Two reasons:
1) The main reason: to point out that your "transcendent, objective,
eternal" moral system can be interpreted in a variety of different
ways.
2) The peripheral reason: to demonstrate that you cannot take an
open and impartial examination of your belief system without
feeling attacked. I certainly succeeded spectacularly in this
regard. If you want to point out the "inconsistency" of atheist
philosophy by demonstrating how people have used it to justify
evil, then don't complain when someone else points out how Christian
philosophy has also been used to justify evil.
>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.
I was being unclear there, and I have cleared up that confusion in
a previous letter. Sorry about that.
><<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.
That's all I've been trying to get out of you.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.