Funny because it seems that, "you may take _______ woman as a wife is likely just referring to marriage. it seems an assumption to say that it must be sexual slavery.

Actually, the servitude of the bible WAS due to debt in many cases. Either that or a means of gainful employment.

I have trouble buying the notion that it was the hebrews that were the scourge when the people's they were fighting were human sacrificing nephilim in so much of the OT.

But hey, believe what you want.

Well; a key word here is 'take.' The women had no say in the matter, and their next of kin were often slaughtered.

As for the scourge thing: Yes; in the old testament, they were righteous. In Mein Kampf, Hitler was righteous; even a messiah, and the Jews were devil-spawn.
In the Crusades, the Catholics were Righteous, and the Muslims were devil-spawn.
According to Al'Qaida, they are Righteous, and American (Materialist) Christians are devil-spawn.
According to (mostly American) Christians, they are righteous, and the Muslims are devil-spawn.
According to the Sovyets Atheists, they were Righteous, and all religious people were devil-spawn.

Now; according to me: All these people failed beyond measure in any kind of moral judgement.
Any notion of nephilim, though you believe in them, is completely ungrounded. There is no basis in evidence. If you believe that the Old Testament is correct on these things, then yes, it would be logical to assume that the Hebrew were Righteous, and that everyone else was devil-spawn. However, this poses a few problems with me:
1: How do we know that it wasn't, like all the above examples, propaganda and shameless, flawed, self-righteousness?
2: Why would they take nephilim-spawn as wives?

This just leads me to disbelieve the claims on the Nephilim. Well; that, and claims of their existence are, to me, simply too inconsistent. Since you feel otherwise, that will just be a matter of perspective. However, the other things I'm mentioned are not. They are solid comparisons of history repeating.
It is unethical to agree with genocide from a one-sided story. In these stories, the side of the ones being slaughtered were not heard. We only have this one-sided report for each and every case in the old testament, and that one-sided report ís the old testament.

Evilbible.com simply acknowledges that, and judges from a modern set of morals. And if you ask me, then that is a good thing. Of course; four thousand years ago, morals were different, and in these harsh conditions, taking what you wanted for the best of your tribe was not necessarily as evil as it is now. However, wé are the ones to judge. Not them. Because wé are alive, and they are not.
If we want to better ourselves, and the world, then we can't just allow people to massacre on mass because group A thinks that group B believes wrongly, and, by doing so, insult their beliefs. The world has never been that simple to make that righteous and good, simply because it is an issue that concerns same-species relationships.
Now; I don't believe in deities. If I were to believe in deities, I'd probably be okay with the Norse deities, if only because they don't interfere, and didn't create. They are separate entities to reality, you might guess. However, if I were to believe in YHWH, I'd choose to follow only those books that tell us about love. Any book in which any kind of slaughter or sacrifice is shown as good under ány condition would simply fly completely out of my belief system. Because even if I don't believe in deities, I do believe that abrahamic religions were originally about unconditional love bringing people together; not to serve the whims of a god.

If, somehow, it was proven to me that YHWH existed, and he was as wrathful, jealous and punishing as some parts of the bible portray him, I'd be one of the first to rile a revolt.
There are many grades to belief and religion. Some are good, some are bad. Evilbible.com just points out the kinds of (christian) religion that are bad. But I'd wager something that every single work of any kind of religion has its good and bad parts. Evilbible just focusses on... The bible. Which, of course, isn't entirely fair, but by far the easiest to point out moral flaws in, just because it is so readily available. The Qor'aan is a second one riddled with moral failure, as well as morally just and loving passages. It is also under heavy inspection. The Hindu works.. Not so much, because, quite frankly, too little people know enough about it, and it's simply too chaotic for a lot of us to find any reasoning at all.
Another example of 'bad religion' is the classical Greek one. You know; the one with Zeus, Hera, and all their hangers-on. Sure; they had 'good' characters, like Hades, but most of those deities were petty, whimsical, childish and impulsive. They have sex with.. Everyone and everything, they eat their children, they cheat, they steal, they destroy, they wage war.. All at their impulsive leisure. And even Hades slips up every now and then
And.. The Norse gods pretty much debate over everything, all the time. Pretty useless for gods, you might say, but at least they didn't interfere with humanity, even though they allegedly had contact. Pretty useless bunch, still, if you're religious, but for me, they'd be excellent deities. (Miniar should now more about them than I do, though, and he might have a very different view on them.)
Then you also have the Celtic gods. They're pretty fond of human sacrifice.
South American gods: Same story. Nothing like ripping the beating heart out of some poor girl's chest to make the sun come up.

So no; I don't think Evilbible is lame, though I do think they should expand to other religions, as well. That way, the bad things aren't shown to be particular to only one religion. It would also enforce the opinion that religion itself has very little to do with it, and the atrocities are born from human uncertainty and fear, and their urge to somehow justify their own deeds.
In other words: Stop blaming gods. Whether or not they exist, I don't think it's their fault.

Well; a key word here is 'take.'

So, during my marriage, when the pastor said, "Do you take this woman...." that means she had no choice?

1: How do we know that it wasn't, like all the above examples, propaganda and shameless, flawed, self-righteousness?

How do we know that it WAS just propaganda?

I'm going to take this further. if you think ti was just made up as propaganda, then why not the whole invasion of canaan? Perhaps that was just made up to? perhaps none of it is true and thus the Jews weren't actually a scourge.

In order to call them a scourge, you are assuming half of the story is true, while another is not, arbitrarily.

so perhaps it is ALL just a story? if it is, then the story is of a land populated by nephilim. So in the story, the jews aren't a scourge, quite the contrary, their enemies were.

2: Why would they take nephilim-spawn as wives?

That's a good question and i have wondered at it myself.

We only have this one-sided report for each and every case in the old testament, and that one-sided report ís the old testament.

That doesn't mean the story is a lie.


Evilbible.com simply acknowledges that, and judges from a modern set of morals.

Evilbible goes beyond that. if evil bible had made the arguments you made, it wouldn't be lame. But instead, evil bible told blatant lies concerning the text, conveniently left out vital information, and made downright laughable conclusions.

evilbible fails due to it's ugly dishonesty and/or complete ignorance of the texts.

Bran:
In the Bible, the woman has no choice in the matter at all. She is property to the men who cáptured her. This is evil. And I'm done with debating that.

As for propaganda: How do we know? We don't. But there's some things to consider. The first of those things is: Nephilim don't exactly fit Occam's razor well. They're a completely off the bat idea. Of course; there's always that diminutive chance that they did exist, so I won't say that they didn't, for certain, but it's simply so incredibly unlikely that it hardly counts as a solid argument. I'm sorry if you disagree, but that, I'm afraid, is the truth. Nephilim may be taken in consideration, but I'm afraid I can't do any more with them than that.
The stories of murder, rape, kidnapping, bloodlust, plunder and pillaging, as well those of complete genocide, are simply too consistent to ignore. Stripping away the false pretence of righteousness, and righteousness is álways a false pretence, what you have left is simply a scourge. Righteousness is nothing other than allowing yourself to commit monstrous acts because you believe you're allowed to. If anything, Righteousness is doing away with morals entirely, because your personal belief in a higher force allows you to. By that, Righteousness is always evil and demonic in nature.

So yes; I do think it's good that Evilbible points that out. I will agree with you that it isn't by far perfect, though. (It actually cited some parts where the Bible promotes utopian communism, and let's be fair: Who wouldn't want to live in true utopian communism? Yet Evilbible.com condemns it as evil because.. It's unamerican.)
I think Evilbible would be a lot more successful if it used other passages of the bible to argue against the bloodshed and horrors it promotes, instead of merely using their own judgement. It would make people more aware that being evil is nót the goal or a religion, at all.

This is an etymological fallacy.

Well i'm not done. You are doing exactly what evilbible does. You state flatly that women had no choice and base it only on the english word "take." You'll have to have more than that because the word "take" doesn't have to imply something that is forced against the will of another.

Xol: I made no statement concerning that original use of the english word 'take" and if it holds today, so, no I didn't make that fallacy.

I pointed out that "take" doesn't have to mean "force" and thus Lop's conclusion will need more backing.

Nephilim don't exactly fit Occam's razor well.

Occam's razor is not the arbiter of truth. As i have explained elsewhere, classical physics are far more simple than modern physics, but they are incorrect.

Occam's razor is meant to state that, unless there is absolute need, we don't add more variables to an equation or experiment.

...but it's simply so incredibly unlikely that it hardly counts as a solid argument.

The argument is simply that this is what the bible portrays. it's a supernatural claim that the bible makes. So there's really no way to discern how likely or unlikely it is.

So i can solidly argue that the bible makes this claim. If you want to reject the claim, fine, you also reject the existence of God, another biblical claim.

and righteousness is álways a false pretence

Says who?

Righteousness is nothing other than allowing yourself to commit monstrous acts because you believe you're allowed to. If anything, Righteousness is doing away with morals entirely, because your personal belief in a higher force allows you to. By that, Righteousness is always evil and demonic in nature.

I think you have made up your own definition of the word.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/righteousness

We put some people behind bars because it is morally right and justifiable, yet you are here stating flatly that we do so out of some demonic nature????

Okay... Let's start with the women's rights:

A group of people barges into your village, slaughters all your men, children and married women, and then... Here comes the kicker.. They tell you that they are allowed to marry you. Hmm... Yeah; I see how the women were free to do whatever they did. Of course; if someone came about and slaughtered everyone I loved, I would not hesitate but hup in the sack with these awesome men. I'm not basing my opinion on the word 'take;' I'm basing them on the presented situation.

Now; for simplicity: How is it 'simple' that a world stands on a pedestal? The implications of such a statement are bizarrely complex. Sure; the end result is simple to say, but that doesn't make the process a simple one. To be quite honest: I think the whole big-bang-universe-expanding-rotating-matter-earth-rotating-around-a-sun much more simple than 'The Earth sits on top of a pedestal, it has a ceiling, and water comes down from holes in this ceiling (stars).
Likewise, 'Amino-acids and protein developed from lifeless matter, and slowly gave birth to what we now know as life' is a lot simple than: 'A supreme being made life out of the earth, much like a potter makes pots out of earthenware.' The latter one might sound simpler, but if you'd stop to think of the process, and the implications, then it all gets very complicated very quickly.

As for: 'Occam's razor is meant to state that..' Whether you are right or wrong, this is blatant and very loose interpretation of 'The simplest answer is often the correct one.'

As for unlikely: Yes; the bible does occasionally make those claims. You have to look for them, though, which creates bias, but that's another point entirely. Fact remains that, whether or not the bible cláíms it, its occurrance is very much unlikely, and yes, I reject it. I do nót, however, reject deities. I simply don't believe in them. That is not the same as rejection, however.

Righteousness: Nitpicking. You know as well as I do that no (sane) non-theistic group uses the word. (Apart from aggressive atheists, and that would have been Sovyet Russia and 'communist' China.)
The word is ónly used in the first option of the link you posted, though it's use would be etymologically justified elsewhere, as well. That doesn't mean that it's úsed elsewhere.
Righteousness is self-delusion. Justice is also self-delusion, since justice isn't justice at all; rather, it is vengeance. We use a system of fear of vengeance in order to prevent socially harmful activity. You think that is the same as Righteousness? Guess again. With 'Justice,' the vengeance is enacted primarily to set examples, and keep the fear of vengeance intact. Righteous vengeance, however, revolves purely around self-satisfaction and conquering your enemies. It's nothing but the effect of power-lust.

So no; we do nót put people behind bars because it is morally just, though I must admit that for some people, that is a part of it. We put people behind bars to keep the system of fear intact that forms the mortar of morality. The consequences are there to make people think before they act, and with that, prevent malevolent actions. Righteousness has little to do with it.

Then there's the flip side....who'd want to marry a woman that is going to hate your guts and might stab you in your sleep?

I guess it's an impasse because i simply can't make myself read slave taking into that account. it just doesn't say it, and it has a clause where they get to just leave.

On your earlier question of marrying nephilim females. I don't think they did. if the Israelites came upon those, it seems that they left none alive. The account discussed above was a normal war.