The Bible is both illogical and immoral.

"I didn't know I needed to define right and wrong, I figured we all knew the difference, but OK."The problem is that people ascribe to different standards of morality. While I believe in objective truths, there are also subjective truths. By having you define your stance on morality it lessens the chance that I will create a strawman argument against you through misunderstanding of your position.Also, you seem to be arguing from commonly accepted morality. While most people know the difference between right and wrong, there are disagreements on the punishment for wrong actions and how they should be handled.For example, most people believe that rape is wrong (and it is), but I believe that rape should be punishable by capital punishment. Someone who doesn't agree with capital punishment would be in favor of a less severe punishment (such as life imprisonment). The Bible teaches that sexual immorality is wrong and in the Old Testament, specifically, the physical punishment for such is severe.MoralityPro uses Deuteronomy 22:20-21 and 28-29 as examples of immorality in the Bible. However, the Bible is talking about punishments involving adultery and rape.God considers sexual sins to be especially heinous and deserving of death (which is to help deter most from attempting to commit those sins). This is because it violates God's plan of the family, that a man leave his parents to marry a woman, then they bear children and raise a family. Loyalty is utterly important to God and aside from violating God's plan for the family, adultery violates the trust one spouse has for another. This particular sexual sin was punishable by death.The Bible teaches that adultery is immoral, it just has a much more severe penalty in Biblical times than it does in our country. Although there are probably still some countries today which punish adultery by capital punishment.Regarding Deuteronomy 22:28-29, this is a prime example of someone misunderstanding Biblical teaching and jumping to the conclusion that it is a contradiction or simply an immoral teaching. Here God is condemning the act of rape and offering the punishment for it. If a man rapes a woman, he is to pay the father a fine, but he is not forced to marry her. Instead, the woman may consent to marrying the rapist and he cannot divorce her for any reason, no matter how much below him she was or how unpleasing she might be to him afterward. This is why "he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days." [1]Pro has also offered a new argument against the morality of the Bible.The thing is, God does not punish someone for the sins of their father. Deuteronomy 24:16 says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." No one dies for the sins of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve committed the original sin which put a curse on all creation, including humans (Genesis 3). So while all of creation, including us living today, feels the effects of the original sin and we live in a sinful world, each person is responsible for their own sins. We are not punished for Adam and Eve's sins, or Rahab the harlots, or Satan's, or anyone else's.LogicPro has conceded the point about Noah's ark having ample room to carry all of the animals.I didn't argue that genetic degradation has to do with God's permission. Adam and Eve were created perfect, with perfect genes, as I have shown. By the time of Noah, genetic degradation had not occurred yet to the point where it was no longer a good idea to do so.I will also respond to Pro's point that he left in the comments, since he had intended to argue the point here:"I forgot about the physical evidence rebuttal before I sent my argument through. While it's true that most of the wood would have decomposed, some of it would have surely petrified. All they need to be convincing is one slab of petrified gopher wood that could be dated back to that time through the process of absolute dating."Actually, the only thing it would do was to lend credibility to the story by showing that gopherwood was in use in Noah's time, which I believe isn't really in dispute anyway.[1] http://www.blueletterbible.org...;