Irrelevant. At the time it was considered good christian behavior. I guess
the people were confused about this illustrious 'universal, eternal,
objective morality' ?
Jim: Inquisition? Do we still have it? No. It was condemened and
suppressed by the church, lastly by Spain in the early 1800s.
Took them quite a while and in the mean time countless people suffered.
Jim: 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.
You ignore the input of religion in the original conquest of territory, in
pursuit of 'lost souls'.
<<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.>>
Jim: Then why on earth do you bring up all these alleged evils related to
Christianity?
Because it shows that claims of an objective morality somehow does not
seem to be understood as such. After all people in those days considered
their job, god's will. So even if a universal morality exists, the
confusion about it appears to result in chaos. So much for universal
morality (assuming it exists).
<<But then, I guess in your eyes, anybody who disagrees with you is
"condemning" Christianity.>>
Jim: 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.
Russell not only bases his disagreements on facts but is quite consistent.
Or at least as consistent as other participants in the discussion.