[ARCHIVED DEBATE] A Civilized Debate on Religion

[Edlichbury]

Still, aside from said book(s), any proof he did such things?

snip
1: Jesus was clearly a historical figure, as he is referenced many times in contemporary documents. (The amount of non-Christian documents from the time mentioning Jesus exceeds the amount of documents from the time mentioning the Roman emperor during Jesus' lifetime. Do you doubt Tiberius' existence?)
snip

Here's the issue: whether you agree about the existence of a man named Jesus, there is no first-hand accounts of Jesus's actions that remains consistent with the Gospel (that the Gospel itself is inconsistent is certainly an issue here). Yes, there is a general consensus that some named Jesus lived and preached at one point. No further details about this, including the miracles, his death (which should again be noted as particularly odd, if the Gospels are to be believed somehow despite being crucified during a full moon nonetheless also had a three-hour solar eclipse in the region, presumably someone would have noted this occasion sometime before decades have passed seeing as that's not actually possible), the idea that "Christus" and related names had to refer to Jesus instead of referring to followers of Serapis, as Emperor Hadrian (among others) used the latter in several letters.

But the most fatal flaw is that a crucial part of the story - Herod's mass infantcide - is recorded nowhere else, not even by his prolific critic Josephus. Which means the Gospels are flawed and contain events that did not happen, calling into question the validity of other events such as the resurrection, the miracles, his virgin birth, or simply anything that denotes Jesus as truly the son of God instead of merely another preacher. And unless you can provide better evidence that those events happened, that there was once someone named Jesus does nothing to establish the truth of your faith.

[God Kefka]

snip
1: Jesus was clearly a historical figure, as he is referenced many times in contemporary documents. (The amount of non-Christian documents from the time mentioning Jesus exceeds the amount of documents from the time mentioning the Roman emperor during Jesus' lifetime. Do you doubt Tiberius' existence?)
snip

Here's the issue: whether you agree about the existence of a man named Jesus, there is no first-hand accounts of Jesus's actions that remains consistent with the Gospel (that the Gospel itself is inconsistent is certainly an issue here). Yes, there is a general consensus that some named Jesus lived and preached at one point. No further details about this, including the miracles, his death (which should again be noted as particularly odd, if the Gospels are to be believed somehow despite being crucified during a full moon nonetheless also had a three-hour solar eclipse in the region, presumably someone would have noted this occasion sometime before decades have passed seeing as that's not actually possible), the idea that "Christus" and related names had to refer to Jesus instead of referring to followers of Serapis, as Emperor Hadrian (among others) used the latter in several letters.

But the most fatal flaw is that a crucial part of the story - Herod's mass infantcide - is recorded nowhere else, not even by his prolific critic Josephus. Which means the Gospels are flawed and contain events that did not happen, calling into question the validity of other events such as the resurrection, the miracles, his virgin birth, or simply anything that denotes Jesus as truly the son of God instead of merely another preacher. And unless you can provide better evidence that those events happened, that there was once someone named Jesus does nothing to establish the truth of your faith.

i like this...

that's a good point, about the Herod.

[Risottia]

Exactly.

It would be a bit difficult, considering how I harbour no beliefs.

I know you're going to play some word games, but how do you what no beliefs?

merriam.com
harbor (American variant of harbour)
verb
: to give shelter to (someone) : to hide and protect (someone)
: to have (something, such as a thought or feeling) in your mind for a long time
: to hold or contain (something)

If you want to claim there are word games afoot, you should really learn the meaning of words first.

[Risottia]

To me, the very concept of "deity" is totally unrelated to anything real.

Well depends on your concept of reality.

Reality is the set of all phenomena whose qualities can be measured.

And "measuring" has a rather strict definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_%28mathematics%29

[Seriong]

I know you're going to play some word games, but how do you what no beliefs?

merriam.com
harbor (American variant of harbour)
verb
: to give shelter to (someone) : to hide and protect (someone)
: to have (something, such as a thought or feeling) in your mind for a long time
: to hold or contain (something)

If you want to claim there are word games afoot, you should really learn the meaning of words first.

I had meant to write "have no beliefs" as otherwise the sentence would be meaningless. Even if one doesn't believe that I had erred in writing that, the phrase "What no beliefs?" still implies the longer form of "What, you have no beliefs?" and thus quoting the definition of harbor is worthless for anything other than petty ego stroking.

So, is there an answer?

[Risottia]

merriam.com
harbor (American variant of harbour)
verb
: to give shelter to (someone) : to hide and protect (someone)
: to have (something, such as a thought or feeling) in your mind for a long time
: to hold or contain (something)

If you want to claim there are word games afoot, you should really learn the meaning of words first.

I had meant to write "have no beliefs" as otherwise the sentence would be meaningless. Even if one doesn't believe that I had erred in writing that, the phrase "What no beliefs?" still implies the longer form of "What, you have no beliefs?" and thus quoting the definition of harbor is worthless for anything other than petty ego stroking.

So, is there an answer?

Yes.
How do I have no beliefs? Simple. I reject them because they're pointless and contribute nothing to my knowledge. Beliefs are unwarranted assumptions.

[Ashmoria]

snip
1: Jesus was clearly a historical figure, as he is referenced many times in contemporary documents. (The amount of non-Christian documents from the time mentioning Jesus exceeds the amount of documents from the time mentioning the Roman emperor during Jesus' lifetime. Do you doubt Tiberius' existence?)
snip

Here's the issue: whether you agree about the existence of a man named Jesus, there is no first-hand accounts of Jesus's actions that remains consistent with the Gospel (that the Gospel itself is inconsistent is certainly an issue here). Yes, there is a general consensus that some named Jesus lived and preached at one point. No further details about this, including the miracles, his death (which should again be noted as particularly odd, if the Gospels are to be believed somehow despite being crucified during a full moon nonetheless also had a three-hour solar eclipse in the region, presumably someone would have noted this occasion sometime before decades have passed seeing as that's not actually possible), the idea that "Christus" and related names had to refer to Jesus instead of referring to followers of Serapis, as Emperor Hadrian (among others) used the latter in several letters.

But the most fatal flaw is that a crucial part of the story - Herod's mass infantcide - is recorded nowhere else, not even by his prolific critic Josephus. Which means the Gospels are flawed and contain events that did not happen, calling into question the validity of other events such as the resurrection, the miracles, his virgin birth, or simply anything that denotes Jesus as truly the son of God instead of merely another preacher. And unless you can provide better evidence that those events happened, that there was once someone named Jesus does nothing to establish the truth of your faith.

you should have stopped at "there are no first hand accounts" since the gospels were written by unknown authors some time after the death of jesus.

I see no reason why there would have been any first hand accounts that survived the ages. there are a few things claimed in the gospels that, if true, should have made enough of a splash that they would have been written about. even more than the slaughter of innocents is the earthquake that happened as jesus died and the subsequent cracking open of graves and the dead lying within them rising and walking into town. (hereafter known as the zombie invasion of Jerusalem)

matthew chapter 27

50* But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.
51 And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom.* The earth quaked, rocks were split,
52 tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.
53 And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

[Jetan]

We know all of this already.

We? Don't speak for other people. You would be surprised how many people need to be educated on the points I brought up.

If you can make broad generalizations, then so can I.

[Seriong]

I had meant to write "have no beliefs" as otherwise the sentence would be meaningless. Even if one doesn't believe that I had erred in writing that, the phrase "What no beliefs?" still implies the longer form of "What, you have no beliefs?" and thus quoting the definition of harbor is worthless for anything other than petty ego stroking.

So, is there an answer?

Yes.
How do I have no beliefs? Simple. I reject them because they're pointless and contribute nothing to my knowledge. Beliefs are unwarranted assumptions.

And from what authority do you derive that definition of beliefs?

[Edlichbury]

Let us talk about the nature of god.

God, as defined in modern sense, appears to be an eternal, all-encompassing, great creator. The central theories of most modern religions hold these, if nothing else, consistent. The great challenge is to explain a central creator, one eternal, all-encompassing, yet not as complex as to create new issues of identity.

From this, I postulate a simple solution, one that surely can resolve all petty disputes and unite all religions. For we have observed that which expands to fill all things, is present in the very fabric of life, central both to the sun, the air, and the water. For lo, it is the most abundant and crucial of all elements of life, unique in properties most plentiful. For it alone we may praise light and heat. But we must show care, for it was this that destroyed great cities in an instant, this which may burn without flame, this which fuels the very terrestrial bodies of great import!

So lo, my fellows, let us cast off our old shackles of oppressive faiths, those which cause us ill and no respite, and accept this new faith. This, which merely has a single tenet, that which can easily adapt to all lives. We must simply revere the masterful simplicity of our dual nature, part good and part bad. We must always be mindful of the good we can do, but wary that evil is present. True, good is larger, and easy to find, but evil is crafty, and while small, moves quickly.

I hope this philosophy can elucidate, strengthen, and unify.

All hail Lord Hydrogen.

[New Zreuche]

If God was perfect, everything he made would be perfect too. Including the Nazi Party. Therefore the Nazi Party is perfect and you should join.

Well, if they took over the whole world, then there would be no wars.

Which does not necessarily define the word "Perfect"

War isn't the world's only problem

[New Zreuche]

Let us talk about the nature of god.

God, as defined in modern sense, appears to be an eternal, all-encompassing, great creator. The central theories of most modern religions hold these, if nothing else, consistent. The great challenge is to explain a central creator, one eternal, all-encompassing, yet not as complex as to create new issues of identity.

From this, I postulate a simple solution, one that surely can resolve all petty disputes and unite all religions. For we have observed that which expands to fill all things, is present in the very fabric of life, central both to the sun, the air, and the water. For lo, it is the most abundant and crucial of all elements of life, unique in properties most plentiful. For it alone we may praise light and heat. But we must show care, for it was this that destroyed great cities in an instant, this which may burn without flame, this which fuels the very terrestrial bodies of great import!

So lo, my fellows, let us cast off our old shackles of oppressive faiths, those which cause us ill and no respite, and accept this new faith. This, which merely has a single tenet, that which can easily adapt to all lives. We must simply revere the masterful simplicity of our dual nature, part good and part bad. We must always be mindful of the good we can do, but wary that evil is present. True, good is larger, and easy to find, but evil is crafty, and while small, moves quickly.

I hope this philosophy can elucidate, strengthen, and unify.

All hail Lord Hydrogen.

What about the church of google?

Google answers prayers, is everywhere and potentially infinite

[Edlichbury]

Let us talk about the nature of god.

God, as defined in modern sense, appears to be an eternal, all-encompassing, great creator. The central theories of most modern religions hold these, if nothing else, consistent. The great challenge is to explain a central creator, one eternal, all-encompassing, yet not as complex as to create new issues of identity.

From this, I postulate a simple solution, one that surely can resolve all petty disputes and unite all religions. For we have observed that which expands to fill all things, is present in the very fabric of life, central both to the sun, the air, and the water. For lo, it is the most abundant and crucial of all elements of life, unique in properties most plentiful. For it alone we may praise light and heat. But we must show care, for it was this that destroyed great cities in an instant, this which may burn without flame, this which fuels the very terrestrial bodies of great import!

So lo, my fellows, let us cast off our old shackles of oppressive faiths, those which cause us ill and no respite, and accept this new faith. This, which merely has a single tenet, that which can easily adapt to all lives. We must simply revere the masterful simplicity of our dual nature, part good and part bad. We must always be mindful of the good we can do, but wary that evil is present. True, good is larger, and easy to find, but evil is crafty, and while small, moves quickly.

I hope this philosophy can elucidate, strengthen, and unify.

All hail Lord Hydrogen.

What about the church of google?

Google answers prayers, is everywhere and potentially infinite

Hydrogen is already in your heart, it is all places and forever accessible.

[Vissegaard]

What about the church of google?

Google answers prayers, is everywhere and potentially infinite

Hydrogen is already in your heart, it is all places and forever accessible.

So why don´t you pray to hydrogen?

I like to think of God as the greatest liar ever. He denies His own existence for several billion years and already made some people to believe it.

[Chinese Regions]

To me, the very concept of "deity" is totally unrelated to anything real.

Do all deities have to be metaphysical and beyond reality?
If Thor or Ra turn out to be aliens would they still be considered gods or aliens pretending to be gods?

[Distruzio]

Does God exist?

Yes, although it doesn't matter if He doesn't. The belief in Him has been and remains and overall boon to social continuity.

Also what are your opinions on religion?

I support its existence. Hell, I'd support the worship of the Great Bacon Above. Bacon is just that good.

I believe that all sides of this debate can respect eachothers' opinions and do this in a civilized fashion. We can also talk about logical fallacies, the problem of evil, Satan, Hell and other religious topics. I am, personally, an atheist and I believe that there is no god(s) or supernatural entities of any kind. I wish for us to engage in a respectable conversation on beliefs and tradition and what value god has in our modern society.
Don't turn this into a flame war... please.

Okay. Cross my heart.

[Atorea]

snip
1: Jesus was clearly a historical figure, as he is referenced many times in contemporary documents. (The amount of non-Christian documents from the time mentioning Jesus exceeds the amount of documents from the time mentioning the Roman emperor during Jesus' lifetime. Do you doubt Tiberius' existence?)
snip

Here's the issue: whether you agree about the existence of a man named Jesus, there is no first-hand accounts of Jesus's actions that remains consistent with the Gospel (that the Gospel itself is inconsistent is certainly an issue here). Yes, there is a general consensus that some named Jesus lived and preached at one point. No further details about this, including the miracles, his death (which should again be noted as particularly odd, if the Gospels are to be believed somehow despite being crucified during a full moon nonetheless also had a three-hour solar eclipse in the region, presumably someone would have noted this occasion sometime before decades have passed seeing as that's not actually possible), the idea that "Christus" and related names had to refer to Jesus instead of referring to followers of Serapis, as Emperor Hadrian (among others) used the latter in several letters.

But the most fatal flaw is that a crucial part of the story - Herod's mass infantcide - is recorded nowhere else, not even by his prolific critic Josephus. Which means the Gospels are flawed and contain events that did not happen, calling into question the validity of other events such as the resurrection, the miracles, his virgin birth, or simply anything that denotes Jesus as truly the son of God instead of merely another preacher. And unless you can provide better evidence that those events happened, that there was once someone named Jesus does nothing to establish the truth of your faith.

But documents are lost through time, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were no records.

[Edlichbury]

Here's the issue: whether you agree about the existence of a man named Jesus, there is no first-hand accounts of Jesus's actions that remains consistent with the Gospel (that the Gospel itself is inconsistent is certainly an issue here). Yes, there is a general consensus that some named Jesus lived and preached at one point. No further details about this, including the miracles, his death (which should again be noted as particularly odd, if the Gospels are to be believed somehow despite being crucified during a full moon nonetheless also had a three-hour solar eclipse in the region, presumably someone would have noted this occasion sometime before decades have passed seeing as that's not actually possible), the idea that "Christus" and related names had to refer to Jesus instead of referring to followers of Serapis, as Emperor Hadrian (among others) used the latter in several letters.

But the most fatal flaw is that a crucial part of the story - Herod's mass infantcide - is recorded nowhere else, not even by his prolific critic Josephus. Which means the Gospels are flawed and contain events that did not happen, calling into question the validity of other events such as the resurrection, the miracles, his virgin birth, or simply anything that denotes Jesus as truly the son of God instead of merely another preacher. And unless you can provide better evidence that those events happened, that there was once someone named Jesus does nothing to establish the truth of your faith.

But documents are lost through time, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were no records.

But we have records on everything else from that time.

[New Zreuche]

But documents are lost through time, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were no records.

But we have records on everything else from that time.

Not everything, infact most ancient knowledge and documents were lost after the fall of Rome. Our main picture of that period is really a lot of educated guesses

[Edlichbury]

But we have records on everything else from that time.

Not everything, infact most ancient knowledge and documents were lost after the fall of Rome. Our main picture of that period is really a lot of educated guesses

No, we have remarkable detail. We have collections of letters, journals, things in far greater detail than exists after the fall of the Western Roman Empire (that we maintain records from the Roman Empire at all is a credit to both the Eastern Roman Empire and the Muslim states of the Levant and Spain). We have, unlike in most other areas, a near continuous account of who was on the throne, when, how they got there, and what finally removed them - quite significant a feat considering this goes from Caesar Augustus until Little Augustus of Ravenna.
And thanks to the various collections, we have a pretty clear picture of the events of that time, enough that we can state with certainty that the events detailed in the Gospels not only did not happen as they described but often were impossible at all (again, the three hours of darkness that given the other conditions of the crucifixion would not have been possible). If you truly believe we do not have better than an "educated guess" then you have not looked closely at what has survived.
And yes, we lost a large number of records but we do not see huge gaps in our knowledge unless the Gospels are recounting actual events. In that light, it is vastly more likely they refer to events that didn't happen than they refer to actual events that the rather detailed history we have of that time somehow missed.

[Stovokor]

Here's the issue: whether you agree about the existence of a man named Jesus, there is no first-hand accounts of Jesus's actions that remains consistent with the Gospel (that the Gospel itself is inconsistent is certainly an issue here). Yes, there is a general consensus that some named Jesus lived and preached at one point. No further details about this, including the miracles, his death (which should again be noted as particularly odd, if the Gospels are to be believed somehow despite being crucified during a full moon nonetheless also had a three-hour solar eclipse in the region, presumably someone would have noted this occasion sometime before decades have passed seeing as that's not actually possible), the idea that "Christus" and related names had to refer to Jesus instead of referring to followers of Serapis, as Emperor Hadrian (among others) used the latter in several letters.

But the most fatal flaw is that a crucial part of the story - Herod's mass infantcide - is recorded nowhere else, not even by his prolific critic Josephus. Which means the Gospels are flawed and contain events that did not happen, calling into question the validity of other events such as the resurrection, the miracles, his virgin birth, or simply anything that denotes Jesus as truly the son of God instead of merely another preacher. And unless you can provide better evidence that those events happened, that there was once someone named Jesus does nothing to establish the truth of your faith.

you should have stopped at "there are no first hand accounts" since the gospels were written by unknown authors some time after the death of jesus.

I see no reason why there would have been any first hand accounts that survived the ages. there are a few things claimed in the gospels that, if true, should have made enough of a splash that they would have been written about. even more than the slaughter of innocents is the earthquake that happened as jesus died and the subsequent cracking open of graves and the dead lying within them rising and walking into town. (hereafter known as the zombie invasion of Jerusalem)

matthew chapter 27

50* But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.
51 And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom.* The earth quaked, rocks were split,
52 tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.
53 And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

There are no accounts outside of the bible, your point is mute.

Here's the issue: whether you agree about the existence of a man named Jesus, there is no first-hand accounts of Jesus's actions that remains consistent with the Gospel (that the Gospel itself is inconsistent is certainly an issue here). Yes, there is a general consensus that some named Jesus lived and preached at one point. No further details about this, including the miracles, his death (which should again be noted as particularly odd, if the Gospels are to be believed somehow despite being crucified during a full moon nonetheless also had a three-hour solar eclipse in the region, presumably someone would have noted this occasion sometime before decades have passed seeing as that's not actually possible), the idea that "Christus" and related names had to refer to Jesus instead of referring to followers of Serapis, as Emperor Hadrian (among others) used the latter in several letters.

But the most fatal flaw is that a crucial part of the story - Herod's mass infantcide - is recorded nowhere else, not even by his prolific critic Josephus. Which means the Gospels are flawed and contain events that did not happen, calling into question the validity of other events such as the resurrection, the miracles, his virgin birth, or simply anything that denotes Jesus as truly the son of God instead of merely another preacher. And unless you can provide better evidence that those events happened, that there was once someone named Jesus does nothing to establish the truth of your faith.

But documents are lost through time, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were no records.

Right, but the works of ancient scholars still exist? I find this to be a very lazy excuse.

[Menassa]

snip
1: Jesus was clearly a historical figure, as he is referenced many times in contemporary documents. (The amount of non-Christian documents from the time mentioning Jesus exceeds the amount of documents from the time mentioning the Roman emperor during Jesus' lifetime. Do you doubt Tiberius' existence?)
snip

Here's the issue: whether you agree about the existence of a man named Jesus, there is no first-hand accounts of Jesus's actions that remains consistent with the Gospel (that the Gospel itself is inconsistent is certainly an issue here). Yes, there is a general consensus that some named Jesus lived and preached at one point. No further details about this, including the miracles, his death (which should again be noted as particularly odd, if the Gospels are to be believed somehow despite being crucified during a full moon nonetheless also had a three-hour solar eclipse in the region, presumably someone would have noted this occasion sometime before decades have passed seeing as that's not actually possible), the idea that "Christus" and related names had to refer to Jesus instead of referring to followers of Serapis, as Emperor Hadrian (among others) used the latter in several letters.

But the most fatal flaw is that a crucial part of the story - Herod's mass infantcide - is recorded nowhere else, not even by his prolific critic Josephus. Which means the Gospels are flawed and contain events that did not happen, calling into question the validity of other events such as the resurrection, the miracles, his virgin birth, or simply anything that denotes Jesus as truly the son of God instead of merely another preacher. And unless you can provide better evidence that those events happened, that there was once someone named Jesus does nothing to establish the truth of your faith.

1 Timothy 3:3-4.
"As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith."

[The Mizarian Empire]

Before I begin to even consider jumping into this debate, let me get some baseline information, as everyone's religious beliefs are different from another's.

1) Can we agree that the Abrahamic gods (be it Yaweh of Judaism, Allah (blessed be his name) of Islam, or "God" of the Christian doctrines) is considered to be all knowing?
2) Can we agree that said deities are all loving?
3) Can we agree they are all just? (that it they hand out punishments that are not excessive in nature)


I would rather clear the tables and put every fact on the wall, clear as day, that "This is the information we are discussing".

[The USOT]

Before I begin to even consider jumping into this debate, let me get some baseline information, as everyone's religious beliefs are different from another's.

1) Can we agree that the Abrahamic gods (be it Yaweh of Judaism, Allah (blessed be his name) of Islam, or "God" of the Christian doctrines) is considered to be all knowing?
2) Can we agree that said deities are all loving?
3) Can we agree they are all just? (that it they hand out punishments that are excessive in nature)


I would rather clear the tables and put every fact on the wall, clear as day, that "This is the information we are discussing".

Thats a bit difficult to agree on...

I mean unless you are a follower of the Abrahamic faith, most would agree that Yahweh/Allah/"The lord thy God" is pretty hateful, has many instances where he doesn't know what is going on (Sodom is only destroyed because God has to send the angels down to gather information) and promotes incredibly poor judgement for instances of justice (e.g. supporting slavery, condoning rape etc).

I mean you have to take an extreme metaphorical stance for Yahweh to appear as loving, especially considering he slightly commits genocide on the entire planet except for some animals and one family of humans. To this day I still don't quite get any metaphor beyond "FEAR HIM!"

[Benuty]

Before I begin to even consider jumping into this debate, let me get some baseline information, as everyone's religious beliefs are different from another's.

1) Can we agree that the Abrahamic gods (be it Yaweh of Judaism, Allah (blessed be his name) of Islam, or "God" of the Christian doctrines) is considered to be all knowing?
2) Can we agree that said deities are all loving?
3) Can we agree they are all just? (that it they hand out punishments that are excessive in nature)


I would rather clear the tables and put every fact on the wall, clear as day, that "This is the information we are discussing".

Thats a bit difficult to agree on...

I mean unless you are a follower of the Abrahamic faith, most would agree that Yahweh/Allah/"The lord thy God" is pretty hateful, has many instances where he doesn't know what is going on (Sodom is only destroyed because God has to send the angels down to gather information) and promotes incredibly poor judgement for instances of justice (e.g. supporting slavery, condoning rape etc).

I mean you have to take an extreme metaphorical stance for Yahweh to appear as loving, especially considering he slightly commits genocide on the entire planet except for some animals and one family of humans. To this day I still don't quite get any metaphor beyond "FEAR HIM!"

Speaking the contextualist sense it is hard to see Yahweh as a tyrant without viewing through literalist bias. As much I like to trash literalism this can wait until later. What one considers poor judgement today would seem relatively advanced for the times the instructions were given in. I mean bond-servitude was in far more usage than slavery as Israel relied on a system of labor involving contracted bond servants and day laboring when it came to many tasks. Slavery was viewed as a task of elite's needing workers for their houses something carried over from nomadic tradition. Slavery started expansion under Solomon and the two kingdom's era before dying down because of the Assyrian/Babylonian exiles of much of the population.

As for the instructions on handling rape they might seem bad at first glance but they are not given the situation. 21st century laws on rape need not apply in an era that wouldn't have even begun to understand them let alone apply them to the societies they lived in.