Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshonq · 12-31-2008, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

You did not answer that question.

I most certainly did answer that.
You simply didn't like the answer - but I did answer it.

Quote:

(Watch she will not answer this)

We've been watching you dodge this question for a week now:

if slavery is immoral, then why does the bible condone slavery?

You have claims unsupported and at least one question unanswered - you're in no position to demand answers from others until you respond first.

Now let's watch as you duck, dodge and try to create a distraction again.

sugarhitman · 12-31-2008, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Nope. they had a peace treaty with Gibeon. Their deaths were avenged not because they were considered valuable, but because there was a standing peace treaty (and an oath) that they would not be harmed by the Israelites.

JOS 9:18 And the children of Israel smote them not, because the princes of the congregation had sworn unto them by the LORD God of Israel. And all the congregation murmured against the princes.
JOS 9:19 But all the princes said unto all the congregation, We have sworn unto them by the LORD God of Israel: now therefore we may not touch them.
JOS 9:20 This we will do to them; we will even let them live, lest wrath be upon us, because of the oath which we sware unto them.
JOS 9:21 And the princes said unto them, Let them live; but let them be hewers of wood and drawers of water unto all the congregation; as the princes had promised them.
JOS 9:22 And Joshua called for them, and he spake unto them, saying, Wherefore have ye beguiled us, saying, We are very far from you; when ye dwell among us?
JOS 9:23 Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God.

No it doesn't. It's a one-time event specific to the Gibeonites, and stems from the peace treaty that indicated no harm would come to them at the hands of the Israelites. It is not part of the Hebrew law concerning the treatment of slaves.

SA2 21:2 And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them: and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah.)
SA2 21:3 Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the LORD?
As usual, the skeptics know more about the bible than the christians do. :rolling:

No you haven't. You fail again, sugarhitman. But you're used to that by now.

But why should a corrupt God honor a peace treaty between Jews and Bondmen?

God? According to the story, it was men honoring a treaty.

Quote:

I mean they are non hebrews and bondmen so why are the Jews fearful of doing them harm if God was so "bias" or hateful of non Jews.

By the time this event (allegedly) happened, the Gibeonites were fully intergrated into society and a failure to avenge them would have backfired. There is a common mideastern cultural element of the safesworn visitor; the person who comes to a village or town and is granted security by virtue of the word of the headman. Breaking that social norm would have been a huge breach of custom, and opened the door to tribal retribution.

However, the majority of the OT is just a made-up national history to give the Jews a common national mythology anyhow.

I notice that you again chickened out:

if slavery was immoral, then why was slavery even permitted in the first place?

Wrong! God is quoted as saying that he was punishing Israel for the sins commited against the Gibeonites who were bondmen. and why would the God of Israel punish them for sins against a Non Hebrew nation? Why would God honor a peace pact between Israel and a nation of slaves? Unless he is just and does not show favoritism.

Myth? So Islam is the Truth ah?

Sheshonq · 12-31-2008, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

God? According to the story, it was men honoring a treaty.

By the time this event (allegedly) happened, the Gibeonites were fully intergrated into society and a failure to avenge them would have backfired. There is a common mideastern cultural element of the safesworn visitor; the person who comes to a village or town and is granted security by virtue of the word of the headman. Breaking that social norm would have been a huge breach of custom, and opened the door to tribal retribution.

However, the majority of the OT is just a made-up national history to give the Jews a common national mythology anyhow.

I notice that you again chickened out:

if slavery was immoral, then why was slavery even permitted in the first place?

Wrong! God is quoted as saying that he was punishing Israel for the sins commited against the Gibeonites who were bondmen.

Wrong it does not say that. It specifically says:

and the children of Israel had sworn unto them

as the basis.

Skeptics win again.

sugarhitman · 12-31-2008, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

You did not answer that question.

I most certainly did answer that.
You simply didn't like the answer - but I did answer it.

Quote:

(Watch she will not answer this)

We've been watching you dodge this question for a week now:

if slavery is immoral, then why does the bible condone slavery?

You have claims unsupported and at least one question unanswered - you're in no position to demand answers from others until you respond first.

Now let's watch as you duck, dodge and try to create a distraction again.

You will not answer this question will you? Make no mistake i am not so easily deterred I will open a thread addresed to you to give you a chance to explain how you can attack the God of the bible while letting Allah off the hook.....im sure readers will like to know as well. This is of a great puzzle to me. The attack against God by a Muslim is quite......

Sheshonq · 12-31-2008, 01:02 PM

[QUOTE=sugarhitman;5724667]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

I most certainly did answer that.
You simply didn't like the answer - but I did answer it.

We've been watching you dodge this question for a week now:

if slavery is immoral, then why does the bible condone slavery?

You have claims unsupported and at least one question unanswered - you're in no position to demand answers from others until you respond first.

Now let's watch as you duck, dodge and try to create a distraction again.

Quote:

You will not answer this question will you?

I already did. You simply didn't like the answer.

Quote:

Make no mistake i am not so easily deterred

Apparently you *are* easily deterred - all it takes is one simple question about why the bible condones slavery, and you run with your tail between your legs like a scalded dog.

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Quote:

I will open a thread addresed to you

I don't care how many threads you open. Until you stop running and answer the questions already put to you and support the claims you've made here already, you're not in a position to demand answers from other people. This situation isn't going to change, so you can either

(a) support your claims or
(b) learn to live with the fact that I've already won this debate due to your deliberate forfeit

sugarhitman · 12-31-2008, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Wrong! God is quoted as saying that he was punishing Israel for the sins commited against the Gibeonites who were bondmen.

Wrong it does not say that. It specifically says:

and the children of Israel had sworn unto them

as the basis.

Skeptics win again.

"It is because of Saul and his bloody house."----God (explaining why he was punishing Israel for the murders of Saul against the Gibeonites....bondmen)

Sheshonq · 12-31-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Wrong it does not say that. It specifically says:

and the children of Israel had sworn unto them

as the basis.

Skeptics win again.

"It is because of Saul and his bloody house."----God (explaining why he was punishing Israel for the murders of Saul against the Gibeonites....bondmen)

Nice try. But the reason Saul's house was called "bloody" is because his slaughter of the Gibeonites put the Hebrews in a state of violating their sworn oath to not do any harm to the Gibeonites.

Since you've clumsily tried to use the Jewish Bible, read it for yourself. It's the commentary, right-hand side of the page.

You lose again.

sugarhitman · 12-31-2008, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

"It is because of Saul and his bloody house."----God (explaining why he was punishing Israel for the murders of Saul against the Gibeonites....bondmen)

Nice try. But the reason Saul's house was called "bloody" is because his slaughter of the Gibeonites put the Hebrews in a state of violating their sworn oath to not do any harm to the Gibeonites.

Since you've clumsily tried to use the Jewish Bible, read it for yourself. It's the commentary, right-hand side of the page.

You lose again.

So are you saying that God honored a covenant between Israel and their slaves the Gibeonites? Why would the God of Israel deliver Hebrews to a nation of slaves to be judged because of an oath?

Sheshonq · 12-31-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

So are you saying that God honored a covenant

1. Men honored the covenant.

2. I notice that you've given up trying to say that there was any law against killing non-Hebrew slaves. The only smart move you've made in this whole thread.

Quote:

between Israel and their slaves the Gibeonites? Why would the God of Israel deliver Hebrews to a nation of slaves to be judged because of an oath?

Already explained this.

By the time this event (allegedly) happened, the Gibeonites were fully intergrated into society and a failure to avenge them would have backfired. There is a common mideastern cultural element of the safesworn visitor; the person who comes to a village or town and is granted security by virtue of the word of the headman. Breaking that social norm would have been a huge breach of custom, and opened the door to tribal retribution.

However, the majority of the OT is just a made-up national history to give the Jews a common national mythology anyhow.

sschlichter · 12-31-2008, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVIncagold

So a simple question i am posing to shtmn, arnaldo, and steve is this.
Since slavery was so nice and is supported by the bible then would you support it today in order to fend off hunger and destitution? After all it is rehablitation and people could get trades according to the assertions in this thread.
So is the bible the inspired word of god to be followed without critic or just a bunch of suggestions from a god that was no better than the surrounding gods who by the way never declared him to be the one true god? Considering your gods fear that others would turn away so quickly from him sounds like he was the erkel of gods in that area and nobody took him all that serious ( amongst the other gods anyways).

Oh and this as well

if slavery was immoral, then why was slavery even permitted in the first place?

No matter how bold or large the font. The question reflects A.D.D. on the part of the poster. That is why it is ignored. It is being argued that the forms of servitude condoned in the Bible are not immoral (for about 20 pages now).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.