Immoral behavior of religious leaders invalidate religion?

[Danmark]

David the Apologist:

I'm willing to say this because I know that no David Koresh-like cult will ever have a genuine supernatural event of the requisite sort, not because I'm willing to acknowledge the possible validity of any such cult as a religion proper, let alone the true religion.
....
My primary issue with a "David Koresh-type cult" being authenticated by a miracle, however, isn't that it isn't Christianity. My primary issue is that David Koresh was a moral monster. He engaged in adultery, fornication, pedophilia, child-beating, and he led 75 people to their deaths. Such a person will not be given Divine Authentication on any religious view that deserves discussion. Not on Christianity, not on Islam, not on Hinduism, not on Buddhism, not on Taoism, not on Jainism, not on Baha'ism, not on Sikhism, not on Judaism, and not on any form of secularism. THAT, not a question-begging assumption of Christianity, is the reason for my dismissal of "David Koresh-type cults."

The question for debate is whether immoral behavior of religious leaders, particularly the key and original leaders or originators of those religions indicate God is not involved in the religion or that there is no 'genuine supernatural event' at the genesis of such a religion?

The secondary question is whether by this standard Judaism, Christianity, or Islam are therefore not authenticated by God, or a supernatural event?

[David the apologist]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

Given the origins of this discussion on the other topic, I think that it should be clear that I would answer in the affirmative to the first question, with the exception for demonically produced supernatural events being made explicit.

As for the second part of your question, I think that what was said on the other thread is relevant here as well:

You appear to have entirely missed the point of my post, with all due respect. I concede that if the event occurred under non-occultish circumstances (which guards against an identification of "miracle" when "black magic" is going on, and vice versa) and it fit into the religious context of the cult, it would deserve the title "miracle."

I'm willing to accept that because I believe that Christianity is true, and without that premise, I freely admit that there's no question-begging way to come to the conclusion that miracles in other religions don't occur.

My primary issue with a "David Koresh-type cult" being authenticated by a miracle, however, isn't that it isn't Christianity. My primary issue is that David Koresh was a moral monster. He engaged in adultery, fornication, pedophilia, child-beating, and he led 75 people to their deaths. Such a person will not be given Divine Authentication on any religious view that deserves discussion. Not on Christianity, not on Islam, not on Hinduism, not on Buddhism, not on Taoism, not on Jainism, not on Baha'ism, not on Sikhism, not on Judaism, and not on any form of secularism. THAT, not a question-begging assumption of Christianity, is the reason for my dismissal of "David Koresh-type cults."

You make some good points. However if we are going to use murder, genocide, theft of property and the killing of children as a measure for not accepting a faith, whether by association with miracle or otherwise, why is not the Hebrew foundation of Christianity dismissed for their tribal acts of genocide, murder, child murder, rape and theft of property that appears to be sanctioned by their God as recorded in scriptures held sacred by both Jews and Christians?

In no way do I wish to defend David Koresh, or other similar groups who use religion as a rationale and means to self promotion. But don't the roots of Christianity suffer equally by this standard?

There are a few points to make. First, this sort of behavior would be par for the course in most wars of the period. Second, the Canaanite population turned the sort of debauchery I criticized Koresh for into religious ritual, so the sort of treatment that the Canaanites received was a judgment on their own religious (and social, and political) practices. Third, the way the covenant is set up in the Torah, the land will "spit up" Israel in the same way that it had "spit up" the former inhabitants if Israel breaks the covenant, indicating that the whole Canaanite campaign was one of driving-out primarily - and given the notoriety Israel would have had if the Exodus events were even remotely based on fact, most of the driving out would have occurred well before a single sandal hit the ground in the promised land. Fourth, in every war situation, the affairs of children hang upon the decisions of their parents. If a family decided to remain in the land and defy the God who had crushed the gods of Egypt, then their foolish decision had repercussions for their children. At this point, we've moved from a criticism of the Judeo-Christian God specifically into a discussion of the problem of evil.

I hope that answers your question!

More details, just in case it doesn't.

[atheist buddy]

He engaged in adultery, fornication, pedophilia, child-beating, and he led 75 people to their deaths.

Adultery: Abraham was adulterous. He was married to Sarah, but had sexual relations with Hagar. Ah! Wait, that doesn't count becuase Hagar wasn't his mistress, she was his sex slave. That's ok then. Wait.... Abraham had a sex slave! That's worse than adultery, isn't it? Sex slavery? Come on!

Fornication: What's fornication? To have sex before marriage? Why is that wrong? In any case, Abraham being with Hagar counts as fornication as well as adultery, because he wasn't married to her.

Pedophilia: Lot had sex with his two daughters on the night after he was spared from his town's destructions, as a reward for being so "sexually moral". That's pedophilia+incest. Plus, Mary was about 14 years old when she got pregnant. Somebody committed pedophilia right there.

Child beating: Proverbs 23 tells us "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die." The Bible COMMANDS YOU to beat your children. Indeed, Exodus 21 tells us you should beat your children to death if he curses you or hits you.

Leading people to death: Mark 16: "they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all". With these words Jesus (actually it was a forgery) sent hundreds of people to their death. And this is just one tiny example. Millions have died because of the Bible's incitements to martyrdom.


So. What can we conclude?

David the apologist clearly stated that he would dismiss any religious movement wherein its patriarchs/leaders/prophets engaged in adultery, fornication, pedophilia, child-beating, and led 75 people to their deaths.

It's clearly spelled out that the central figures of the Bible (Abraham, Lot, Moses, Jesus) engaged in adultery, fornication, pedophilia, child-beating, and led (way more than) 75 people to their deaths.

Therefore we can safely assume that David the apologist has dismissed Christianity, becuase it squarely meets all the parameters for dismissal which David voluntarily selected.

David, could you kindly confirm that? Maybe the admins can change your username to "David, the counter-apologist", now that you've dismissed Christianity

[Danmark]

There are a few points to make. First, this sort of behavior would be par for the course in most wars of the period. Second, the Canaanite population turned the sort of debauchery I criticized Koresh for into religious ritual, so the sort of treatment that the Canaanites received was a judgment on their own religious (and social, and political) practices. Third, the way the covenant is set up in the Torah, the land will "spit up" Israel in the same way that it had "spit up" the former inhabitants if Israel breaks the covenant, indicating that the whole Canaanite campaign was one of driving-out primarily - and given the notoriety Israel would have had if the Exodus events were even remotely based on fact, most of the driving out would have occurred well before a single sandal hit the ground in the promised land. Fourth, in every war situation, the affairs of children hang upon the decisions of their parents. If a family decided to remain in the land and defy the God who had crushed the gods of Egypt, then their foolish decision had repercussions for their children. At this point, we've moved from a criticism of the Judeo-Christian God specifically into a discussion of the problem of evil.

I see this response as a clear exposition on the problem endemic to tribal religion, which seeks to establish justification and motivation for the extermination of competing tribes. With some exceptions, this is the story of the Tanakh. I don't think it fair to single out the Hebrews as exceptional in this regard. All tribes, I assume, had myths and traditions that justified their moral superiority and God given right to primacy.

[David the apologist]

He engaged in adultery, fornication, pedophilia, child-beating, and he led 75 people to their deaths.

Adultery: Abraham was adulterous. He was married to Sarah, but had sexual relations with Hagar. Ah! Wait, that doesn't count becuase Hagar wasn't his mistress, she was his sex slave. That's ok then. Wait.... Abraham had a sex slave! That's worse than adultery, isn't it? Sex slavery? Come on!

What exactly was the difference between a "wife" and a "sex slave" in the bronze age?

Anyways, from what little I know about the cultural milieu, taking a sex slave of the non-wife variety as a concubine was "okay," and God put up with concubines and plural marriages in a way that He was unwilling to put up with incest, homosexuality, and bestiality in the Torah.

Fornication: What's fornication? To have sex before marriage? Why is that wrong? In any case, Abraham being with Hagar counts as fornication as well as adultery, because he wasn't married to her.

Using the Torah as a provisional moral standard, taking a concubine was okay (but not encouraged), whereas fornication was not.

Pedophilia: Lot had sex with his two daughters on the night after he was spared from his town's destructions, as a reward for being so "sexually moral" That's pedophilia+incest.

They tricked him into having sex with them by giving him ridiculous amounts of booze. And Lot was hardly a role model, or a founder of the Judaic religion.

Plus, Mary was about 14 years old when she got pregnant. Somebody committed pedophilia right there.

Even granting the falsity of the virgin birth (which, as an orthodox Christian, I will not do no matter how much you ridicule me ), Koresh was hitting pre-pubescents. 10 year olds are incapable of having children.

Child beating: Proverbs 23 tells us "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die." The Bible COMMANDS YOU to beat your children. Indeed, Exodus 21 tells us you should beat your children to death if he curses you or hits you.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't supposed to be applied to eight month olds.

Leading people to death: Mark 16: "they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all". With these words Jesus (actually it was a forgery) sent hundreds of people to their death.

Not much I need to say there.

And this is just one tiny example. Millions have died because of the Bible's incitements to martyrdom.

No reasonable definition of "martyrdom" has anything to do with stockpiling automatic weapons and using them to kill ATF agents who try to bust you on it.

So. What can we conclude?

David the apologist clearly stated that he would dismiss any religious movement wherein its patriarchs/leaders/prophets engaged in adultery, fornication, pedophilia, child-beating, and led 75 people to their deaths.

It's clearly spelled out that the central figures of the Bible (Abraham, Lot, Moses, Jesus) engaged in adultery, fornication, pedophilia, child-beating, and led (way more than) 75 people to their deaths.

Therefore we can safely assume that David the apologist has dismissed Christianity, becuase it squarely meets all the parameters for dismissal which David voluntarily selected.

David, could you kindly confirm that? Maybe the admins can change your username to "David, the counter-apologist", now that you've dismissed Christianity

Well, I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that they squarely meet the parameters. The examples you gave seem to me to be more of the Penrose triangle variety than the square variety...

[Wordleymaster1]

David the Apologist:

I'm willing to say this because I know that no David Koresh-like cult will ever have a genuine supernatural event of the requisite sort, not because I'm willing to acknowledge the possible validity of any such cult as a religion proper, let alone the true religion.
....
My primary issue with a "David Koresh-type cult" being authenticated by a miracle, however, isn't that it isn't Christianity. My primary issue is that David Koresh was a moral monster. He engaged in adultery, fornication, pedophilia, child-beating, and he led 75 people to their deaths. Such a person will not be given Divine Authentication on any religious view that deserves discussion. Not on Christianity, not on Islam, not on Hinduism, not on Buddhism, not on Taoism, not on Jainism, not on Baha'ism, not on Sikhism, not on Judaism, and not on any form of secularism. THAT, not a question-begging assumption of Christianity, is the reason for my dismissal of "David Koresh-type cults."

The question for debate is whether immoral behavior of religious leaders, particularly the key and original leaders or originators of those religions indicate God is not involved in the religion or that there is no 'genuine supernatural event' at the genesis of such a religion?

The secondary question is whether by this standard Judaism, Christianity, or Islam are therefore not authenticated by God, or a supernatural event?

I wouldn't think it invalidates the religion but it should, at the very least, cause one to seriously question it.
I don't think it directly says as much about any god as it does about the people who worship it. But, in a way, that itself says something about God at least indirectly

[atheist buddy]

He engaged in adultery, fornication, pedophilia, child-beating, and he led 75 people to their deaths.

Adultery: Abraham was adulterous. He was married to Sarah, but had sexual relations with Hagar. Ah! Wait, that doesn't count becuase Hagar wasn't his mistress, she was his sex slave. That's ok then. Wait.... Abraham had a sex slave! That's worse than adultery, isn't it? Sex slavery? Come on!

What exactly was the difference between a "wife" and a "sex slave" in the bronze age?

Anyways, from what little I know about the cultural milieu, taking a sex slave of the non-wife variety as a concubine was "okay," and God put up with concubines and plural marriages in a way that He was unwilling to put up with incest, homosexuality, and bestiality in the Torah.

Fornication: What's fornication? To have sex before marriage? Why is that wrong? In any case, Abraham being with Hagar counts as fornication as well as adultery, because he wasn't married to her.

Using the Torah as a provisional moral standard, taking a concubine was okay (but not encouraged), whereas fornication was not.

Pedophilia: Lot had sex with his two daughters on the night after he was spared from his town's destructions, as a reward for being so "sexually moral" That's pedophilia+incest.

They tricked him into having sex with them by giving him ridiculous amounts of booze. And Lot was hardly a role model, or a founder of the Judaic religion.

Plus, Mary was about 14 years old when she got pregnant. Somebody committed pedophilia right there.

Even granting the falsity of the virgin birth (which, as an orthodox Christian, I will not do no matter how much you ridicule me ), Koresh was hitting pre-pubescents. 10 year olds are incapable of having children.

Child beating: Proverbs 23 tells us "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die." The Bible COMMANDS YOU to beat your children. Indeed, Exodus 21 tells us you should beat your children to death if he curses you or hits you.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't supposed to be applied to eight month olds.

Leading people to death: Mark 16: "they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all". With these words Jesus (actually it was a forgery) sent hundreds of people to their death.

Not much I need to say there.

And this is just one tiny example. Millions have died because of the Bible's incitements to martyrdom.

No reasonable definition of "martyrdom" has anything to do with stockpiling automatic weapons and using them to kill ATF agents who try to bust you on it.

So. What can we conclude?

David the apologist clearly stated that he would dismiss any religious movement wherein its patriarchs/leaders/prophets engaged in adultery, fornication, pedophilia, child-beating, and led 75 people to their deaths.

It's clearly spelled out that the central figures of the Bible (Abraham, Lot, Moses, Jesus) engaged in adultery, fornication, pedophilia, child-beating, and led (way more than) 75 people to their deaths.

Therefore we can safely assume that David the apologist has dismissed Christianity, becuase it squarely meets all the parameters for dismissal which David voluntarily selected.

David, could you kindly confirm that? Maybe the admins can change your username to "David, the counter-apologist", now that you've dismissed Christianity

Well, I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that they squarely meet the parameters. The examples you gave seem to me to be more of the Penrose triangle variety than the square variety...

In order to maintain your religious worldview, this is what you were forced to say:

- Sex slavery is morally defensible in some instances

- Having consentual sex outside of marriage is not ok, but if one of the people having sex outside of marriage is a slave and is having sex against her will, then it's fine

- If you were drunk on the night you had sex with your daughters, then it doesn't count.

- Beating an 8 month old is not ok. But beating (and killing) an 8 year old is ok.

- Having sex with a 10 year odl is not ok, but with a 14 year old it's ok.


This is exactly what's wrong with religion. It puts maintaining the integrity of your dogmatic beliefs, ahead of maintaining the integrity of your moral compass. A believer will abnegate his most profound and central intuitions about what is right and what is wrong, if it conflicts with his Book.

I would imagine that if we had a discussion on morality not on this board, but in the context of talking, say, about the unacceptable antics of ISIS, it would be pretty easy to get you to agree that while beating an 8 month old is obviously very bad, a person who beats and kills 8 year olds, and commands others to do the same, is also a very bad person and certainly not a spiritual and moral guide. If we were discussing some Scientologist in California who got drunk on expensive Whiskey and had sex with his daughter, you'd have no problem agreeing that your alcohol blood level doesn't absolve one of the duty of making morally correct decisions about incest. BUT, the instant the very same moral questions are applied to your book, your innate sense of morality is completely suppressed by the prerogative of defending your dogma. Why is it that you have a double standard, and you judge the actions of the characters of your religion by one set of moral standards, and the rest of the world by another? Why do you make excuses for one, and not for the other?

It reminds me of something that happened to me a while ago talking to a Christian who approached and tried to "save me" on the street. I got the sense rather quickly that she was not as knowledgeable of the OT as she should be, so I tricked her. I said "Well, I'm not sure about Christianity, but at least it's better than Islam. The Koran has some teachings in it that are so horrible that I would instantly abandon Islam the instant I read them". And then I went on to list all the stuff about stoning gays, and burning witches, and beating your slaves, and treating women like property, etc. All stuff that, as you all know, is in the OT, not in the Koran. Of course, this girl thought it was in the Koran, so she didn't hesitate to agree that it was horrible. When I asked her directly, she went as far as saying that, yes, she would abandon Christianity if these kinds of things were in the Bible instead of being in the Koran.

And that's when I asked her if she had a Bible handy, becuase I wanted to show her something.

She was pretty puzzled at first. So what did she do? She called the other girl that she was preaching with (who evidently was a little more knowledgeable) and the other girl started rattling off the standard Christian Apologetics about the moral horror of the OT. As the various appalling excuses for slavery, rape, murder, infanticide, sexism and homophobia were recited, I could see things clicking in the first girl's head, and by the time her friend was done talking, she was justifying all the moral acitons and lessons that a minute earlier she had agreed were indifensible. Why? Because her innate sense of right and wrong, is suppressed by the imperative of compliance with her dogma.

That's what's scary about religion.

It reminds me of the movie Sin City. The scene where the evil politician is talking to Bruce Willis at his hospital bed, and says "When you can get people to agree with what they know in their heart to be wrong, then you've got them by the ....."

[Clownboat]

Anyways, from what little I know about the cultural milieu, taking a sex slave of the non-wife variety as a concubine was "okay," and God put up with concubines and plural marriages in a way that He was unwilling to put up with incest, homosexuality, and bestiality in the Torah.

Doesn't it make more sense to say that the people that wrote the Torah were okay with concubines and plural marriages (probably having them themselves) when compared to incest, homosexuality and bestiality, likely of which they did not participate in?

Pedophilia: Lot had sex with his two daughters on the night after he was spared from his town's destructions, as a reward for being so "sexually moral" That's pedophilia+incest.

They tricked him into having sex with them by giving him ridiculous amounts of booze. And Lot was hardly a role model, or a founder of the Judaic religion.

I find the "trick" claim ridiculous. How exactly would a daughter trick their father into sleeping with them, booze or no booze? Especially two days in a row. Either way, according to the story, god chose to save them knowing that they would get drunk and perform incest 2 days in a row. It makes no sense in so many ways. You argue as if it's OK to have sex with your children if you are drunk enough.

Koresh was hitting pre-pubescents. 10 year olds are incapable of having children.

Changes nothing, not to mention the youngest female to give birth was 5 years of age. You're not arguing that it is OK to have sex with children as long as they are not able to give birth are you? I must assume not, but it's also not clear.

Child beating: Proverbs 23 tells us "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die." The Bible COMMANDS YOU to beat your children. Indeed, Exodus 21 tells us you should beat your children to death if he curses you or hits you.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't supposed to be applied to eight month olds.

Straw man, no one mentioned 8 month olds. At what age do you claim we should be able to beat our kids to death? Perhaps some clarification is in order?

Leading people to death: Mark 16: "they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all". With these words Jesus (actually it was a forgery) sent hundreds of people to their death.

Not much I need to say there.

Agreed, but that is an odd defense.

And this is just one tiny example. Millions have died because of the Bible's incitements to martyrdom.

No reasonable definition of "martyrdom" has anything to do with stockpiling automatic weapons and using them to kill ATF agents who try to bust you on it.

Another Straw Man. Automatic weapons were in no way referenced. I'll assume you agree with the claim above that you didn't even attempt to refute.