The bible advocates war, revenge, slavery, rape and even genocide

FRAMEWORK The way in which the resolution is written, my opponent has to prove that the bible advocates for each and every one of the things listed in the resolution. The resolution isn't clear, and can be interpreted in several different ways. A lot of people would've interpreted the resolution to mean that the bible "always" advocates for war or advocates for every war. I interpreted it to be that the bible as a whole advocates for war, which is a balanced interpretation that gives both sides plenty of ground for arguing. It isn't my fault my opponent did not make the resolution clear and I shouldn't be punished for it. I'd appreciate the judges interpreting the resolution the way I suggested, because it is the most balanced interpretation and the only one offered which gives a full interpretation. So the question to ask yourself is "does the bible advocate for war? ", which involves judging the book (or collection of books) as a whole. It would be just as unfair for me to win a debate that the bible doesn't advocate for those things by pointing out a few instances where it doesn't as it is for my opponent to also point out a few places where it does. The bible is a very large book, written over a long period of time. You can expect that there will be incidences that take place which run the gambit. There are no doubt the bible advocates for several of these things in small isolated incidents, but those incidents are the exception to the rule, and is one of the reasons why it is brought up. They are basically the exceptions that prove the rule. RULES OF ENGAGEMENT AND WAR<\u><\b> My opponent brings up several examples of some things permitted only in time of war. Wave Nunnaly PHD (a biblical scholar), says a few things regarding these engagements of war, which I've already touched on. "1) these "rules for engagement" came with geographical limitations. There were lots of "Amorites" living all over the ANE, but only the ones living within the biblical borders of Israel were to be exterminated. 2) There were ethnic limitations. Only the "seven nations of the Amorites" were to be exterminated--this would exclude from extermination the most vicious enemies of Israel: the Philistines, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Arameans (Syrians), and the Edomites. It would even exclude the Phoenicians, whose export of Baal worship continually plagued Israel down to the Exile. 3) There were chronological limitations: when the conquest was basically complete, these rules of engagement were suspended, never to be reinstituted again, and Israel(or some form of Israel) existed for three or four times the amount of time the USA has existed as an independent nation. 4) the decree of destruction was STRICTLY limited to PEOPLE--the destruction of homes, vineyards, and orchards was expressly forbidden. Only the people were to be destroyed--the God of the Bible had no "Scorched Earth Policy" as did Saddam Hussein. Instead, God's commands, even in the midst of a giant conflagration, were incredibly environmentally friendly. 5) the form of the Hebrew verb used in the "intrusion ethics" commands requires that the word be translated "execute", which precludes prejudice (sparing certain ones because they were pretty, strong, small, young, wealthy, influential, etc. ). this meant absolute equity in carrying out the sentence. It also ensured that torture would not be employed, and that rape would not be employed to demoralize the surviving elements of the defeated society. God even decreed that the Israelites make an "offer of peace" to outlying enemies before attacking them (Deut. 20:10), wait to be attacked (Deut. 20:12), and spare non-combatants (Deut. 20:14)--none of which were standard operation procedure in the biblical world. " . http://www.isitinthebible.com... This disproves everything my opponent has said, but I'll continue to drive the point home. INTERMISSION My opponent has asked me a few questions last round and I'll do my best to answer them, but it is merely for my own amusement and this section can be skipped if it pleases the voters. Andy, The laws you quoted were all from the times of Moses and only relevant for that time period and for those specific people. The laws of the bible can be split into some different subsections, the ones you speak of are just local laws and do not apply now, and furthermore even if they did apply now, than a few of the ones brought up would be something for the courts to handle and not individuals as the author quoted implies. Next my opponent asks if homosexuality is a sin. My answer to that is that yes it does violate the rules of Christianity when acted upon. So technically it is a sin. Me being atheist and all, I am not concerned about biblical laws. My opponent then asks is it okay to cite the bible for a Christian to defend his beliefs. I'd say it is reasonable for a Christian to do so, but if they want to be influential it is better they use that sort of rhetoric just with like minded believers, and try to use a different style of argumentation with the general public. @Andy, we're both atheists. The difference is that you read and interpret the bible with an agenda in mind, while I try to learn what it really says. RAPE I've actually shown where the bible expressly forbids rape, and it says so in close proximity to a lot of the passages my opponent claims justifies rape. Here is a quote my opponent took from the bible. "When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonoured her. " Nowhere in here does it mention rape. My opponent is just trying to read between the lines, when it would be impossible to do so based on text we don't fully know how to interpret from a culture that in no way resembles ours. You have to take these statements at face value. When you combine that fact, with the fact that for women to be a widow was a death sentence in that age. If an Israelite fell in love with a woman who was a bride of a fallen enemy soldier, he was most certainly saving her from a life of poverty and even death. You have to remember in these periods of time that women were second class citizens and often times found it impossible to support themselves. I challenge my opponent to find one bible verse that advocates for rape. He can't do it, they all advocate for putting a rapist to death, in a few scenarios rape stories are shown, but it never advocates for it. The verse he quoted doesn't even mention it, he just leaps to some conclusions based on his projection of modern day culture on ancient societies, combined with the fact he has an anti-theist agenda. CONCLUSION My opponent hasn't proven that the bible advocates for any of the things he mentioned , except for maybe slavery. Emphasis on maybe, and that is only because I don't have adequate space to get into what was meant by the term in that culture in that time period. Easy vote even if I am too lazy to post the next round.