Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Ah - I had forgotten that you had responded to my previous post.
Well, let the games continue, I suppose.

like i said, if they do not scream, then it is clearly not rape. this is why if it happens in the country then the woman is not punished b/c there is a possibliity of rape due to the fact that there could be noone around to hear her scream.

No, if they choose to consent, then it's not rape. Sreaming isn't the difference between rape and not-rape.
Of course, the other problem of this equation is that it only becomes rape if the men hear the scream and respond. All the instances for rape also include a bonus arguement - inherant biblical misogyny (if I spelled that correctly.) That's neither here nor there in this discussion however.

reguardless of what you say, anyone taken by surprise will scream. if someone jumps out in front of you in the dark do you not make a sound. it's a reflex, if a woman is taken forcefully they will scream and in town there will be people around to hear it.

Oh really? I'd love for you to argue that with police, rape victims, judges, lawyers, feminists, and generally anyone that knows anything about the crime, the victims, and the sorts of people that perpetrate the crime.
I think they'd get a kick out of that arguement.

This either has to be among the most ignorant statement I've ever seen or the one where the logic and understanding is twisted so much on itself to try to represent the bible passages as a positive that it loops back on itself and a forms a black hole.

If you don't agree with my assertion about your statement above, I suggest you reread it to yourself once to try to get a grasp of your own words and really understand what you're saying in the context of a human man with a knife and a lust that cannot be abided targets a woman, wraps his hand around her mouth and his knife under her neck and tells her "scream and you're dead".
At this very moment, her options are exactly: scsream and die or get raped and die.
The bible tells her that those are her only two options.

All I can tell you is that your statement is just as dismissive to biblical woman's victimization as the bible itself is but I can assure you right now that consent determines whether it's rape, not whether or not she was able to get the attention of nearby men or not.

your generalizing again. if you would read later arguement b/w me and Cthulhu Dreaming, then you would see that using a general english word to categorize actions in an ancieng hebrew text does not prove a thing. slavery as it's called in the bible doesn't exactly fit the english definition of slave.

You tell me I'm generalizing and I'm telling you that you're missing my points.
"Some slaves have rights/good masters/whatever" doesn't make slavery moral. Further, the bible doesn't agree with any of your (not-backed) assertions about slavery being akin to 'having a job' at all - in context or out. My points HAVE biblical backing and I've quoted them and attempted to put them in as much context as the appropriate chapters in the bible allow.

Even if I'm glossing over the 'finer points' of slave-owning in the bible (and that's a pretty big if considering how many lengths I've gone to prove my point) - you've done nothing but spin the words in those passages and used that as a rebuttal. You've done nothing to actually back your counterpoints and the few passages you have quoted, once brought into proper context, have supported my position over yours.

Furtther, I am fully aware that the bible uses a different term than I've been using - servants, maidens, handmaidens, or whatever but your attack on my termanology doesn't really change my arguement. I would still be making the same arguement about slavery even if I used the terms as quoted in the bible.
It would just be a different name for the same offenses.

ALL SLAVES HAD RIGHTS. i clearly proved this in Levaticus 25. you keep cycling back to things i have already refuted.

First of all, you haven't refuted a damn thing. I rebutted Leviticus 25 some time ago and you've failed to do anything other than repeat your arguement and ignore my response.
All of the biblical passages I've been using prove the following:
1) Slavery is standard practice
2) There are rules for the treatement, selling, and buying of slaves
2A) Those rules tend to involve not selling your family or countrymen but instead taking foreign neighbors or if you do to treat them better than slaves who are not family or countrymen
2B) Those rules tend to involve not killing or maiming your slave, but those rules only apply in certain circumstances and to very specific body parts
3) Slaves are to do what they are told. Period.
... I'm sure there are other things, but I'm working off memory at the moment because I have other things to do today and I'm trying to finish this post in a timely manner, but I am quite certain I've missed a few points in my favor.
That said, I have yet to see a response other than "nuh uh" from you and that is not satisfactory in proving any counterpoint that you have claimed thus far. Putting your words in all CAPS does nothing to this end.

i don't believe it says no matter what, but it does state they must obey them. it also states that masters MUST NOT RULE OVER THEM WITH RIGOR. you keep forgetting what rights are given to slaves. tell you what, read leviticus 25:39-55 and gert back to me.

Yeah, I read that some time ago.

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

You keep accusing me of not putting these things into context (as you do in this post and several previous) and yet you seem to forget the bolded part above. The very reason I dismissed it (thought I did mention it specifically in a previous post) is because it tells you what I said in my response immediately above this paragraph - specifically 2B.
In those same passages, it tells you to get slaves from what amounts to out of town or not god's chosen - like those of egypt or the children of israel or your own family.
There is nothing else in those passages that forces anyone to treat foreigners well and the language regarding your family and countrymen can be interpreated to mean that you can't beat them like others, but nothing about having freedoms of any kind, compulsory employment where they can leave at any time, or anything that would make their servitide anything other than slavery and until you point out to me specifically otherwise, then you have nothing to make your case.

yes, however you wouldn't like it either. you cannot speak for things you do not understand, you say slavery is wrong but why don't you go to someone who perfers slavery b/c their master's take care of them and learn a thing or too.

Slavery doesn't become moral just because the slave is treated well or even if the slave is ignorant to his slavery.
There is so much literature both from history and fiction from just about every perspective imaginable that states slavery to be as such that I couldn't even begin to describe to you the magnitude of how wrong you are on this point.
These days, for every well-treated servant or slave wage worker that's otherwise treated wel, there are dozens if not thousands of men, women, and children bought and sold every day who have to endure far worse. Even despite the range of difference in treatment between a well-treated black slave during slavery America and a modern day child sex slave that is bought and sold in secret across any national border will tell you that being treated well doesn't make them any less of a slave nor slavery any more or less moral for 'having rules' or 'good treatment.'
When you come to understand that, you'll understand why the bible is a terrible book in which to get your morals from.

yes you backed it up with single verses applying to modern culture and english definitions. how does that prove anything. why don't you try comparing chinese definitions to see if the bible better fits what you want it to say. USE THE FREAKING HEBREW. IT'S WHAT IT WAS WRITTEN IN. servants were treated well by their masters and if they were treated injustly they would be punished whether it by by man or God.

Bullshit.
I've far outdone you in terms of both quoting and contextualizing my arguements within the bible and you have yet to do anything other than accuse me of wrongdoing.
Using the Hebrew version isn't going to change my arguements at all. It'll just force me to use synonyms but new passages that rewrite the old ones won't magically appear by changing the language.
Feel free to make the arguement, however.