Four questions for Christians

[Consilius]

As for religious texts, I was referring to humanity as a whole, and possibly primary sources other than the Bible. In the face of injustice, there will always be the religious to advocate for the right. Most of the abolitionists were Christian and used Christian propaganda in the abolition of slavery.

Strangely enough, those that were fighting for slavery also thought god was on their side, and in their case they actually had explicit scripture telling them it was okay to own slaves.

I mean, I'm sure there were religious folks on both sides of the issue, given that religion is multiple choice that's almost a guaranteed thing, but let's not go about pretending that these religious texts are a source of morality that led them to the morally correct outcome, least of all in situations where the actual words therein say the exact opposite.

Because you think that there is gender inequality in the Christian Old Testament doesn't allow you to conclude that the Bible says women are worth less than men.

What else would you conclude from that fact, though?

The slavers used the Bible as a defense of slavery. It was not an incentive or a factor.
The curse of Ham (Genesis 9:25-28), a common defense, wasn't valid. The curse was on Ham's son, Canaan, ancestor of the Canaanites, who were enslaved by the Israelites. The people of Africa are said to descend from a later son of Ham, who was not cursed.
Slavery in the Bible as a whole is a wide topic. In general, slaves were either hostile peoples or people who became slaves to pay off debts. St. Paul told Roman slaves to be content as they were and care more about their spiritual lives than their political status (1 Corinthians 7:21-22). That's all I'm going to say on that.

The inconstancy of religious morals comes from changes in interpretation rather than in changing of the nature of the law itself, which can't be changed. There are some issues in how the Bible is interpreted, but much of the rest is set in stone because of things like papal infallibility.

On women in the Bible, I think that conclusions made about what the Bible says should come from biblical scholars or religious leaders rather than having ourselves as the final authority. We are all entitled to our opinions, but the Bible is still thousands of years old and has been translated and edited a million times. Chances are that you're going to run into something that's strange and get the wrong idea.
From what I know, in biblical times, especially those of the Exodus, women were easy to dominate and were in danger of being abused or misrepresented. Males would often be these offenders. This is why most homes needed an adult male around to keep women, children, and old people safe, making a male the head of a household and a representative of a family. A woman couldn't live alone because of the danger, so she lived with her parents until she had a man i.e. a husband to protect her. Keep this unique situation in mind compared to those of most women today when those Bible passages come up.

---

Well, I ALSO believe in gay marriage AND polygamy, so we have the same views here.
Of course, though, if gays are doing it for fun, it's far more disturbing to the Christian community than it is for others. I'm sure atheists never lifted a finger over the issue. We can say the CHRISTIAN community's gay ethic is changing.

If we all agree that we should lie to each other and betray our friends, it does NOT become OK. I feel that is a very dangerous thought. If it takes 50,000 Americans breaking the law for anarchy to reign, it is only because legislation can be changed at the will of the people. With morals, it is not the same. Why didn't the abolitionists think that slavery was OK when all of the slave routes were good and running? Slavery was never OK, no matter how many people thought it was for however long, and someone needed to put a stop to it and get us back on track. Human morality is like a self-repairing system.

As for religious texts, I was referring to humanity as a whole, and possibly primary sources other than the Bible. In the face of injustice, there will always be the religious to advocate for the right. Most of the abolitionists were Christian and used Christian propaganda in the abolition of slavery.
Because you think that there is gender inequality in the Christian Old Testament doesn't allow you to conclude that the Bible says women are worth less than men.

OMG! are you kidding me? why are we repeating the same thing again and again? I'm done with the slavery thing ok? People thought it was right, if you don't think it's right, that's your business. You cannot pretend as if everyone thought the same way as you do. Slavery was never OK? In whose point of view? Your god thought it was ok, it's in the bible. You are the one who doesn't think it's ok. People thought it was ok, that makes it ok for them.

I, again, am confused at what point you're trying to make. I said that an act that does not benefit the society, will eventually die out and be considered "immoral", despite everyone believing it was moral when they were doing it. You said I was wrong that everyone knows. But now you admit that they thought it was OK, but that because you don't think it's ok, then slavery was never ok for anybody?

And here you go again, you said religious texts, but now you're stretching that to all "religious people". This is not an acceptable stretch, because religious people can be influenced by things other than their religion. To pretend otherwise is also too simplistic a worldview. Plus, you'll have to answer for those who fought for slavery, as esquilax said, if religion wants to claim the responsibility. I did not say chinese old testament, I was referring to philosophers and thinkers that chinese quote like you christians quote the bible. Please read properly.

No, reading the bible allows me to conclude that your bible condones gender inequality.

The only thing, that has any power over what is moral and what is immoral, is evolution. Because if you do something that doesn't benefit the whole, that act cannot last long. Evolution is the one that has the final say. Not your religion.

It's also very interesting how you did not address the point i brought up about muslim countries, which are religious, by anyone's standards.

If you want a few tidbits on both slavery and women in the Bible, Esquilax has my reply.
What we think is OK does not change what is moral. Slavery may have been "moral" to the slavers, but never was moral. Slavery would be very beneficial right now in today's economy, but we refuse to do it. Morality is the natural law, and has been expressed by religions and governments. Morality does not exist as a tool. It is law that we must live by and cannot be changed. When we break that law, we suffer as a species. Like we evolved to the laws of physics and logic, we evolved to morals.

---

We thought the gays were gay on purpose, and were just messing around with us. Their persecution became socially acceptable, and still is in many parts of the world. Generally, those who have been informed of science confirming that gays are born gay, accepted them and apologized. If their not doing it on purpose, people who are different can be accepted as equal, and that is moral.

The issue of whether being gay is biological or a choice has only ever existed because Christians feel that they are entitled to discriminate if gay people do it by choice. Even if people choose to be gay, there's no rational justification for discriminating against gay people or denying them the rights you enjoy. Doing so is immoral.

If gay people were gay on purpose, that would fit the qualifications for a sin. They would have to be corrected, like drug addicts or liars.
Those who are against homosexuality today seek to scold and correct them. It's about the "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing. Few Christian communities actually discriminate against them.
And so, it's not the Christian community as a whole, but a few Christians who actually discriminate based on sexuality.