Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, we understand, god kills people who do things he doesn't like. You're not opening anyone's eyes. IDiocy, please just stop. Your argument of slavery as indentured servitude is apologetic garbage, and still no better.

[Epimethean]

Here is a great argument against the bible:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...TF%2FUOQ4R

[Faith No More]

if you're refering to stories of the old testoment however, you'll notice that there was always a reason he killed people.

Good to know the ten commandments are flexible as long as there is a reasonable justification behind it. Or is God exempt from his own commandments? You know, the whole do as I say not as I do philosophy. Why is it that this so called 'ultimate moral authority' cannot lead by example?

You're bending over backwards to justify atrocious behavior, but I think it's time to realize you're not that flexible.

[Cyberman]

You're bending over backwards to justify atrocious behavior, but I think it's time to realize you're not that flexible.

Another word for flexible would be soft. As a colloquialism for daft, silly and/or gullible (i.e. 'soft in the head'), I think based on our friend's recent posts this would be a perfectly apt description.

[chi pan]

"Good to know the ten commandments are flexible as long as there is a reasonable justification behind it. Or is God exempt from his own commandments? You know, the whole do as I say not as I do philosophy. Why is it that this so called 'ultimate moral authority' cannot lead by example?"

just as i said, take something i say out of context and try to use it against me cuz you have no arguement on your side. WHY DON'T YOU READ THE CONTEXT OF WHAT I WROTE AND YOU'LL FIND YOUR ANSWER FAITH NO MORE!!!

[Faith No More]

It's not taken out of context, it's just a snipped quote. I didn't feel the need to quote the whole paragraph but just what was necessary for anyone reading it to understand what I was responding to. I did read the whole thing and found nothing other than a desperate attempt to justify atrocious behavior by someone who couldn't even do it well.

Oh, and stop shouting at people. You're coming off as quite the asshole.

[Cyberman]

For many theists, "in context" means the whole book from cover to cover. Anything less is distorting the message. Quite how anyone can distort something distorted already escapes me, however.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

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?

Don't try to spin it into something it's not. It's human ownership. It's slavery. Most of them (if not all of them) did not choose to be there. They cannot choose to leave. There's no difference between slavers and slave owners in the bible and slave owners in actual history. It doesn't matter of they're treated well.
It's immoral and it's why slavery is denounced by every first world nation in the world and the UN and why slavery has been driven underground. It's not acceptbale under any circumstance.
It's not comparable to butlers because butlers can choose to leave their job at any time and butlers have freedoms of their own, they're paid for their service (and not a slave wage mind you), and they can quit at any time.
That is NOT THE SAME THING and your spinning of what the bible actually says about slavery isn't actually what the bible says about slavery.

I'll give you a clear example:

21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
21:26 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.
21:27 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.
21:28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.
21:29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

So according to the colored blue passage, it's okay to beat your slave to death, as long as you do it over the course of days.
It's also okay to maim your slave, but you should avoid the eyes, teeth, and such, otherwise you have to let him go free after you're done. Because god is "charitable."
So yeah, the bible says slavery is A-OKAY and even gives you a handy-dandy guide to a biblically acceptable way to beat and maim your slaves.
E21 is entirely a how-to guide to buying, owning, and beating slaves.

So actually read your own bible, come back, and tell me again how the bible says you should treat your slaves like human beings? I'm pretty sure it says something like this:

Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

He is his money. Not a person.
Money.

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?

In today's society, you get fined for parking in a no parking zone. You get fined for driving too fast. You get fined for parking in a handicap parking space. You get fined for not filing government paperwork on time. You get penalized for spending more money than you have in your bank account.
Do I consider a fine to be punishment for raping a woman, getting her as a wife (and all the free labor that women are forced to do for their husbands in the bible as well as the children they can bear for you), and possibly a tie to a powerful family in the exchange?
No. No I don't. Perhaps it's just my modern sensibility and my own love of women in general that's giving me a bit of bias vs. the bible's inability to recognize women as more than mere playthings for men, but we fine people today for minor offenses. Rape is not only a felony that can legally and socially stigmatize you for the rest of your life, it's also terribly immoral and emotionally (if not also physically) scarring event for the victim.
In the bible, rape is none of those things. At worst, it's the biblical equivelent of taking someone's car for a joyride without the owner's permission.
That's not a punishment at all.

I would also like to take this moment to remind you that the bible does not condemn rape or slavery or list them as immoral acts.

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.

That's because scripture gives people permission to treat other people as though they weren't human. Slaves and women, for example, who have only had civil liberties in America for maybe 60 years.
And don't you dare tell many christians that "gay" should be an acceptable lifestyle. In some places, that mistake can be fatal.
It helps that God appears to approve and kill gays for their sodomy.

That's just one example.

if you're refering to stories of the old testoment however, you'll notice that there was always a reason he killed people.

Commandment #6 says: “You shall not murder.

So I guess murder is a sin punishable by damnation to everyone except god, moses, and countless others in the bible?

I'm pretty sure I can come up with better reasons for murdering people. Usually for breaking any of the other commandments. It was apparently okay enough of a reason to flood the world and commit a horrible genocide (one of many god commits against humanity) in which every man, woman, and child in the world all died from drowning.
He of course chose to save Moses, because he certainly never broke any of god's commandments and is apparently a just and right person.

I'm sorry, but there's no way god of the bible or any of his followers in the main bible stories are moral people - even by the bible's own standards. "Reasons" or not.

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.

Yes. I know this because I've seen the arguements hashed, rehashed, and double rehashed as well as refuted numerous times by evolutionists, fans of science, and anyone who has any working knowledge of the topic.

I've also done all of that myself with people with good knowledge of the topic myself. I don't enjoy tooting my own horn, but I do have some command of the topic.

"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.

Go for it.

[The Grand Nudger]

"In context" actually means conforming to his interpretation. Choosing not to buy his interpretation (read:excuse) is to make the story unjustifiable, he realizes this, hence the caps and cartwheels. I don't think he's even come to grips with the issues that "that's the way it was back then" as it is applied to his god, raises. A god that gives us laws which conform to whatever idiocy we're engaging in at the time, rather than some decent set with the sorts of improvements one might expect from an omniscient benevolence. Revisionism that fails to change my assessment of his god, or his book. Just pisses me off that he'd imagine I'd be dumb enough to buy it simply because he says so. Or that if it were true that I would somehow reverse my position?

[Minimalist]

He's no different than any of the other cherry pickers who show up here.

What a confederate he would have made!

Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp