One of these four statements must be true...

I'd like to remind Con of what I said in round 1:Nature of the debate:I'm hoping that nobody is going to take this debate on but, if they do, Con will be arguing that it is not logically sound to conclude that at least one of the four statements I've made is true. The resolution itself is very plain indeed; it is simply that one of the following four statements must be true:1] God does not exist2] God's rules are sometimes wicked3] The bible is sometimes not representative of God's rules4] Owning and beating people is not wickedThis is all because the bible makes it plainly clear that beating slaves half to death is acceptable behaviour.I really don't see how one could argue against this resolution; it doesn't seem to me that Con has even understood the proposition and tried to argue against it:Con says "The Bible is not written by God himself"This clearly means that Con agrees with my third statement.But Con is not so straightforward, claiming "Therefore, I believe I have disproved your third statement."Which implies that Con does not agree with this:3] The bible is sometimes not representative of God's rulesWhich implies that Con DOES agree with this:The bible is always representative of God's rulesCon is very clear that God exists.Con is very clear that God's rules are never wicked.Con is somewhat clear that the bible is always representative of God's rules.Con agrees that it is wicked to beat a man nearly to death.But one cannot hold all of those positions wihtout logical contradiction!Con seems to be under the illusion that owning slaves is against God's rules. Here's a direct quote:"Of course it is wicked to beat your neighbour, and since we are all equal in the eyes of God, I would suggest that owning slaves and therefore beating slaves is against his rules."How illogical can one person be? If it were true that beating slaves was against God's rules AND it's true that the bible always represents God's rules, how can one explain the following quotations?Leviticus 25:44-46Your male and female slaves are to come from thenations around you; from them you may buy slaves.You may also buy some of the temporary residentsliving among you and members of their clans bornin your country, and they will become your property.You can bequeath them to your children as inheritedproperty and can make them slaves for life.Exodus 21:20-22Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rodmust be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, butthey are not to be punished if the slave recovers after aday or two, since the slave is their property.An important point to considerI would like to point out that even if there was a verse in the Bible (and there is not one) that directly said "Thou shalt not keep slaves", this would do nothing to escape the inevitability of one of the four statements being true... because if the bible sometimes said "slavery's okay" and sometimes said "slavery's not okay" then the third statement becomes true by default... the bible must not be representing God's laws accurately (disagreeing with yourself about something cannot be said to be accurate portrayal).The bible clearly states that it's okay to own slaves. It repeats that message time and time again. Despite this, my opponent is quite happily telling us that he does believe that the bible accurately represents God's laws and that God's laws are against slavery!!!I think, therefore, that I should win the debate by default for Con being so logically inconsistent. I'm going to end with another Biblical citation which I think shows even more emphatically that the bible is pro-slavery:Deuteronomy 20:10-14When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. And when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you.Is this representative of God's perfect moral law? To enjoy the spoils of war, including taking women and children as slaves?THAT IS WHAT THE BIBLE TELLS YOU.It is therefore not possible to avoid one of the following concepts:1. There is no God.2. God sometimes makes some ****ed up rules.3. The bible doesn't always represent God's rules.4. Slavery is not a ****ed up thing.That is to say that you can't believe that all of those statements are simultaneously false... for to do so would be to believe that the logical opposites of those statements were true, namely:God exists.God never makes ****ed up rules.The bible is the inerrant Word of God.Slavery is a ****ed up thing.You just can't have all four of those at the same time... because... the bible does say that slavery is okay; indeed, it even lays down the law in regards to how much you are allowed to beat your damned slaves. And, did you know, it never retracts this foul pronouncement... not once. Jesus says that he "comes not to change the Law"; he is specifically referring to the Mosaic Law, laid out in the first five books of the bible (attributed to Moses, hence "Mosaic Law"). But it gets better... if you are one of those Christians who take the line that the New Testament replaces the Old, consider this from the NT:1 Peter 2:18-20Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.So, it seems, Con is in direct disagreement with Saint Peter. According to Saint Peter, it is commendable before God that a slave bear up and endure a harsh beating for doing no wrong! According to Con, slavery is against God's rules. Who do you believe? It doesn't really matter who you believe, the important thing to understand is that the bible says some pretty rotten things... so, you have to either accept that God says some pretty rotten things, or you have to accept that the Bible does not always represent God's will. Unless, of course, you'd be happy getting out of this logical conundrum by saying that the bible never says any rotten things... but then you'd have to accept that beating slaves within an inch of their lives wasn't a beastly, rotten and wicked thing to do!