Four questions for Christians

[pineapplebunnybounce]

The point I've been trying to make is that religions are subject to unchanging moral codes, which are interpretations of the natural law. The irreligious don't have these, rather they rely on their natural moral compasses and governmental laws. Moral compasses can be overridden, and laws can be changed.

I'm done with you on this topic. It's a waste of time. You admitted that morals are subject to evolution, and now you back step to only religions are. Look. Whatever. Think whatever you like. You've danced back and forth and back and forth and your stance has changed more than 10 times in this whole discussion on where morals come from, congratulations, you wore me out, and i will not repeat arguments just because you want to sound like you won the last exchange.

You can't defend slavery if you are kidnapping or buying free people. Perhaps, if you captured hostile armies in war, it wouldn't be anything worse than what's been done to them before, BUT Christ taught forgiveness of enemies later in the NT, contrary to the common OT practice. You'd be left with the people who willingly sell themselves to you to pay off money they owe you.

Willingly sell themselves to you? Slavery is ok if someone is willing to sell themselves to you? Well. Modern laws once again comes up with better morals than your bible. I find it amazing that anyone is willing to defend this sort of thing. It's almost sickening.

Slavery in the NT was Roman, so the only crime you can accuse the Bible of then was God's not striking down the Emperor on his throne and making former slaves declare war on their evil masters. Abolitionism at the time of the early church wasn't even mentioned, because sparking slave riots against the Roman Empire didn't fit the newfound Christian ideas of non-materialism and peace.

I hate this about religion. Peace? No it's not peace, it's called oppression. That's, btw, what the muslims mean to when they say theirs is a religion of peace. As long as you play by their oppressive rules. So slaves have to be kept slaves to prevent wars and skirmishes? That's called oppression.

The man who said "don't worry about freedom" was the apostle Paul, a traveling preacher who earned a living making tents. He didn't own slaves, so why would he want to subjugate the small congregations he preached to? To keep them under the control of whom? The Roman government that later beheaded him?

This is easy, because he isn't enlightened enough to see that slavery was wrong. I'm not saying he intentionally wants to keep people in his power. I just mean that it can be used to defend slavery. Just say to slaves, yea don't worry, just be a good christian, don't bother escaping, when you die you can go to heaven, which i just think exists but have no evidence of. That's an awful thing to say. For anyone. Even someone who doesn't own slaves.

In your Bible passage, the man is also given a responsibility, which you didn't mention:
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself." Ephesians 5:25-28
"7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers." 1 Peter 3:7

As I explained, the authority of the husband in ancient households was emphasized because his wife relied on him for protection. It's like you and a police officer. The government does not make exceptions for either the officer or you, but you must respect and obey him, because he is your protector.

And if you are still going to accuse the Bible of anything, let it be inconsistency, because there is no discrimination here:
"3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife." 1 Corinthians 7:3-4

you didn't read properly again. I said that one passage is enough for me. Nothing can make up for that. you see, when you tell me that a book is written by a perfect being, i hold it to a higher standard. And doesn't one of your quotes says the wife is the weaker partner? Please tell me you know that physically and mentally, that is scientifically wrong. But it doesn't surprise me because your god isn't very good at science.

And, lol, consistency? And the bible? Yea, right.