Anti-Neocons

Yeah and you don't get what I am saying. That oh this word could mean this other thing excuse isn't what I am talking about. There is no way to play around with words to get evolution out of what is CLEARLY creationism nor is there a way to say that god ordering people to beat slaves mean to not beat slaves. Other than to totally reject portions of the text and invent your own meaning yourself and just decide based on nothing that that is what it must have really meant. This is because you start with the conclusion that it has to be right and so its your job to find a way to make it right. The other term for that is called make believe aka makebelieve.

We're not talking about minor problems here like oh they dated that by moons instead of months back then or anything like that, we're talking about massive concepts like the belief in magical creatures, being brought back from the dead, etc
That junk is not explained by words with multiple meanings, it's just wrong.

Otherwise I could take any story even from mother Goose and find a poetic way to make it say what I want it to say. You could make the smurfs an allegory for communism if you wanted.

I'll pick on the bible since I don't think your head will except bashing on the qurran so you can see it there.

Exodus 21:20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property

Ok that clearly assumes slavery as it is a law about how to conduct punishment of your slaves. It also clearly states that the slave is the person's property. So they are not a servent or any of the common excuses.

We also know from history that they damn well meant slave when they said slaves that is evidenced by 2800 years straight of slavery by the people that wrote this crap.

It also implies that beating them is an acceptable form of punishment so long as they don't die from it. This is cooperated y about 400 other passages in the Bible as well as the open practice of slavery by Christians and Jews for many centuries.

They were not talking about indentured servants or prisoners of war, or people in debt, they were talking about slaves period.

You know when the Qurran instructs people to stone someone to death for a crime, it doesn't mean to NOT stone them to death. You can wiggle around as to what crime actually counts for a stoning but you can't wiggle out of the stoning and death part. That all by itself is stupid enough.

We can talk about the methods for animal sacrifice in any of the books but we can't really deny THAT there was animal sacrifice. You can argue about what a king said, but you can't argue against that there was a king at all which already dumb enough. A god isn't beholden to culture, a god is above it, even other regular people knew better and how ridiculous it is to be governed by someone born into a certain family with total control.

See this too
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=21198
it's a video

I laugh at that.

An all knowing god, will set rules for the society that already has slaves, and feel compelled to speak out against adultery but not slavery. It also gave its rules for war too which included commanded rape, and child enslavement.

It's not just a rule, that was one example I chose. It's a belief because you can't have a rule about how to beat your slaves if you don't already have a belief that slavery is justifiable, and under all three religions it is. There are only ten commandments in Christianity/Judaism and 2 of them mention slavery. 10 Don't covet your neighbor's slaves, and 4 even slaves have to keep the sabbath. Thus recognizing fully that there are slaves and god is aware of this, but rather than saying "let my people go" as the Jews claimed it was wrong for themselves to be enslaved, they had no problem enslaving everyone else that they could. Not only is their god upholding slavery, it also shows the hypocrisy and racism, as the Jews wanted to have slaves just not be slaves.

Islam and Judaism found it more important to warn people about the hell sending woes of bacon than to condemn slavery.

So... you can't eat pigs, but you can enslave and beat other humans... such wonderful values.

How are you going to condemn something back then as ambiguous and as intrinsic to that time period as slavery? That would be like condemning their use of animals for transportation.

It's a little different when dealing with rules, than it is with beliefs. Beliefs are always going to be the same, while the rules are not. Different rules apply for different circumstances, as you cannot realistically have a "one size fits all" deal with the rules in regards to circumstances. The rules of slavery, for example, can only apply if people actually have slaves. So, the rules of slavery, by definition, can only apply to those who actually own slaves.

How are you going to condemn something back then as ambiguous and as intrinsic to that time period as slavery? That would be like condemning their use of animals for transportation.

Islam and Judaism found it more important to warn people about the hell sending woes of bacon than to condemn slavery.

So... you can't eat pigs, but you can enslave and beat other humans... such wonderful values.