XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis   
   From: bree@bree.com   
      
   On 9 Oct 2005 09:18:55 GMT, Siwel Naph  wrote:   
      
   >"darylgene@aol.com" wrote:   
   >   
   /snip/   
      
   >> If you were convinced there were vampires, and were convinced someone   
   >> was a vampire, and were correct in that assumption, you would be   
   >> responsible for taking action. People were wrong, they were wrong   
   >> because there are no witches. They did not understand that there are no   
   >> witches (as they concieved them to be) and they were trying to protect   
   >> themselves and other potential victims.   
   >   
   >Well, why were they wrong?   
      
   Good point. There is such a thing as 'mental criminal negligence.'  Or   
   systems that override common sense, making people prone to mental   
   negligence.   
      
      
   > Christians made the mistakes because they were   
   >Christians, and tho some were sincere in their beliefs,   
      
   Which should be the strongest point in your case against Christian   
   doctrines: that they encouraged such beliefs even in sincere well-meaning   
   people.   
      
      
   > others were more   
   >or less aware of unworthy motives.   
      
   Which should count less against Ch doctrines, except as the doctrines made   
   a convenient excuse for things those people would have done anyway.   
      
   /snip/   
      
   >Then we have to look at where that fear came from, what sustained it for   
   >200 years and what made it go away.   
      
   Good points. But have you verified just what did start, sustain, and end   
   it?   
      
   >> Since we do not believe in witches it is easy for us to say   
   >> they were wrong and persecuted innocent people, they did, but they did   
   >> not know that was what they were doing.   
   >   
   >The same argument can be applied to Nazis and Jews, Stalinists and kulaks   
   >etc, but doesn't look so good there.   
      
   In closer memory, McCarthy's 'card carrying Communist' hunt of the mid-20th   
   century.   
      
   >The same point emerges: there's   
   >something very wrong with a system that makes "mistakes" like that and   
   >causes such great suffering, even if individuals in the system are often   
   >sincere and motivated by the desire to do what they see as good.   
      
   I tend to agree.   
      
   Of course other systems have done as bad or worse, eg Russian Communism,   
   Madame la Guillotine.... So either catch a system that really produces   
   better results than Ch has (which is possible) -- or count it a logical   
   point against Ch being true: 'If your system were really run by God, He   
   wouldn't let it mess up so badly; so it probably isn't run by God. (And if   
   there is a God, He doesn't protect His trademark, so we have no idea who is   
   really speaking for Him and who isn't.)'   
      
   On the whole, in Western European history, I'd say the good influences in   
   Ch overweigh the bad ones; certainly compared to the mix of good/bad in   
   Communism or the French Revolution types. Just not up to what is claimed.   
   (And perhaps not comparing so well to some viable, traditional systems   
   outside Europe.)   
      
      
   Bree   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)