a defense of christianity

8/12/2019 A Defense of Christianity

1/3

A defense of Christianity

User: Amills23 from imdb forum boards

That's one of the stupidest things I have heard. Your hatred for Christianity has blinded

you to the fact that your atheism holds no ground at all on morality. The religion theatheist generally adhere to is collectivism which can take many forms but always does

more damage than any religion has ever done. Communism which only thrives by

brainwashing people into being atheists has killed over 100 million people in the last 100yrs. ot counting the moral debauchery it lets thrive in an individual atheism !ust makes a

person worse.

Your worldview re!ects morality it states we are all here by chance. "o if we are all hereby chance their isn't absolute truth and morality is sub!ective. This is the only logical

conclusion with your worldview. #ith that said all law is un!ust law forced on the

individual. #ith your sick worldview a serial killer$ a pedophile$ and a person who makes

it their life goal to help people are all on the same moral ground. #hen it comes to rightor wrong your only left with con!ecture you can't even say its wrong to murder or hate. In

your worldview life's not sacred and you can't even say the weaker should be protected. Ifanything your worldview states the opposite let the weaker die off so we have a better

%gene pool%.

Your worldview is foolishness that gives man an e&cuse to live like animals. theist's

re!ect logic and common sense when you can say the temporal created itself your insane.

The (ible )Christianity* is and will always be true about fallen man. +an re!ects ,odbecause they hate -im and they love the sin they are slaves to. The arrogance of fallen

man allows them to make themselves god by becoming the be all to morality. unny anatheist hates ,od because of -is !udgment on their wicked lives but they love to sit in!udgment on ,od and others.

User: tancred1 from imdb forum boards The Inquisition, the Crusades and

Science

/The over one hundred thousand women who were tortured and burnt alive as witches in

the +iddle ges by the Church was not a good thing. The thousands who were torturedand burnt alive by the Inuisition was not a good thing. The Crusades where entire cities

were put to the sword were not a good thing. The suppression of science and education

for centuries was not a good thing and very much eual to what the fundamental+uslims are doing today. The consistent view in Christianity that women are not eual to

men$ and must submit to men is not a good thing.2

There is a lot of historical evidence to the contrary. #ere women )and men* e&ecuted as

witches in the +iddle ges3 Yes. If you're looking for the perpetrators$ then the Church

and the Inuisition are actually not them )for the most part*. In fact$ the Inuisition for a

1


2/3

very long time held that it was heresy for one to even believe that supposed witches had

any real power. In other words$ it would be heresy for me to accuse anyone of witchcraft

and say they had cast a spell4 In such a case$ the Inuisition would be more interested inmefor accusing someone of witchcraft than in the person I accused4 This was because I

would be holding as truth that supposed witches had power to do harm either through

themselves or the power of the 5evil.

In the +iddle ges$ if anyone was e&ecuted for witchcraft$ it was more than likely at the

hands of a local mob$ and not the Inuisition. The claim of %thousands% of witchese&ecuted in the +iddle ges has no foundation$ because when did the actual #itch

Cra6e$ a time when there were thousands or more persecuted or e&ecuted$ happen3 178099

1:;0s. 5id that catch the tail end of the +iddle ges3 ;0s. +ost interestingly$ it took place in lands that had had gone

to 80s in "pain$ there were a handful of womenbrought to the "panish Inuisition on accusations of witchcraft. Their accusers were

pretty much laughed at$ scolded that there was no such thing as witchcraft$ and thewomen were freed. In the early 1@00s$ a potential witch scare was breaking out in the

"wiss cantons. The Catholic bishop of ,eneva$ "t. rancis de "ales$ would have none of

it. -e proclaimed that supposed witches had no power$ defused the potentially violentsituation$ and cleared the accused. %Thousands% of witches were persecuted$ but hardly

none in the +iddle ges. That was ?arly +odern ?ra. nd$ strangely enough$ accused

witches often found protectors in the Inuisition.

The Crusades are my area$ so you kind of stepped on my toes with this one. I take no

offense$ though$ and I mean none. (ut again$ there is so much evidence to the contrary of

what you say about the Crusades. #hen you talk about entire cities being put to thesword$ you make it sound like that was something only seen during the Crusades$ or like

it was some sort of Crusading Aaw. ot so. This is the law of siege warfare$ and has been

in all cultures for long before the Crusades came about. In fact$ it was during the +iddleges that siege warfare became largely refined through chivalry$ and for the better and

more merciful$ because it put the emphasis on fighting as a last resort only after

negotiations had failed . (asically$ if your city is attacked$ you better fight andwin$ or

you will be killed if the city is taken. nd you have no one to blame but yourself for this$because up until the city is taken$ you have the ability to negotiate a truceBpeaceBsurrender

with the attackers. This was the way of things long before the Crusades. #hen the

Crusaders took erusalem in 10DD$ the defenders fought to the end. They did not sue forterms or peace. They took a gamble$ thinking they could beat back the besiegers. They

were wrong$ the city was taken$ and therefore a slaughter ensued )though even some

ewish and +uslim accounts say the slaughter was not as bad as first reported$ andknights like Tancred fought to spare survivors*. If the Crusaders had to take a city by

storm$ they did. If a city surrendered$ or sued for peace$ or even offered to become the

Crusaders' vassals$ those cities and their citi6ens were given terms. The aforementioned

Tancred was actually very good at thisE after the taking of erusalem and the defeat of the

F


3/3

?gyptians at scalon$ he went back north to the ntioch region$ and was very good at

getting +uslim emirs to either sue for peace and some even wanted to become his vassals

and serve him. Ironically$ some +uslim leaders )some times "aladin but mostly (aibars*were very good at getting Crusader castles to sue for peace$ and then going back on their

word$ and either enslaving or killing the people as they walked away under flag of truce.

I urge everyone to read onathan =iley9"mith's %#hat #ere the Crusades3% There are so

many half truths and outright lies about the Crusades out there. This book is a must9read

for anyone interested in truth. =iley9"mith is thee&pert on the Crusades.

s for the Church suppressing science and education$ our science as it is and our

educational system would be so much worse without the Church. It was largely through

the copying of simple priests$ nuns$ and monks like thelstan that ancient ,reek and=oman science$ poetry$ literature$ law$ etc were preserved. or the longest time$ where

was the only place one could find a copy of

a defense of christianity

Documents