Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

All disbelievers are to be put to the sword by Allah's intermediaries - just as the Koran instructs Muslims to do in verse 9:5 of the Koran.

shafique wrote:Nice attempt at diverting attention away from the topic in the thread titile and the fact you are the ONLY person who is condoning the enslavement of virgins by the Israelites.

You don't challenge the fact that this makes you MORE extreme a religious fanatic than Bin Laden - he just agrees with you that it is ok to kill civilians in the name of God.

I am glad you also are failing miserably to convince me to join your gang who think Israelites slaughtering civilians is an act of God.

Biblegod The Good And Slavery
GR Gaudreau

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YHWH, god of the Bible, we are incessantly told by Christians, is good and his mercy "endureth for ever". However, as we have seen in earlier installments of "Biblegod The Good", this isn't exactly the case. In this short essay, I'd like us to look at the question of slavery.

We all know that slavery is to be condemned as being inhumane, even Christians admit that. No human being should be owned by another for whatever reason. From the construction worker to the Phd., slavery is recognized for what it is: an abhorrent practice. However, the Bible, which is touted as "the" standard of morality by Christians, declares that slavery is not only acceptable, it is even commanded by the biblegod. Don't believe me? Read on. I will not quote the whole text here, because you can read it for yourselves. I quote from Young's Literal Translation:

Numbers 31:1 And Jehovah speaketh unto Moses, saying,
2 `Execute the vengeance of the sons of Israel against the Midianites -- afterwards thou art gathered unto thy people.'
[...]
9 And the sons of Israel take captive the women of Midian, and their infants; and all their cattle, and all their substance, and all their wealth they have plundered;
[...]
17 `And now, slay ye every male among the infants, yea, every woman known of man by the lying of a male ye have slain;
18 and all the infants among the women, who have not known the lying of a male, ye have kept alive for yourselves.

To begin with, notice in v.9 that the Israelites are not simply told that they can take "captives" from among the Midianites, but are commanded to take "captives" from among them. They are to slaughter all the men, the male infants and all the women who had who had "known a man." Needless to say, we are impressed with the goodness of the biblegod ordering, as he did, the slaughter of all the male infants and the women who weren't virgins. Truly, biblegod's goodness knows no bounds!

The term "captives" in this context is the biblical code word for "slaves", and not simply someone who was captured. The Israelites were to take captive and enslave all the women who were virgins, icluding the female infants, and keep them as slaves. Anyone disputing this should take a course in basic reading. The meaning is quite clear.

In a time when we are painfully aware of slavery and its consequences, the Israelites didn't know--nor did they care--about the problems slavery causes to those enslaved and later to those who ensalve others. Now, since the Bible is held up as "the" standard of morality, one would expect that it would condemn rather than encourage slavery. Such, unfortunately, is not the case. One would also expect that a god who is supposed to be the epitome of goodness and mercy, would inform the Israelites as to the evils of slavery. Such is, not surprizingly, not the case.

Not a word is said in condemnation of slavery, not even a hint. In fact, as we can see from this passage YHWH, in his infinite goodness, commands the Israelites to take "captives", You see, if Israelites are to be considered slaves because they are taken into captivity by Babylonians, then it is only reasonable to think that the Midianites were slaves of the Israelite when they were taken captive.

Fundamentalists will often argue, in defense of the Bible, that God was merciful in giving laws to Israel concerning slavery. They point to the fact that a slave had to be released after seven years, and so on. Unfortunately, this only serves to confirm our contention that slavery was acceptable and a common practice in the OT, even though we know today that slavery is unacceptable. Moreover, noly the Isrealite slave was to be released after seven years, not the outsider. He belonged to his owner for as long as he lived and was given as an inheritence to his sons when he passed on.

Slavery in the NT
Some Christian will claim that the NT doesn't encourage slavery and that the teachings of Jesus even preclude the ownership of slaves. Well, I guess they'd have to tell that to Onesimus, the slave who belonged to Philemon. Paul, who is said to be the author of the epistle to Philemon, tells him that he will return his slave (servant in the KJV) to him, but that he should remember that Onesimus is a bother and should be treated fairly. This is all fine and well, but Onesimus is still a slave! Paul doesn't tell Philemon that slavery is immoral and that he should give it up and free his slave, his brother in Christ! Guess the Holy Ghost must've been having an off day and forgot to tell Paul what every Christian knows.

Christian will be the first on the anti-slavery bandwagon, for moral reasons, but they don't even see that their own scriptures encourage and sometimes even command slavery. There isn't on single verse in the NT that condemns slavery, in fact, slaves are commanded to obey their masters. (Eph. 6:5) Peter even goes as far as saying that slaves should be thankful if they suffer at the hands of their masters, because this is glorious.

1Peter 2:18 Servants [Greek "doulos"=slaves], be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.

So, taking it patiently from your masters when you endure grief and suffer wrongfully, is acceptable to YHWH. He finds that this is a virtue. Boy, he must've been pissed off at all those Blacks in the last century who decided they wouldn't take it patiently. Moreover, this same god doesn't even condemn slavery when it comes to his own "children", the Israelites and then Christians like Philemon.

The teachings of Jesus, or rather those attributed to him, had changed nothing for 1st century slaves. People could still owned them, even one of their brethren. In fact, Jesus "the greatest moral teacher who ever lived," doesn't have diddly squat to say about the plight of slaves. None of the leaders, such as Peter, James, John or Paul, ever condemned the practice of owning another person and so condoned slavery implicitly. One would think that the "superior morality" of early Christianity would have seen to it that its supposed originator, Jesus, would have taught men to stop this immoral practice. Where was "sweet Jesus" when slaves were being bought and sold?

Christians, who never cease telling us that Atheists have no basis for morality, will defend a book that tells us of a practice that, while it should be condemned, is encouraged and even commanded by its god. Funny isn't it, that Atheists, who have "no basis for morality", condemn slavery, but that a book which is touted as being "the" standard of morality, not only doesn't condemn slavery, but encourages it; even commands it in certain instances. Will biblical wonders never cease? Hopefully, someday they will for the sake of us all.

to the biblical version?

shafique wrote:

shafique wrote:Nice attempt at diverting attention away from the topic in the thread titile and the fact you are the ONLY person who is condoning the enslavement of virgins by the Israelites.

You don't challenge the fact that this makes you MORE extreme a religious fanatic than Bin Laden - he just agrees with you that it is ok to kill civilians in the name of God.

I am glad you also are failing miserably to convince me to join your gang who think Israelites slaughtering civilians is an act of God.

shafique wrote:Yes, you are quite clear about why you are more extreme in your views than Al Qaeda, I asked whether you accepted this fact and whether you were proud of being more radical than they are?

Uhm, depends on which passage from Deuteronomy you quote - since some passages prohibit killing/pillaging/needless destruction.

In any event, the Koran allows for Muslims to destroy trees.

The Koran also allows pillaging, which is also a war crime.

Numbers 31:1 And Jehovah speaketh unto Moses, saying,
2 `Execute the vengeance of the sons of Israel against the Midianites -- afterwards thou art gathered unto thy people.'
[...]
9 And the sons of Israel take captive the women of Midian, and their infants; and all their cattle, and all their substance, and all their wealth they have plundered;

I just find it difficult to accept that there is a real difference between Allah ordering his followers to slay innocent civilians and God ordering the Israelites to do it.

shafique wrote:However, what is unquestionable is that eh is the only one here who is condoning the enslavement of virgins for the use of the ones who slaughtered their families. This is done today in the name of religion by the "Lords Resistance Army" in Uganda - and eh insists these guys are Christian terrorists!

So, eh is more extreme in his fanaticism than Al Qaeda (for I haven't seen anywhere where they say it is ok to enslave virgins).

I asked eh whether he was proud of this fact - but I guess he has some sense of shame.

shafique wrote:
So, I condemn cold blooded massacres and enslavements of virgins - but you don't.

Are you proud to be more extreme than Bin Laden?

shafique wrote:I said I don't condemn any acts of God - such as cancer, hurricanes, plagues etc - they are just that, acts of God.

I asked whether you are proud to be more extreme than Al Qaeda - they don't condone the enslavement of virgins as carried out by the Israelites in the Bible (but the LRA do and actually practice this - and you claim they are 'Christian Terrorists).

So, I condemn cold blooded massacres and enslavements of virgins - but you don't.

Are you proud to be more extreme than Bin Laden?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I understand you have a logic to equate the enslavement of virgins and their rape with natural disasters. I just happen to not share this view - and think it rather perverse a way to justify murder and rape by Israelites.

The question though was whether you acknowledge you are more extreme than Al Qaeda and are proud of this fact.

I suspect I'll be repeating the question a few times.

event horizon wrote:Is using an earthquake machine to destroy a city a natural disaster?

shafique wrote:I understand you have a logic to equate the enslavement of virgins and their rape with natural disasters. I just happen to not share this view - and think it rather perverse a way to justify murder and rape by Israelites.

The question though was whether you acknowledge you are more extreme than Al Qaeda and are proud of this fact.

I suspect I'll be repeating the question a few times.