Yes, the Reformation challenged the Catholic Church's supremacy, but only on theological grounds. The "revivals" and associated divisions have markedly undermined its influence.

Wilberforce was central to abolition of slavery in the late 18th century, yet Christianity had allowed it to continue for the preceding 1500 years - seems Wilberforce was atypical.

Atheist Govt killing and torture - you mean by the very religion-aligned Nazis; or the seminary-trained Stalin who exploited Russia's Tsar-messiah cult to install himself and his govt, and who used religion in WW2, and remained personally religious all his life?

The author undermines his own argument against Hitchens' slogan that "religion poisons everything" by conflating Christianity with religion.

I normally do my best , not to respond to the rantings of the Christian Lobby, however seeing God has giving us a nice day today , then I will make an exception.. for today.

The Statement
"The foundations of the modern west owe a huge debt to Christianity. The rise of democracy would not have happened without the Reformation challenging the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and the counter-reformation that followed."... beggars belief!

This is like Modern Germany thanking the Nazi Third Reich or the people of Greece thanking Muslim Turkey for the Modern State of Greece !

In other words, if this is getting quoted as an good example of our debt to our Christian Heritage, I would love to see a bad example !

" Next Quote.
When the unthinkable happened and Rome imploded, Christianity hunkered down for the long-haul with a new civilisation called Christendom emerging in Europe."

Rome imploded ( I like that ..lol ).

Being a typical one eyed follower of WESTERN CHRISTANITY, ( all descendants of ROMAN Catholics or breakaways from them )... Has the writer ever heard of the EASTERN CHRISTIAN Churches.. based in a Place called CONSTANTINOPLE? It didn't finally fall until 1,000 years later when Turkish Islamist invaded it. Christianity flourished in the East, it’s principal Enemy being the Invasions of Islam.

Of course, I am leaving out the invasion and destruction of Constantinople, by the Peace Loving Western European Catholics 300 years earlier. It was an overnight ( well 50 year..OK ) stay on their way to beat up the Muslims in the “ Holy Land” BUT, as we have being told by this Author ..

End Part One

Part Two.

Quote”
In recent centuries as enlightened secularism has tried to create a world where man, as Blainey puts it, "can live by bread alone", the utopian hopes of man's technological and material achievement have been dashed.

Two bloody world wars and the unprecedented systematic genocide of atheistic fascism and communism have seen to this."

....The Author assures us that Secularists cause Wars... we never had any until these pesky Secularists turned up.

It's still a beautiful day outside. If I continue to analgize this rubbish, I am only missing the Day...

Bugger another New Years Resolution gone !

Has this forum become a franchise of the Chasers or similar satirical/comedy shows.
Or perhaps the ACL because the author of yesterday mustard tree essay is also a member of the ACL.

Yesterday we had the low brow children's comic book piece about mustard trees. Today we have this entirely predictable piece from the Oz Christian (loopy) Lobby.
A piece which fits entirely within the world as portrayed in the famous Wizard of Oz film, or a Norman Rockwell Saturday Evening Post painting.

I was thinking that myself Daffy Duck, Is this Christianity's last spin...We didn't kill half as many people as you think we did, we only did it because we loved you, and if we weren't so hard on you, you wouldn't have turned out like you did.

As other have already noted, the thing that sticks out the most is the racism and hatred for they fellow man. All good things in the world have come from the Christian church, everything bad form somewhere else.
The ACL has been formed to try and corrupt our pollies as the rest of us are no longer listening to these bigots.
The pews are empting but the hypocrisy continues.

There is clearly a how-to guide going around the Christian community, one that describes how to whitewash their history with a careful blend of half-truths and untruths, and how to simultaneously boost their image using a similar mixture.

"Christianity has been the great civilising influence... in opposition to tyrants in the institutional church, nobility and state."

I expect their defence to the antics of Alexander VI (guilty of incest, murder, and adulterer extraordinaire) will be the usual one - "well, he wasn't really a Christian"

Nor, I suppose, was Pope Benedict IX, who actually has the distinction of being the first Pope to put the position up for sale. That we know of.

If Popes don't represent Christian history, who does?

"...intolerance was not confined to the church in an age when precious truths were often defended with brutality."

The defence here being, as I understand it, "everybody was doing it.

Well, that's all right then.

"...a century where atheist government killing and torture made the crusades and the inquisition look tame in comparison"

Apart from the arguability of the relevance of atheism on the "atheist government", we are once again in the realms of "well, they were worse than us". I wonder where the author fits Northern Ireland into the rosy picture?

>>Christianity uniquely fostered higher learning in the so called Dark Ages with the creation of the university.<<

Christianity was not responsible for the creation of the university, a concept that grew naturally from the mediaeval guild system. But I'm sure they must believe will miraculously become true if they repeat it often enough.

One line, I can wholeheartedly agree with:

"Christianity has been massively influential globally."

Not everyone sees that as positive, however.

What I find fascinating is why Christian lobbies find it necessary to defend their position in such a manner. Whom, do they believe, will be convinced? And for how long, given that information is far more freely available today than in previous centuries?

I dunno Pericles. Maybe I'm just getting tired of the religion debate in general, but I've come to the conclusion that throughout the ages, Christianity has done at least as much good as bad. (I say this as a fairly indifferent agnostic).

Christianity has some pretty damning periods in history - the crusades, much of the dark ages, even in modern times we have to contend with the odd Christian lunatic with the desire to murder abortion doctors to 'defend life' (evidently irony isn't a strong point of theirs), or worry about the more aggressive evangelical sects pushing their creationism worldview in schools.

That being said, I think we also need to take into account that throughout history, aside from the crusades, the mighty power of the church was mostly used for politicking and power-mongering throughout Europe, with the most prominent casualties being wayward royalty. Given their centuries-old history, that's actually pretty reasonable.

I view it more as the devil we know, rather than the one we don't. There are always going to be powerful institutions abusing their position and there are always going to be religious people.
When compared to other institutions of comparative power, at least the church preaches humility, even if it's not always followed in practice.

Sure, I can hope that the world continually becomes more secular (which tends to go hand in hand with increased levels of education and increased recognition of women's rights, funny that) but I can also recognize that Christianity is probably among the religions most likely to let that happen peacefully. I'm willing to give them credit for being a force throughout history which has ultimately contributed to this trend.

A balanced and well put argument TRTL.

The article was incredibly biased and did not acknowledge the horrors of the Crusades however Christianity is not alone in committing horrors and modern Christianity has come a long way from it's dark ages

"Atheist Govt killing and torture - you mean by the very religion-aligned Nazis; or the seminary-trained Stalin who exploited Russia's Tsar-messiah cult to install himself and his govt, and who used religion in WW2, and remained personally religious all his life?"

Even a contortionist would find it difficult to make such a claim. It implies that Stalin exterminated millions in the name of God, and was not acting in the capacity of a committed communist leader who was obliged to oppose all religions.

I am intrigued by the title. As far as I can tell the only people who spread rumors of the 'demise' of Christianity appear to be Christians themselves. I think they need to believe it in order to appear to be the persecuted underdog.

Christianity may be in for another 're-invention', and in fact likely already is, but that will only prompt the old guard to lament the demise of the religion again.

Raycom,
it does not imply that, it just negates the simple proposition that Stalin and his government governed in the name of atheism.

Persistent claims that events, often over decades, were all due to one thing is tiresome. Besides, we are very unlikely to see governments like that in "the west" again - where else is there a former seminarian trying to use a previous or recent messiah cult (or both) to install himself and his fellow messiah-following cronies in govt with such a negative aura ... oh, dear ....

How many human beings would Jesus have murdered?
How many armies would Jesus have blessed or commanded?
How many continents and countries would Jesus have invaded?

Thanks Daffy Duck, I was wondering when we would get to "what would Jesus do?"

>>How many continents and countries would Jesus have invaded?<<

Would Jesus have invaded Iraq?

How was it, then, that a Christian leader of a Christian country went right ahead and did just that? An oversight? Or - just perhaps - he was no more guided by Christian principles than Saddam Hussein.

Which takes us back to square one, insofar as the claims of Christianity to "added virtue" are concerned.

TurnLeftTurnRight,

Yep you've got it right.

I'd only add that if you excluded Religions but instead inserted the influence of Christs message then you'd have to alter your stance to say it wasn't the religions who got it mostly right but those secular ones over the centuries that inclded Christ's message into their laws and societies but who also ensured the separation of Church and state... and the resultant curbing of religious power within society.

Nowdays the influence of Christ's message is a far more powerful influence on the direction of our mostly temporal western society than are the religions ... all of then ... thank god.

Celsus, a Roman, had this to say, in the 2nd century

"Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain [magical] powers... He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god... It was by means of sorcery that He was able to accomplish the wonders which He performed... Let us believe that these cures, or the resurrection, or the feeding of a multitude with a few loaves... These are nothing more than the tricks of jugglers... It is by the names of certain demons, and by the use of incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of [miraculous] power..."

"Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her hands. His mother had been turned out by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a Roman soldier named Panthera]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, ..."

http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_historicity_secular_commentary.html
.

As an atheist I neither accept nor comprehend the mentalities of those who, defying reason, profess a religious faith. But the same freedom that allows me to be an atheist allows others to believe as they will. Actually, Shelton’s article isn’t wholly unreasonable.

He points to a proud Christian record of defying tyrants, doing "good works" and promoting one of JC's core messages: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I don't care that JC was a Hebrew preacher (in my opinion) self-deluded into thinking he was divine: I accept the value of this core message, which would be just as valid coming from anyone else.

But Christianity and several other faiths also have a dark record of intolerance, violence, attempts to suppress inconvenient scientific ideas (eg, via bogus "intelligent design" psuedoscience), and efforts to force a religiously-based social and sexual morality on others. This is often capped by the atrocious betrayal of trust revealed by widespread abuses of vulnerable children in religious institutions, frequently condoned and covered up by various church authorities.

The "dark side" of religiosity so antagonised people like the late Christopher Hitchens and also Richard Dawkins that they sometimes reacted badly. Dawkin's otherwise excellent work "The God Delusion" has an intolerant tone that made my hackles rise, though I understand its causes.

It’s simplistic to characterise religion as the fount of everything good and wholesome in this world; equally so to claim it’s the root of all evil. In my experience believers, like atheists, come in all varieties, from good and decent people to some of the worst individuals ever to walk the earth. Example: one of the people personally known to me whom I most respect is a fundamentalist Christian who showcases all the positives of his faith; one of those I most despise is a self-seeking and utterly uncaring atheist heedless of the cost of his actions to anyone who gets in his way.

We are all individuals. Judging by group labels is the quick route to bigotry and intolerance, whatever you do or don't believe.

Pericles,
Bush Jr is about as much a Christian as you average Bolshevik, he's a Neo Con, an anti humanist, a Luciferian in other words.
The "religious right' are also about as far from Christianity as it's possible to be, the first post is correct, Christians don't need religion.
Why do the Satanic Nazis and the Satanic Stalinists have to be portrayed as anything other than what they are/were?
Scientific materialism is a continuation of the old Mystery religions, it's part of the Gnostic tradition, it seeks man's apotheosis, The Aryan Man, The Soviet Man, the Transhuman..call it what you will.

Where would xtians be without Wilberforce?

It seems he (almost a He) is their poker hand when it comes to 'proving' their religion is the only one of value.

They never delve too deep into the Wilberforce disregard for the workers in English factories though, do they?

Another form of slavery.

Anyway, the Wilberforce-set-them-free meme is not the complete story by any means and some modest reading on 'slavery' will show why.

And do the ACL believe that there is no more slavery in the Western Christian world?

Apparently so.

How wrong they are.

As for dumping all one's eggs into a Blainey basket, well, that would be like following Plimer into battle I think.

Clearly, with or without Blainey's book and Shelton's monocular view of life, it is doubtful that religion/Christianity is about to fade from view, even though the ACL and Shelton do their best to undermine the more intelligent Christians and their eforts to live a half decent life, as the rest of us do too.

"Europe was the clear centre of world of Christianity one hundred years ago, but today the Americas are home to more than a third of all Christians.

"In fact, the United States has the world's largest Christian population - more than 247 million, followed by Brazil and Mexico."

Extracted from an Australian Prayer Network newsletter.

Ah, well, that says it all really, doesn't it?

247m out of about 300m population- surely, a 'too good to be true' sized figure, given the very unChristian activities that nation engages in all the time?

If the USA brand of xtianity is 'it', then we are all doomed.

The next big sector is the madddogs-in-Africa variety, where they still burn witches and battle Muslims for godsturf.

Then China, and who knows what form xtianity will take there?

Not looking too bright for such a 'worthwhile' religion is it?

Any talk of the demise of Christianity comes from the ignorant. Sure denominations come and go. The Catholic church and other institutions live on due to stored wealth. The Man who never lied said that He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Sure the secularist might skite that their pseudo science has led many to deny the obvious but they are blinded to reality. What they ignore is that where ever the church is persecuted it eventually grows stronger. It is impossible to count the number of believers in China and other parts of the world where Dictators and secular humanist seek to destroy the church. The church is of course the believers not some organisation who claims to be the sole represtantive of Christ. Be assured that after the secularist have revised their pseudo science 50 more times the church will live on and the great Saviour will continue to rescue people from their corrupt natures. Long after fools call God dead, He lives on.

Well said runner, "Any talk of the demise of Christianity comes from the ignorant", and I think the point has already been made that the only drones who make such claims are the rightwing xtian extremists, such as we can find within the gates of that infamous private company, the ACL.

You know, the tightly controlled private company that pretends to represent all of Christendom in Australia.

The problem with Christianity is that it evolves to accomodate its environment, you know, like a living creature does, thus ensuring its survival.

Although what it looks like, and what benefit it brings to the world, is quite another matter.

The ACL view is very similar to the totalitarian Taliban view, and one hopes that will burn out and die, as with the Vatican view, which could do with a severe scrubbing with carbolic soap at the moment.

The Anglican Church, well, only Jensen actually believes in God there while all the rest of 'em understand the value and role of metaphor.

Then there's the ratbag end, of Baptists and AOGers and the more fruitcake elements to be found in the Hillsong and Hillsong-like mobs.

Micheal Kirby sounds increasingly like the only intelligent advocate for Christianity in Australia today.

I think that is good, but I bet the ACL will froth at the mouth at just the thought of that, so intolerant are they of other views of life.

Well you see, Jay Of Melbourne, that's a really big problem.

>>Pericles, Bush Jr is about as much a Christian as you average Bolshevik, he's a Neo Con, an anti humanist, a Luciferian in other words.<<

There are many Americans who share Bush's views. They're called Republicans.

Which puts a new slant on these numbers:

"...the United States has the world's largest Christian population - more than 247 million..."

To be consistent, you should also exclude everyone who does not "follow Jesus in their hearts and in their deeds". Pretty soon, if you actually believe this to be the key criterion, there'd only be you and runner left to wave the banner. And I'm not too sure about...

So what percentage of the population who call themselves "Christian", would you guess, would pass your personal Christianity test?

And then, where on earth would you find a "Christian country"?

Interesting question you pose there Pericles.

I'd put my money on there being only two continents/nations on Earth who would fit that bill, if not quite today, then very shortly.

The first, not a 'country' of course, but a mixture of nations within the overall concept of 'Africa', where the best of the witch burning goes on under the guiding hands of the ever loving adherents to Jesus- having grasped entirely the wrong end of the Jesus stick, of course, like the ACL although they do not burn witches (or not that we know of anyway).

The second is clearly a nation these days, China, with somewhere between 50-70m adherents, mostly not members of the 'official' Christian church but the numerous and expanding bootleg branches of Christianity.

It is highly unlikely that the new Chinese brand of Christianity will resemble anything like that of Rome, 'Constantinople' of old, Moscow or Canterbury, nor (one hopes) any of the misshapen horrors that appear all over Africa either.

It will be interesting too, watching the Chinese leadership dealing with this new usurping force, and to what extent the two opposing forces morph into each other, as Christianity has with capitalism in the West, creating the required evil symbiotic relationship allowing for both to maintain their own shares of power-over-the-people.