The bible is immoral

I did not ignore the verses in the original statement, they need not all be addressed point by point because, in doing so, the amount of words allowed would not accommodate the correct amount to address each one. "Rock solid evidence" is quite subjective, in fact, your entire argument is subjective and that is my point. I, myself, do not appreciate poorly written and ignored responses to a refute, or poorly written and ignored responses in general. Firstly, you do not offer any sort of substance in your refute of the morality of the text. Your responses are rife with emotional adjectives and biased metaphors to describe the god of the Bible. (i.e. proof was never in your actual claim so avoid the red herrings and you may actually make a substantial argument.) Immediately you follow up your point, about lack of proof, with a claim about the character of God which seems strange. If text is the worst form of communication, then is this debate a terrible fallacy that shouldn't be continued? What does, "plus a whole lot more" entail, and again you follow it all up with a claim about God's character, that you say still has no proof. Every reader is different, and you are now making claims about readers whom you know nothing about. Also, these claims about extremes, like "100%", need to stop because there is no world in which these are 100% true, and the claim that it is all hate is just wrong. If it were 100% hate, and the other negative emotions you say, the word "love" would not be mentioned once, but it is mentioned numerous times throughout. Again, you end the paragraph with an argument from your pathos; your emotional response only shows more of what your lack in understanding of both people and how text is written, read, and finally how poorly you debate. The authors, of the books of the Bible, speak with a bias in favor of the things that they would think are just and correct. This is done in every form of writing, even these debates. When I say "commonplace", it does not mean that it was good or bad, but that the beliefs in certain traditions and taboos were normal for the time, so the biases are not as taboo to the author as they would be to us, like the Levitican Code for example. Your ham-fisted attempt to lessen my point is just another sign of you knowing so little, just speaking out of frustration and from your own lens, ignoring everyone else's except for those that give you what you want to hear; I never made the claim that the Bible is, "a book of peace." You need to pay attention to my debate as well if you're so concerned about someone responding ad nauseam to yours. If we cannot dig up Shakespeare do we urinate on his writings? No. If someone is dead, that does not mean that you dispose of their corpus of writing. If that were the case, then we should burn the majority of books in existence. I have read the Bible, and still do, and I did read the verses and I think they CAN be looked at as immoral, but that does not make the whole of the text immoral. Again, you pull a red herring with this whole bit: "Oh I haven't even gotten to the god part. That"s for another debate. Tell me, how many so called christians actually claim themselves to be christians? Take a guess. And how many christians who believe themselves to be christians are christians? Do you even know? Its roughly 0%." WRONG: http://www.pewforum.org... (Here's my own link for you, not from as biased and unoffical a source as a simple YouTube video that someone made up) This has nothing to do with the morality of the text and it is also incorrect, again saturated with your extremist thought. The videos that you posted are rife with confirmation bias and literal interpretation of the text and does not reflect the majority of contemporary Christian thought; of course not everyone is going to agree, we're humans. You direct the Bible as a solely divine thing with no human connection...which may be the source of your frustration. The verses, you pull from, all have different contexts like in Lamentations. Lamentations is poetry about the destruction of Jerusalem, the author is grieving and uses this as a way to show his grief. Whether you take it literally or not is up to you, but the author wrote it and we must take it with a grain of salt. Exodus, the book as a whole, shows itself as an identifier for the Jewish people and culture, showing how they stand out and claim how they are different, so not poetry but again something that is up to you to interpret. Again, I cannot go bullet point to bullet point since there aren't enough characters to address it accurately. "If you now think that god is in any way moral, then don"t even bother posting another argumentr, because I ost certainly will not respond." You just brush off all argument if it doesn't agree with you, again showing how ignorant of the topic you are. Matt Dillahunty is a great thinker and a wonderful analyst, but the video you posted only speaks to the confusion of the text and how difficult it is, but doesn't support your claim about immorality. The last video does the same thing that the first two that you posted did, and that's speaking from a literal interpretation, ignoring context, and speaking from an anti-theistic bias. These videos do not speak well to your argument since they just repeat you, with the same bias. I agree that war is not good, but there is an argument that one can make to show morality in war; people fighting for freedom and for the ones they love. You point is a red herring though, you only mention war and not the interaction with David and Goliath, and you just brush of Daniel and the lion's den as a "silly little idiocy." How is it a silly little idiocy? You need to address the issues like you so vehemently want me to. It is much more complex than the number of verses you can throw at someone. In this next point, you build a straw man and purport to know what I am and what I believe, which is a fallacy and, again, shows how ignorant you are. I may not believe everything in the Bible literally, but I do not throw it all in the trash and cherry pick it. The text should stand to criticism and it should be taken as a whole, not verse for verse, and no pieces ignored, the parts that you claim to be about hate, or the parts that talk about love, like when Paul talks about it. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7) There are many, but again, we don't have enough space for all of the verses unless we pasted the whole Bible up, but what do you do with the texts that mention love if it is 100% hate, like you claim? If you only look at the Bible for moral reasons and you only hunt for immorality, then that's what you will find, seeing it as deficient. In doing so, you are the one at fault since you are making the claim. The text includes more than just what you've listed and you have done the very thing that you accused me, so passive aggressively, of doing and that: "reads what suits him best for his wants needs and desires only and trashes the rest." You are quite hypocritical in your arguments and you have failed, being wrong yourself. As for the updates, the text is not 2,000 years old; the text was compiled in the first few centuries C.E. (or A.D. if you'd like) There are original manuscripts and codexes that have been pulled, like the Dead Sea scrolls (not my favorite example but the most easily recognized) that had not been translated, but the endeavor of the scholar is to understand the original text and language, to get the original book; of course there is no one singular original, but if you want to get technical, you could say that the Vulgate is one of the first originals that we would know today. If there was no original, that hardly implies incorrect translation since the books are all independent but part of a whole. The books are independently studied before the whole of the Bible is studied, so you are incorrect with that assumption. I agree that the characters in the book have changed over time, but they also have not. What I mean by that is that the books have remained almost static, since some of the original codexes remain, but the interpretation of the character has changed some with the differing age's and people's influence and interpretation. Theologians ask the very same question about who has authority over God's word, assuming you were a theologian. Theologians may not have talked directly, how you and I talk, with God/Christ, but they would say that they have had some sort of divine or philosophical experience to guide it, perhaps using their own deductions. Again, you are making claims about a god that you also claim has no proof, so this is quite the mental acrobatics to say what you do not believe and renders it quite unbelievable, especially with the peppering of heavy bias. Please do explain better forms of communication, that we would have as humans. You are making a claim about communication that is entirely subjective and shallow, without any explanation, it's poor. In conclusion, all in all, you argue poorly. You make red herrings and straw man arguments whenever cornered, angered, flustered, or if you do not know how to respond. (At least it seems that way) You shut people out who do not agree, making this something other than a debate, and you use videos and justify truth just by shear number of verses that YOU interpret as "immoral". You also make claims about a god that you seem to not believe in and reduce humanity, and the people that you argue with, to being stupid for not having your stance. You poorly argue, use bad grammar, ask for assessment of your points, or "evidence", but neglect and gloss over the points against your own and it only shows how ignorant you truly are. You know very little of this topic and you show little understanding of how to debate and respect for the past. Do better.