Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

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.So is God a metaphor as well?No it absolutely does not. Logic isn't as simple as people like to think.I don't know what you think Logic is, but I would like to inform you that Logic is not abstract, it does not vary from person to person, it does not vary from time to time, and it does not vary from culture to culture. Logic is in essence a sort of verbal math, which is guided by a number of general and particular rules. Logic is a pretty straightforward. You seem to think Logic is this nebulous concept of "This makes sense in this situation", but that's not logic, that's intuition.Logic:If "All X are Y" is false, then "Some X are not Y" must be true.The above statement will always be true no matter who says it or when they said it.Is it logical to kill a human being who is innocent of a crime?This is not logic, this has nothing to do with logic. Logic is the systematic study of inference. You are asking a question about morality, a different issue entirely.Today, we'd say that's not logical.Today, we'd say that's not moral.Of course I don't believe that. I just told you I'm arguing with consideration for the lifestyles of ancient peoples.Arguing with "Consideration" for lifestyles of ancient peoples, means becoming ignorant of all that we have learned over the past 2,000 years or so. This will lead us to a less accurate conclusion, not a more accurate conclusion.I agree. The problem is that it wouldn't be necessarily these things in ancient times.What people believed thousands of years ago does not necessarily correlate to what was actually true. People did many things which they believed to help them, which in reality, actually hurt them.I don't believe in anything that ancient peoples believe in, but what I'm saying is to put yourself in their shoesTo put myself in their shoes would require me to unlearn that which I have learned, of course many things 'seem' sensible when you are lacking vital information. If I become incredibly intoxicated, riding down the stairs in a bathtub may seem like a sensible thing to do, but is it?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.I understand their conditions perfectly well, I have a pretty good understanding why they did many of the things they did, but this doesn't require me to agree with everything they did. For I have the advantage of retrospect and several thousand years of scientific discovery and I know better. They did not.I must make the distinction between what seems right, and what actually is right.We wouldn't say that a child's irresponsible and wreckless actions were actually sensible, simply because they lacked the information and experience to make an informed decision. No, we would say "He/she didn't know any better" which is exactly how we should view ancient societies.Not an entire generation, just the generation of children that belong to a village that threatens the existence of my own village.Children are not a threat to your entire village, and even if they were a threat enslaving them would not mitigate that threat. Enslaving children would just create even more motivation for violence to be brought against your 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.And how would enslaving children change that? It could very well be the case that these children having seen such violence, and seeing the fact that their lives were spared will wish to pursue peace --or-- you could take the children in as your own, assimilating them into your village.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.Again, you confuse the term 'Logic'. This is not a matter of logic. Logic is the systematic study of inferences, this is not what you are referring to.You are referring to what is useful, helpful, sensible, or moral.It's necessary if you enslave people who would killHow is this preferable to just killing one's attacker? What about women who were enslaved? Are they a threat as well?And they developed the tradition of appeasing ancient superstitions because they needed to rally and order the massesThere are much better ways to do this than killing one's own people.Can a person whom has had their license revoked and their car repossessed die in a head-on car collision?What does this have to do with subjugating women?Or they had illogical reasons in their head but evolution was driving them to do these things for logical reasons.The process of evolution is not sentient, it does not think or reason, and therefore the outcomes of evolution are neither logical nor illogical.What makes you think terrible, horrible reasons for oppression weren't necessary back then to preserve your people?Because we have examples where societies were/are preserved, both then and now, without resorting to such horrendous practices. We have no reason to think slavery was ever necessary for the preservation of society.