Sheshbazzar

Problem is Steve, you still HAVE NOT even attempted to provide any answer the specific question that you were asked.
"Again, the question is not at all whether these innocent children, five or more generations latter were still being made subservient slaves to Israel, by "the god of the universe", the text itself makes that fact quite clear.
So yes, there indeed is and was "No question" on that subject. But the question that I DID pose to you was;

How do you defend the rightness or the morality of the god/laws/priests that were responsible for maintaining these innocents in their condition of permanent (cradle to grave) slavery?" que crickets

Johnny Skeptic

But I have told you about a thread at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=259943 at the General Religious Discussions Forum on several occasions, but you have continued to refuse to make any posts in that thread. The title of the thread is "It is doubtful that a God inspired the Bible." I discussed several blunders that you made.

Johnny Skeptic

Why do you believe that the God of the Bible exists? If you answer my question, I will answer your question.

Asking questions is easy. Answering questions is much more difficult, which would easily be proven if you answered my question. You want me to answer your question, but you do not want to answer my question. That is not fair.

sschlichter

I guess all I can do is repeat what I said. Since their servitude was not abusive, and they were being saved from a culture that sacrificed them to a false God, and they were not taken from their homes, and not taken from their families, and were removed from the presence of false Gods, and were now given rest on the sabbath, and were now protected by just laws, and were expected to not work on feast days. then I find it an act of mercy when all their neighbors were killed for their offenses. they are the ones that made the deal with the Isrealites. All they had to do was leave. If you are a crack addict and allowed to raise kids, they will probably be crack addicts as well. Child abusers are usually the victims of child abuse. Each victim becomes a perpetrator in time. No man can judge this but it is certainly not immoral for God to do what he will.

You stated that you think that the existence of a just eternal god is not contradictory to the existence of death and specifcally the death of children. Did you not? Surely, you know that children die all the time, don't you? What is the difference?

Exciter

Sure He did. I follow that, but not because I believe Jesus is God. If Jesus is God why would He tell people not to follow what the law said about an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth?

This goes against Deuteronomy 24: 10-13


Who didn't have the moral capacity to know right from wrong? The Nazi's? The Israelis', the Hittites, the US, or the Japanese?
Sure, in my opinion they are the same. How many children under 20 died when the US bombed Hiroshima?
Killing is immoral.

So you wouldn't question an order to kill.


I'd say more than that, but you are saying while they are being born. For humans it's usually nine months from conception to being born. A lot can happen to both beings in nine months.
I've seen enough, but it still doesn't support that millions of abortions are performed while the babies are being born.
Even in cases of rape and/or incest?


So any sex outside of a Christian marriage is immoral to you.
I should have asked if it was immoral instead of evil...
What should happen to someone who murders?


And you are quite sure none of these things happened at the hands of Israeli slave owners, so why were there laws against these things?


A majority of the slaves were from other African tribes that had been captured during war. Americans rarely if ever went to Africa and kidnapped Africans.

Sheshbazzar

It is the Bible that provides this word picture;
When that god could just as well have said;

"As I have set you free, so do ye also unto one another,
Thou shalt not practice slavery, it is an abomination
unto YHWH your Elohim,
there shalt be no slaves found amonst you;
For I, YHWH your Elohim, hateth slavery.
Whoso amongst My people, shalt take a slave,
even that soul shalt surely die,
Thou shalt surely put him to death;
So shalt thou put away this evil in Israel;
Therefore you are free, I am YHWH"

The former is -not- worthy.

sschlichter

I actually answered your question with mine had you taken one minute to think about it. you 'beleive' I exist yet you cannot prove it. Once you decided that I most likely existed, then you acted on that faith by firing 1000 questions at me. These are the elements of faith. knowledge, beleif, and commitment. Not for only theists. atheists also live by faith. It is the object of faith that is different.

I beleive in God first because the existence of a God is self evident. I see design and beauty in nature and in relationships. It is beyond belief (IMO) that A) life or matter can exist on it's own or create itself and B) that evolution (non-theistic) can provide us with some of the life that exists. Do you know the eye of an Octopus is very similar to a human eye? How could random evolutionary mutations in such different environments end up with the same design. I also consider the skunk a very funny animal. It is nearly inconceivable to me that a skunk could have evolved such a humorous defense without help. How could that have started? Did the gland evolve separately from the firing mechanism? If so, what reward existed separately from the firing mechanism to continue it's progress. Why did the firing mechanism even evolve with or without the gland. It is (IMO) willful ignorance to deny the creators role in creation.

The God of the Bible is a separate question.

If we are trading question for question than I want you to answer me why you beleive that life can start without the existence of God without invoking your faith.

bacht

from wiki, not sure how reliable this is:

Also, like many other Persian Kings, [Darius] was strictly against slavery: for example, all the workers at Persepolis and other construction projects he commissioned were paid, which was revolutionary at the time. His human rights policies were also common to his ancestors and future Persian kings, continuing the legacy of the Cyrus Cylinder.

re Cyrus:

The cylinder is seen as an example of Cyrus seeking the loyalty of his new Babylonian subjects by stressing his legitimacy as king, and showing his respect for the religious and political traditions of Babylonia. It has been regarded for over a century as an instrument of ancient Mesopotamian propaganda. In the early 1970s, the Shah of Iran adopted it as a symbol of his reign and celebrating 2,500 years of Iranian monarchy, asserting that it was "the first human rights charter in history", an interpretation which is also advocated by some, although criticized by others as "anachronistic and erroneous".

sschlichter

You said that the God that might exist was possibly just? How could he be just and not allow those who commit crimes to lose their freedom.

Do you beleive we should let all the criminals out of jail in the name of Sheshbazar?

sschlichter

Possible, Darius was a slave and may have had some aversion to it. I do not beleive it became policy though

Xerxes marched against the rebels in the year after the death of Darius. He subdued them and laid Egypt under a much harder slavery than in the time of Darius, and he handed it over to Achaemenes, his own brother and Darius' son. While ruling Egypt, Achaemenes was later killed by a Libyan, Inaros son of Psammetic.
Herodotus, Histories 7.7