Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[Minimalist]

look the problem you all share is that you look at chistianity just looking for what's wrong with it by taking things out of context.

Oh, I just knew that sooner or later you would turn out to be one of the context morons that I remember so well from Evil Bible.com.

Maybe you can put this in some context so that your god does not look like a murdering prick.

1 Samuel 15:3

King James Version (KJV)

3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

[chi pan]

"I'm not talking about social welfare or accepted norms back in the day. I'm talking about the morality of owning another human being as though it were property.
It might have been accepted back then as normal in a given society but that doesn't make ownership of another human being moral or justified."

you don't get it it doesn't matter if it was justified or not it happened none the less. the only thing the bible said about it was to treat them very well and not to treat them like a piece of property or cattle. if you read the context of those scriptures you gave me rather than just readint 1 verse you would know that. why don't you actually read the restrictions so you can learn for yourself what the bible says about slavery. taking things out of contect isn't a good way to argue and only works on those who haven't actually read what your talking about.

"Oh no! The man is slightly inconvenienced and is forced to marry the woman's father's property."

slightly inconvienced? do you know how much 50 shekels of silver is? he could sell himself for 7 years and not be able to make that much. here's how it works- a man rapes a woman who is a virgin and not betrothed. it gets found out and the man is forced to pay tribute to her family and marry her and support her for the rest of his life. imagine if you lost your virginity to someone you didn't know that well and was forced to marry them. how would you like that? do you think that would only "slightly" inconvenience you?

---

here's a video that's 7 and a half minutes long. if you have an open mind go ahead and watch it. it's about a film that has a bunch of scientists loosing their jobs b/c they say some things that conflict with evolution. it doesn't look like they are very opened minded in the scientific community but here's the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE

[Faith No More]

What does that video have to do with the bible condoning slavery?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

It might have been accepted back then as normal in a given society but that doesn't make ownership of another human being moral or justified.

Who says? You? Christians had no trouble with slavery until a couple of hundred years ago. NOWHERE does Jesus condemn slavery as a moral evil,neither does the Old Testament.

So far I have been unable to discover a single universal,moral imperative. OF COURSE I consider slavery a social evil and always have; I'm a child of my time and culture... I have no way of knowing what I would have thought ,as a slave or a slave owner, 2000,or even 500 years ago.I suspect I would have simply seen slavery as part of the natural order,like owning and using livestock..

Slavery was most certainly justified on pragmatic grounds in Roman times,at least; cheap and effective labour. Not Greek,not Roman, not Jewish,not Christian or Muslim thinkers had any problems justifying the morality of slavery.


Morality is not absolute,transcendent or universal. It is pragmatic and fluid,changing to accommodate human needs and desires.

[Cyberman]

Seriously? "Expelled"? Either you are so new at this it would almost be cute, or you'll actually buy any old crap from a snakeoil salesman in a lab coat. If the former, then there's still hope for you; you just need more education as to what's really going on. The latter option, however, would lead me to make painful observations about your intelligence that I'm too much of a gentleman to make.

Try this for starters (I may be asking questions later): http://www.expelledexposed.com/

Now, echoing FNM, enough with the red herrings.

[helmespc]

It might have been accepted back then as normal in a given society but that doesn't make ownership of another human being moral or justified.

Who says? You? Christians had no trouble with slavery until a couple of hundred years ago. NOWHERE does Jesus condemn slavery as a moral evil,neither does the Old Testament.

So far I have been unable to discover a single universal,moral imperative. OF COURSE I consider slavery a social evil and always have; I'm a child of my time and culture... I have no way of knowing what I would have thought ,as a slave or a slave owner, 2000,or even 500 years ago.I suspect I would have simply seen slavery as part of the natural order,like owning and using livestock..

Slavery was most certainly justified on pragmatic grounds in Roman times,at least; cheap and effective labour. Not Greek,not Roman, not Jewish,not Christian or Muslim thinkers had any problems justifying the morality of slavery.


Morality is not absolute,transcendent or universal. It is pragmatic and fluid,changing to accommodate human needs and desires.

While I believe slavery to be abhorrent, I agree that it is entirely subjective.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

you don't get it it doesn't matter if it was justified or not it happened none the less. the only thing the bible said about it was to treat them very well and not to treat them like a piece of property or cattle. if you read the context of those scriptures you gave me rather than just readint 1 verse you would know that. why don't you actually read the restrictions so you can learn for yourself what the bible says about slavery. taking things out of contect isn't a good way to argue and only works on those who haven't actually read what your talking about.

I've read the bible. Don't mistake my only quoting individual passages as being the same thing as having only read one such passage and ignored the rest. The "context" doesn't make the passage better it only makes it worse. My arguement is that the bible does not depict slavery or rape as immoral ways to treat a human person and even depicts them as acceptable.

slightly inconvienced? do you know how much 50 shekels of silver is? he could sell himself for 7 years and not be able to make that much. here's how it works- a man rapes a woman who is a virgin and not betrothed. it gets found out and the man is forced to pay tribute to her family and marry her and support her for the rest of his life. imagine if you lost your virginity to someone you didn't know that well and was forced to marry them. how would you like that? do you think that would only "slightly" inconvenience you?

If I worked minimum wage for years, I still might not afford a new car, but being forced to pay the bank a stipend for some years for a new car is hardly any kind of punishment and the example I brought was one of the few instances in the bible where the rape-marriage theme has any kind of punishment at all.
Don't even get me started on how many people murdered hundreds or thousands in the name of the LORD, in the direction or command of the LORD, or were killed directly by the LORD.
None of those things are moral actions by any of the individuals involved.

here's a video that's 7 and a half minutes long. if you have an open mind go ahead and watch it. it's about a film that has a bunch of scientists loosing their jobs b/c they say some things that conflict with evolution. it doesn't look like they are very opened minded in the scientific community but here's the video

Here's the thing. Scientic theories are testable, falsifiable, and require months or even years of peer review before it can graduate from hypothosis to theory. Science has practical and theoretical application.
By that measure, Intelligent Design is not science nor is it based upon science. It is a sham - creationism under the guise of science.

I haven't seen the whole movie, but I've seen bits and pieces on youtube and fairly large segments of it at that. I understand the content and the intent and I've discussed this before with other people. I know the intelligent design arguement. There's nothing there of substance.

[Cyberman]

I have seen Expelled, from beginning to end but in palatable chunks since it's an incredibly painful experience. It's not the worst film I've ever seen but it tries very hard for that title. Consider that Rotten Tomatoes currently rates it at 10%, which is equal to their rating for Catwoman, and you might get some idea of what to expect. There is a downloadable subtitle track available which corrects the lies (yes, chipan, the film contains actual lies. Why do you think these people are lying to you?).

[Minimalist]

or you'll actually buy any old crap from a snakeoil salesman in a lab coat.

That's my bet, Stim. This guy is desperate to believe shit.

[chi pan]

"I've read the bible. Don't mistake my only quoting individual passages as being the same thing as having only read one such passage and ignored the rest. The "context" doesn't make the passage better it only makes it worse. My arguement is that the bible does not depict slavery or rape as immoral ways to treat a human person and even depicts them as acceptable."

yes this is true however it is b/c it was the only way out of poverty for some. people had to work and the only way for them to work was to in a way sell their services. the only difference is that when they sell their services, they themselves can sold to others however they are treated like human beings not cattle. they are respected like human beings, they had specific laws like they had to be able to celibrate the sabath and practice their religion. they were not allowed to rule over them ruthlessly and if the owner dies their services are inherited by their decendents b/c their services are already paid for. to claim this as immoral would be the same as declaring the services of a butler immoral as well. are you against rich people hireing butlers? why don't you look up what an endentured servant was in the 1600's and tell me whether that was immoral as well b/c they are similar to slaves. they weren't paid for their services but they only did work in a paticular field. it's like a young boy doing free work to learn a paticular field such as carpentry. it's basically apprentiship or like internship that they don't get paid for. is this unjust as well?

"If I worked minimum wage for years, I still might not afford a new car, but being forced to pay the bank a stipend for some years for a new car is hardly any kind of punishment and the example I brought was one of the few instances in the bible where the rape-marriage theme has any kind of punishment at all."

really? so you don't consider it a punishment for someone to be fined for a crime? ok then why are people fined all the time for breaking the law in our society? and you can't compare buying a car to a fine when you buy a car you're getting something but when you're fined you're not. and really there was a few? you only brought one passage that supposidly glorified rape but multiple on every other point why don't you bring more scripture to prove your point then?

"Don't even get me started on how many people murdered hundreds or thousands in the name of the LORD, in the direction or command of the LORD, or were killed directly by the LORD.
None of those things are moral actions by any of the individuals involved."

i don't know exactly what instances you were talking about but i can say that many people use scripture as an excuse to do evil just as they use other things. the fact is religion is a tool often used to justify war but is not really the main reason. the main reason is people want to start war and they will use any tool they can to justify it whether it be politics, religion, greed, revenge, hatrid, or just spreading lies. there will always be war and unjustified killings reguardless of whether religion exists or not b/c the fact is some people just want to hurt others and they will do anything to convince others to join them.

if you're refering to stories of the old testoment however, you'll notice that there was always a reason he killed people. example: the distruction of sodem and gamora- many of those people were subject to evil sins that were highly reguarded in the bible. some say that it was just hatred against homosexuality well that's not entirely true. that wasn't the only sin but it was basically the last straw. one of God's profits pleaded with God to find one good within the city but he was unsuccessful. and you may say that homosexuality is not wrong but in the bible it wasn't just a homosexual act that was listed, it was homosexual rape which we all can agree is wrong.
so yes, God did kill people himself but he always had a good reason for it. and you may say "isn't killing against the commandments of the bible?" well directly translated the hebrew word for it is to kill out of anger or hate. to kill someone for them to pay for a crime and not out of hatred or anger is justified, which is why they encourage the death penalty in the bible as well.

"Here's the thing. Scientic theories are testable, falsifiable, and require months or even years of peer review before it can graduate from hypothosis to theory. Science has practical and theoretical application.
By that measure, Intelligent Design is not science nor is it based upon science. It is a sham - creationism under the guise of science."

do you know this from looking at the inteligent design theories? or just from what evolutionists have said? as they say, if you want to learn about a subject the best place to get information is from the source.

"I haven't seen the whole movie, but I've seen bits and pieces on youtube and fairly large segments of it at that. I understand the content and the intent and I've discussed this before with other people. I know the intelligent design arguement. There's nothing there of substance."

well i haven't seen the movie myself either and only just recently heard of it but i'm going to see it to see what it has to say.

"Who says? You? Christians had no trouble with slavery until a couple of hundred years ago. NOWHERE does Jesus condemn slavery as a moral evil,neither does the Old Testament."

if they it's treated as paid services rather than unpaid it can be benificial. it's like having a job but being paid in advanced. as i've heard by from someone pretty wise "in a way we are all slaves it's just a matter on who owns us. we all take out loans and owe money to different organizations and are restricted on what we can do b/c we are in debt." we are required to buy insurance on things we have not paid off, we are forced to many things that we sign off to in order to live to the standards we have today.

"Slavery was most certainly justified on pragmatic grounds in Roman times,at least; cheap and effective labour. Not Greek,not Roman, not Jewish,not Christian or Muslim thinkers had any problems justifying the morality of slavery."

it was benificial to them so they could work their way to supporting themselves. how else could they earn money without owning property?