RoderickSpode

Are you religious out of curiosity?

I mean complete bible law in Christian countries.

One of the problems is that because Christians do have different interpretations of scripture; a leader, group, or denomination would have to ultimately set laws against the convictions of other Christians. For instance, some Christians, although I think a small minority, believe the bible speaks against celebrating Christmas because of pagan roots and an identical description of a Christmas tree in the book of Jeremiah. So many like myself would be forced not to celebrate a holiday I believe honors Christ if a leader held that conviction and deemed Christmas illegal. I feel it best for Christians to celebrate, or not celebrate according to their conviction.

If they were non religious, this would make sense.  If they believed in God, it wouldn't.      

How is this bad?

A majority of America is christian though, so wouldn't they just implement Christian law and any non Christian could leave the US?

I personally think that we either should support theocracy or become non religious.  Both groups are honest and I respect the theocratic as well as the non religious.  Claiming to be christian while you don't base your life around the bible is two faced and false Christianity I think.

Hello, Roderick! 

Keep in mind the context of this statement. I was not suggesting the actions of atheists are necessarily better or worse than believers.

As Ethang conceded, the Bible gives examples of each. King David sent Uriah to die so that he may have Delila. The good Samaritan was a non-believer.

In modern times, Priests rape altar boys (and the church covers it up). If for some reason you reject Catholics are Christian, then Southern Baptists have ~700 victims of sexual abuse they've tried to cover up.

On the other side, there are individuals like Bill Gates who through his foundation seeks "enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty globally, and, in the U.S., expand educational opportunities and access to information technology" [1] Then there are groups of atheists working to make the world a better place in various ways through organizations such as Foundation Beyond Belief, Atheists Helping the Homeless, Non-Belief Relief, etc.

This is not to say believers do no good or non-believers do no wrong - it is a given this is not the case. I simply challenge the connotation that believer should be seen as good and atheist should be seen as bad.

Or, they take their information from medical professionals who outline the reasons for abortions.

I'm not really talking about that. I'm referring to, for one, the barbaric practices inside clinics that have caused employees to quit, and take an ant-abortion stance. That, and the idea of pro-choice for the woman. Pro-choice doesn't just benefit the woman. It benefits men as well. Sometimes it's the man who requires the abortion whether the woman wants it or not. I know of such a case. Do you think the abortion doctors make sure it's the woman's decision?

Good post.

Thanks Ethan.


Does Stephen = Disgusted/Bulproof? Or possibly GoldTop?

It seems this Caligula character is a reoccurring role here.

To advocate atheism, it  was understood, is to corrupt society. This was the very accusation leveled against Socrates, for which the great philosopher was forced to drink hemlock.

Thus would be why the emphasis on a fool saying within his heart there is no God. The verse reveals the inner thoughts of an individual. In Israel it was obviously not kosher to make it a proclamation.

We also find non-believers in God who are righteous and they are often the ones who lack a belief in God based on their intelligence. 

What  is the meaning of the bold assertion, “ There is no God”? Commentators rightly maintain that the statement is not a literal denial of the existence of God (or of gods), but a description of the wicked, who live and behave as though God takes no notice of human behavior.

Do I really need to point out the "sins" of religious people and the righteousness of atheists?

Hello Skep!

I would like to see it pointed out.

Stop lying.

Stop it. The bible makes it PERFECTLY clear that god created ALL things  ;

"God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands . . . For in him we

live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Acts 17:24, 28 KJV

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

1 Corinthians 8:6, KJV

Colossians 1:16 English Standard Version (ESV)

16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. There are over 100 verses in the bible that claim that god, your god, created everything , that is to say, all things.

"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."

Proverbs 16:4, KJV

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

John 1:3, KJV

"And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:"

Acts 14:15, KJV

So again I tell you, you want it all ways! But let me tell you Christian, your own bible doesn't agree with most of the bullshit claims that you and other Christians here claim, as shown above.

God either created "everything" or he didn't and the bible is wrong. Suck it up sunshine. 

Hey. Churches, castles etc. are fantastic architecture and a testament to the skill of the stonemason.

And no one suggested that there was anything wrong with a bit of singing and dancing....As you well know, Mr out of context.

Most:

Well, given the nature of how human based data was and is accumulated, I would have to agree with you and say that "most" was being somewhat generous. 

And the Christ tale is supposedly based on events that occurred approximately 2000 years ago... And prior to that was the gathering of data from other civilisations such as the Egyptians, Greek and Roman etc.... Which in one example came together as the Christian creation hypothesis.

To be quite frank, it's quite silly to try and ignore the fact that a lot went on prior to and separate from Christianity.

And the who discovered America argument is completely irrelevant. and also very silly.

And plagiarism might be illegal by today's standards, but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't back in the day.

 

With reference to the truism.... I cannot prove that there was no external influence in the development of the sphere. (neither can you prove otherwise). Though an external influence would not require the human necessity for pointy buildings and all that singing, dancing and preaching on Sunday mornings, or whenever you might indulge.

3.2 billion years ago was about 3.2 billion years before mankind came up with the Christian god concept.

And I expect that every other religion could make exactly the same claims.

Most scientific or pseudo scientific or non-scientific compilations and presentations of thought data, draw upon previous compilations and presentations of thought data. It is simply the nature of the evolution of knowledge.

So you cannot dismiss or accept information just because it might or might not fit with the desired Christian model.

And it's easy to forget that there was a whole world of unconnected data out there,

long before the Christian god concept and creation hypothesis got up and running.

Which explains why the Christian model has never been globally accepted as the basis of creation.

In short, the Christian bible is a whole load of repackaged and redesigned information with a few new ideas thrown in as well. Some of which will be pertinent to current levels of understanding and a lot of which is undoubtedly archaic mythology.

And of course, how the scholars of the time were labelled or labelled themselves or were manipulated was relative to social circumstance and social pressure.

In other words, thank you very much we will accept your ideas and take them and refer to them as Christian.

What we refer to today as plagiarism.

Well easily.

The Ancient Egyptian and Greek civilisations to name but two local sources of pre-Christian knowledge and ideas.

Check them out.

Thanks Rod. Liked your take on the tower of Babel too. And today with the corona virus, the need for us to pull together has never been more true.

Indeed. Like the principalities and powers in the air, we're all facing an unseen enemy.

Yep.

But apparently they new all about time travel and teleportation. LOL.

Nonetheless you're correct..... Time travel and teleportation have been the themes of fiction for centuries.

And you're also correct....There's a huge difference between available data and unfounded guesswork.

And I expect that every other religion could make exactly the same claims.

Just more pie in the sky attempts at proving the existence of gods.

utilising data that was available at the time

Which might be why they didn't mention electricity and 4x4s.

I don't know why it would be more or less difficult to understand than any other ancient culture, and it would depend on who's trying to understand it, what exectly they're trying to understand about it, and in what context. If you'd like to be more specific, I can make a better answer. Is it required that anyone who reads the bible have some qualification in ancient Hebrew language and history? 

I have no idea. I just know that's what it says. If I had to make a guess, it's because their medical knowledge was so far behind what we know today that

they thought a death on day three might not be directly tied to the injuries related to their beating. Why do atheists have to explain why it does?

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. It seems a little like you're saying "because the time frame isn't exact, the master is being treated unfairly"? THat can't be right. Can you clarify why this paragraph is here?

So is this to say that you ARE an expert on ancient hebrew history and language and therefore your assertion that all the rules in the bible about slave purchases, treatment, terms of service, etc., is thereby correct? Those rules are there, aren't they? I'll ask you a version of a question I had in probably a different thread. Which one of the below is NOT in the bible?

A: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

B: Thou shalt not own another human being as property.

C: You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together.

D: However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you

it's a telephone interview of 35,000 individuals.  They don't go out to churches.  Pew Research's religion poll is the gold standard in polling.  Pew is basically the old Sun Oil Co. billions placed in a trust for making the best non-partisan polling possible- nobody's in it for the money.  I'm not saying that makes their findings automatically accurate, I'm just saying you won't find a pollster trying harder to get it right.

It's not really the Pew Researchers I'm addressing. Research was also done probably independent of atheist organizations as well addressing nations with declining religion being more peaceful. At least one atheist organization (Pathos I believe) used their info to attempt to promote the idea that atheist nations are the most peaceful. There are no official atheist nations (atheist states). Not even China is an atheist state in the official sense. Who they were trying to associate as atheist nations were New Zealand, and the Scandinavian nations. Nations that traditionally were never directly involved in major world wars. They are not atheist nations. Having a decline in church attendance (which sometimes varies) does not constitute an
atheist nation. Even (supposedly) in the U.S. church attendance is declining.

What's interesting is that some articles include China as one of the nations with the least amount of religion. Pathos for some reason didn't include China as one of the alleged atheist nations. If anything, China would be far closer to being an official atheist nation than New Zealand, Sweden, etc.
But.....China is by no means a peaceful nation.

gay bars and grad schools.

Do atheists gather to these places to hold meetings?
 

This is consistent with my findings.  All the atheists I know started out fairly passionate about some religion.  On the other hand, I know plenty of Christians who could care less about the underlying philosophy, for whom Christianity is more about identity and belonging than philosophy.

And academics. And then they run with lop-sided comparison. The college professor atheist knows more than Joe blow the Christian.

But a quick look at history at all the great men and women who were Christian and scientist, doctors, leaders, engineers, and noble prize winners tells you it is just spin, swallowed whole by average IQ atheist desperately wanting it to be true.

That is why an atheist would park himself on a board dedicated to what he claims is imaginary, yelling to all and sundry, over and over, that there is no God.

They are as dedicated as Jehovah Witnesses!

Hi Rod! Glad you're well.

I know many Christians who have never read the Bible but I've never met a American Atheist who hasn't.  I can't find a survey of Bible readers by belief system specifically but this anecdotal info seems to be backed up by decades of Pew polling that finds that Atheists and Agnostics score higher on religious knowledge generally and Biblical knowledge specifically than the average Christian.

"Atheists may not believe religious teachings, but they are quite informed about religion. In Pew Research Center’s 2019 religious knowledge survey, atheists were among the best-performing groups, answering an average of about 18 out of 32 fact-based questions correctly, while U.S. adults overall got an average of roughly 14 questions right. Atheists were at least as knowledgeable as Christians on Christianity-related questions – roughly eight-in-ten in both groups, for example, know that Easter commemorates the resurrection of Jesus – and they were also twice as likely as Americans overall to know that the U.S. Constitution says “no religious test” shall be necessary to hold public office."

It explains the rules for owning slaves, it says how to buy them and from whom, under what circumstances. I get that this makes you really sad and uncomfortable inside, so you react by putting your fingers in your ears and stomping your feet, I understand. The bible was used in equal parts to both support and condemn the practice of owning slaves, and the disagreement at the very very least indicates the book is unclear on the matter. But it definitely lays out the expectations of slaves that weren't Israelites. Worth pointing out, as well, that many, many, many CHristians owned slaves. It would seem strange for them to own slaves if the bible, their inerrant moral code source, actually prohibited slave ownership, right? Do you always try to do things directly against what god says to do? I doubt it. 

Hello Ludo.

The book is not unclear on the matter at all. This is what an atheist activist (with radio shows, etc.) might say. But they don't even do that. I've been hung up on by one because he didn't want to deal with a vital question. But, he has a fan club who he can't disappoint. At least you understand that there are verses that condemn slavery. The problem is you want to suggest the authors were confused, or trying to pull the wool over the reader's eyes.

Anyways, I can ask you. (You won't hang up on me will you?)


1. Would you agree that the ancient Hebrew language and history is difficult to understand?


2. Or are you an expert on ancient Hebrew language and history?

3. In one of the most often used suggestions by atheist activists that the bible supports slavery, Exodus 21:20-21, there's a statement made that if the slave who had been beaten by their master recovers after 1 or 2 days he will not be punished. Why do you think it says 1 or 2 days instead of a definite time period? This question really bothered the atheist I was referring to. Yes, atheist activists have a lot of 'splaining' to do.

To put a better perspective on the question, let's place you in the master's position. You beat your slave, he's under doctor's care, and you've been told that if the slave lives you won't be punished (as opposed to being put to death). Since you assume the law favors you, and the justice system is bent on setting you (as a proud Israelite) free, you ask them how long do you have? They simply tell you 1 or 2 days. So this means that (officially) either you have 24 hours or 48 hours to know if you can go free. Now, on something as important as your life, wouldn't you want to know which? As of now you don't know if you'll be executed if the slave dies after 26 hours or not.

If you answer in the positive on questions 1 and 2, you have a huge task ahead of you to prove it. And maybe's will not cut it if you still insist the bible condones slavery.

My challenge to you Ludo, is to try and not mirror what the high profile on-line atheists are saying. It's not working anymore.

Reply

Indeed , Jacob knew exactly what he was wrestling with: a human being just like himself. He told us this six times that it was " a man ".

The gymnastics are not needed if we accept 'sex outside of marriage' was not prohibited as it is in modern Christianity. 

Job didn't seem to think so.

Job could speak for no one but himself. The law speaks to an entire nation. 

This seems to coincide quite nicely with 

 Matthew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

This verse is certainly more progressive, but it was written in a completely different time.  Mosaic law would have predated the gospels by ~1500 years. The link between the two is tenuous - especially given the contrasting theologies.

Sin by definition is 'disobeying god', so either David sinned only once or you're suggesting there is a contradiction in the Bible. Either way, sex outside of marriage in the Bible is undeniable and kosher.

That poor woman who was almost stoned to death in the Book of John I'm quite sure wouldn't agree.

You seem to be the one suggesting a contradiction.

I should have said sex outside of marriage in the Bible is undeniable and is not always looked down upon.  That being said, I generally avoid discussions about Biblical contradictions (or perceived contradictions). It has been my experience people interested in discussions on this topic are generally much more passionate about winning than truth. I prefer not to be one of those people.

Obviously you believe this was made up. Why would you have a problem with the authors of the Pentateuch making up a story of a super moral God who demanded complete purity towards all women, domestic or foreign? Keep in mind, this wouldn't harm your position one bit. If the Israelite authors make up such outlandish claims of an entire sea parting, why would you insist that they didn't make their God out to be a super humanitarian who even cares for foreigners?

The words of the OT do not suggest a super moral god - it is story of a powerful, capricious, petty, ignorant tyrant who happened to prefer the Hebrews.

As the saying goes,"If Moses and Yahweh had both been angry with the Israelites at the same time, not one of them would have survived!" To argue that this same god is/was a super humanitarian is absurd to the Nth degree. Mosaic law was crafted with this god in mind or by this god (as the case may be), and it shows.

As far as a disconnect, I would agree that once a conversation ends up to be a "You say tomato, I say tomawto" standoff, the conversation will become fruitless.

If the difference between Psalms and Mosaic law is not clear to everyone, I don't see how you a conversation strictly about Mosaic law could be had.

That being said perhaps you'll find this amusing (as I did), a disagreement on how to say the name of a fruit is not actually fruitless... ;-P

The idea that the Bible has to state "And it displeased the Lord" after every sin referenced in the Bible is silly.

...but not so silly when the Bible says someone (who had concubines) disobeyed god only once...and that sin had nothing to do with concubines. What is silly to think is that a modern Christian view of acceptable sexual relationships should somehow limit an ancient culture's view of the same.

First off, the word silly was an inappropriate word to use on my part. I think what you're saying is a misunderstanding of the texts, but not silly.

Yes. concubines were part of their culture. That's why it was so difficult to keep that part of the law.

The gymnastics are not needed if we accept 'sex outside of marriage' was not prohibited as it is in modern Christianity. 

I think you're mistaking in thinking that the scripture is claiming that David only disobeyed once means sinning only once. That's not what it's about. David sinned numerous times.

Sin by definition is 'disobeying god', so either David sinned only once or you're suggesting there is a contradiction in the Bible. Either way, sex outside of marriage in the Bible is undeniable and kosher.

I never equated soldiers with chattel slavery. 

If you've been paying attention to the conversation, you'd know I've been consistently objecting to chattel slavery in the Bible. Making a comparison between soldiers and slavery would naturally be understood in this context.

However, you do realize that chattel slaves were used in the Civil War, right? Obviously against their will (at least in the South).

This is, without a doubt, an equivocation of soldiers and chattel slavery. (another attempted motte) As should be painfully obvious at this point, I object to any chattel slavery. Additionally, being a soldier doesn't make one a slave.

A convert wouldn't necessarily believe after conversion because an Israelite wouldn't necessarily believe in Yahweh themselves. 

This is about the third tangent you've taken regarding "converts".  Suffice to say, the law considered converts to be part of Israel. I'm not interested in this rabbit hole.

Of course the whole Bible is about the law.

...but the whole Bible is not the law (eg. The Torah....a.k.a. "The Law") as I specified. This is another pointless tangent.

What is leading you to believe that the scripture is instructing Israelites to have sex before the one month mourning period (which doesn't even necessitate rape)?

Where did I suggest scripture instructs Israelites to have sex before the one month mourning period? I think I understand why we disagree on what this passage says if your understanding of my words is any indication of your average reading comprehension.

I don't think this scenario is any different than American war brides.

This an attempt to retreat to safe ground by equating American War Brides with Biblically sanctioned rape. In other words, this is a motte, and a poor one at that.

First off, it's actually not true that the Bible says that David disobeyed once.

I was going by what the Bible says in 1 Kings 15:5:

[...] because David did what was right in the sight of the Lord, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.

Secondly, Abraham was known to have concubines. And he didn't commit adultery until he was instructed to by his wife to go into Hagar his servant.

I guess you forgot what this part of the conversation was about. Your contention was that sex outside of marriage was not in any way condoned by Yahweh in the Bible. Abraham is another example of Biblical sex outside of marriage. 😏

Deut 21:13

[...] and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

I still, after numerous readings of this text, have yet to see where rape comes in. I always thought it fairly natural for husband and wife to have sexual intercourse at some point.

[...] After that, you may be intimate with her and possess her, and she will be a wife for you. [Link]

It seems clear to me sex is happening before 'marriage' and there is little concern of the woman's wishes.  But, hey, it doesn't say "rape", so it must not be that. 

And God, in the Bible, never condoned anything remotely close to an allowance for sex outside of marriage. .

Are you unaware of well-respected Biblical figures having concubines? King David had sons with some of his 10 concubines. Conc

What is revealed is that David never had a good marriage relationship. His adultery and fornication obviously lead to a lot of problems in his life.

That's not the same thing as a Biblical condemnation of sex outside of marriage. In fact, the Bible says David was a righteous man and disobeyed god once (Uriah the Hittite/Bathsheba) and that was not sex with concubines outside of his marriage.

Unfortunately the argument about ownership (owning another human) develops arguments about similarity. The ownership of soldiers may be different (or maybe not so different) from the ownership of an OT servant, but the argument is not about similarity.

I find nothing between soldiers and chattel slaves to be analogous. This is a poor attempt at equivocation. 

To try and give a bit more perspective, the question I pose is whether or not the actual existence of Yahweh (OT and NT references being one and the same) has any significance on the actual contexts and meanings in OT scripture?

No. The Jewish commentaries I cited were obviously written by individuals who believe in the existence of Yahweh ...and so do you.  Even still, your understandings of the meaning of the Bible are quite far apart. 

But if the entire exodus texts are fictional, then the author(s) wouldn't have any accountability to carrying out humanitarian practices, thus would not need to create laws favoring their position.

It is not about what was true, but about what the audience believed to be true. Drawing upon a shared belief can be quite powerful.

For clarification, I am merely saying the laws taken as a whole (rather than cherry picked) clearly speak to the 'children of Israel' (which would include foreigners who have come to believe in the Hebrew god).

There's a difference between believing in the Hebrew God, and converting to Judaism.

No.  A convert to Judaism would necessarily believe in the Hebrew god. I imagine you supplied Matthew 23:15 after searching the Bible for the word "convert".  Unfortunately for you, sharing a word with our discussion does not mean it's relevant. (Matthew 23:15 is a condemnation of self-righteous believers - not converts)

Psalm 14 King James Version (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Do you think this verse is meant in a general sense? Strictly foreigners? Includes or relegated to Israelites? If it includes Israelites, we might have a bit of a problem here.

I did specify "the laws". Psalms is not part of the laws.

Why do you find the passage in question abusive?

What passage?  We've discussed quite a few.  Exodus 20:16 was a passage brought up (not by me) in an ignorant attempt to refute (the bad kind of) slavery in the Bible. 

The Bible doesn't make any claim whatsoever to allowing the rape of foreign women. No where.

Deuteronomy 21

10 “When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive,11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and [a]trim her nails.13 She shall also [b]remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

And God, in the Bible, never condoned anything remotely close to an allowance for sex outside of marriage. .

Are you unaware of well-respected Biblical figures having concubines? King David had sons with some of his 10 concubines. Concubine

Leviticus 20:10 New International Version (NIV)

10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

The treated as property part seems to be simply a way to make the list appear a bit longer. What does that mean? Is it okay to own a human in, say, a military setting (U.S. army, navy, marines, air force) just so long as soldiers are not treated as they are (property)?

Soldiers are not "property". They sign a contract of their own free will and they obligate themselves to it.  Regardless of what they sign, the US government cannot buy, sell, or rape them. 

When you immediately default to concept of God, it certainly appears to suggest that you "assume no God". If I'm wrong, I apologize. But that's how it would appear. 

It's true, I don't assume your god or the god of the Israelites can possibly be upset by my words...not even "god-concept".  ;-)

FWIW, I no longer have a god-concept of my own, but that doesn't mean I assume there is no god - I just don't believe in yours (or anyone else's).

You've touched on "assuming no god" a few times now. Why is that? Are you suggesting the Jewish commentaries I've cited assume no god? It seems to me that your own assumptions are more troublesome than anything, friend.

No, I actually wasn't even thinking of the Jewish commentaries when I said that. I don't know what individual Jewish commentators believe.

You mean other than the Jewish commentaries I've cited? Why would we talk about sources neither of us have used in this discussion? 

Well, if you really want to play the hyper-literalist game, I can point out that this Exo 21:16 still allows kidnapping of men by men...so long as the victim isn't sold...and, apparently women can kidnap whoever they like! But that is taking *exactly* a bit too far. For clarification, I am merely saying the laws taken as a whole (rather than cherry picked) clearly speak to the 'children of Israel' (which would include foreigners who have come to believe in the Hebrew god).

And yes, I most certainly do think they mean what they say.  When we look at the broader context of this Exo 21:16 (the entire chapter), we see trouble being taken to specify "Hebrew slaves" because... there are different rules for foreign slaves. Also, foreigners are disallowed as an option for secondhand daughters (sold into slavery). It is clear distinctions are being made between Hebrew and foreigner wherever confusion might arise. The absence of this distinction in Exo 21:16  means this verse was directed to the nation of Israel FOR the nation of Israel.

I'm not sure what you mean.

When you are imprisoned under the government. Does the government now own you?

I didn't say you were for human property. I asked you if you agree that prisoners are human property?

No they are not. Bondservants hold slaves. You have already agree having slaves is bad. What about bondservants?

You've touched on "assuming no god" a few times now. Why is that? Are you suggesting the Jewish commentaries I've cited assume no god? It seems to me that your own assumptions are more troublesome than anything, friend.

The only assumption I am making is the men who authored the laws (whether inspired by a god or not) mean exactly what they've said. Given this, there is sufficient reason to believe these laws were directed at believers, and non-believers could be kidnapped, beaten, raped, and otherwise treated as property. Appealing to a god-concept which obviously differs from that of the Israelites (and modern Jews) provides no (rational) defense.

I am not opposed to a formal debate on this topic if you or anyone is interested