Yes Severin that’s right, but also:
When Christians do good, it is because they have Christian morals.
When Christians do bad, it is because they are not ‘real’ Christians. They simply can’t be… otherwise they would not do bad!

Lol The Blue Cross, quite so!
Wilberforce, in his suit of diverse sorts, must’ve not been a ‘real’ Christian.
If he had been a ‘real Christian’, he –just as Jesus would’ve failed to do- would not have expressed any objection to slavery.

Graham,
I do understand there are ‘bad translations’ or ‘out of context’ readings, but no matter how you read the NT, there is no condemnation of slavery to be found anywhere in the NT. Why did Jesus not condemn it if it is immoral?
Jesus did NOTHING to stop slavery!

Why did people who came long after Jesus decide that slavery is unethical? Hardly because of Jesus' teachings!
Slavery ended despite of Jesus' acceptance of it.

IF Jesus had told Paul that slavery was unethical, then Paul would’ve been advocating FOR the slaves, not told slaves to obey their masters.
Anyone who does not condemn slavery is, by today’s morals, not fit to set any moral standards. Jesus did not condemn slavery- still, Christians insist that they got their morals from Christianity.

Celivia...I told you someone would claim Jesus was quoted 'out of context', and GrahamY did that for us.

As I recall, Jesus wrote none of the NT, all was written long after the event, and much of what was written was not from first hand experience.

So, in truth, no one knows what Jesus ever said at all.

It is just a little too smart to claim Paul enthused about slavery, not Jesus though.

Slavery, in some forms, may be more frowned upon now than then, but sure-as-Hell it continues to power the global economy today. We all remember the pious Liberal Party and their wage-condition reductions so eagerly supported by all those 'Kevin Andrews' types, do we not?

And the sex-slave industry the Commonwealth Government seems happy to encourage still, along with all those business people who 'own' them, and the punters who punt them. Then there's all the Catholic sex-fandangoes that go on with under aged boys, and girls, and 'celibate' priests...oh yes, a truly useful organisation, 'the Church'.

But of course.... none of these are 'real' Christians, are they?

Celiva there is condemnation of slavery because everyone caught in sin including yourself are slaves. You might not like to admit it but as Bob Dylan use to sing everybody got to serve somebody. The likes of Dawkins serve their own egos despite being a slave to it. The more someone is trapped to sin the more in slavery they are. Ask Tiger and he will tell you.

@Grey: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html

I saw that, but didn't trust the figures. I have since found http://www.ifs.org.uk/fs/articles/fspharta.pdf which gives the difference as 9% vs 10% from your link. So I have to accept it for now.

@Grey: Religious people are far more likely than secular ones to give to charity.

10% is your definition of "far more likely"?

@Grey: Buffet's agnosticism claim referenced here http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/faces3.html

The word "Buffet" doesn't appear in that link.

@Grey: Do some reading of a more educational nature before you try and tell everyone what an atheist or an agnostic really is.

You don't view a dictionary isn't educational? How odd. Your link says essentially the same thing as the dictionary. The first line: ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

@Grey: Dawkins is an atheist, because to claim that belief in God is delusional

You really should try reading Dawkins before criticising him. He book title was designed to generate sales, not summarise the contents. He doesn't claim belief in God is delusional. He thinks taking the bible literally where clear scientific to contrary exists is delusional. An example would be insisting the earth is 6000 years old. He then goes on to point out the single best predictor for such behaviour is strongly held religious beliefs, which is in turn predilected by a feverent belief in some God.

@Grey: When atheists come from a non-christian culture, you get 200 million dead in 100 years.

So your position isn't that theists are morally superior to everyone else, but rather just Christian theists are.

*twitch*

I can't respond civilly to this.

@Grey: Bill Gates' ... but I think religious principles are quite valid

He was almost certainly referring to religious principles like "help thy neighbour" - you know, the ones you Christians use to market yourselves. He wasn't referring to God since he can see no evidence for him, and he certainly wasn't referring to the principles that somehow lead to active campaigning against condoms in Africa, which has caused millions of unnecessary deaths.

(cont'd...)

(...cont'd)

But returning back to your central thesis, which is a thinly disguised attempt at "my morals are better than yours, because I get mine from my Christian God". Your paper http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html made this observation: secularists support greater public spending for social programs — even if it means higher taxation.

There is a reason for this which the paper doesn't mention. Once you have a strong rich state, it is simply better at helping the poor than the church ever was. States do it transparently, with audited books. They do it consistently - skipping on paying your dues to help the no so well off in this world is much harder. And they make a real attempt to include everybodies values in determining who to give it to, via democracy.

Compare the fate of the poor say here, where they are looked after by a socialist state, and say in the US, where things are done on more of a private / church level. The poor here are just better off, even while the US is richer on average. Our poor have a guaranteed income, and have guaranteed medical services. And this is despite that fact that in the more religious US, people contribute much more to charity!

Thus, deciding to let the state handle charity is a very rational decision. Deciding to give what everybody else does, and having the state enforce it, is a very rational decision. Deciding you are willing to pay more in taxes, but not more in charity, is a very rational decision. Dropping the church and charity when a decent state based systems comes along is a very rational decision. Which explains why, as pointed out in the paper above, why the people is Spain did did exactly that when they finally ditched Franco.

In fact, in the face of such evidence, I'd say claiming a charity based system over a state based one is somehow ethically or morally superior, is, to borrow Richard Dawkins term, delusional.

You have to have a giggle about articles like this.

Why does OLO commit so much time to these "Atheists bad, Christians good" type articles?

If religous people are so secure about their positions why this continuous effort to denigrate non-believers or others of different faiths.

This is just really the stuff of kindergarten.

Why can't people (atheist and theist alike) just live their life being true to their own values and principles without such continual harsh judgement of others.

When it is all said and done we are known only for our acts, our beliefs are just window dressing.