Does the Bible condone slavery?

[Straw Man]

slaves existed at the time the bible was being written

the men who wrote the bible gave instructions on how slaves should act and how slave owners should treat their slaves

we all know that slavery is wrong and we don't need to consult a book of semitic folktales or care about anyone's opinion or interpretation of said book

[OzmO]

slaves existed at the time the bible was being written

the men who wrote the bible gave instructions on how slaves should act and how slave owners should treat their slaves

we all know that slavery is wrong and we don't need to consult a book of semitic folktales or care about anyone's opinion or interpretation of said book

the problem is that some poeple believe that every world written in the "infallable" word of God,  therefore God gave advice/instruction/guidelines with slaves. 

[MCWAY]

slaves existed at the time the bible was being written

the men who wrote the bible gave instructions on how slaves should act and how slave owners should treat their slaves

We know that!! That isn't the issue, here. The issue (and the crux of this thread) is that there's a HUGE differences between the "slaves" of the OT and the chattel slaves (i.e. black people in USA/England) of relatively recent memory.

we all know that slavery is wrong and we don't need to consult a book of semitic folktales or care about anyone's opinion or interpretation of said book

Why not?

Who told you that slavery is wrong? Why can’t you impose your will on someone, if you have the military/political might to do so?

If this is simply about the will of man, then you have no such thing as "inalienable" rights. If man can give something to someone; he can take that something away.

[Butterbean]

We know that!! That isn't the issue, here. The issue (and the crux of this thread) is that there's a HUGE differences between the "slaves" of the OT and the chattel slaves (i.e. black people in USA/England) of relatively recent memory.

exactly!

[The Luke]

The issue (and the crux of this thread) is that there's a HUGE differences between the "slaves" of the OT and the chattel slaves (i.e. black people in USA/England) of relatively recent memory.

...bullshit.

Some of the early Hebrew royalty even kept foreign girls as sex slaves. What exactly is the difference between a chattel slave and an indentured servant who is subject to rape and sexual violence?

The slavery guidelines referred to fellow Hebrew indentured servants (free to walk away unrewarded from their servitude)... non-Hebrew slaves were chattel slaves (under pain of death).

The Book of Judges (Chapter 20), for example, explains how a priests concubine (sex slave) was offered by the priest to an angry gang of Benjamites eager to kill him... she didn't volunteer, she was handed over as a piece of property to be raped to death.

It appears you need to brush up on your Biblical history. Israel drove the Canaanites out of their land, due to (among other things) their practice of such things as human sacrifice.

Deuteronomy details the genocide of the Canaanite people... they weren't driven out. They were slaughtered: man, woman and child... that's genocide. All but one city of resist the Israelites and are subsequently slaughtered.

Under god's express command the Israelites exterminated the Girgashites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, alongside the Canaanites (fellow Semites). That's seven different nations, totaling hundreds of thousands of instances of Yahweh-ordered genocide.

Deuteronomy 7:1-2:
“… the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them.” ...poor bastards weren't even allowed to make terms.

...and in practice...

Joshua 6:21:
“And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.” ...even the newborn babies Lord? Must we kill the babies too?

Joshua 10:33
(Regarding the city of Gezer)
“…Joshua smote him and his people until he had left him none remaining.” ...Yep, even the babies.

Deuteronomy 2:26-35
(Regarding the Land of Heshbon)
“…we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.” ...Especially the babies.


McWay, you are the worst form of apologist: the willfully deluded.



The Luke

[Necrosis]

the bible is the worst guidebook for morality i can think of. Jealousy, slavery,genocide,rape.


jesus might of had it right.

[Deicide]

...bullshit.

Some of the early Hebrew royalty even kept foreign girls as sex slaves. What exactly is the difference between a chattel slave and an indentured servant who is subject to rape and sexual violence?

The slavery guidelines referred to fellow Hebrew indentured servants (free to walk away unrewarded from their servitude)... non-Hebrew slaves were chattel slaves (under pain of death).

The Book of Judges (Chapter 20), for example, explains how a priests concubine (sex slave) was offered by the priest to an angry gang of Benjamites eager to kill him... she didn't volunteer, she was handed over as a piece of property to be raped to death.

 

Deuteronomy details the genocide of the Canaanite people... they weren't driven out. They were slaughtered: man, woman and child... that's genocide. All but one city of resist the Israelites and are subsequently slaughtered.

Under god's express command the Israelites exterminated the Girgashites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, alongside the Canaanites (fellow Semites). That's seven different nations, totaling hundreds of thousands of instances of Yahweh-ordered genocide.

Deuteronomy 7:1-2:
“… the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them.” ...poor bastards weren't even allowed to make terms.

...and in practice...

Joshua 6:21:
“And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.” ...even the newborn babies Lord? Must we kill the babies too?

Joshua 10:33
(Regarding the city of Gezer)
“…Joshua smote him and his people until he had left him none remaining.” ...Yep, even the babies.

Deuteronomy 2:26-35
(Regarding the Land of Heshbon)
“…we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.” ...Especially the babies.


McWay, you are the worst form of apologist: the willfully deluded.



The Luke

Epic ownage of MCWAY, Stella and all the other fundy gits here...

[Deicide]

the bible is the worst guidebook for morality i can think of. Jealousy, slavery,genocide,rape.


jesus might of had it right.

I am thinking of doing a research paper on this phenomenon whereby auxialliary 'have' is no longer recognised as the connective of a conditional and due to phonological similarity or as some would argue homophony, the preposition 'of' is inserted. Clearly there is some kind of phonetic issue here but the fact that we see past participles being dropped in favour of the preterite could indicate that it is a morphosyntactic issue... Very difficult to determine. Internet posting boards are an excellent place to study this phenomenon because studies have shown that the register employed here often mirrors casual spoken speech (and I have indeed heard this construct in North American speech quite often).

Necrosis, if you think about it, how often do you drop the past participle in favour of the preterite as in 'I could of went to the movies'? What is your perception of this sentence? Do you feel that it is acceptable on an intuitive level? This is not a criticism but the information could be used for my research. Thank you.

[Necrosis]

...bullshit.

Some of the early Hebrew royalty even kept foreign girls as sex slaves. What exactly is the difference between a chattel slave and an indentured servant who is subject to rape and sexual violence?

The slavery guidelines referred to fellow Hebrew indentured servants (free to walk away unrewarded from their servitude)... non-Hebrew slaves were chattel slaves (under pain of death).

The Book of Judges (Chapter 20), for example, explains how a priests concubine (sex slave) was offered by the priest to an angry gang of Benjamites eager to kill him... she didn't volunteer, she was handed over as a piece of property to be raped to death.

 

Deuteronomy details the genocide of the Canaanite people... they weren't driven out. They were slaughtered: man, woman and child... that's genocide. All but one city of resist the Israelites and are subsequently slaughtered.

Under god's express command the Israelites exterminated the Girgashites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, alongside the Canaanites (fellow Semites). That's seven different nations, totaling hundreds of thousands of instances of Yahweh-ordered genocide.

Deuteronomy 7:1-2:
“… the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them.” ...poor bastards weren't even allowed to make terms.

...and in practice...

Joshua 6:21:
“And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.” ...even the newborn babies Lord? Must we kill the babies too?

Joshua 10:33
(Regarding the city of Gezer)
“…Joshua smote him and his people until he had left him none remaining.” ...Yep, even the babies.

Deuteronomy 2:26-35
(Regarding the Land of Heshbon)
“…we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.” ...Especially the babies.


McWay, you are the worst form of apologist: the willfully deluded.



The Luke

luke how can god be all loving and benevolent yet order the death of people? wait doesnt he know the future, is so he created those people knowing what he would later do, this doesnt make much sense. He literally comitted pre meditated murder. Defeats all loving there, or he doesnt know the future.

[Necrosis]

I am thinking of doing a research paper on this phenomenon whereby auxialliary 'have' is no longer recognised as the connective of a conditional and due to phonological similarity or as some would argue homophony, the preposition 'of' is inserted. Clearly there is some kind of phonetic issue here but the fact that we see past participles being dropped in favour of the preterite could indicate that it is a morphosyntactic issue... Very difficult to determine. Internet posting boards are an excellent place to study this phenomenon because studies have shown that the register employed here often mirrors casual spoken speech (and I have indeed heard this construct in North American speech quite often).

Necrosis, if you think about it, how often do you drop the past participle in favour of the preterite as in 'I could of went to the movies'? What is your perception of this sentence? Do you feel that it is acceptable on an intuitive level? This is not a criticism but the information could be used for my research. Thank you.

sure, i have to run to the gym now so i will answer later. I am from newfoundland and write causally like i talk which is rather odd. I say things like "where is that to"" insted of "where is that?", i rarely use have and mostly opt for of in my sentences. However, if i was writing a research paper i would correct such mistakes.

i should send you a paper without corrections and let you see how deep it runs, i dont know if i have one at the moment. like i said i will expand later.

[MCWAY]

...bullshit.

Some of the early Hebrew royalty even kept foreign girls as sex slaves. What exactly is the difference between a chattel slave and an indentured servant who is subject to rape and sexual violence?

The slavery guidelines referred to fellow Hebrew indentured servants (free to walk away unrewarded from their servitude)... non-Hebrew slaves were chattel slaves (under pain of death).

BZZZZZZZ.........I'm sorry. That's incorrect. But here are some lovely parting gifts.......

Apparently, you missed your “Hooked on Phonics” session today. Hebrews were NOT allowed to rape their female slaves. If anything, they had to marry them, just as they did a Hebrew woman.

The case of the female war-captives is remarkable for its 'instant exaltation' of the woman--past slave, past concubine, all the way to full wife(!):

"The position of a female captive of war was remarkable. According to Deuteronomy 20:14, she could be spared and taken as a servant, while Deuteronomy 21:10-11 allowed her captor to take her to wife. While the relationship of the Hebrew bondwoman was described by a peculiar term (note: concubine), the marriage to the captive woman meant that the man 'would be her husband and she his wife.' No mention was made of any act of manumission; the termination of the marriage was possible only by way of divorce and not by sale."

4.     The Great Escape Clause…?

Deut 23.15 has this fascinating passage:

If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him. (Deut 23.15)

Most commentators understand this to be a reference to non-extradition of a foreign, runaway slave. That is, a slave in another country runs away and flees to Israel. Israel, under this verse and under this understanding, has to allow the runaway to live freely in the land (as a sanctuary), and cannot extradite him/her to their former master. Commentators also note that this is in abject contradiction to ANE and international law of the time:

·        "In contrast to the laws of other ancient Near Eastern nations, slaves who flee their owners and come to Israel are not to be returned to their masters, nor are they to be oppressed, but they are to be allowed to live wherever they please (Deut 23:15-16)."[OT:DictOT5, s.v. "Slavery"]



·        "Wherever slavery existed, there were slaves who escaped from their masters. Ancient Near Eastern law forbade harboring runaway slaves, and international treaties regularly required allied states to extradite them. The present law, in contrast, permits escaped slaves to settle wherever they wish in the land of Israel and forbids returning them to their masters or enslaving them in Israel." [JPStorah, in loc.]

 Now, this understanding could be right, and this restrictive an application (i.e., foreigners immigrating to Israel) is argued on the basis of the scope of the allowance ("whatever town"), but it is not clear from the passage that it is to be taken so restrictively. Nor is the (translation supplied) 'come to Israel' very obvious from the text.

If the passage is NOT this restrictive, then what we have here is an escape-clause that says: "if you--Hebrew or foreigner-- run away from a master, as long as you stay within Israel, you are free, and no one can return you to him/her."

This is exactly the understanding given in [HI:HANEL:2,1006]:

 "A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to its master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of (Deut 23:16-17). This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations and is explained as due to Israel's own history of slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution."

Think about this conclusion for a moment…Slavery was meant to serve the poor (and thereby, contribute to community strength and health). If a master/slave relationship turns destructive, the value is not being achieved, and it is better for the community for the relationship to dissolve. This was NOT left in the hands of the elite to decide, through appeals and litigation and hearings etc (!!!), but was something the slave could initiate himself/herself. There was a cost--dislocation--but this would have been a tradeoff-driven decision anyway.



 

The Book of Judges (Chapter 20), for example, explains how a priests concubine (sex slave) was offered by the priest to an angry gang of Benjamites eager to kill him... she didn't volunteer, she was handed over as a piece of property to be raped to death.

As usual, there's the huge gap, between what your claim is and what the Bible actually says (but, what else is new?).

Judges 20:1-6

Then all the sons of Israel from Dan to Beersheba, including the land of Gilead, came out, and the congregation assembled as one man to the LORD at Mizpah. The chiefs of all the people, even of all the tribes of Israel, took their stand in the assembly of the people of God, 400,000 foot soldiers who drew the sword.  (Now the sons of Benjamin heard that the sons of Israel had gone up to Mizpah.) And the sons of Israel said, "Tell us, how did this wickedness take place?" So the Levite, the husband of the woman who was murdered, answered and said, "I came with my concubine to spend the night at Gibeah which belongs to Benjamin. 

But the men of Gibeah rose up against me and surrounded the house at night because of me. They intended to kill me; instead, they ravished my concubine so that she died. And I took hold of my concubine and cut her in pieces and sent her throughout the land of Israel's inheritance; for they have committed a lewd and disgraceful act in Israel. 

In other words, boy genius, this guy didn't give his concubine to be raped (from ch. 19, it appears that the houseguest offered the concubine, along with his own virgin daughter, to the Benjamites). The Benjamites were looking to rape the Levite. But, since he apparently wasn't there, they raped that poor woman to death.

Verse 7-13 give the reaction to this heinous crime:

Behold, all you sons of Israel, give your advice and counsel here." 
 Then all the people arose as one man, saying, "Not one of us will go to his tent, nor will any of us return to his house.   "But now this is the thing which we will do to Gibeah; {we will go up} against it by lot.  "And we will take 10 men out of 100 throughout the tribes of Israel, and 100 out of 1,000, and 1,000 out of 10,000 to supply food for the people, that when they come to Gibeah of Benjamin, they may punish {them} for all the disgraceful acts that they have committed in Israel." Thus all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, united as one man. Then the tribes of Israel sent men through the entire tribe of Benjamin, saying, "What is this wickedness that has taken place among you? Now then, deliver up the men, the worthless fellows in Gibeah, that we may put them to death and remove this wickedness from Israel." But the sons of Benjamin would not listen to the voice of their brothers, the sons of Israel.

In short, they went looking for these assailants, in order to put them to death, the standard penalty for raping a married woman.

Deuteronomy details the genocide of the Canaanite people... they weren't driven out. They were slaughtered: man, woman and child... that's genocide. All but one city of resist the Israelites and are subsequently slaughtered.

Under god's express command the Israelites exterminated the Girgashites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, alongside the Canaanites (fellow Semites). That's seven different nations, totaling hundreds of thousands of instances of Yahweh-ordered genocide.[/i]

Deuteronomy 7:1-2:
“… the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them.” ...poor bastards weren't even allowed to make terms.

Gotta love this!!! The usual skeptic "outrage", regarding Israel and their neighbors, as if the other "-ites" were a bunch of boy scouts, singing "Kuum-bay-yah", when mean old Jehovah and posse decide arbitrarily to wipe them out.

But, as usual, Luke forgets to mention WHY God dealt with those "-ites" in such fashion:

 

...and in practice...

Joshua 6:21:
“And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.” ...even the newborn babies Lord? Must we kill the babies too?

But, somehow, a prostitute (Rahab) and her family were spared for their assisting Joshua. Exactly, how did she get the message that by repenting and aiding Israel, she and her household would be spared.

Joshua 10:33
(Regarding the city of Gezer)
“…Joshua smote him and his people until he had left him none remaining.” ...Yep, even the babies.

All up in the Kool-Aid and don't know the flavor, aren't you, Luke? In true, foot-in-mouth skeptic fashion, you convenienly left out that the nation that Joshua and the Israelites knocked out the box ATTACKED one of Israel's allies, Gibeon.

But, why let facts hinder your usual blubbering?

Joshua 10:1-6

Now it came about when Adoni-zedek king of Jerusalem heard that Joshua had captured Ai, and had utterly destroyed it (just as he had done to Jericho and its king, so he had done to Ai and its king), and that the inhabitants of Gibeon had made peace with Israel and were within their land,  (I thought that Israel didn't make terms with people.....never mind)
that he feared greatly, because Gibeon was a great city, like one of the royal cities, and because it was greater than Ai, and all its men were mighty. 
Jos 10:3   Therefore Adoni-zedek king of Jerusalem sent word to Hoham king of Hebron and to Piram king of Jarmuth and to Japhia king of Lachish and to Debir king of Eglon, saying, "Come up to me and help me, and let us attack Gibeon, for it has made peace with Joshua and with the sons of Israel." 

 So the five kings of the Amorites, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, {and} the king of Eglon, gathered together and went up, they with all their armies, and camped by Gibeon and fought against it. 

Then the men of Gibeon sent word to Joshua to the camp at Gilgal, saying, "Do not abandon your servants; come up to us quickly and save us and help us, for all the kings of the Amorites that live in the hill country have assembled against us." 

HOW DARE THOSE ISRAELITES KEEP THEIR WORD AND DEFEND THEIR ALLIES FROM THEIR ENEMIES!!!!

Deuteronomy 2:26-35
(Regarding the Land of Heshbon)
“…we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.” ...Especially the babies.

Once again, your lack of accuracy rears its silly head.

Deut. 2:25-35[/i]

'This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you upon the peoples everywhere under the heavens, who, when they hear the report of you, will tremble and be in anguish because of you.' 

  "So I sent messengers from the wilderness of Kedemoth to Sihon king of Heshbon with words of peace, saying, 'Let me pass through your land, I will travel only on the highway; I will not turn aside to the right or to the left. 'You will sell me food for money so that I may eat, and give me water for money so that I may drink, only let me pass through on foot,  just as the sons of Esau who live in Seir and the Moabites who live in Ar did for me, until I cross over the Jordan into the land which the LORD our God is giving to us.'   "But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as he is today. 

"The LORD said to me, 'See, I have begun to deliver Sihon and his land over to you. Begin to occupy, that you may possess his land.' "Then Sihon with all his people came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz. "The LORD our God delivered him over to us, and we defeated him with his sons and all his people. "So we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed the men, women and children of every city. We left no survivor. "We took only the animals as our booty and the spoil of the cities which we had captured.  [/i]

Joshua merely asked to pass through this land en route to the promised land. Had Sihon simply sold them the food and water and left them alone, he would have been fine.  Sihon, instead, assaulted Joshua and the Israelites. Guess who came up short.

McWay, you are the worst form of apologist: the willfully deluded.



The Luke

Excuse me, if I don't burst into tears, after such a statement, coming from a factually-challenged, excuse-making blowhard like you. Get a good breakfast into your system, brush up on your comprehension skills, and come back when you can actually string together a few facts, with some accuracy.

[The Luke]

McWay,


Could you please just highlight the Bible verse which justifies the murdering of newborn babes whose parents have attacked Israel, so I don't have to read any more of that poisonous book?

If you take a city... no matter how long the siege or how egregious the warfare... the murdering of innocent children is ALWAYS immoral. The Bible quotes God directly ordering such indiscriminate genocide, and reports several occasions when such indiscriminate butchery was carried out in accordance with Yahweh's explicit command. 

It's an immoral book. If you can justify such hateful brutality and abuse to yourself... then I suppose that's nobodies elses business, but please don't insult the intelligence of those reading this thread by attempting to justify it as a technicality of goat-herder diplomacy.


You cannot defend the indefensible.

It is an immoral book.... Try reading another one.



The Luke

[Deicide]

McWay,


Could you please just highlight the Bible verse which justifies the murdering of newborn babes whose parents have attacked Israel, so I don't have to read any more of that poisonous book?

If you take a city... no matter how long the siege or how egregious the warfare... the murdering of innocent children is ALWAYS immoral. The Bible quotes God directly ordering such indiscriminate genocide, and reports several occasions when such indiscriminate butchery was carried out in accordance with Yahweh's explicit command. 

It's an immoral book. If you can justify such hateful brutality and abuse to yourself... then I suppose that's nobodies elses business, but please don't insult the intelligence of those reading this thread by attempting to justify it as a technicality of goat-herder diplomacy.


You cannot defend the indefensible.

It is an immoral book.... Try reading another one.



The Luke

God can do what he wants to; it is his world.

[MCWAY]

McWay,


Could you please just highlight the Bible verse which justifies the murdering of newborn babes whose parents have attacked Israel, so I don't have to read any more of that poisonous book?

If you take a city... no matter how long the siege or how egregious the warfare... the murdering of innocent children is ALWAYS immoral. The Bible quotes God directly ordering such indiscriminate genocide, and reports several occasions when such indiscriminate butchery was carried out in accordance with Yahweh's explicit command. 


It's an immoral book. If you can justify such hateful brutality and abuse to yourself... then I suppose that's nobodies elses business, but please don't insult the intelligence of those reading this thread by attempting to justify it as a technicality of goat-herder diplomacy.


You cannot defend the indefensible.

It is an immoral book.... Try reading another one.



The Luke

Indiscriminate? It appears that you haven't been reading that "poisonous book".  What I find interesting is that the skeptics never seem to bring up the instances of human sacrifice and other actions, done by Israel's neighbors (hence the reason for their being relieved of their land).

This has been demonstrated for your conveniently not mentioning the unprovoked attack on Gibeon (an Israeli ally) and its cry to Israel for help. Or an assault on the Israelites themselves, while they were simply passing through foreign territory en route to the Promised Land.

As for justification, I believe it's called "an eye for an eye". It certainly would not be the first time that the punishment for Israel's enemies was merited on them in similar fashion.

And, please spare me the spiel about immorality, as you have continuously justified lying for political expedience (at least, when it favors someone you like, i.e. your screwy claims that the next U.S. president is an atheist, who simply lies about believing in God to get elected). Were someone of your favored political stripe and philosophical bend, I'm sure you'd justify some baby-killing, as well.

[The Luke]

God can do what he wants to; it is his world.

...isn't it kind of evil to create someone only to have your followers dash the newborns babes out? Kinda cruel really? Now that your nervous system is up and running, here comes the pain!


But I've got a better one... if I created something intrinsically evil, by default, that would be an evil act.

But God created a world with more than it's fair share of evil, pain and suffering... that's pretty evil, but apologists claim that was a necessity to test us and let us exercise our free will.


However, God also created Satan... something intrinsically evil with no redeeming features... in creating Satan God must have known that he was introducing something to the world that would be unable to do anything good, something that would be nothing but evil... is that an evil creative act?

But there's more...

Is Satan responsible for his actions?

Will Satan be judged?

Does Satan have free will?

What if Satan has no free will yet is still going to be judged?

What if Satan does indeed have free will, but he has already committed so many evil deeds that his only chance of redemption on Judgment Day is never to perform any god deed so that he can honestly claim he never knew the difference... is Satan therefore a victim of circumstance? Is God, indirectly, forcing Satan to perform evil against his will?

What if God created Satan to BE evil... isn't that evil?... does that make God evil? Does that make God... Satan?

If God is all loving, how did he create evil?

What if the actual demonstrable provable existence of evil itself (as evidenced by the perpetration of evil acts) is the proof that Satan is the Creator?

If Satan is capable of both good and evil, yet God is only capable of good... does that mean Satan is more powerful than God?

As a fellow sinner, isn't Satan more likely to forgive us our transgressions than Mr Goodie-Two-Shoes God?



That's it... I'm praying to Satan.


The Luke

[Deicide]

...isn't it kind of evil to create someone only to have your followers dash the newborns babes out? Kinda cruel really? Now that your nervous system is up and running, here comes the pain!


But I've got a better one... if I created something intrinsically evil, by default, that would be an evil act.

But God created a world with more than it's fair share of evil, pain and suffering... that's pretty evil, but apologists claim that was a necessity to test us and let us exercise our free will.


However, God also created Satan... something intrinsically evil with no redeeming features... in creating Satan God must have known that he was introducing something to the world that would be unable to do anything good, something that would be nothing but evil... is that an evil creative act?

But there's more...

Is Satan responsible for his actions?

Will Satan be judged?

Does Satan have free will?

What if Satan has no free will yet is still going to be judged?

What if Satan does indeed have free will, but he has already committed so many evil deeds that his only chance of redemption on Judgment Day is never to perform any god deed so that he can honestly claim he never knew the difference... is Satan therefore a victim of circumstance? Is God, indirectly, forcing Satan to perform evil against his will?

What if God created Satan to BE evil... isn't that evil?... does that make God evil? Does that make God... Satan?

If God is all loving, how did he create evil?

What if the actual demonstrable provable existence of evil itself (as evidenced by the perpetration of evil acts) is the proof that Satan is the Creator?

If Satan is capable of both good and evil, yet God is only capable of good... does that mean Satan is more powerful than God?

As a fellow sinner, isn't Satan more likely to forgive us our transgressions than Mr Goodie-Two-Shoes God?



That's it... I'm praying to Satan.


The Luke

Do you like RPG games like D&D?

[loco]

The Luke failed to substantiate his claims about his supposed Hebrew human sacrifice and their supposed slave rape in the Bible.  Now The Luke is changing the subject.

[MCWAY]

The Luke failed to substantiate his claims about his supposed Hebrew human sacrifice and their supposed slave rape in the Bible.  Now The Luke is changing the subject.

Say it ain't so!!!

[Necrosis]

The Luke failed to substantiate his claims about his supposed Hebrew human sacrifice and their supposed slave rape in the Bible.  Now The Luke is changing the subject.

I thought the evidence was provided above.

did god order the killing of children in the bible? yes or no?

[loco]

I thought the evidence was provided above.

did god order the killing of children in the bible? yes or no?

God ordered the destruction of certain nations, yes children and all.

What does that have to do with The Luke's claim that the Bible says that Hebrew men raped their female slaves and that God was okay with it?

[Deicide]

God ordered the destruction of certain nations, yes children and all.

What does that have to do with The Luke's claim that the Bible says that Hebrew men raped their female slaves and that God was okay with it?

Epic dodging the point...

[loco]

Epic dodging the point...

How so?  The thread is about slavery.  The Luke made the claims about Hebrew men raping their female slaves in the Bible and about Abraham killing his own son.  The Luke was then unable to substantiate his claims, then he changed the subject. 

Are you and Necrosis now going to change the subject too?

[MCWAY]

God ordered the destruction of certain nations, yes children and all.

What does that have to do with The Luke's claim that the Bible says that Hebrew men raped their female slaves and that God was okay with it?

As mentioned earlier, in Judges 20, when that concubine was raped and killed, the husband/master brought up the incident before the leaders of Israel who, in turn, demand that the culprits be brought forward to be EXECUTED.

Behold, all you sons of Israel, give your advice and counsel here."  
 Then all the people arose as one man, saying, "Not one of us will go to his tent, nor will any of us return to his house.   "But now this is the thing which we will do to Gibeah; we will go up against it by lot.  "And we will take 10 men out of 100 throughout the tribes of Israel, and 100 out of 1,000, and 1,000 out of 10,000 to supply food for the people, that when they come to Gibeah of Benjamin, they may punish them for all the disgraceful acts that they have committed in Israel." Thus all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, united as one man. Then the tribes of Israel sent men through the entire tribe of Benjamin, saying, "What is this wickedness that has taken place among you? Now then, deliver up the men, the worthless fellows in Gibeah, that we may put them to death and remove this wickedness from Israel." But the sons of Benjamin would not listen to the voice of their brothers, the sons of Israel.

When the tribe of Benjamin refused to give up these rapists, it resulted in a full-scale war between Israel and Benjamin, with thousands dead on BOTH SIDES, all of this due to the rape and murder of a concubine (In contrast, how many battles were fought, because a white man raped another man's black female slave in America?).

And, lost in all of this, is the point that the “slavery” in Israel was decidedly UNLIKE chattel slavery, such as what we had with black people in America. When it came to dealing with servants (especially those from foreign lands), the instructions were to treat them fairly, as the Israelites were constantly reminded how badly they were treated in Egypt.

[The Luke]

You guys are using a toned-down translation.


If memory serves the original refers to the woman as a "concubine"; and she is "offered over" then raped by the Benjamites, and the Levite man is later referenced as her "master" not her "husband".

You'll notice that the word "concubine" has survived in some instances... the other mistranslations are examples of touchy-feely apologist redactions.

Just as:

"I am a jealous god. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

...became...

"I am the Lord, thy god. You shall worship no other god but me."

...chronic revisionist trouble shooting.


The fact that the fundies find their supposedly loving God's demand to kill infant children acceptable is pretty frightening. The fact that they defend and rationalise such genocide is reprehensible and intellectually dishonest.

No toddler should have their head staved in by a sword wielding man because the childs parents practice human sacrifice, or worship baal rather than Yahweh... killing the enemies children as a war policy is genocide.

Genocide... plain... simple... and indefensible.


The Luke

[Necrosis]

You guys are using a toned-down translation.


If memory serves the original refers to the woman as a "concubine"; and she is "offered over" then raped by the Benjamites, and the Levite man is later referenced as her "master" not her "husband".

You'll notice that the word "concubine" has survived in some instances... the other mistranslations are examples of touchy-feely apologist redactions.

Just as:

"I am a jealous god. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

...became...

"I am the Lord, thy god. You shall worship no other god but me."

...chronic revisionist trouble shooting.


The fact that the fundies find their supposedly loving God's demand to kill infant children acceptable is pretty frightening. The fact that they defend and rationalise such genocide is reprehensible and intellectually dishonest.

No toddler should have their head staved in by a sword wielding man because the childs parents practice human sacrifice, or worship baal rather than Yahweh... killing the enemies children as a war policy is genocide.

Genocide... plain... simple... and indefensible.


The Luke

not to mention the fact that god apparently knows the future, hence, he already knew that this event would occur making the killing of children pointless and cruel.