tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post5962531952460618512..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-56296928559351362322010-11-30T06:16:42.556-08:002010-11-30T06:16:42.556-08:00Angry Atheist: You say, "As far as your suppo...Angry Atheist: You say, "As far as your supposed arguments (if they can even be considered that) you haven’t made a dent in anything he said."<br /><br />This is plainly untrue. <br /><br />In one case, as I showed, Avalos spent NINE PARAGRAPHS attacking a claim I did not, in fact, make, because he added a key word that changed the meaning of my original comment. <br /><br />In another, I showed that he misread both Harris and me as talking about slavery in general, when in fact we were talking about the Transatlantic Slave Trade -- and so attacked another straw man. <br /><br />Those are particularly clear-cut examples, but many others are almost as straight-forward. <br /><br />But you don't want to give an inch. Nothing I say can be right; nothing Avalos says can be wrong. He "kicked my butt" because you think you can dispute one relatively ambiguous point I made. <br /><br />Nor are you very successful at that. In fact, it is unlikely that many slaves in Bathild's realm were Muslim, since she ruled until about 665 AD and the Moors didn't invade Iberia until 711. Hector would like to diminish her efforts at ending the trade. My point is that in her time and place, to oppose trade in nominally Christian slaves was probably de facto opposition to most the trade in slaves -- though Avalos may be right in saying the historical record is distant and hard to be certain about. <br /><br />What most puts me off your posts is your apparent lack of genuine concern for truthDavid B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-76616080281745906452010-11-30T05:54:08.948-08:002010-11-30T05:54:08.948-08:00A British economist based near Oxford e-mailed me ...A British economist based near Oxford e-mailed me the following useful resource on abolition of the slave trade, its Christian causes and implications:<br /><br />"There is a Cambridge Paper (a biblically-based series) on the abolition of the slave trade. Do you know of it? It can be freely downloaded - here is the link: http://www.jubilee-centre.org/resources/the_abolition_of_the_slave_trade_christian_conscience_and_political_action."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-84740768181303038652010-08-18T11:58:44.189-07:002010-08-18T11:58:44.189-07:00David,
Before I begin to demonstrate how wrong you...David,<br />Before I begin to demonstrate how wrong you are about what Avalos had said I’d like to know who in the world you are addressing because it is not me. <br /><br />You are also wrong because Avalos quoted you correctly and I had written that you are equivocating because you argued Bathild tried to stop the slave trade and following Avalos’s lead showed that you were wrong on that point so why deny it? <br /><br />You misunderstood me. I did not say she tried to free Muslims but giving an example of the slavery Christians participated in. I simply said she did not free anyone but her fellow Christians.<br /><br />One more strike David. It looks like you’re not going to get a homerun this time around.The Angry Atheistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-80786993902655247032010-08-13T11:51:22.850-07:002010-08-13T11:51:22.850-07:00Thanks, Ed. History is "long and complex?&qu...Thanks, Ed. History is "long and complex?" No quarrels, there. <br /><br />Hochschild may have been asking too much. Amazing Grace was a wonderful movie, but it was not a documentary. Compared to, say, Braveheart, or even Shadowlands (Anthony Hopkins drove me nuts with his C. S. Lewis), Amazing Grace still seems pretty good, historically. Of course the movie focused on one figure: it would be a bad movie if it hadn't! Patton didn't fight his war all alone, either; does that make George C. Scott a scoundrel for drawing so much attention to him? <br /><br />One could equally object to Amistad for portraying Christian abolitionists as bigotted dullards. I enjoyed that movie, too, and was thrilled to see John Q Adams in the limelight. Wilberforce was (IMHO) a greater man, not all of whose great deeds were mentioned by Amazing Grace. While some of his points are valid, I find it a bit churlish of Hochschild to cut Wilberforce down to size. But I guess that's what the Academy likes to do with heroes.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-55962114174178202932010-08-13T11:35:39.729-07:002010-08-13T11:35:39.729-07:00Ed Babinski, contributing author, The Christian De...Ed Babinski, contributing author, The Christian Delusionm, by e-mail: <br /><br />"I read your responses, and your history of all the good things some Christians did for slaves throughout history. No doubt some Christians did good things for slaves. And I certainly have never said Christians were demons, nor that their only thought was to make others suffer. On the other hand, history is long and complex, and historians have discussed multiple reasons why serfdom eventually replaced slavery, and also why slavery rose to new heights during the colonization of the New World, and later, how slavery was made illegal in Europe and the U.S. (in each case multiple reasons come into play). The history of slavery in the western world, as well as the history of human rights in general is a fascinating one, and I have several book lists that can add to one's knowledge merely by reading the titles of each book in the list for starters and then reading the summaries and reviews, and then reading portions of each book itself . . . "<br /><br />(Ed then copied correspondence he had had with Adam Hochschild, an historian of slavery who critically reviewed the movie Amazing Grace in the New York Review of Books, in which both men criticized the Christian record on slavery. He also copied Mr. Hochschild's review. I may respond to some of this later -- DM.)David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-19111649441089541242010-08-12T19:08:53.706-07:002010-08-12T19:08:53.706-07:00Hello David. Nice to hear from you! My post wasn’t...Hello David. Nice to hear from you! My post wasn’t vitriolic at all. I merely pointed out the obvious. While you yourself constantly engage others with <i>ad hominem</i> you whine when someone does it back to you. That’s hypocritical. Your attempt at tarnishing Avalos’ rep. was not when when you allegedly refuted his arguments (you did no such thing) but when you referred to some of his past debates and things he had said. So what? That has nothing to do with the arguments at hand. <br /><br />As far as your supposed arguments (if they can even be considered that) you haven’t made a dent in anything he said. For example, you equivocate (among other things) about how he argues against your citation of Queen Bathild who freed fellow Christians from slavery. You claim Avalos says what you’ve written is false and then quote him as saying it’s partially true. Avalos is correct. You argue <i>incorrectly</i> that Bathild tried to stop the slave trade. The slave trade was much more than just the Christians being enslaved by Muslims, the opposite also occurred with Christians enslaving Muslims, but you didn’t see Bathild try to free anyone else but her brethren. That’s not anywhere close to stopping the slave trade but practicing the “in group” morality that your bible preaches so much of. If she was truly all for stopping the <i>actual</i> slave trade she would have tried to free <i>everyone she could, but she didn’t</i>. <br /><br />To quote Avalos from the butt whooping he gave you - <br /><br />“Plato (Republic 5.469b-c) had similarly prohibited the enslavement of fellow Greeks, but not that of non-Greeks. Thus, Bathilde is following an ancient tradition of prohibiting the enslavement of members of the in-group, but allowing the enslavement of members of the out-group (see Leviticus 25:44-46 again).<br /><br />In sum, prohibiting the sale of Christian slaves is not the same as being against the slave trade because it was still perfectly legitimate to buy or capture non-Christian slaves. Bathilde’s actions cannot count as “abolitionism” or even as being against slavery.”<br /><br />Precisely. <i>That</i> was Avalos’ point, but you simply glossed over that. Would you care to try again? You still have two more strikes before you’re out.The Angry Atheistnoreply@blogger.com