Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[viole]

Conversation is being held on other threads about absolutes and objective rights and wrongs.

I say rape is inherently bad, not "a societal misdeed" but wrong.

Then I watch as atheists (in error) criticize the Bible for not condemning rape, when it most certainly does (as usual atheists point to the Bible and miss). If two fornicate in the Old Testament, they both receive capital punishment but if a woman cries for help while assaulted, only her rapist is punished . . . by death. Of course both passages regarding consensual sex and rape are collocated in the Bible, but why bother to ask an atheist to actually read more than a verse or two? It's taking for them, poor souls.

Of course, we would say that the atheists who say on one hand "rape isn't inherently bad" but on the other hand, "the Bible is inherently bad for not condemning rape" are behaving both ignorantly (quick, name every American President and Supreme Court Justice on record for condemning rape--are the ones not on the list bad?) and SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY.

How can an atheist behave self-righteously when they believe neither in righteousness nor its opposite, sinfulness?

Stop being self-righteous, oh atheists! (At least until such time as you admit to absolute, objective moral codes.)

Today's rant is concluded.

In my defense, I never claimed that something is inherently right or wrong. In or outside the Bible. For I am not a moral realist (there are atheist moral realists, by the way).

So, when I challenge thing like "you should stone to death rebellious children, or people collecting sticks on the Sabbath or perform genocide involving ripping apart pregnat women with a sword....what I really mean is: you are a believer in objective (and therefore unchanging) morality: are those things objectively good?

Ciao

- viole

 

[jonathan180iq]

Then I watch as atheists (in error) criticize the Bible for not condemning rape, when it most certainly does (as usual atheists point to the Bible and miss). If two fornicate in the Old Testament, they both receive capital punishment but if a woman cries for help while assaulted, only her rapist is punished . . . by death. Of course both passages regarding consensual sex and rape are collocated in the Bible, but why bother to ask an atheist to actually read more than a verse or two? It's taking for them, poor souls.

Of course, we would say that the atheists who say on one hand "rape isn't inherently bad" but on the other hand, "the Bible is inherently bad for not condemning rape" are behaving both ignorantly (quick, name every American President and Supreme Court Justice on record for condemning rape--are the ones not on the list bad?) and SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY.

The Bible is full of contradictory morality, at best, which is about what one should expect from a non-unified book of books who's writers did not share a cohesive belief system about anything, morality included.

How can an atheist behave self-righteously when they believe neither in righteousness nor its opposite, sinfulness?

We do it the same way Theists do, based on our own personal accepted ideas of right and wrong - The only difference is that we don't justify ourselves with cherry-picked passages from an old book.

Stop being self-righteous, oh atheists! (At least until such time as you admit to absolute, objective moral codes.)

No - And, there are none.

 

[leibowde84]

If two fornicate in the Old Testament, they both receive capital punishment

Don't you think that this is "wrong"? To kill people for having consensual sex?

 

[New Age Spiritual Leader]

I call baloney! I don't shirk these three questions:

Where does "God" specifically states whom is inspired and whom is not?
Where does "God" specifically states which texts are more holier than others?
Where does "God" specifically states which texts are scripture and which are not?

But you are so far afield of the OP, you'll have to invite me to a thread where these appear.

You don't shirk them?

Well, you didn't answer them.....that was avoidance.....or using your term....you "shirked".

And.....you had to tell me some sort of reason why you won't/didn't answer them.

FYI - this is my third post to these forums.....they aren't in any thread except this one, because I wrote the post.......but you sure had to add a qualifier to the request, and still didn't answer them.

My point was made....thanks for confirming it.

Be honest for once in your life....you will have a much better life if you do.

 

[LuisDantas]

Conversation is being held on other threads about absolutes and objective rights and wrongs.

Ok.

I say rape is inherently bad, not "a societal misdeed" but wrong.

Sure. I agree.

Then I watch as atheists (in error) criticize the Bible for not condemning rape, when it most certainly does (as usual atheists point to the Bible and miss). If two fornicate in the Old Testament, they both receive capital punishment but if a woman cries for help while assaulted, only her rapist is punished . . . by death. Of course both passages regarding consensual sex and rape are collocated in the Bible, but why bother to ask an atheist to actually read more than a verse or two? It's taking for them, poor souls.

I will ignore the sarcasm and ask whether you want to offer the specific verses then.

Of course, we would say that the atheists who say on one hand "rape isn't inherently bad" but on the other hand, "the Bible is inherently bad for not condemning rape" are behaving both ignorantly (quick, name every American President and Supreme Court Justice on record for condemning rape--are the ones not on the list bad?) and SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY.

How can an atheist behave self-righteously when they believe neither in righteousness nor its opposite, sinfulness?

I don't know who you are talking about, but rest assured that righteousness (which I assume to be the same as moral integrity) is not beyond atheists.

Stop being self-righteous, oh atheists! (At least until such time as you admit to absolute, objective moral codes.)

Today's rant is concluded.

Moral codes? No, those are not absolute, although morality is.

 

[Underhill]

Conversation is being held on other threads about absolutes and objective rights and wrongs.

I say rape is inherently bad, not "a societal misdeed" but wrong.

Then I watch as atheists (in error) criticize the Bible for not condemning rape, when it most certainly does (as usual atheists point to the Bible and miss). If two fornicate in the Old Testament, they both receive capital punishment but if a woman cries for help while assaulted, only her rapist is punished . . . by death. Of course both passages regarding consensual sex and rape are collocated in the Bible, but why bother to ask an atheist to actually read more than a verse or two? It's taking for them, poor souls.

Of course, we would say that the atheists who say on one hand "rape isn't inherently bad" but on the other hand, "the Bible is inherently bad for not condemning rape" are behaving both ignorantly (quick, name every American President and Supreme Court Justice on record for condemning rape--are the ones not on the list bad?) and SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY.

How can an atheist behave self-righteously when they believe neither in righteousness nor its opposite, sinfulness?

Stop being self-righteous, oh atheists! (At least until such time as you admit to absolute, objective moral codes.)

Today's rant is concluded.

There is so much just plain wrong in this post...

Of course rape is wrong. The bible has so many inconsistencies that to focus on this one thing is silly. And when atheist are self righteous it's because we're often dealing with close minded individuals which makes getting any real dialogue going akin to pulling a plunger out of quicksand.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

a) you have self-righteous invective against the Bible's stance on rape

I don't know about "self-righteous" - probably - but yeah, I admit to believing that The Bible's stance on a lot of things is worthy of some good old "invective". And?

b) only one of you dared to say "rape is wrong", although this person did not say whether it was subjectively or objectively wrong

"Dared?" Are you being serious? Here... I'll say it: rape is wrong. From my perspective as a human being who has empathy and holds compassion for my fellow humans, rape is dead wrong. However, I am also able to see things from different perspectives, and I would understand completely if another being were completely indifferent to rape occurring between humans. Take a house-fly, for the sake of argument - I don't believe that a house-fly would care one iota about the heinous act if it ended up on the wall in a room with a rapist and victim. Why is it wrong/bad/"sin" to acknowledge something like this?

the old trap: "How do we know we and the universe even exist?" There are answers for that as well, but they hinge on absolutes regarding morals.

You completely lost me here. It almost sounds like you're saying that the proof for the existence of the universe hinges on moral absolutes. What could you possibly mean here? Morality is not some "fabric of the universe." To believe something like that, a person would have to be... well... I don't even know a word for it. Ignorant is just way too tame and inadequate.

How do you people live with your selves? "The laws of nature are inviolate and no thing or being may violate them, they are absolutely inviolate, but if someone rapes someone, who am I to say that absolutely, they have committed a wrongdoing, crime, evil, oops--I don't believe in those three things--a societal misdeed?"

So... can you tell me how interaction between human beings is in any way on the same ideological level as "the laws of nature?" I'm having trouble here. On one hand you have something like "gravity" for instance... and then you want to say that ideas surrounding what one misguided human being decides to do to another is just as pertinent to the workings of the universe as gravity? And you ask me how I live with myself...

THAT is a double standard indeed.

It was at this point that I pictured you frothing at the mouth, your index finger raised in objection at your computer monitor, a look of unimaginable physical strain of your features as pure rage forced itself through your face. Is it a "sin" that I laughed a little?

Watch--you can do it too--RAPE IS WRONG. After all, isn't THAT why you are making accusatory statements regarding your misunderstanding of the biblical stance on rape?

Yes, rape is wrong. I already said it... and alluded to as much in my original post to this thread. However... if rape being wrong were as fundamental an aspect of nature as something like gravity, then don't you think that the house-fly from my previous example would also have to recognize the wrongfulness of human rape? Just as the house-fly comes under the sway of gravity... shouldn't it also hold a markedly negative opinion of human rape?

 

[Cobol]

Note that in many places in the Bible there are references to “taking a wife”. Don’t be fooled into thinking that these were voluntary marriages. This first quote clearly shows that murder and force were used to “take” these wives.

Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

Women were repeatedly raped. These sick ******** killed and raped an entire town and then wanted more virgins, so they hid beside the road to kidnap and rape some more. How can anyone see this as anything but evil?

Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

Clearly Moses and God approves of rape of virgins.

More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?

Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.

Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

It is clear that God doesn’t give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans “property”.

David’s Punishment – Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God’s “Forgiveness” (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)

God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!

Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

Once again God approves of forcible rape.

Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30 NAB)

A damsel or two for each man.

Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Sex slaves in the bible.

God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

God ravished women.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What I find odd is that so-called "Christians" will use the Bible as a moral guide in certain ways, but will never answer the following three questions with complete honesty and truthfulness to show me that they are abiding by the "truth". If they had done so, then they would also realize that what they have been told is vague, unfounded, untrue, and quite far from what they "believe".

***********************
Where does "God" specifically states whom is inspired and whom is not?
Where does "God" specifically states which texts are more holier than others?
Where does "God" specifically states which texts are scripture and which are not?
***********************

A couple of other pertinent questions are:

***********************

Why do you think "God" could inspire only a handful of people out of millions and millions?
If you think this is possible, why do so-called "Christians" rebuke those who are trying to help inspire others with non-Christian values?

Do they limit "God" because they choose, because they are scared to know that "He" still may? Thus causing a conundrum within their minds - "How is this possible?"

**********************

Remember - so-called "Christian values" are based in unfounded stories written by men, approved by men to be presented, and then told to men to believe. Most so-called "Christians" HAVE NOT researched their religion in any amount, except what has been told to them in a certain way. If they had, they would not be "Christian".

Jesus warned the world with two key philosophical quotes - by an inspired original Apostle - Thomas, but those men who "created "Christianity" failed to realize what Jesus taught entirely, so they cut its followers short as well.

Gospel of Thomas - Patterson & Robinson Translation -- Nag Hammadi Library

(2) Jesus says:

(1) "The one who seeks should not cease seeking until he finds.
(2) And when he finds, he will be dismayed.
(3) And when he is dismayed, he will be astonished.
(4) And he will be king over the All."

(3) Jesus says:

(1) "If those who lead you say to you: ‘Look, the kingdom is in the sky!’
then the birds of the sky will precede you.
(2) If they say to you: ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fishes will precede you.
(3) Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and outside of you."
(4) "When you come to know yourselves, then you will be known,
and you will realize that you are the children of the living Father.
(5) But if you do not come to know yourselves, then you exist in poverty, and you are poverty."

**********************

There is no smoking gun "against" so-called "Atheists" or non-believers - it is just another ruse that so-called "Christians" will advance, without proof of what they express. If one were to keep questioning these folks for their proof, you will only see avoidance, deflection, maybe a "shiny object" every now and then, or maybe some other BS that they know has no bearing to the end result, but will still present it as such. It is usually at this point in the game they are playing, that they will begin to include THEIR OWN QUALIFIERS, "alternative facts" in order to make what they say, "true".

It is quite simple....no religion is required to have wonderful morals like love, kindness, caring for others, helping others when they need it, being a friend or a friendly voice. etc....etc....etc.. Religion will not provide you with these traits......you have to. We as individuals CHOOSE to make a decision - whether right or wrong. We also have to take responsibility for the decision we make - right or wrong. So-called "Christians" put the blame upon "God" and "His Plan"....or will never be responsible for what they "preach". It is their way of life that we need to focus on and change, if there ever will be a peaceful world without religion trying to take control of people's lives.

We need to show them their dishonesty, hatred of others, and how it is affecting the world.

They have chosen the path we are all on now. For them it is a path of "truth and honesty". For me (us) it is one to help them realize that antiquated beliefs are no more helpful than throwing a coin into a fountain for luck.

I for one, will not allow my road to be dictated by false beliefs, rituals or "mystery". They will either be honest with me or I will expose their dishonesty to the public.

Self.

Peace and light to all.

Hi. Are you the same NASL I posted with on another discussion board? Either way. welcome aboard here.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I did used to be one (Southern Baptist).

You reminded me of Catholic stand-up comedian Jim Gaffigan, who, after hearing somebody in the audience say that she was a former Catholic who had been educated by nuns in a Catholic school, asked her, "Are you alright?"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well, I agree with you, but I don't. I have seen the results of rape while a criminal investigator, and in my view the only thing worse is murder, and I believe the one who commits either has forfeited the right to life, and should be executed. On the other hand you are totally wrong, and ignorant, when you call misogyny a Christian trademark. Perhaps you ought to read the NT, you might learn something

The vision of the place of women in society is different in the New Testament than in modern secular society. I wouldn't expect a zealous Christian to call anything in his Bible misogynistic, whatever it was.

From a prominent Christian theologian undoubtedly more familiar with the Bible than either of us:

What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother? it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman... I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children." - Saint Augustine

http://www.rageofreason.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2-women-bible.jpg [humorous poster]

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A man marrying a women?!?!?!?!? Where is the moral line these days? Might was well just make pedophilia legal! Clearly God intended marriage to be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

A humorous review of the Bible on marriage:

 

[shmogie]

The vision of the place of women in society is different in the New Testament than in modern secular society. I wouldn't expect a zealous Christian to call anything in his Bible misogynistic, whatever it was.

From a prominent Christian theologian undoubtedly more familiar with the Bible than either of us:

What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother? it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman... I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children." - Saint Augustine

http://www.rageofreason.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2-women-bible.jpg [humorous poster]

Augustine was a human, with an opinion. Opinions don't substitute for facts. He has no authority to speak for anything but his opinion. buy it, or not, I don't

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Attention all atheists,

As mentioned in my OP and demonstrated in subsequent posts:

a) you have self-righteous invective against the Bible's stance on rape

b) only one of you dared to say "rape is wrong", although this person did not say whether it was subjectively or objectively wrong

Read the thread again. That's your faith based, atheophobic confirmation bias speaking.

Self-righteousness implies that one is certain one is absolutely correct.

Nobody has made that claim about us but you.

What message do you think you send by choosing to prefer attacking straw men to what we really are and say?

Yet I have much trouble finding atheists who believe anything is absolute.

Then you just contradicted yourself, didn't you?

You atheists dislike miracles--miracles being anomalous to the laws of nature. That is, you feel the laws of nature are inviolate and sacrosanct, even by possible beings wielding great power (you know, like the great beings Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson have said exist out there).

Another straw man. Who dislikes miracles? Or Santa?

How do you people live with your selves? "The laws of nature are inviolate and no thing or being may violate them, they are absolutely inviolate, but if someone rapes someone, who am I to say that absolutely, they have committed a wrongdoing, crime, evil, oops--I don't believe in those three things--a societal misdeed?"

Another straw man, this one with a return to your atheophobia, now implying that all atheists are immoral, ambivalent about rape, and shouldn't be able to sleep. It's still bigotry.

I sleep just fine. I'm sure that you do as well due to your self-righteousness as you define it - certitude in your position that only you know what is moral, espousing whatever you have been taught is moral, and whoever disagrees is immoral.

THAT is a double standard indeed. Watch--you can do it too--RAPE IS WRONG.

And now you reintroduce your condescension.

You claim the moral high ground for yourself, but I doubt that anybody is listening. You keep shooting yourself in the foot with misrepresentation and bigotry.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Augustine was a human, with an opinion. Opinions don't substitute for facts. He has no authority to speak for anything but his opinion. buy it, or not, I don't

You and I are merely people with opinions. Augustine was a highly influential church father whose opinions shaped those of others for centuries and still do.

How do you account for his extreme misogyny if not his understanding of the scripture? What is he supposed to think about a class of people told be submit and be silent?

 

[Valjean]

A humorous review of the Bible on marriage:

The video forgot to mention that after Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt, he went on to impregnate his own daughters...

 

[shmogie]

You and I are merely people with opinions. Augustine was a highly influential church father whose opinions shaped those of others for centuries and still do.

How do you account for his extreme misogyny if not his understanding of the scripture? What is he supposed to think about a class of people told be submit and be silent?

Huh ? Luther was a genius, but he was dead wrong re the Jews. People have good, bad or indifferent opinions because of many many factors, one can't simply say because A is A, he became that way because of B. Maybe his mommy didn't love him (although historically she apparently did ). You are trying to set the faulty trap of judging ideas and doctrines by the behavior of those who say they keep them. Stalin was an atheist. Stalin killed millions and millions of people, therefore all atheists are murderers. It just doesn't work that way. Quotations please

 

[QuestioningMind]

Conversation is being held on other threads about absolutes and objective rights and wrongs.

I say rape is inherently bad, not "a societal misdeed" but wrong.

Then I watch as atheists (in error) criticize the Bible for not condemning rape, when it most certainly does (as usual atheists point to the Bible and miss). If two fornicate in the Old Testament, they both receive capital punishment but if a woman cries for help while assaulted, only her rapist is punished . . . by death. Of course both passages regarding consensual sex and rape are collocated in the Bible, but why bother to ask an atheist to actually read more than a verse or two? It's taking for them, poor souls.

Of course, we would say that the atheists who say on one hand "rape isn't inherently bad" but on the other hand, "the Bible is inherently bad for not condemning rape" are behaving both ignorantly (quick, name every American President and Supreme Court Justice on record for condemning rape--are the ones not on the list bad?) and SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY.

How can an atheist behave self-righteously when they believe neither in righteousness nor its opposite, sinfulness?

Stop being self-righteous, oh atheists! (At least until such time as you admit to absolute, objective moral codes.)

Today's rant is concluded.

It seems to me that people who need a book to tell them what's right and wrong were born without the ability to empathize with their fellow human beings. Since I know I would not like it if someone were to murder me, it's easy for me to conclude that other people would not like it if I were to murder them. I know I would not want to be sexually assaulted by someone else, thus it's easy for me to conclude that other people wouldn't want me to sexually assault them. I know that it upsets me when someone takes my property, so I can easily conclude that other people would get upset if I were to take their property.

In each and every case all I had to do was consider how I would feel if I were subjected to such treatment in order to know that I shouldn't subject other people to such treatment. No book of rules is required. The only people who would need such a book of rules are obviously incapable of realizing that other people have feelings just like they do.

 

[Valjean]

It seems to me that people who need a book to tell them what's right and wrong were born without the ability to empathize with their fellow human beings. Since I know I would not like it if someone were to murder me, it's easy for me to conclude that other people would not like it if I were to murder them. I know I would not want to be sexually assaulted by someone else, thus it's easy for me to conclude that other people wouldn't want me to sexually assault them. I know that it upsets me when someone takes my property, so I can easily conclude that other people would get upset if I were to take their property.

In each and every case all I had to do was consider how I would feel if I were subjected to such treatment in order to know that I shouldn't subject other people to such treatment. No book of rules is required. The only people who would need such a book of rules are obviously incapable of realizing that other people have feelings just like they do.

Good points. Religion is often a crutch for those with no internalized moral backbone; a deontological system dismissive of consequences.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Huh ? Luther was a genius, but he was dead wrong re the Jews. People have good, bad or indifferent opinions because of many many factors, one can't simply say because A is A, he became that way because of B. Maybe his mommy didn't love him (although historically she apparently did ). You are trying to set the faulty trap of judging ideas and doctrines by the behavior of those who say they keep them.

Maybe.

But that's how I judge the effect of Christianity on the culture at large - by how it manifests in people. You tell people that women have less value than men, and men value them less. Christian women often buy into it as well. Women helped defeat the Equal Rights Amendment.

From Helen Gardner:

"The bible teaches that a father may sell his daughter for a slave [Ex. 30:7], that he may sacrifice her purity to a mob [Judges 19:24; Gen. 19:8], and that he may murder her, and still be a good father and a holy man. It teaches that a man may have any number of wives; that he may sell them, give them away, or swap them around, and still be a perfect gentleman, a good husband, a righteous man, and one of God's most intimate friends; and that is a pretty good position for a beginning. It teaches almost every infamy under the heavens for woman, and it does not recognize her as a self-directing, free human being. It classes her as property, just as it does a sheep: and it forbids her to think, talk, act, or exist, except under conditions and limits defined by some priest."

What effect do you think that such doctrine has? None? Pro-woman?

Stalin was an atheist. Stalin killed millions and millions of people, therefore all atheists are murderers. It just doesn't work that way.

Fallacy of false analogy. No comment was made about all Christians based on Augustine's words.

Quotations please

I already gave you the quote from Augustine. There are many more like it, also from prominent church fathers:

Tertullian: "You [woman] are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert - that is, death - even the Son of God had to die."

John Calvin: "Woman is more guilty than man, because she was seduced by Satan, and so diverted her husband from obedience to God that she was an instrument of death leading to all perdition. It is necessary that woman recognize this, and that she learn to what she is subjected; and not only against her husband. This is reason enough why today she is placed below and that she bears within her ignominy and shame."

These ideas are inconsistent with our modern understanding of women's pace in society. The issues commonly associated with notions of women's rights over the past century include, though are not limited to, the right:

to bodily integrity and autonomy
to be free from sexual violence
to vote
to hold public office
to enter into legal contracts
to have equal rights in family law
to work
to fair wages or equal pay
to obtain credit
to have reproductive rights
to own property
to education.

I seem to recall that some progressive nuns helped fight for some of these issues, but I'm pretty sure that they were rogues representing themselves and not the church.

Even today many of these issues are still contested, notably equal pay and reproductive rights." Consider the recent Hobby Lobby case that was adjudicated by the Supreme Court, where it was claimed by the Green family that their religion taught them to try to prevent women from getting contraceptives. From Wiki:

"David Green (born November 13, 1941) is an American businessman, philanthropist, and the founder of Hobby Lobby, a chain of arts and crafts stores. Green comes from a family of preachers and says he has built his business squarely on biblical principles: "We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles."

He's telling you how he views Christian teaching.

Another even more recent big hit for Christianity and its views on women came with the Center for Medical Progress' assault on Planned Parenthood using undercover operative. It backfired and fomented a killing spree in one of the clinics by a Robert Lewis Dear.

And even more recently, you've got the overwhelming majority of Christian evangelicals having voted for Trump despite his intensely misogynistic behavior including shaming beauty queens for their weight in the middle of the night on Twitter, storming into dressing rooms uninvited and unannounced, and his infamous comment about sexual assault of women's genitals made while laughing.

The secular community was outraged. The evangelical Christian community didn't have a problem, and voted for him over a church attending Christian woman.

I'm going to guess that no amount of evidence will have any impact on your judgment about whether Christianity is a misogynistic enterprise. It simply not an idea that most Christians are willing to countenance.

But the rest of us have no reason not to see that Christianity, like it's younger sister Islam, is systematically misogynistic. It is institutionalized misogyny, and has bee for centuries.