Rome, circa AD 400"? I think that will make a neat segue into my next entry on my site. The impact of Christianity on the development of hospitals as we know them.

32 comments:

Denise said...

Enjoyed this post.

John Cowart said...

Hi Tracy,

Thanks for your invitation. I feel honored.

A computer glitch knocked out my Outlook so I can't respond as directed. So please contact me at johnwcowart at gmail dot com. I have two questions re March 1st.

John

Ginx said...

How did the Christians feel about Hypatia?

JD Curtis said...

Probably much more remorseful than the atheist inspired hordes who beheaded who many consider the father of modern chemistry, Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier. It seems that whole "Enlightenment ideals" thing didnt work out too well for him.

Andrea said...

Blessings, andrea

GCT said...

The reason that girls have been unwanted is not due to religion, but to practicality in an absurd world that was male dominated. Women were mouths to feed that didn't really help the family. Women would have to be given away with a dowry. They were simply not economically good to have around - they were a drain. This was a characteristic of an agrarian society...one that Xians were not immune from. Women were still considered property in Xianity. Women were still forbidden from equal rights in Xianity. In fact, Xians continually fought against equal rights for women and some still do.

Ginx said...

That's strange, because I despise all violence committed in the name of anything, as do most atheists. Christianity, on the other hand, is quite proud of the power it has amassed and abused. It took centuries to get things to a level even resembling pre-Christian Rome.

Being Me said...

Whatever happened throughout history, we women have survived it all, and are still here today.
Lucky of course for the survival of the human race despite our bleak beginnings.. and I believe we fight even more strongly today.
(want to stand up and cheer already !)
Somewhere someone said something to the effect of ..Adam was the first trial model, Eve was the improved version. :) :)

This was an interesting read, thank you JD..

BM

RCUBEs said...

Lots of info. Thanks for sharing. Sad to say, we have "abortion" in this culture.

Thank you JD. God bless you and sister Tracy.

Deborah Ann said...

Very well written, JD. Thanks for the stunning information!

JD Curtis said...

I despise all violence committed in the name of anything, as do most atheists

Why does violence have to be committed "in the name of" anything in order to be despised? Isnt wanton violence without fear of reprisal to be equally disdained? This would appear to be the type of violence that the 58% of all atheist leaders that ordered the slaughter of a minimum of 20,000 of their own people were partial to. A morality of one is no morality at all.

Christianity, on the other hand, is quite proud of the power it has amassed and abused

For example?

JD Curtis said...

GCT, isnt this about the point where you should characteristically misrepresent my position in a failed attempt at committing an "appeal to emotion" fallacy and argue that, because I cannot link myself to these women of antiquity to myself through either bloodline or marraige that they, in your words, quote, "don't matter"?

GCT, there are a number of other sites out there much better suited to your lower level, sophomoric attempts at argumentation. In fact, I've heard recently that an entire website has been dedicated to such a dumb question as "Why Doesnt God Heal Amputees?". That type of venue is much more appropriate for your type of argumentation that does not seek truth in any way and only seeks to criticize the beliefs of others. And besides, you seem to be a bit out of your depth when arguing anything more substantive than that.

Inge' said...

When I read this kind of thing, I am amazed at the mercy of God for allowing the human race to go on for as long as we have.

Unfortunately, we still have very little value for human life. All you have to do is turn on the TV or read a newspaper to see this.

We seem to have placed less value on children of both sexes with the increase of abortion. There is much blood on the hands of many.

Thanks for sharing this most interesting post!

Looks like I need to pop over and see what else you have written:)

GCT said...

"Why does violence have to be committed "in the name of" anything in order to be despised? Isnt wanton violence without fear of reprisal to be equally disdained? This would appear to be the type of violence that the 58% of all atheist leaders that ordered the slaughter of a minimum of 20,000 of their own people were partial to."

Yes, violence is to be condemned except perhaps in certain situations, like self defense.

Of course, your 58% is coming from where? I'm sure you're including Stalin who used violence in the name of nationalism (after studying in seminary of course). The difference though is that atheism was not used as justification, nor did he cite it as a reason to murder others, whereas we can't say the same about the crusaders, inquisitors, and witch burners (including the modern equivalent which are supported by people like Sarah Palin) to name just a few. In fact, if you want to whip up some rage, just do some host desecration and see if the death threats come flowing as they did for someone else I know of.

"For example?"

The Family. Look them up.

"GCT, isnt this about the point where you should characteristically misrepresent my position..."

JD, I do not misrepresent your position. That is what you do to me. You also try over and over to derail the thread when you can't answer my objections, as you seem to want to do now.

"GCT, there are a number of other sites out there much better suited to your lower level, sophomoric attempts at argumentation."

If they are so easy to defeat, then I suggest you actually attempt to do so at some point instead of simply launching personal attacks.

"In fact, I've heard recently that an entire website has been dedicated to such a dumb question as "Why Doesnt God Heal Amputees?"."

I fail to see why that is a dumb question. Why doesn't god heal amputees?

"That type of venue is much more appropriate for your type of argumentation that does not seek truth in any way and only seeks to criticize the beliefs of others."

Ah, so raising logical issues and pointing out that there are gaps and inconsistencies in your theology is not seeking truth, only criticizing? OK. When you actually start looking at the links that have been provided to you instead of dismissing them off-hand without knowing what they are (like your dismissal of Dawkins without even knowing what his argument is) then you can start talking about this. Until then, I suggest that you actually address the content of my statements instead of launching personal attacks against me. I understand that you don't personally like me (irrational to the last, but there you have it) but there's no reason why you have to persist in addressing me if that is the case. It is not, however, an excuse to smugly proclaim that by insulting me you are answering my arguments.

"And besides, you seem to be a bit out of your depth when arguing anything more substantive than that."

And yet, you spent 2 paragraphs attacking me personal only to conclude that I'm out of my depth...and never once in those 2 paragraphs were you able to answer my objections. Curious. It's like your inability to answer my objections to slavery in the Bible, the problem of evil, your revisionist history, etc. In all cases, you simply rant and rave against my person with personal attack and never get around to answering anything, then you declare victory. This is not how rational people discuss things.

Would anyone else care to actually try to address the substance of my comments? JD seems allergic to it.

JD Curtis said...

I'm sure you're including Stalin who used violence in the name of nationalism (after studying in seminary of course)

Did Stalin commit mass slaughter while at the seminary or after he was a confirmed atheist?

The difference though is that atheism was not used as justification, nor did he cite it as a reason to murder others, whereas we can't say the same about the crusaders

In order to substantiate your claim, what Bible verse did the Crusaders cite in any of the Crusades as "a reason to murder"?

How was opportunistic internecine fighting between the Byzantines and Venetians termed a "Holy war"?

JD, I do not misrepresent your position

Then why do you verifiably state that I think that certain victims "don't matter" and then fail to back up your assertion?

I fail to see why that is a dumb question. Why doesn't god heal amputees?

Which is hardly suprising when you think that God, not me, is to blame for me hurriedly tying my shoelace in a loose and sloppy manner, causing me to fall and then it's somehow God's fault. Not my own.

I understand that you don't personally like me (irrational to the last, but there you have it) but there's no reason why you have to persist in addressing me if that is the case

I don't know why you would think that GCT. In fact, I find it hard to believe that anybody who comments on blogs where the audience skews middle-aged/retired and overwhelmingly female people who are comfortable in their faith and disproportionately discusses rape, torture and child molestation would be viewed as kind of creepy in any way. Infact such a person seems well adjusted and rather cuddly if you ask me.

Ginx said...

Examples? Read European history from 400 CE until the present. 99% of the leaders were Christian and every war started before the 20th century was expressly begun by a religious person (be they Christian, Muslim, or one of many other faiths).

I don't look down on Christianity or diminish the things a person does because they're Christian, but it's pretty ridiculous to have such the attitude that Christianity is the root cause of all good, while all the bad things Christians have done is completely unrelated. You have to take the bad with the good.

Christianity does not magically make a difference in how someone acts, nor is it the defining characteristic in a person's life, whether they do good things or horrible things. You're no better than Marcus, spreading his hate speech against non-whites, only you arbitrarily chose faith rather than race.

photogr said...

Well the human race certainly cast a dark shadow on their past in their atrocities. Wonder if they can ever repent and change?

photogr said...

Ginx:

Many of the wars ( not all) I understand were started for greed, power, independence, and wealth. Sadly in some cases, leaders used fiath as an excuse to justify their greed such as the Knights Templars and Holy Wars.

JD Curtis said...

Read European history from 400 CE until the present. 99% of the leaders were Christian and every war started before the 20th century was expressly begun by a religious person (be they Christian, Muslim, or one of many other faiths)

How does this answer the question to provide some evidence that "Christianity, on the other hand, is quite proud of the power it has amassed and abused"? How is it "proud"?

Furthermore, your statement "every war started before the 20th century was expressly begun by a religious person" is demonstrably false. In the history of the US alone, the French and Indian War, American Revolution, War of 1812, Spanish American War, American Civil War, Mexican American War and Blackhawk War, none of these were fought over religion.

but it's pretty ridiculous to have such the attitude that Christianity is the root cause of all good

I wouldnt argue that. I would argue that on net balance, Christianity is far superior to other religions when it comes to direct comparison through a number of measurable metrics. One thing missing from any of your rebuttals is a point by point disertation showing how religion x was far superior to Christianity.

Christianity does not magically make a difference in how someone acts

I would argue that it can. Have you ever heard of a man named Paul, A\K\A Saul of Tarsus?

nor is it the defining characteristic in a person's life

For some people, it is.

whether they do good things or horrible things. You're no better than Marcus, spreading his hate speech against non-whites, only you arbitrarily chose faith rather than race

Please demonstrate how I am spreading "hate speech" in any way, shape or form. Again, I would argue that "on net balance, Christianity is far superior to other religions when it comes to direct comparison through a number of measurable metrics".

Now what did I state that was so "hateful"?

tinkbell13 said...

Oh yeah, Christians really loved women-

http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html

I cannot believe that noone has brought up the witch hunts.

GCT said...

JD,
"Did Stalin commit mass slaughter while at the seminary or after he was a confirmed atheist?"

Nice quote mine, but read the rest of the comment.

"In order to substantiate your claim, what Bible verse did the Crusaders cite in any of the Crusades as "a reason to murder"?"

Really? You're going to argue that the crusaders were not religious motivated? The express intent was to install Xian control over the holy land. Of course, you're going to argue that your specific red herring question is not being answered here, even though it is not needed.

"How was opportunistic internecine fighting between the Byzantines and Venetians termed a "Holy war"?"

Nice red herring.

"Then why do you verifiably state that I think that certain victims "don't matter" and then fail to back up your assertion?"

This is the misrepresentation. Hypocrite, heal thyself.

"Which is hardly suprising when you think that God, not me, is to blame for me hurriedly tying my shoelace in a loose and sloppy manner, causing me to fall and then it's somehow God's fault. Not my own."

There's no answer in there, just insult. Not only that, but I've already explained to you why it would be god's fault if your belief that god is omni-max is true, and you have yet to deal with that as well. Instead of spewing invective and hate, you might want to actually answer the objections and points raised.

"I don't know why you would think that GCT. In fact, I find it hard to believe that anybody who comments on blogs where the audience skews middle-aged/retired and overwhelmingly female people who are comfortable in their faith and disproportionately discusses rape, torture and child molestation would be viewed as kind of creepy in any way. Infact such a person seems well adjusted and rather cuddly if you ask me."

That you would excuse god's actions in allowing rape to happen is actually rather mal-adjusted to me. Of course, your criticisms here would be valid if you were actually addressing what I said instead of misrepresenting me as you seem unable to avoid. Once again, we see you doing exactly what you accuse others of doing and all in the process of avoiding the issues that you can't answer and can't handle.

Why do you have such hatred for atheists?

JD Curtis said...

I cannot believe that noone has brought up the witch hunts

Of course you were getting around to mentioning that many men were also burned at the stake accused of withcraft. Werent you?

That you would excuse god's actions in allowing rape to happen is actually rather mal-adjusted to me

No, no no. You're missing my entire point which had nothing to do with God, but everything to do with you.

Proverbs 23rd chapter tells us that, concerning a man "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he". What exactly is in your heart GCT? For a comparative basis, let's visit the internet cesspool that you generously refer to as your "blog" with the open-minded and highly tolerant moniker of Why I Hate Jesus and have a look around, shall we?

When I type the word [rape] into the search field at your blog, it turns up no fewer than 7 different entries and threads in which you shake your puny fist at an invisible sky god. Not one of them would indicate that you are a champion of women everywhere by urging lawmakers for stiffer penalties against those who engage in rape, or counseling for offenders that do it so that they don't commit such crimes anymore. You just blame God for it like you would if you had tripped over your own shoelace.

When I type the word [torture], 17 different threads of yours come up, none of which urge the reader to support Amnesty International or similar organization to curtail torture worldwide. It seems you again just shake your puny fist at God again rather than taking any concrete action to counter the occurance of it.

Typing such a seemingly harmless word as [child] turns up even more of the House of Horrors that passes for your psyche, all relating to the rape of children or thoughts of slaughtering a child.

It's OK GCT. Just keep telling yourself that It's them, not me...It's them, not me...It's them,....not me...

JD Curtis said...

Cont....

For comparison GCT, if type the word [accidents] into the search field of your blog, almost nothing comes up. Far more people are injured, maimed or killed by accidents worldwide than torture, rape (statuatory or otherwise) combined. So why can't you rail against the God who permits accidents? Of course, to do so would be to rob you of all of the vile imagery that such heinous crimes conjure up and take those right off the table, which remove rational discussion from at least some of those with whom you debate.

We've already gone over the "appeal to emotion fallacy" and you deny that this is the case as to why you comment on such matters on this blog where the readership skews overwhelmingly female, middle-aged, retired and comfortable in their faith. So let's set that aside for a moment.

So why do you write about such vile things GCT? Why?!

GCT said...

JD,
"No, no no. You're missing my entire point which had nothing to do with God, but everything to do with you."

No, I understood quite well your personal attack on me. I simply turned it around to show the true nature of the argument.

"Proverbs 23rd chapter tells us that, concerning a man "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he". What exactly is in your heart GCT?"

I am someone who believes that we shouldn't be making excuses for an entity that has the power to stop rape and simply does not. What is in your heart that you find such behavior from your god to be acceptable? Will you actually answer this question or will you continue to hide behind attacking me personally?

"When I type the word [rape] into the search field at your blog..."

Irrelevant red herring. Once again I note how you try and use ad hominem instead of addressing the arguments.

"For comparison GCT, if type the word [accidents] into the search field of your blog, almost nothing comes up. Far more people are injured, maimed or killed by accidents worldwide than torture, rape (statuatory or otherwise) combined. So why can't you rail against the God who permits accidents?"

I do, and if you had the ability or inclination to read for comprehension, you'd see that.

"Of course, to do so would be to rob you of all of the vile imagery that such heinous crimes conjure up..."

It is vile imagery, and we do react with revulsion...normal people do at least. You react by attacking the messenger and defending the entity that not only does nothing to stop it, but makes it possible. You attack the victim. You attack the messenger. You attack people who aren't responsible. Why is that? Why do you have such hatred in your heart (I ask again, and again get no response)?

"So why do you write about such vile things GCT?"

Because no Xian has yet to address these issues in a satisfactory way. Why does your god allow such vile things to happen? Answer the question if you can. But, you can't, which is why you persist in attacking me personally (ad hominem) instead of dealing with my objections - just as you have done with the question as to why god won't heal amputees. Why won't he? You simply attacked the question and the questioner instead of dealing with the question. This is called ad hominem argumentation and it is logically fallacious. Even if I were obsessed with rapist and/or a rapist, it would not change the fact that your god seems to allow these things to happen. You can attack me all you want, but it only serves to show how weak your position really is. You can't deal with the issues, so you lash out at me.

I've asked you multiple questions and brought up multiple objections in this thread alone that have gone unanswered. If we include all the threads where you have tried to "debate" me, we could add to the list. You go ballistic if you think I haven't answered one of your red herrings, yet you don't seem to mind leaving virtually all of my questions unanswered. Why is that?

And, again, I ask, why do you hate atheists so much?

JD Curtis said...

I am someone who believes that we shouldn't be making excuses for an entity that has the power to stop rape and simply does not

Obviously, but why do you concentrate on "rape", "child molestation" and "torture"? There are many other things under the sun you can concern yourself about but you regularly and consistently steer the conversation toward the grotesque and the obscene. Why? You still havent answered this question.

It is vile imagery, and we do react with revulsion...normal people do at least. You react by attacking the messenger and defending the entity that not only does nothing to stop it, but makes it possible. You attack the victim. You attack the messenger. You attack people who aren't responsible

I havent defended or attacked anyone. Unless of course you consider asking why you so predictably entertain such creepy subject matter on a regular basis to be an "attack".

Irrelevant red herring. Once again I note how you try and use ad hominem instead of addressing the arguments

Please explain how it is an ad hominem attack to point out your obvious obsession with such vile topics as rape, child molestation and torture? For comparison, I invite you to log onto my blog and check the search field along with the blog of any other commenter on this thread. If someone else beats you in terms of the number of times mentioning such complete and utter detestable filth, then I concede the point.

why do you hate atheists so much?

I don't hate atheists. They comment regularly on my site. I've only had to ask one to leave, ever. This particular atheist stated that I thought child rape was OK and then refused to back up that statement. Oh wait, that was you...

JD Curtis said...

Hey gang! See if you can guess who I am impersonating re: a typical blog entry by that person...

"Rape-ity, rape, rape. Torture, torture, torture. Blah, blah, blah. Child molester".

Was it...

A. photogr
B. Tracy
C. Tinkbell, or
D. GCT?

GCT said...

"Obviously, but why do you concentrate on "rape", "child molestation" and "torture"?"

Why do you defend such actions. Oh, and if you actually looked at my blog, you'd see that I do talk about other things. I have a whole series talking about the genocide of the OT. Hey, it's not my fault that your scriptures are rife with such attrocities.

"I havent defended or attacked anyone."

Actually, this is a true statement in-so-far as you've been completely unable to defend anything at all. Your intent, by attacking me, however is to defend god from his negligence (at best) and depraved sociopathy (at worst).

"Please explain how it is an ad hominem attack to point out your obvious obsession with such vile topics as rape, child molestation and torture?"

Because the whole thrust of your argument is to attack me personally, to try and discredit me personally, instead of answering the very real objections put forth. It's because you can't answer the objections. You know as well as I do that bad things happen in this world, whether it's rape, murder, genocide, earthquakes that kill untold numbers of people, floods, tornados, malaria, ebola, or even falling down and hurting yourself. You know as well as I do that god allows these things to happen even though he has the power to stop them and alleviate suffering. You know as well as I do that this is a problem for your theology. Instead of addressing this problem, you attack me instead. That is why your theology is bankrupt.

"...utter detestable filth..."

I'm glad that you find such horrible attrocities to be "utter detestable filth." I wish your god felt the same way.

"I don't hate atheists."

Wow, brazen lies.

"This particular atheist stated that I thought child rape was OK and then refused to back up that statement."

And, you are still lying about that. I demand that you back up your accusations. Show me where I did such a thing, because I have never, ever accused you or anyone else of such a thing. This is simply more evidence of your lies and your personal attacks because you lack the ability to actually back up any of your ideas.

Your other comment will not be dignified with a response. JD, I really, honestly believe that you have some issues that you need to deal with. I detect some elements of paranoid delusion and I really think you should talk to someone (a professional psychiatrist, not your priest) about some of your anger issues and your problems.

GCT said...

Oh, and BTW, I should point out that you are making logically fallacious appeals to emotion by making the logically tenuous accusations that I'm obsessed with rape - thus trying to make people act emotionally against me instead of actually looking at my arguments and dealing with the content.

tinkbell13 said...

Wow- JD, you need to get on meds. Not a joke.

Of course you were getting around to mentioning that many men were also burned at the stake accused of withcraft. Werent you?

I guess that is fair. The fact that 20% were men, and 80% were women seems like a fair ratio to me. Once again, Christianity was so good to women.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/Ftrials/salem/witchhistory.html

tinkbell13 said...

Don't worry GCT- You have, once again, proved that he has no clue what he is talking about. Not hard. And, his claims are a result because this fool actually made him sound "smart" on her posting.

Daniel said...

Oh yes, what a wonderfully rosy picture of happenstance and christianity. Never mind infanticide carried on way into the 20th century in some parts of the world, never mind the oppression of women wholesale by the christian church, never mind the backwards attitude to sex and birth control, just focus on the cases that matter to a christian willing and able to ignore what doesn't fit. The "hordes" who killed Antoine-Laurent during the French Revolution were highly unlikely to be atheist, much as good ol' Hitler was Catholic, not atheist, and saw the crushing of Jews as God's Work. Godwin can only do good for such a thread.

JD Curtis said...

If Hitler was such a Christian, why did he become someone so dedicated to destroying both the Catholic and Protestant churches in Germany?

The "hordes" who killed Antoine-Laurent during the French Revolution were highly unlikely to be atheist

That's "atheist inspired hordes". although only 2 members of the Committee for Public Safety were confirmed atheists, the rest were anti-clerical.

not atheist, and saw the crushing of Jews as God's Work

I guess you were unaware that an atheist coined the term "anti-semitic"?

Blog Widget by LinkWithin