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]

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.

I think "as a rule" they would love everyone to believe that. Those who can make a case for that have to cherry pick their own sacred teachings.

[Lotan]

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

I think we are agreed that no one is perfect, so anyone can potentially be induced to behave badly given sufficient motivation, pressure, leverage or whatever. If we are not, please let me know.
Religious people, and I do mean all (but not only) will potentially "use their faith to support just about anything, no matter how absurd or nasty." The exception is that they don't do it all the time, to the same degree, or in all cases, for that matter. Would you deny that Christian slaveowners used the "curse of Ham" for example, to justify their behavior? It's true also that the abolitionists used the Bible to support their views, and if I have made an error it's one of omission because it's also true that religious people use their faith for good, but that didn't prevent 400 years of slavery did it? Would you also deny that the anti-semitism of German Christians played no role in the holocaust? Religion is a powerful motivator, and sometimes it is used for evil purpose. God said to Abraham "Kill me a son" Abe said "Where you want that killin' done?" Not many have the moral conviction to stand up against God. Non-religious people don't have to 'follow the flock', although they're not necessarily immune from other forms of ideology.

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.

I didn't say "They're all alike!" and I'm certainly not an irrational bigot. You asked specifically "Can you document any Christian denomination that approves of slavery and rape" and I gave an example. I didn't say that all Christian denominations approve of those things (although Catholics might qualify if we examine their views on colonialism and buggering little boys). Every sect has their own unique set of kinks. In that sense I do think they're all alike. If you know of any exceptions please don't hesitate to provide them.

As for moderators - I am one.

I was aware of that, which is all the more reason that I still believe you owe me an apology.

Welcome to the forum.

Thanks, but I'm hardly new here.

[Lotan]

I think "as a rule" they would love everyone to believe that.

So it's a conspiracy! You don't know too many Muslims, do you?

Those who can make a case for that have to cherry pick their own sacred teachings.

Don't all religions do that?

[Guest]

I think "as a rule" they would love everyone to believe that.

So it's a conspiracy! You don't know too many Muslims, do you?

Apparently not as many as you, I presume, will claim. So is that how its decided: whoever knows the most wins?? I would lay more weight on the writings they consider sacred.

Those who can make a case for that have to cherry pick their own sacred teachings.

Don't all religions do that?

I don't know all religions so I cannot say.

[Lotan]

Apparently not as many as you, I presume, will claim.

I know quite a few. They're pretty much like anyone else. Some are nice, some not. I knew one fellow (not well) who was arrested for having terrorist ties.

So is that how its decided: whoever knows the most wins??

No. I just find it funny that you would suggest that over 1.5 billion people are just pretending to be peaceful, and that they think it's OK to kill, maim, rape, and destroy anyone or anything outside their "faith". Interesting that you put the word 'faith' in quotations. Do you have an issue with their religion?

I would lay more weight on the writings they consider sacred.

So by your logic, Jews must be an awfully bloodthirsty lot, and Christians less so, because they don't adhere to the Old Testament (except when they do).

I don't know all religions so I cannot say.

Let's make it easy then. Of the religions that you do know, which do not "cherry pick their own sacred teachings"?

[Guest]

I just find it funny that you would suggest that over 1.5 billion people are just pretending to be peaceful, and that they think it's OK to kill, maim, rape, and destroy anyone or anything outside their "faith". Interesting that you put the word 'faith' in quotations. Do you have an issue with their religion?

For the record 1.5 billion people is your figure, not mine. Do I have an issue with their religion? Oh, yes, most certainly. Until a terrorists acts, they generally seem quite peaceful. The after the fact responses are usually "Oh, I did not see that coming." Thats why its called terrorism. BTW, where did I put the word "faith" in quotations?

I would lay more weight on the writings they consider sacred.

So by your logic, Jews must be an awfully bloodthirsty lot, and Christians less so, because they don't adhere to the Old Testament (except when they do).

You will have to explain your case for Jews, because I am not aware of their bloodthirstiness.

I don't know all religions so I cannot say.

Let's make it easy then. Of the religions that you do know, which do not "cherry pick their own sacred teachings"?

I am not aware of any that do as a religion. Cherry-picking is usually an individual effort.

[Flail]

the bible stories were written by men for men in societies dominated by men....which is why it condones rape and slavery...treats women as second class citizens...prohibits women from even speaking in church...and why the Catholic Church requires leaders to be male and that those males take a vow against sexual relations with women....there are whole passages written about the penis and the foreskin....weird crazy stuff.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Warning

Please be reminded that responses to items brought up in other debate threads should be done in those threads, or start a new debate thread if a new topic has been raised. Please remember to debate the issues and topics rather than the debater's behaviors.

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.

Please review the Rules. If you feel that another debater has insulted you, please report the post. You may follow up with a private message to any moderator. We should be debating the question for debate rather than the character of the debaters.

When the moderators feel the rules have been violated, a notice will frequently occur within the thread where the violation occurred, pointing out the violation and perhaps providing other moderator comments. Moderator warnings and comments are made publicly, within the thread, so that all members may see when and how the rules are being interpreted and enforced. However, note that any challenges or replies to moderator comments or warnings should be made via Private Message. This is so that threads do not get derailed into discussions about the rules.

[cnorman18]

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

I think we are agreed that no one is perfect, so anyone can potentially be induced to behave badly given sufficient motivation, pressure, leverage or whatever. If we are not, please let me know.
Religious people, and I do mean all (but not only) will potentially "use their faith to support just about anything, no matter how absurd or nasty." The exception is that they don't do it all the time, to the same degree, or in all cases, for that matter.

So you stand by your blanket condemnation. Thanks for proving my point.

Would you deny that Christian slaveowners used the "curse of Ham" for example, to justify their behavior? It's true also that the abolitionists used the Bible to support their views, and if I have made an error it's one of omission because it's also true that religious people use their faith for good, but that didn't prevent 400 years of slavery did it? Would you also deny that the anti-semitism of German Christians played no role in the holocaust?

All true. But how do those examples prove that ALL ("and I do mean all") religious people can be more easily manipulated into evil than the nonreligious?

"The plural of anecdote is not proof."

Religion is a powerful motivator, and sometimes it is used for evil purpose. God said to Abraham "Kill me a son" Abe said "Where you want that killin' done?" Not many have the moral conviction to stand up against God. Non-religious people don't have to 'follow the flock', although they're not necessarily immune from other forms of ideology.

Again, all true. So? Nobody ever said that religion was entirely benign. You're arguing against a position I don't hold.

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.

I didn't say "They're all alike!"...

Oh?

"...and I do mean all..."

and I'm certainly not an irrational bigot.

If you'll read what I wrote again, you will find that I didn't call you one.

In my own experience, "They're all alike!" is almost invariably prima facie evidence of irrational bigotry.

I called you nothing. I displayed a public shoe; if you want to stand up and announce that it fits, that's no problem of mine.

You asked specifically "Can you document any Christian denomination that approves of slavery and rape" and I gave an example.

For the record, and for reasons I have already stated, no, you didn't. The FLDS is not a Christian denomination, and they do not condone or approve either rape or slavery in the usual meaning of those terms.

I will say it again; no Christian denomination currently teaches that rape and slavery are moral. Period.

The OP alleged that Christian teaching currently holds that rape and slavery are moral. It doesn't, not anywhere.

I didn't say that all Christian denominations approve of those things (although Catholics might qualify if we examine their views on colonialism and buggering little boys). Every sect has their own unique set of kinks. In that sense I do think they're all alike. If you know of any exceptions please don't hesitate to provide them.

Are you alleging that the Roman Catholic Church formally approves of child molestation? That it teaches that child rape is OK on Biblical grounds? If not, why is that red herring relevant to this discussion? We are talking about the teachings of the Christian faith, not the inarguable, and inarguably irrelevant, fact that some Christians don't follow them.

And you repeat yet another blanket statement and prove my point yet again. You can conveniently define "kinks" any way you like; and if you define it as any teaching that makes a denomination distinctive, your statement becomes a pointless truism. "Different denominations a

Is your position that ALL religions teach evil in some form or other? If so, say so.

And if they don't - if their "kinks" aren't necessarily evil - what is your point?

Once again; can you PROVE that religious people are more easily manipulated into evil than the nonreligious? Do you have studies, research, anything other than anecdotes?

As for moderators - I am one.

I was aware of that, which is all the more reason that I still believe you owe me an apology.

Sorry, no. Unsupported blanket statements are against the forum rules, and I would have been well within the bounds of propriety to call you on them even as a moderator. I chose not to, but to respond as a member.

You have made the blanket statement that ALL religious people are more easily manipulated than the nonreligiousl. If you want to back away from that blanket statement, we have nothing to argue about and your posts have been pointless.

One more time: Can you PROVE that contention? If that's your OPINION, we have no problem here. But if you're going to assert it as FACT, then you have an obligation to prove it.

[JoeyKnothead]

the bible stories were written by men for men in societies dominated by men....which is why it condones rape and slavery...treats women as second class citizens...prohibits women from even speaking in church...and why the Catholic Church requires leaders to be male and that those males take a vow against sexual relations with women....there are whole passages written about the penis and the foreskin....weird crazy stuff.

Agreed. I notice that as societies move toward allowing more freedoms, those formerly oppressed groups may start to question the various positions of religions. I think this is a good thing. I'm not sure whether group x should be allowed to redefine the various religious doctrines, but if it produces a more rational, peaceful take on religion I'm all for it.

I can't image a god would be happy with the way humans oppress one another, but what do I know.