patrick.net

there is nothing in christianity itself which directs its followers to deliberately massacre those who refuse to convert. such massacres were almost always reactions by governments to threats against their own power. the massacres of cathars were a political reaction to a threat to christian power.

Really? and Pope Innocent III was head of which countries government when he promised the nobles in northern france they could confiscate the cathars lands if the nobles would crusade against them?

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

don't be silly. you know full well that the legitimacy of every catholic government at the time of the cathars depended on the legitimacy of catholicism itself.

anti-catholic = anti-government at that time at place

www.youtube.com/embed/KXGE2eBUdlQ

damn, this woman is no fear of the truth.

Certainly the clerics of some religions have rallied their followers to do more harm than the clerics of other religions. However, the point is that the clerics should not have the power to rally the masses to commit genocide and other atrocities in the first place. What gives clerics this power is faith. Faith is the complete suspension of rational thought and is an essential aspect of any religion, by definition. Faith itself is inherently bad and dangerous as it allows huge numbers of people to be manipulated for evil purposes. You cannot separate religion from the vice of faith.

One might try to argue that faith can be used to persuade people to do good, but how stable is such a system? Historically, not very. The thing is that good actually works. Cooperation works better than killing your neighbors. So good does not need to use a tool as vile as faith. People can be persuaded to do good more consistently without faith and thus without the inevitable atrocities that are committed because of faith.

Faith and reason are mutually exclusive, by definition, and reason is a far better tool for promoting good. Reason is a constant force for good. Reason creates cumulative accomplishments. Reason exponentially improves the well-being of mankind. Reason, true reason, is resistant if not impervious to manipulation. Yes, people can use false reasoning to justify evil, but true reasoning ultimately defeats any flawed argument. This does not happen with faith. Bad ideas become doctrines regardless of the particular mythology or teachings or parabolas of a religion.

And even if you accept Christianity as good and Islam as bad, it is clear that Christianity cannot defeat Islam. Christianity has had over 1400 years to defeat Islam, and Islam is only getting stronger. Rationality, naturalism, agnosticism, and atheism has greatly diminished Christianity and will eventually wipe it out. The answer to Islam is no different. Rejection of all things supernatural and unprovable, and the acceptance of rational thought as the only basis of understanding the universe is the only way to defeat Islam and all future violent religions. It may be an uphill struggle, but look how successful this strategy has been for defeating Christianity.

Not even adjusted for population increases!

These graphs give us hope.

www.youtube.com/embed/RwUGSYDKUxU

damn, this woman is no fear of the truth.

She is 100% correct. However, all religions are intrinsically based on faith, which is the root problem. All religions require brain washing including all Christian religions. They all especially brainwash children. This is never a good thing. Children should never be exposed to religion, which is inherently brainwashing. Telling children about fictional entities as if they are real and distorting their sense of reality is a form of child abuse.

www.youtube.com/embed/LACyLTsH4ac

And no, this isn't just religious "extremists" in America. What the hell does extremist even mean? Isn't the belief that a fictitious sky daddy created the entire universe extreme in itself?

www.youtube.com/embed/pP1exRKwI48

I grew up in a Catholic community on the mid-atlantic coast. The Catholic schools were taught by nuns and Catholic lay teachers. Now, mid-atlantic Catholicism is probably the most palatable form of Christianity. It's the least violent. The churches, if not the Vatican, actually does help the poor. For the most part it's as tame as Christianity gets. But even in this, probably the best Christian society, children are taught absolutely ridiculous lies like
- you have a guardian angel looking over you
- if you pray to a patron saint, he or she will persuade god to help you
- everything that happens in your life, no matter how bad, is part of god's plan

It is ridiculous and dangerous to base any important decision on these lies. It does the children no good, and makes them worse decision makers as adults. Worse still, children are made to fear an eternal torture chamber called hell if they screw up. That's clear child abuse.

As for moral teachings, religion makes it impossible to question how morality works and to seek a deeper understanding of morality. Moral codes are simply handed to you to be obeyed blindly. We would be far better off teaching why some behavior is moral and other is immoral, teaching the consequences of those behaviors for both the individual and others affected by it. Then we would be promoting conscious moral decisions that would work in the real world where people encounter dilemmas all the time.

Religion holds back the understanding or morality by holding back reasoning and rationality.

I found an excellent video regarding religion, atheism, and morality. It's a 45 minute video, but at least watch the minute and change from 29:20 to 30:45. The woman in that part of the video expresses my point in this thread very eloquently and compellingly.

www.youtube.com/embed/s3lwG4MytSI

Unfortunately, PatNet has been very buggy with YouTube videos over the past month or so, and putting the time parameter in a video URL seems to break the site now.

Dan8267 says

She is 100% correct. However, all religions are intrinsically based on faith, which is the root problem. All religions require brain washing including all Christian religions. They all especially brainwash children. This is never a good thing. Children should never be exposed to religion, which is inherently brainwashing. Telling children about fictional entities as if they are real and distorting their sense of reality is a form of child abuse.

There is no problem with having faith in something and little kids are instinctive creatures who need strong leadership and often require metaphors or images for better understanding/coping at that early developmental point in their life. Fairy tales are not real but a purposeful and useful cornerstones of generations of different civilizations, religious or not. Religions do not require brainwashing, you can observe the universe as a scientist and believe that the laws you are observing are those of a higher power or deity (many of the best scientists were religious bit not dogmatic). Any narrative can be exploited as dogma, religious or not. You can clearly see this in all the atrocities committed by leninist/trotzkist/stalinist/socialist societies - not to forget the brutal reigns of Mao and the Khmer rouge - and you can see it now with political correctness and feminism, religion is completely unnecessary for irrational behavior. Religion can be replaced with many things, consumer cults, radical non-religious ideologies and even over-believing in science when the models are fuzzy. Many people live better and have a more positive impact on society due to their faith, and many don't. The jury of whether our society has changed for the better with the decline in religiousness is definitely still out and it's not looking that good. Which brings me back to the eternal battle of whether modern religious or non-religious societies have committed more atrocities (you have to start somewhere in modern times as if you go back far enough there were no non-religious societies).

Dan8267 says

curious2 says

You can say all the greatest civilizations of the ancient world were founded without Christianity, but your own chart showed the modern world has attained greater advancement, and all of the most advanced modern countries were founded with a Christian majority.

True, but does that mean the most advanced modern countries became great because of Christianity? All the most advanced modern countries practices slavery during the critical period of advancement from 1441 to 1865. How much greatness existed in these countries before 1441? If we're going by historic coincidence, shouldn't we attribute the rise of the great western nations to slavery instead of Christianity as the correlation is far tighter?

The correlation is weaker and the causal relationship more complex. As @Thunderlips11 has posted elsewhere, the Muslim countries took many slaves including from Europe. It brought them mainly more time to pound their own heads against the ground 5x/day and recite the same old books. Even today, most of the actual labor in "the land of the two holy places" is done by underpaid foreigners, often abused as badly as if they were slaves. Unlike Niall Ferguson, I don't attribute western success to protestant Christianity, but I do recognize the correlation, and the fact that Christianity permitted the rise that has occurred. In any event, I commented because you wrote that Christianity had infected our society. That reverses the chronology: our society, i.e. American society, formed in the context of a majority Christian culture. That isn't an endorsement of any particular religion, but it is a recognition that cultures with Christian majorities have permitted successes that no Islamic country has ever matched.

curious2 says

I do recognize the correlation, and the fact that Christianity permitted the rise that has occurred

Strange. My impression of western history is that society advanced despite, not because, of Christianity. Human anatomy was studied illegally against the church's law and the secular laws created by the religious. Galileo was threaten with burning at the stake. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for proposing there may be extraterrestrial life. The Scopes trial hindered the teaching of evolution for years and continues to resonate in many parts of the country. Pope John Paul II told Stephen Hawking not to study the universe beyond the Big Bang because that is the territory of god. Even today, how does Christianity allow us to study the evolutionary basis of morality, the morality of non-human species, and the moral obligations we have to other sentient beings on our planet like whales and dolphins?

The following is a long, but excellent video on why people believe in gods. The executive summary is that religion is the fast food of thought hijacking our evolutionary mechanisms for perverse purposes like the high fat, sugar, and salt concentration of fast food hijacks evolutionary mechanisms that solved problems in the Stone Age. The details in the video are superb.

www.youtube.com/embed/1iMmvu9eMrg

Dan8267 says

Galileo was threaten with burning at the stake. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for proposing there may be extraterrestrial life.

The difference between the two: Gallieo had rich buddies and highly place friends in the Church. Bruno was just a regular guy.

The two are fundamentally different religions: Christianity was for poor Roman Provincial peasants and landless farmers (later adopted by wealthy Roman Widows, and we know that Christianity had "Deaconnesses" in the beginning, in fact the first non-Christian letter about them confirms this fact) and give them hope of justice to the evil oppressors and goodness for the meek in the next world.

Islam was for desert raider-traders, to justify their assaults on farmers and others.

Dan8267 says

Human anatomy was studied illegally against the church's law and the secular laws created by the religious.

...studied by Leonardo DaVinci, most notably, most of whose notebooks were lost when they fell into the possession of a Catholic bishop. Ditto the writings of Aristarchos and Sappho, which remain now only in references by other authors whose writings did not contradict church doctrine. And of course the Vatican forced Galileo to recant heliocentrism, on his knees, on pain of death. (DaVinci also suggested heliocentrism, 30 years before Copernicus.) But here's the real question: who else fared better? Your own charts show that 80% of humans believe in a religion. You can call it a waste of time, an enemy of reason, whatever you want, but the question remains. So far, Christianity has proven either the best or the least bad, depending on whether you choose to see the glass half empty or half full. That doesn't make geocentrism accurate, but at least the Vatican apologized eventually and established an observatory. Muslims have never renounced any part of the Koran, much less apologized for what it says. To the contrary, criticizing Islam (aka blasphemy) remains a capital offense per Sharia, as Asia Bibi might someday tell you if Islamic Pakistan ever releases her alive instead of executing her.

Dan8267 says

Unfortunately, PatNet has been very buggy with YouTube videos over the past month or so, and putting the time parameter in a video URL seems to break the site now.

yeah, had to make it much more restrictive after someone started abusing iframes, dan.

curious2 says

American society, formed in the context of a majority Christian culture

That's why it's called Christendom, along with Western Europe.

Dan8267 says

all religions are intrinsically based on faith,

So is atheism.

FortWayne says

Most parents don't want to have children exposed to homosexuality

Who are you talking abot? USA? Which region?

yeah, had to make it much more restrictive after someone started abusing iframes, dan.

So Dan was the offender?

Jizya [a penalty tax for the non-Muslims living under Islamic rules]

I always thought that jizya was what make in practice Islam better than Christians. Whatever the theory was, we Chistianity didn't have a scape valve to tolerate the other tribe. We just had to kick them out.

yeah, had to make it much more restrictive after someone started abusing iframes, dan.

P N Dr Lo R says

So is atheism.

Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.

www.youtube.com/embed/j4PaFqc8sRU

Claiming that atheism is based on faith is utterly stupid and disingenuous. Such a claim is an admission that faith is a vice as the claim is an attempt to discredit atheism on the false basis that it is based on faith.

If atheism is a faith then my property is a place of faith and thus must be exempt from taxes. Until that happens, you have no case that atheism is a faith.

curious2 says

But here's the real question: who else fared better?

There are four doors before you. Behind the first door is a lion that wants to eat you. 30% of people went through this door and got eaten. Behind the second door is an ISIS suicide bomber. 20% of the people went through this door and got blown up. Behind the third door is a madman. 50% of people went through this door and got tortured, but lived. Behind the fourth door is ten million dollars and Scarlett Johansson waiting to blow you. 0 people went through this door because no one realized it was an option.

Why would you not go through door number four?

Dan8267 says

If atheism is a faith then my property is a place of faith and thus must be exempt from taxes. Until that happens, you have no case that atheism is a faith.

Atheist don't even believe in themselves. You are right, Atheism isn't a faith.

If Atheists don't believe they are special or cosmically important other than an ambulatory bag of trace minerals, should it be legal to kill them? After all, their own argument makes their lives worthless, and further, their accomplishments meaningless.
I submit that it is only the belief in God of other people that keeps such people safe, since believers consider it a sin to destroy human life without great necessity.
When atheists like Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao, and Pol Pot come into power, they are unphased by ideas that human life is special or important because they believe it is most certainly not.
A good reason to marginalize crackpot perverts like Dan. Humanity has never fared well under their rule. Dan is destined to rule a cubicle with an iron fist. That's about all the responsibility he should be allowed.

Quigley says

After all, their own argument makes their lives worthless, and further, their accomplishments meaningless.

Well I don't believe their lives are worthless. They are, like everyone, made in the image of God, but they have the choice to reject Him. I've had two good friends for over a decade who are atheists of the Ayn Ryan objectivist variety, but it doesn't keep us from enjoying each other's company--they know I'm a Christian as well as our mutual friend Matt who is a Catholic. We share our common interest as record collectors and he's the founder and proprietor of radiodismuke.com which a critic in the UK last month judged one of the best online radio stations in existence. This past New Year's Eve we had a tenth anniversary of a six hour broadcast of playing records and making commentary.

reggie says

Atheist don't even believe in themselves.

You're right, they believe in the State, their highest source of benevolence. That's the main point Whittaker Chambers makes in his 1952 book Witness--the conflict between other systems is not economic, but whether or not you're going to worship God or man and under communism the choice is to worship man as the highest measure of existence. That's why atheists are almost always people of the left, the state is their highest source of everything.

ja says

I always thought that jizya was what make in practice Islam better than Christians. Whatever the theory was, we Chistianity didn't have a scape valve to tolerate the other tribe. We just had to kick them out.

actually, jews were tolerated (more or less) in europe right from the beginning of christianity for their literacy and their utility to the ruling classes, though repeatedly expelled from one country or another upon gaining too much economic power, always under some pretext. jews didn't try to convert or kill anyone. they just wanted to run their businesses and didn't really care what non-jews were up to.

islam is very different. it's a foreign army in religious clothing, explicitly dedicated to converting or killing their neighbors via armed conflict if they won't pay a ransom. how do you tolerate that?

the weakness in the west is that we attempt to tolerate it by ignoring the overtly violent political aspects inherent in islam from its beginning, and pretend islam is only about certain customs and prayers. that's a huge mistake.

it's a foreign army in religious clothing

that fights its enemies in the public square where people are going about their daily lives unarmed and helpless.

reggie says

Atheist don't even believe in themselves.

More nonsense from anti-atheist bigots. The religious can't stand reason.

P N Dr Lo R says

They are, like everyone, made in the image of God, but they have the choice to reject Him

1. Your false god is made in the image of man, not the other way around.

2. I have no more choice in disbelieving in your god than I have in disbelieving that George Washington rode a T-Rex in the Battle of Hasting while battling Nazis during the Boxer Rebellion to win America it's freedom from France. A rational person does not choose what he believes, he is compelled to believe by evidence and reasoning.

3. You are an atheist with respect to all other gods. You disbelieve in Thor, Zeus, Shiva, Animikii, and thousands of other gods. When you understand why you reject those gods, you will understand why I reject yours. Until then, you acceptance of your culture's god and rejection of all gods of other cultures is nothing more than bigotry and racism.

P N Dr Lo R says

You're right, they believe in the State, their highest source of benevolence.

More nonsense. If I believe in the state like you believe in your false god, then why do I call for prosecution of criminal cops so often? Why do propose rewriting the Constitution from scratch? Why do I not own a single flag? Why did I never pledge allegiance to the flag when all the other school kids did?

Stumbled on this because of another thread. It's awesome.

0.0% of Icelanders 25 years or younger believe God created the world, new poll reveals

40.5% of people who were 25 years or younger said they were atheists, and only 42% said they were Christian.

The poll found an even more dramatic difference between different generations when it probed how people believed the world had been created. Of those younger than 25 93.9% said the world had been created in the big bang and 0.0% believed God had created the world. 77.7% of those between 25 and 44 years old believed the world had been created in the big bang and 10.1% believed God had created the world. In all but the oldest age category a majority accepted the big-bang theory. Only 46.1% of those older than 55 believed in the big bang, and nearly a fourth, 24.5% believed God had created the world.

Rationality, atheism, jailing bankers, and hot women. If it weren't for the weather, I'd move to Iceland. Maybe I should give up on Florida and embrace global warming.

www.youtube.com/embed/wcW_Ygs6hm0

At least there's this to look forward to.

It's even cooler. The Pirate Party is slated to be a major party in the 2017 elections.

And that chick I told you about, she started a neoSumerian religion, in order to fight the religion support tax, and they rebate the income they receive from the government to their members in cash.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pirate_Party

I wish there were a Pirate Party in the U.S.

killing their neighbors via armed conflict if they won't pay a ransom. how do you tolerate that?

It's a fair tax for the inconviniences of having another religion living in your own home. You are internalizing an externalize. If you cannot do this, then you have to do all sorts of social engineering to accomodate the demands of the ruling class (segretate them, kick them out, saw a star on their clothes). I'd prefer ruling classes didn't impose make minorities to conform, but if they have to, capitalism (tax the problem) is the best option

Dan8267 says

Liberalism is a social, not economic, philosophy that advocates the following principles.
1. All people are equal under law.
2. We are a nation of rights, not privileges.
3. The purpose of government is to protect rights (from life to liberty to property).
4. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they are not violating the rights of others. Corollary: There should be no victimless crimes.

Principle 1: nothing specifically liberal about it, this was stated multiple times by the prophets of the Old Testament. Back then it was a huge breakthrough, now it is just a repetition.

Principle 2: the same.

Principle 3: this is, indeed, a socialist invention. Starting from Marx Socialism/Communism always saw the gov’t as a tool for people’s well-being, not a servant of the kings and nobility. Except you make one little mistake (which you repeat again in Principle 4). You mix liberal principles with libertarian ones. Liberal/Socialist principle is not equal rights but equal well-being which is enforced by confiscation and violation of the property rights.

Principle 4: again, this is a Libertarian principle. Liberals/socialists declare you a criminal if you a member of a “criminal class”. It is the *class struggle* that is a major socialist principle. Being rich is a crime in itself and all the *poor* are its victims.

The problem with modern liberalism is, it is still a young religion (~150yo). It believes in omnipotent and benevolent government that will solve all the problems, real and imaginary (just like Christians believe in God). Therefore, all the power should go to the Government because it represents the People (hint: it does not).

Judaism came up with the idea of limited government ~2200 years ago. Christianity ~500 years ago. Liberalism still has not.

Dan8267 says

Why would you not go through door number four?

That's a good question. If you look at history, can you cite any examples where groups of atheists set sail to found a new republic with no religion? America might be the closest to an example, with no official religion, but it remains a comparatively religious country; ironically, the countries that most Americans' ancestors emigrated from are actually less religious.

still1bear says

limited government

A very interesting analysis that also shows why most identitarian "conservative Christians" are neither conservative nor Christian.

Lastly, if I may bring the thread back to its original topic:

"Islamic State setting up terror training camps in Europe, police agency warns"

"EU Unveils New Anti-Terror Center
***
Europe faces the most significant terrorist threat in over 10 years.
***
Wainwright said over 5,000 EU nationals have been radicalized by fighting with Muslim extremists in Iraq and Syria, and that many have returned home.

"The current threat demands a strong and ambitious response from the EU," said Europol's chief."

Apparently, if you allow enemy fighters to travel back and forth across your borders, or actually subsidize their arrival, they become much more of a "threat" / expense / revenue opportunity.

Dan8267 says

You disbelieve in Thor, Zeus, Shiva, Animikii, and thousands of other gods

That's right, and you can add Hindus and Buddhists into the mix as well. There is only one God, Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life. He makes claims none of the other "dieties" make, such as being present at creation.

Liberalism is a social, not economic, philosophy that advocates the following principles.
1. All people are equal under law.
2. We are a nation of rights, not privileges.

still1bear says

Principle 1: nothing specifically liberal about it, this was stated multiple times by the prophets of the Old Testament.
Principle 2: the same.

Old Testament is pro-slavery

Rabbi M.J. Raphall (circa 1861) justified human slavery on the basis of the 10th commandment.

Exodus 20:17"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's."

Deuteronomy 5:21"Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.

Although an owner could beat a male or female slave, she/he would have to avoid serious injury to eyes or teeth. The owner would have to avoid beating the slave to death. But it was acceptable to beat a slave so severely that it only disabled him or her for two days:

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."

Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

One could purchase a slave from a foreign nation or from foreigners living with them. These slaves would remain in slavery forever, unless the owner chooses to frees them An Israelite who was a slave could be freed by a family member or by himself if he had the money. The cost of freeing a slave was computed on the basis of the number of years to the next Jubilee Year; this could be 1 to 50 years. Male Israelite slaves were automatically freed during the Jubilee Year. Depending upon which verse was being followed, female Israelite slaves might also have been freed at that time as well. Foreign slaves were out of luck.

Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

Deuteronomy 15:12-18: "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."

Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)

Leviticus 25:48-53: "After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him."

A slave was considered a piece of property, and thus could normally be resold to anyone at any time for any reason. However, special rules applied for Hebrew slaves. If a person bought a female slave from her father and she displeased him, he had no right to sell her to a foreign owner. If the owner required her to marry his son, then the owner was required to treat her like a daughter-in-law. If the owner marries his slave and later marries another woman, he was required to treat his slave as he previously had.

"If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money."

A man who rapes or engages in consensual sex with a female slave who is engaged to be married to another man must sacrifice an animal in the temple in order to obtain God's forgiveness. The female slave would be whipped. There is apparently no punishment or ritual animal killing required if the female slave were not engaged; men could rape such slaves with impunity.

Leviticus 19:20-22: "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him."

Various other pro-slavery passages in the Old Testament...

Leviticus 25:39: "And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee: And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return."

Exodus 21:16: "And he that stealeth [kidnaps] a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."
Deuteronomy 24:7: "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you."

Exodus 22:3: "...he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

II Kings 4:1: "Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets unto Elisha, saying, Thy servant my husband is dead; and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the LORD: and the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen."

Deuteronomy 21:10-14: "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her [i.e. rape her or engage in consensual sex], and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."

Deuteronomy 20:14" "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"

A male slave would be required to undergo circumcision. This would be a very painful operation for an adult. It was life-threatening in the days before modern medical techniques. A small percentage of slaves would die from infection caused by the operation.

Genesis 17:13: "He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."

Genesis 17:27: "And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him."

Being property, female slaves could be required to engage in sexual intercourse and become pregnant against their will. The perpetrator could be their owner, or anyone that their owner designates.

Genesis 16:1-2: "Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai."

Genesis 30:3-4: "And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her. And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her."

Genesis 30:9-10: "When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife. And Zilpah Leah's maid bare Jacob a son."

New Testament is pro-slavery

The New Testament is just as bad.

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"

Jesus is recorded as mentioning slaves in one of his parables. It is important to realize that the term "servant girl" or "maid" in many English translations of the Bible, like the American Standard Version, Amplified Bible, Phillips New Testament, Revised Standard Version, etc. refer to slaves, not employees like a butler, cook, or maid. Here, a slave which did not follow his owner's will would be beaten with many lashes of a whip. A slave who was unaware of his owner's will, but who did not behave properly, would also be beaten, but with fewer stripes.

This would have been a marvelous opportunity for Jesus to condemn the institution of slavery and its abuse of slaves. But he is not recorded of having taken it:
bullet Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

Way to go Jesus. Not.

One of the favorite passages of slave-owning Christians was St. Paul's infamous instruction that slaves to obey their owners in the same way that they obey Christ:

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

Other passages instructing slaves and slave owners in proper behavior are:

Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."

1 Timothy 6:1-3 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"

Conclusion

Christianity clearly has never advocated that all people are equal under law. In fact, the despicable religion has been pro-slavery for 90% of it's existence and only started rejecting slavery after being forced to at literal gunpoint. And certainly Christianity has not advocated nations be a societies of rights. The Christian Bible is full of advocation of privileges like the passages above.

3. The purpose of government is to protect rights (from life to liberty to property).

still1bear says

Principle 3: this is, indeed, a socialist invention. Starting from Marx Socialism/Communism always saw the gov’t as a tool for people’s well-being, not a servant of the kings and nobility. Except you make one little mistake (which you repeat again in Principle 4). You mix liberal principles with libertarian ones. Liberal/Socialist principle is not equal rights but equal well-being which is enforced by confiscation and violation of the property rights.

Also complete bullshit. The origin of the concept of rights goes back at least to the ancient Greeks. Rights were not applied universally as liberal philosophy says, but certainly the state was used to protect the rights of the people who possessed them.

still1bear says

Principle 4: again, this is a Libertarian principle. Liberals/socialists declare you a criminal if you a member of a “criminal class”. It is the *class struggle* that is a major socialist principle. Being rich is a crime in itself and all the *poor* are its victims.

That is just a batshit crazy statement. I am the most liberal person on PatNet and a perfect example of a liberal. Liberals do not say that being rich is a crime.

What matters is how a person becomes rich. If you become rich making the world a better place like the founders of Google did, the middle class and liberals support you. If you become rich by selling slaves, starting illegal wars to steal natural resources, or committing financial fraud that causes a depression, then no, neither the middle class nor liberals support you.

You have your head so far up your ass that you have no sense of reality. As such, your opinion on any subject matter should not be taken seriously. Your view of liberals is laughably ridiculous and unrealistic and only serves to show your bigotry and ignorance of how real people think.