Church Is Not Enough?

Which scientist proposed that? Your Godwin's law invoking, Eva Braun reference is ridiculous. Who gives a hoot that Braun loved Hitler. Some women love evil men because the women themselves are evil. Rape is nearly universally regarded as evil. Only a few psychopaths have a moral code that says otherwise.

Is it your argument that the word "Natural" and "Biological" in the title implies that the authors have taken the position that rape is not evil? Are you surprised that I find that position inane? Your have no point. Regardless of our purpose or lack of purpose here, we can reach the conclusion that harming each other is evil.Yes, you could have used Stalin instead of the Nazis, but to no better effect. You don't have to be a Christian to understand that murder is evil.I'll note that the Bible takes a fairly tolerant view on slavery, even endorsing slavery on occasion. Is slavery really evil, or do I need to take some historical context into account? How is that not relativism of the most odious order.

Yes. The logical basis for considering your conclusion to be unsupported is that authors do not make any claim that rape is not evil. If you believe that to be wrong, you need to show it using excerpts from the book. The book's title does not support your claim. It is indeed inane to reach your conclusion from the book's title. Yes, there are a number of logical reasons to reach that conclusion. For example, the conclusion that murder, theft, and mistreating one's neighbor are evil can be reached by looking at the consequences for society or even the individual provided that considerations other than immediate gratification are taken into account. I'll agree that we cannot reach a conclusion to keep the Sabbath using that type of reasoning. "American style" ?? Americans did not invent chattel slavery.Have you ever actually read the Bible?Given that your claim that the Biblical slavery means indentured servitude is demonstrably wrong, you don't get off with that response. There are several types of slavery endorsed in the Bible including types involving ownership and beatings. For example:Exodus 21:20-21

quote:

---

20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

​

21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

---

Leviticus 25:44-46

quote:

---

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

​

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

​

46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

---

Are those verses talking about indentured servitude? If you don't want to call the system endorsed in those verses slavery, is it fair to say that they do describe an evil, abhorrent practice?And on the topic of pillaging and raping:Numbers 31:17-18

quote:

---

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

​

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

---

How do you accept that those things were "okay" in ancient Hebrew culture?

Exactly. Apparently having a purpose is no impediment to relativism. I find it interesting that you are unable to say that slavery is evil. Did not the Hebrews have a purpose? Are you suggesting that if I accept evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, that I also endorse the idea that strong men should dominate the weak? As it turns out, I don't endorse that idea. But yes, survival of the fitest is the law of animals in the jungle.

Well let's lock down the type of slavery. I'm referring to slavery as described in the Bible verses I referenced. The type involving beatings nearly to the death. The type the Bible says God told the Hebrews to practice on the people they conquered and cited in my previous post.But perhaps you've already answered the question. You think that some versions of slavery are just peachy.

So you acknowledge that you are fully aware of the type of slavery that I am talking about and that it is not indentured servitude. Yet you refuse to condemn the practice.You should not expect me to find your future arguments based on relativism the least bit credible.Further with respect to raping and pilaging, the passage cited included instructions on how to proceed. As if that were anything but a duck the question strategy on your part

Yes, it is my fault, I suppose. In my zeal to skewer an inconsistency in a poster's reasoning, I pursued a point far off on the periphery. Sorry about that.