One of these four statements must be true...

If anything, I think that you may have misinterpreted my argument.My four statements were constructed such that logically, given the assumption, at least one of them had to be true.Consider that logical argument with this analogy:The book "Stories about some bloke called Bob" says that Bob thinks that hitting people with spanners is acceptable [assumption A].THEREFORE one of the following statements must be true:[1] - Bob doesn't exist.[2] - Bob's ideas are sometimes nasty[3] - "Stories about some bloke called Bob" does not accurately retell Bob's true position[4] - Hitting people with spanners is not nasty One is logically forced to choose one of those statements as true, if the premise is accurate... this can be demonstrated thus:ALL FOUR STATEMENTS CANNOT BE SIMULTANEOUSLY FALSE BECAUSE THEIR OPPOSITES BEING TRUE LEADS TO A LOGICAL CONTRADICTION:IF Bob exists [1']AND Bob's Ideas are accurately reported by "stories about some bloke called Bob" [3']AND "stories about some bloke called Bob" says that Bob thinks hitting people with spanners is acceptable [A]AND Bob's ideas are never nasty [2']AND Hitting people with spanners is nasty [4']THEN We have arrived at a logical contradiction.One of those things HAS to be false.We have to believe the assumption [A]. That stays where it is and stands on its own merit. Since [1'] and [2'] and [3'] and [4'] cannot all be true then at least one of [1],[2],[3] and [4] must be true.This is simply deductive reasoning and is logically guaranteed.Now, I'll spell the argument out for you in the biblical case more verbally and less technically:Our assumption is that the bible says that God sanctions owning and beating pople.Notice the definition of sanction by typing "define:sanction" into Google."sanction" in context was being used as a verb, so we'll take the first definition from Google of what the verb "to sanction" means:"give official permission or approval for (an action)"So, this is the assumption:The bible says that God gives official permission or approval for owning and beating people.If it's true then where does the following line of reasoning go wrong?The bible says that God gives official permission to own people and beat them[A]. Owning people and beating them is wicked [4']. The bible always represents God's rules [3']. God's rules are never wicked [2']. (God exists [1']) [1'], [2'], [3'] and [4'] cannnot all be true because this doesn't make sense:An extant God who we hear accurately in the Bible is sanctioning slavery in his rules, which is wicked, but God never rules wicked things.So, we HAVE TO resolve this dilemma only by one of five methods:a) Decide that "the bible does not say that God rules it's okay to own people and beat them"b) Decide that "God doesn't exist"c) Decide that "God's rules are sometimes wicked"d) Decide that "the bible sometimes get's God's rules wrong"e) Decide that "owning and beating people is not wicked"You really can't say "no" to all of those. You HAVE to say "yes" to one of those.If you have said "no" to all of those, you've got a logical contradiction.One of those statements HAS to be true. It MUST be true that either:[A'] The bible does not say that God rules it's okay to own slaves[1] Or God doesn't exist[2] Or God's rules are sometimes wicked[3] Or The bible sometimes misrepresents God's rules[4] Or Owning and beating people is not wickedWhich of those statements is true? Do you accept the logical argument that one of them must be? I really don't care which one you PERSONALLY pick... everybody has to pick at least one, though, otherwise they cannot be logically consistent.Do we agree that the bible reports that God says it's okay to own and beat people? I've cited the verses... and it WOULDN'T MATTER if the bible contradicted itself later and also directly said "slavery is bad" (which it doesn't), because that simply reveals that either God's rule is alterable (and sometimes wicked [2]) OR the bible misrepresents God's rules sometimes [3].There is no way out, logically. It is necessary to be of the opinion that ONE of the statements is true.You seem to be trying to show that ALL of my "assertions" are false. They are not assertions that I want all to be true; I'm not claiming [1] through [4] are all true, only that one of them must logically be so.Am I right in judging your answers to be the following?You accept that [A] is True so the bible reports that God's law includes not punishing people for owning and beating other peopleAND you think that [1] is False so God definitely existsAND you think that [2] is False so God's rules are never wickedAND you think that [3] is False so the Bible is always representative of God's rulesAND you think that [4] is False so owning people is wickedTherefore your position is illogical. All of those positions cannot be simultaneously right, but you hold them all. Do you not see the problem with that? One of your conclusions must be wrong. Which is it?