The Bible And Slavery

[Atheos]

Typical anti-bible polemics. Youre conflating the existence of horrible events in the bible with an unfounded assumption that God positively, approvingly, desires such events.

The Israelites were peaceful settlers who had no intention to invade or make war with the Canaanites. But they were met with hostility that was escalated by their enemy to the point that God intervened - decisively.

Where does it say 'peaceful settlers?"

Deuteronomy 2:26.

I'm surprised so many atheist bible 'experts' here are unaware that the wandering Israelites wanted to avoid hostilities - unlike their numerous enemies.

Bzzzzzzt. Not even close. That verse says:

Deuteronomy 2
:26 And I sent messengers out of the wilderness of Kedemoth unto Sihon king of Heshbon with words of peace, saying,

:27 Let me pass through thy land: I will go along by the high way, I will neither turn unto the right hand nor to the left.

"Pass through" is not the same as "settle." But don't let this inconvenient fact get in the way with picking and choosing what parts of the buybull you want to use. There is no arguing that Deuteronomy 6 (as pointed out above) describes a plan for these same "peaceful settlers" to displace people from their homes, take their farms, take their wells and enjoy the rewards of the labor that the current inhabitants of the land exerted. There is no arguing that Deuteronomy 20 describes systematic genocide of all of said inhabitants.

In an extreme example of irony it is you, Lion who is declaring war (polemics) against the Bible, not the rest of us. I assure you I'm not against the Bible any more than I'm against the Hindu Vedas, the Jewish Talmud, the Book of Mormon or the Quran. Unlike you I'm willing to read what these books say and accept that they say what they say. You're the one who is picking and choosing sections to reinterpret to cling to some preconceived notion about what you wish it said.

Until you reach the point where you deal with these "difficult" passages of scripture and stop trying to dodge by bringing up other passages that may offer contradictory messages these rejoinders amount to little else besides putting one's fingers in one's ears and shouting "Na Na Na Na I can't hear you!!!"

These passages are only difficult for people who don't want to accept what they say. Or who want to cling to some pretense that the entire collection of writings of the Bible are "inerrant" and therefore never in contradiction. Fortunately for me and many of the rest of us here I am not burdened by that preconceived bias, so I can just let the book say what it says and not try to force-fit it into something I wish it said.

None of us are arguing that the Bible doesn't contain contradictory passages, far from it. The book is absolutely rife with them. But even if it implies one thing in one place and something completely different in another doesn't mean the other passage doesn't exist. And that in no way suggests that I buy your argument that Deuteronomy 2's passage about "peacefully passing through" trumps Deuteronomy 6's plan for full-scale occupation, taking houses, land, wells, etc., and Deuteronomy 20's order to commit total genocide.

The conquest of Canaan as described in the book of Joshua is not in any way consistent with any plan for these people to be peaceful settlers. The plan is always presented as a promise from Yahweh that he will give them all of the land and that they are to utterly destroy the current inhabitants.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

God seemed to do that hardening of hearts thing a lot in Bible legend -- always a set-up for mass death. The opposite, I would think, of mercy, justice, respect for free will, and especially, loving all his created beings.

When it comes to such behavior followers get the deal of deals. On the one hand they get to play god, so they get to do whatever they want claiming it's the will of their god. Secondly, when genocide or (name your favorite biblical atrocity) happens they get to say that their god owns it, not them, and so their hands are washed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Biblical wars are, in every case, started by humans and God's intervention is always to hasten the end of that war.

Did you skip Joshua, chapter one, where God speaks directly to Joshua, telling him to take the Israelites across the Jordan to the land he has promised them? Land already settled, populated, with city after city that he directs them to war on? In chapter 6, God yaps again, in person, to Joshua, telling him exactly how to break into Jericho. Just before the walls fall, Joshua tells his followers, "Shout, for God has given you this city." Then they kill every single Jericho-ite, even the babies, kids, mall brats, oldsters, donkeys, all at sword point. Followed by even bloodier and more depraved events in the remaining 18 chapters. God directs his chosen people to commit acts which would debauch any human being from any time in history. (They do let a prostitute and her family live, because they were traitors to Jericho. So there's that.)
Great story, great faith, something to teach the kids at Sunday school.

Typical anti-bible polemics. Youre conflating the existence of horrible events in the bible with an unfounded assumption that God positively, approvingly, desires such events.

Seemed good with telling Moses to kill lots of people among lots of other terrible things... including the Midianites of whom Moses had originally fled to after the whole Egyptian Guard killing thing.

The Israelites were peaceful settlers who had no intention to invade or make war with the Canaanites. But they were met with hostility that was escalated by their enemy to the point that God intervened - decisively.

Did he? God's actual direct intervention ended with Sodom and Gomorrah.

God becomes an absolutely useless tool for Abraham (of whom God continually makes promises and waits forever to give Sarah a child... so much that when Sarah is told, she busts a gut in laughter... which is was Isaac means, "ROFL"), Jacob/Israel (depending on what record label he was producing with), and Joseph. God be like... sorry about all that shit I let people get away with Jacob / Joseph... I totally had a plan and it all worked out. Now Joseph, you are well respected in by the Pharaoh (name undisclosed), which will ensure the status of our people forever.

*Three hundred years later*

Aw shit Moses... I'm sorry, but the time just passes by so quickly. I swear... this will finally be the time my people get what they deserve. Spoiler alert... I will send an angel to kill you because of the circumcision thing.

Then God commands all sorts of villainous behavior once out of Egypt... because God acting like a God and giving the Hebrews EGYPT instead of the land of thistles and blood was not the style of the Cuck-like God.

 

[skepticalbip]

Typical anti-bible polemics. Youre conflating the existence of horrible events in the bible with an unfounded assumption that God positively, approvingly, desires such events.

The Israelites were peaceful settlers who had no intention to invade or make war with the Canaanites. But they were met with hostility that was escalated by their enemy to the point that God intervened - decisively.

Where does it say 'peaceful settlers?"

Deuteronomy 2:26.

I'm surprised so many atheist bible 'experts' here are unaware that the wandering Israelites wanted to avoid hostilities - unlike their numerous enemies.

I am quite aware of the tales of the "wandering Israelites" having actually read the book rather than just selected passages to confirm some preconceived belief. From the tales, they read a bit like a mini-version of Genghis Kahn's spread. He too just wanted to "peacefully settle" which required eliminating those who opposed his taking over their farms, homes, and cities.

 

[Lion IRC]

My point is that the Canaanite war(s) were the end result of escalating hostility directed at the Israelites by violent, warlike tribes who refused to let the Israelites settle peacefully as was their desire.

bilby asks... how can you settle an already occupied territory, without invading it? But it wasn't "occupied" in any sovereign sense.

If I go to the beach and put my beach towel and umbrella and esky/cooler down somewhere, I'm not 'invading' the surrounding inhabitant's sovereign beach territory.

Them : Hey Lion, eff off. This is my beach.
Me : Err, um...well, God told me I could sit here.

 

[Lion IRC]

Note to self.
Try to ignore all the annoying, conceited, pretentious atheists who act as if they are the only ones who have "actually read the bible".

 

[ideologyhunter]

My point is that the Canaanite war(s) were the end result of escalating hostility directed at the Israelites by violent, warlike tribes who refused to let the Israelites settle peacefully as was their desire.

bilby asks... how can you settle an already occupied territory, without invading it? But it wasn't "occupied" in any sovereign sense.

If I go to the beach and put my beach towel and umbrella and esky/cooler down somewhere, I'm not 'invading' the surrounding inhabitant's sovereign beach territory.

Them : Hey Lion, eff off. This is my beach.
Me : Err, um...well, God told me I could sit here.

If someone at the beach tells me that God told him he could sit there, I'd wonder about his medication level. But let's say the other family on the beach tells you to leave -- and the dad actually pulls a knife on you. To make this equal the stories in Joshua, you'd pull out your sword, kill the dad, kill his wife, because she's a breeder, kill the teenage son, chase down the little kids and run your blade through their bodies, grab the teenage daughter and demand to know if she's a virgin. If she is, you'd put her in your Taurus and drive off. God told you to destroy that family. Can you even imagine the act of killing children with swords???? I realize Joshua is probably nothing more than tribal stories, but they're disturbing even as fiction.

 

[Rhea]

Typical anti-bible polemics. Youre conflating the existence of horrible events in the bible with an unfounded assumption that God positively, approvingly, desires such events.

The Israelites were peaceful settlers who had no intention to invade or make war with the Canaanites. But they were met with hostility that was escalated by their enemy to the point that God intervened - decisively.

Where does it say 'peaceful settlers?"

Deuteronomy 2:26.

I'm surprised so many atheist bible 'experts' here are unaware that the wandering Israelites wanted to avoid hostilities - unlike their numerous enemies.

The way you cheery pick and take out of context this passage is so interesting.

Here’s the context. Showing that they walked up and started fighting. And that their god planned for it, and even put his thumb on the scale to make sure it happened.

It’s just so freaking weird that Lion can look at this and say, “that’s peaceful.” That’s some scary self-delusion right there.

Defeat of Sihon King of Heshbon

24 “Set out now and cross the Arnon Gorge. See, I have given into your hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his country. Begin to take possession of it and engage him in battle. 25 This very day I will begin to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven. They will hear reports of you and will tremble and be in anguish because of you.”

26 From the Desert of Kedemoth I sent messengers to Sihon king of Heshbon offering peace and saying, 27 “Let us pass through your country. We will stay on the main road; we will not turn aside to the right or to the left. 28 Sell us food to eat and water to drink for their price in silver. Only let us pass through on foot— 29 as the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir, and the Moabites, who live in Ar, did for us—until we cross the Jordan into the land the Lord our God is giving us.” 30 But Sihon king of Heshbon refused to let us pass through. For the Lord your God had made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate in order to give him into your hands, as he has now done.

31 The Lord said to me, “See, I have begun to deliver Sihon and his country over to you. Now begin to conquer and possess his land.”

32 When Sihon and all his army came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz, 33 the Lord our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed[c] them—men, women and children. We left no survivors. 35 But the livestock and the plunder from the towns we had captured we carried off for ourselves.

So t the beginning of he passage, god promises Sihon’s land. Then instructs them to LIE TO HIM and say they are ”just passing though,” when clearly from the previous line they had NO INTENTION of “just passing through,” but planned to “engage him in battle” before they ever even talked to him.

 

[Lion IRC]

...There is no arguing that Deuteronomy 20 describes systematic genocide of all of said inhabitants

Who are you talking to? Who is arguing otherwise? Not me. The pages of the bible are littered with war and death.

There is no arguing that America dropped two atomic bombs on women and children. Is that grounds for a polemic assault on the science/scientists who 'discovered' this novel way to murder thousands of human beings in minutes?

Time for a derail thread. Start here.
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...le-And-Slavery&p=855327&viewfull=1#post855327

Or here...

Yes, the bible depicts prisoners of war - horrible war, undesirable war, wars started by men - and these prisoners were called slaves. But this enslavement was the lesser of two evils. Female prisoners of war would not necessarily have been worse off. And the war (greed and racism) which precipitated the enslavement was not and never has been positively approved of by God.

Biblical wars are, in every case, started by humans and God's intervention is always to hasten the end of that war.

 

[Politesse]

Note to self.
Try to ignore all the annoying, conceited, pretentious atheists who act as if they are the only ones who have "actually read the bible".

Oh, it's not just atheists who think you obviously haven't read Joshua. "Peaceful", indeed. The Israelites barely manage to restrain themselves from slaughtering each other en masse, let alone how they treat the other Palestinian peoples.

 

[DBT]

My point is that the Canaanite war(s) were the end result of escalating hostility directed at the Israelites by violent, warlike tribes who refused to let the Israelites settle peacefully as was their desire.

bilby asks... how can you settle an already occupied territory, without invading it? But it wasn't "occupied" in any sovereign sense.

If I go to the beach and put my beach towel and umbrella and esky/cooler down somewhere, I'm not 'invading' the surrounding inhabitant's sovereign beach territory.

Them : Hey Lion, eff off. This is my beach.
Me : Err, um...well, God told me I could sit here.

''The problem is that this was the golden age of Egypt’s New Kingdom, when the power of the pharaohs extended over vast territories, including the Promised Land. During this period, Egypt’s control over Canaan was total, as evidenced for example by the Amarna letters, an archive that includes correspondence between the pharaoh and his colonial empire during the 14th century B.C.E. Also, Israel is littered with remains from the Egyptian occupation, from a mighty fortress in Jaffa to a bit of sphinx discovered at Hazor in 2013.

So, even if a large group of people had managed to flee the Nile Delta and reach Sinai, they would still have had to face the full might of Egypt on the rest of their journey and upon reaching the Promised Land.''

 

[Learner]

Note to self.
Try to ignore all the annoying, conceited, pretentious atheists who act as if they are the only ones who have "actually read the bible".

Ah yes...and we would then not be the "only ones cherry picking!"

 

[DBT]

The god of the OT doesn't come across as being benevolent or just. The NT character makeover is a marginal improvement, but still falls far short of love and tender mercy......



''The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.''Psalm 145:9

 

[Learner]

We're not going to see verses in the same way obviously.


By "choosing" a few more lines to The Lord is good to ALL, I have a different viewpoint to yours...

Psalm 145: 14-20

14 The Lord upholdeth ALL that fall, and raiseth up ALL THOSE that be bowed down.

15 The eyes of all wait upon thee; and thou givest them their meat in due season.

16 Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing.

17 The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.

18 The Lord is nigh unto ALL them that call upon him, to ALL that call upon him in truth.

19 He will fulfil the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them.

20 The Lord preserveth ALL THEM that love him: BUT all the wicked will He destroy.

 

[Rhea]

We're not going to see verses in the same way obviously.


20 The Lord preserveth ALL THEM that love him: BUT all the wicked he created knowing they would be wicked and he did it anyway, just so he could then will He destroy.

Added canonical context

 

[Learner]

We're not going to see verses in the same way obviously.


20 The Lord preserveth ALL THEM that love him: BUT all the wicked he created knowing they would be wicked and he did it anyway, just so he could then will He destroy.

Added canonical context

Or...

He knows you're capable of being one or the other (or a little of both) AND allows you to do what you want as an independent entity. It's up to you, as the saying goes.

 

[DBT]

We're not going to see verses in the same way obviously.


By "choosing" a few more lines to The Lord is good to ALL, I have a different viewpoint to yours...

Psalm 145: 14-20

14 The Lord upholdeth ALL that fall, and raiseth up ALL THOSE that be bowed down.

15 The eyes of all wait upon thee; and thou givest them their meat in due season.

16 Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing.

17 The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.

18 The Lord is nigh unto ALL them that call upon him, to ALL that call upon him in truth.

19 He will fulfil the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them.

20 The Lord preserveth ALL THEM that love him: BUT all the wicked will He destroy.

It's not how we see or interpret verses, but what the verses happen to say. If a verse states that ''The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works,'' but other verses tell us of retribution and unjust punishment, god is not being ''good to all'' and his ''tender mercies'' are not to be found ''all over his works'' - so we left with a contradiction.

 

[Learner]

I disagree. It IS how you interpret what you read. Meaning.. it means differently (context) to a whole variety of people. Anyone can find what seems to them, contradictions, with how someone else reads it as. Depending on how your own world-view is, in comparison.

 

[Rhea]

We're not going to see verses in the same way obviously.


20 The Lord preserveth ALL THEM that love him: BUT all the wicked he created knowing they would be wicked and he did it anyway, just so he could then will He destroy.

Added canonical context

Or...

He knows you're capable of being one or the other (or a little of both) AND allows you to do what you want as an independent entity. It's up to you, as the saying goes.

Aaah, so you are one of those who does not believe that your god knows everything, that he knows all that will happen and has known since the beginning of time.


(Why did he create Satan, again? I forgot...)

 

[DBT]

I disagree. It IS how you interpret what you read. Meaning.. it means differently (context) to a whole variety of people. Anyone can find what seems to them, contradictions, with how someone else reads it as. Depending on how your own world-view is, in comparison.

So what is said and presumably meant takes second place to interpretation? In which case "God is good to all" may be interpreted to mean "God is good to some?" Or "God treats his chosen well?"