First of all, I do not accept his anti-theistic interprestion.<quoted text>
Wow. Shocked again.
Am i summarizing this correctly?
He said that rape and slavery is condoned in the bible.
Your response was " why would you care?".
You didn't deny it or account for it or even try to pull the out-of-context (because you know its immoral so you have to account for it) card.
You instead tried to show that he is either in fact fine with rape or that he actually does believe in god and that is why he isn't a rapist who is ok with slavery.
This is a problem for you if the bible condones slavery and rape...
Which brings us right back to his comment to you and renders your entire response meaningless unless you do at the very least try to make an excuse for the Bible
Second, on what basis, in his worldview, does he offer the moral outrage that he presents?
But rather appeals to the laws (corrupted as they are by sin in him), that he denies...