"No connection"? Surely you must be joking. Who was it that burned
witches? And why? And why did the Crusades happen?
Surely you don't expect anyone to believe that these events were
not religiously inspired.
><<(3) polygamy;
>
>RS <<Unless you count Mormons>>
>
>I don't.
Of course you don't. They're not "true Christians", right?
>(Besides, Mormons have put the kibosh on polygamy anyway).
But they did practice it at one time.
>>(4) exposure of children;
>
>RS <<What does this refer to?>>
>
>Read some history of Rome.
Thank you. I'll just go off and spend several months reading
a detailed history of Rome in order to decipher your cryptic
messages. Or, alternatively, you could give me an encapsulation
of what you are referring to.
>>(5) slavery (in its old
>>form, and has nearly accomplished the work in its new);
>
>RS <<I am unclear as to how Christianity can claim the bulk of the
>responsibility>>
>
>You were given some historical citations, and some more reading on the
subject
>should clear things up.
I'll work on that. Meanwhile, could you repeat the historical
citations you are referring to? I seem to have misplaced them.
><(6) cannibalism.
>
>RS <<That's right. All non-Christian cultures have advocated cannibalism.
Give
>me a break.>>
>
>Why should you get a break for another non-sequitur? Where did Gladstone, or
>anyone else, claim that "all non-Christian cultures have advocated
>cannibalism"?
That is exactly what he is implying. After all, if Christianity is
to take credit for "correcting" cannibalism, then that would have
to mean that no other system of beliefs disapproved of cannibalism.
>The point was the Christian influence in abolishing it in
>cultures where it DID exist.
And what about the cultures where it didn't exist in the first
place? Those are, of course, left out of the equation, because
inconvenient data was meant to be thrown away.
>>Next,
>>Christianity drove into the shade all unnatural lusts, and, indeed, all
>>irregular passions.
>
>RS <<Please define "unnatural lusts" and "irregular passions" and explain
what
>is evil about them. From a logical basis, mind you.
>
>Gee, this is an interesting challenge from the materialist moralist whose
>definition of evil arises from personal empathy only, and insists this is
>logical.
I proved that it is logical *to a certain extent* -- that is, to
the same extent that your system is logical.
>Anyway, the logical arguments for objective moral reality have been
>provided you by several people here.
I don't recall anyone providing a definition of "unnatural lusts"
and "irregular passions", or explaining what is evil about them.
>>Next,
>>Christianity estalished (1) generally speaking, the moral and social
equality
>
>>of women;
>
>RS <<As does humanist morality.>>
>
>Borrowing moral capital and refusing to pay it back.
Ah, you're back to circular reasoning and bald assertion. Nice
to see that things don't change too much.
>BTW, I take it from your silence, that you've dropped Bertrand Russell as a
>paradigm of enlightened thinking?
On the basis of a few unfounded claims from someone who has
shown a clear dislike of the truth? Not likely. However, I
know I can expect you to focus intensely on this issue in order
to avoid the substantial questions I have raised.
Pretty sad, Jim. And you claim to be a lawyer?
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.