Terrible article whitewashes history of Christian violence
September 24, 2009 10:50 am
Remember Dinesh D’Souza? I’ve posted a few debates he’s had with Christopher Hitchens. If you don’t remember what he said, I suggest you go back and watch some of these videos. He’s regularly being tooled by Hitchens, but this hasn’t stopped his Christian fan base from rallying to him like his farts cure cancer.
This old article in Christianity Today made me want to throw up, especially when the author suggests that the history of violence of the Christian faith is really just all lies. D’Souza’s book argues that the Inquisition only killed a few thousand people (which can be easily rebuked here), though he seems strangely silent about the Crusades. It’s more apologetic lies about the history of Christianity; there seems to be a compulsion among believers to rewrite history in order to absolve the terrible crimes of their religious forefathers.
I’ve read plenty of articles and books that tries to whitewash the violent and cruel past of Christianity. This herculean effort to erase the evidence of their past deeds is motivated by their need to prove to us that Christianity is a religion of peace. It is not. Can we expect them to be truthful about history when they even refuse to accept the possibility that their messiah probably never really existed?
UPDATE: Superfan Duane sent me a link to a music video that I think you guys might find interesting:
Spread the outrage
2 Comments
-
September 24, 2009
Their just putting their hands in their pockets and whistling away.
-
January 5, 2010
This old article in Christianity Today made me want to throw up, especially when the author suggests that the history of violence of the Christian faith is really just all lies.</blockquote?
Ah… where exactly does it suggest that?
Can we expect them to be truthful about history when they even refuse to accept the possibility that their messiah probably never really existed?
That’s also a misrepresentation. Of course there is a possibility that Jesus didn’t exist, but the evidence suggests that it is a very small possibility, and that would be why most historians accept the historicity of Jesus. (The insertion of ‘probably’ in your sentence is unnecessarily obfuscatory.) I’m sure I’m not the only one who finds it a little ironic that you are claiming the honesty high-ground while at the same time misrepresenting both a writer and the historical consensus.
Get a Trackback link