Christianity's Valuable Contributions to Humanity: An Examination of Militant Atheism

[Nay_Sayer]

In the Xis holy name let FSM's noodles rebuke Xaviers evil. Let his darkness be killed by the glorious light of FSM.

Blessed in the name of the virgin olive oil I anoint all here with the following prayer: Salus ab stultitia

You are all now protected by Xis noodles from Xavier.

RAmen

[Deesse23]

King Richard the Lionheart of England, one of the Crusaders, when offered the Crown of Jerusalem, said: "I will not wear a Crown of Gold where Christ my King wore a Crown of Thorns". This man was not after power and wealth, nor driven by bloodlust, and it would be madness to think he was, any more than to think the Allies who liberated Germany from the Nazis on D-Day were. Read the history for yourself and then assess.

Lionheart, not after power and wealth, not driven by bloodlust, offered the crown of Jerusalem    

That was Raimond of Touluse, you dolt, and the first crusade. During the third crusade there was no crown to offer to Lionheart. The reason for the entire 3rd crusade was that Jerusalem was lost to Saladin. If you had ANY clue what the fuck you are talking about, if you werent just mindlessly copy-pasting articles from other people you would have known that something must be wrong with this.

Back to Raimond, unlike most other crusaders he wanted to keep his oath, but he also was part of the crusade that massacred probably 50.000 people in Jerusalem, muslims AND christians (because to a westerner the people looked and behaved all the same).
He was actually so pious that he* swore an oath to Alexios to give back any conquered territory. And when Jerusalem was taken he gave it back.....nahh, im just joking  Guess what? No one square meter was given back. Godfrey of Bouillon became regent.  Helping the Byzantines MY ASS.
Back to the first crusade. The normans, vassals of the Pope and arch enemies of the Byzantines of course had no intentions to do ANYTHING for Alexios as well. Alexios actually was scared of them and made sure to send them asap over to the Turks......Yeah, Bohemund of Taranto took Antiochia for himself**. He didnt even bother to go full Jerusalem. How noble, how christian, how catholic. I repeat: those who were the closest to the pope, were least inclined to keep their oath and help the Byzantines.

It it, by the way, conceivable that it was not piety that prevented Raimond from accepting the crown of Jerusalem, but.....Tripolis needed to be conquered too. So, yeah, he was probably driven by hunger for power. But, cool story you told there, bro, just ab-so-fuck-ing-lutely wrong.

Yeah, those great and noble crusaders.......men of honor, not at all like todays politicians. Yeah, the crusades, those were times, no infighting no power- and land grab under the pretense of religion/christianity. Just devout christians....ah, those were the days *swoons*

Unlike you, i have actually READ my history books. Real books, not the sanitized feel good version for little children. Im not mindlessly copying shit, unlike you.


*like any other prince did, otherwise the Byzantine emperor would not have shipped them across the Bosporus
** not after a major struggle with Raimond of Toulouse, who wanted to give it back to Alexios, according to his oath.

[The Architect Of Fate]

King Richard the Lionheart of England, one of the Crusaders, when offered the Crown of Jerusalem, said: "I will not wear a Crown of Gold where Christ my King wore a Crown of Thorns". This man was not after power and wealth, nor driven by bloodlust, and it would be madness to think he was, any more than to think the Allies who liberated Germany from the Nazis on D-Day were. Read the history for yourself and then assess.

Lionheart, not after power and wealth, not driven by bloodlust, offered the crown of Jerusalem    

That was Godfrey of Bouillon, you dolt, and the first crusade. During the third crusade there was no crown to offer to Lionheart. The reason for the entire 3rd crusade was that Jerusalem was lost to Saladin. If you had ANY clue what the fuck you are talking about, if you werent just mindlessly copy-pasting articles from other people you would have known that something must be wrong with this.

Back to Godfrey, yeah he was a pious man, but he also was part of the crusade that massacred probably 50.000 people in Jerusalem, muslims AND christians (because to a westerner the people looked and behaved all the same).
He was actually so pious that he* swore an oath to Alexios to give back any conquered territory. And when Jerusalem was taken he gave it back.....nahh, im just joking  Guess what? No one square meter was given back. Godfrey didnt become king but regent. He may was pious enough to respect his savior, but not pious enough to respect his fellow christian, the byzantine emperor. Helping the byzantines MY ASS. Godfrey broke his oath, and he knew is by the time he swore. Godfrey was an oath breaker. Way to go my friend in glorifying him and the rest of the gang.
Back to the first crusade. The normans, vassals of the Pope and arch enemies of the Byzantines of course had no intentions to do ANYTHING for Alexios as well. Alexios actually was scared of them and made sure to send them asap over to the Turks......Yeah, Bohemund of Taranto took Antiochia for himself. He didnt even bother to go full Jerusalem. How noble, how christian.

Yeah, those great and noble crusaders.......men of honor, not at all like todays politicians. Yeah, the crusades, those were times, no infighting no power- and land grab under the pretense of religion/christianity. Just devout christians....ah, those were the days *swoons*

Unlike you, i have actually READ my history books. Real books, not the sanitized feel good version for little children. Im not mindlessly copying shit, unlike you.


*like any other prince did, otherwise the Byzantine emperor would not have shipped them across the Bosporus

While all he's reading is Catholic revisionist history and apologetics like all those people who peddle the"lost cause" myth for the Confederacy.

[Deesse23]

While all he's reading is Catholic revisionist history and apologetics like all those people who peddle the"lost cause" myth for the Confederacy.

Please note i had to update. Raimond was offered the crown, Godfrey became warden of the holy sepulcher.
Note to self: dont reply to stupid and misinformed walls of text at 12pm.

[Nishant Xavier]

Yes, misremembered the name. Apologies for that.

Now, back to some of Christianity's other Contributions:

(1) I showed you the Christians who Abolished Slavery, including Lincoln and Wilberforce, and of course everyone knows this since it's recent history. I also showed the Racist and even Eugenicist (promoting extermination of "savage" races) views of Darwin and Sanger, not to mention Nietzche and Marx, all Vicious Racists. So who can show me the Atheists who helped Abolish Slavery? C'mon, don't be shy, step forward and claim the credit for Atheism! If indeed any Atheists played a prominent part in the Abolitionist Struggle, I will happily credit them. Not kidding. But it's a matter of record that Christians did.

(2) Next, another issue almost completely ignored, and this indeed unlike Abolition of Slavery, is almost unknown to those who have not taken particular efforts to read and research it for themselves, is the role of Christianity in particular, and Judeo-Christian Values, in Abolishing Infanticide.

I already mentioned the Role of Christian Emperor, Constantine the Great, in Abolishing Infanticide. Any 3rd or 4th Century Agnostics or Atheists around by any chance whose names I can't recall who also likewise played a commendable part in abolishing it? Lol, don't think so. And note that, Jews and Christians, taught by the God of the Bible were against Infanticide, whereas Pagans, misguided by other gods, were largely ok with it.

See the historical source below from the secular Enyclopedia dot com website:

"The first-century Jewish philosopher Philo denounced infanticide and emphasized adults's duties toward children. His account equated abandonment with infanticide:

Some [parents] do the deed with their own hands; with monstrous cruelty and barbarity they stifle and throttle the first breath which the infants draw or throw them into a river or into the depths of the sea, after attaching some heavy substance to make them sink more quickly under its weight. Others take them to be exposed in some desert place, hoping, they themselves say, that they may be saved, but leaving them in actual truth to suffer the most distressing fate. For all the beasts that feed in human flesh visit the spot and feast unhindered on the infants, a fine banquet provided by their sole guardians, those who above all others should keep them safe, their fathers and mothers.
Philo further condemned the practice, in Works, by claiming, "Infanticide undoubtedly is murder, since the displeasure of the law is not concerned with ages but with a breach to the human race" (Vol. 7).

However, it was the advent of Christianity, rooted in Judaism, that significantly altered public attitudes toward the practice of infanticide. Christians inherited the Jewish doctrine that humans were divinely created, including the emphasis on the sanctity of all human life. They also recalled with horror the New Testament report that King Herod had slaughtered many infants in his attempts to exterminate the infant Jesus (Matthew 2). Believers were urged to emulate Christ's self-sacrificing love through benevolence and charity, providing a new rationale for philanthropy (Ferngren, 1987a). The consequences of this philanthropy were seen in Christian charities and endeavors for the poor, the sick, and the needy. Rescue and care of exposed infants was viewed as a special Christian duty. During the medieval period through the nineteenth century, Christians established foundling hospitals, and institutions for abandoned and unwanted children."

Someone was praising Julian the Apostate, whom I quoted in the OP as saying Christians exceeded pagans in caring for All Poor People, including Poor People who happened to be pagans ("it is shameful to us that the Galileans take care not only of their Poor but our own"), but of course Julian the Apostate won't tell you this. And pls note, we are not claiming any Roman Emperor was perfect in every way, but Abolishing Infanticide was Good.

Above source, continued: "Although Jews and Christians vigorously opposed infanticide, their opposition had little impact until Christianity became widespread and officially recognized in the fourth century. A church council in Spain issued the first canon against infanticide in 305 c.e., and soon after, both local and ecumenical councils throughout Europe took similar actions. The penalty prescribed by the church for infanticide was either penance or excommunication.

The first secular law concerning the killing of children was issued in 318 c.e. by Constantine, the first Christian emperor. However, the law mentions children killing parents as well as parents killing children and thus was not directed specifically against infanticide. In 374 c.e. Valentinian enacted legislation declaring infanticide to be murder and punishable by law. Soon after a statute was issued that appears to have prohibited exposure of infants. Although Christian emperors promulgated many laws reflecting Christian morality, fear of losing salvation made the penitential system of the churches far more effective in influencing moral behavior than did state legislation. Church leaders continued to put pressure on the state, bringing about a series of legal codes aimed at protecting newborn children."

Oops. This was the Pro-Life Movement of the 4th Century, and Pro-Life Christians triumphed, by the Grace and Power of Almighty God.

It's understandable Militant Modern Atheists don't want to credit the Religion they hate with having built the Civilization they Love.

But it is the Truth. In this particular case, the nearly Universal Values we share today that Infanticide is wrong came from Judeo-Christianity.

Regards,
Xavier.

[The Grand Nudger]

You don’t actually care if anything you say is true, do you?

Reckon your god might?

[Nishant Xavier]

Why would I give detailed sources, including secular sources, if I didn't care what was True and what was not? I also apologize when I make a mistake. But saying Christians Abolished Infanticide in the Old World and Slavery more recently is not a mistake.

[Silver]

The ill is not that christianity eventually did the right thing, but that it has always done the wrong thing with divine decree from god.

[The Grand Nudger]

IDK Nishant, that’s why I asked. Only you can explain your shoddy relationship with the truth.

[Nishant Xavier]

Marx and Engels, Vicious Racists. From News Herald: Gee, just Imagine if Lincoln and Wilberforce had thought like this. Thank God they didn;t.

"Most people who call themselves Marxists know very little of Karl Marx's life and have never read his three-volume "Das Kapital." Volume I was published in 1867, the only volume published before Marx's death in 1883. Volumes II and III were later edited and published in his name by his friend and collaborator Friedrich Engels. Most people who call themselves Marxist have only read his 1848 pamphlet "The Communist Manifesto," which was written with Engels.

Marx is a hero to many labor union leaders and civil rights organizations, including leftist groups like Black Lives Matter, antifa and some Democratic Party leaders. It is easy to be a Marxist if you know little of his life. Marx's predictions about capitalism and the "withering away of the state" turned out to be grossly wrong. What most people do not know is that Marx was a racist and an anti-Semite.

When the U.S. annexed California after the Mexican-American War, Marx wrote: "Without violence nothing is ever accomplished in history." Then he asked, "Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?" Friedrich Engels added: "In America we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico and have rejoiced at it. It is to the interest of its own development that Mexico will be placed under the tutelage of the United States." Many of Marx's racist ideas were reported in "Karl Marx, Racist" a book written by Nathaniel Weyl, a former member of the U.S. Communist Party.

In 1887, Paul Lafargue, who was Marx's son-in-law, was a candidate for a council seat in a Paris district that contained a zoo. Engels claimed that Paul had "one eighth or one twelfth [N-word] blood." In an April 1887 letter to Paul's wife, Engels wrote, "Being in his quality as a [N-word], a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district."

Marx's anti-Semitic views were no secret. In 1844, he published an essay titled "On the Jewish Question." He wrote that the worldly religion of Jews was "huckstering" and that the Jew's god was "money." Marx's view of Jews was that they could only become an emancipated ethnicity or culture when they no longer exist. Just one step short of calling for genocide, Marx said, "The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way."

Marx's philosophical successors shared ugly thoughts on blacks and other minorities. Che Guevara, a hero of the left, was a horrific racist. He wrote in his 1952 memoir, "The Motorcycle Diaries": "The [N-word] is indolent and lazy and spends his money on frivolities, whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent."

And it's just painful to read beyond that point. I trust the historical fact is clear that these men were Vicious Racists. But if necessary, more Evidence can always be given, for those open to the Truth.