Argument Topic: They are people not 'property' as we think of it

The word (Hebrew la·’ă·ḥuz·zāh ) translated 'property' in Leviticus 25:44-46 NIV does denote 'possession', but does not regulate the person to property, that's a bad translation of its meaning.  Think more in terms like LeBron James is the property of the LA Lakers.  He has an obligation to the Lakers which restricts who he can play for, but he is not their physical property.  If the team owner changes, his contract moves to the new owner.  He does not lose his rights as a person.  The word for buy (better translated 'acquire' [qanah] - which is also used to describe when women have babies ) in this passage, involves an official voluntary contractual arrangement.  So the servant was not property, without any rights, as implied by your argument. 

A slave could become a permanent thing if they asked for that.  As far as the contract being passed down, well, that actually guaranteed the slave/servant would be paid and taken care of.  Otherwise, if the owner/boss died then they would not get all that they had agreed to work for.  As with any other slave/servant, if they did not like the situation, they could run away and they were not to be returned.

The foreign slave/servant did not lose his rights:

 “Do not take advantage of foreigners who live among you in your land. 34 Treat them like native-born Israelites, and love them as you love yourself. Remember that you were once foreigners living in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God. - Leviticus 19:33-34  (Odd you didn't quote this verse)

“If a stranger or sojourner with you becomes rich, and your brother beside him becomes poor and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner with you or to a member of the stranger's clan,  - Leviticus 25:47 - points out that the slave could get rich, that means they kept their possessions, and could even have slaves of his own.  That's definitely not chattel slavery.

The slave was treated the same as the non-slave when there was a physical injury:

 “When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed, 19 then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed.  20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. - Exodus 21:18-21 

This verse is sometimes mistranslated to say 'for the slave is his property'.  The word is not property in Hebrew, it is literally 'silver' or 'money'.  The meaning is the 'master' literally loses his money and his slave/servant if he injures him permanently.  

The foreign slave/servant could run away and not be forced back into service:

 “If slaves should escape from their masters and take refuge with you, you must not hand them over to their masters. 16 Let them live among you in any town they choose, and do not oppress them. - Deuteronomy 23:15-16

The slavery in the Bible was not thought of as something that made the individual a sub-person.  

While it was often the result of poverty, slavery/servanthood was not considered as a position of disrespect.  For example the most common uses of the term slave/servant are of people like Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David and the prophets.  They are the slaves/servants of God.

Caleb’s descendant — Sheshan’s daughter — ended up marrying an Egyptian servant:

“Now Sheshan had no sons, only daughters. And Sheshan had an Egyptian servant whose name was Jarha. Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant in marriage, and she bore him Atta” (1 Chronicles 2:34,35, NASB).

Here we have marriage between a foreign servant and an established free person with quite a pedigree. The key implication is that inheritance rights would fall to the servant’s offspring, Atta.  So not only was it socially acceptable to marry a slave/servant, the inheritance rights went to them or their offspring if they married an Israelite.  And the slave could inherit the wealth of his owner.  

I am not claiming the situation was ideal.  People entered into slavery/servanthood primarily because of poverty.  The ideal world ended with the Garden of Eden.  Having laws about something does not mean that it is endorsed.  The Bible has laws on divorce, but Jesus made it clear it was not God's ideal but necessary because it was happening and the interests of the woman needed to be protected.  The focus of the Bible is on man's relationship to God, and not about ending all social ills.  If so, it would have not allowed divorce, or debt to occur.  The Bible goes to great lengths to minimize the impacts of poverty and debt with the 7 year rules and the year of Jubilee ending all debts and returning all land to its original owner.  However, debt still existed.  Again, my point is that the slavery/servanthood in the Bible is not the same as the slavery associated with the antebellum south.

@just_sayin
There is no right or wrong. It's simply what happened and what didn't happen. I never said that any goal was lesser than any other goal, logically, goals are goals and they are the same but they should be based on how someone can enforce these goals, men are stronger than women. When a man decides to rape a woman, they will succeed because there is more things enforcing it.

Yeah. Depends on what your goal is. Your trying to put this into a dual perspective when I'm debating on why in the form of one perspective it is fine for THEM TO NOT CARE ABOUT THE OTHER PERSPECTIVE. I don't get what you don't understand. It's beneficial for you and not for them. You kill someone and get 10k dollars, you gain it and it's not good for them. Depending on the objectives, I don't know what's stopping from understanding this. I don't like to repeat arguments over and over and over to the same people who are always blinded by morality. If you want to beat me in a debate, you need to understand what the other is trying to say. Could you look at this logically and not morally. And when you do, remember this, "every force has an equal opposite."

Joeseph said:

@just_sayin


ARGUMENT TOPIC : Just Sayin claims that the biblical usage of the  terms "property" doesn't mean property ,  " possession" doesn't mean possession,  "slave " doesn't mean slave , " inheritance " doesn't mean inheritance 

The word (Hebrew la·’ă·ḥuz·zāh ) translated 'property' in Leviticus 25:44-46 NIV does denote 'possession', but does not regulate the person to property, that's a bad translation of its meaning.  Think more in terms like LeBron James is the property of the LA Lakers.  He has an obligation to the Lakers which restricts who he can play for, but he is not their physical property.  If the team owner changes, his contract moves to the new owner.  He does not lose his rights as a person.  The word for buy (better translated 'acquire' [qanah] - which is also used to describe when women have babies ) in this passage, involves an official voluntary contractual arrangement.  So the servant was not property, without any rights, as implied by your argument. 

You're actually arguing and disagreeing with the bible .......

Leviticus 25:44-46

New International Version

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

What part of that verse are you struggling with?

A slave could become a permanent thing if they asked for that.  As far as the contract being passed down, well, that actually guaranteed the slave/servant would be paid and taken care of.  Otherwise, if the owner/boss died then they would not get all that they had agreed to work for.  As with any other slave/servant, if they did not like the situation, they could run away and they were not to be returned.

Slaves were your property for life and your childrens inheritance , you're disagreeing with your gods word on the matter, right?

The foreign slave/servant did not lose his rights:

 “Do not take advantage of foreigners who live among you in your land. 34 Treat them like native-born Israelites, and love them as you love yourself. Remember that you were once foreigners living in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God. - Leviticus 19:33-34  (Odd you didn't quote this verse)

This is not talking about slaves , your dishonesty is appaling , what is it about "inherited property" you dont follow?

Also do you call beating your slaves " loving them as yourself" 

“If a stranger or sojourner with you becomes rich, and your brother beside him becomes poor and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner with you or to a member of the stranger's clan,  - Leviticus 25:47 - points out that the slave could get rich, that means they kept their possessions, and could even have slaves of his own.  That's definitely not chattel slavery.

They definitely are chattel slavery lets remind you of the distinction betweens bondsmen and chattel slavery in your gods words.......

Leviticus 25:39-46

New International Version

39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

The slave was treated the same as the non-slave when there was a physical injury:

 “When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed, 19 then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed.  20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. - Exodus 21:18-21 

This verse is sometimes mistranslated to say 'for the slave is his property'.  The word is not property in Hebrew, it is literally 'silver' or 'money'.  The meaning is the 'master' literally loses his money and his slave/servant if he injures him permanently.  

The master can beat and mistreat his slaves any way he wishes once he doesnt kill them and you're fine with that?

Again you're disagreeing and lying regards the bible saying slaves are your childrens inheritance and property ,right?

The foreign slave/servant could run away and not be forced back into service:

 “If slaves should escape from their masters and take refuge with you, you must not hand them over to their masters. 16 Let them live among you in any town they choose, and do not oppress them. - Deuteronomy 23:15-16

The slavery in the Bible was not thought of as something that made the individual a sub-person.  

Really? Being someones property does not make someone a sub -human? Seriously? 

 it was often the result of poverty, slavery/servanthood was not considered as a position of disrespect.  For example the most common uses of the term slave/servant are of people like Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David and the prophets.  They are the slaves/servants of God.

You mean like buying foreign slaves in a market place?

Caleb’s descendant — Sheshan’s daughter — ended up marrying an Egyptian servant:

“Now Sheshan had no sons, only daughters. And Sheshan had an Egyptian servant whose name was Jarha. Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant in marriage, and she bore him Atta” (1 Chronicles 2:34,35, NASB).

Here we have marriage between a foreign servant and an established free person with quite a pedigree. The key implication is that inheritance rights would fall to the servant’s offspring, Atta.  So not only was it socially acceptable to marry a slave/servant, the inheritance rights went to them or their offspring if they married an Israelite.  And the slave could inherit the wealth of his owner.  

Whats that got to do with owning people as property?

I am not claiming the situation was ideal.  People entered into slavery/servanthood primarily because of poverty.

You're certainly making a case for slavery , your god is the source of your moral code and he thought owning people as property was fine right?

You mean like people sold into slavery?

  The ideal world ended with the Garden of Eden.  Having laws about something does not mean that it is endorsed.  The Bible has laws on divorce, but Jesus made it clear it was not God's ideal but necessary because it was happening and the interests of the woman needed to be protected.  The focus of the Bible is on man's relationship to God, and not about ending all social ills.  If so, it would have not allowed divorce, or debt to occur.  The Bible goes to great lengths to minimize the impacts of poverty and debt with the 7 year rules and the year of Jubilee ending all debts and returning all land to its original owner.  However, debt still existed.  Again, my point is that the slavery/servanthood in the Bible is not the same as the slavery associated with the antebellum south.

What are you on about Jesus forbade divorce. The bible says its ok to own people as property one they are not Jewish debt didnt come into it regards chattel slavery you keep pretending otherwise , the 7 year law only applied to Jews.

It's truly telling you have to resort to actually lying to try in some way to justify an abhorrent practice and you admit it wasnt " ideal" but the best an all wise god could come up with.

Also your attempts at trying to say slavery in the time of Jesus was somehow an enlightened practice and a solution to poverty , how utterly ridiculous.

1) Slavery in the time of Jesus was historically very bad.  Roman rule brought in a different set of rules and it was closer to true chattel slavery.  In fact, there were several restrictions on setting slaves free.  If you had a certain number of slaves you couldn't let them all go - that was an actual rule.  One of the reasons Christians were persecuted was because they taught "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." (Galatians 3:28-29).  Teaching that people are all created in the image of God and that people are equal in the eyes of God was a belief that was deemed destructive to Roman emperors.

2)  Again, if you want to call LeBron James property, then so be it.  I am not denying what the Bible says, but trying to explain to you its meaning and how you are distorting it.  The situation for non-Israelite slaves is not one of property as we think of it:
a - property can't decide to leave and you have no legal recourse to get it back - Yet, any slave could leave and there was no legal recourse to keep them in their situation
     “If slaves should escape from their masters and take refuge with you, you must not hand them over to their masters. Let them live among you in any town they choose, and do not oppress them." - Deuteronomy 23:15-16
     That rule applies to all slaves - even non-Israelite ones.  In fact, it especially applied to them.  Historically foreign slaves fled the surrounding nations to come to Israel because of that law.

b - You can do whatever you want with your property - but you couldn't injury or kill a slave.  You couldn't mistreat them or break any rule that applied to any other person according to the Bible.  There was a contract and you had to fulfill your end of it.  

c - Can your property inherit your fortune?  Slaves could inherit the fortune of their master/boss.  They were counted as members of the family - and several slaves/servants voluntarily choose to remain slaves for life.  They could marry into the family.  They could have slaves of their own.  They could have money and riches that did not belong to their masters, and they could even acquire their own master/boss as their slave/servant.  

if slavery in the Bible was just like antebellum slavery, it is hard to understand why so many slaves/servants choose to voluntarily remain slaves for life when their contract had ended.  The truth is that the slavery of the Bible was not the same as slavery in the antebellum south, nor was the slavery described in the Bible, like the slavery in the surrounding nations around Israel. 

Speaking of doing whatever you want with your property, who was that old guy who got kicked off the site for slander?  He laughed about getting sexual favors from his vacuum until he had to go to the ER.  B-r-o was bitter cause he had a micro manhood.  Ah, that triggered my memory - he called himself Little Dee.  Anyway, what he did with his vacuum was definitely not consensual, nor biblical.    All sex with slaves in the bible had to be ,not only consensual, but also had to be within the confines of marriage.  That meant that slave had all the rights and protections of any other married person and had to be treated the same as any other spouse.  I doubt Little Dee had to marry his vacuum.

3) The 7 year and year of jubilee regulations did apply to some non-Israelite slaves.  I mentioned this before.  The Leviticus 25 passage rules are for Hebrews.  The term 'Hebrews' includes Israelites and foreigners who had converted to Judaism ( Hebrew 'ger').  And yes, they were treated as native-Israelites with regard to rules regarding slavery/servanthood.  

My comments are not to claim that slavery is a good thing.  I am more concerned to be accurate about what slavery/servanthood in the Bible actually meant and how it was practiced.

@GiantMan

If free will is illusory, why do you act like an a-hole to @Barnadot and @cheetahgod360?

You mean why do I mock the site troll Barndoor because its fun and surely if free will is illusory you would understand that , will I talk you through it slowly?

Also Cheater is the a-hole as it refuses to debate.


  If their actions are not their own, it seems to be an a-hole to them, unless you are admitting that you are just a natural a-hole.  Are you admitting that?  It fits with your theory.

What I do know is you never contribute here as you have the brains of a Donkey so you have my permission to run along ......GO 

I spinned a wheel and the file recording is above. Basically, giant and Joe were chosen.

cheetahgod360 said:

@just_sayin
There is no right or wrong. It's simply what happened and what didn't happen. I never said that any goal was lesser than any other goal, logically, goals are goals and they are the same but they should be based on how someone can enforce these goals, men are stronger than women. When a man decides to rape a woman, they will succeed because there is more things enforcing it.

Yeah. Depends on what your goal is. Your trying to put this into a dual perspective when I'm debating on why in the form of one perspective it is fine for THEM TO NOT CARE ABOUT THE OTHER PERSPECTIVE. I don't get what you don't understand. It's beneficial for you and not for them. You kill someone and get 10k dollars, you gain it and it's not good for them. Depending on the objectives, I don't know what's stopping from understanding this. I don't like to repeat arguments over and over and over to the same people who are always blinded by morality. If you want to beat me in a debate, you need to understand what the other is trying to say. Could you look at this logically and not morally. And when you do, remember this, "every force has an equal opposite."

Sorry that @Joeseph bombed your debate with his own agenda.  He does that a lot.  

Atheism does not have a strong moral basis. If you believe you are just the product of randomness, then you can't derive a morality that is objective.  Since if you believe you are the product of non-perfect random events, you can't even guarantee that your own brain, isn't flawed in its reasoning to make moral decisions.   Matter doesn't give you objective morals.  As C.S. Lewis observes that leaves the atheist with just 2 sources of moral ideas - the individual or a group.  In both instances, their morals are subjective, as you have illustrated, and reflect their own interests. 

Your view, while illustrating the weakness of atheistic belief, has several weaknesses:

1) It essentially claims, might makes right.  The strongest is the one whose morality prevails.  This suggest morality is really about the whims of the powerful and the interests of the weak are of lesser importance, because only the strong can enforce their goals or morals on others.   
2) It is hypocritical.  I'm sure the atheist who determines his own morals finds them acceptable, until he is the weaker one and his interests are violated.  Logically, he should not be angry, but accept that the stronger prevailed, and embrace what happened to him as the morals of the stronger prevailing.  However, that isn't what happens does it?  The victim feels they have been treated unjust - it is as if they know instinctively that the view you have championed is crap.  Ideas of fairness and justice are deep within us, and they betray false notions of morality.  

@just_sayin

Atheism does not have a strong moral basis. If you believe you are just the product of randomness, then you can't derive a morality that is objective.

Theism does not have a strong moral basis. If you believe you're just a product of man's imagination, then you can't derive a morality that is real. 

Since if you believe you are the product of non-perfect random events, you can't even guarantee that your own brain, isn't flawed in its reasoning to make moral decisions. 

Since if you believe you're the product of non-perfect imaginary random events, you can't even guarantee that your own brain isn't flawed in its reasoning to make moral decisions.

Matter doesn't give you objective morals

Delusions don't give you objective morals as the concept of objective morals is baseless in reality. 

As C.S. Lewis observes that leaves the atheist with just 2 sources of moral ideas - the individual or a group.  In both instances, their morals are subjective, as you have illustrated, and reflect their own interests. 

As C.S. Lewis observes and everyone else on the planet as well, that leaves us all, theist and atheist alike with 2 sources of moral ideals, individual or a group. Both atheist and theist have subjective morals as you've illustrated, and reflect their own interests.

Your view, while illustrating the weakness of atheistic belief, has several weaknesses:

Your view, while illustrating the weakness of theistic belief has several weaknesses.

1) It essentially claims, might makes right.  The strongest is the one whose morality prevails.  This suggest morality is really about the whims of the powerful and the interests of the weak are of lesser importance, because only the strong can enforce their goals or morals on others.  

1) It essentially claims dogma makes right. The one easiest to justify within the confines of doctrine and personal interpretation prevails in a moral sense. This suggest morality is really about the justifications of the deluded according to fictious writings. The interest of any victims of wrong doing then becomes subjected to the whims of selective enforcement of morals depending on if the victim can scream loud enough or the rapist has enough money to give to the victims father, or where the rapist and victim were born. Without said mythical scripture all theists would be without morals in any capacity and be reprobates.

2) It is hypocritical.  I'm sure the atheist who determines his own morals finds them acceptable, until he is the weaker one and his interests are violated.  Logically, he should not be angry, but accept that the stronger prevailed, and embrace what happened to him as the morals of the stronger prevailing.  However, that isn't what happens does it?  The victim feels they have been treated unjust - it is as if they know instinctively that the view you have championed is crap.  Ideas of fairness and justice are deep within us, and they betray false notions of morality.  

2) It is hypocritical. I'm sure the theist who determines their own morals by blindly accepting bronze age fantasy books reasonable, until they are the one born in the wrong place worshipping an alternative fairytale elf god from hundreds of human manufactured figments of imaginations. THEN they feel mistreated. But that's what happens. It is as if they know instinctively that the view you have (just sayin) championed is crap. Ideas of fairness and justice are deep within us and they betray false notions morals handed to us by childhood mythical stories with imaginary characters.

Really just sayin, you shouldn't bomb every thread you post in with your security blanket religiosity.

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

The one who sexually abuses - rapes another should, themselves, be raped and put to death.

The voices in your head tell you this?

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; My morality and ethics tell me that if one rapes another, the one should be sodomized with prejudice and put to death.

You claimed the voices in you head give you your morals. Called it unholy casper the friendly ghost or something like that. Where in your elf book does it tell you to "sodomize with prejudice"? That must be the sin you most want to receive as soon as your god says it's moral now, right? So little brains, so much idiocy. Do you get mad at god for singling you out as the dumbest?

@RickeyHoltsclaw

RAPE IS A SIN .....SAYS MAD RICKEY .....
EXCEPT WHEN RICKEYS PSYCHOTIC GOD COMMANDS IT ..

 Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?

@Factfinder ;  I only enforced what the State legislature enacted...when I began law enforcement in the late 70's, sodomy-homosexuality were crimes and rape was a serious felony... anyone who rapes another is worthy of death.

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Your dishonesty is incredible ......mm
....


.......But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.......

What do you think " you may enjoy the spoils of your enemies " means?

You previously said god didn't lay down laws for slavery and fled when corrected , have you ever even opened a bible?

@Joeseph
You actually got chosen by the spinning wheel of names I used when fact and just was afk so you can debate with me now.

@Joeseph There is no mention of rape or sodomy or abuse of any captured Canaanites...though these were most vile of Israel's enemies. Rape and Sodomy were death penalty offenses.
In Deuteronomy, God commanded the Israelites, “In the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.” A similar command is given concerning the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15. Why would God have the Israelites exterminate entire groups of people, women and children included?

Before we look at the reasons given in Scripture for the commands to exterminate certain groups of people, it’s important to realize that the Israelites were not given free rein to slaughter everyone they met. Consider the following:

• The standard procedure for battling a city was to first extend terms of peace (Deuteronomy 20:10). If the terms were accepted, the people of that city lived and became subservient to Israel (verse 11). If the terms were rejected, the city was besieged and the men were killed, but the women and children were spared (verses 12–14). Attacking a city within Canaan called for different rules and represented an exception to this standard.

• God did not sanction all of the wars recorded in the Old Testament. The battles that were part of the conquest of Canaan were intended for a particular time and limited to a particular people group. The conquest of Canaan had clear limits, geographically and historically.

• The wars sanctioned by God beyond the time of Joshua were defensive in nature. A number of the battles that Israel fought on the way to and within Canaan were also defensive in nature (Exodus 17:8; Numbers 21; Deuteronomy 2; Joshua 10).

Here are the reasons Scripture gives for commanding ancient Israel to annihilate certain people groups:

1. To judge the Canaanites for their abominations. The Canaanites were a brutal and wicked culture that frequently engaged in incredibly decadent behavior. Leviticus 18provides a list of sins that Israel was to avoid at all costs: incest, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality. All these sins were practiced by the people of Canaan: “This is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. . . . All these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled” (Leviticus 18).

In ordering the destruction of the Canaanites, God enacted a form of corporate capital punishment on a people that had been deserving of God’s judgment for some time. God had given the Canaanite people over 400 years to repent (Genesis 15). Then came judgment day. God could have used any means to destroy the Canaanites, but He chose to use the Israelites as the instrument of judgment. This method not only rid the world of an evil and deeply depraved society, but it also provided a ready-made home for God’s chosen people, the Hebrews.

The Canaanites knew what was coming and had heard of God’s awesome power (Joshua 2). Such awareness should have prompted their repentance, but they remained resistant to God. The Canaanite Rahab was saved, and so was her family, and they are proof that the Canaanites could have avoided destruction if they had repented (Joshua 2). No person had to die. God’s desire is that the wicked turn from their sin rather than perish (Ezekiel 18 & 32).

2. To stave off idolatry and compromise. In Deuteronomy 20, immediately after God commanded that the Canaanites be completely wiped out, God gave the reason: “Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 20). The reason for the extermination was to prevent religious compromise and spiritual adultery: if the Israelites left survivors, the sin of idolatry would follow.

The Israelites failed in their mission and left many Canaanites alive (Joshua 16 & 17; Judges 1). Exactly what God said would happen occurred. Israel compromised with Canaanite culture and fell into idolatry time and again (Judges 2; 1 Kings 11; 14; 2 Kings 16). God’s order to exterminate the Canaanites was meant to guard His relationship with His people.

3. To prevent future problems. God knows the future. God knew what the results would be if Israel did not completely eradicate their enemies. The Amalekites were not Canaanites, but they attacked Israel several times and forged alliances with the Canaanites (Exodus 17; Numbers 14; Judges 2; 6:3), so they also fell under God’s judgment. King Saul was given the responsibility to exterminate the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15). Saul shirked his duty and lied about it (1 Samuel 15). The results were dire—just a couple of decades later, there were enough Amalekites to take David and his men’s families captive (1 Samuel 30). Several hundred years after that, a descendant of the Amalekites, Haman, tried to have the entire Jewish people exterminated (see the book of Esther). So, Saul’s incomplete obedience almost resulted in Israel’s destruction. If Saul had obeyed the voice of the Lord, it would have saved David’s men and the Jews of Esther’s day a lot of trouble.

4. To fulfil the curse on Canaan. Centuries before Moses’ command to eradicate the Canaanites, Noah had cursed one of Ham’s sons: “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers” (Genesis 9:25). Canaan was the ancestor of the Canaanites, as Genesis 10 makes clear. The descendants of Canaan include the Sidonians, the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Amorites, and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 10). Noah’s curse/prophecy came true during the time of Joshua. The Canaanites were conquered by the Israelites, who were descendants of one of Ham’s brothers, Shem. Not all of the Canaanites were exterminated; true to God’s Word, some of the Canaanites became slaves (Joshua 9 & 17).

The most difficult part of the command of Deuteronomy 20 is that, when the Canaanites were exterminated, women and children were not spared. Why would God order the death of noncombatants and innocent children? Here are some things to remember:
In the end, God is sovereign over all of life, and He can take it whenever and however He sees fit. God alone can give life, and God alone has the right to take it. God is under no obligation to extend anyone’s life for even another day. How and when we die is completely up to Him. In the case of the Canaanites, their end came after a time of tolerance and patient grace. But Judgment Day finally comes to all, and it came to the Canaanites via the Hebrew people.  "GotQuestions"

@Factfinder ; That is my opinion of what should manifest through adjudication of a rapist, sodomite by coercion...you don't have to agree...nor would I expect same.

@RickeyHoltsclaw


ARGUMENT TOPIC:  RICKEY DIDNT KNOW THE GOD HE WORSHIPS DEMANDS HIS FOLLOWERS RAPE , DESTROY AND PILLAGE BECAUSE OF HIS INSANE FITS OF JEALOUSY BECAUSE PEOPLE REFUSE TO WORSHIP HIM 


It's getting embarrassing that I have to keep educating you on the contents of the the book you've never read , you're nearly as bible ignorant as just sayin are you guys related?

@Factfinder

Hi FF thank you , the guy is a raging nut I enjoy toying with him while having a beer or two . I know he mentioned more than once he was a former cop and  I shudder to think how he treated people who weren't hard line fundies like him , have you ever come across anyone like that where you live or is he just a one off nut?

@Factfinder ; You all ready know the Bible...according to you. I do think we're chasing our tail here, @Factfinder....can we agree to disagree, we're accomplishing nothing?

cheetahgod360 said:

@just_sayin
1) Yes.
2) Yes, that is how nature works.

it took me a moment to find what you were referring to.  You may want to hit the 'quote' option next time so that it copies the previous comment.  That allows the person you are responding to know which comment you are referring to.  Anyway after sludging through more of @Joeseph and @Factfinder 's bombing of this thread with their standard atheist fare (chapters 11 and 16 from 'is God a Moral Monster') , I believe that you are arguing for a system that only works for a very few people.  Claiming 'might makes right' really reduces the amount of people benefited by this view.  Morals are reduced to who can control the other person and get what they want.  

Do you believe there should be different justice outcomes depending on a person's power, popularity, wealth, race or gender?  Your view suggests that favoritism a core part of it.  Seems unjust to me.  

@just_sayin


Anyway after sludging through more of @Joeseph and @Factfinder 's bombing of this thread with their standard atheist fare (chapters 11 and 16 from 'is God a Moral Monster') ,


FF and I do not require a book regards Atheism.to constantly correct you and Rickey , common sense is all that's required.

I'm glad to see you're now reading books on Atheism but still cannot a decent argument to defend your delusional world views.