Re: logic makes a comeback

Jim Bell (70672.1241@CompuServe.COM)
12 Jun 97 18:49:21 EDT

Russell:

JB <<Russell responds with incidents,
>all corrected by the very system he condemns, thus proving my point all the
>more.

RS <<Except that you have failed to prove how your system "corrected"
these incidents.

Let's read some history.

Crusades? Christians eventually condemned them. The idea of conversion by
force was rejected, and replaced by missions. An abbot named Peter the
Venerable, 12th Century, translated the Koran to Latin. Saint Francis himself
pressed missions of reconciliation with the Muslim world, which his followers
continued. Muslim crusades ceased.

Inquisition? Do we still have it? No. It was condemened and suppressed by the
church, lastly by Spain in the early 1800s.

Slavery? Let's start with ancient slavery. One commentator notes: "More
merciful treatment of slaves prevailed during the reign of Claudius, at the
beginning of the Christian era. Slaves of that period often fared better than
poverty-stricken free Romans, and some slaves rose to occupy fairly important
positions in government."

American slavery? The first organized opposition to slavery in the American
colonies came from the Quakers, who drafted a statement against slavery as
early as 1724.

British slavery? The antislavery movement was led by William Wilberforce, who
was converted to Christianity in 1785, and later stated: "God Almighty has set
before me two great objects--the abolition of the slave trade and the
reformation of manners."

Let's see, what else did you bring up. Ah, McCarthyism. I've never heard that
described as a Christian based aberration. Maybe you should elaborate.

<<BTW, I can't help but notice that (not unsurprisingly) you have
completely misunderstood my intentions. I have taken great efforts
to avoid "condemning" your system.>>

Then why on earth do you bring up all these alleged evils related to
Christianity?

One day you write, "It's obvious that claiming a transcendent, "objective"
standard doesn't make people behave any better." The next day, you say
Christianity is *not* ineffective. Well if it's not, that means a
transcendent, objective standard DOES make people behave better. Is it any
wonder many of us are shaking our heads at this?

<<But then, I guess in your eyes, anybody who disagrees with you is
"condemning" Christianity.>>

Not at all. Disagreements are fine, but let them be based on reason, fact and
at the very least be consistent from day to day.