The New and Old Testaments Should NOT Be Considered Moral Guides

Well then, I didn't think it would be quite so straightfoward. Let us recap Con's moral judgements:1) Slavery good? - Yes. Con has agreed that it can be morally good to own another human being as property. He then later qualifies it with "if they consent, it's okay." What if they do not consent, is it then still morally good in any circumstance to own another human being as property?2) Genocide good? - Yes. Con has agreed that it can be morally good to commit genocide. 3) Human sacrifice good? - Yes - Con has agreed that it can be morally good to sacrifice a human being, as long as you think you're commanded by someone greater than "mere mortals". 4) Sins of the father pass to the son? - Yes - Con has agreed that it can be morally good to hold a child accountable for the sins of their father because children are impressionable.5) Rape good? Con says NO! He asks who ever said that? I'll name a few verses:"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again." (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) (Woman as sex slaves, which is clearly non-consentual, and therefore rape)"Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city" (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB) (Take over a city, rape the women)"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife." (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB) (After pillaging a city, find the attractive woman, take them as your property, and have sex with them - clearly not consentual - therefore rape)There are more but I think the point has been made. You agreed rape is morally bad. The bible doesn't seem to say it's bad, in fact the people in the bible are specifically told to own women and have sex with them - this is rape by definition.6) Good to force a women to marry her rapist? - YES because they are "impure", therefore punish the VICTIMS of crimes by forcing them to marry (without being able to ever get divorced) the man that RAPED THEM.7/8) Hell exists and infinite torture for finite crime is good? - YES. Because "punishment is necessary for ethical communities", punishment should be infinitely more severe than the crime commited. See #99) Good to have death penalty for punching your dad? - YES because if you support the death penalty for any crimes, you must support it for all crimes. UNLESS the crime is rape, then it's not really that bad and doesn't require the death penalty, but instead you must pay a bit of silver and marry her as punishment... (says the bible)If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)10) If you knew the future, and you created a person knowing they would commit a crime before YOU MADE THEM, is it good to punish them infinitely for this crime? - YES because it will prevent people from committing other crimes. Con also mentioned that the person is responsible for their crime - but wouldnt the fact that god was directly responsible for them being created, all the while knowing in advance they would commit the crime, place some responsibility on him as well?I think I'm going to let most of this stand on it's own. Con accepts that there are situations where slavery, genocide, human sacrifice, and the death penality for minor crimes are morally good. He then denies, for some reason unknown to me in light of all this, that rape is always bad, but I presented cases directly from the bible that straightforwardly show people were commanded in the bible to take women essentially as sex slaves and rape them - which contradicts his moral claim.In the case of rape, it's either the case that you are mistaken and you were morally wrong, and the bible is right, and therefore rape is morally good in some situations, or you are correct and the bible is wrong and you have then derived some moral judgement that opposes the bible. Which is it? It also seems as though you advocate the death penalty for all crimes, but the bible does not (as shown in the verse about the rapist) - how do you reconcile this contraction?