Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

If God can't stand up for these principles, who can?* Why worship a god so unwilling to condemn that which should never go uncondemned that he'd make Neville Chamberlain say "For God's sake (heh), grow a backbone, man!" Is this god so impotent, so cowardly, that he would go along with the savage actions of a group of primitives rather than tell them they're wrong, simply because doing so might be difficult?

I would have no respect for a human who witnessed slavery and did not at least condemn it, unless they were so utterly terrified for their own safety that they did not dare speak up. I don't think it's unreasonable to hold a supposedly all-powerful, all-loving being to that minimum standard.

*Us, as it turns out, though thousands upon thousands might suffer in the millennia it takes us to get round to it

On a side-note, did the Israelites have slaves immediately after their escape from Egypt? Were there tiers of slavery in Egypt, with slaves owning slaves? I would have thought it was quite easy to convince a group of people who'd just experienced first hand the cruelty of slavery, and who didn't actually have a meaningful society and economy to be altered, not to keep slaves.

I don't pretend to know why God tolerated certain things. I would never be able to comprehend an eternal, all-powerful being's thought processes. I do know, however, that He did condemn slavery and that it was His followers who put an end to it, at least in my country.

Where did he condemn it? Are we talking about that half-hearted effort of Paul's again?

[Jamzmania]

I don't pretend to know why God tolerated certain things. I would never be able to comprehend an eternal, all-powerful being's thought processes. I do know, however, that He did condemn slavery and that it was His followers who put an end to it, at least in my country.

Where did he condemn it? Are we talking about that half-hearted effort of Paul's again?

I think the others have already demonstrated how slavery was condemned in the New Testament, which is why you kept going back to the Old Testament.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'm loving the dynamic in here even more. It used to be an issue of Catholics vs. Orthodox and the Protestants attempting to shout through the rafters. Now, it seems, it's believers vs. nonbelievers. Makes for interesting discourse.

Eh, I don't like that, really. I think that this should be the Christian Discussion Thread, that it should be for discussion of Christian things from Christian perspectives. Of course, I think nonbelievers should participate, but I feel that they aren't contributing to the thread when they argue from anti-Christian perspectives.

[Erinkita III]

I'm loving the dynamic in here even more. It used to be an issue of Catholics vs. Orthodox and the Protestants attempting to shout through the rafters. Now, it seems, it's believers vs. nonbelievers. Makes for interesting discourse.

Eh, I don't like that, really. I think that this should be the Christian Discussion Thread, that it should be for discussion of Christian things from Christian perspectives. Of course, I think nonbelievers should participate, but I feel that they aren't contributing to the thread when they argue from anti-Christian perspectives.

I'm sorry to have disrupted things. If and when I post here in the future, I'll try and be more diplomatic and less combative.

Here's something I've always wondered and never got an answer to: what's the deal with petitionary prayer? Does God have everything planned already and you're asking him to change it? Or was your request part of the plan from the beginning? Or does God only have the broad strokes set in advance and leaves the details up to you?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Eh, I don't like that, really. I think that this should be the Christian Discussion Thread, that it should be for discussion of Christian things from Christian perspectives. Of course, I think nonbelievers should participate, but I feel that they aren't contributing to the thread when they argue from anti-Christian perspectives.

I'm sorry to have disrupted things. If and when I post here in the future, I'll try and be more diplomatic and less combative.

Here's something I've always wondered and never got an answer to: what's the deal with petitionary prayer? Does God have everything planned already and you're asking him to change it? Or was your request part of the plan from the beginning? Or does God only have the broad strokes set in advance and leaves the details up to you?

Oh, no, I wasn't referring to anyone specifically.

[Hakons]

I don't pretend to know why God tolerated certain things. I would never be able to comprehend an eternal, all-powerful being's thought processes. I do know, however, that He did condemn slavery and that it was His followers who put an end to it, at least in my country.

Where did he condemn it? Are we talking about that half-hearted effort of Paul's again?

I already pointed out that Christ Himself said love is the greatest commandment. All the Laws and Prophets depend on Love. Slavery is not love. The Bible does not support slavery. No modern Church supports slavery. The question is, why do you want to biblically justify slavery? It is rather strange that you want to have the same rational as 19th century slavers that whipped black people to grow cotton. Currently, the only person that wants to justify slavery here is you.

[Erinkita III]

I'm sorry to have disrupted things. If and when I post here in the future, I'll try and be more diplomatic and less combative.

Here's something I've always wondered and never got an answer to: what's the deal with petitionary prayer? Does God have everything planned already and you're asking him to change it? Or was your request part of the plan from the beginning? Or does God only have the broad strokes set in advance and leaves the details up to you?

Oh, no, I wasn't referring to anyone specifically.

Still, I was doing what you said you don't like, so I'm sorry. I've lurked and occasionally posted here to try and gain better understanding of a group of people I've been having trouble empathising with. It's not been phenomenally successful so far.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Oh, no, I wasn't referring to anyone specifically.

Still, I was doing what you said you don't like, so I'm sorry. I've lurked and occasionally posted here to try and gain better understanding of a group of people I've been having trouble empathising with. It's not been phenomenally successful so far.

Eh, don't beat yourself up over it.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Yeah I just wanted to see what ill informed arguments you had.

There's no contextual evidence to suggest Exodus 21:8 is referring to sexual slavery, nor does it explicitely say that slavery is an inherently good thing. Slavery was practiced by virtually all peoples, in all corners of the globe. In fact in the ancient world more people were slsves than were free. The laws of Exodus and later Leviticus and Deuteronomy were not delivered to people in a vacuum, these people subsisted in this world, where slavery is the norm. The law is delivered in corrective fashion providing better regulations than those that previously existed. It's unfounded to assert that God inherently supported slavery.

Neither does Paul condone the institution of slavery. Telling slaves to obey their masters is not even a tacit approval of the system itself. In Paul's time Christianity became a slave religion, appealing to the oppressed. However, if you're familiar with the Spartacus revolt then you might be familiar with how exactly the romans dealt with insubordinate slaves (spoiler: it wasn't pretty). Paul's instructions actually subtly acknowledge that being a slave sucks.


As for Sexism, the ancient world was "sexist". Long developed cultural norms about child bearing etc also subsisted in every continent in the world. Happens when infant mortality rates are so high they need 7 kids per family to constitute a replacement rate. Even Buddha, who taught that all facets of this world including gender are an illusion, upheld male priesthoods, in accordance with this custom. Any start up religion played into this cultural norm, to not "rock the boat" as it were. Early Christianity did not set out to change the facets of this world, it was too small. Paul never dreamed Christianity would become a dominant religion as he believed the second coming would be in his lifetime.

Why do you need contextual evidence?It's right there in the content.

Except, (and this is what leads me to believe you don't actually know what you're talking about), it's not. Sex is not mentioned in the verse at all. Many thinkers in modern times have erroneously interpreted that way, either because they have an agenda or because they lack an adequate understanding of context. In the ANE, arranged marriages were the custom, not the liberal romantic notion of marriage that we practice today. It was also customary for poor families, who could not afford dowries, to sell their young daughters as servants to richer families so that when they grow up, they'd be married into their masters' families either to the patriarch or his sons. It was actually considered to be a virtuous custom that allowed poor families to give their daughters a better life than they ever could have provided for them, themselves. Exodus 21:7-12 are actually protections of the girls regarding this custom, not a law allowing slaves to be raped. It states the masters can't sell the girls to foreigners, and if they designate the girls to be betrothed to their sons, they must treat them as a daughter even before they are wed. It also provides rules by which such girls, if not married, must be released, without debt. Exodus 21 does not endorse the keeping of sex slaves, so yes contextual evidence is pretty important.

It is slavery, and it is rape, and you are being an apologist for it.

Yes it is, no it isn't, and I know you think insults are arguments but they really aren't.

Is god so feeble that he cannot say "no"? Why would an omnipotent being, who supposedly slaughtered every firstborn in Egypt to free one people from slavery, not simply tell that people, "Slavery's wrong. Don't do it." Is god so shackled by the norms of whichever society he is worshipped in that he must actually give instructions for how unconscionable evils are to be carried out, rather than simply forbidding them? In which case, why are the old churches not unhesitatingly marrying gays and divorcees? Why do they fight tooth and nail against abortion, rather than producing a helpful handbook on how to get one?

You've really created quite the strawman, there Oz, your entire paradigm is self assuming. But I'll try to weed through this anyway.

A. Much as liberation theololgians might try to construe, God did not free the Hebrews out of Egypt merely because they were slaves. He freed them because they were "His people." He made a covenant with Abraham. The Hebrews, being descendenats of Abraham and part of this covenant, screwed up and left Canaan and went to Egypt, where after Joseph died, they became slaves. God, rescued them from "captivity" and brought them back to Canaan, where they killed all the squatters and took it back over, before they were conquered multiple times because they pissed off God a lot. That's the cliffs notes version. The Exodus wasn't some moral indignation of God against slavery, at least not overtly. As I said, liberation theologians spend a lot of time construing it as such.

B. To argue that God is "shackled" by cultural norms is a misunderstanding of the Laws intent. The Law is given to guide the Israelites to a better form of life, make them more moral and upstanding than their gentile counterparts. It is both terms of a covenant and a reformative teaching.. Cultures, however don't turn on a dime, and the OT Theology and Laws, develop over time as well. Even still, the Israelites screwed up time and time again. They abandoned their God ordained customs and adopted foreign ones many time leading to all the calamity in the OT. How much worse do you think it would be if it had been a radical change and not a gradual one? It's not God's constraints, rather our own. Christ even explains it this way when discussing divorce "8 He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."

C. Moral laws, do not change, customary laws do. For instance, in ancient Israel there are many laws about how to treat your slaves properly. In the modern age we consider even having slaves immoral. Both of these are extension of the moral law best explained "as love thy neighbor". The customary practices of that have changed, but the underlying morality hasn't. The moral laws underlining sexual purity and marriage(reproduction and sacraments) or murder have not changed nor will they change, therefor the Catholic Church will not, and really cannot, endorse homosexual relations, SSM, or Abortion respectively. (This is admittedly a simplistic explanation as those subjects are multifaceted, regarding both OT and NT teachings)

Why could Paul not say, "masters, release your slaves. God says so."?

I believe it's already been addressed but A. Christians mostly weren't slave owners but slaves themselves. B. Toppling slavery wasn't a concern of early Christians, as it was for abolitionists in the 19th century. C. As a side note, they would have been thoroughly crushed instead of passively persecuted if they really tried to topple the social order.

So can we have gender equality now?

That depends on what you mean by gender equality. I'm sure my notion of gender equality is not quite the same as yours, therein lies the problem. For instance, I don't see the notion of a male only clergy as an equality issue, as I'm sure you probably do.

If Paul was just toeing the line, why have the old churches not started ordaining women and the like? Apparently Christianity was just pretending to be sexist to please larger religions and powerful countries; it's been dominant for over a thousand years. Why has it not dropped the act?

. Because "pretending" isn't the right word. Camoflauging is a better one. Remember Christianity originally had very little intent on changing the world, in fact Christians were encoruaged to ignore worldly matters all together, because they believed Christ was coming again in their lifetime, but that doesn't really make for a thriving evangelism. Indeed by the time he wrote Timothy, Paul had lost his excitement for Christ's return that he had when he penned Romans. He had new concerns by then, like keeping the religion alive. Much of Christian theology came out of this tumultuous time when Christianity was trying to find the balance between a socially acceptable catechism that would permit the religion to thrive while not sacrificing the doctrines of the religion. And this struggle is eternal. (Unless you're Orthodox, they don't give a shit what society thinks)

In fact most Apostolic Chuches won't even appeal to Paul's teachings on the matter when discussing the male only clergy, his teachings mainly get included as an after thought. Most teachings on this subject rely on Tradition and the fact that Jesus was Male. Protestants as a rule reject the authority of Sacred Tradition, and thus are the ones who validate female clergy.

[Pasong Tirad]

I'm loving the dynamic in here even more. It used to be an issue of Catholics vs. Orthodox and the Protestants attempting to shout through the rafters. Now, it seems, it's believers vs. nonbelievers. Makes for interesting discourse.

Eh, I don't like that, really. I think that this should be the Christian Discussion Thread, that it should be for discussion of Christian things from Christian perspectives. Of course, I think nonbelievers should participate, but I feel that they aren't contributing to the thread when they argue from anti-Christian perspectives.

I'd rather we not live in our Christian bubbles.

[Pasong Tirad]

A. Much as liberation theololgians might try to construe, God did not free the Hebrews out of Egypt merely because they were slaves. He freed them because they were "His people." He made a covenant with Abraham. The Hebrews, being descendenats of Abraham and part of this covenant, screwed up and left Canaan and went to Egypt, where after Joseph died, they became slaves. God, rescued them from "captivity" and brought them back to Canaan, where they killed all the squatters and took it back over, before they were conquered multiple times because they pissed off God a lot. That's the cliffs notes version. The Exodus wasn't some moral indignation of God against slavery, at least not overtly. As I said, liberation theologians spend a lot of time construing it as such.

They do, yes. And it is part of what I believe.

[Lady Scylla]

I'm loving the dynamic in here even more. It used to be an issue of Catholics vs. Orthodox and the Protestants attempting to shout through the rafters. Now, it seems, it's believers vs. nonbelievers. Makes for interesting discourse.

Eh, I don't like that, really. I think that this should be the Christian Discussion Thread, that it should be for discussion of Christian things from Christian perspectives. Of course, I think nonbelievers should participate, but I feel that they aren't contributing to the thread when they argue from anti-Christian perspectives.

It's a discussion thread. Moderation doesn't like the prospect of limiting such in these threads. If that's a problem, then converse in a church. You either allow non-believers, and let them argue from their POV -- or you disallow them and turn this thread into an echo chamber where you don't have to worry about your opinions being questioned. The latter isn't good discourse.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

SNIP

This is the thing I can't understand about religion. You claim to be moral, you'll condemn horrific actions, except when they're performed by your god. You're describing provisions for selling a girl into slavery to be married (you seem to believe that in this state she can give meaningful consent, but whatever), and somehow you claim these to be good, to be wonderful protections that a rape victim should be grateful for, rather than a pathetic comfort for a situation that should never have come to exist under a benevolent god. You claim it's not sex slavery, then you describe it as slavery in which the girl is to be married off. That's sexual slavery.

You are blind when it comes to your own religion. You actually defend actions that no well-adjusted human (and I assume that you are one) doesn't believe are evil. Thank Goodness I haven't heard your views on Canaan.

I said you were being an apologist for it because I thought that holding up such a mirror might help you see your position. Clearly, it did not. As I said, you (I mean this in a general sense) are blind on this matter.

I can't stomach this argument. I'm not exaggerating when I say that it actually makes me feel sick, and I'm done here.

[Diopolis]

Where did he condemn it? Are we talking about that half-hearted effort of Paul's again?

I already pointed out that Christ Himself said love is the greatest commandment. All the Laws and Prophets depend on Love. Slavery is not love. The Bible does not support slavery. No modern Church supports slavery. The question is, why do you want to biblically justify slavery? It is rather strange that you want to have the same rational as 19th century slavers that whipped black people to grow cotton. Currently, the only person that wants to justify slavery here is you.

Catholic theology defines slavery as an institution in which one is subject to another, contrary to natural law. The theologian states that it must be justified to be validly practiced, that slaves themselves cannot be owned- only their labor- and that freeing slaves is an act of charity.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

SNIP

This is the thing I can't understand about religion. You claim to be moral, you'll condemn horrific actions, except when they're performed by your god. You're describing provisions for selling a girl into slavery to be married (you seem to believe that in this state she can give meaningful consent, but whatever), and somehow you claim these to be good, to be wonderful protections that a rape victim should be grateful for, rather than a pathetic comfort for a situation that should never have come to exist under a benevolent god. You claim it's not sex slavery, then you describe it as slavery in which the girl is to be married off. That's sexual slavery.

You are blind when it comes to your own religion. You actually defend actions that no well-adjusted human (and I assume that you are one) doesn't believe are evil. Thank Goodness I haven't heard your views on Canaan.

I said you were being an apologist for it because I thought that holding up such a mirror might help you see your position. Clearly, it did not. As I said, you (I mean this in a general sense) are blind on this matter.

I can't stomach this argument. I'm not exaggerating when I say that it actually makes me feel sick, and I'm done here.

So you must really hate Hindu's then.

[Gim]

This is the thing I can't understand about religion. You claim to be moral, you'll condemn horrific actions, except when they're performed by your god. You're describing provisions for selling a girl into slavery to be married (you seem to believe that in this state she can give meaningful consent, but whatever), and somehow you claim these to be good, to be wonderful protections that a rape victim should be grateful for, rather than a pathetic comfort for a situation that should never have come to exist under a benevolent god. You claim it's not sex slavery, then you describe it as slavery in which the girl is to be married off. That's sexual slavery.

You are blind when it comes to your own religion. You actually defend actions that no well-adjusted human (and I assume that you are one) doesn't believe are evil. Thank Goodness I haven't heard your views on Canaan.

I said you were being an apologist for it because I thought that holding up such a mirror might help you see your position. Clearly, it did not. As I said, you (I mean this in a general sense) are blind on this matter.

I can't stomach this argument. I'm not exaggerating when I say that it actually makes me feel sick, and I'm done here.

So you must really hate Hindu's then.

Maybe the deities more.

[Diopolis]

So can we have gender equality now? If Paul was just toeing the line, why have the old churches not started ordaining women and the like? Apparently Christianity was just pretending to be sexist to please larger religions and powerful countries; it's been dominant for over a thousand years. Why has it not dropped the act?

Yes, the ancient times were when humans were familiar with Eve convicing Adam to commit the Original Sin with her. As a result, God cursed women(Genesis) to be inferior to men.

Wrong.
Women were created as a helper to man. Not an inferior. At the fall, women were cursed to be subject to men(this is why women cannot hold positions of religious authority over men in this life- in the next, however, they can and do); to note, part of the curse of Eve is that she will forever be jealous of the authority of men- feminism starting to make more sense now, is it? At no point are they declared inferior.
Also, in the traditional understanding the fall is not seen primarily as Eve's fault. That the fruit of the tree was not eaten was a responsibility entrusted to Adam; it was his failure in his duty that caused the issue.

[Dylar]

Eh, I don't like that, really. I think that this should be the Christian Discussion Thread, that it should be for discussion of Christian things from Christian perspectives. Of course, I think nonbelievers should participate, but I feel that they aren't contributing to the thread when they argue from anti-Christian perspectives.

It's a discussion thread. Moderation doesn't like the prospect of limiting such in these threads. If that's a problem, then converse in a church. You either allow non-believers, and let them argue from their POV -- or you disallow them and turn this thread into an echo chamber where you don't have to worry about your opinions being questioned. The latter isn't good discourse.

I think what UMN is trying to say is that non-believers are just as welcome as any Christian on this thread, and we encourage them to ask questions about our faith(s), it's just that those non-believers shouldn't come in with guns ablazin' with a heart of stone unwilling to listen to what we have to say.

[Gim]

Wrong.
Women were created as a helper to man. Not an inferior. At the fall, women were cursed to be subject to men(this is why women cannot hold positions of religious authority over men in this life- in the next, however, they can and do); to note, part of the curse of Eve is that she will forever be jealous of the authority of men- feminism starting to make more sense now, is it? At no point are they declared inferior.
Also, in the traditional understanding the fall is not seen primarily as Eve's fault. That the fruit of the tree was not eaten was a responsibility entrusted to Adam; it was his failure in his duty that caused the issue.

Just religious authority? Really?

Genesis 3:16 tells it all:

16To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."

Sounds more in general than just in religious contexts.

[Diopolis]

Wrong.
Women were created as a helper to man. Not an inferior. At the fall, women were cursed to be subject to men(this is why women cannot hold positions of religious authority over men in this life- in the next, however, they can and do); to note, part of the curse of Eve is that she will forever be jealous of the authority of men- feminism starting to make more sense now, is it? At no point are they declared inferior.
Also, in the traditional understanding the fall is not seen primarily as Eve's fault. That the fruit of the tree was not eaten was a responsibility entrusted to Adam; it was his failure in his duty that caused the issue.

Just religious authority? Really?

Genesis 3:16 tells it all:

16To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."

Sounds more in general than just in religious contexts.

The marriage and family is a religious context.
Of course, it isn't the recommended practice for women to hold positions of authority over men(keyword: men. Women should hold positions of authority over boys) in general, but it's not a sin either. It's not exactly wrong to have a female president, but neither is it the perfection.

[Dylar]

You are blind when it comes to your own religion.

How so? You're talking to people who are active in their faith, study their faith in depth, and ask questions about their own faith in an effort to learn. I wouldn't call that blindness.

You actually defend actions that no well-adjusted human (and I assume that you are one) doesn't believe are evil.

And you don't? There are horrible, unspeakable, disgusting acts that society defends today. They defend the Seljuk Turks that took over Jerusalem and slaughtered innocent Christians trying to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. But everyone seems to forget that fact when talking about the Crusades. Society defends abortion which, we believe, and science has no doubt proven, that the fetus is indeed a living breathing human being that we are killing. Euthanasia; this whole "mercy-killing" is in fact a terrible deed. Especially if the person recieving the euthanasia is in a coma, or is brain-dead.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Eh, I don't like that, really. I think that this should be the Christian Discussion Thread, that it should be for discussion of Christian things from Christian perspectives. Of course, I think nonbelievers should participate, but I feel that they aren't contributing to the thread when they argue from anti-Christian perspectives.

It's a discussion thread. Moderation doesn't like the prospect of limiting such in these threads. If that's a problem, then converse in a church. You either allow non-believers, and let them argue from their POV -- or you disallow them and turn this thread into an echo chamber where you don't have to worry about your opinions being questioned. The latter isn't good discourse.

There's nothing wrong with Non-Beliverser/Atheists/Agnostics/What have you contributing to this thread. The problem is people who post in bad faith. AWEBH is not contributing in good faith, but rather tilting at their perceived demon of "Christianity." Their purpose here is not to engage in lively and respectful discourse about the finer points of Christianity, what it means, what it teaches, its history etc etc. Their purpose, since they've been here has been aimed at "defeating" Christianity, to tell us that we're all evil.

Look at my interaction with AWEBH, I gave two calmly (edited greatly to reduce my palpable annoyance) on the subject, and both times their response was not a critical analysis but basically "that's evil, you're evil, you disgust me, your beliefs disgust me, etc etc" That sort of attitude isn't welcome or appropriate here, though we can't outright ban in from showing up here, as evidenced by the multiple iterations here.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

A. Much as liberation theololgians might try to construe, God did not free the Hebrews out of Egypt merely because they were slaves. He freed them because they were "His people." He made a covenant with Abraham. The Hebrews, being descendenats of Abraham and part of this covenant, screwed up and left Canaan and went to Egypt, where after Joseph died, they became slaves. God, rescued them from "captivity" and brought them back to Canaan, where they killed all the squatters and took it back over, before they were conquered multiple times because they pissed off God a lot. That's the cliffs notes version. The Exodus wasn't some moral indignation of God against slavery, at least not overtly. As I said, liberation theologians spend a lot of time construing it as such.

They do, yes. And it is part of what I believe.

I hesitate to call it wrong, per se. There is an anti-slavery message that can be derived from it, (as has been done) but I would consider that, for lack of a better term, secondary theology.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

This is the thing I can't understand about religion. You claim to be moral, you'll condemn horrific actions, except when they're performed by your god. You're describing provisions for selling a girl into slavery to be married (you seem to believe that in this state she can give meaningful consent, but whatever), and somehow you claim these to be good, to be wonderful protections that a rape victim should be grateful for, rather than a pathetic comfort for a situation that should never have come to exist under a benevolent god. You claim it's not sex slavery, then you describe it as slavery in which the girl is to be married off. That's sexual slavery.

You are blind when it comes to your own religion. You actually defend actions that no well-adjusted human (and I assume that you are one) doesn't believe are evil. Thank Goodness I haven't heard your views on Canaan.

I said you were being an apologist for it because I thought that holding up such a mirror might help you see your position. Clearly, it did not. As I said, you (I mean this in a general sense) are blind on this matter.

I can't stomach this argument. I'm not exaggerating when I say that it actually makes me feel sick, and I'm done here.

So you must really hate Hindu's then.

As I said, I'm done here, but I will say that I don't hate anyone.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

So you must really hate Hindu's then.

Maybe the deities more.

Eh it was stupid comment, not my best work, but In my defense, I had only been awake for 15 minutes or so.

The comment was more geared towards pointing out that AWEBH seems to think Arranged Marriages = Sexual Slavery. Many Hindus still practice this custom today.