Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[helmespc]

Slavery has always been slavery. Your kindler, gentler slavery™ is just more apologetic bullshit. For surely, the man is his money.

Slavery ranks way up there among the most horrific crimes against humanity.... that it is actually condoned in the bible should be raising red flags for everyone.

[Forsaken]

Why doesn't this chipan dude just quit?

[Minimalist]

Ah.. It's Bronze Age, is it?

Best case. More likely it is a second century BC compilation and rewrite of some earlier shit.

[chi pan]

wow you all are not listening when i say THEY HAD A CHOICE. THEY SOLD THEMSELVES FOR A TEMPERARY AMOUNT OF TIME. SLAVERY BACK THEN WAS LIKE BEING A PAID SERVENT. man what it takes

[The Grand Nudger]

ats Chip on the back:...Okay...Okay buddy, whatever gets you through the day. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

wow you all are not listening when i say THEY HAD A CHOICE. THEY SOLD THEMSELVES FOR A TEMPERARY AMOUNT OF TIME. SLAVERY BACK THEN WAS LIKE BEING A PAID SERVENT. man what it takes

Just because they chose slavery doesn't make slavery moral for any length of time. Indentured servitude and slave wage jobs are all slavery.

[Old Seer]

Here is the first one:

Evolution is now (hopefully) fact for anyone who thinks rationally.
The Old Testament (used both in Judaism and Christianity, dunno for Islam) claims the story of Adam and Eve is true

If Evolution is right, Adam and Eve never existed. Hence, the Bible claimed something that is not true

Since one thing in the Bible is wrong, the Bible as a holy book that speaks the word of God is not acceptable, everything it says can be questioned, and the burden of proof is therefore on the bible-believers.

I know, this argument is shaky at best, but it is pretty simple to explain, does not require philosophical interrogation and rarely leads to the loop argument of "i believe because i believe".

It depends upon "who" and in what "state" of mind interpreted the book.

[Minimalist]

wow you all are not listening when i say THEY HAD A CHOICE. THEY SOLD THEMSELVES FOR A TEMPERARY AMOUNT OF TIME. SLAVERY BACK THEN WAS LIKE BEING A PAID SERVENT. man what it takes

Horseshit.

Deut. 20

13And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

14But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

Where do you see choice here?

[chi pan]

"Just because they chose slavery doesn't make slavery moral for any length of time. Indentured servitude and slave wage jobs are all slavery."

you're not seeing the point. this is how it was, back then the only way to make money was to own land cuz otherwise you would be homeless. so how do you earn money if you don't have land? this is how. it's bassically like getting a job except you get all the money up front. b/c you know back then they didn't have wefare and i know, it's hard to understand a world where you can't just get free money from the government but everyone had to work for their living or die. would you feel better about homeless people dieing or working? look the bible wrote about slavery b/c it was already going on and God wanted to put some rules so that the servent actually benifited from his work and could actually work to possibly buy his own land rather than just being homeless all the time. in today's society it's hard to understand but if you actually look for the answer rather than just looking for evidence to prove your own vagenda then you can find the real answer rather than a lie you surround yourself in.

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. you have no desire for the truth reguardless of what you say b/c you have no interest in looking at the context. you have no interest in looking at evidence against your beliefs. you try to take things i say and use them as weapons against me rather than considering them to be true. i refuted every argument against the bible proposed by blam and all you have to say is "slavery is still wrong whether they choose it or not" which means you have no interest in what i'm saying all you care about is trying to prove me wrong. you not only take the bible's words out of context but my own words which only proves how little of a case you really have against me. WHY DON'T YOU LOOK AT THINGS TO FIND THE TRUTH RATHER THAN LOOKING AT THINGS TO FIND YOUR TRUTH.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

you're not seeing the point. this is how it was, back then the only way to make money was to own land cuz otherwise you would be homeless.

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.

For example, if I were a citizen of Afghanistan and I've been pining for a woman that's just not too interested in me and I wanted to marry her - then I could rape her and she would be obligated to marry me or be put into prison.
This is apparently acceptable practice there. I recieve no punishment if I'm willing to marry her and I get a slap on the wrist legally if I don't.
Where is the morality or justice in that?

Owning a human being is immoral. God is fine with slavery and he's fine with the rape/marriage scenario I outlined above in the bible.

Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes."

This man is called 'just' and 'righteous' by god in a later passage.

If a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and then marry her. 22:28

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