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

So is God a metaphor as well?Probably, in the beginning.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.I know this. My statement is that you're not thinking of the bigger picture of logic. You were inserting your own moral values into your logic earlier without considering that logic has nothing to do with your moral viewpoint; it has to do with efficiency.Even if that efficiency includes things that we would find evil by today's moral standards.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.Logic has an involvement with morality. Logic has involvement with everything.Today, we'd say that's not moral.And that's it's not logical.The fact that you don't understand this is unexpected.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.So what? What we've learned over the past 2,000 years has nothing to do with what the Bible was trying to tell people. It is irrelevant to understanding what makes the Bible logical or not.What people believed thousands of years ago does not necessarily correlate to what was actually true.No, what people believed thousands of years ago does not necessarily correlate what is relevant today. People back then didn't do things senselessly, or we wouldn't be here today because of their actions.People did many things which they believed to help them, which in reality, actually hurt them.People are no different today. It's not illogical to do something you are sure that will help you when it actually ends up backfiring in the end. All animals take risks like these to survive. What makes our ancestors more illogical then us?To 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.No, it requires you to realize what you've learned today would be irrelevant back then and imagine what was actually relevant back then. Nobody can truly put themselves in somebody's shoes, but you aren't even trying to have an empathic imagination towards their living conditions.If I become incredibly intoxicated, riding down the stairs in a bathtub may seem like a sensible thing to do, but is it?Yes, all our ancestors had the sensibility of drunks. That's why they never got anywhere and now we're no better off then they were.Oh, wait.I must make the distinction between what seems right, and what actually is rightNo, you must make the distinction between what was relevant then and what's relevant now. Animals must adapt based on what's relevant to their existence. We are no different. We were able to learn more things because our ancient ancestors did what was relevant and logical to perpetuate their existence at the time.Enslaving children would just create even more motivation for violence to be brought against your village.Unless the only thing remaining of your enemy village the children that you enslave.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.They won't pursue peace because that is too big a risk to their existence. They cannot afford to do that if they wish to continue their existence. The attackers cannot, therefore, afford to let their enemies live in freedom or live at all.It would be efficient to be peaceful if all creatures hadn't evolved from the very beginning to be violent, competitive animals. But they did, and ancient humans couldn't afford to be any different. We can nowadays only because our ancient ancestors competed like animals until we eventually found the prosperity to discontinue competing... as harshly, at least.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.How does efficiency consideration not involve logic?How is this preferable to just killing one's attacker?You get labor out of it, and they get to live. In a way, it can be more efficient then killing your enemies. In other cases, it's not.What about women who were enslaved? Are they a threat as well?I don't get what you mean. Women who were slaves to your enemies? The enemy of your enemy if your friend, so freeing the slaves of your enemies would give you more resources against your enemy. Another solution would be to take your enemies slaves as your own slaves, except treat them better, giving you more resources and your new slaves better living conditions.If this situation is not what you mean though, please clarify.There are much better ways to do this than killing one's own people.I doubt that. Hatred and fear are some of the most powerful influences to date. When you have as much chaos as ancient people's did, there's nothing inefficient about using these things to control people.It's inefficient, and therefore wrong, to that today though because of our modern prosperity.What does this have to do with subjugating women?I'm trying to give an example of how taking away some people's rights can protect them, not just oppress them.The process of evolution is not sentient, it does not think or reason, and therefore the outcomes of evolution are neither logical nor illogical.The quality of being logical does not necessarily require that you be sentient. I can't believe you'd deny this.The outcomes of natural selection are nothing but logical. Creatures that do not adapt cannot survive and go extinct. Creatures that adapt properly continue surviving until they must adapt again.That gives natural selection the quality of being logical. 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.I'd like an example then of a society that has survived to this day without resorting to violent competition with other groups of humans. May I please have a citation?