Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[Faith No More]

I'm beginning to suspect you may be a complete fuckwit. I apologise IF I've misunderstood .

I believe him to be so desperate to justify the atrocities and immorality in his holy book that he will use any argument no matter how flimsy, twist and distort the meanings of words and sentences, and ultimately ignore the truth glaring him in the face.

I've come to the conclusion that he is not entirely stupid. He just REALLY,REALLY wants the bible to be the word of God.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Murder? yes. Slavery? no.

why the double standard? murder is thought to be more heinous than slavery and yet there are different degrees of it. are some types of slavery not more wrong than others?

It isn't a double standard. Those are two seporate crimes against humanity.
Murder is only occasionally acceptable in VERY specific circumstance.
There is no acceptable version of slavery. The closest you could argue to be acceptable slavery is prison.
However, unlike slavery, even prisoners (ALL prisoners) have defined rights and a defined sentence that they can live out and leave once over except in cases of a life sentence or death penalty.
The bible cherry picks these rights for specific individuals essentially based on groups of people god feels shouldn't be slaves (in other words, family, countrymen, and god's cronies. The rest get whatever they get.

this is something i'll look into more to get the whole story. thank you for challenging my faith.

That's what I do.

well they cannot be sold as property. it discourages physical punishment (why would you beat someone you love? and how does that show your love?). it puts them on more equal ground as a wife is not a servant and they aren't commanded to obey their husbands. it makes the husband care more about the person if she's his wife.

Why would a loving husband beat his wife? I don't know as I'm the last person who would ever do such a thing, but ... they do and they still claim to love their wife.
All the bible does is force a woman into a life with a man that has 100% of the power in the relationship and virtually all of the rights. (Keep in mind that the bible does not confer women with any real power anywhere in the bible compared to men.
Compound this with the "marry your rapist" part of the bible and try to see where the woman might be in terms of happiness with her husband.
"Not getting beaten" and "not being sold into worse slavery" is littl solace compared to being married to someone who is only married to you because he forced himself on you.
I'm sure most marriages were happier than that, but women basicaly have no rights in the bible.
On that note, see the movie "The Duchess" to get an idea of this kind of marriage in a posh 18th(?) century marriage between two wealthy families.

[chi pan]

However, unlike slavery, even prisoners (ALL prisoners) have defined rights and a defined sentence that they can live out and leave once over except in cases of a life sentence or death penalty.

the bible gives slaves rights as well. they have to obey their masters, but it doesn't take away from their rights.

The bible cherry picks these rights for specific individuals essentially based on groups of people god feels shouldn't be slaves (in other words, family, countrymen, and god's cronies. The rest get whatever they get.

the bible doesn't cherry pick. a lot have a choice and a lot don't. i agree that people don't always get what they diserve. they get what they get but the important thing isn't what you're given; the important thing is what you do with what you're given.
some people used to think that people born blind must have done something wrong do deserve it but that's not true at all. they were born with a defect but it's not important what they have it's important what they do with it.

Why would a loving husband beat his wife? I don't know as I'm the last person who would ever do such a thing, but ... they do and they still claim to love their wife.

yes but the point i was trying to make is that it doesn't show that they love them. in the bible it teaches that you should not just do good, but look good. if you are not doing anything wrong but to everyone that sees it looks like it, then somethings wrong.

All the bible does is force a woman into a life with a man that has 100% of the power in the relationship and virtually all of the rights.

this is why you're not supposed to rape. this is not God's intentions. what happened for almost every marriage in the bible is the person asked the parents of the woman and they would decide if he's the right person. the woman didn't have the choice because they wanted to take away the woman's rights but because the parents are looking out for her best interests. she may not be able to see what's in her best interest like the parents do.

Compound this with the "marry your rapist" part of the bible and try to see where the woman might be in terms of happiness with her husband.

like i said, it may not make her very happy but if he didn't marry her no one else would want to. she would have no purpose and would live with her parrents until they died and possibly resort to prostitution. this is worse than a life with the man.

"Not getting beaten" and "not being sold into worse slavery" is littl solace compared to being married to someone who is only married to you because he forced himself on you.

hold on. who says a person has to rape their slave to marry them? what if they marry them because they love them? what's wrong with this?

[frankiej]

like i said, it may not make her very happy but if he didn't marry her no one else would want to. she would have no purpose and would live with her parrents until they died and possibly resort to prostitution. this is worse than a life with the man.

Are you saying that without marriage a women can have no purpose?
Rather ignorant.

[chi pan]

Are you saying that without marriage a women can have no purpose?

back then in that society, yes. today, no. womens rights are a relatively new thing that gave a woman new purpose. back then a woman could not take care of herself. this is not b/c they weren't capable but b/c they weren't taught.

[Epimethean]

This should go in the hall of shame, but ah, what the hell:


"the bible gives slaves rights as well. they have to obey their masters, but it doesn't take away from their rights."


hock:

[chi pan]

the bible gives slaves rights as well. they have to obey their masters, but it doesn't take away from their rights.

what, does the fact that that children must obey their parents take away from their rights? do child protection laws not apply because children must obey their parents? what about the fact that an employee must obey their boss to keep their job? like i've said that you might not have read "just because servants must obey their master's doesnt mean the master can do what ever they want with their servant."

[Epimethean]

Children and slaves are two different things: Your lack of understanding regarding this reveals your unevolved state. Enjoy being stone age simple much?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

the bible gives slaves rights as well. they have to obey their masters, but it doesn't take away from their rights.

You do realize how ridiculous that statement is, correct?
I backed up my claims and the bible does not support your position against all slaves. They are, by the very literal definition of the term, slaves.
You have NO grounds in which to refute this point and your continued repeating of this point does nothing to evidence that I am wrong.
Only these oxymoronic statements of "you have rights unless your master tells you otherwise."
Do you see what defending your bible is making you say? Do you see the sheer ludicrousness of your words?

the bible doesn't cherry pick. a lot have a choice and a lot don't. i agree that people don't always get what they diserve. they get what they get but the important thing isn't what you're given; the important thing is what you do with what you're given.
some people used to think that people born blind must have done something wrong do deserve it but that's not true at all. they were born with a defect but it's not important what they have it's important what they do with it.

No, Chip, it's not just that some people "don't get what they deserve" it's that the core values of the bible care only for the man and the rape victim is punished more often than the rapist.
Further, the bible does cherry pick - each and every one of those "rules" only applies to specific sets of people. There are no general rules that apply to all acts of rape. The only rules I can think of (off-hand) that apply to all slaves is the no maiming and no immediate murder passages in the bible.
However, the maiming only applies to specific body parts and you can hurt your slave in a such a way that he can die from the wounds days later.

That is not exactly on par with the rights of prisoners in the US and definately not workers.

There's also another point I haven't brought up - the bible doesn't say anything against raping unbetrothed non-virgins and there are no rulings to force you to pay or marry one. Wrap your head around that.

this is why you're not supposed to rape. this is not God's intentions. what happened for almost every marriage in the bible is the person asked the parents of the woman and they would decide if he's the right person. the woman didn't have the choice because they wanted to take away the woman's rights but because the parents are looking out for her best interests. she may not be able to see what's in her best interest like the parents do.

That is why you're not supposed to rape?
Because the man gets a wife to which he has 100% of the power? The man who is a rapist?
He wrote this in the bible as a rule. It clearly was not unintentional.

like i said, it may not make her very happy but if he didn't marry her no one else would want to. she would have no purpose and would live with her parrents until they died and possibly resort to prostitution. this is worse than a life with the man.

It's just an unhappy marriage - it's forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist. On top of that it's forcing into marriage without her consent just like she was forced to give her virginity without her consent.

There is no possible way to spin this into being acceptbale or understandable. It's quite possible one of the worst things you can do to a human being and it's a rule in the bible.

hold on. who says a person has to rape their slave to marry them? what if they marry them because they love them? what's wrong with this?

No one is saying that. This arguement of yours is a red herring.

[chi pan]

Children and slaves are two different things: Your lack of understanding regarding this reveals your unevolved state. Enjoy being stone age simple much?

did i say they were the same? they just have the same effect that the law protects children today just like the law back in the bible protected slaves. they may not be as effective as enforcing them as today (b/c of technology) but they still did.

TheDarkestOfAngels- you are confusing many topics we're discussing and mixing them together. some places i talk about slavery and you respond talking about rape. you did this for the second and third quote of me on your last post.

another thing, if the woman doesn't marry the man who raped her, she won't get a husband b/c no one will want to marry a woman who has been defiled. she would live with her family until they die and would probably have to resort to prostetution b/c she can't earn money. how is this better?

No one is saying that. This arguement of yours is a red herring.

well the quote you responded to was my response to this

"Not getting beaten" and "not being sold into worse slavery" is littl solace compared to being married to someone who is only married to you because he forced himself on you.

unless i took this the wrong way you said that people who marry their slaves rape them first. correct me if i'm wrong.