Godbless everyone

[TheStrangest]

@drewwy said in Godbless everyone:

@thestrangest dude what he fuck you wasted your life talking about this.

I just copy pasted it from my own posts

He as just trying to be kind, he didn't intend fr an argument.

I was kind back by ponting out some other things in the bible. The bible seems to interest him

But as religion is a touchy subject, I do not blame you. Sandly, I'm on my phone, and I it takes me s much longer to type.

Me too

I didn't read your whole message, cause it was way to long. I'm just saying, he didn't intento Mae people uneasy, he was just trying to be nice.

Ok. I just wanted to nicely infrom him about some of the things in the bible

[Sir Devil]

@thestrangest Just wanted to say that, few things are missing their context. I ain't, bashing your statement. I just wanted to clarify. I am not going to talk about the rest. It is there. I can't say anything about it.

Judges 19:25-28

Although in here, it seems like the master left his servant there because she was useless, it is shown in the following verses that he left her there because he knew that she was dead and also that, he did get revenge for her by raising this crime to the entirety of Isreal.

Genesis 22:2

Come on, this is one of the more common verses. Abraham will not kill his son. God stops him. I don't know how that happened. I'm just saying that it is written there.

I also wanted to add that, saying that violence is depicted in The Bible is irrelevant. Many chapters in Bible, specifically in the Old Testament are sort of like history (Don't ask me why and how god was there. I don't know). In the time period of its narration, violence is extremely common. So, yeah, of course, violence would be there.

I am not supporting Slavery or anything. I am not. I am telling again, I am not supporting slavery. Don't reply to me, saying that I endorse Slavery. Here, although it is wrong, in that time period, Slavery was practiced in almost all parts of the world. I know that they have specified some dark things, you could do with your slave and I do agree that they are bad but I just want to say that they were not uncommon at that time period. I am again, not justifying the Bible. I know that they are wrong.

I also wanted to say that they were indeed things that were homophobic but then again, it also says that except sex between two married couples, all types of sex bad.

But now, most importantly, were you "inspired" to make this long reply, just because you saw the words, "Proverbs"? I wonder if you would have ignored this topic altogether if he had excluded "Proverbs". You say that you were kind but the intention behind this reply seems obvious.

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

@thestrangest Just wanted to say that, few things are missing their context. I ain't, bashing your statement. I just wanted to clarify. I am not going to talk about the rest. It is there. I can't say anything about it.

Judges 19:25-28

Although in here, it seems like the master left his servant there because she was useless, it is shown in the following verses that he left her there because he knew that she was dead and also that, he did get revenge for her by raising this crime to the entirety of Isreal.

I don't understand what you are saying here, what do you mean by "he did get revenge for her by raising this crime to the entirety of Isreal."

So when she got dissmembered after being gang raped, having the bible justify this as that she shouldn't have run off, was that not supporting slavery? Man i don't get it.

Genesis 22:2

Come on, this is one of the more common verses. Abraham will not kill his son. God stops him. I don't know how that happened. I'm just saying that it is written there.

FACEPALM. THE DISTURBING PART HERE IS THAT IF GOD TOLD YOU TO GUT YOUR FUCKING SON YOU WOULD NATURALLY RESPOND WITH "GO FUCK YOURSELF, I AIN'T DOIN' IT" BUT THE BIBLE WANTS YOU TO BE WILLING TO DO IT IF YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD WANTS YOU TO DO IT. UGH, you dont have to be a genius to see why that's fucked up.

I also wanted to add that, saying that violence is depicted in The Bible is irrelevant.

I never said that violence was depicted in the bible, i said that it was supported in the bible so how is that irrelevant.

Many chapters in Bible, specifically in the Old Testament are sort of like history (Don't ask me why and how god was there. I don't know). In the time period of its narration, violence is extremely common.

.... and supported, loved and encouraged by god in the old and new Testament

So, yeah, of course, violence would be there.

Supported there*

I am not supporting Slavery or anything. I am not. I am telling again, I am not supporting slavery. Don't reply to me, saying that I endorse Slavery.

It depends

Here, although it is wrong, in that time period, Slavery was practiced in almost all parts of the world.

I know you already know this but normalising slavery doesn't change how fucked up it was.

I know that they have specified some dark things, you could do with your slave and I do agree that they are bad but I just want to say that they were not uncommon at that time period.

Dude i get what you're trying to say but an all-knowing god wouldn't have endorsed such things, im saying that it just shows that the bible is most defenitely man's work

I am again, not justifying the Bible. I know that they are wrong.

Cool

I also wanted to say that they were indeed things that were homophobic but then again, it also says that except sex between two married couples, all types of sex bad.

.... bad and deserve severe punishment and sometimes death i think. What you said isn't making the bible sound better it just makes it sound worse. I know you know this but the "but yet again" did not make it clear

But now, most importantly, were you "inspired" to make this long reply, just because you saw the words, "Proverbs"? I wonder if you would have ignored this topic altogether if he had excluded "Proverbs". You say that you were kind but the intention behind this reply seems obvious.

Yeh man. I don't care. It isn't a reply in a sense i just copy pasted it from another post of mine to keep it relevant and so hopefully someone reads it and learns something new or has an interesting thought so it's kind in that way. It worked since you read it, you might not have learned anything new but you made it relevant again and also thought about it for a sec.

[Willow]

@thestrangest damnnnnn dude. I think you need a cake pop and some ice, to chill out a bit. It’s just something nice. And I like these posts. So take your negative vibes elsewhere. :)

[TheStrangest]

@willoww ni🅱🅱a. How am being negative? Fix your perception

[Sir Devil]

@thestrangest said in Godbless everyone:

I don't understand what you are saying here, what do you mean by "he did get revenge for her by raising this crime to the entirety of Isreal."
So when she got dissmembered after being gang raped, having the bible justify this as that she shouldn't have run off, was that not supporting slavery? Man i don't get it.

No, the thing is, by reading the previous and succeeding verses, you would get the context. So, the thing goes like, he was a traveler taking rest in a house. Some bandits got wind of it and they surrounded the house and started banging on the door, demanding that girl for sex. The owner of that house tried to negotiate with them but they wouldn't back down. They had no choice to give her up but then, they went overboard. The guy left her there because he knew that she was dead. After getting home, he brought this vile crime to every leader of every major city in Isreal and with their help, he waged a war against them and killed them. Thereby he got his revenge.

FACEPALM. THE DISTURBING PART HERE IS THAT IF GOD TOLD YOU TO GUT YOUR FUCKING SON YOU WOULD NATURALLY RESPOND WITH "GO FUCK YOURSELF, I AIN'T DOIN' IT" BUT THE BIBLE WANTS YOU TO BE WILLING TO DO IT IF YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD WANTS YOU TO DO IT. UGH, you dont have to be a genius to see why that's fucked up.

Yes, I get what you are saying. What I imagine is that God should have been trolling (some would say "testing), "Yo, Abram! Sacrifice your son for me". Just like you said, the thing it shows here is the submissiveness of the people. He did stop him, so, uh...

I never said that violence was depicted in the bible, i said that it was supported in the bible so how is that irrelevant.

In their defense, violence was a way of life back then.

I know you already know this but normalising slavery doesn't change how fucked up it was.

Yes, I know but now you know, how fucked up it is with the rest of the world. It was fucked up everywhere.

Dude i get what you're trying to say but an all-knowing god wouldn't have endorsed such things, im saying that it just shows that the bible is most defenitely man's work

Things were shown different in the Old Testament. It was more prehistoric. Things were pretty different back then. Remeber that we are talking about an era that is in BCE. Our current views on morality and ethics won't apply back then. In those times, it was normal. In the present, they are bad.

Saying "Most definitely", suggest that you have some solid evidence supporting that. Of course, there is no evidence, opposing that too. So, let's just leave it like that.

Yeh man. I don't care. It isn't a reply in a sense i just copy pasted it from another post of mine to keep it relevant and so hopefully someone reads it and learns something new or has an interesting thought so it's kind in that way. It worked since you read it, you might not have learned anything new but you made it relevant again and also thought about it for a sec.

Yes, and the only reason I replied was that you were rude to OP. I mean. OP just posted a positive message from The Bible but since you posted the copy-pasted reply, it's relevance has been greatly reduced. Now, people going through this topic would be more affected by the replies it spawned.

Hence, you perverted his message from something positive to something that is slightly negative, since it was from The Bible.

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

@thestrangest said in Godbless everyone:

I don't understand what you are saying here, what do you mean by "he did get revenge for her by raising this crime to the entirety of Isreal."
So when she got dissmembered after being gang raped, having the bible justify this as that she shouldn't have run off, was that not supporting slavery? Man i don't get it.

No, the thing is, by reading the previous and succeeding verses, you would get the context. So, the thing goes like, he was a traveler taking rest in a house. Some bandits got wind of it and they surrounded the house and started banging on the door, demanding that girl for sex. The owner of that house tried to negotiate with them but they wouldn't back down. They had no choice to give her up but then, they went overboard. The guy left her there because he knew that she was dead. After getting home, he brought this vile crime to every leader of every major city in Isreal and with their help, he waged a war against them and killed them. Thereby he got his revenge.

Im pretty sure that's not making the story better just made it stupider. Ugh. It still supports slavery and violence. End of story

FACEPALM. THE DISTURBING PART HERE IS THAT IF GOD TOLD YOU TO GUT YOUR FUCKING SON YOU WOULD NATURALLY RESPOND WITH "GO FUCK YOURSELF, I AIN'T DOIN' IT" BUT THE BIBLE WANTS YOU TO BE WILLING TO DO IT IF YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD WANTS YOU TO DO IT. UGH, you dont have to be a genius to see why that's fucked up.

Yes, I get what you are saying. What I imagine is that God should have been trolling (some would say "testing), "Yo, Abram! Sacrifice your son for me".

Testing is a stupid word to say here.

Here's the deffinition you are probably using:

"An event or situation that reveals the strength or quality of someone or something by putting them under strain."

See how it says 'reveal'. It means that if you already know the result before the test it isn't a test. Isn't the god of the bible omnipotent therefore knows what Abraham will do before giving him the order so it isn't really a test.

And what lesson is this. Testing him for what?

Let's see another definition

"A procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use."

What is the quality the story portraise as good? Being ready to gut anybody including your loved ones if you ever believe god wants you to. Same as isis, no difference in logic.

Just like you said, the thing it shows here is the submissiveness of the people.

Which is bad.

He did stop him, so, uh...

UHM... what? NOTHING. It's a fucked up violent story and that's it

I never said that violence was depicted in the bible, i said that it was supported in the bible so how is that irrelevant.

In their defense, violence was a way of life back then.

Stop defending uneducated desert savages nor their worldwide praise.

I know you already know this but normalising slavery doesn't change how fucked up it was.

Yes, I know but now you know, how fucked up it is with the rest of the world. It was fucked up everywhere.

Ok. That makes sense

Dude i get what you're trying to say but an all-knowing god wouldn't have endorsed such things, im saying that it just shows that the bible is most defenitely man's work

Things were shown different in the Old Testament. It was more prehistoric. Things were pretty different back then. Remeber that we are talking about an era that is in BCE.

Not really, that was a couple hundred years after the start hestoric period and the end of the heroic period. There were a lot if historiens and even some well known ones back then and none of them wrote about "the great achievments and miracles of Jesus" because there were no such things and even to this day there is 0 evidence that jedus even existed and of course the bible is not evidence just like the harry potter books aren't evidence of the existence of Hogwarts existing.

Our current views on morality and ethics won't apply back then.

Morality isn't a whatever whenever thing. Secular well being is based on the conservation of well being. None of the old Testament is moral by any standard unless you define morality as the creation of pain and suffering.

In those times, it was normal. In the present, they are bad.

Nah ni🅱🅱a. It's always bad wether it happened 2000 years ago or today. Nothing changes the morality of a thing with time.

Saying "Most definitely", suggest that you have some solid evidence supporting that.

Why would i need any evidence to disbelieve in something that has as much proof behind it as a harry potter book.

Of course, there is no evidence, opposing that too. So, let's just leave it like that.

Let me explain this.

i didn't chose to be an atheist it happened because i say no sufficient evidence behind the religious claims, if there was evidence i would believe and of course faith is not a reliable pathway to truth since it can lead you to true and wrong conclusions with incredible inaccuracy so using it is useless.

Yeh man. I don't care. It isn't a reply in a sense i just copy pasted it from another post of mine to keep it relevant and so hopefully someone reads it and learns something new or has an interesting thought so it's kind in that way. It worked since you read it, you might not have learned anything new but you made it relevant again and also thought about it for a sec.

Yes, and the only reason I replied was that you were rude to OP. I mean. OP just posted a positive message from The Bible but since you posted the copy-pasted reply, it's relevance has been greatly reduced.

Increased*

And if i came of as rood then sorry but it was just copy/paste.

Now, people going through this topic would be more affected by the replies it spawned.
Hence, you perverted his message from something positive to something that is slightly negative, since it was from The Bible.

If i didn't reply this post would have been off the first couple of pages a long time ago and no one would have seen it anyway

[Sir Devil]

@thestrangest

Not really, that was a couple hundred years after the start hestoric period and the end of the heroic period. There were a lot if historiens and even some well known ones back then and none of them wrote about "the great achievments and miracles of Jesus" because there were no such things and even to this day there is 0 evidence that jedus even existed and of course the bible is not evidence just like the harry potter books aren't evidence of the existence of Hogwarts existing.

What is the point you are trying to make here? Heroic age is in BCE and we were talking about the things in the Old Testament, which is in BCE and not about Jesus.

Stop defending uneducated desert savages nor their worldwide praise.

I am telling your quote right back at you.
"Hey. Don't generalise"
Uneducated desert savages, huh? Even the common people? Wow!

In all seriousness, Uneducated? I doubt that. Many people were indeed educated back then. It was just that they were educated to their standards. You can't expect them to learn something that isn't present in their time.

Savages? Of course, they were savage. Remember we are talking about a time period that is in BCE. Every single era before our current modern era was filled with brutal violence and bloodshed. There was no choice other than that. There was no sufficient technology to establish a proper communication without the fear of assassination and even if they were in a period of peace, was no one enforcing it. So, back then, the only way you could have a proper peace is to capture all of the surrounding territories. So yeah, every soldier in all parts of history were savages.

Btw, notice that I said "Soldiers"

stupider

Now, how is it stupider?

supports slavery and violence

Now then, since it was in BCE, The Old Testament was far from perfect. Today, we have people fighting against slavery and violence, which is good.

But back then, there were none arguing against it. They just accepted it as a part of their life. There isn't a single nation that never practiced slavery. History can't be changed. In other words, it used to be like this in the past. In today's world, this won't apply.

Let me explain this.
i didn't chose to be an atheist it happened because i say no sufficient evidence behind the religious claims, if there was evidence i would believe and of course faith is not a reliable pathway to truth since it can lead you to true and
wrong conclusions with incredible inaccuracy so using it is useless.

Again, why this reply? You are just repeating what I said. I have already said there is no solid evidence supporting or opposing God. In such situation, you took the opposing stance. I am not saying that is wrong. You do what you do.

Testing is a stupid word to say here

Did you notice that I used testing within double quotes and also that it was not the first word that I used?

it was just copy/paste.

Okay. Anyway, it doesn't make it less rude just because it is a copy-paste. It just shows that there was less work for you.

[Sir Devil]

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

there was no one enforcing it

Just in case, I would explain more. Here I am implying two things; UN and MAD. They are the two things that are doing the most work in preventing wars between nations.

Hence, back then, there was no peaceful way to solve an issue between two nations. There were no Internation Court of Justice. If a country did wrong, they only way you could get back at them would be to gather an army and kill their ruler, an act which is both violent and savage.

[Sir Devil]

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

Heroic age
Hestoric age

What are you meaning by this?
I assumed heroic age to the Greek heroic age, which is something that is connected to Greek mythology and whose history must have taken place in BCE.

Note that I said "History". It's because the city of Troy depicted in the Odysseus exists, although the story is interwoven with the mythology. I have to clarify this because you always do case by case breakdown reply and have far too many times failed to see my context.

Now, wtf is hestoric age?

[Sir Devil]

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

Btw, notice that I said "Soldiers"

Again, a just in case reply. The violent stories depicted in the Old Testament are done by only a mere fraction of the people. There must have been a lot of peasants who lived their lives peacefully while abiding by their laws. Some may not even have slaves. They might have been that poor. They might have lived their lives peacefully without any harms. Hell, many Scholars throughout the history resort from committing any violence. There must have been Scholars back then too. Hence, I don't find them all to be either uneducated nor savage.

The reason I posted this reply is echo.

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

@thestrangest

Not really, that was a couple hundred years after the start hestoric period and the end of the heroic period. There were a lot if historiens and even some well known ones back then and none of them wrote about "the great achievments and miracles of Jesus" because there were no such things and even to this day there is 0 evidence that jedus even existed and of course the bible is not evidence just like the harry potter books aren't evidence of the existence of Hogwarts existing.

What is the point you are trying to make here? Heroic age is in BCE and we were talking about the things in the Old Testament, which is in BCE and not about Jesus.

Oh sorry i thought you were talking about the bible in general

Stop defending uneducated desert savages nor their worldwide praise.

I am telling your quote right back at you.
"Hey. Don't generalise"

Oh i am gonna generalise. People back then knew as much about existence, the universe and the meaning of life as today's 7 year olds

Uneducated desert savages, huh? Even the common people? Wow!

Yes savages. Stonings? Genetal mutilation? Who does that, them.

In all seriousness, Uneducated?

YES uneducated

I doubt that. Many people were indeed educated back then.

They believed the earth is flat

It was just that they were educated to their standards.

Standards don't change with time.

You can't expect them to learn something that isn't present in their time.

I expect them not to write their ignorance on paper and say it's the word of god. Like the earth being flat or not knowing where the sun went at night

Savages? Of course, they were savage.

People neing savage = Savages.

Remember we are talking about a time period that is in BCE.

Who cares about the time

Every single era before our current modern era was filled with brutal violence and bloodshed.

So what. Well defined standards do not changewith time

There was no choice other than that.

True but that doesn't change anything

There was no sufficient technology to establish a proper communication without the fear of assassination and even if they were in a period of peace, was no one enforcing it.

Unadvanced uneducated savages as i was saying.

So, back then, the only way you could have a proper peace is to capture all of the surrounding territories.

By raping their women and killing their babbies under the commands of god

So yeah, every soldier in all parts of history were savages.

Not really. Some of them were well orginised, educated and not savage by the modern deffinition.

Btw, notice that I said "Soldiers"

I did

stupider

Now, how is it stupider?

supports slavery and violence

Now then, since it was in BCE, The Old Testament was far from perfect. Today, we have people fighting against slavery and violence, which is good.

Yes exactly. Christians claim it's the word of god. I'm saying it supoorts slavery, violence and you agree so let's move on.

But back then, there were none arguing against it.

STOP DEFENDING IT.

They just accepted it as a part of their life. There isn't a single nation that never practiced slavery.

Maybe but there probably was.

History can't be changed. In other words, it used to be like this in the past. In today's world, this won't apply.

True but this is off subject

Let me explain this.

i didn't chose to be an atheist it happened because i say no sufficient evidence behind the religious claims, if there was evidence i would believe and of course faith is not a reliable pathway to truth since it can lead you to true and
wrong conclusions with incredible inaccuracy so using it is useless.

Again, why this reply? You are just repeating what I said. I have already said there is no solid evidence supporting or opposing God.

Cool

In such situation, you took the opposing stance.

Wrong. I didn't take the opposing stance. I fell in it naturally since the only logical conclusion with unicorns is to not believe they exist. Did you TAKE the side which believes unicorns don't exist? I think not

I am not saying that is wrong. You do what you do.

Cool

Testing is a stupid word to say here

Did you notice that I used testing within double quotes and also that it was not the first word that I used?

Sure. You might agree with what i said i just wanted to explain it

it was just copy/paste.

Okay. Anyway, it doesn't make it less rude just because it is a copy-paste.

It kinda does because it's old and i didn't even remember fully how it was. I just wanted to make it relevant

It just shows that there was less work put into it
Therefore less intent to be rude or not

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

there was no one enforcing it

Just in case, I would explain more. Here I am implying two things; UN and MAD. They are the two things that are doing the most work in preventing wars between nations.

First time i heard of MAD

Hence, back then, there was no peaceful way to solve an issue between two nations. There were no Internation Court of Justice. If a country did wrong, they only way you could get back at them would be to gather an army and kill their ruler, an act which is both violent and savage.

Kinda off subject but k

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

Heroic age
Hestoric age

What are you meaning by this?

THE heroic is prehestoric. It is when most info came in the form of verbally spread true or false or partly true and partly false myth/legend.

I assumed heroic age to the Greek heroic age, which is something that is connected to Greek mythology and whose history must have taken place in BCE.

Yes. That's what i said

Note that I said "History". It's because the city of Troy depicted in the Odysseus exists, although the story is interwoven with the mythology.

Exactly. Those are heroic times not historic

I have to clarify this because you always do case by case breakdown reply and have far too many times failed to see my context.

Sorry

Now, wtf is hestoric age?

I never said that. I think you misread "hiroic/heroic" as "hestoric"

[Sir Devil]

@thestrangest Well, MAD stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. It's kind of agreement between every single nation, that if you attack me and it leads to war, we both know that both of our countries would be destroyed. It's one of the major things that's stopping countries from making big moves, especially against similarly powerful nations, since you know, with the advancement in the nuclear weaponry, we can pretty much fuck up the entire civilizations overnight.

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

Btw, notice that I said "Soldiers"

Again, a just in case reply. The violent stories depicted in the Old Testament are done by only a mere fraction of the people. There must have been a lot of peasants who lived their lives peacefully while abiding by their laws.

And participating in genital mutilation

Some may not even have slaves.

So much for helping my argument lol

They might have been that poor. They might have lived their lives peacefully without any harms. Hell, many Scholars throughout the history resort from committing any violence.

Dude. Let's say 90% of them are uneducated, unadvanced desert savages. Ok

There must have been Scholars back then too. Hence, I don't find them all to be either uneducated nor savage.

Sure. They would be in the 10%

The reason I posted this reply is echo.

[Sir Devil]

@thestrangest

Not really, that was a couple hundred years after the start hestoric period

I never said that. I think you misread "hiroic/heroic" as "hestoric"

huh?

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

@thestrangest

Not really, that was a couple hundred years after the start hestoric period

I never said that. I think you misread "hiroic/heroic" as "hestoric"

huh?

I guess it was a typo. Sorry

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

@thestrangest Well, MAD stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. It's kind of agreement between every single nation, that if you attack me and it leads to war, we both know that both of our countries would be destroyed. It's one of the major things that's stopping countries from making big moves, especially against similarly powerful nations, since you know, with the advancement in the nuclear weaponry, we can pretty much fuck up the entire civilizations overnight.

I learned something new today. Thanks

[Sir Devil]

@thestrangest said in Godbless everyone:

Dude. Let's say 90% of them are uneducated, unadvanced desert savages. Ok

Oh...okay. What makes you think that way?
What makes you think that only 10% were normal?

Why, couldn't more people live their lives peacefully?
What makes you so sure?
If you say the people portrayed in the Bible are like that, then let me say that they are only a mere fraction of all the people who lived through the decades

Standards don't change with time.

No, the standard does change with time. With the passage of time and subsequent discoveries, we gain more knowledge and we establish new theories and deconstruct previous theories. With this, the basic knowledge, one must possess in that time period increases and also, along with it the standard increases too.

Oh i am gonna generalise. People back then knew as much about existence, the universe and the meaning of life as today's 7 year olds

*sigh * http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/2013/02/is-our-collective-iq-increasing/

I can accept that the people back then didn't know much about the universe since they didn't have the necessary technology but existence and meaning of life???

Most major theories about existence and the meaning of life were established by philosophers from that time but you know what? They are still only theories, we still don't know exactly what is to exist and what is the meaning of life. There are still many philosophers pondering over this. So, if you tell me that today's 7 year old knew more about existence and the meaning of life, without proper evidence to back you up, I would call bullshit.

I expect them not to write their ignorance on paper and say it's the word of god. Like the earth being flat or not knowing where the sun went at night
They believed the earth is flat
Now, lol. Are you saying that they were uneducated because they didn't understand something? It's almost like saying that you and I are uneducated because we don't know what is dark matter is or what came before the big bang.

....and many people, still believe that earth is flat, even in this age of technology. lol.

So what. Well defined standards do not changewith time

Yes, they do. Do you know that WWI was the first war in the history of mankind, where the civilian casualty was larger than the military casualties but then again, now we can't impale people to death? I'm not saying that it's a good thing but you must see that there's a clear change of what we can do and what we can't in a war, which is the standards of a war.

supports slavery and violence

Oh, it depicted slavery and violence. Well, that's too bad, it supports slavery and violence. Now that I think about it movies like 12 years a slave also supports slavery, huh?

By raping their women and killing their babbies under the commands of god

Wait? Who raped his women? Are you referring to that story? but he didn't rape her. She was raped by bandits, something that happens even to this day.