david f,
Memory lapse there. You are correct.
Wilberforce was a fundamentalist upholding "all men are equal".

Though the opponents to freedom used Biblical texts they were not founded in the context of Christ's attitudes. The word slave in the NT is a servant of an employer. Paul taught that in the Church there is not to be discrimination on race, gender or employment; all persons are equal Gal 3:28.

The fact is under Roman rule slavery was applied during the Early Church period and persons were commondeered by Rome to work as slaves. Paul encouraged those working as slaves to remain faithful and good workers for their masters as this expressed the true character of Christ. Christians did not have slaves, though some were slaves. Christian employers had voluntary workers who were remunerated by supplies.

Dear mjpb,

I was citing Richard Dawkins' take on
religion not my own, simply to broaden
the discussion of this thread.
Questioning however, is something
rational people tend to do at all times.
That was the way I was raised by my father,
who in turn was raised by the Jesuits.

By the way,
your posts as always, are extremely well
argued, and I enjoy reading them, as I enjoy
reading the posts of George,Oly, David F.,
Severin, CJ, Poirot, Pelly, and many others.

mjpb,

<<There is a difference in having a faith in God and having so much faith you can be an atheist.>>

Wow, enough faith to be an atheist? How do you justify this when atheism doesn’t require any faith to begin with?

Unfortunately you can’t.

The it-takes-more-faith-to-be-an-atheist argument is simply a weak and asinine attempt to drag the lack of religious belief down to the same dogmatic level as religious belief because, as I mentioned before, many theists have difficulty accepting the fact that they are intellectual slaves to a dogma, while those who exercise reason get to be the freethinkers.

What you need to understand, mjpb, is that theists are the ones making the claim, not atheists. Atheism is simply a response to that claim - no faith involved.

If someone were to ask you if you believed in fairies, how much faith are you holding by saying “no”? Is it more than saying “yes”?

<<Dawkins places his faith in the laws of nature and it seems to be a very unquestioned faith.>>

No, Dawkins - like many others - simply accepts the fact that objective reality is all we’ve ever been able to rely on to acquire any real knowledge about reality.

No faith required.

<<Have you known him to vacillate and consider God?>>

Dawkins once believed in god until it occurred to him that he was only a Christian because of a sheer accident of birth.

Rational thought is religion’s kryptonite.

Dear AJ Phillips...

nice to see you active and enthusiastic.

would you mind commenting on how a fundamentalist might act in the light of the following opinion ?

http://www.quranenglish.com/tafheem_quran/065.htm

scroll down to the part where it shows 65:4 against blue background.

Then.. after reading the text (verse) please follow the argument, but with special emphasis on the part indicated by *13 and beginning from the 10th line down in that section... see what this fundamentalist commentator says about a certain category of 'female' and what can be done to them in the name of the faith he represents based on their holy book.

Do you see any weaknesses in his argument or understanding of the text as written ?

If there are no obvious weaknesses..then one would assume that this understanding forms part of the fundamentals of that faith correct?

If so.. and such values were embraced by say ...Grateful... would it be in order to criticize his faith on the above grounds in the interest of public order and social balance?

Are you brave enough to spell out openly what this text is permitting and justifying?

Hope to hear from you soon.

Dear Philo,

You are a slippery fellow. You cited Wentworth when you meant Wilberforce for his opposition to slavery. You acknowledged my correction, but when I went on to point the many Christians who supported, condoned and promoted slavery somehow those Christians weren't real Christians since they weren't following the words of Jesus. Since Jesus never said anything about slavery one way or another that doesn't wash.

However, according the Bible Jesus didn't find excuses the way you do and say that those who did bad things weren't really his followers. Matthew 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits.

That's reasonable. Christians promoted, justified and profited from slavery. They reaped the fruits. I know them by those fruits.

Grateful

I would be, well, grateful, if you were to answer ALGOREisRICH's question.

Would you like to see legislation enacted that outlawed "defamation" of religion?

A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice.

To me your lack of an answer to such a simple question implies that you would like to see such legislation introduced in Australia but think it politic to refrain from saying so.

Severin,

"However, if you don't see the encroachment of fundamentalism into the world's largest religions as requiring vigilance, well fine by me. Just live how you want - but don't step on me while you do it."

I do not need convincing that, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. That is why I believe it is necessary to defy ALL totalitarian ideologies including those that are considered to be "religions."

Right now I believe the greatest danger to liberty comes from misguided attempts to appease Islam.

Note, not from Islam itself but from attempts to appease Islam.

I consider especially dangerous the tendency to apply the label "racist" anyone who expresses a loathing for Islam or to conflate CJ Morgan's favourite word, "Islamophobia," with racism.

I for one am an Islamophobe for the same reasons that I am a Stalinist-o-phobe and a Nazi-phobe.

If you feel that Christianity poses a greater threat so be it. I'm a bit of a Christian-o-phobe myself all though at present I do not think Christianity pose nearly as great a danger as the appeasement of Islam.

Foxy,

Dawkins notwithstanding there are non-religious ideologies that are every bit as loathsome as some religious ones. Stalinism comes to mind.