Twenty Ways to Answer A Fool [2]

Does Christianity Prey on the Innocent?

I come again to my review and critique of Chaz Bufe’s

20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity.

Chaz second reason Christianity must be abandoned is because Christians prey on children. I will let him explain himself:

2. Christianity preys on the innocent. If Christian fear-mongering were directed solely at adults, it would be bad enough, but Christians routinely terrorize helpless children through grisly depictions of the endless horrors and suffering they’’ll be subjected to if they don’t live good Christian lives. Christianity has darkened the early years of generation after generation of children, who have lived in terror of dying while in mortal sin and going to endless torment as a result. All of these children were trusting of adults, and they did not have the ability to analyze what they were being told; they were simply helpless victims, who, ironically, victimized following generations in the same manner that they themselves had been victimized. The nearly 2000 years of Christian terrorizing of children ranks as one of its greatest crimes. And it’s one that continues to this day.

First off, what is the point with Chaz’s use of the word “innocent?”  Innocence implies being blameless for a crime or some other guilt, which would further imply the application of a moral category.  According to Chaz’s atheistic views of the world, what could a child possibly be “innocent” from? What sort of guilt would a child bear? For someone who more that likely doesn’t believe in moral absolutes, I wonder if Chaz even stops and considers the inconsistency with the words and concepts he uses to bash Christianity. Something tells me he has not.

Moving along anyways,

In order to back up his claim of Christians terrorizing children for the last 2000 years, Chaz proceeds to quote from some obscure, 19th century Catholic children’s book that no one has even heard of, let alone read from. The children’s book highlights sermon instruction from a Rev. J. Furniss who provides some picturesque descriptions of sinners boiling alive in the flames of hell.   And then, if that were not enough, Chaz digs up some old Irish Vicar-General who recommends the book as being beneficial for children.

Wow. Is this the best argument Chaz can provide for slandering Christians as baby skinners? I mean, come on, at least throw in a mention of the Children crusades when muddle-headed Catholics believed God would use innocent children to destroy the Muslim hordes in Jerusalem and sent their youth to their certain doom in a hair-brained scheme to fight Turks. You disappoint me Chaz.

But what does Chaz offer to replace the Christian terrorizing of children? How would he remedy this victimization of poor, innocent babies? Kill all Christians in a wild anarchist frenzy? It is one thing to criticize, it is quite another to criticize and offer solutions. Chaz just criticizes – and a pathetic criticism as well.

I imagine, however, from what we learn from the rest of Chaz’s website, he would probably suggest an anarchist philosophy, mixed with atheistic communism, as a replacement for Christianity.If that is the case, as I am sure Chaz may well gladly attest, am I to believe atheistic anarchist communist would never, ever terrorize innocent children who trust the adults to look after them and have no ability to analyze what they are taught?

You see, Chaz, like all egocentric atheists who dish out the anti-religious snark, but hardly offer any real world, workable solutions, suffers from what I like to call historical myopia.

Chaz carries on about how Christians terrorize the young minds of trusting children by quoting some long forgotten children’s religious book from over a century ago, but forgets how true and living atheistic communism within the last century turned the youth culture into an organized mass of murdering thugs.

For example, when Pol Pot took over Cambodia after he graduated from the schools of Paris where he studied such atheistic heroes like Karl Marx and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, he quickly mobilized the youth of that country to implement his atheistic anarchy with horrific results. Now, would not Chaz agree that turning trusting and innocent Cambodian youth into roving gangs of tyrannical, jackbooted murdering thugs is a clear example of preying on the innocent? Who can forget the scene in the movie The Killing Fields, where Haing S. Ngor’s character has his little tomato plant pulled up and stomped to pieces by a 13 year old girl? And what about the images of village folk being smothered to death with plastic bags tied around their heads by bunches of teenage soldiers?

We could also mention Stalin’s Russian and the current state of North Korea, states who promoted atheistic philosophy to national levels, but I won’t bore my readers.

I will grant that people in the name of Christianity have said and done stupid things. Maybe they could be guilty of preying on innocent minds, but biblical Christianity does not teach such brainwashing as Chaz would say. Again, this is a fine example where Chaz needs to deal with real Christianity, not cartoon pictures of it.

Advertisements

26 thoughts on “Twenty Ways to Answer A Fool [2]

  1. Agree! The evangelical atheist (and all within earshot of their rant) must be reminded that state sponsored atheism, AKA communism, is the most evil and corrupt political machine ever made by man. As pointed out in “The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression” by Robert Laffont Communism is responsible for nearly 100,000,000 deaths in only 70 years of the 20th century. (and many claim his numbers are far too conservative) This is what happens when you remove the love for each other and respect for human life that God brings us. This is clearly more than the estimated 6,000,000 killed by those claimed to be Christians in crusades, inquisitions, and the French wars of religion in the 2000 years since Christ’s resurrection.

  2. a) The argument “am I to believe atheistic anarchist communist would never, ever terrorize innocent children who trust the adults to look after them and have no ability to analyze what they are taught?” is invalid.

    Something else could also be bad is not an argument for keeping up something bad. So, if Christianity is terrorizing children, then this argument above is not a point for allowing it to continue to do so. It’s an argument for also not allowing a “atheistic anarchist communist” to do so. (You forgot the put nazis in there… We all learned from the Simpsons that communist nazis are the real danger, probably even more so the anarchist ones. They probably also torture puppies.)

    b) The main reason for millions of deaths in the 20th century was simply i) The amount of people living and ii) The technical possibilities. What stopped people in the year 1.000 from killing 100.000.000 people was simply the fact that there were not enough people and if there had been, they would not have had to technology to do so. Remember that Christians killed Jews for almost 2.000 years – only in the 20th century

    c) There is a simple difference between doing something BECAUSE of something else and doing something while also being something else.

    And of course, if a system, religious or otherwise, contains parts that can be used to justify something, then you can hold it responsible. Personally, I would really want to see where you can justify mass murder from “I don’t believe in any gods.” (and yes, you cannot justify forbidding mass murder from this sentence alone, but that only proves that atheism is nothing more than one simple idea and not a religion or complete philosophical system in itself).

  3. I was raised in the 20th century in a mainstream Baptist church. I heard plenty about Hell. It was clear to me that I had better make a profession of faith or I would be apart from my family and tortured for all eternity in Hell. I can’t speak for all kids, but yes, I was terrorized as a child.

  4. Your response suggests that the “foolish” comments of Chaz are not entirely off the mark.

  5. I’m not sure I understand why the observation that Christianity terrorizes children isn’t “grounded” here.

  6. Because Chaz, like most atheists, doesn’t believe in moral absolutes. Except that Christianity is absolutely immoral. Dawkins has be refreshingly consistent along these lines, btw.

  7. But the word “terror” simply describes an observable emotional state. My dog feels terror with every thunderstorm. I don’t think that we need a moral absolute to observe that someone is being terrorized.

  8. LOOOOOVE me some hard atheism! I could refute the crap out of your fallacious statements, but then christians also accuse science of perpetrating fraud in the proof that we evolved. If you want a short, sweet refutation to every one of your false statements then search Youtube for the many incredible Christopher Hitchens, Aron Ra, Richard Dawkins, Matt Dillahunty debate videos that have taken apart religion on EVERY level.

  9. hitchens67 said:

    “If you want a short, sweet refutation to every one of your false statements then search Youtube . . .”

    First, all you are doing is asking Fred to prove your point for you. Not only is this intellectually dishonest, it’s intellectually lazy. If you can’t be bothered do your own homework, I can’t be bothered to take you seriously.

    Second, Youtube? Now there’s some serious scholarship for you. ROFL!

  10. David said: ” I can’t speak for all kids, but yes, I was terrorized as a child.”

    Well, there’s terror and there’s terror. The realization that there is a just and holy God, and we have broken his laws and incurred his anger, and are subject to eternal judgment, should lead us to terror – a godly terror that drives us to repentance, faith, and obedience.

    That’s not what Chaz means, though. He means Christianity is committing psychological torture on little children by terrorizing them.

    Are there Christians who do this? Undoubtedly. But if it’s unfair and dishonest to impute the wickedness of Pol Pot (to borrow Fred’s example) upon all atheists, then it’s equally unfair and dishonest to blame Christianity for some inept Christians.

  11. Oh Ransom, I hope you realize that by engaging David, you have just stepped into an endless, spiraling rabbit hole. But I guess that is to be expected with most atheists.

  12. No rabbit hole. Just wanted to understand if Fred’s post was trying to suggest that the use of terror was restricted to some time in the distant past or was only found in some ” obscure, 19th century Catholic children’s book that no one has even heard”.

    I think that we’ve established that terrorizing children is hardly a thing of the past or something that is restricted to certain fringe groups. Rather, terror is a good thing, and is a part of mainstream Christian theology.

    That about wraps it up. No need to go down the rabbit hole.

  13. Is someone trying to tell us that Atheists do not terrorize children with their propaganda? I have seen children in tears because of lies, distortions, and fabrications they get from their school teachers who by law must profess atheism. Our children have been told things like “You’re all going to die from global warming and it’s your parent’s fault” or “America is going to destroy the world with…” fill in the blank: greed, nuclear weapons, pollution, global warming, global cooling, GMA foods… all at tax payers expense.

    And my all time favorite lie used to inflict terror in children “More people have been killed for religion than any other cause in the world.” In the early 90’s I have heard children come home from school in tears because the teacher told them that Newt Gingrich was going to tear them out of their homes and put them in orphanages.

    Let us not forget that Atheism, as determined by the supreme court, is a religion. A religion that insures that government funds its evangelical efforts, supports its doctrine in tax payer funded schools, and insures its theology has supremacy over all other belief systems with tax payer funded law enforcement. Our children are being brainwashed into believing in the doctrines of evangelical atheism through terror and intimidation and are being initiated into the unholy sacraments of evangelical atheism: drugs, casual sex, homosexuality, and abortion.

  14. You know, if it is wrong to terrorize children even with the truth, then maybe doctors should not tell children when they have cancer and will have to go through painful treatment. That might scare them.

  15. 1. “Christianity has darkened the early years of generation after generation of children, who have lived in terror of dying while in mortal sin” – That’s Catholic talk. Protestants don’t make distinctions between “mortal” and “venial” sin. The author isn’t even attacking Christianity (at least as it’s even remotely described in the scriptures).

    2. “The nearly 2000 years of Christian terrorizing of children ranks as one of its greatest crimes…” Why is it a crime? Why is it wrong? The author, as you already showed, assumes moral absolutes in order to apply them in judgment of the God from whom they’re derived and in whom they’re grounded. His worldview crumbles under it’s complete internal incoherence.

    It IS entertaining how the atheist crowd does show up here though, and make the same errors in thought.

    What was it that the Atomic Mutant said?

    “Personally, I would really want to see where you can justify mass murder from “I don’t believe in any gods.””

    Well, let’s look at someone who actually DID commit mass murder. Anders Breivik. You can access his entire manifesto here: http://info.publicintelligence.net/AndersBehringBreivikManifesto.pdf

    Have fun. it’s 1515 pages of insanity. In it you’ll find that Breivik clearly doesn’t believe in any god whatsoever (and considers actual belief to be a sign of intellectual incompetence), but only the benefits of religion for the secular state (in the establishment of order and a sense of connection to history). For the sake of the elevation of that state, he proudly declares that morality is irrelevant (since without god morality serves the purpose of the state and becomes fluid) and proved his point when he bombed a government building (killing 8) and went on a killing spree at a youth camp (killing 69).

    Of course, Atomic Mutant will want to distance himself from Breivik and claim that he’s nuts. I agree that he’s an insane maniac. The question is why he’s wrong. Why is mass murder (of enemies, not of people in general) morally wrong when it’s anchored to anything other than God?

    What other anchor gives morality a solid foundation?

    – The desires of the state?

    – The desires of the many?

    – The desires of the powerful?

  16. Sorry. I meant to ask “Why is mass murder (of enemies, not of people in general) morally wrong when morality is anchored to anything other than God?

  17. Pingback: Articles on Apologetics and Evangelism | hipandthigh

  18. Pingback: Late August 2014 Presuppositional apologetics’ links | The Domain for Truth

  19. Pingback: Twenty Ways to Answer a Fool? | The Battle Cry

Leave me a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s