Is Christianity Inherently Supportive Of Slavery And Misogyny?

[Deesse23]

Nope, it doesn't. Sorry, but gotta stop your equivocations right here.
Treating people well is not the same as protecting them.


Men and women can't/shouldn't intermix without marriage?

Sure,
just like a man needs to be protected later in his life too, presumably when the wife is gone? Like with a cocoon of women? By marriage, as the RCC promotes it? How does the woman protect the man in marriage? Financially, like the husband protects the wife? Why should a woman need financial support in the first place?



What does, usually, connect atheism to marxism, for example?

Denmark abolished slavery in 1792, being the first country in Europe to do so.
The UK abolished slave trade in the British Empire in 1807.
The UK abolished slavery altogether in 1833.
The Congress of Vienna abolished transatlantic slave trade in 1814/15. That is: 200 European states, cities and other entities, with only the Ottoman Empire missing.
How early do you think the Vatican came out exactly, considering those facts?

What is bad about sex outside of marriage, by the way?

---

You haven't read your bible, have you?
You conveniently ignored the part where the bible specifically tells you where to buy your slaves, that the (non-Jewish slaves) are your property forever (you can pass them down to your children), tells you how much you can beat your slaves without getting punished, and it even tells you a loophole how to trick your fellow Jews into permanent slavery.

Oh, and indentured servitude, as your lame excuse is called, is immoral too. Arguing that your holy book is less immoral than something/someone else.....not really a good promotion, don't you think?

1.  In the family context,  treating people well and protecting them aren't all that different.  Silly to split hairs on that.
2.  Again, talking about family situation there, regarding the intermixing. Obviously.
3.  Why should an 80-year-old woman need financial support?  Hmm. Let's think.
4.  I guess what atheism and Marxism have in common is atheism.
5.  1839 was well ahead of the seminal Lincoln Douglas debates and nearly a quarter century before Emancipation Proclamation.  Good job Vatican!!
6.  Glad you agree biblical slavery was vastly different from modern colonial slavery. 

1. Nope, it's vastly different. There are countless ways to treat people well but not protect them. Stop equivocating.

2. I take that as a "yes". Very interesting to say the least.

3. How about addressing my point, instead of trying to move goalposts? In my last statement, did i ask "Why should a 80-year-old woman need financial support in the first place?". In your original post you didn't mention financially supporting 80y olds as well*.

4. So what?

5. Nice job of completely ignoring what i wrote, and then doubling down on your false claim. The fact that the US was even more backwards than the Vatican, that does not make the Vatican progressive. 

6. Nope, i never agreed to that, quite the contrary. You claimed this to avoid having to acknowledge the gross immorality of your holy book (that biblical slavery was different/better**) in your previous post, and i corrected you. You seem to think indentured servitude is a moral thing to do. Are you? Or why did you try to evade by pointing towards it?

Let's stop the conversation right here. You don't seem (able?) to conduct this conversation in good faith. You made it quite easy to expose your views, evasions, equivocations and distractions and that's all that's needed for everybody else to make up his/her mind of you and your beliefs. Its quite bizarre however, to see how someone seems to love to publicly parade around his dishonesty and ignorance.

*"As for women, the RCC elevates women.  Its seeks to surround women with protections, aka, a loving husband and family, with the accompanying support financially and otherwise."
**"In biblical times, people who could not pay their bills worked for a master until their debt was paid off"

7.  What's bad about sex outside marriage?  Nothing, if you like broken relationships, implying a commitment that doesn't exist,  fatherless children, children who fall into crime, poor single motherhood, women carrying an oversized burden, and perpetuation of more of the same.  Hey guys,  these time-honored God rules are there for a reason.  They WORK.

Nope they don't, never did.
Have you ever tried to figure how many people get divorced? Or would like to, but don't, for many reasons?
Ever counted the number of mistresses married guys had?
Have you ever tried to figure how many children are born as a result of being unfaithful in a marriage (aka fatherless children)?
What this obsession with (exclusively) the effects on and situation of the women involved?