Chuck, like I keep saying I agree on much of what you say. Maybe my original posts on the topic are misleading so I'll clarify. I am not saying that the Taiping Rebellion was solely the fault of Christianity, I am merely highlighting an example where a Christian started a particularly bloody war in the attempt to create a Christian kingdom of sorts. I generally do not agree with the commonly trotted out examples of Hitler, Stalin and Mao as proof that atheism is evil and/or leads to atrocities. But my disagreement is on history and logic, not simply that it's unpalatable. Even if it were true, it still wouldn't prove God's existence.
But, if Christian apologists use the Stalin/Mao argument, then by their own standards Hong is proof of the opposite. So the example might be helpful to atheists who come across this argument.
Now, I do think Christianity was likely a contributing cause in this specific rebellion in so far as it probably legitimised Hong's own delusions to himself - if Hong had not been converted, and armed with the "good book" would he have been able to galvanise the support he did? He'd need to write his own 'foreign cult'. The idea that if Hong didn't start a rebellion, someone else would is not very useful - we have no way of knowing whether that alternative history would have been more or less bloody.
Aside, I think we should be careful of reading too much into Social Cycle Theories - patterns are easy to spot in retrospect. Humans are pattern seeking mammals, it's easy to draw parallels and make connections, and underestimate the uniqueness. Mao wanted history to tell that Taiping rebellion was connected to his revolution etc.
We can say that revolts at that time were 'inevitable', but that doesn't mean that in 1845 you could accurately predict the timing or nature of the Taiping rebellion without a lot of specific intell. Hong's reasons for starting the rebellion were personal, he merely capitalised on Christianity and popular ethnic unrest.
But, if Christian apologists use the Stalin/Mao argument, then by their own standards Hong is proof of the opposite. So the example might be helpful to atheists who come across this argument.
Now, I do think Christianity was likely a contributing cause in this specific rebellion in so far as it probably legitimised Hong's own delusions to himself - if Hong had not been converted, and armed with the "good book" would he have been able to galvanise the support he did? He'd need to write his own 'foreign cult'. The idea that if Hong didn't start a rebellion, someone else would is not very useful - we have no way of knowing whether that alternative history would have been more or less bloody.
Aside, I think we should be careful of reading too much into Social Cycle Theories - patterns are easy to spot in retrospect. Humans are pattern seeking mammals, it's easy to draw parallels and make connections, and underestimate the uniqueness. Mao wanted history to tell that Taiping rebellion was connected to his revolution etc.
We can say that revolts at that time were 'inevitable', but that doesn't mean that in 1845 you could accurately predict the timing or nature of the Taiping rebellion without a lot of specific intell. Hong's reasons for starting the rebellion were personal, he merely capitalised on Christianity and popular ethnic unrest.
blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” – John 20:26-29
