Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

do you think the bible ever calls it moral? here's a passage in the bible on what God thinks of rape.
Genesis 34:7 "And the sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard it; and the men were grieved and very angry, because he had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter, a thing which ought not to be done."
the context of the passage is that Shechem fell in love with this girl and wanted to marry her. he spoke with his father saying he wants to marry this girl but he said that Jacob had already defiled (raped) her. i don't think calling it disgraceful is any part of condoning it. oh and for those who are wondering THIS IS HOW YOU CAN SHOW CONTEXT. that passage doesn't make sense on it's own.

Although this was directed to someone else, I'll respond to it since it's relevant to my discussion;
Okay, there's a lot to cover here, so I'll start with this.
First of all, Jacob didn't rape Dinah, Shechem did. Dinah is Jacob's daughter.
Second of all, Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, is "defiled" by a man that loves her dearly. The bible doesn't specify whether she chose to consent or not. It doesn't even say whether or not she cared for him in any way, hated him, or anything about her. The bible is completely silent on this woman. Let's say she didn't consent and she spurned his advances for the sake of arguement. The fact of the matter is though that Dinah's opinion is completely irrelevant to this story. It doesn't depict her even as a victim.
Third of all, given that the man who raped her later came to ask her father, Jacob, for her to be his wife. Since Jacob had heard that he had defiled his daughter, he later spoke with Shechem's father, Hamor. Hamor asked Jacob to grant his daughter to be his son's wife.
Forth, the very apparent focus on this story has more to do with Shechem having sex with this woman before marriage. Whether she chose to consent or not, the 'crime' was Shechem against Israel, not against Dinah. In the continued story afterward, Jacob consents with Hamor to essentially marry their children together, but Jacob's children can't stand the thought of giving their sister to a man that is uncircumsized. Hamor and Jacob eventually agreed to marry their children together as long as everyone was circumsized. In verses 24 - 29, Jacob's children slew all of Hamor's male children (they were, after all, filthy uncircumsized men) and took their wives captive and retreived Dinah from Shechem's place.
In the end, Jacob's children said this little gem:

And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot?

So poor Dinah was raped. The punishment for the man? Death because he wasn't circumsized.
As for her? Filthy whore.

So in summery, man rapes woman (maybe), father pissed that he wasn't circumsized, father deceives man's father and murders all his men and plunders his city for defiling her.

Sounds a lot like the crime was less "rape" and more "raped with an uncircumsized penis" given that it was the whole reason that everything else happened. The supposed victim was also punished for being a victim, assuming she didn't even consent, which didn't appearently matter enough for the bible to make the distinction between rape and consentual sex. In fact, the only reason she mattered in the story at all was because the men cared enough about the defiling act happening tho their sister to punish them than about her well being.
In other words, she's the macguffin of the story only because of all of the men involved. Not because she was raped nor did the storyteller of genesis 34 care if she did.

So I will conclude this tirade by mentioning that for all your talk about who is saying what in context, you would do well to read your own material. I spent a good hour just going over genesis 34 just to type this response and you couldn't even get your whose who right in your response because you were not only wrong in your conclusion, you failed to actually contextualize your story within the bible as opposed to what the bible actually states about the events.

sorry for my confusion but it says in leviticus 25:48-49 "after he is sold he may be redeemed again. One of his brothers may redeem him; 49 or his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him; or anyone who is near of kin to him in his family may redeem him; or if he is able he may redeem himself." -so yes he can buy himself out or as modern comparison "quit his job." as long as he didn't spend all his money he was paid he's able to pay him back.

Being able to buy yourself out of slavery (something not every slave could do) doesn't make slavery moral nor does it make it the equivelent of a regular modern job (which you can leave at any time) nor does it mean that they're treated any more humanely as slaves nor does it make slavery moral.
You're evading the point.

don't you get it? since they have freedom to get themselves out they are not really slaves b/c slave= no freedom. it's just a way for them to make money b/c there weren't a whole lot of ways to make money back then without property. i've said this many times.

I get it. What you don't get is that the bible says things that are different than what you are telling me. It's the equivelent of telling me that slaves aren't slaves because they can choose to flee from their captors or they can buy themselves out - both options are either incredibly difficult or impossible for many slaves modern, historical, and biblical.
Escaping from slavery is a theme several timeis in the bible including the famous one of Moses leading his people out of Egypt, crossing the red sea, and escaping into a desert for many years.
Many slave owners in the US south during the US's slavery period treated their slaves well and they could escape and some of them could even buy their own freedom.
That doesn't make ANY of the above any less slaves and it doesn't make their slavery the equivelent of merely having a job.
Telling me these things is just trying to polish a very smelly turd whether you realize it or not and I have to question your own understanding of what's actually in the bible.

no did you not read what i said? i said if they wait a couple days after a beating and the person dies, they can confirm they did not die from the beating. it's not murder if they're not responsible for the death b/c it was natural causes.

Uhh, the bible didn't specify anything of that nature. Did you read the bible?
I quoted the entire passage and it said that the slave can't die on the same day as the beating but the slave can die later. It did not specify as to why. That's all you.

no, this is a form of corpral punishment. you always assume the worst but people don't beat their slaves for the hell of it. they have to DO SOMETHING WRONG. what you have to understand is these people are already paid for thier services so they can't just get fired or the owner would lose out. they need some other way to keep them in line if they misbehave. if they're a good worker then they will be treated well.

I'm repeating to you literal passages in the bible. I'm not "assuming" the worst I'm telling you what the bible literally states to make my point.
You're the one jumping to the softest conclusions you can imagine - not any that's actually stated in the bible.

hey i just quoted that passage lol. and one more thing, i've said from the beginning that raping is and was a shameful act not encouraged in the bible. this only further proves my point.

Hey, I just dealt with that passage also.
And no, no the raping wasn't punished. The man was punished for being uncircumsized and dirtying up their sister with his filthy uncircumsized penis. Him and all that kingdom were punished for this crime. Punishment wasn't even an option until AFTER it was discovered that Hamor's men were all uncircumsized and even all that murder was done by a few of Jacob's children - it wasn't even sanctioned by Jacob himself, he scolded them because he feared reprisal from nearby nations.
Where is the punishment for RAPE?

i think the bible says a few things about fornication being a sin does it not? reguardless of what you may thing, the man get's punished for these things on earth ang in heaven (if he even goes to heaven).

Yeah, well, God's commandments appear to be entirely compulsory.

i would have put a quote by me but i already listed the quote in the second parograph of my last post. read it again cuz that's the answer to your question.

Yeah, I got it the first time. It doesn't change my response.
If you do not understand why I responded the way I responded, I'll attempt to make it clearer for you next time.

well it wasn't total genocide b/c the human race survived through noah. and i believe he did this b/c fallen angels had interbread with humans and they bore giants. these were a tainted breed and God would not allow their survival for they were an abonimation. this story is clearly explained in the book of Enoch though this book was not put into the bible so it's contriversial. and you must have missed it so i'll say it again "God sentenced these people to death and exicuted them." just as he allows humans to exicute other humans for their crimes on a governmental level.

Oh, well if it wasn't a COMPLETE genocide, then it's okay.
Do you read what you type? Murder is bad enough, but apparently God also deals in Eugenics.
I believe there were a few monsters ruling communist dictatorships in the 1940s that aren't considered to be in high regard these days for the same reason. I believe the Jewish people know all about it, perhaps you should ask them. He was even leader of a government! So his state-sponsered executions were okay, according to this logic.

Eh... I think I just godwinned this arguement.