The Bible: A story to avoid
The Bible presented among Christian believers, is a collection of stories written by supposed divine inspiration. The stories within the Bible show us scenes of gore, rape, slavery, and so many more violent acts, yet Christians sit here and preach that we must do what the Bible tells us word for word. Imagine if the Bible wasn't written as a prophetic work, but instead a warning from the divine. A warning like Noah. Noah was created to warn the people of the flood, and no one listened. Then, after Noah built the ark, God flooded the world. It doesn't seem like a prophecy, but a warning instead. Every person mentioned in the Bible died, yet God promised they would live forever if they relied on Him. Maybe, just maybe, the Bible tells us what the men and women of that time were doing was wrong. They turned God into an idol. They coveted their neighbor's houses. Maybe, Christians are misunderstanding the text. Any thoughts are appreciated.
Comments (51)
Afflatus (sounds gassy, I feel bloated).
Your line of thought would end at a point that's both intriguing, comforting and, simultaneously, disturbing. The Old Testament describes, in exquisite detail, what blind worship leads to, what absolute power and authority utlimately transforms into (a megalomaniac).
At the end of the Old Testament, is there a line that reads: Don't Do That! referring to what was recorded in it? There should be one I suppose. We could sleep a little better, oui?
What if someone, discreetly enough, scracthed that line out for reasons lost to history? [s]Don't Do That![/s] :smile: :wink:
The wrongs done by men and women of that time and the warnings given by God are constant themes throughout the whole Bible. The subject is never left alone. The result of wrong-doing and the price paid for it by Christ are fundamental to Christianity. You write as if you have just spotted something that nobody else has noticed.
Quoting Edward235
If Christians are telling you to murder, rape and enslave people then go and find another church. They are, as you suggest, not to be believed.
You may need to broaden your understand of how Christianity works in practice. I grew up in the Christian tradition and no one I knew, clergy included, believed the Bible to be literally true. It was generally seen as allegorical. It's something of more recent times that literal truth has been a fixation - hence the term 'fundamentalism' - a sub branch of the tradition which is generally more prominent in America.
The other thing to remember is that many hardcore Christian believers have never read the Bible and have only had a few passages picked out for them by preachers who insist on slanted interpretations.
Even the Bible literalists do not follow the Bible's commands. No one stones people to death for blasphemy or sex before marriage, not even the Southern Baptists. Many believers have a hard time remembering the 10 commandments, let along all the other details.
Jesus is the Last Sacrifice, a symbol/awareness/reminder to end the widespread unconscious practice of scapegoating, which is an evolutionary trick or double edged sword which formerly stabilized society but is also the source of violent apocalypse/end of times . Good luck on that account. That's as much like telling everyone that Christ's message is that they shall all become vegan and give 10% of their away to the poor and never partake in money lending with interest.
Some of it is alleged to have 'divine inspiration'. Some of it is purported to be history. Some of it is liturgy (e.g. Psalms). the Bible is a collection composed by various authors over time, revised, edited, and reworked. Only 23% of the Bible (New Testament) concerns Jesus, the Apostles, Paul, and the early years of Christianity. 77% concerns the Jews and Israel.
Yes, there are numerous stories recounting violence in the Bible. The promised land was secured by violence. "Kill them all." Deuteronomy 20:16-18. Was this a surprising innovation by God, or just standard operating procedure in armed conquest? More the latter, I would think.
Jesus Christ, whom Christians consider the fulfillment of the God's Word, said: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." That is what the Christian is directed to do. Period.
The idea that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, to be taken literally from Genesis to Revelations is a recent innovation in the 2000 year history of the faith. This approach was developed as a reaction to the new insights developed by scholars in the 18th/19th century. Textual criticism and evolution both cast doubt on some biblical truths. In reaction, conservative believers hardened their view of the Bible from "authoritative" to the Bible is inerrant -- literally true, not questionable in any way, shape, manner, or form. In other words, Fundamentalism.
Most 'mainline' Christians (Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic alike) reject Fundamentalism.
Some people have a low tolerance for ambiguity. Multiple meanings which can be revised according to interpretation bother these people a lot, whether it's the Bible or the Constitution, law, or ethics. They see things in black and white without any annoying grayscale.
Most denominations do not insist on a fully literalist interpretation of scripture. Many Christians interpret the Bible allegorically or even as containing an esoteric message.
I would reread Genesis 6-9. Noah is not sent out to warn people about the flood, he is the one warned about it. You might be thinking of Jonah, who is sent out to warn the people of Nineveh of God's anger and to call them to repentance.
Christ doesn't promise that "you will never die." He promises a ressurection from death. This promise wasn't made before Christ, i.e., in the Old Testament of the Bible.
Worship of God can't be idol worship. Idol worship bis forbidden specifically because it is 'worshipping the product of man's hands," rather than the creator of the universe. Idolatry is definitionally the worship of something that is not God.
Point me in the direction of this mythical group of Christians (or Jews) who hold that the Pentateuch is to be interpreted literally in isolation from all other religious literature for its meaning.
This is to say your concern is a strawman. There is a reason Jews and Christians don't stone children, despite what the Bible might say. It has to do with the fact that the Pentateuch is not accepted by any group I am aware of as the sole guiding document for all life decisions.
That the Christians have a New Testament and the Jews a Talmud is a good reason to question the assumptions of your OP.
So very true. It's frustrating that people believe the reactionary literalism to be all that religion ever was or is.
Over a thousand years of Jewish midrash and Christian exegesis goes so far beyond a strict four corners literalism.
I am seeing reply posts that are generally inspired towards what I wanted to say, but I would like to provide further explication. Firstly, I am not a Christian myself. No offense meant, but I think that your post is over generalizing Christianity as a whole into on oddly specific classification (flavor, if you will) called biblical literalism. However, even biblical literalists wouldn't subscribe to most of what you said (I would say). Here are my thoughts:
Although I may just be misunderstanding you, "divine inspiration" is not equivocal to inerrancy ("word for word"). Some Christians claim that the bible is divinely inspired with the careful consideration that, due to it being produced by faulty humans, it is not inerrant. Others claim both. To be quite frank, most Christians do not, even if they claim inerrancy, believe that one should obey the Old Testament literally: they typically either believe it is merely allegorical/metaphorical or/and the New Testament is a "New Covenant". The biblical literalists typically view it in the latter sense, which means they will not agree with you that, although they do think it literally happened, every one should slaughter an animal for God to forgive them of their sins. This is of the "Old Covenant", not "New Covenant" that succeeds Jesus' sacrifice. I've never met a single Christian biblical literalist that genuinely believes that every should follow the rules decreed in the Old Testament without the consideration of the New Covenant.
As others have pointed out, it can be interpreted metaphorically, allegorically, or as a parable. Sometimes stories are not meant to be analyzed literally. Although I understand your quarrel with the Old Testament (in a literal sense) and share your frustration, which I do concede has many abhorrent depictions of actions, most biblical literalists take a position that typically holds that essentially when God does it, it cannot be morally wrong: He is the standard of good. They typically subscribe to a very absolute objective morality. Now, I'm not advocating that they are right, I merely attempting to provide you with a bit more exposition into Christianity (specifically biblical literalism). From their perspective, if God outright strikes you down where you stand, He can do so because He created you and you will ascend into heaven for eternity. Imagine that you genuinely believed that if God zapped you dead where stand right now, you will be freed from this life of suffering and ascend into a paradise forever. That is, from my conversations with many literalists, what they generally claim in a nutshell.
There's also the Gnostics who believed that the Old Testament God was actually Satan and the New Testament God was the true God that sent his son to fix the damage. My point is not that any of these interpretations are necessarily right, just that there are indeed many interpretations. Personally, I only find any value in what is metaphorical or allegorical in the Bible (simply the literary aspect), so I am hesitant to agree with you that the Bible is holistically a warning message from an actual "God" and none of it is prophetic. I guess it depends on what you mean by "prophetic" as well: I don't think there's any truth to any alleged prophecies in the Bible, but prophets are a literary archetype, which is common amongst all the most well known western books of literature (which I find nothing wrong with at all).
The main objective of the Great Flood was for God, in a literal sense, to press the reset button. He was so horrified by the evil that humanity had produced that he decided to wipe it out (quite frankly, and this is my bias coming out, mass genocide). As far as my knowledge goes, it wasn't a prophecy or really a warning at all (sure, there's a bit of dialogue about people laughing at Noah building the ark, but God wasn't really interested, as the story goes, in getting Noah to convince everyone to get on the ark: they weren't welcome): God was simply sparing Noah's life (8-9 people, if I remember correctly). Holistically, it may have been a warning to the reader to hope humanity doesn't get evil enough where God decides to hit that reset button again, but, besides that, I'm not sure I follow you here.
If I may be so bold (and no offense meant): this is utterly incorrect. God never once in the Bible promised that anyone would live forever on earth. Although the Bible does claim two men never died as a result of their unwavering faith to God; For example, Elijah was ascended into heaven without ever dying in a chariot of fire (according to the Bible, of course). God promises in the Bible "everlasting life", which has no correlation to how long one lives on earth: it is an eternity in heaven.
I think I would need you to go a bit more in depth here to properly respond, as I would say most Christians would agree with you to a certain extent. Many verses in the Bible pertain to exactly what people were doing that was considered "evil", and proclamations to not do it. But the Old Testament is not so clear about what I am presuming you are talking about (such as slavery).
I think the terminology is incorrect here: an "idol" is defined as that which is deviation from God. In other words, "idol" only has a meaning relative to what one thinks they should be giving to God. That is why money is considered an idol: it can possess a man into deviation from worshiping God. Therefore, it makes no sense to say God is an idol: that is the same thing as saying that one is deviating from worshiping God to worship God instead.
I am honestly not seeing how anything you said supports this claim. What Christians? Which sector? Which flavor? All of them? When you say "They coveted their neighbor's houses", most Christians agree that coveting is a sin.
Bob
There are instances in the OT where God demands the men, women, children, and animals of a people be destroyed. The reason God gives the Promised Land to the Hebrews is because the practices of the other tribes/people in Canaan were described as vile and its mentioned several times how the land had to "vomit" them up. The promise land isn't given because the Hebrews are good, but because everyone else was terrible.
Of course Christians misunderstand the Bible. This is why, I guess, we should look into Theists and their pursue of understanding the bible in a "philosophical" way. There are even some intellectuals who are open to criticism towards Bible. Keep in mind that this was even one of the issues because of some priest have broken apart making another kinds of interpretations inside the rule of Church
Also, it's possible that the original Biblia Sacra was written in a way that reading it was supposed to done by semantic inversion i.e. the word "kill" has the true meaning save.
I guess what I'm getting at is the Good Book has to be read upside down! :grin:
:flower:
[quote=The Onion, after 9-11]Responding to recent events on Earth, God, the omniscient creator-deity worshipped by billions of followers of various faiths for more than 6,000 years, angrily clarified His longtime stance against humans killing each other Monday.
“Look, I don’t know, maybe I haven’t made myself completely clear, so for the record, here it is again,”[/quote]
https://www.theonion.com/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rule-1819566178
I agree with some of this post but I don't know where you're getting the "ascend into heaven for eternity" bit. The OT says next to nothing about the afterlife; is that NT stuff? In the OT when Korah challenges Moses God opens up the Earth and all of Korah and his family fall in and are destroyed. God often strikes down evil people in the OT and nothing would lead me to believe that they end up in heaven. He also sends plagues and poisonous snakes on the Israelite community because they start complaining ("grumbling") about conditions in the desert and thousands are recorded as dying. Their sin here is really just weakness and disobedience. It's very much "beatings will continue until morale improves." In this sense I see God kind of analogous to evolutionary reality. There are other times where he's more of a stern law giver.
Interesting analogy. If you don't comply with the dictates of a given society.. indeed you do get "beat down" because you aren't playing nicely with the setup. Life itself has its dictates (you must survive, get comfort when you can, entertainment). Too much rebellion and you are cast out and death ensues. The hidden defense though is simply to not procreate and continue the situation for others.. But apparently people love sacrificing others on the alter of selfishness and they need to see others go through the same. Sad really. All are petty gods of sorts then.
While I agree with this, this isn't exactly how I interpreted God's punishments towards the Israelites in Exodus. Basically what's happening is that after God frees the Israelites from Egypt they still have to wander 40 years in the desert and conditions are presumably tough even despite God sending mana. On at least two occasions the general Israelite community starts complaining (the word they use is "grumbling") and God quickly makes things worse. Of course it's not advantageous to sit around and grumble all day. I've been reading the OT lately and it's ridiculously great for evolutionary fitness both on a personal and societal level.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You likely know this but this belief is in an opposition to Genesis and God's pronouncement that life/creation is good. Even if one's life is full of suffering life is still good. If I were an atheist I might/would likely agree with you here though. I think your position is plausible if we remove God.
Let me ask you this.. what would happen if everyone stopped procreating on some divine theological level?
I meant "everyone stopped procreating" not "no one"
They'd still procreate on a non-divine/theological level. Sex is fun and a bigger population is generally a good thing.
Is a bigger population a good thing, necessarily? I hold the views of a philosophical pessimist.. life presents itself as a burden to be overcome daily. We are always at root, dissatisfied and must contend with our own dissatisfaction and to overcome them in our situatedness at any given time in a socio-cultural-economic-political context. On top of this inherent dissatisfaction are contingent harms that befall us based on circumstances...Procreation causes all this for yet another person. But not procreating prevents suffering, burden-overcoming, dissatisfaction, and all harms unto another person.
If no one procreates, no one loses. "Who" is missing out? No one.
The answer you're looking might be that the world would be empty if everyone stopped procreating. But God intended for the world to be populated; he created it so life could inhabit it. That's what Genesis tells us.
Necessarily, no. Generally speaking, yes.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I disagree with this. Your culture and ideals are at risk if you don't procreate. In the OT people are conceived of as a genetic line, not as atomistic individuals and by not procreating that line ends along with its customs, traditions, and whatever else is associated with it. Adults are deprived of the experience of being parents and their parents are deprived of grand children. I would say that there's a deprivation.
Why can't I just kill myself under your system if I have good reason to suspect that the rest of my life will be painful and I don't have much to live for? Doesn't suicide become dangerously reasonable?
Have you actually read the OT in its entirety? The OT does not advocate or describe blind worship. Of course obedience is important but that obedience to God is not blind or unquestioning.
So? You make that sound like a bad thing. Extinction sounds perfectly reasonable to many folk.
Quoting Moses
I hate to tell you this but entire philosophies have been based on this premise that (e.g.,Camus) “There is only one really serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide."
Quoting Tom Storm
Then go be extinct. Don't procreate. Commit suicide when you have a bad day (don't actually do this, but if you're living out this philosophy then you would because human life is essentially worthless under this line of thought.) For those who just don't care about dying or going extinct -- why don't you live out your philosophy? You will be dead quickly and I wouldn't have to debate any more pessimists because they would all be dead. IMO philosophies need to be lived out and if one's philosophy is constantly telling one to kill themselves or to consider killing themselves then that philosophy ought to be stamped out via its believers living it to its logical conclusion.
Quoting Tom Storm
I agree that suicide is a legit philosophical problem among philosophers but it's really not one if you go by the major religions. This is why religions tend to stick. I don't know why anyone would want to live in a society where suicide was insanely normalized and human life was valueless. That would be a terrible society. It reminds me of a quote in Deuteronomy that claims that the Torah (pentateuch) is life. As someone who has struggled with suicide this really strikes me as true.
Yes, you don't know why, but people don't share value systems and often construct totally different worlds from each other.
Quoting Moses
Well, antinatalism is a significant school of thought and there are many threads on this on the TPF.
By the way - I do not share these views, just pointing them out.
You're right, but I'm going to say that societies that don't value human life and normalize suicide are just objectively terrible societies. That's basically a society where the marginalized would be pressured to kill themselves to escape problems. For me this is not a case of "you have your views, I have mine."
Sure, but no one has said this is a matter for society. The question is, what are an individual's philosophical beliefs. It is unlikely there will ever be enough advocates of this approach to change the fundamental dynamic of an entire culture. Do you know of a society that has 'normalized' suicide (by this I am assuming you mean have made it a part of the culture) and what the effects of this have been? Or are you making a guess here?
Hello Moses! First I would like to welcome you to the forum!
Firstly, I would like to clarify that I was not making an argument from my own opinion on the topic at hand, nor an argument that was geared towards asserting that it is true in relation to the Bible: I was providing some further context to the OP about what biblical literalists typically believe (with regards to the excerpt you quoted from me). My entire response wasn't meant to convey that my points therein were true of the bible (in terms of my own interpretation of such): only that they are true representations of many Christians, and specifically (in terms of what you quoted) what biblical literalists believe (typically). In other words, the intents and purposes of my post (in relation to literalism) was not to portray biblical literalists as correct, only that they do indeed exist (as the OP seems to have a disposition that completely lacks most Christian perspectives beyond quite a rudimentary interpretation of the bible).
Secondly, in terms of whether the Old Testament "says next to nothing about the afterlife", it depends on what you mean whether I would agree. It references that there is an afterlife (heaven) countless times. Just as a quick example, 2 Kings 2:11 (King James Version):
As another example, Daniel 12:2-3 (King James Version):
Now, if what you meant was that the Old Testament doesn't give incredibly vivid descriptions, nor honestly detailed descriptions whatsoever, of what "everlasting life" truly is beyond being in the present of God for eternity, then I would agree with you on that. In the New Testament, it goes in somewhat deeper detail, but I would still say that (unless I am misremembering) the concept of heaven isn't vividly detailed in the bible in a literal sense (mainly metaphorical--but I guess that is up for debate).
Thirdly, it is a completely separate question from my original post whether or not we have reason to believe that anyone that God striked down in the Old Testament went to heaven. Again, I would like to emphasize that I wasn't attempting to address that issue in my post: in terms of biblical literalism, I haven't spoken with a biblical literalist that utilized examples in the Old Testament of people going to heaven after being struck down to support their argument. Likewise, the absence of any example of the Bible explicitly stating that some person went to heaven after God striked them down does not imply its impossibility. They typically, from my encounters with them, argue that it is possible, regardless of whether it has happened before. Likewise, quite a few examples of God killing people doesn't even bother to mention where they got sent to in the afterlife, so an analysis of this is typically done by inspecting God's attributes to infer its possibility/impossibility.
Which leads me to my fourth and final comment: the excerpt you quoted was in relation to moral justification (i.e. it is moral for God to strike someone down even if they would have gone to heave, so to speak), which was not meant as a proof that there exists a specific example of God actually striking someone down and sending them thereafter to heaven.
Bob
It is both a matter for society and the individual. The question is, a) what are an individual's philosophical beliefs and b) Is s/he actually acting on them? Societies do change and they change in fundamental, radical ways. We've seen a definite loosening of attitudes towards suicide.
Quoting Tom Storm
I don't feel like getting into the empirical side of things but I think we can both agree that society has liberalized over the past few hundred years and I wouldn't be surprised to see this trend continue. I'm not prepared to deal with the empirical side right now, let's stick with philosophy.
I just wanted to comment that as I've been going over the OT I'm very impressed with how the writings/teachings align so well with the principles of evolutionary fitness. I know this isn't philosophy but it's interesting to me.
One might argue Buddhism and forms of intellectualized Hinduism are religious versions of philosophical pessimism. Pessimism is not about necessarily committing suicide. Camus' philosophy is bringing attention to meaning in an absurd world, a long tradition of questioning why we do anything at all. Philosophical pessimism is about recognizing the suffering and negatives of the world, and sees its inherent nature either in the world itself or in the human condition, itself. In other words, there nothing that expiates it.. no utopia, no magical formula of right living and political philosophy or mental exercise. As a movement, it wants this view to not be overlooked by the general population, downplayed, and forgotten. It doesn't want you to assume that you should have the decision to bring about other people's "having to deal with" into the world. It is the communal recognition of the suffering as a society so as to not manipulate others and force burdens onto them. It is giving the other side of production, work, and dealings with overcoming burdens and encountering dissatisfactions is a good thing, a necessary thing, a holy thing, or the right thing. We are not self-proclaimed prophets proclaiming yet more humans who "Must" encounter "life" and its various trials and tribulations, in the name of some supposedly deemed "goodness". At the end of the day, it does not want to continue the collateral damage of negative whilst proclaiming "It's for the good!" nay, it's for your good. Who says? Yes we are forced to work to survive, we are forced to comply with social standards to work, we are forced at the end of the day if we don't want slow or immediate death to our individual selves.
TL; DR ancient peoples were a lot more used to brutal acts than us pampered 21st century philosophers. The content of the Bible should therefore not be read as an early humanist attack upon religion merely on the basis that it is, to modern observers, abhorrent.
So when god promotes slavery and genocide and rape in the Bible, how is humanism or religion supposed to understand this?
You seem to be saying that because it was common it was normalized and therefore... ok? Was rape morally wrong 2000 years ago? If not how does the observation assist us?
Evil ought to be destroyed in its entirety. God makes it clear his view on these Canaanite tribes who occupied Canaan before the Hebrews in Leviticus 18:28.
"For the men who were in the land before you committed all these abominations, and the land has become defiled. So if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it spewed out the nations before you."
imho certain societies could theoretically become so disgusting that this type of thing is called for, but in other instances moses manages to reason with God and save some cities if he's able to find righeous people among the wicked.
Thanks, I understand what you're saying. In regard to the afterlife in the OT I wrote that thinking more along the lines of how the OT never resorts to the "if you want to secure your place in the Heaven..." line of reasoning. Of course there is an afterlife if we go by the book, but it's never the focus. It's very easy to become immersed in that type of reasoning and in doing so you essentially devalue life on Earth. It was just a commendatory comment towards the OT and a bit of a slight to some (?) Christian groups that might think that way. I'm not sure I don't have a ton of experience with Christian groups.
Except that the god described in the Old Testament is evil, right? This creature has an enormous blind spot and is mafia boss and thug, running belief in him as a protection racket.
Numbers 31:17-18 - Vengeance over the Midianites - take the virgin women for yourselves and kill all the men. Exodus 21 - support of slavery and rules for buying/keeping slaves. 2 Samuel 24, god killing 70,000 people because David took a census without permission. Etc....
Now, those Christians who make justifications or attempt tricky interpretations of this and other awful material depicting this unjust and evil god are like the Stalinists of the 1950's, justifying Stalin's atrocities or pretending they did not happen.
You don't know anything about evil. What even makes something evil? Is it just that you don't like it? Do you have any sort of alternative conception of evil or is it just things you don't like?
One of the influences in my thinking is former Episcopalian Bishop Shelby Spong who, obviously, was not an atheist.
"Some parts of the Bible are dreadful. In fact, my working title for The Sins of Scripture was "The Terrible Text of The Bible." - Spong
If you are arguing that I think god is evil because I don't like god killing innocent men, women and children and because he condones slavery, then you must like mass murder and slavery because your god condones it. Good for you, Comrade.
I don't think you understand my position. We're probably closer than you imagine.
Quoting Tom Storm
I agree with this. We don't always know if God agrees with every action that was taken, but God certainly directly causes "innocent" deaths or at least deaths that would seem innocent to humans. Before going to the Midianites and other tribes who were described as evil/wanting to wipe out the Israelites, consider that God kills thousands of Israelites for basically no other reason than the general Israelite community was grumbling about harsh conditions after leaving Egypt. Trust me I don't believe in this goody-two shoes Christian all loving God. If the God of the OT is real he is absolutely a piece of work by 21st century standards. You can call him crazy and maniacal and I get it, but he is survival e.g. when your community or you start needlessly complaining the situation will often get worse. IMHO the deaths of the Israelites in the desert was a warning against unproductive complaining and negative thinking.
He is first and foremost to be feared and obeyed. But it's also ok to question, there's a balance. Fear is a good motivator. I think Jewish thought teaches that God ultimately has the best for us in mind but this is beyond human understanding. Sure its a vicious book but as someone who has studied moral philosophy its honestly quite a bit better than utilitarianism or rival secular moral theories if you don't interpret it literally and try to make some reasonable adjustments to the rules. Tons of good lessons. I have my questions about the bible too but if I can make sense of 90% of it that's significantly better than alternatives. It's also much more encompassing than rival moral theories - it's more than morality. It's an actual life guide.
:up:
Sorry, I had you for a run of the mill apologist... I disagree about the Bible being of any use today re morality, but I don't have the inclination to explore this again.
:chin:
It's a shame you shrug it off like that. There are some verses I disagree with but there's so much good in it such as grounding the moral worth of the individual, defending the dignity of the disabled, giving to the poor, opposition to murder, adultery, theft, exploiting the poor... anywhere from 80-90% of the moral teachings of the bible are just common sense today. If I'm down with 80-90% of a philosophical system I'll go with it. Lot of good practical life tips. Be steadfast.
I think your position that Bible defends rape is not tenable when we look to the text and consider that just because the Bible describes slavery doesn't mean that it supports slavery.
This is why I don't debate Bible versus with people. Even my friend John (who is a Catholic priest) describes the Bible as 'mostly barbaric'. Bishop John Shelby Spong did a lot of the hard thinking here.
Why do you have to rely on John? God forbid you actually read the thing. I'm not going to debate the Bible with someone who hasn't read it. You can't meaningfully engage a work before you read it with an open, impartial mind. It isn't a bad read. It's actually kind of funny sometimes.
Who says I rely on John? I already mentioned Bishop Spong. As it happens, I have read much of the Bible - I grew up in the Baptist tradition. I also undertook Biblical studies for four years. Some people think it's just atheists who find the Bible inherently problematic.
I'm not dealing with all of these but I'll deal with a couple.
Homosexuals being put to death is no longer applicable because there's no longer any supreme religious council (known as sanhedrin) to conduct the trial, and there hasn't been since around 400 CE. Religions evolve and practices change. In regard to your last point you'd see the reasoning behind killing rebellious sons if you read Kings I. This was only carried out in extreme cases. A rebellious son attempts a coup in the beginning of Kings. Nobody is saying that a child that talks back to his parents ought to be stoned, that's a straw man of that verse.