Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[Faith No More]

Yes, killing in self-defense is the only time it is justifiable, I will concede that, but considering God is an omnipotent being under no threat, this is irrelevant. Regardless of whether it is okay for humans to kill as a form of punishment, which for the record I am against, an omnipotent being should have an infinite number of options to rectify a situation. Killing in self-defense is a last resort, which Yaweh should never have to use.

The only reason I can see that God would need to kill is for a show of force, and that is the kind of tactic that criminal organizations and warmongers use.

[Minimalist]

is it not ok to kill in self defense?

Is it? I wonder what your god boy has to say?

Luke 6:27-36

Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you; bless those who curse you; pray for those who treat you spitefully. When a man hits you on the cheek, offer him the other cheek too; when a man takes your coat, let him have your shirt as well. Give to everyone who asks you; when a man takes what is yours, do not demand it back. Treat others as you would like them to treat you. If you love only those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. Again, if you do good only to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do as much. And if you lend only where you expect to be repaid, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to each other to be repaid in full. But you must love your enemies and do good; and lend without expecting any return; and you will have a rich reward: you will be sons of the Most High, because he himself is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be compassionate as your Father is compassionate.

Looks like you better get your ass back to sunday school and brush up.

[chi pan]

"Yes, killing in self-defense is the only time it is justifiable, I will concede that, but considering God is an omnipotent being under no threat, this is irrelevant. Regardless of whether it is okay for humans to kill as a form of punishment, which for the record I am against, an omnipotent being should have an infinite number of options to rectify a situation. Killing in self-defense is a last resort, which Yaweh should never have to use."

look, i don't care if you believe what God did was wrong that's between you and him. what we're argueing is if God contradicts himself in breaking his own commandment and he does not and this is why. the hebrew for the word sometimes translates to kill but more often translates to murder. the jewish sages note that the word retsach (origonal hebrew used in the 6th commendment) applies to illegal killing. not killing in general. this means the following is justified: killing in war, exceptions to killing listed in the law, and KILLING FOR PUNISHMENT FOR BREAKING THE LAW. if you look at any instance where God kill's people himself, it's always been b/c they have committed a sin or multiple sins that are punishable by death. in this way he does not contradict himself. ---this is how you look into scribture, not taking one verse and saying "oh you see? it's wrong."

"Looks like you better get your ass back to sunday school and brush up."

yes i very well know this but you should know you cannot apply new testimate scripture to old testiment events. though christians cannot say it is justifyable to kill someone out of self defense athiests often do don't they? i myself never said it was justifyable i just asked "is it not?"

[Minimalist]

Just the fact that you are asking means you haven't been paying much attention to what your 'god' allegedly said.

Matthew 26:

52 “Put away your sword,” Jesus told him. “Those who use the sword will die by the sword.

[chi pan]

you're sidetracking the valid points i've made with these petty claims. this is not what we're discussing and your dodging the main point cuz you cannot refute it.

[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.

[Minimalist]

RE: Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole
you're sidetracking the valid points i've made with these petty claims.

And I think you have your head up your ass about your bullshit religion so I guess that makes us even.


Let's see....your fucking 'god' says "thou shalt not kill" - his fucking 'son' says to not even resist but somehow you play Philadelphia lawyer on your own horseshit and come up with lots of reasons why your divinities are wrong.

You call yourself a "xtian" and, from what I've seen of most of those fuckers, you are in fact a prime example.

[chi pan]

"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."

your right my mistake.

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

oh sorry is death not a good enough punishment for you? and don't you see why they're forced to marry according to Deuteronomy 22:28-29? at the time no man wanted to marry a woman who had been defiled and whether it be right or wrong, back then all women did and ever wanted to do was get married, take care of their husbands, and raise a family. a man doing that to her would take away her sole purpose for living which is why he is also forced to marry her. you cannot compare today's cultural view to back then cuz today's culture DID NOT EXIST. and you say the man does not get punished enough according to this law? well how about this, the man not only has to pay her family a buttload of money and marry the girl (which means support her for the rest of her life) he won't get anything from her parrents, his own parrents would disown him so even if he's the firstborn he wouldn't get his inheritance, and he would be treated as an outcast by everyone for what he's done. good way to get a wife? sure if you want to give up everything else in your life. hope it's worth it.

"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."

oh really? what exactly makes slavery wrong? well if you would ask anyone who has been a slave they would probably tell you they don't treat you right, they punish you just for fun, there's no freedom, it's a life forced upon you, and there's no way out of it. you say it doesn't make it equivelent to a modern job with nothing to back it up? what does that mean? as i've seen in someone's signature many times "what is said without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." being a slave back then was the same as being an endentured servant which coexisted with slaves in america and were considered different. people from england would want to come to america but didn't have the money so they sold their services for a temporary amount of time so they could come here. is this wrong? and you have claimed slaves are mistreated in the bible but give an example cuz all i see in the bible is "You shall not rule over him with rigor" over and over again in the bible.

"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."

no it's not. before i compared being a slave back then to being a butler and you said
"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."
well i just showed you a passage that says they can quit anytime as long as they can pay back the money they were paid in advance. so again how are they different?

"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."

your right, it did not however can you state a scenario where someone can beat their slave and they die a couple days later after being left alone from the beating? in a couple days they would have healed unless they have serious injuries like broken bones but a master would never break their slave's bones cuz that would make him useless. how can a slave die from a beating 2 day afterwards? if he does die at that amount of recovery time you can safely say the beating did not cause the death correct me if i'm wrong.

"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."

and what point is that? that you can rule over your slaves with rigor? cuz if that's your point then you're wrong as i've already covered the bible says "You shall not rule over him with rigor."

"Where is the punishment for RAPE?"
already covered in Deuteronomy 22:28-29. i also explain in this very post why this punishment is enough. see if you can find it.

"So his state-sponsered executions were okay, according to this logic."

oh so first you say God is wrong for punishing those people back then and now you say God is wrong for not punishing people today? you can't have your cake and eat it too. you don't care if it's right or wrong all you was to do is use whatever you can to say it's wrong.

"I think I just godwinned this arguement."

not even close. God doesn't interfere anymore today the same reason a parrent lets his child go on his own when he grows up. God created this earth, raised it, and now he's interfering less and less as we take care of ourselves. it even states in revelations that at one point he won't interfere at all and he'll just let terrible thing happen with the rise of the antichrist and the world coming to an end. whether you like it or not, that's your reason. and also if you notice, God punished his own people more than the gentiles at the time b/c his people were disobediant. maybe that's why he doesn't interfere as much, we're not jews and since christ he's been distant with them as well.

---

"Let's see....your fucking 'god' says "thou shalt not kill" - his fucking 'son' says to not even resist but somehow you play Philadelphia lawyer on your own horseshit and come up with lots of reasons why your divinities are wrong."

i've already covered this. if you want to learn you have to read

---

"Let's see....your fucking 'god' says "thou shalt not kill" - his fucking 'son' says to not even resist but somehow you play Philadelphia lawyer on your own horseshit and come up with lots of reasons why your divinities are wrong."

i've already covered this. if you want to learn you have to read

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

oh sorry is death not a good enough punishment for you? and don't you see why they're forced to marry according to Deuteronomy 22:28-29? at the time no man wanted to marry a woman who had been defiled and whether it be right or wrong, back then all women did and ever wanted to do was get married, take care of their husbands, and raise a family. a man doing that to her would take away her sole purpose for living which is why he is also forced to marry her. you cannot compare today's cultural view to back then cuz today's culture DID NOT EXIST. and you say the man does not get punished enough according to this law? well how about this, the man not only has to pay her family a buttload of money and marry the girl (which means support her for the rest of her life) he won't get anything from her parrents, his own parrents would disown him so even if he's the firstborn he wouldn't get his inheritance, and he would be treated as an outcast by everyone for what he's done. good way to get a wife? sure if you want to give up everything else in your life. hope it's worth it.

Good zombie jesus - did you even read what I wrote? Do I really have to explain why you're wrong AGAIN?
No. He didn't die because he raped the woman (if that's even what he did - the bible did NOT specify that Shecham raped her - it could have just as easily been consentual) he died because he was uncircumsized. It's what the entire chapter was about. She wasn't defiled because of rape. She was defiled because she was raped by a man who was uncircumsized. It was the whole reason why Jacob's sons murdered the entire village because Jacob and Hamor struck a deal to marry all of their children as long as they all got circumsized. That deal was the "punishment" for their intercourse because rape is rewarded in the bible or, at worst, a bloody fine.
Yes, we also went over Deu22:28-9. It establishes that rape brings shame to the man's honor and he has to pay a fine.
In the previous passages, the man dies if he rapes her in the country and no one is around to hear her scream.
She dies if she doesn't scream in the city.
I find it bloody convenient that you fancifully ignored Deuderonomy 22:23-27.
He only gets fined if she's an unbetrothed virgin.
I wonder why. Perhaps it's because unbetrothed virgins are much more valuable property.

Now how about Numbers 31:17-18? I believe that's god essentially giving Moses' army permission to murder every man, non-virgin woman, and male child but allowing them to keep the virgin women and female children for themselves.

The best arguement you have is that the bible explicitly punishes men who rape unwed virgins... with a fine.
You get capital punishment for...
adultery (Leviticus 20:10)
animals get put to death for harming humans (Exodus 21:28)
bestiality (Exodus 22:19) (Leviticus 20:15) (Leviticus 20:16)
blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16)
breaking the sabbath (Exodus 31:14) (Exodus 31:15) (Exodus 35:2)
disobediant children (Exodus 21:15) (Exodus 21:17)
Homosexual (Leviticus 20:13)
Incest (Leviticus 20:11) (Leviticus 20:12) (Leviticus 20:14)
Murder (Genesis 9:6)
Rape VICTIMS that don't cry loudly enough (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
Theft of Slaves (Exodus 21:16)
Woman's Lack of Virginity @ Wedding Day (Deuteronomy 22:13-22)
Witches (Exodus 22:18)
Worshipping another God (Exodus 22:20)

So yeah, women can be executed if they're raped and don't cry loudly enough. They can die if they had consentual sex before being wedded to another man. You can die if you steal a slave, but if you rape someone, you get a fine and a marriage and only if she's unbetrothed and a virgin. Even then, it's only a punishment if you're too poor to afford the fine.
Oh - and the rape victim is forced to marry her rapist.
For rape - that's not a punishment and it's not stated as immoral anywhere in the bible.
To top things off, more often than not, the rape victim is punished more than her rapist. Forcing her into life being married to her rapist compared to being forced to pay a fine and get access to her booty at all times? The booty you raped? Who gets justice from this "punishment?"

oh really? what exactly makes slavery wrong? well if you would ask anyone who has been a slave they would probably tell you they don't treat you right, they punish you just for fun, there's no freedom, it's a life forced upon you, and there's no way out of it. you say it doesn't make it equivelent to a modern job with nothing to back it up? what does that mean? as i've seen in someone's signature many times "what is said without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." being a slave back then was the same as being an endentured servant which coexisted with slaves in america and were considered different. people from england would want to come to america but didn't have the money so they sold their services for a temporary amount of time so they could come here. is this wrong? and you have claimed slaves are mistreated in the bible but give an example cuz all i see in the bible is "You shall not rule over him with rigor" over and over again in the bible.

Slavery is wrong because owning another human being is wrong. You're depriving that person of their ability to choose the direction of their own life and that's a crime against that person's civil liberties. It's the act of turning a human being into someone's property and to be treated as such.
Speaking of 'what is said without evidence is dismissed without evidence' - I've already provided my evidence which you have yet to acknowledge or refute.
But you know, fine. You're a christian, I presume. You're showing evidence of basically ignoring the more unpleasant realities of the bible. - including all of the passages regarding the treatment of slaves that I brought up and expounded upon. Fine.
Here's another example.

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

Servents - you do what your master tells you to do. Period.
The burden is currently yours. Provide evidence that the bible condemns slavery because that's the topic of the conversation.

Now, not that it makes the slavery of the bible moral or even ethical, you show me where the bible at least states you should treat your slaves like human beings.

well i just showed you a passage that says they can quit anytime as long as they can pay back the money they were paid in advance. so again how are they different?

Are you really that ignorant of history? Of actual slavery? Do you know what a "slave wage" is?
Slaves aren't employees that can earn a living. They're not butlers or handmaids (regardless of the names the bible gives them) or manservents. They're slaves. They earn as much money as you choose to give them. They have as much freedom as you choose to give them. They are your property. They are obligated to do whatever you tell them to do. I provided the biblical background for all of this here (peters 2:18) and in my preivous post regarding the treatment of slaves.

your right, it did not however can you state a scenario where someone can beat their slave

I'm not required to provide any such thing. I set out to prove that the bible not only condones slavery but advocates its practice. Not only that, but I've proven to some degree that said slaves are actually slaves and not merely prisoners with some rights or indentured servents.

and what point is that? that you can rule over your slaves with rigor? cuz if that's your point then you're wrong as i've already covered the bible says "You shall not rule over him with rigor."

Simple. My point is that slavery and rape is amoral in the real world but not in the bible.

already covered in Deuteronomy 22:28-29. i also explain in this very post why this punishment is enough. see if you can find it.

Yeah, your explaination was BS and I already explained why here and elsewhere.

oh so first you say God is wrong for punishing those people back then and now you say God is wrong for not punishing people today? you can't have your cake and eat it too. you don't care if it's right or wrong all you was to do is use whatever you can to say it's wrong.

Huh? I'm sure you edited out a lot of what I said in order to save space on your response, but apparently you didn't read everything I wrote. I recommend going back, looking at it again, and then making a more informred response. I tell you what though, I'll sum up what you should have gotten between the lines. I understand that sarcasm is lost on the typed word.
Genocide, Eugenics, and Murder are all immoral.
God committed genocide, eugenics, and murder and allowed certain people to do so as well.
God is immoral and a hypocrite since he forbade people from committing murder.
I compared god to, shall I say, a certain few dictators from the 40s to god as a comparison considering these people essentially committed state executions against millions of their own people for reasons not related to the impulsive reasons you mentioned and were more akin to the state executions you seemed to feel that justified god's murders.
It doesn't.
He's a tyrant and a murderer.

not even close. God doesn't interfere anymore today the same reason a parrent lets his child go on his own when he grows up. God created this earth, raised it, and now he's interfering less and less as we take care of ourselves. it even states in revelations that at one point he won't interfere at all and he'll just let terrible thing happen with the rise of the antichrist and the world coming to an end. whether you like it or not, that's your reason. and also if you notice, God punished his own people more than the gentiles at the time b/c his people were disobediant. maybe that's why he doesn't interfere as much, we're not jews and since christ he's been distant with them as well.

Two things:
1) You need to look up the definition of "Godwin Fallacy" and then look at my statments again.
2) That's nice that you believe that. Amusing, actually, since relations was supposed to take place centuries ago given that the predictions essentially required certain biblical figures to be alive at the time.

But hey, you're not the only person to take what you want from the bible and leave out the invonvenient truths of what is actually in the bible.

[chi pan]

"I wonder why. Perhaps it's because unbetrothed virgins are much more valuable property"

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.

"So yeah, women can be executed if they're raped and don't cry loudly enough."

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.

"but allowing them to keep the virgin women and female children for themselves."

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

"Provide evidence that the bible condemns slavery because that's the topic of the conversation."

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

"My point is that slavery and rape is amoral in the real world but not in the bible."

what you've done is taken a general word and put it in a broad topic. this is the fact; there are different types of slavery. american slavery- a single race was kidnapped from their homes in africa and brought to america and other countries where they were forced to do labor for no payment. middle aged servatude- low classed people were hired by nobles to do work for them for little payment and for provided food and shelter. though they were highered, they had no life outside that of servatude to go to. biblical slavery- when people sold themselves (more accurately their services) for a temporary amount of time in order to earn money so they may purchase land or pay off debts.
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.

"Slaves aren't employees that can earn a living. They're not butlers or handmaids (regardless of the names the bible gives them) or manservents. They're slaves. They earn as much money as you choose to give them. They have as much freedom as you choose to give them."

then your definition of a slave does not fit what the bible defines. in the bible, those who are called slaves sell themselves (which they come to an agreement on what price they get). in the bible it clearly defines how much freedom they are given, it's not defined by the owner. in the bible, you are not allowed to mistreat them as it says "you shall not rule over them with rigor" which you constantly ignore when i say this. though the bible says servants obey your masters, but are you not supposed to listen to your boss? you cannot throw general definitions of english words that aren't specific at all and pertain them to the bible. if you want to look at definitions, look at what the hebrew word means, or look at the context of what the bible defines as slave laws which i have clearly pointed out.

"You need to look up the definition of "Godwin Fallacy" and then look at my statments again."

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

"That's nice that you believe that. Amusing, actually, since relations was supposed to take place centuries ago given that the predictions essentially required certain biblical figures to be alive at the time."

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

"But hey, you're not the only person to take what you want from the bible and leave out the invonvenient truths of what is actually in the bible. "

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