Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[Jackalope]

I don't think he'll get banned. I might be wrong (I don't see all of his posts) but here he hasn't been trolling or flaming.

Flaming, no. His approach is borderline trolling, IMHO. Not enough for a ban.

[chi pan]

sorry, it had taken so long for you to respond i thought you didn't.

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.

well, we don't need a judge let's look at the science. what's a reflex? it's an autimatic response like when you touch the back of your mouth and you gag. when someone comes up behind you and touch you when you don't relize they're there you jump. these responses can't be helped and the fact that they don't work in a court of law doesn't make them not true.

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".

assuming the woman is alone, out of sight of everyone in the first place. this isn't the movies where women commonly walk the dark alleyways at night. women are always escorted by a man at night. if they're not married it would be their father, or possibly their brother. now you have to make up a senerio where 2 men sneek behind both of them. one killing the man and the other doing as you described. ya, ok sure.... we could do this all day but the point is it didn't happen that often.

"Some slaves have rights/good masters/whatever"

no not some, try ALL. those laws of slavery apply to all slaves not some.

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.

i have too

39 ‘And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. 40 As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee.

as a HIRED servant. gee, sounds like a job to me.

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.

yes it is a standard practice. the bible acknowledges it but it does not condone it just as it does not condone drinking even though it does not call it wrong (though getting drunk is pointed out as wrong). there were rules to ensure slaves weren't mistreated AS I'VE STATED MANY TIMES! no, it does not condone killing them of any sort. it says that and i think we can also apply the 6th commandment to this. yes, slaves had to obey their masters, but masters DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ORDER THEIR SLAVES TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT!!!! i've also stated this many times.

Yeah, I read that some time ago.

Leviticus 25:45 Wrote: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

yes, but there's more than one place

52 And if there remain but a few years until the Year of Jubilee, then he shall reckon with him, and according to his years he shall repay him the price of his redemption. 53 He shall be with him as a yearly hired servant, and he shall not rule with rigor over him in your sight.

they apply to all slaves.

Slavery doesn't become moral just because the slave is treated well or even if the slave is ignorant to his slavery.

i am not speaking in the case of ignorance. i am speaking in the case when those who can't or don't want to support themselves perfer 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.

again, you speak of slavery of the worst kind. if slavery of the African Americans never took place, we would have a very different outlook on 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.'

we are not talking about sex slavery. that is most definately wrong and the bible does not condone it. the bible only condones post marital sex.

[SleepingDemon]

So sometime in history, slaves weren't actually human cattle and we're treated with respect and compassion? Are you high? The very act of owning another human being is immoral. Your god killed Job's wife, sons, and slaves along with his livestock, so we know where yahweh stands on the issue.

[Jackalope]

Bible study time! Let's look at Leviticus 25 (NIV).

39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

The above passages apply to Israelites.

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

These refer to non-Israelites.

Let's make this clear: Whatever the bible may say about the treatment of Israelite servants/slaves, Leviticus 25:44-46 absolutely and unambiguously condones slavery of non-Israelite persons.

It is irrelevant how they were or were not treated. Owning people as property (as is condoned above) is immoral and wrong, regardless of the context. That you do not see this is your moral failing, not ours.

I will stipulate that some other versions use "man servant", "handmaid" or other language, however, the context of Lev 25:44-46 clearly indicate that we are talking about human beings being bought and sold for labor, for life, as chattel property. That is the very definition of slavery whether you like it or agree with it or not.

[chi pan]

So sometime in history, slaves weren't actually human cattle and we're treated with respect and compassion? Are you high? The very act of owning another human being is immoral. Your god killed Job's wife, sons, and slaves along with his livestock, so we know where yahweh stands on the issue.

no i'm not saying that. there has always been mistreatment in slavery. none worse than the African American slavery. but the bible provided laws to treat them as human, not as dirty things that they beat for no reason. and yes, God did those things to Job (except for killing his wife), but he also redeemed him

Job regained his health. He had seven more sons and three daughters, gained back twice as much cattle as he had before, and lived another one hundred and forty years in honor, quietly, piously and happily.

i'm sure he got other blessings in heaven for his faithfulness as well. the thing is God will always test us, but he never gives us more than we can handle. apparently Job could handle a lot. if you're interested in the story here's a link
http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/LGOT/story.shtml

i'm not going to debate this slavery topic anymore as it is clear that it is not going anywhere. i've said everything i've wanted to say. the bible does not condone slavery nor the mistreatment of slaves. it acknowleges it's existance and sets laws for it but it does not say "you may own slaves for it is good." if you disagree fine but i'm not discussing this any further.

[Jackalope]

i'm not going to debate this slavery topic anymore as it is clear that it is not going anywhere. i've said everything i've wanted to say. the bible does not condone slavery nor the mistreatment of slaves. it acknowleges it's existance and sets laws for it but it does not say "you may own slaves for it is good." if you disagree fine but i'm not discussing this any further.

Coward.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Okay, Chipan, I think I've gotten all I need to get out of this discussion.
It's already devolved into a "yuh huh"/"Nuh uh" matchup and I've not only already proven my point and you've been completely unable to do anything other than repeat your arguements and re-quote already refuted points, so there isn't much more for me to do here.

So, barring some new arguement of yours, I'll leave you with this post and this bit of advice.

1) I don't know who you are or what gender you are, but you need to learn about women, the crime of rape, the history of slavery (sex and otherwise) and even some fiction about it. I've done all of the above.
Your rape related responses show an ignorance of the crime and circumstance so baffling to me as to equate rape and not-rape to completely depend upon whether or not the woman screamed.
I don't know if this is ignorance on your part or just you trying to make the bible appear to be consistent with modern moral conventions, but it is not consistent even within itself in these regards and certainly not with modern conventions, which have evolved to a hgiher playing field.

I've recently moved to texas and not only have I raided my local library just on non-fictional stories about women in general but their foibles, sexuality, and history. I would bid you to do the same. At the very least, perhaps you should make a regular viewing of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit if you don't want to put in a regular effort into reading as many books on the subject as I do.

2) Your issues of slavery don't fare much better than your conventions on rape. Since you're under the false delusion that biblical slavery is different from any of the other kinds of slavery - perhaps at the very very least you should start with the assumption that the only rights given to a 'servant' is zero and then add all the rights as explicitly stated in the bible. The best case you've presented thus far is that servents of family and close friends and countrymen should be treated better than others but as I've quoted from the bible, it is remarkably specific on who you should treat well at all because for all your statements on how it applies to all slaves, you've fallen short on applying it to all slaves.

In conclusion, as I've told others here, I'm assuming you're making these horrible assumptions out of a wanton desire to keep whatever rose-tinted view of the bible unchallenged in your mind. That is my hope, because otherwise, you're just an apologetic - knowingly defending the indefensible. At least with your ignorance, there is the hope - my hope - that you'll eventually just read the bible as it is written rather than how you choose to interpret it.
You'd be amazed by how many atheists became atheists because they sat down and actually read the bible and allow what it says to stand on its own merit instead of allowing the apologetic footnotes on each and every verse and passage to essentially alter the bible so much that it just says what they need it to say.

In any case, I respond here in the hopes that you actually bring up a new arguement.

well, we don't need a judge let's look at the science.

I'm going to stop you right there because I can't honestly stand to look at the bullshit you posted afteward.
Have you really chosen to nitpick at the details of how screaming means rape and not screaming doesn't mean rape?
That's not science. That's bullshit. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You haven't mentioned one damn detail about rape in the bible - you've now just devolved into explaining how consent matters less than whether or not the woman is able or willing to call in the big strong men to help her.
Stop sidelining the issue.

no not some, try ALL. those laws of slavery apply to all slaves not some.

No - SOME, Chip. I said some. I meant some. I've quoted (some of which were yours brought into proper context) in the bible how only the "better" treatment of slaves only applies to some.
I'd say "ALL" if there was a passage SOMEWHERE in the bible that mentioned ALL but there isn't. Not one.

i have too

39 ‘And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. 40 As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee.

as a HIRED servant. gee, sounds like a job to me.

The passage states that you will not compel "one of your bretheren who dwells by you who became poor and sells himself to you" to serve as a slave.
Granted I paraphrased, but I left the full quote above so perhaps this time you can actually show me how I might be wrong. The rest of the chapter doesn't make this individual quote apply to all slaves either. It just tells you not to sell a person with a particular relationship to you in a particular circumstance into slavery. It isn't all people or even most circumstances. It's very specific and won't apply to most if not nearly all cases.

You've failed to make your case again.

yes it is a standard practice. the bible acknowledges it but it does not condone it just as it does not condone drinking even though it does not call it wrong (though getting drunk is pointed out as wrong). there were rules to ensure slaves weren't mistreated AS I'VE STATED MANY TIMES! no, it does not condone killing them of any sort. it says that and i think we can also apply the 6th commandment to this. yes, slaves had to obey their masters, but masters DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ORDER THEIR SLAVES TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT!!!! i've also stated this many times.

You've stated. I quoted and pointed out in the bible where you're wrong and you've still failed to refute me wihtout resorting to just telling me I'm wrong.
It makes you not only look like you don't know what you're talking about, but it makes you look like you're just saying that I'm wrong because you have no rational or biblical recourse otherwise.

I've already quoted a bible verse that specifically refutes the red-colored highlight of your statement above in a previous post. Putting it at me again in all caps doesn't make you right.

Yeah, I read that some time ago.

Leviticus 25:45 Wrote: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

yes, but there's more than one place

52 And if there remain but a few years until the Year of Jubilee, then he shall reckon with him, and according to his years he shall repay him the price of his redemption. 53 He shall be with him as a yearly hired servant, and he shall not rule with rigor over him in your sight.

they apply to all slaves.

and where does it say that? The following passages still only apply to the children of israel and the passages do not change that application.
This is why I didn't bring up the following passages earlier - it doesn't add anything to the pertinent passage.

So your conclusoin is completely off.

i am not speaking in the case of ignorance. i am speaking in the case when those who can't or don't want to support themselves perfer slavery.

Missed the point. I only mentioned ignorance offhand, but the pertinent line (which you should know to be pertinent considering that several of my posts specifically mentioned it) is slavery - treated well and treated unwell.
I don't care that you're not addressing slaevry by ignorance, you needed to responded to the other point.

again, you speak of slavery of the worst kind. if slavery of the African Americans never took place, we would have a very different outlook on slavery.

I'm speaking of slavery of every kind.
Black slavery in the USA was neither the worst, the only, the last, or the first of its kind in the treatment or application of slavery. It even predates christianity so I know that the Romans and Egyptions practiced slavery of the same sort.

we are not talking about sex slavery. that is most definately wrong and the bible does not condone it. the bible only condones post marital sex.

I don't believe there was a distinction in ancient times, but that's neither here nor there.

[chi pan]

you need to learn about women, the crime of rape

let's look at some US federal laws then shall we?
a minor 12-16 years old at least 4 years younger than the person found guilty of this which is classified as "Sexual abuse of a minor or ward" can get anything from a fine to 15 years imprisonment.
other forms of sexual abuse (law does not use the word rape) can be anywhere from a fine to life in prison. how is this better? someone can get off with a fine or 5 years for rape.
source-
http://students.haverford.edu/masar/docu...peLaws.pdf

Black slavery in the USA was neither the worst, the only, the last, or the first of its kind in the treatment or application of slavery. It even predates christianity so I know that the Romans and Egyptions practiced slavery of the same sort.

the thing that makes black slavery different from others is b/c they weren't thought of as human. they were thought of as less than human. this is the main reason why it was so bad. they were taken as slaves b/c of the color of their skin. yes, other slavery took place that rivals this kind but none as abundant. that kind of slavery still exists today, though it's very rare.

I don't believe there was a distinction in ancient times, but that's neither here nor there.

there wasn't? come on you really think that? you really think when someone said you can play go play video games but not all day that they're encouraging it?

---

i know i talked about slavery but you brought new knowlege, that's why i did.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

the bible does not condone slavery

THAT is a bare faced lie.

[chi pan]

THAT is a bare faced lie

and you did not explain why. did you read all my explinations, or just take that one phrase out of context?