Complaints

[JLB32168]

There are a couple of problems I see on this board.
Most atheist/other skeptic criticisms:

• are based upon criticism of 20th/21st Century Evangelical Christianity,
  
  require a slavishly literal interpretation of the Bible that wasn’t even advocated by the ancient Church Fathers (and when such literal interpretations would have been completely natural),
  
  are founded exclusively upon OT passages in the Bible that command the destruction of the indigenous peoples of Canaan, but leave off the NT altogether
  
  concerning (3) ignore (or are ignorant of) the fact that provisions are made for converts to the religion of the Hebrews whereby would-be-victims of war would escape punishment,
  
  also concerning (3) ignore (or are ignorant of) the fact that the destructions of the indigenous peoples of Canaan weren’t arbitrary and capricious but reasons were provided – the least of which was the Canaanite propensity for immolating infants for the god Moloch,
  
  also concerning (3) ignore (or are ignorant of) the fact that runaway slaves could not be returned under pain of death, could not be harassed under pain of death, had to be manumitted if harmed (assuming they didn’t escape first which would make manumission obsolete),
  
  seem to think that Dan Brown is an Ecclesiastical Historian,
  
  know very little, if anything, about the Christian East

Yup – I’d say there’s a lot of atheist/skeptic ignorance on this board. I base that judgment upon that rather limited repertoire of atheist arguments that are here (e.g. The Bible is fiction, Christians are brainwashed, there’s no scientific proof for God, Miracles are like Unicorns – both have the same likelihood of existing, etc.)

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 1 by JLB32168]

In the future kindly present complaints about the Forum and its members in this thread to avoid derailing other threads with personal issues.

There are a couple of problems I see on this board.
Most atheist/other skeptic criticisms:

• are based upon criticism of 20th/21st Century Evangelical Christianity,

Does that come as a surprise when we debate in the 21st Century and when Evangelical Christians are prominent / vocal / attention-grabbing representatives of Christianity?

require a slavishly literal interpretation of the Bible that wasn’t even advocated by the ancient Church Fathers (and when such literal interpretations would have been completely natural),

Many Non-Theists ask over and over WHICH parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and which are not – AND a consistent means by which anyone can determine which is which.

are founded exclusively upon OT passages in the Bible that command the destruction of the indigenous peoples of Canaan, but leave off the NT altogether

The OT comprises about 75% of the Bible. Modern Christians seem to revere parts of it and dismiss other parts – on a whim or by opinion / personal preference.

concerning (3) ignore (or are ignorant of) the fact that provisions are made for converts to the religion of the Hebrews whereby would-be-victims of war would escape punishment,

Is this to say that those who were willing to abandon their beliefs and accept Judaism would be spared? Citations?

Don't Christians bemoan that early Christians were said to be offered the chance to escape punishment (or be allowed to live) if they renounced their gods and accepted those of conquering / powerful people? Is it terrible ONLY if that happens to Christians or Jews -- but they are free to do the same to others?

also concerning (3) ignore (or are ignorant of) the fact that the destructions of the indigenous peoples of Canaan weren’t arbitrary and capricious but reasons were provided – the least of which was the Canaanite propensity for immolating infants for the god Moloch,

It is not difficult for invaders / conquerors to concoct 'reasons' to destroy indigenous people. That was certainly the case in North and South America, Australia, Oceania, etc.

Demonizing the opposition is a common tactic and is used as justification for genocide.

also concerning (3) ignore (or are ignorant of) the fact that runaway slaves could not be returned under pain of death, could not be harassed under pain of death, had to be manumitted if harmed (assuming they didn’t escape first which would make manumission obsolete),

Was slavery of conquered people condoned?

seem to think that Dan Brown is an Ecclesiastical Historian,

At least Dan Brown acknowledges that his works are fiction. Many writers, including religion promoters, are less forthright -- by presenting their conjectures as factual.

know very little, if anything, about the Christian East

Again, is it surprising that westerners are less familiar with eastern religions? Notice that is not exclusive to Non-Believers since many Christians seem to have little knowledge of their eastern brethren (and even less about competing religions).

Yup – I’d say there’s a lot of atheist/skeptic ignorance on this board.

Opinion noted

I base that judgment upon that rather limited repertoire of atheist arguments that are here (e.g. The Bible is fiction, Christians are brainwashed, there’s no scientific proof for God, Miracles are like Unicorns – both have the same likelihood of existing, etc.)

Has anyone else noticed that many who do not fare well in debate focus upon demeaning opposition debaters rather than presenting sound arguments to support their position?

[benchwarmer]

There are a couple of problems I see on this board.
Most atheist/other skeptic criticisms:

• are based upon criticism of 20th/21st Century Evangelical Christianity,

Unless our debate opponents declare themselves followers of some earlier or other type of Christianity, what do you expect? It seems to be the 21st century Evangelicals that are most vocal and opinionated so that is what we discuss. If you feel misrepresented during a discussion, why not just declare your flavor of Christianity and figure out where you agree and/or disagree?

require a slavishly literal interpretation of the Bible that wasn’t even advocated by the ancient Church Fathers (and when such literal interpretations would have been completely natural),

I think the real issue is being selectively literal and this selection is a moving target. When cornered on what exactly should be literal and what shouldn't there are either conflicting answers or silence.

are founded exclusively upon OT passages in the Bible that command the destruction of the indigenous peoples of Canaan, but leave off the NT altogether

Well, that's certainly one easy target, but hardly the only one. Are you suggesting this is the only issue with the Bible that gets brought up?

concerning (3) ignore (or are ignorant of) the fact that provisions are made for converts to the religion of the Hebrews whereby would-be-victims of war would escape punishment,

And the apologetics begin... So convert or die is somehow a 'good' option? Would you be happy if ISIS descended on your town and said 'convert or die'?

also concerning (3) ignore (or are ignorant of) the fact that the destructions of the indigenous peoples of Canaan weren’t arbitrary and capricious but reasons were provided – the least of which was the Canaanite propensity for immolating infants for the god Moloch,

So kill them all except the female virgins because the virgins were the only ones not involved in the baby killing? Wait a minute, kill most of the people including the babies to stop the baby killing... Hmm, something wrong with that argument that I can't put my finger on.

also concerning (3) ignore (or are ignorant of) the fact that runaway slaves could not be returned under pain of death, could not be harassed under pain of death, had to be manumitted if harmed (assuming they didn’t escape first which would make manumission obsolete),

So if they manage to break free they're safe. Great. Why do they have to runaway in the first place? Oh ya, they were put into slavery against their will. If you manage to get away have fun, but until then get back to work.

seem to think that Dan Brown is an Ecclesiastical Historian,

I'm not sure I've ever seen that one personally. He does write interesting fiction though.

know very little, if anything, about the Christian East[/list]Yup – I’d say there’s a lot of atheist/skeptic ignorance on this board. I base that judgment upon that rather limited repertoire of atheist arguments that are here (e.g. The Bible is fiction, Christians are brainwashed, there’s no scientific proof for God, Miracles are like Unicorns – both have the same likelihood of existing, etc.)

It's ironic mentioning ignorance of various things when some Christians are clearly guilty of that themselves. Just step on over to the Science and Religion subforum for a clear display. I have no problem admitting ignorance on many things and willing to see evidence that removes said ignorance. However when people makes claims and can't back them up, the people asking for evidence can hardly be accused of the ignorance.

[Divine Insight]

There are a couple of problems I see on this board.
Most atheist/other skeptic criticisms:

• are based upon criticism of 20th/21st Century Evangelical Christianity,

Well that group certainly wouldn't include me. In fact, I give 20th/21st Century Evangelical Christianity zero credibility and attention.

The only "Christianity" that I'm even interested in discussing is the Christianity that is based upon the Bible including both the Old and New Testaments. As far as I'm concerned as soon as a person moves away from that and starts talking about some "New Age Christianity" they have already conceded that the original religion has no merit.

In fact, Christians who want to talk about "non-literal" interpretations of the Bible have already conceded that they too literally reject the Bible.

~~~~~~

In fact, when it comes to "evangelism" of any kind I find that to be utterly absurd.

Why? Well, evangelism can only suggest that both Yahweh and Jesus failed as teachers/communicators and that our "salvation" is now in the hands of human evangelists.

I hold that this makes no sense because it would violate the concept of a God who has a system of "Perfect Justice". With evangelism our fate and judgement would not be based solely on Jesus or Yahweh, but instead whether we are "saved" or "condemned" would fall on the shoulders of the human evangelists. If a human evangelist failed to convince me of what it takes to obtain salvation in this religion I will be condemned to hell. If they succeed, then I obtain everlasting life in heaven. Apparently this take God entirely out of the picture. My fate will not be determined by Jesus or God, but rather by how well a human evangelist might perform.

Finally think of the oxymoron in this. If a human evangelist was able to convince me of something that neither Yahweh or Jesus were capable of convincing me through their Holy Book, that would then necessarily make the human evangelist a SUPERIOR teacher/communicator to both Jesus and Yahweh.

Surely you can see the absurdity in that?

So Christian evangelism is utterly absurd from square one.

I don't see where this religion has a "Prayer in Hell" of being true to use a religious phrase.

If there were any truth to it, both Yahweh and Jesus would have been convincing on their own. But they clearly aren't in my case. Therefore this religion cannot possibly be true.

Paul's words also turn out to be verifiable lies. Because according to Paul in Romans chapter 1 if I reject the knowledge of this God I am supposed to be given over to reprobate mind and be all the horrible things that Paul proclaims a person who rejects his God must be. I know for certain that Paul's claims are as false as can be. I'm none of the things that he claims I should be for having rejected his religion and its "God".

So there's simply no room for the Bible to be true. Never mind any modern day "interpretations" or apologetic excuses for this ancient collection of superstitious tales.

There is nothing you can do to resurrect this dead mythology. It has already proven itself to be as false as it can be.

[Talishi]

In fact, Christians who want to talk about "non-literal" interpretations of the Bible have already conceded that they too literally reject the Bible.

When someone says, for example, "Jesus didn't return physically in 1914 as predicted by the scriptures, he returned spiritually," then I have literally nothing to debate with them. We are in agreement that Jesus didn't return physically in 1914 as predicted by the scriptures. We are in agreement that the scriptures were wrong. As for the spiritual stuff who knows? There's no tangible evidence either way. It's like saying the election is rigged.

[JLB32168]

In the future kindly present complaints about the Forum and its members in this thread to avoid derailing other threads with personal issues.

The Thread was entitled “Arguing from Ignorance� and the question being debated asked “How is it possible that they think that there is someone who has not heard the gospel? Is this belief correct, or are those opposed to Christianity well informed about Christianity?�

Given the predisposition for most skeptic posts to reflect theologies exclusive to 20th/21st Century Evangelical Christianity (something apparently not disputed by one *ahem* who said, “Does that come as a surprise when we debate in the 21st Century and when Evangelical Christians are prominent / vocal / attention-grabbing representatives of Christianity,� another wonders how anyone could dispute the lack of knowledge of other confessions (or how it wasn’t germane to the question being asked.)

Many Non-Theists ask over and over WHICH parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and which are not – AND a consistent means by which anyone can determine which is which.

That’s a different question. The fact remains that most skeptic arguments are directed towards slavishly literal interpretations of the Bible and theists who don’t subscribe to those types of interpretations are “backpedaling.� That strongly suggests that atheists are completely ignorant of ancient Christian Fathers who held that these things weren’t taken literally and they advocated this in a time when slavish literalness would pass w/o protest. (also germane to the OP)

The OT comprises about 75% of the Bible. Modern Christians seem to revere parts of it and dismiss other parts – on a whim or by opinion / personal preference.

Again – that’s not the question before us. The question address the habitual parading of the command to destroy the peoples of Canaan – how immoral it was, in spite of the fact that the peoples were able to convert and escape punishment – even though the reasons they were being exterminated were many, the least of which involved burning infants alive – something that skeptics are apparently ignorant of or deliberately exclude (and of course is related to the OP.)

Is this to say that those who were willing to abandon their beliefs and accept Judaism would be spared?

Yup – abandon your belief that demands you burn your kids alive and we won’t kill you. Persist in a belief that demands burning your kids alive and *KhhhT!* [insert pointer finger being swiftly drawn across the neck] Again, no non-theist seems to be aware of this.

Demonizing the opposition is a common tactic and is used as justification for genocide.

So cite the text when it’s expedient to and chuck it when it isn’t?

Was slavery of conquered people condoned?

Yup – but it couldn’t have been very successful given all of the loopholes the deity gave slaves. It would seem that the only ones who remained slaves were ones who actually wanted to remain slaves. Again, no skeptic (and not a few theists) don’t seem to know that. (Yes, this touches ignorance and is germane to the OP.)

Again, is it surprising that westerners are less familiar with eastern religions?

No – it’s not surprising that they’re ignorant of Eastern Orthodoxy – ignorance and its role in rejecting Christianity being the title of the thread and clearly spelled out in the OP.

And yet my post was removed as non-germane rambling (hence my charge that moderation was arbitrary, capricious, and partisan).

[Divine Insight]

Many Non-Theists ask over and over WHICH parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and which are not – AND a consistent means by which anyone can determine which is which.

That’s a different question. The fact remains that most skeptic arguments are directed towards slavishly literal interpretations of the Bible and theists who don’t subscribe to those types of interpretations are “backpedaling.� That strongly suggests that atheists are completely ignorant of ancient Christian Fathers who held that these things weren’t taken literally and they advocated this in a time when slavish literalness would pass w/o protest. (also germane to the OP)

I reject this argument because I see it as nothing more than denial on the part of the Christian theologians. There are also major hypocrisies associated with this view. The Christian apologists want to deny a "literal" interpretation of scriptures whilst simultaneously demanding very precise "non-literal" interpretations. And all of this is often done in a futile effort on their part to try to make the scriptures seem plausible, but the fact of the matter is that even with their non-literal arguments they still end up with extremely self-contradictory dogma.

Besides, forget abut the so-called "Christian Fathers". What about Jesus? What do the gospels have him saying on the matter? He says that not one jot or one tittle shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass. Therefore Jesus himself supports strict literal fundamentalism. At least concerning what the laws ought to be.

The OT comprises about 75% of the Bible. Modern Christians seem to revere parts of it and dismiss other parts – on a whim or by opinion / personal preference.

Again – that’s not the question before us. The question address the habitual parading of the command to destroy the peoples of Canaan – how immoral it was, in spite of the fact that the peoples were able to convert and escape punishment – even though the reasons they were being exterminated were many, the least of which involved burning infants alive – something that skeptics are apparently ignorant of or deliberately exclude (and of course is related to the OP.)

I've heard all the apologies for this and I reject them all. It doesn't even matter if you think you can make a case for why God would have valid reasons for eliminating the Canaanites. That's not even the problem actually. The problem I have with the story of the Canaanites is extremely complex.

First off, if this omnipotent omniscient God knew that the Canaanites were irredeemable then why did he continue to place new baby souls in the wombs of the Canaanite women?

This God could have easily eliminated the Canaanites himself by simply causing them to become sterile and no longer capable of procreating. The very idea that a God who doesn't want his Chosen People to be killing other people would allow the Canaanites to interfere with his Master Plan is absurd.

These stories claim that this God caused his own "Chosen People" to wander around aimlessly in a desert for 40 years! Something that only a God could have caused people to do. Any half-way intelligent person could have walked out of that desert in only a couple of years by simply always walking in the same direction. Instead this God had them wandering around in circles for 40 years apparently in a state of utter stupidity and delusion.

In the meantime the Canaanites where living on the real estate that God himself had planned to be the "Promised Land" of his Chosen People. Why didn't this God have the Canaanite settle somewhere else? Or simply let them die out due to having become sterile?

The idea that a God would just let the Canaanites live on the "Promised Land" until his "Chosen People" arrived and then require that his Chosen People VIOLATE his own commandment of "Thou Shalt not Kill" and instead commit complete and absolute genocide including killing babies and women is, IMHO, absolute nonsense.

I don't care how "non-literal" you try to make this story, or how "evil" you want to claim the Canaanites might have been, this God is WITHOUT EXCUSE to deal with this problem in the way the Bible claims.

This event was clearly nothing more than one culture using religion and their imaginary made-up God as justification for committing genocide on another tribe to STEAL their land. This was no "Promised Land" promised by any God.

This Biblical story is simply indefensible. Yet as a Christian you are stuck in the impossible situation of having to try to justify it in an effort to "save" this ancient mythology. A mythology that clearly cannot be the actions of an all-wise omnipotent God.

Again, is it surprising that westerners are less familiar with eastern religions?

No – it’s not surprising that they’re ignorant of Eastern Orthodoxy – ignorance and its role in rejecting Christianity being the title of the thread and clearly spelled out in the OP.

Yet more proof that Christianity is inconsistent and utterly absurd.

This religion was originally supposed to be about morality and moral responsibility. But today with Christianity ignorance has dominated morality. In Christianity today a person is condemned based on ignorance of the religion, rather than on moral integrity or personal character.

Christianity is an indefensible religion. It's been beat to death so hard by its own apologists that there's nothing left to beat.

It is often said that defending Christianity is like beating a dead horse. But in truth it's more like beating the spot where a dead horse had once died and has since become nothing more than dust.

[JLB32168]

Unless our debate opponents declare themselves followers of some earlier or other type of Christianity, what do you expect? It seems to be the 21st century Evangelicals that are most vocal and opinionated so that is what we discuss.

If one rejects Christianity based upon 21st century Evangelicalism, then it is well w/in someone else’s right to ask, “Are you ignorant of other forms of Christianity?� It’s been my experience that this is the case.

If you feel misrepresented during a discussion, why not just declare your flavor of Christianity and figure out where you agree and/or disagree?

That’s what I did on a thread asking if skeptics reject Christianity out of ignorance and my initial post was move here as though it were non-germane rambling (a quite partisan decision if you ask me.)

I think the real issue is being selectively literal and this selection is a moving target. When cornered on what exactly should be literal and what shouldn't there are either conflicting answers or silence.

I’ll give you a reason. Assuming the Christian deity exists and directs the Church, the believer defers to her instruction on what is supposed to be literal and what isn’t – at least that’s how the Eastern Orthodox Church does it.

Well, that's certainly one easy target, but hardly the only one.

It’s the most popular one on this website. The second most popular is the ridiculousness of a 20th Century Fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis.

So convert or die is somehow a 'good' option?

Yes – stop throwing your infants into the fire and embrace Judaism, which condemns such abhorrent practices, or maintain your odious beliefs that demand such things and be put to the sword. Do you have a problem with threatening people with death if they refuse to stop throwing their infant boys and girls into the fire?

Wait a minute, kill most of the people including the babies to stop the baby killing... Hmm, something wrong with that argument that I can't put my finger on.

Yes – the believer finds such decisions to be inscrutable, but Christian theology – at least Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox –teaches that such infants would not have their souls condemned.

So if they manage to break free they're safe. Great.

“If they manage to break free� [??] – do you have evidence that they were chained to a stake driven into the ground? Aside from that, what proof do you have that slavery is wrong?

It's ironic mentioning ignorance of various things when some Christians are clearly guilty of that themselves. Just step on over to the Science and Religion subforum for a clear display.

Yes but I’m talking about apparent ignorance of other forms of Christianity (or even their own) as evidenced by their failure to mention any belief as interpreted by, for example, Eastern Orthodoxy.

[JLB32168]

I reject this argument because I see it as nothing more than denial on the part of the Christian theologians.

You reject the argument that most skeptics are directed towards slavishly literal interpretations or do you reject the argument that when a theist doesn’t subscribe to such an interpretation s/he’s accused of backpedaling, or do you reject the argument that even some of the ancient Church fathers did not think Genesis was supposed to be taken literally even though people would have had little problem accepting that it was since there was no science against it? If it isn’t one of those arguments you’re rejecting then you’re rejecting an argument you’ve invented in your head.

There are also major hypocrisies associated with this view.

Hypocrisy is the pretense to high morals or principles while practicing the opposite. Your use of it in this context makes no sense.

Besides, forget abut the so-called "Christian Fathers". What about Jesus? What do the gospels have him saying on the matter?

What do the Gospels say about Creation, which is what we’re discussing? It says creation happened and God did it and that’s all it says about creation. Are you actually reading my post?

He says that not one jot or one tittle shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass. Therefore Jesus himself supports strict literal fundamentalism.

You left out “til all be fulfilled.�
From the cross, Christ said, “It is finished� which in Greek is actually, “It is consummated,� which is even how the Latin translators rendered it. Consummated=Fulfilled. Your interpretation of this passage is based upon your butchering of the passage.

I've heard all the apologies for this and I reject them all.

Pick one apology. Explain why you reject it.

First off, if this omnipotent omniscient God knew that the Canaanites were irredeemable then why did he continue to place new baby souls in the wombs of the Canaanite women?

Do you mean “Why did God allow women to bear children?� I don’t know why. Of course, since not all of them were destroyed if their parents converted. What does this have to do with the Hebrews exterminating them because they threw their infant boys and girls into the fire?

These stories claim that this God caused his own "Chosen People" to wander around aimlessly in a desert for 40 years!

And this is apparently bad because . . . why? Is being nomadic a bad thing?

This event was clearly nothing more than one culture using religion and their imaginary made-up God as justification for committing genocide on another tribe to STEAL their land.

But the atheist opinion is that the Hebrews were never in Egypt and were in fact a part of those people. Furthermore, the further view is that Moses didn’t write this stuff but later generations who wouldn’t have been around wrote it – people who didn’t do these things but said their ancestors did. The amount of ire you have for a deity you don’t think exists for committing atrocities you don’t (or shouldn’t think) happened seems odd. Such wrath strikes me more as one trying to talk him/herself into disbelief.

Yet more proof that Christianity is inconsistent and utterly absurd.

People have different ideas on minor points and this shows something is false. That has no logic in it whatsoever.

In Christianity today a person is condemned based on ignorance of the religion, rather than on moral integrity or personal character.

What in the world are you talking about?? The two largest Churches – the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox teach that one cannot be saved w/o doing good works for their neighbors. That is by definition moral integrity and personal character.

Your post is in the right place – random ramblings.

[benchwarmer]

Unless our debate opponents declare themselves followers of some earlier or other type of Christianity, what do you expect? It seems to be the 21st century Evangelicals that are most vocal and opinionated so that is what we discuss.

If one rejects Christianity based upon 21st century Evangelicalism, then it is well w/in someone else’s right to ask, “Are you ignorant of other forms of Christianity?� It’s been my experience that this is the case.

Well, only speaking for myself, I'm a former Christian that dabbled in a few Protestant flavors and finally settled on Roman Catholicism. I readily admit I'm not familiar with ALL forms of Christianity, that would take a lifetime as there are so many different ones. However, I am familiar with many.

I think the real issue is being selectively literal and this selection is a moving target. When cornered on what exactly should be literal and what shouldn't there are either conflicting answers or silence.

I’ll give you a reason. Assuming the Christian deity exists and directs the Church, the believer defers to her instruction on what is supposed to be literal and what isn’t – at least that’s how the Eastern Orthodox Church does it.

Right, some believers defer to their church leadership, others defer to their own interpretations. Like I said, moving target from a non believers point of view. However, I can see your point if only discussing something with a particular believer that defers all interpretation to the church.

So convert or die is somehow a 'good' option?

Yes – stop throwing your infants into the fire and embrace Judaism, which condemns such abhorrent practices, or maintain your odious beliefs that demand such things and be put to the sword. Do you have a problem with threatening people with death if they refuse to stop throwing their infant boys and girls into the fire?

Yes I do have a problem if I'm the one required to put people to the sword, including people who are not taking part in the abhorrent practices. When the only people you don't put to the sword are female virgins, don't you think something else might be going on here? If God is really in control, why doesn't He deal with this problem Himself using any number of far superior methods which only target the actual people causing the problem? Is the story maybe not just a justification for a land grab and taking young girls to be your play things? God said to do it, so it must be ok.

Wait a minute, kill most of the people including the babies to stop the baby killing... Hmm, something wrong with that argument that I can't put my finger on.

Yes – the believer finds such decisions to be inscrutable, but Christian theology – at least Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox –teaches that such infants would not have their souls condemned.

Now you are talking about a completely separate issue and sidestepping the initial problem. You yourself said throwing babies into fires is abhorrent. Running them through with swords isn't?

So if they manage to break free they're safe. Great.

“If they manage to break free� [??] – do you have evidence that they were chained to a stake driven into the ground? Aside from that, what proof do you have that slavery is wrong?

Did I say they were chained to a stake driven into the ground? No I didn't so you are taking a common phrase 'break free' and twisting it to put words in my mouth. So you tell me, how were the slaves kept as slaves? Were they politely asked to work for their masters and at the first refusal let go on their way? Evidence?

What proof do I have slavery is wrong? What proof do you have throwing babies into fires is wrong?

It's ironic mentioning ignorance of various things when some Christians are clearly guilty of that themselves. Just step on over to the Science and Religion subforum for a clear display.

Yes but I’m talking about apparent ignorance of other forms of Christianity (or even their own) as evidenced by their failure to mention any belief as interpreted by, for example, Eastern Orthodoxy.

I think everyone is aware there are multiple forms of Christianity, just maybe not intimately familiar with each's peculiarities/details.

I think maybe you are trying to say that we shouldn't lump all Christians into one bucket and assume they all believe the same things. Well, I don't. I try to focus on each debate participant individually based on what they say. If they say Genesis describes creation, then that is what I go after. If they say it is just a nice story, then there is nothing to debate with me is there?