Bible Qu'ran comparison

Here we go again :) Where does the Bible command the death penalty for apostasy?

Thank you for providing proof, you should read more of the Bible.

Apart from the fact that the passage also explains "why" this rule was made (God had done mighty works for them established Himself as the real deal among gods and they turned their back on Him), you do know that falls under Mosaic Law, which I explained. Also keep in mind the Bible's mandate on that was temporary, the Qu'ran's still stands.

P.S What the Bible defined as apostasy is clear-cut. The Qu'ran's definition of apostasy is dangerously broad or unclear.

Yes, things punishable by death in the Old Testament are no longer punishable in the New Testament, I've told you that more than once. On a side note, for someone who claims to dislike both religions, you sure single out Christianity (your "it's the (religion) I'm most exposed to" explanation in a previous post starts to sounds like an excuse). Do you go on posts here when people endorse other religions and try to debunk them, too or just posts about Christianity? Have you made posts criticizing religions besides Christianity?

The rules had a time and place, as I explained. Also, both the Old Testament and the New Testament mandate fair treatment for slaves. In addition, kidnapping was prohibited, so they weren't allowed to abduct people against their will to make them slaves was prohibited. Enslavement during war is no different from making prisoners of war and criminals do labor and they're not abduction.

yes but why was slavery even allowed to begin with? If we are gods children and he is the mightiest and most powerful being, and we belong to him, doesn't that mean that slavery is actually believing that the civil authority has more or equal control of humanity as god?

Slavery means that a person (especially in the past) is the legal property of another and must obey them. That authority only extends to the legal sense, God still outranks them. A person was only property in the legal sense, they're still people (can own property of their own, have families...) The slavery we rightfully oppose today is chattel slavery (taking innocent people against their will and forcing them to do all sorts of tasks even if immoral or illegal with no guarantee of freedom) while slavery then was akin to what we call indentured servitude today. Slavery was allowed as a survival mechanism for the poor; don't have the money to pay for an item or a debt, become a slave for a short amount of time to pay it off.

The Old and New Testaments also have regulations for how slaves were allowed to be treated, and slaves according to Mosaic Law had to be set free after seven years unless they chose to stay on.

"And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him." Ephesians 6:9 (NIV translation)

There's also more information here https://www.compellingtruth.org/slavery-Old-Testament.html For example, if someone harmed a slave's face, that slave was free.
"When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth." Exodus 21:26-27

Foreign slaves could only be kept for life as an option, it wasn't mandatory. All the conditions that allowed a slave to be freed (Jubilee, if they were struck in such a way that an eye or a tooth was lost as outlined in the passage from Exodus I previously shared) also applied to them; in short Hebrew slaves had to be set free every 7 or 50 years if not before, the same also applied to foreign slaves with the option to keep them longer and the rules of how to treat them were the same. Also, a foreign slave who fled to the Hebrews for refuge was not to be handed back to their master and could find a new life among them (even being allowed to choose a new place to live).

A beating that would reduce them to within an inch of their life would likely destroy an eye or knock out a tooth. Also a beating that could kill them would likely kill them within three days, your argument is only hypothetical, and anecdotal at best https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

No, I don't call it barbaric in the Talmud because they had the same policy on slaves. I don't know the Qu'ran's mandate for slaves so I can't comment there either way.

Also, here we go again, I've undermined your argument so you're desperately trying to quote mine me to save face and support your hollow case. You even misrepresented my by assuming that I'll approve if it's in the Bible but condemn it if it's found elsewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoting_out_of_context
https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/logical-fallacies/cherry-picking-or-quote-mining-logical-fallacies/

Thank you for not quote-mining that time. I was explaining it was not the barbaric thing you said it was, and while you said that foreign slaves could be kept for life, you disingenuously left out the fact that it wasn't mandatory. THe way you said sounded like you were trying to say there was no option of freedom for foreign slaves, and were misrepresenting it by trying to make it look more extreme than it really was.

You insist doing it at all is barbaric; why is it barbaric with those guidelines? They still had human rights. As for modern standards, modern standards and judgement aren't flawless, so how can modern standards say that's right? Look at all the politicking, corrupt media practices and gender-based double standards for three examples Saying it's bad because "it's bad by modern standards" runs the risk of turning into the "Appeal to Novelty" fallacy.
https://www.softschools.com/examples/fallacies/appeal_to_novelty_examples/437/
If the Qu'ran hypothetically had those rule, yes I would be okay with that.

How is legally owning another person inhumane if they still have human rights within that? Is it inhumane to have prisoners of war do labor? Is it inhumane to legally own someone when they volunteer for it? Whatever happened to "live and let live"? The dictionary definition of inhumane is "without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel." There is compassion in those standards which includes misery or suffering. They could own property, have families, weren't segregated, etc... and it was usually temporary (even if your hypothetical scenario ever happened, slaves being freed was far more common, and it's disingenuous to deny that like you have been doing).

You prove yourself someone prejudiced against Christianity rather than someone who hates all religions, and you also lack rationality; were you truly rational and as against these other religions, you'd research them too and attack them just as much, but you admitted you don't research them, further proving your prejudice.

You never answered my questions. Do you go on posts here when people endorse other religions and try to debunk them, too or just posts about Christianity? Have you made posts criticizing religions besides Christianity?

He did suggest they weren't truly atheists in that link I posted. Also, at most perhaps not their sole motivation, just like religious fervor wasn't the sole motivator of ISIS terrorists or the Spanish Inquisition.

Good to know; strange how he goes on to contradict himself on that website. Care to share what mental gymnastics did Dawkins employ to excuse not smearing atheists with Stalin's atrocities and justify smearing all Christians with things the Spanish Inquisition; for one, he grievously misrepresents God in Chapter 2 through cherry-picking the Old Testamant; calls God racist even though God isn't; He doesn't judge by appearances which is clearly stated in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 16:7) and the Great Commission in the New Testament is for all nations. (Matthew 28:16-20)

I've read The God Delusion, and Christopher Hitchens' Ad Hominem book too; they're terrible. I called Dawkin's book tripe, but changed my mind because calling that book tripe would be an insult to the food/body part. I'd recommend you read "The Rage Against God", written by Christopher Hitchens' brother Peter Hitchens.

P.P.S Double standards exist among all people, including religious and non-religious. Remember my "No True Atheists" post; Richard Dawkins loved to smear us Christians with the Spanish Inquisition and stuff like that, but came out with excuses and touted the No True Scotsman Fallacy when atrocities done by atheistic dictators was pointed out.

imgflip.com/i/277np7

ah right, the part where murder is justified for just about anything is a real selling point for the whole "religion of peace" idea.

While thankfully not all Muslims would do this, the fact that the Qu'ran would allow the death penalty for something like punching a Muslim in the face is telling (I'm speaking hypothetically, that isn't a call to - nor an endorsement of - violence, do not punch anyone in the face if possible).