The Bible is both illogical and immoral.

Remember that Pro's contention is that the Bible is both illogical AND immoral. In order to win this debate, he will have had to prove that the Bible is both. However, he has not proven that the Bible is either, especially proven in the fact that he has dropped several arguments.MoralityHere Pro has dropped the argument from Deuteronomy 22:20-21 altogether, thereby conceding the point to me.Regarding his second argument from morality, he has not shown that my argument is incorrect. In fact, when the Bible says "they shall be forced to marry," as I have already stated, if she wants to marry the guy, they are forced to marry and he cannot divorce her at any time, no matter how annoying or unlovable she becomes.Regarding the sins of the father, the verse that Pro quotes does not disprove my earlier argument. Notice God says "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children." In other words, the same sins the fathers were committing, the children were committing and therefore, they were as guilty as their parents were.LogicHere, Pro drops the arguments from Noah altogether. Not only did he drop the argument about the ark not being big enough to hold all the animals, but he also drops the argument about genetic degradation from Noah on to future generations.I don't understand why Pro doesn't accept the argument about Adam and Eve. After all, this entire debate has been about what the Bible says, whether it is illogical and immoral. I do not have to "prove" that Adam and Eve were perfect, just that the Bible is not being illogical in claiming that they were. In Genesis 1, everything God created was perfect. It wasn't until Adam and Eve sinned in Genesis 3 that all of creation was cursed and they no longer lived in a paradise, and according to the book of Romans, chapter 5, verse 12, through that act of sinning humans were now going to get sick and die.But now Pro makes a fundamental misconception of perfection. In order for Adam and Eve to be considered perfect, there must always be the possibility for sin (or wrongdoing), for one could not be considered perfect if one were incapable of doing wrong. There was nothing magical or mystical about the fruit on the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but God forbade Adam and Eve from eating of it because the possibility of sin was necessary.It's not about low willpower. In fact, it wasn't until the serpent met Eve in the garden that she started to consider eating of it. She was deceived by the serpent but no less responsible for committing that sin.Additionally, Pro says that the whole creation story is one of the most illogical he has seen in all the mythology he's read, but makes no argument to support his claims and doesn't even tell us how many creation stories he's seen. In actuality, the Bible's account of popular stories (e.g. Creation, The Flood, etc.) actually tends to be the more down-to-earth version of the events.Finally, Pro offers one last argument, regarding Cain's wife and the Land of Nod. Adam and Eve had three sons which were each specifically named in Genesis (Cain, Abel, and Seth). However, they had other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). In fact, Genesis 5 gives the genealogy of Adam and his children and future generations. However, the early books of Genesis are not specific as to periods of time. The Earth had been populated by the time Cain murdered Abel and was exiled. In fact, in Genesis 4:15 God puts the mark of Cain on him, "lest anyone should find him and kill him." Obviously the Earth had already been populated because Cain was concerned someone would kill him out of vengeance for murdering his brother.So where did Cain's wife and everyone else come from? Apart form Adam and Eve having children, Cain married his sister. Incestuous relationships were required back then in order to populate the Earth, specifically because there were no other people to marry and procreate with. It wasn't until much after the time of Noah (another argument Pro dropped) that genetic degradation had become a problem and God declared incest off-limits.I have adequately disproved Pro's assertions. Not only did he drop several arguments, but I have shown that the Bible is neither immoral nor illogical. Remember that his contention is that the Bible is BOTH immoral and illogical. If he has failed in either one of those, he has not fulfilled his burden of proof. However, he has thoroughly failed in both. Thank you for reading.