91热爆

Some good stuff on "Amazing Grace" at

Regards,
Michael

I think you'll find a much more unbiased view of Wilberforce here.

/history/british/abolition/william_wilberforce_article_01.shtml

Alan: Re #2

Please support your statement of "much more unbiased view" with some examples.

Since Wilberforce was a deeply committed Christian I thought this group of readers would find it quite appropriate to provide a link to what present day Christians were saying about him. And is not the movie entitled "Amazing Grace"?

Where is the bias in that? I provided the same link in my own blog at

Obviously you could have provided your link to the bbc history site with the statement:

"You'll find more information on Wilberforce here...."

So what is your exact concern with respect to my 'bias'?

Regards,
Michael

It maybe Michael that Alan鈥檚 grip isn鈥檛 with you for posting a Christian link about Wilberforce it may be the fact that was a committed Christian who campaigned for the abolition of slavery and that he wasn鈥檛 a humanist, therefore meaning that the film 鈥淎mazing Grace鈥� gives Christianity some positive press and exposure some 200 years later. God鈥檚 unmerited favour is so amazing it sets the captive free, I was blind, but now I see.

REF: post #4

(grip should read "gripe")

Christian Hippy,

No one would deny that Wilberforce was a great man and a Christian(he was also a liberal)-however it is important to note that the main people behind the slave trade and those who wanted to carry it on were Bible-believing Christians. Indeed their rallying cry was 'Slavery is of God'. Moreover it was the Bible-believers in the southern states of America who carried on with segregation and formed the KKK.

My solidarity with the Sailors, their families, and the 91热爆 held captive in Iran. They are in my thoughts and prayers.

Why do you feel the need to seize the moral high ground so desperatley Hippy? If I were to subscirbe to your stance, I would feel I already held it...

Could it be you are wavering and feel the need to go on the offensive?

It should also be said that in Wilberforce's day to be thought of or indeed to proclaim oneself as Godless was social and professional suicide, an argument PB uses today in the opposite mode.

I posit there are more than a few historical figures thought of as deeply religious who were atheists living in fear. Which brings us neatly back to the persecution of Galileo.

Thoughts anyone?

Re #8:

Gee Dubyah: You wrote It should also be said that in Wilberforce's day to be thought of or indeed to proclaim oneself as Godless was social and professional suicide, an argument PB uses today in the opposite mode.

Not if you lived in France after 1789! I would think that Wilberforce would have been fully informed of the 'death of Christianity' across the Channel.

In 1785 Wilberforce underwent his conversion to Christianity. In 1787, compelled by his Christian faith, Wilberforce was introduced to the growing group campaigning against the slave trade. On 12 May 1789 he made his first major speech on the subject of abolition in the House of Commons, in which he reasoned that the trade was morally reprehensible and an issue of natural justice.

To posit that there are more than a few historical figures thought of as deeply religious who were atheists living in fear. Which brings us neatly back to the persecution of Galileo. is ludicrous in a discussion about Wilberforce.

Thoughts anyone (else)?

Regards,
Michael

Re #6 Dylan Dog's 'Bible Believers and the KKK' comment.

I think that Alister McGrath has answered this 鈥楧awkins-type鈥� comment many times. In a talk given at Salisbury Cathedral on Wednesday 22 March 2006 McGrath spoke about how atheism liberated the people from 鈥榬eligious oppression鈥�, especially in France in the 1780s.

But when atheism ceased to be a private matter, and became a state ideology, things suddenly became rather different. The liberator turned oppressor. The final opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s led to revelations that ended any notion that atheism was quite as gracious, gentle and generous a worldview as some of its more idealistic supporters believed. The Black Book of Communism, based on those archives, created a sensation when first published in France in 1997, not least because it implied that French communism 鈥� still a potent force in national life 鈥� was irreducibly tainted with the crimes and excesses of Lenin and Stalin. Where, many of its irate readers asked, were the 鈥楴uremberg Trials of Communism鈥�? Communism was a 鈥榯ragedy of planetary dimensions鈥� with a grand total of victims variously estimated by contributors to the volume at between 85 million and 100 million 鈥� far in excess of those committed under Nazism..... One of the greatest ironies of the twentieth century is that many of the most deplorable acts of murder, intolerance and repression of the twentieth century were carried out by those who thought that religion was murderous, intolerant and repressive 鈥� and thus sought to remove it from the face of the planet as a humanitarian act. Now I could draw the conclusion, based on a few random anecdotes and a highly selective reading of history, that atheists are all totally corrupt, violent and depraved. Yet I cannot and will not, simply because the facts do not permit it. The truth, evident to anyone working in the field, is that some atheists are indeed very strange people 鈥� but that most are totally ordinary people, just wanting to get on with their lives, and not wanting to oppress, coerce or murder anyone. Both religion and anti-religion are capable of inspiring great acts of goodness on the part of some, and acts of violence on the part of others.

Regards,
Michael

Point of order Michael,

I have NEVER heard Richard Dawkins make this type of comment. My comment was based solely on history, and if you think that my comment was wrong historically please state so.

I acknowledged that Wilberforce was a Christian and a great man, I was simply responding to Christian Hippy's comments that it seemed that ALL Christians were against the slave trade, which is patently not true. Nor was I arguing that ALL Christians were for the slave trade I was simply stating historical fact that some Christians(especially those of the "Bible-believing" variety were for the slave trade and carried on their views in the deep south of the USA with segregation, the KKK etc. I am not saying that all Christains were like this, that would be stupid and ignorant-likewise it would be stupid (as McGrath states)-that because of Stalin therefore all atheists are...

Re: McGraths comment, I would agree with him up to a point but I would say that it was not atheism which drove Stalin rather a fundamentalist, evangelical belief in Bolshevism and coupled with the fact that he was a psychopath. The problem is not religion of the lack thereof, the problem is fundamentalism and blind dogmatic faith-unfortuantely this has is not solely the reserve of theists.

Regards

DD

Re #11

The problem is not religion or the lack thereof, the problem is fundamentalism and blind dogmatic faith-unfortuantely this has is not solely the reserve of theists.

Completely agree with you!

Thanks for the detailed response.

Regards,
Michael

Many thanks Michael!

regards

DD

Sobrino's doctrine, Communist revolution as the work of god and Christ? I said theologies and philosophies could rationalize anything. The Catholic Church has recognized that it can only exist if it is not a threat to the authority of the state. It learned that lesson from Henry VIII who taught it with his novel approach, he merely threw it out and started his own church...of which he was the head. In Stalins' words "how many divisions does the Pope have?" Far fewer today than during the Crusades. It can be a difficult tightrope. Had Sobrino been entirely educated in Europe and not partly in America, he might not have been so bold a revolutionary. The church in Europe understands its limits as it did in Communist Poland for example. Atheism in Communist countries was not due to a philosophical belief, communism is a manifesto which is based on a (badly flawed) analysis of economic and social issues, not theological ones. It is merely a way to eliminate a challenge to its own authority, to abolish it rather than co-opt it the way for example present day China has. China today is Communist in name only. The punishment for becoming a threat to a dictatorship is of course what it has alway been, a relentless search for the revolutionaries and imprisonment or execution, the decision only based on how ruthless the dictatorship and how dangerous the perceived threat of the individual revolutionaries. Cavaradossi's fate at the hands of Scarpia in Tosca was never in doubt as soon as the cast of characters had been penned. It's a lesson many never seem to learn. The Church therefore enjoys an uneasy relationship with the despotic state, often the willing agent of the state and only mildly critical when it feels it must speak out because the abuse of human rights is so blatant and unpalatable. Advocating the taking up of arms is clearly against its interests and credo. Social justice in this world is not one of its primary concerns, only salvation in the next one really matters to it. How ingenious to sell a product whose utility for meeting its advertised performance can never be challenged by evidence. Where else will you ever find such a business plan?

Christian Hippy wrote:"God鈥檚 unmerited favour is so amazing it sets the captive free, I was blind, but now I see."

What I find amazing about god's grace is that there is so little of it. He leaves 99 people in pain and misery and is praised for saving 1. It is amazing that believers think that such stingy mercy and help is enough.

John Newton, who wrote the hymn, was a case in point himself. As William Crawley said, he waited 30 years after quitting the trade before he put his denunciation of slavery to paper. How many slaves were rounded up during those 30 years and treated horrendously? Hundreds of thousands. How he could wax lyrical about god's grace and mercy after 30 years of callous indifference is simply appalling.

I thought that the film was smug and selective. It hides the complicity of Christian churches and Christian believers in the slave trade. It tries to give the impression instead that the supporters of slavery were ruthless capitalists and the opponents were devout Christians. Of course, Wilberforce was a devout Christian, but it is a distortion of history to suggest that Christianity was wholly on the side of human rights and equality. In that respect, the film was little more than religious propaganda (as its sponsors intended). I would recommend Barry Unsworth's book, Sacred Hunger, as a much superior commentary on the slave trade.

The point i am kicking back against is the whimsical assumption that it was Wilberforce's religion that drove him to fight slavery, rather than his sense of natural justice. Who can really know?

HRather than his religion, which the theists are quick to point to, might we not just as easily talk about his womanising or indeed his opium habit, which are both documented in detail in a number of places including todays Times.

My point is most public figures were required to display overt religion to gain prominence, so one can not assume that in every case these feelings were so ardently felt as expressed. Why is that ludicrous?

Re #16

Gee Dubyah wrote The point I am kicking back against is the whimsical assumption that it was Wilberforce's religion that drove him to fight slavery, rather than his sense of natural justice. Who can really know?

Presumably Wilberforce himself?

Rather than his religion, which the theists are quick to point to, might we not just as easily talk about his womanising or indeed his opium habit, which are both documented in detail in a number of places including today's Times.

No - the topic is what he did on slavery. If we wish to discuss 'womanising' and 'opium' use by public figures we can do that on another thread. There is plenty of material from any century you wish to pick. Wilberforce was not perfect and neither are 'you or me' (sorry that was an assumption about you about which I have no proof, correction 'me'). ;-)

My point is most public figures were required to display overt religion to gain prominence, so one can not assume that in every case these feelings were so ardently felt as expressed. Why is that ludicrous?

Because it is not proof of Wilberforce's motives or beliefs.

Regards,
Michael

Arguing about the religiosity of one person, William Wilberforce, seems to me to be missing the point. The idea that god moved through him to achieve a great act of mercy (the "amazing grace") is ludricrous, given the countless years of slavery and the hundred of thousands, indeed millions, of people who suffered the cruel horrors of that trade. Was god sleeping while all that happened? Did he wake up after a nap and think maybe he should give Wilberforce a hand to abolish it all? Or did he deliberately subject all those people to sadism and brutality, just so that his man could look like a hero later on?

I am glad that Wilberforce campaigned hard to stop the slave trade. His actions deserve every accolade. But the story of slavery (as with every other saga of needless pain and suffering) should be seen as a challenge to cosy beliefs about a benign spirit looking after us all, rather than an endorsement of such credulous beliefs.

Re: 18 Arguing about the religiosity of one person, William Wilberforce, seems to me to be missing the point.

There is no 'arguing' going on but there is something Dawkinsesque about the extrapolation from one point to ludicrous assumptions.

I started with the question as to why the posting of a link could be deemed 'biased'.

I was then led to the whimsical assumption that it was Wilberforce's religion that drove him to fight slavery, rather than his sense of natural justice

We then diverted down another dark alleyway in the absence of a flashlight with the suggestion that we could discuss his womanising or indeed his opium habit

which was supported by the thesis that maybe Wilberforce was a closet atheist living in fear

I am simply asking where is all of this stuff coming from? Now we are faced with the question Did he (God) wake up after a nap and think maybe he should give Wilberforce a hand to abolish it all?

My point is simply this:

Wilberforce declared himself to have had a 'conversion experience' to Christianity; he had to be persuaded by Pitt to remain in politics; he acted on his Christian belief to oppose slavery and play a role in its eventual abolition.

What is all of the fuss about ;-)?

In my own blog we are discussing secular humanism's five year project which was just announced to determine if Jesus actually existed. Why are secular humanists so worked up about these questions - I don't see the same concern from the other side of the belief equation?

Thankfully, I'm happily stuck in a state of doubt, uncertainity, and limited knowledge about these matters in the agnostic center. Given this I don't think that anything I said about Wilberforce is in error from either the Christian or the Secular Humanist point of view.

Regards,
Michael

Michael,

I once told a group of folk my own conversion tale - and a whopper it was (see my credo). So I know this happens.

Now, not everyone may be as duplicitous as yours truly, but it is worth pointing out that Wilberforce was a politician...

I don't think you'll find me claiming that my hypothesis is truth, merely I intended to forestall the assumption that all the good a man acheives is because of a faith the strength of which we have no realistic way of measuring. Furthermore, most devout believers were signing up to the staus quo in WW's day - I think the good old Church of England kept of few sets of manacles on it's carribean property - so one could equally argue WW was undermining the Church by his abolitionist views. But to say so in such mild language is dull, so i thought I'd spice it up a bit...

Is that better?

Gee Dubyah wrote:

It is worth pointing out that Wilberforce was a politician... one could equally argue WW was undermining the Church by his abolitionist views ....Is that better?

Nope ;-)

Politician through persuasion by Pitt.

"Undermining the Church" - not as a matter of personal belief - maybe an unintended side effect if indeed there was such 'undermining'.

Can we not simply agree that my statement:

Wilberforce declared himself to have had a 'conversion experience' to Christianity; he had to be persuaded by Pitt to remain in politics; he acted on his Christian belief to oppose slavery and play a role in its eventual abolition.

is correct and that a link to a website that states so is not biased?

Regards,
Michael

Michael, you say you are in a state of doubt, but there is little sign of it.

You just ignore the Problem of Suffering which god's indifference to the slave trade exemplifies. All you say on that topic is: "I am simply asking where is all of this stuff coming from? Now we are faced with the question Did he (God) wake up after a nap and think maybe he should give Wilberforce a hand to abolish it all?" A question which you simply ignore. A true doubter would recognise its point.

Non-Christians and non-believers in general are bemused by the slogan "Amazing Grace" when applied to the slave trade. "Amazingly Tardy Grace" would be better. Also, given the historical facts of church involvement in that cruelty, it is a bit rich that the success of the abolitionists should now be treated as an icon of Christian morality.

Les you wrote:

Michael, you say you are in a state of doubt, but there is little sign of it.

Believe it - I am!

You just ignore the Problem of Suffering

Believe me - I don't! Having spent many years with cancer patients and having lost my wife to cancer last year I know the problem of suffering first hand. I also see children abandoned in State institutions here in NY by parents trapped in the depths of drug addiction. Suffering is all around us. I could give you my own personal understanding on the subject of 'suffering' but this is not the place to do so. Maybe when I am over in Ireland we can meet up for a chat on this question and what each of us might do as individuals of whatever worldview to allievate it?

Maybe Will should arrange a 'dinner evening' with all of the bloggers. That would be interesting!

Also, given the historical facts of church involvement in that cruelty, it is a bit rich that the success of the abolitionists should now be treated as an icon of Christian morality.

See my recent post in the other thread on "Wilberforce: the father of Abolitionism"

Regards,
Michael

ps Still looking forward to some comments on "The Jesus Project" ;-)