The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Ongoing discussion debunking Christianity

It is a blog founded by former fundamentalists turned anti-theists who now see it as the main purpose of their life to lay waste the whole Christendom.

I think that most universalists and progressive Christians agree with their arguments about the immorality of hell and of Biblical genocides.

But the problem is that they are convinced that these arguments refute all forms of Christianity.

I am currently debating them on the question of witch burning: is it a logical consequence of Jesus teaching?

debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/quote-of-day-by-executioner-to-man.html

I would be glad if you could give me feedbacks and your impression on that.

Lovely greetings and shalom.

Interesting one Lotharson–

No I don’t’ think that witch hunting in early modern Europe was a result of Jesus’ teachings. The phenomena was very complex and both atheist and Christians often have a rather distorted version of it.

I don’t really know where to start but here are a few observations -

The witch hunts were facilitated by many factors

A change in emphasis in European law during the Renaissance/Reformation that took the burden of proof off the accuser to prove their accusations and onto the accused to prove their innocence. This was not consonant with the teachings of Jesus.

Those Christians who struggled for the end of the witch hunts – like Father von Spee - saw in the so called witches the face of their Jesus who was falsely accused.

It was not only Christians but also religious sceptics and supporters of early modern science who supported the Witch hunts. Indeed part of the reason for the witch hunts – although not the whole reason by any means – can be seen in the rise of the male medical professions and the need to marginalise and outlaw those women accused of witchcraft who practised herbal medicine, midwifery etc.

Most of the so called witches were not specialists in traditional medicine but rather simple Christians without sufficient literacy or learning to give the correct doctrinal answers when falsely accused, or Christians who happened to dissent from mainstream views (Anabaptists were often accused of witchcraft). So really the witch-hunts of the early modern period are very similar to secular witch hunts of our time – McCarthyism, the Stalinist purges. The Chinese Cultural Revolution (the latter two far worse than the first example – but the first example was still very bad).

The New Atheists are sometimes in danger of replicating the arguments of the witch hunters – especially when they use the metaphor of virus/contagion for religion or argue – as Dan Dennett has done – that good, kind and tolerant religious people are actually worse than maniacs and religious terrorists because they give religion – which produces maniacs and terrorists – respectability. This is the argument of the false accuser which attempts to silence the defending advocate. Obviously religious people still go about scapegoating – but they are not alone.

Thinking that the dynamics of witch hunting is only due to belief in the supernatural or to giving great importance to one criminal law from the OT is, IMHO, to misunderstand a far more complex picture. Because scapegoating is an almost universal human phenomena under certain conditions I think it is unhelpful for either religious or secular people to simply lash out at the opposite side with witch hunter accusations,
I think also all who cite the witch hunts should know facts from myth (they often don’t) –

They didn’t; happen in the Middle Ages – heresy trials did, but not witch trials. They happened in the Reformation period.

Sometimes it is claimed that as many as nine million were killed. This is completely false. The best estimates today are that 90,000 people were killed over a period of three hundred years.

Many people think that all of the victims were women. Actually two thirds of the victims were women and one third men. In some places – notably Iceland – all of the victims were men.

Hope this is useful

Dick

Hi Lotharson

I can add little to the Professor’s historical perspective on the persecution of alleged ‘witches’ - other than to agree that atheist propaganda on the subject should be treated with great caution.

But I did want to just say that, in my experience, these militant apostates are impossible to debate, and you will only end up being frustrated and demoralised if you try and engage with them. For whatever reason they have been so scarred mentally or emotionally by ‘religion’ - more often than not, I would venture, by fundamentalist religion (Christian or otherwise) - that their minds are completely closed to any form of rational discussion. Whatever you say they will hurl accusations of irrationality at you - *prove *to me that God exists, they will cry. (Conveniently ignoring the obvious rejoinder - prove to me that He doesn’t :slight_smile: .) I know, I’ve got a good friend who is just like this. She was so messed up by her fundamentalist upbringing that she simply will not listen to *anything *positive I might have to say to her about faith. So I don’t even try :slight_smile: . (I know God will win her round in the end :smiley: .)

Here is my favourite George MacDonald quote on this subject, from his sermon Faith - the Proof of the Unseen:

I think those words are just as true in our oh-so-clever modern world as they were in the good George’s day.

All the best

Johnny

Dear Dick and Johny,

thank you for your extremely wise answers!

You completely grasp the nature of the problem with this former fundamentalists turned into militant atheists.

I have exposed several times their utter immorality and the fact that they adopt the very primitive tribal mentality they attribute to all religious people.
To my mind, they are hateful bigots who delude themselves into thinking they have morality and rationality on their side.

You are right it is really demoralizing to interact with them and I often get bullied and insulted.

But sometimes I feel so frustrated by the falsehoods they write that I feel compelled to write a response.

So I hope we will have one day the opportunity to meet in the UK :wink:

Otherwise, we could perhaps skype one time or virtually hang out.

My email is lotharlorraine@gmail.com and my skype name should be “Lothars Sohn” or “lothars.sohn” which means “Lothar’s son” in German.

Lovely greetings in Christ.

Here’s a good discussion between two atheists Lotharson - one a major New Atheist and another an Atheist of the older school. I found it most interesting :smiley:

youtube.com/watch?v=A4RxzzxYan4

New Atheists are often very aggressive and self righteous. They are a sort of mirror image of religious fundamentalists and employ similar strategies in their polemics - most of those I’ve seen in action are alpha males spoiling for a fight. I think in the UK at least they are a bit of a spent force actually - other people may have other ideas on this but I have noticed that even very secular people that I know have become tired of the likes of Richard Dawkins due to his smugness and absolute certainty of being right. I’d agree with Johnny that it’s probably not a great idea to engage New Atheists in argument on the web - unless you are a glutton for punishment :laughing:

Do you ever come to London? :slight_smile:

Great quote, Johnny.

I inhabit Dawkin’s forum because I think rational Christian voices need to be part of the conversation, not to defend the faith as such, but to shield innocent by-standers from all the bovination that flies about. Not that my voice is particularly rational :laughing: , but I do try. I’m fond of pointing out that my atheist friends sound very like 6-day creationists. Yes, they’re beating a different drum, but the mind-set is the same.

Bovination? :laughing:

I’ve sparred over the years with John Loftus before (the main contributor at DebunX) and he’s… not overly attentive to data and logic, let us say.

Once he figured out I really am a Christian universalist (which took a while because he doesn’t pay attention well), he didn’t care to duel me anymore; but neither does he respect Christian universalists (much less understand us). He has actually written at least one post trying to argue that people like me (by name) are worse because we make Christianity seem more attractive and reasonable. :unamused: Which from his all-religion-is-a-virus standpoint makes sense, I guess. (Cf. Sobor’s comment comparing the New Atheist crowd to modern witch hunters.)

“not overly attentive to data and logic” :laughing:

Jason: Loftus took a great atheist philosopher (Jeffrey Jay Lowder) to task because he advocated debunking bad arguments for atheism.
Loftus saw it as detrimental for the godless cause.
In many occasion he called Christian people not agreeing with some of his cherished arguments “delusional”.

To my mind he has proven beyond any reasonable doubt he is an ideologist and not a honest thinker.

The only thing positive about him is that he agrees with me that the Bible teaches conditional immortality :slight_smile:
And for someone wanting to smear Christianity as much as possible, this is not a small performance!

It sounds like these folks need a lot of hugs. Or some other, appropriate sign of care and love. Seriously.

For quite a few people, respecting their minds and providing reasonable answers is a means of expressing love. Reasoning with them works as reasoning, and works at an emotional level as well. But some people are too scarred and distrustful to experience love in this way. So they need to experience God’s love in another way.

I can vouch from (somewhat hilarious) personal experience that overtly respecting J’oftus’ mind works neither at an intellectual nor at an emotional level. I wrote an article arguing for God’s existence from the positive rational capabilities of John Loftus, entirely grounded on the importance of respecting him personally and intellectually, and titled it “John Loftus is not a Socratic cabbage”; and he utterly and emotionally dismissed it without direct reply to its content even in the slightest, on the ground that I had insulted him in the title by calling him a Socratic cabbage. To this day he refuses to acknowledge he made any mistake in his reply to that article.

That being said, I am informed by people of reliable character and with no motive to lie that he has a much better attitude in person (or did many years ago) than on the net.

Dan: thanks for these wise words :slight_smile:

I agree we always ought to first respect and love disagreeable persons because they might have been hurt and we can win them in this way to the love of Christ.

BUT, if someone is** repeatedly** mean, advocates insulting and ridiculing every Christian and refuses to repent, than I think it is permissible to rebuke him using strong words, as our Lord Himself did with some bigoted pharisees.