Is Christianity Inherently Supportive Of Slavery And Misogyny?

[Mashmont]

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"

Of course I discuss in good faith.  I took on each of your points   It's just that you disagree.  And my SN is "Mashmont".  Please do not slur it.  Thanks.

---

Do you have evidence of your claim that these things are not consequences of sex outside of marriage?  Because I can point to a huge correlation.   Start with the urban black community.

I said these are not Inherent consequences of sex outside. You can point to a simplistic correlation and nothing else. Sorry that dogs don't hunt, And American blacks are a unique group with lots of unique problems thus are not valid as a sample of a general principle.

How specifically are American blacks not valid as a sample that sex outside marriage leads to the negative consequences I listed?

[no one]

Someone's talking out their mashhole.

[Angrboda]

Great.  An assertion that you can't back up.  Got any other unsupported assertions you'd like to get off your chest?

It's so silly and obvious,  no citation is needed.  Not that you want one anyway.

Oh, what the hell.  From the left's bible, Slate:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/04/white-working-class-women-should-stay-single-mothers-argue-the-authors-of-marriage-markets-how-inequality-is-remaking-the-american-family.html

The article you've cited points out that some women in certain circumstances might prefer one thing, whereas other women in different circumstances might prefer something else. In no way is that an endorsement of one or the other, they are simply describing how things are. That isn't advocacy, and it certainly isn't saying that single motherhood in general, all things being equal, is preferable to the alternative. Moreover, the authors' feminism is entirely incidental to their points; a non-feminist could equally make the same points, so this isn't a feminist position.

So your point is still unsupported.

[The Architect Of Fate]

How specifically are American blacks not valid as a sample that sex outside marriage leads to the negative consequences I listed?

Do really need to go over the unique historic and contemporary social issues black Americans face in terms of family structure and domestic issues ?. I clearly overestimated your knowledge base

---

It's so silly and obvious,  no citation is needed.  Not that you want one anyway.

Oh, what the hell.  From the left's bible, Slate:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/04/white-working-class-women-should-stay-single-mothers-argue-the-authors-of-marriage-markets-how-inequality-is-remaking-the-american-family.html

The article you've cited points out that some women in certain circumstances might prefer one thing, whereas other women in different circumstances might prefer something else.  In no way is that an endorsement of one or the other, they are simply describing how things are.  That isn't advocacy, and it certainly isn't saying that single motherhood in general, all things being equal, is preferable to the alternative.  Moreover, the authors' feminism is entirely incidental to their points; a non-feminist could equally make the same points, so this isn't a feminist position.

So your point is still unsupported.

Did he even read the source?

[vulcanlogician]

They set people on fire because they disagreed on theological details.

If your commandment is "do unto others" and you wind up setting people aflame for disagreement on opinion... then it seems like you aren't trying. That's not trying then failing. That's failing and then saying you're succeeding better than anyone else.

And if anyone disagrees... set them on fire!

What year was this?  I thought you said 'contemporary'.   This was not and is not teaching of the Catholic Church or Jesus.  Your beef is with folks long ago who were acting decidedly AGAINST church teaching.

You said the word contemporary but then you said HISTORICALLY. Then you said HISTORICALLY yet again. You're the getting the two mixed up in the same thought. When you talk about one distinctly from the other, I can respond in kind.

[Mashmont]

It's so silly and obvious,  no citation is needed.  Not that you want one anyway.

Oh, what the hell.  From the left's bible, Slate:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/04/white-working-class-women-should-stay-single-mothers-argue-the-authors-of-marriage-markets-how-inequality-is-remaking-the-american-family.html

That isn't advocacy, and it certainly isn't saying that single motherhood in general, all things being equal, is preferable to the alternative.  Moreover, the authors' feminism is entirely incidental to their points; a non-feminist could equally make the same points, so this isn't a feminist position.

So your point is still unsupported.

And what was the article's title again? 

"Just Say No"

[The Architect Of Fate]

And what was the article's title again? 

"Just Say No"

Wait you judge an article by its title and not its contents?

[Angrboda]

That isn't advocacy, and it certainly isn't saying that single motherhood in general, all things being equal, is preferable to the alternative.  Moreover, the authors' feminism is entirely incidental to their points; a non-feminist could equally make the same points, so this isn't a feminist position.

So your point is still unsupported.

And what was the article's title again? 

"Just Say No"

And that changes what exactly? The subtitle of the article simply underscores my point.

[Mashmont]

And what was the article's title again? 

"Just Say No"

Wait you judge an article by its title and not its contents?

You said it wasn't an advocacy piece, which it was.  So again, why would they use an advocacy title if it wasn't an advocacy article?

[The Architect Of Fate]

You said it wasn't an advocacy piece, which it was.  So again, why would they use an advocacy title if it wasn't an advocacy article?

Again did you even read it?