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

[Fake Messiah]

Is that so? Names of those deists, and historical records of their contributions toward Abolitionism, please?

I did give you an explanation that you ignored. The other thing that you ignore is who maintained slavery and started it.

[Nishant Xavier]

Lol. So, in other words, you have no names. I didn't ask for an "explanation". I asked for names.

The idea that there were no educated Christians in the West for the last 250 years is a laughable absurdity.

Even today, we know there are many educated Christians in the West. Yes, here and there, atheism or agnosticism has some influence. Yet, it is so even today. Far more, it was true in the 18th Century. You do know Wilberforce was a Christian Evangelist, right?

And do I need to quote Lincoln again: "We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!

It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness."

Gee, sounds like quite the "Deist" to me. ROFL. Btw, Deists are Theists, not Atheists. Antony Flew recently gave up Atheism, and became a Deist.

[Nishant Xavier]

And another non sequitur.

The servitude in Biblical times was more comparable to serfdom, as I mentioned, not chattel slavery properly so called. You obviously did not read the history or sources that I mentioned.

Btw, even apart from that, have you read the Bible enough to know St. Paul commanded Philemon to let his escaped servant/slave go free? Not to mention that God, having delivered His people from slavery in Egypt, already shows by that that slavery is something bad? It was tolerated only in times of war etc were abolition was impossible.

"Philemon 1:

12I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. 15Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.

17So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. 20I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. 21Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask."

In other words, St. Paul the Apostle tells Philemon to release the servant and grant him his freedom, and charge to himself (Paul) any debt the servant might owe.

[Nishant Xavier]

Wilberforce, "the devout deist" [not!]:

Wiki: "In 1785, he underwent a conversion experience and became an evangelical Christian, resulting in major changes to his lifestyle and a lifelong concern for reform.

he soon became a leading English abolitionist. He headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for 20 years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act of 1807.

... Wilberforce was convinced of the importance of religion, morality and education. He championed causes and campaigns such as the Society for the Suppression of Vice, British missionary work in India, the creation of a free colony in Sierra Leone, the foundation of the Church Mission Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. His underlying conservatism led him to support politically and socially repressive legislation, which resulted in criticism that he was ignoring injustices at home while campaigning for the enslaved abroad...

In later years, Wilberforce supported the campaign for the complete abolition of slavery and continued his involvement after 1826, when he resigned from Parliament because of his failing health. That campaign led to the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which abolished slavery in most of the British Empire. Wilberforce died just three days after hearing that the passage of the Act through Parliament was assured. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, close to his friend William Pitt the Younger."

[Fake Messiah]

And another non sequitur.

The servitude in Biblical times was more comparable to serfdom, as I mentioned, not chattel slavery properly so called. You obviously did not read the history or sources that I mentioned.

And there you go, this dumbass is defending slavery while saying that Christians saved people from slavery.

How bad serfdom was is that peasants constantly rebelled because they were horribly exploited. When Martin Luther came they hoped that the new Christianity will save them from the evil Catholic Church. But no. Luther quickly wrote two books how peasants are satanic and they were slaughtered, maybe even up to 100 thousand people.

[Nishant Xavier]

And more lies and evasion from you, since you have no names.

What Militant Atheists are claiming here is something like this:

Imagine it's A.D. 2050 and Abortion has been Universally Abolished or at least is now Universally considered wrong in most places.

Atheists and Agnostics, undermining the Christian contribution to Pro-Life Efforts, start claiming the Pro-Life Movement was entirely Atheistic!

Yeah, sure, bro, if you want to do that, go ahead. I've given you enough information for you to know the Truth. "My job is to inform, not to convince" ~ S. Bernadette.

[Nishant Xavier]

New Advent: "The Church made the enfranchisement of the slave an act of disinterested charity. Pagan masters usually sold him his liberty for his market value, on receipt of his painfully amassed savings (Cicero, "Philipp. VIII", xi; Seneca "Ep. lxxx"); true Christians gave it to him as an alms. Sometimes the Church redeemed slaves out of its common resources (St. Ignatius, "Polyc.", 4; Apos. Const., IV, iii). Heroic Christians are known to have sold themselves into slavery to deliver slaves (St. Clement, "Cor.", 4; "Vita S. Joannis Eleemosynarii" in Acts SS., Jan., II, p. 506). Many enfranchised all the slaves they had. In pagan antiquity wholesale enfranchisements are frequent, but they never include all the owner's slaves, and they are always by testamentary disposition — that is when the owner cannot be impoverished by his own bounty, (Justinian, "Inst.", I, vii; "Cod. Just.", VII, iii, 1). Only Christians enfranchised all their slaves in the owner's lifetime, thus effectually despoiling themselves a considerable part of their fortune (see Allard, "Les esclaves chrétiens", 4th ed., p. 338). At the beginning of the fifth century, a Roman millionaire, St. Melania, gratuitously granted liberty to so many thousand of slaves that her biographer declares himself unable to give their exact number (Vita S. Melaniae, xxxiv). Palladius mentions eight thousand slaves freed (Hist. Lausiaca, cxix), which, taking the average price of a slave as about $100, would represent a value of $800,000 [1913 dollars]. But Palladius wrote before 406, which was long before Melania had completely exhausted her immense fortune in acts of liberality of all kinds (Rampolla, "S. Melania Giuniore", 1905, p. 221).

Primitive Christianity did not attack slavery directly; but it acted as though slavery did not exist. By inspiring the best of its children with this heroic charity, examples of which have been given above, it remotely prepared the way for the abolition of slavery. To reproach the Church of the first ages with not having condemned slavery in principle, and with having tolerated it in fact, is to blame it for not having let loose a frightful revolution, in which, perhaps, all civilization would have perished with Roman society. But to say, with Ciccotti (Il tramonto della schiavitù, Fr. tr., 1910, pp. 18, 20), that primitive Christianity had not even "an embryonic vision" of a society in which there should be no slavery, to say that the Fathers of the Church did not feel "the horror of slavery", is to display either strange ignorance or singular unfairness. In St. Gregory of Nyssa (In Ecclesiastem, hom. iv) the most energetic and absolute reprobation of slavery may be found; and again in numerous passages of St. John Chrysostom's discourse we have the picture of a society without slaves - a society composed only of free workers, an ideal portrait of which he traces with the most eloquent insistence (see the texts cited in Allard, ''Les esclaves chrétiens", p. 416-23)."

[Fake Messiah]

And more lies and evasion from you, since you have no names.

You definitely avoided that video that explains how serfs were considered theologically lesser beings in Catholic Europe. But when it comes to names of politicians in the US, they are not that important since they were working through political and humanistic ideologies. You keep mentioning Lincoln, but he was mostly skeptic in his life, and his religious views are murky. You can not name the church he was in.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Agnostics and Atheists had such Significant Influence in Revolutionary France that they Persecuted Christians. After their Reign of Terror (as mentioned in the OP, p. 3), they could easily have played a prominent role in abolishing/outlawing Slavery. So why didn't France take the lead role in that? Instead, the countries that did, America and Britain, were clearly Christian-majority countries at the time. It's also worth point out, again by the contemporaneous comparison, that Atheists had more Religious Freedom in the UK or US than Christians had for quite a while in France.

You do realize that the Fench Revolutionaries outlawed slavery right twice right? You also realize they did it before America did right? Also, there was a reason Christians were Persecuted in France it's because they overwhelmingly tended to have monarchist sympathies and the only reason America or Britain had more freedoms was because atheists weren't large enough to be seen as any kind of threat to their power. So this narrative of yours falls apart

Did you read that New Advent Article I quoted? I can't give links, but you can find it online. Titled, "Christianity and Slavery": "In the Middle Ages slavery, properly so called, no longer existed in Christian countries; it had been replaced by serfdom, an intermediate condition in which a man enjoyed all his personal rights except the right to leave the land he cultivated and the right to freely dispose of his property."

Irrelevant as they did eventually embrace slavery and selfdom Though not as bad as slavery was still horrific which is why it was eventually abolished.

There's a distinction between servitude and slavery. If someone is poor, and wants money, or is in debt, he can be a servant or serf. Not slavery.

Indentured servitude though distinct from slavery was no less evil immoral and wrong which is why it was eventually abolished

Later on, as mentioned, when explorers found people of other races, they wrongly enslaved them. It should be noted the Popes often condemned the practice, going back to the 15th century. For e.g.: "Nevertheless, with the passage of time, it has happened that in some of the said islands, because of a lack of suitable governors and defenders to direct those who live there to a proper observance of the Faith in things spiritual and temporal, and to protect valiantly their property and goods, some Christians (we speak of this with sorrow), with fictitious reasoning and seizing and opportunity, have approached said islands by ship, and with armed forces taken captive and even carried off to lands overseas very many persons of both sexes, taking advantage of their simplicity ...

 It doesn't matter if the Pope condemned it or not. The Vatican was still involved in slavery and whole Christain nations embraced it. Trying to downplay this isn't going to work. 

no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free, and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of money." (Sicut Dudum, 1435)

Irrelevant the fact they were made slaves period renders this statement moot

Popular Support for Abolitionism would take quite some time to form. But here, in the 15th century, a Papal Bull clearly condemns enslavement of the innocent.

Again the fact slavery happened at all moots this point 

Ok, fair enough. But Atheists, as someone else also mentioned, have had quite significant influence starting around the last 200-250 years or so.

No nearly enough to start shifting an ingrained policy like slavery 

I am speaking of it being outlawed in virtually every developed country, which is a positive development for humanity as a whole, has helped millions experience freedom. Obviously, it should be abolished everywhere, but that may take more time. For the purposes of this thread, Christianity overall played a positive role in its Abolition in much of the developed world. Christian countries also put pressure on Islamic/Muslim countries, to abolish it in their lands, as the article I mentioned shows.

God Bless.

And my response is Christianity embraced slavery and no amount of hand-waving changes that. And all you rant did here was try to obfuscate that fact. And you failed

[The Architect Of Fate]

And another non sequitur.

The servitude in Biblical times was more comparable to serfdom, as I mentioned, not chattel slavery properly so called. You obviously did not read the history or sources that I mentioned.

Btw, even apart from that, have you read the Bible enough to know St. Paul commanded Philemon to let his escaped servant/slave go free? Not to mention that God, having delivered His people from slavery in Egypt, already shows by that that slavery is something bad? It was tolerated only in times of war etc were abolition was impossible.

"Philemon 1:

12I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. 15Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.

17So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. 20I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. 21Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask."

In other words, St. Paul the Apostle tells Philemon to release the servant and grant him his freedom, and charge to himself (Paul) any debt the servant might owe.

The fact slavery was tolerated at all is damning and indentured servitude was no less evil