Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Yes, People's values do change, but God's value should not change, this implies fallibility.It does. I'm not arguing that God is real. I'm arguing that the Bible was written to guide the masses of ancient peoples in a way that would allow them to sufficiently evolve.Yes it absolutely does. Logic does not rest upon people's values, and it certainly doesn't depend on what year it is. Logic, like math, is universal. It applies equally to all cultures at all times.No it absolutely does not. Logic isn't as simple as people like to think.Is it logical to kill a human being who is innocent of a crime? Today, we'd say that's not logical. There's no reason to kill a human being when they are innocent. In the old days, it would be just as logical to spare his life as it would be to kill him, because killing him would scare other people into behaving better.Like said, it being illogical today doesn't mean it wasn't once very logical. Or, a better way of saying it would be, it was always logical, just inefficient by today's standards and morals.I sincerely hope you do not actually believe what you are saying. You cannot truly mean this.Of course I don't believe that. I just told you I'm arguing with consideration for the lifestyles of ancient peoples.Enslaving children is morally reprehensible, and repugnant. I agree. The problem is that it wouldn't be necessarily these things in ancient times.Why not kill a child that will one day grow up and kill the sons of your own children? Have you ever thought outside the box that is the modern era of perceiving things? I don't believe in anything that ancient peoples believe in, but what I'm saying is to put yourself in their shoes and imagine what it would be like to live like one of them. Nothing that applies to our modern viewpoints has anything to do with how they lived. Therefore, you have to think totally unlike what you'd really think to understand the issue of whether the Bible is logical to the audience it was intended for.No people is inherently evil. Even so, to enslave the children of others would make you just as evil if not more so.Once again, I'm speaking from the shoes of an ancient civilization. Also once again, you are not imagining the conditions those people lived in.Fortunately most of the western world has progressed past this medieval mindset, I had hope that you had too, but it seems I am mistaken.I expected you to be smarter then this, Bo.Did Martin Luther King Jr, not say that we should judge others based on the content of their character? What character are you judging when you condemn an entire generation of children to slavery?Not an entire generation, just the generation of children that belong to a village that threatens the existence of my own village. If I had to fight and kill these children's parents so that I would not die, surely if I let these children go, my children will one day have to fight and possibly die against these opposing children.That's a logical way to survive. Animals do these things, and that's what ancient people were: animals. They fought and murdered and raped so that the strongest among them would survive and become what the human race is today.I would never trade this time for any other, especially any point in the ancient past. I would not enjoy living in a time period where I would have to be a murderer to stop my children from being murdered.If you don't understand my points yet, I don't think we'll get anywhere.You don't have to like it, that is how things were done back then, but that certainly doesn't make it right or moral.Ah, but the question is not of morality, but of logic. Back in a time as ancient and as brutal as the Biblical audience, sometimes, being a killer was a logical way to survive.And like I said, I don't like it, but that's what they had to do to survive.Slavery has never been necessary to human survival. The only thing it has been necessary for is the comfortable lifestyle of the ruling class.It's necessary if you enslave people who would kill you if they were not in shackles. I know that's probably outrageous to say, but once again... put yourself in their shoes. They couldn't afford to be as moral as we would require them to be these days. Back then, the world was even more grey then it is today; killing an innocent person if it helped you and/or your kin survive. Evil? Today we might say yes. But if you didn't kill them, you yourself and/or your kin would die. Does that make it still evil? Yes? No? Back then, in those times, it was not evil. They couldn't afford for it to be evil. They had to do extremely horrible things to sustain themselves. I don't like it, but that's what they had to do. If they hadn't had to do it, it wouldn't have happened, and if they hadn't done it, we wouldn't be in the position we are now. We are the product of our ancestors.And just like all parents want for their children, I'm sure they'd have wanted us to have better, more moral lives, like what we do in fact have now. So even though they were 'evil', they still succeeded in giving us better lives that do not require us to act like they did.True and Living? Living perhaps, but it's never been particularly true.It's true if most of the stories are metaphors, real history, or in fact, sarcasm. The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice to appease ancient superstitions. This if anything should highlight the importance of distinguishing reality from fantasy, when it comes to decision making.And they developed the tradition of appeasing ancient superstitions because they needed to rally and order the masses. If anything, this should highlight the importance of what was effective back then when it comes to decision making.How so?Can a person whom has had their license revoked and their car repossessed die in a head-on car collision?Because many ancient and classical societies did things primarily for illogical reasons, this requires no assumptions.Or they had illogical reasons in their head but evolution was driving them to do these things for logical reasons.If humanity as a whole was driven to do things based only on what they think and believe and not what evolutionary instinct programs them to do, we wouldn't have gotten to this point in our prosperity. In fact, we would have gotten nowhere NEAR this type of prosperity.But we have. We're here because of our ancestors. That means they were doing something right, no matter how horrible those things were.Yes, because the very act of suppressing peoples rights seems to motivate the masses towards regicide.Today is does, sure. Not back then. Back then, people committed regicide so they could claim the thrown themselves, not so that they could free everyone. It was about having more things then your competitors so that your kin would prosper, even if it means that you will die young and bloodied with no pride.Do you have anything of more substance besides "The have a second-class, therefore they must have needed it to survive."? This ignores all the other reasons why oppression tends to occur.Not really. What makes you think terrible, horrible reasons for oppression weren't necessary back then to preserve your people? It's a horrendous thing to do, to act like Hitler, but that's because 1932 was 1000% more prosperous a time then 932. Back then, Hitler would have been a terrible thing to suffer, but it wouldn't be a nearly as bad a thing as it was in 1932, simply because earlier, more savage times called for more vicious, animalistic behavior to survive.