Multiple Topics - Pick One

Ok, You want to get into it. Let's do it. Exodus 21: 3-6This states that if you buy a male slave, He shall serve for 6 years. If that slave marries and has children in the meantime, The slaves wife and children belong to the slave's master. After 6 years of servitude, The slave is free to go, But his wife and kids are not. If the servant chooses to not abandon his wife and kids, He can stay, But he must stay forever, And his ear will be bored through with an aul. If he chooses to abandon his wife and kids, The slave master keeps them. This clearly demonstrates humans are property. Exodus 21: 7-11Women, However, Are not permitted to leave after 6 years. If her master decides to have sex with her and doesn't like her, She can be sold to another Hebrew, As long as it's not a non-Israelite. If he bought her for his son, Then she can be treated like his daughters and disciplined or sold in any way seen fit. If her master decides to take on another concubine, He must continue to feed, Water and dress her, Otherwise she will be released, Broke and deflowered, With no money. Exodus 21: 20-21Slaves are allowed to be severely beaten, As long as they don't die within 1-2 days. If they die a week later from internal injury, This seems to be permissible. Above clearly demonstrates slaves were not indentured servants, As you would like to believe. You said "This is not an example of misogyny. Yes, It talks about a man raping a virgin, But it speaks about the retribution that he must pay for that action. Just because the Bible mentions rape/misogyny doesn't mean that it supports it. "Deuteronomy 22:28-29You claim this is retribution, But this is forcing a woman who has been raped to live with her rapist for the rest of her life and suffer. The retribution you mention is only if the rapist gets caught, Then he has to buy the women from her father, Because women are only property and she is now deflowered and worthless to her father. You cannot seriously tell me this is not sanctioning rape. The act of rape is fine, It's just a small cost of 50 shekels the rapist must pay to purchase his victim. You said "I will answer both of these since they are of a similar nature. Stoning was a form of capital punishment for capital crimes, Just like the death penalty today. "These passages clearly support the stoning of disobedient children and adulteress wives. There is no mention here of capital crimes or anything else. You can twist it to mean anything you want, It's still not morally just. You said "God found only evil on the earth, Except in the line of Noah. "Isaiah 45:7Is your God omnipotent? Most would answer yes. Is your God all knowing? Most would answer yes. If God is all powerful and knows everything that will happen, Then free will is impossible. It would be impossible to do something God is not already anticipating. That includes original sin. That being said, God created man, Then shackled them with an illusion of free will, But the actuality of a destiny. Some children born thousands of generations later are predestined to go to hell. God created the world the way it is, And he created sin. Then he punishes the world, For the sin he made in the first place, By genocide. Eventually, The only way to forgive us for his created mistakes is to perform a blood sacrifice of himself (Jesus) to himself to atone for the sins he created in the first place. This is Christian doctrine. God is also responsible for creating psychopaths, Infant deaths, Mental disorders, Etc. All of those people are pre-destined for Hell because, Even if free will was possible, It's not for them. You said "ALSO, There is Biblical evidence that these people could be fallen angels and their children, In which case God did not kill humans, But angels that were locked in evil and could not do any good. Both of these points are explained further in the sources below:"Oh come on, Seriously? God only flooded a world full of angels? I’m not buying it, And it’s also not what the traditional Christian teachings profess. You said "No offense, But how could you possibly be qualified to say what a "good" Christian is when you are an atheist? "I can read the Bible just like anyone else, What other qualifications do I need that the lay Christian has? The only difference is, I don't read it using Bible glasses to interpret a presupposition I already have about what I want it to say. To get into heaven, You only need to believe. To be a "good" Christian, You need to follow God's laws. Are you saying everyone should ignore the Bible and just "believe in God" and forgo all the rules? You said “You are right, It does not negate the effects of religion, But it doesn't make religion an obstruction to society! ” True, But Christianity none-the-less still obstructs their views and influences them. You said "Those people can call themselves Christians because they accepted Jesus, Not because of what they do or don't do. You're right, God didn't say to cherry pick, But in that case NO ONE would be a Christian because every Christian has sinned. "So are you saying that it's pointless to follow the Bible because sin is inevitable and you'll get to heaven on belief alone? Seems like we don't need those 613 commandments after all. You said "Christianity is not anti-scientific. Nowhere in the Bible does it tell us to disregard science, It simply says that God did a few things that defy the scientific laws that HE made, But those things don't happen anymore. Christian children go to school just like other children, And are not at any disadvantage. "Creationism teaches the universe is 6 thousand years old. This is anti-scientific. It teaches all life was made in a week. This is anti-scientific. Don't tell me the Bible is not anti-scientific. If it wasn't, It wouldn't be trying to compete in the science classrooms. You said "The last sentence in that quote is insulting. Christians ARE bright, Saying that they can't contribute to society is wrong. "It wasn't in any way intended as an insult, But I still stand by it. I don’t think Christians are stupid and I don’t dislike them, Just their views. If a child grows up believing the world is 6 thousand years old and decides to become a geologist or cosmologist, Then yes, They are at a devastating disadvantage against their peers. If they believe the world is 6 thousand years old and they decide to become an English teacher, Then no, It won't have much of an impact. It's situational and it depends on the context, But my point is the same - kids taught these anti-science-based beliefs are at a disadvantage at the college level when they are competing against kids who were taught correctly. When NASA goes to hire a new physicist, Who do you think they'd rather have - someone who accepts the science that runs this planet, Or someone who rejects it and claims magic? Again, I don't mean this insultingly, I'm just making a point. Referencing older scientists will not help this case. In the days of Galileo and others, Science was still in its infancy and God still filled a lot of gaps. Since science’s advancements, I would argue a modern-day Galileo would be atheist, But that’s only speculative. That being said, It is possible for Christians to compartmentalize. When they enter the lab, The universe is 14 billion years old and when they leave the lab, The universe is 6 thousand, However, Their Christian views are still anti-scientific and need to be shed at the lab door. Not only is this intellectually dishonest, But it’s just incoherent and a disservice to their integrity. You said "Yes, Christianity is not science. Yet, There is plenty of evidence for it. I would love to participate in a creationism/evolution debate! "Absolutely! Feel free to challenge me from the debate page :).