Trav,

Hitler was a Christian. Queen Victoria was a Christian. Tzar Nicholas II was a Christian.

O.

'Pelican' and 'Fractelle' - apologies that time and this thread have gotten away from me and I haven't had the chance to reply. Maybe 'see' you on another thread some time?

Graham, David Bentley Hart (who I mentioned when I first posted) has actually written a book critiquing the New Atheists with quite some gusto (if it's in his usual style). You may enjoy it. I haven't read it yet.

Peace to all

Ian

"Why is it that so many people hold a worldview (Christian theism) responsible for crimes committed by some of it's self proclaimed adherents, when those adherents don't stick to it's basic tenets?"
Aye, there's the rub.
It's so easy to say "oh but he isn't a *good* Christian". I have harped about "basic tenets" before; my favourite being trying to squeeze a rich man through the gates of Heaven. The world is full of rich christians; in fact, compared to Muslim and Hindu countries, the world is overflowing with rich christians.
Heaven must be an empty place.
War? Kings, potentates, Popes, Presidents and Prime Ministers have shown little hesitation in sending young men and women out to die for political expediency, and use Christianity as an excuse. You and I both know they weren't *good* christians, don't we?
Comparing theist atrocities with atheist atrocities doesn't hold water. By definiton, Atheists have no set creed; no believe system about right and wrong, good and evil. Atheists only have their own consciences.
Just like Christians, some atheists' consciences are better developed than others.
Deciding who is a 'good' Christian, and who is a 'bad' Christian is a personal value judgement, and sadly, the only one qualified to make that judgement died 2000 years ago.
If he ever lived at all.

pelican,
I appreciate the inoffensive manner in which you present your opposition to religion, especially Christianity. However, I would like to comment on three things.

>>Atheism just means a non-belief in God, it is not a cause that dicators go around ... killing ... in it's name <<
Exactly, you cannot act in the name of not believing something, the same as you cannot stab somebody making use of the fact that you do not have a knife. The Nazis killed in the name of racial superiority etc, the Communists in the name of ideological superiority and class hatred. Neither of these causes are compatible with Christian values, but neither are they necessary consequences of an atheist world view. Communism without atheism is a notion as absurd as Medieval Inquisitions without Church and belief in God. The former acted in their belief that they are advancing humanity by cleansing it of "reactionaries", the latter thought they were saving the heretic’s immortal soul from eternal fire (by exposing him to temporal fire). Today both positions are hard for us to comprehend but while condemning them we should take into account their historical context. For me the Nazi and Communist atrocities are less excusable than those of Medieval Christianity precisely because they happened closer to our times.

>>the Church who ... might remove a paedophile priest to another parish.<<
You are obviously referring to the naive Catholic bishops who thought the paedophile was cured through having gone to confession. Well, here in Germany there were recently a couple of cases when convicted paedophiles were released - after having served part of their time - into the community on the basis of the recommendations of professional, Government employed, psychologists (not bishops untrained in psychology) only to rape and kill another child. It is not that hard to google out the details.

>> God would allow a forgiven evil doer into heaven<<
This is a standard Christian belief.
>>as opposed to a morally good person who just happens to be an atheist <<
This is a belief that some atheists hold about Christian beliefs.

Trav, how unChristian, but I turn the other cheek Matthew 5:38-42...you sinned! "Do unto others" Matthew 7:12 I seem to be more Christian than you...lol!

Graham, Is your real problem not that I decontextualise (I don't) or am deaf to your explanations but you don't know your Bible? Your explanations lack detail, I usually reference mine!

For a split second you allowed the door of reasoned argument to open with your acceptance that God NEVER killed the first-born of Egypt but then slammed it shut again.

You couldn't answer why Jesus allegedly celebrated the Passover if it is myth!

How many churches teach the Passover story when it is simply a falsehood? So much for your fundamentalist argument!

Did your preacher mention the passover this Easter?

If that is wrong how many other things are wrong?

It is not just fundamentalists that misuse the Bible...the Bible has been mistaught for centuries!

Is your dilemma that you've never asked yourself the tough questions that I posed, and have never related it to the Bible passages that I quoted?

How many churches have prayer and healing meetings? Do you and Trav attend?

And how many amputees have had their legs restored through these prayer meetings?

I'll answer it...None! Prayer is supposed to be so powerful, and yet it fails this simple test!

That's not decontextualising that's fact!

Are you annoyed because someone dared to ask questions all Christians should ask themselves in relation to their Bible? Didn't God allegedly give us an enquiring mind?

Were you selective here? <<He said that all that was necessary was to love God and love your neighbour as yourself.>> That's failrly simplistic it's not all he said Graham!

I apologise if I hurt your feelings but it's the 21st century and surely we can debate FAITH/MYTH/BELIEF SYSTEMS openly, can't we?

George wrote: “>> God would allow a forgiven evil doer into heaven<<
This is a standard Christian belief.
>>as opposed to a morally good person who just happens to be an atheist <<

This is a belief that some atheists hold about Christian beliefs.”

Dear George, It is fact. A Christian cousin of mine told me that my grandmother, his great-grandmother, is suffering the torments of hell because she never accepted Jesus. My grandmother was the most wonderful, kindest and caring person I have ever known.

George wrote: The same about understanding what e.g. a Christian, informed by contemporary science, believes.

Dear George,

One problem is that many Christians on this list are not informed by contemporary science and spend a great deal of energy attacking evolutionary biology. If a Christian or Jew regards the Bible as literally true he or she must reject contemporary science. Apparently you do not have that problem. Those who do sometimes interfere in science teaching and other activities which are necessary for life in the contemporary world.

Many people take the God of the bible seriously, and the spaghetti monster was set up to ridicule them. I think the evidence for the existence of the God of the bible and the evidence for the existence of the spaghetti monster is the same.

However, religious belief does not rest on objective evidence. Religious belief rests on the feeling of the believer that his of her view of the world requires some sort of supernatural presence. In the case of the Buddhist this supernatural presence is not necessarily a deity.

We talk past each other because many of us who do not believe demand objective evidence of the existence of a supernatural presence.

I have come to feel this is not a reasonable demand on our part, and I therefore no longer have an argument with believers such as you who do not see the Bible as literally true and are informed by modern science.

You merely see the world differently from the way I see it. I see no point in arguing.