Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

no, it's b/c they are promised to marry another man. this is almost as bad as adultery and this is besides the point.

I can't believe that I have to tell anyone this, but rape is not the same as adultery.
Adultery impliles consent.

this is completely unrepresented let me quote a part of it. "the young woman because she did not cry out in the city" do you see the words loudly enough? no you put those there. the fact is in the city the buildings were close enough and made of mud and they had no glass windows. there was no such thing as soundproofing at the time so if a girl cried at all in a city, she would be heard. is she didn't cry then she wasn't raped and that's why she would be stoned.

Or she was gagged, is mute, drugged, threatened, afraid of what'll happen to her if she does cry out, ashamed of the event, or any number of other things.
The worst part of all of it is though that not crying out DOES NOT MEAN SHE WAS NOT RAPED.
At best, the bible is blaming the victim.

this isn't related to what we're talking about cuz it doesn't mention rape

It implies ownership. Women in that passage are spoils of war and part of an ongoing message that women are not human - but instead property and theire only value in the bible has entirely to do with the men in their life - the husband, son(s), and father.
It has to do with rape because it is the biblical context behind the topic of rape. That is to say that rape itself is not a punishable offense in the bible because women are property and not rightful persons.

it doesn't condem it b/c it was not as unjust as it was in america. you cannot compare english definitions to hebrew text

You're a christian, aren't you? You believe that God is the ultimate moral authority, yes? I've had so many theists argue about how atheists and those who deny god are essentialy amoral or without morals because that is essentially the jurisdiction of god's domain.
Given that we see slavery as immoral now, then why is slavery only now amoral and why wasn't it amoral in the bible?
Yes, I know you weren't those theists, but "it was a different time" doesn't make murder, rape, and slavery moral actions then or now.
It might have been accepted practice then just as it was during America's slavery years, but it was never moral.

Just ask a few faithful Jewish people if slavery in the bible was moral. I'm sure they can spin you a tale involving Moses and a certain Egyption Pharaoh about how they really didn't feel that way.

my point is THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT. what your doing is like saying all murder is the same and should be punished equally. well no, there are different types of murder (degrees) in which some are heinous than others. IT'S NOT BLACK AND WHITE. if slaves are free and they choose their life and they can leave it at any time it's equivilant to a JOB.

No. Not it was not equivelent to a job.
As others have stated, slaves were the spoils of war. They did not have rights. The bible explicitly states that slaves (or "servents" if you prefer) are to do their master's bidding NO MATTER WHAT. I even provided the passage stating it as such.
By and large, they were not 'hired' - they were taken, purchased, or bred for servatude and they could only be free if their master allowed them to be free.
Yes, I get that some masters didn't treat their slaves like shit.
That does not make slavery moral in the bible or otherwise. Anywhere. Anytime.

Further, I can see you twisting and contorting every which way to justify slavery in the bible by trying to convince me that they're just jobs - but they're not. It is never ever described as such.
Slavery is never condemned in the bible - even by Jesus, who condemned the Rich for acccumilating wealth. For all your talk, you have nothing in the bible to justify anything you're saying.

then your definition of a slave does not fit what the bible defines.

BULLSHIT!
I've done nothing but back up my claims with biblical passages and I've not strayed outside of what the bible says about slavery and rape.
You're the only one going on about how it doesn't count as the modern day connotions of slavery because they're just employees who chose to work and can choose to leave and how they're treated humanely but my biblical passages discredit you and so far I'm the only one even defending my point with actual biblical refernces.
So, don't tell me about how I'm getting it all wrong. I'm just reading your book and telling you exactly what is in it.
You're the one trying to spin it to say something other than what's actually in the book.

when i looked it up i got Godwin's Law which idk how that applies. we aren't talking about Hitler or Nazis.

You're not reading my posts, are you?
If you are, you dont' seem to be comprehending a lot of what I'm saying.
I didn't name names, but yes, Hitler and Stalin were mentioned.
I mentioned them specifically because of your mention about how God's committing genocide against the human race was justified because I should think of it as "state execution" and he did flood the world because, and I quote,

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.

So... yeah. It's okay for god to commit mostly genocide (since some people survived and it wasn't total genocide) because he didn't like the breeds of human that were being produced as a result of coupling with god's other children.
Our word for that is "Eugenics".
In other words, not only did god murder nearly all of the human race, but he did so to steer our breeding in a direction of his preference.
The last guy in the real world who did that in the real world was one of the most reviled human beings who ever lived.
God did this.
Saavy?

really? there's a specific date jesus said he would return? try reading Mark 13:32

I don't recall mentioning one.
Also, I don't care. I already have enough of a discussion with you to also include the retarded end-time predictions and prophecies. These posts are already long enough.

Me?!?! YOU'RE THE ONE WHO TAKES GENERAL ENGLISH WORD DEFINITIONS AND TRY TO APPLY THEM TO ANCIENT HEBREW WORDS. YOUR THE ONE WHO SAYS THAT'S NOT RIGHT IN TODAY'S SOCIETY THEREFORE IT'S NOT RIGHT BACK THEN NOT TAKING TO ACCOUNT THE CULTURE AT THE TIME. I LOOK AT MORE THAN JUST THE BIBLE YOU JUST PICK AND CHOOSE WHATEVER YOU CAN USE AS WEAPONS. YOU DON'T DESIRE TRUTH!

---

and look at leviticus 25:39-40 and tell me how unjust those statements are

Bull. I've backed up every word I wrote with scripture.

And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee ; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:

But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.

I believe I've gone over a number of times with you that slaves and hired servents are two seporate things.
These passages tell you to not sell your 'brother' (I assume both literal adn figurative - like a countrymen) into bondage by force, but allow them to work as a hired servant. Fairly straightforward, but essentially nothing on slavery (outside of not selling out your family or fellow countrymen.)

Why don't we mosey on to Leviticus 25:44-46?

Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

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.

So yeah... not your family or countrymen, but heathen neighbors, their families, and their children are fine for permaennt slaves.
Don't rule over your own with rigor. Who gives a damn about the rest?
Yeah you've gone on about how the bible tells you not to rule over your slaves with rigour, but when I actually find the proper passages, it curiously specifies your "brothers" - the "children of Israel" as opposed to being a broad term that applies to all slaves.
Leviticus even differientiates between the "employees" and "slaves" that you've been going on about.
The more you quote the bible, the more work you appear to be doing for me and my position here.