I disagree with Christians. Slavery and rape are WRONG

[anotheratheisthere]

As you all know, Exodus 21 (the passage right after the 10 commandments) completely and fully condones slavery.

It starts by saying "If you buy a Hebrew slave". It then goes on to saying that if you beat your slave to death, it's a bad thing, but if you beat him and after a couple of days he is still alive, then it's ok, because that slave is your property after all.

It says that if you give your slave a wife, and he has children with her, then the children are the property of you the master, not of the slave.

Go read it. Read the whole of Exodus 20 (the ten commandments) and Exodus 21 back to back.

The Bible also condones rape. In Deuteronomy 22:28-29 it says that if a man rapes a woman, then she is forced to marry him. There are another 9 passages in the bible which condone or even encourage rape.

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. Slavery is wrong and rape is wrong. Period. The Bible is WRONG to condone and encourage them.

Anybody who gives any validity whatsoever to a book that condones two of the most horrible things a human being can do is wrong. Anybody who believes that such a twisted and sick book was written by some kind of benevolent omnipotent invisible man in the sky is delusional. Anybody who takes inspiration or moral guidance from such a twisted text is perverted.

[Guest]

Can you document any Christian denomination that approves of slavery and rape today?

How about the FLDS?

That seems to be more the teachings of one sect leader gone astray., does it not?

Indeed.

It is my understanding that there were once communities of anchorite monks and nuns who had themselves confined - as in having the exits bricked over - to closet-sized spaces in the monastery walls for the rest of their lives, being fed through a small opening in the wall and having that opening bricked over when they died there.

Do we attribute the teaching that that is a wise and devout practice to all Christians, even at the time that was common? It's intellectually dishonest to choose an obviously bizarre and possibly deranged cult and attribute those qualities to all Christians.

In any case, most Christians do not consider even orthodox Mormons to be Christians. Mormonism fits several of the commonly agreed-upon characteristics of cults; it has its own Scripture in addition to the Bible, it teaches things that contradict standard Christian doctrines (e.g., Heavenly Marriage), and it teaches things that are not and never have been part of any historical Christian belief anywhere - that humans can eventually become gods with their own universes, since the being we call God was once an ordinary man.

And yet another point; ask the FLDS, and they will tell you that they support neither rape nor slavery. They define versions of both out of existence, just as the entire US did when the draft was legal (if compulsory service in the military isn't "involuntary servitude," I don't know what would be).

Point remains; the fact that it's in the Bible doesn't make it a Church teaching (nor a Jewish teaching).

"It's intellectually dishonest to choose an obviously bizarre and possibly deranged cult and attribute those qualities to all Christians."

excellent!

[Guest]

The point here, at least for me, is that religious people will use their faith to support just about anything, no matter how absurd or nasty.

How is that statement not evidence of gross prejudice? ALL religious people are potentially murderous hypocrites? I would happily concede that perhaps ALL people have that capability, but in that case why single out "religious people"?

In my own experience, "They're all alike!" is almost invariably prima facie evidence of irrational bigotry. It's certainly a logical fallacy; look it up. It's called "destroying the exception."

Again, you said "I would happily concede that perhaps ALL people have that capability,"...

Excellent, again! I believe when we lose sight of the fact that the demographic we may be focusing on is indeed a member of the human race, that it will have a bad end. Suddenly a group will be reckoned as "inhuman" and then, possible, in the extreme, quite disposable...even if just intellectually.

[MagusYanam]

It would make more sense to condemn Christians for the excesses and atrocities of the Inquisition. Those happened only a few hundred years ago. Slavery was outlawed about 150 years ago, if I remember my American history. The only nations that condone slavery today are Muslim.

Just clearing up a slight misconception here; I have made contributions in the past to the non-profit Free the Slaves, whose data show that nations that turn a blind eye to slavery nowadays can be Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, secular or atheist. Given that this is an advocacy organisation, you may take the numbers with a grain of salt, but here's the interactive map of slavery worldwide.

[cnorman18]

It would make more sense to condemn Christians for the excesses and atrocities of the Inquisition. Those happened only a few hundred years ago. Slavery was outlawed about 150 years ago, if I remember my American history. The only nations that condone slavery today are Muslim.

Just clearing up a slight misconception here; I have made contributions in the past to the non-profit Free the Slaves, whose data show that nations that turn a blind eye to slavery nowadays can be Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, secular or atheist. Given that this is an advocacy organisation, you may take the numbers with a grain of salt, but here's the interactive map of slavery worldwide.

Fascinating. Thanks for the information, and I stand corrected. The point remains, though, that no religion I know of, including Christianity (and Islam), condones slavery today as is stated outright in the title of this thread.

[anotheratheisthere]

Can you document any Christian denomination that approves of slavery and rape today?

It would make more sense to condemn Christians for the excesses and atrocities of the Inquisition. Those happened only a few hundred years ago. Slavery was outlawed about 150 years ago, if I remember my American history. The only nations that condone slavery today are Muslim.

The fact that a passage in is the Bible doesn't mean that any Biblical religion still teaches that it's either appropriate or moral. It's also dangerous to assume that a given passage's events are presented as fine positive moral examples. In some cases, actions that were considered normal and routine 4.000 years ago aren't any more, and their status in the book has changed from positive example to negative. Treating your slaves humanely, for instance, was a rather innovative concept at the time. So was being required (not allowed) to marry a woman you have captured in battle, which was a rather common way of obtaining a wife in the ancient world. An even more common practice in ancient warfare was rape followed by murder, not marriage.

If you want to know what a religion teaches, you have to go to a document that explains those teachings. The Bible isn't such a book. What you are doing is analogous to reading the Constitution and declaring that you disagree with Americans because you don't support slavery or believe in counting slaves as five-eighths of a person.

I am glad that we agree 100% on a simple fact: The bible is NOT the word of God.
It's a political document written by savvy political leaders for the sake of better governing their people, much like the US Constitution.

Right? Or are you saying that an omnipotent benevolent supreme being would ENCOURAGE the ravaging of women (Zechariah 14:1-2), just because it was politically expedient at the time not to say that rape is wrong? Or because people wouldn't understand that slavery is bad? If Obama (who at best is a mediocre politician) could talk Americans into voting for a black President, then surely GOD could talk his people into not raping women, if it were God who inspired the Bible.

Clearly, if God exists, he had nothing to do with the writing of such a twisted perverted book that not only condones rape and slavery, it encourages them. If I had to guess the name of a supernatural being who wrote that book, I would say the Devil.


Also, you open your response by asking "Can you document any Christian denomination that approves of slavery and rape today?". Yes, the Catholic Church. it doesn't actively support slavery, but it does actively support the one thing that is worse than rape: Pedophilia.

The Church actively supports pedophilia. When all those priests had been caught molesting children, they protected them and relocated them, instead of making them face justice. The Catholic Church actively encourages pedophilia, because it has made it clear for all its priests that if they rape children there will be no punishment. It removed the disincentive and set the precedent that molesting children is ok.

I can think of several other examples, such as Opus Dei's stance on women, and Pat Robertson's statements on Haiti, but I don't want to make my response too long.

The point is that I agree with the fundamental implication of your response that the Bible was not written by a perfect omniscient supreme being, but by imperfect humans who were after all children of their time and of their customs.

I agree with you that the absurd, crazy, wrong belief that this political document is the word of God, caused us to use it to justify some of the worse atrocities in human history (inquisition, crusades, burning of witches, etc).

I disagree that we are now past this madness. To this day we treat pedophiles as spiritual guides just because we believe that their authority wasn't given to them by a political entity (the vatican), but by a smiling bearded benevolent invisible father figure in the sky.

[anotheratheisthere]

By the way cnorman, you never got back to me with an explanation of why the US Depart of Defense, the UN Register on Conventional Arms, the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime are, I quote you, "ranting fanatical extremist minorities" because they state that the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, largest weapon exportation rate, highest gun murder rate, and highest civilian death in war rate.

What happened?

Please go back to the "Us troops are warriors now" thread, and explain to me why I am an extremist for taking at face value the statistical data provided by these US and UN agencies.

I'm so confused, I thought that theists would keep their word because it's a sin to bear false witness.

So, since your profile says you are civil and accept corrections, I was expecting you to either be "civil" and explain to me why you would call me a fanatical extremist for merely quoting statistical data from reputable sources, or "accept corrections" and concede that those US and UN agencies are not fundamentalist extremist entities. Because if you don't do that, then you are bearing false witness when you claim you are civil and accept corrections.

Please pray to your invisible man in the sky, and find the strength to stand for what you believe in. You believe that lying is wrong, so live up to your words and admit you were wrong to insult me.

[cnorman18]

I am glad that we agree 100% on a simple fact: The bible is NOT the word of God.

That'e pretty elementary, where genuine textual criticism is concerned. But you DO take it rather farther...

It's a political document written by savvy political leaders for the sake of better governing their people, much like the US Constitution.

There I DON'T agree with you.

For starters, the Bible is not "a document" at all; it's a collection of documents of various kinds and styles and from various places and times, most of them edited and redacted by various hands with differing intents. Some are indeed intended to promote the power and primacy of some faction or other, whether the priests, the prophets, the Monarchy, or even the people; but it certainly isn't all written from one party's point of view. Some parts of it aren't political at all, and some parts are so obscure it's hard to tell WHAT they're about. It's ANCIENT LITERATURE, not a political manifesto or consciously fabricated propaganda. That view is just as absurd and unrealistic as the "Word of God" option.

Right? Or are you saying....

In a word: No.

I agree with this:

The point is that I agree with the fundamental implication of your response that the Bible was not written by a perfect omniscient supreme being, but by imperfect humans who were after all children of their time and of their customs.

That strikes me as a given for serious Bible study, whether one believes in God or not. But the rest of your diatribe, no, I do not agree with. The idea that the Bible is a unified and deliberate fabrication with a single political objective and a single point of view is beyond ridiculous.

Nor do I agree with you that literalism is the cause of the evils that religious conflict and discrimination has wrought over the years, nor is religion itself the cause. Evil comes from the individual human heart. No person is compelled to commit atrocities for his God; he CHOOSES to, and the crime is his alone. Blaming those who taught him is just as illegitimate as blaming God. Take a look at the "Morality vs. deity" thread and you'll see what I mean.

[anotheratheisthere]

For starters, the Bible is not "a document" at all; it's a collection of documents of various kinds and styles and from various places and times, most of them edited and redacted by various hands with differing intents. Some are indeed intended to promote the power and primacy of some faction or other, whether the priests, the prophets, the Monarchy, or even the people; but it certainly isn't all written from one party's point of view. Some parts of it aren't political at all, and some parts are so obscure it's hard to tell WHAT they're about. It's ANCIENT LITERATURE, not a political manifesto or consciously fabricated propaganda. That view is just as absurd and unrealistic as the "Word of God" option.

I agree. I wasn't trying to make that point, but I can see how my wording might have given that impression. My bad. What I meant to say is that the similarity between the Constitution, the Bible, Cosmopolitan Magazine, the Koran, and TV Guide is that they are all created by man. Of course all these documents are fundamentally different from each other, and they don't share much beyond the fact that they were written by humans. That's all I meant to say.

Nor do I agree with you that literalism is the cause of the evils that religious conflict and discrimination has wrought over the years, nor is religion itself the cause. Evil comes from the individual human heart. No person is compelled to commit atrocities for his God; he CHOOSES to, and the crime is his alone. Blaming those who taught him is just as illegitimate as blaming God. Take a look at the "Morality vs. deity" thread and you'll see what I mean.

I agree with this in essence as well, though there is no denying that the dumbing down of the masses by brainwashing them into thinking that murder, rape and torture are literally sanctioned by God, definitely amplifies the problem of the essential evil of the individual human heart.

Let me put it this way, we could argue whether religion causes more violence than its absence would, but definitely we should agree that religion doesn't reduce violence and atrocities.

If it did, then America, one of the most religious countries in the world, wouldn't be the leading exporter of weapons to 3rd world countries, wouldn't have the highest incarceration rate, wouldn't have the highest murder rate among civilized countries, and wouldn't be the country that has killed most civilians in the last half century.

I'm not saying there is a causal relationship, but clearly America's faith in God is not helping it reduce the violence and atrocities it does.

Again, if you disagree with the statistical data at the foundation of the above assertion, please state your reasons.


Lastly, you and I, to my surprise, do in fact agree that the Bible is not the word of God.

You say I take it rather farther than that, and I wanted to see what you mean by that.

1) If by that you mean my whole rant about it being a political document and nothing more, then I take it back. I misspoke. While I do still hold that there are many strong political elements in it, it's true that it's a collection of several (often conflicting and contradictory) documents, and that there also are other aspects to it than politics, such as philosophy, as well as a bunch of meaningless mumbo jumbo about insects having 4 legs, etc.

2) If you mean that while the Bible was written by man, but there was some element of divine inspiration in it, then we disagree. In my opinion, there is no more divine inspiration in the Bible than there is in the latest issue of Sports Illustrated. Do you agree?

And again, a retraction or an explanation of your earlier assertions that I am a fanatic extremist would be appreciated. Although such a retraction or explanation would take courage and moral fibre, I'm sure you can find enough of both in you.

[Lotan]

It's intellectually dishonest to choose an obviously bizarre and possibly deranged cult and attribute those qualities to all Christians.

Well, someone here is being dishonest, but it's not me. My reply was in response to your question...

Can you document any Christian denomination that approves of slavery and rape today?

You asked for an example and I provided one.

How is that statement...

The point here, at least for me, is that religious people will use their faith to support just about anything, no matter how absurd or nasty.

...not evidence of gross prejudice? ALL religious people are potentially murderous hypocrites?

You would have to look very hard at my statement to find the word "ALL" (especially in capitals) so I'm not much inclined to defend myself against your misrepresentation of my argument.

I would happily concede that perhaps ALL people have that capability, but in that case why single out "religious people"?

For the sake of argument I would agree that all people are at least potentially capable of bad behavior. I singled out religious people because, if you care to look, you'll see that the name of this site is "Debating Christianity and Religion. There are other ideologies that lead people to perform atrocities, like racism for example, but they're not relevant to the OP. Simply pointing out that other groups behave badly too doesn't excuse religious extremism. Sometimes religious ideology is blended with political or other ideologies and we get things like the KKK, or the Tea Party.

In my own experience, "They're all alike!" is almost invariably prima facie evidence of irrational bigotry. It's certainly a logical fallacy; look it up. It's called "destroying the exception."

Thanks for the 'lesson', but the words "They're all alike!" are your own, and not mine. Not much point debating someone who has to invent my arguments for me. That's a logical fallacy too. It's called "making stuff up".

Religious people are susceptible to bad behavior at least sometimes because they are ideologues. They believe that what they are taught by their pastor, or mullah (or whatever) represents the will of god. They don't have to like it, or understand it, but they do have to remain steadfast in their faith. When a charismatic leader comes along (think Jim Jones) they will allow themselves to be led straight to hell. There may be dissenters, but they end up either cowed or ostracized, and groupthink prevails under the blessing of Almighty God. What atrocities exactly would you like to examine; the Inquistion, the rape of the New World, the Holocaust?
I know that most religious people are very nice. The problem is that their beliefs leave them vulnerable to exploitation by people who are not so nice. I'm sure the Germans were nice Christians too until they got hit with the triple ideological whammy of nationalism, racism, and anti-semitism (it was the "Jews" who killed Jesus, remember).
To cite an example from my own experience my wife and I attended a Pentecostal church for some years, which I quite enjoyed (even though I'm an atheist and an irrational bigot). My wife was fairly active in the church, helping with fundraisers, being a camp counsellor, that sort of thing. Things changed about a year ago, when my wife (ex-wife now) realized that she was a lesbian. When she confronted our Pastor and his wife (both very nice people) with the news she was told that it was against Pentecostal doctrine, and that she could still attend, but she could no longer participate in any church functions. This might seem mild compared to slavery or rape, but the principle is the same.

I don't know what passes for moderators here on DC&R these days, but at the very least you owe me an apology. So far, on this thread you have accused me of gross prejudice, irrational bigotry, and intellectual dishonesty on the basis of an argument that you yourself have created for me.

Btw, as an atheist I view all cults as potentially "bizarre and possibly deranged". Some more than others, depending on time and circumstance. It's because they've already been conditioned to believe absurdities. As my pastor would say "You might have come from a monkey, but I didn't." Religion trumps reality for these people.

I cant speak for Muslims, but, as a rule, it appears they can kill, maim, rape, and destroy anyone or anything outside their "faith" and believe they reap some kind of blessing for it.

"As a rule" you couldn't be more wrong. The vast majority of Muslims are kind, loving, and generous people. That why I said "some" Muslims. I was referring specifically to such mysogynistic practices as female circumcision, sequestering and veiling women, denying them education and social opportunity, and selling them into arranged marriages, sometimes to much older men, shortly after puberty. Most Muslims don't adhere to such practices, but those that do do so in the belief that it is God's will.

[cnorman18]

It's intellectually dishonest to choose an obviously bizarre and possibly deranged cult and attribute those qualities to all Christians.

Well, someone here is being dishonest, but it's not me. My reply was in response to your question...

Can you document any Christian denomination that approves of slavery and rape today?

You asked for an example and I provided one.

How is that statement...

The point here, at least for me, is that religious people will use their faith to support just about anything, no matter how absurd or nasty.

...not evidence of gross prejudice? ALL religious people are potentially murderous hypocrites?

You would have to look very hard at my statement to find the word "ALL" (especially in capitals) so I'm not much inclined to defend myself against your misrepresentation of my argument.

You said, "religious people" without qualification. The "all" is implied. If you think that there are exceptions, say so.

Funny that you protest my misrepresenting your position and then immediately set about proving me right. I don't see any exceptions to your pontifications below, either.

As for moderators - I am one. Welcome to the forum.

I would happily concede that perhaps ALL people have that capability, but in that case why single out "religious people"?

For the sake of argument I would agree that all people are at least potentially capable of bad behavior. I singled out religious people because, if you care to look, you'll see that the name of this site is "Debating Christianity and Religion. There are other ideologies that lead people to perform atrocities, like racism for example, but they're not relevant to the OP. Simply pointing out that other groups behave badly too doesn't excuse religious extremism. Sometimes religious ideology is blended with political or other ideologies and we get things like the KKK, or the Tea Party.

In my own experience, "They're all alike!" is almost invariably prima facie evidence of irrational bigotry. It's certainly a logical fallacy; look it up. It's called "destroying the exception."

Thanks for the 'lesson', but the words "They're all alike!" are your own, and not mine. Not much point debating someone who has to invent my arguments for me. That's a logical fallacy too. It's called "making stuff up".

Religious people are susceptible to bad behavior at least sometimes because they are ideologues. They believe that what they are taught by their pastor, or mullah (or whatever) represents the will of god. They don't have to like it, or understand it, but they do have to remain steadfast in their faith. When a charismatic leader comes along (think Jim Jones) they will allow themselves to be led straight to hell. There may be dissenters, but they end up either cowed or ostracized, and groupthink prevails under the blessing of Almighty God. What atrocities exactly would you like to examine; the Inquistion, the rape of the New World, the Holocaust?
I know that most religious people are very nice. The problem is that their beliefs leave them vulnerable to exploitation by people who are not so nice. I'm sure the Germans were nice Christians too until they got hit with the triple ideological whammy of nationalism, racism, and anti-semitism (it was the "Jews" who killed Jesus, remember).
To cite an example from my own experience my wife and I attended a Pentecostal church for some years, which I quite enjoyed (even though I'm an atheist and an irrational bigot). My wife was fairly active in the church, helping with fundraisers, being a camp counsellor, that sort of thing. Things changed about a year ago, when my wife (ex-wife now) realized that she was a lesbian. When she confronted our Pastor and his wife (both very nice people) with the news she was told that it was against Pentecostal doctrine, and that she could still attend, but she could no longer participate in any church functions. This might seem mild compared to slavery or rape, but the principle is the same.

I don't know what passes for moderators here on DC&R these days, but at the very least you owe me an apology. So far, on this thread you have accused me of gross prejudice, irrational bigotry, and intellectual dishonesty on the basis of an argument that you yourself have created for me.

Btw, as an atheist I view all cults as potentially "bizarre and possibly deranged". Some more than others, depending on time and circumstance. It's because they've already been conditioned to believe absurdities. As my pastor would say "You might have come from a monkey, but I didn't." Religion trumps reality for these people.

I cant speak for Muslims, but, as a rule, it appears they can kill, maim, rape, and destroy anyone or anything outside their "faith" and believe they reap some kind of blessing for it.

"As a rule" you couldn't be more wrong. The vast majority of Muslims are kind, loving, and generous people. That why I said "some" Muslims. I was referring specifically to such mysogynistic practices as female circumcision, sequestering and veiling women, denying them education and social opportunity, and selling them into arranged marriages, sometimes to much older men, shortly after puberty. Most Muslims don't adhere to such practices, but those that do do so in the belief that it is God's will.