Multiple Topics - Pick One

Is that a challenge I smell? >:DAlso, I couldn't paste all of your arguments due to a lack of characters. :(Exodus 21:3-6This is servitude, Not slavery. You can technically call it slavery, But that puts me at a disadvantage because of the negative connotations is evokes in readers. If you read the chart from the source I gave in my previous argument, You will see that they were treated completely fairly. It's servitude because the people sell THEMSELVES into that service, Due to economic poverty. It is not because of racial discrimination like the slavery we know of. "He shall serve for 6 years. "That's just the rule of maximum years, He can be freed before that. "If that slave marries and has children in the meantime, The slaves wife and children belong to the slave's master. "Because the wife was in the master's service when the slave married her, And the children were birthed by her. "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. "One: God wants his people to go out of that service, So the aul thing is to discourage them from doing it as a mark of disgrace. Two, It is also a mark so that they can't lie and say that they aren't a servant. "If he chooses to abandon his wife and kids, The slave master keeps them. "Because the woman was already in the master's service, And the children were birthed by her. "Women, 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. "It says if the woman is SOLD by someone else. Parents would sell their children if they were in extreme poverty, like a parent today forcing a child to work. Not sure where you got the sex thing from, It only says espouse to him, And it says at the end of the scripture that HE dealt deceitfully with HER by doing that. It never says she can be sold, It says she can be REDEEMED, AKA freed, AKA sent back to her parents. "If he bought her for his son, Then she can be treated like his daughters and disciplined or sold in any way seen fit. "The treated like daughters, Yes, Not sure where you got the disciplined and sold in anyway seen fit from. "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. "You misread the scripture. It says she'll be released without money, AKA she doesn't have to PAY to go free. God knew that servitude was a necessary economic structure for those that went into debt or extreme poverty, So he simply provided guidelines for it. *your thing about slaves being beaten*It never says severely beaten, Being beaten in the scriptures is a way to punish wrongdoers. By the one to two days things, That is simply an assumption that they are fine and will continue to live. *your paragraph on misogyny/rape*I apologize, I incorrectly responded to this due to a lack of research. I will revise my response it, but feel free to call me out on that because it is completely my fault. This is NOT rape. We know this because that scripture says if a man lie with a woman, However TWO scriptures BEFORE, It says if a man lies with a woman and FORCES HER, Then he must die. This scripture never mentioned force, Which simply means that it was sex before marriage. *your argument about stoning*Again, It was a capital crime. If a father was displeased with his son, That child had a TRIAL to determine if his behavior was bad enough that he must be stoned, And the same for the wife. Besides this, It was not a commandment, God spared many people from this multiple times, Meaning that it doesn't affect society today because it was simply a suggestion for THOSE times. Now, I would like to point out that all of your above arguments are about the Bible being immoral, But as I said, NONE of those things are commandments, So they do not affect society today, Especially because many were guidelines for THOSE times, Not ours. *your argument about free will*Free will: the ability to act at one's own discretion. This is not true. God simply knows what will happen before hand, But that does not mean that he causes it. No one is predestined for hell; that would mean that God created some WITH THE PURPOSE of going to heaven, and some without that purpose. No, He created a bar which one has to meet (believing in Jesus) and some met that requirement while others didn't. Just because he knows it beforehand does not mean that he causes it. Sin was created when Adam and Eve first broke God's law, And when they had children that sin nature was passed down to them. "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 can't simply say "I'm not buying it, " because the evidence is right there. You must read the article, I don't have enough characters to elaborate on it. As to traditional beliefs, You also said that being a good Christian by following the law is a traditional belief. "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? "I said this because you never elaborated on it. I never said that we must forgo the rules. It simply means that God will not judge you for those sins that you commit, But that is still not an excuse to sin. "True, But Christianity none-the-less still obstructs their views and influences them. "So therefore, Every other form of media obstructs the world's views and influences them, Which means that they are all problems as well that need to be dealt with. Christianity influences views, Yes, But it does not OBSTRUCT, Just like any other influencing media. *your thing on sin*We did need it, It was to govern life here on earth. It's not pointless to follow the Bible. Yes, Sin is inevitable, But that is not a reason not to try and refrain from it. *your response to my second to last quote*It is not anti-scientific! You can't simply claim that those facts are true, Because I then have to elaborate on them, But I cannot due to a lack of characters. :/By anti-scientific, You imply that is says to disregard ALL science, Which it does not. It simply disparages a couple of things that GOD did because HE made the scientific laws, So he can therefore break them. *your thing about Christians at a disadvantage*Again, You are simply assuming that those disparities are true, And I cannot elaborate because of a lack of characters. That's not fair. Second, Again, Yes, One can simply compartmentalize. "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? "NASA can't ask that in an interview, So what they want in that regard is completely irrelevant. And again, You refer to it as magic; it is not, And it's unfair to say it is when I can't argue against that (due to a lack of characters). Please refrain from doing so. Also, These are challenges for CHRISTIANS, Not society, So it doesn't obstruct society at all. *your claim that old scientists are not relevant*Ok then, These scientists all are. https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology#Currently_livingSo far, You have only argued how the Bible is immoral and how it impacts Christians, But as I showed, None of those points negatively impact society.