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

2 sentences later...When writing both these sentences, I supposed that if I didn't word it properly, you would interpret them as being contradictory. Logic doesn't have direct correlation with moral principle, but it does influence moral principle to a degree. Sometimes moral principle is senseless, but does boil down to something that does or once did make sense.I'm well aware of the fact that Logic is independent of morality, this is the point I was trying to impress upon you.And yet you framed moral situations upon ancient situations based upon your modern moral ideas without thought for their cultural situations. You don't need to impress anything upon me if you don't know what I'm trying to explain to you.Well in order to evaluate logic, it is useful to determine the veracity of premises. To determine the veracity of premises we need the most accurate information. Much of this accurate information has only been discovered in the last 2,000 years or so. Evaluation of logic does not require the scientific method or any amount of scientific knowledge. You said that logic is constant, meaning logic was the same 2,000 years ago that it is today. People do not need 2,000 more years of information to have a logical thought process.With this reply, you are mixing up 'logic' with 'knowledge'. If we are talking about logic and morality, then what bearing does relevance of belief have to do with either of these?I incorrectly talked about relevance of belief. I meant relevance of existence, forgive my improper sentence structure.Does an action become moral only when the belief about it is relevant?Actually it does. Things are moral or immoral based on what sort of relevance they hold at the time in society.It's immoral to enslave now because slavery is not necessary to perpetuate existence. It wasn't as immoral in ancient times because slavery in some areas was necessary to perpetuate existence.I agree, but people did do things based on faulty information.It doesn't matter if you're doing things based on faulty information, you can still have a logical thought process which you act upon. Whatever information you're limited to is irrelevant.What you mean to say is that is that it's not unreasonable to do something that you believe will help you (even if it doesn't). Please note that it is entirely possible for something to be reasonable but illogical.Then I am taking reasoning into account, forgive me. Though I don't feel entirely at fault because the context of logic in debate wasn't of mathematical properties, leaving the word up to slight personal redefinition.Except for the times in history where exactly this has happened.And they have existed all the way up to this modern era without being destroyed or disrupted? (I'm getting to your replies one at a time, I haven't seen your citation at the bottom yet)Peace can and does persist when there is mutual benefit, as is often the case when two sides are equally matched or when trading results in prosperity for both peoples.Of course, I know this. It happens even in nature as mutual symbiosis. But just because some species can do this doesn't mean it tends to happen in nature more then competition happens in nature, nor was is necessarily prone to happen commonly in human society right after they finished evolving from brainless apes.Of course it happens more these days and should happen more and more as time goes by because there's no reason anymore for us to violently compete like in ancient times.How is it MORALLY preferable to just killing one's attacker?In relation to morals, it's not necessarily preferable; it's an alternative. You spare the attacker's life in exchange for labor, or, you kill your attacker and spare them the agony of forced labor. Either way, you make the attacker no longer an attacker.By today's standards, both are reprehensible, unnecessary, and wrong.Many nations, cultures, clans, and peoples would take the women of a conquered land as their own slaves. If slavery was about threat mitigation, they would not do that. Explain why.Laborious slaves or reproductive slaves? But then again, it doesn't matter either way. you mitigate the threat by taking away your enemies ability to produce more soldiers. That may sound preposterous, but if you thought people are frisky these days, they were far more inclined to be fruitful and have 10 - 20 children back then. If a woman has 20 children in a lifetime, assuming up to half are boys, that's 10 more enemy warriors a woman.That makes woman valuable thing to steal and enslave even more so then men.Not to mention that in some cultures, women were also able-bodies warriors themselves.Either way, I explained why it's threat mitigation for the purpose of competition.You doubt that human sacrifice is not a good way to improve moral?No, I doubt that human sacrifice to appease the all-powerful polytheistic deities is not a good way to improve moral in ancient society.Human sacrifice, only existed in the Americas because religious practices prescribed it.Not really, more so because the religious leaders prescribed it.I may have not made it apparent in my argument, but a big point I want to put out in the open is that ancient religion was probably started only by very good storytellers whom only wished to keep order by brain-washing the population of the empire as to get rid of chaos that would otherwise threaten progress.Human sacrifice was just one idea that some Aztec priest thought might be a good idea in relation to all other stories he and his recent ancestors made up to get people under control. So he suggested and then used it successfully to order people.The original people who made up Judaism and Christianity did not write up their stories and teachings in a way that human sacrifice as a tradition would be compatible with the rest of the religion, so they had to come up with other tradition to control the masses effectively.... unsurprisingly you did not see it.I did not expect you, of all people, to be rude.Unless your example or analogy pertains to how the way in which women were subjugated protected them, then your example is of no use.How does it not pertain to the subjugation of women to give an example of someone having their rights taken away and yet are protected from danger?You can't possibly be that oblivious, Bo. Or are you just mocking me, again?Logic is a description of inferences or inference-makers.Then that makes the inferences and inference-makers logical. Inferences are not sentient by themselves, they are ideas. Just because ideas must be produced by a sentient creature doesn't make the ideas sentient themselves.It's the same reason that logical things can happen without a human thinking about it. Just because we don't observe doesn't mean it doesn't happen.I think you know that I can find societies that were preserved without slavery, so you chose to broaden the term to given yourself some leeway.... Did you really just accuse me of having an ulterior motive? I didn't and don't. It was a coincidental word choice. That says a LOT about your mindset. At least you being paranoid and presumptuous somewhat excuses you from being rude.The TarahumaraThey still live in a Stone Age. They are not a proper example.