The concept of holding pows, prisoners of war, to be killed or sold for ransom or slavery is forbidden in the law of Moses. On the other hand it was Mohammed’s regular modus operandi with the purpose of maintaining a pool of human capital to be exploited as need arose.
Lol, Ignoramus/Watson/Holmes can only respond with a completely unrelated polemic.
Hmmm, so holding POWs for ransom was forbidden by the Mosaic law, huh? Wow! I’m sooo impressed by Biblical humanity! Oh but wait, wasn’t everyone just killed anyway…except the beautiful virgin girls? 🤔
Let’s read the rest of this alleged “no captive” policy as I love reading the Bible to idiots, ahem:
10When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them captive, (Deuteronmty 21:10)
So there goes the alleged “no captive” policy lol. Its funny they literally have it where you can beat the hell out of your slave, but anyways lets continue:
12But if they refuse to make peace with you and wage war against you, lay siege to that city. 13When the LORD your God has delivered it into your hands, you must strike down every male with the sword. 14But the women, children, livestock, and whatever else is in the city—all its spoil—you may take as plunder, and you shall use the spoil of your enemies that the LORD your God gives you. 15This is how you are to treat all the cities that are far away from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16However, in the cities of the nations that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not leave alive anything that breathes. (Deuteronomy 20:12-16)
And there you have it (also as a bonus this defeats Temple’s alleged “no offensive war outside the boundaries of Israel) But wait there’s more!!!
9The Israelites captured the Midianite women and their children, and they plundered all their herds, flocks, and goods. 10Then they burned all the cities where the Midianites had lived, as well as all their encampments, 11and carried away all the plunder and spoils, both people and animals. (Numbers 31:9-11)
Also for further giggles let’s read the commentary:
Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted. It was a patriarchal custom Genesis 17:12. Such slaves might be captives taken in war (Numbers 31:6 following; Deuteronomy 20:14), or those consigned to slavery for their crimes, or those purchased of foreign slave-dealers. (Barnes)
The Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh had 44,760 warriors—valiant men who carried the shield and sword, drew the bow, and were trained for battle. They waged war against the Hagrites, as well as Jetur, Naphish, and Nodab.
And because they cried out to God in battle, they were helped against their enemies, and the Hagrites and all their allies were delivered into their hands. Because they put their trust in God, He answered their prayers. They seized the livestock of the Hagrites—50,000 camels, 250,000 sheep, and 2,000 donkeys. They also took 100,000 captives, and many others fell slain, because the battle belonged to God. And they occupied the land until the exile. (1 Chronicles 5:18-22)
…the army of Judah also captured 10,000 men alive. They took them to the top of a cliff and threw them down so that all were dashed to pieces. (2 Chronicles 25:12)
Now I know were going to get a “but, but Jesus!” Whelp let’s look at the following “prophecy”:
And the peoples will take them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will possess them in the LORD’s land as male and female slaves. They will take captive those who were their captors, and rule over those who oppressed them. (Isaiah 14:2)
So either:
A. It failed as the context is clearly referring to (non-existent) Babylon
B. Jesus comes back taking captors in his blood bath slaughter that they believe he will do.
“And the peoples will take them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will possess them in the LORD’s land as male and female slaves. They will take captive those who were their captors, and rule over those who oppressed them. (Isaiah 14:2)”
this is another evidence that the canaanite woman had to make israel her MASTERS before she got a cure.
Taking captive and holding captive are two different things. Mohammed took and held captives as a result of making war, which had no justification from God, against non-islamic communities which he had attacked because they were non-islamic.
16However, in the cities of the nations that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not leave alive anything that breathes. (Deuteronomy 20:12-16)
This is a one-off situation which is not normative to any nation outside Israel and only historically applied to the Israelites under the old testament theocracy, which ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
“Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted.”
But those to whom it was permitted don’t exist any more. And even then it was a form of slavery in which the foreign slave was free except in the matter of choosing his owner or the work he had to do, enjoying more freedom than any islamic slave would.
16However, in the cities of the nations that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not leave alive anything that breathes. (Deuteronomy 20:12-16)
what did these nations do to the jews yoU filthy shitstain?
when did moses say that yhwhs ETERNAL laws were “one-off” situation?
when did the jews consider the greek trash as divinely inspired?
LETS JUST quote the JEWS themselves peoples :
The Torah text allowed for the wiping out of entire nations men women and children as long as the people were “sure” that all proper protocol had been followed. Lets assume all protocol is followed.
1. Was there an offer of surrender/acceptance of noachode laws for peace?
2. Was it impossible to find 10 righteous people there?
3. Is there an active war against the Jewish people?
Lets assume all protocol was covered and all attempts taken to avoid war.
All ifs ands or buts granted, THE TEXT still says wipe out man woman and child, (a bronze age war tactic.)
This is BAD. IMMORAL. Killing infants is wrong. Killing the Egyptian 1st born or the Israelite 1st born was immoral.
Watson: “The concept of holding pows, prisoners of war, to be killed or sold for ransom or slavery is forbidden in the law of Moses.”
Your initial contention was that POWs could not be killed, sold for ransom, or be enslaved in Mosaic law and I clearly demonstrated all 3 in your texts (which has WAY WORSE conditions for slavery btw) as for you’re ramble I’ll just leave this here:
So when you bs do you use more lying, delusion or retardation?
Also, these nations “don’t exist” because of genocide according to your text because of the Jews lol. Anyways, read again Ignoramous the Jews are given 2 policies by the Daddy (and by extension His Kid):
1. The people living there first are only to be slaughtered unmercifully to the last man, woman, and child while fighting for their lives and homeland:
“However, in the cities of the nations that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not leave alive anything that breathes”
2. Everyone, not these unfortunate folk above when fought is given a “peace offering” to become slaves if they refuse enslavement if they win all men are killed, and the women and children are enslaved while they steal all their stuff:
When you approach a city to fight against it, you are to make an offer of peace. 11If they accept your offer of peace and open their gates, all the people there will become forced laborers to serve you.
12But if they refuse to make peace with you and wage war against you, lay siege to that city. 13When the LORD your God has delivered it into your hands, you must strike down every male with the sword. 14But the women, children, livestock, and whatever else is in the city—all its spoil—you may take as plunder, and you shall use the spoil of your enemies that the LORD your God gives you. 15This is how you are to treat all the cities that are far away from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
Nothing about the fanfiction you’re making up again. Please see my question on do you use more lying, delusion or retardation.
Ignoramus is lying for Jesus. This is what crosstians do to deceive gullible people. Unfortunately for Ignoramus, no one here is of the gullible type. 😂
Second, the commenter claims that Israel’s wars in the Canaanite conquest were “defensive.” This is a claim he has made repeatedly in response to my book, which he claims to have read. But had he read my book, he would know that I devote several pages to refuting this argument. At the most basic level, Israel’s conquest of Canaan was an aggressive campaign.
They didn’t invade Canaan because Canaanites were attacking them first. They invaded Canaan, according to the text, because they were on a mission from God to obliterate the Canaanites, to wipe them off the map, and take their land from them. They’re not called the “conquest” narratives for nuthin’. How this commenter can claim, with a straight face, that an aggressive invasion of foreign territory is somehow “defensive” is beyond my capacity to comprehend. Now, it’s true that a few of the battles are portrayed as defensive, in a certain sense, but let’s get this straight. Why was Israel being attacked by the Canaanites? Were the Canaanites attacking the Israelites for no reason? Um, no. The Canaanites were attacking the Israelites because the Israelites attacked them first. The Canaanites were defending themselves against Israelite aggression! Not the other way around. The text itself is quite plain on this point. It’s just insane to characterize Israel’s conquest of Canaan as “defensive.” As far back as Origen, at least, a clear distinction was made between Israel’s defensive wars, and its genocidal conquests. Origen said that the defensive wars were morally permissible, but the genocidal conquests, if taken literally, were morally condemnable. Moreover, even if we were to concede that, somehow, Israel’s wars in Canaan were “defensive,” that hardly justifies the wholesale slaughter of women and children! Were they worried an army of toddlers was going to wipe them out? Give me a break! This isn’t modern warfare. Israel wasn’t carpet bombing cities. They fought armies outside the cities, and then went in, allegedly on Yahweh’s orders, and slaughtered all of the non-combatants, including women and children, after the warriors had been defeated. And let’s not forget that these were their orders even before they entered Canaan in the first place! That’s not a defensive war. That’s aggression. That’s genocide.
I stated in my book that one of the problems with our Scriptures is that they teach us to reason just like war criminals, just like the modern perpetrators of genocide we love to loathe. This commenter has proven my point splendidly. Well done!
As for his reference to Christopher Hitchens, what this commenter is doing is attempting to insinuate that because I disapprove of Israel’s genocides, I must want to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth. This is malicious deceit, not worthy of the name Christian, but typical of fundamentalist apologists. It’s disheartening and sad to see that some people’s grasp on their religion is so feeble that they have to resort to these sorts of deceitful and underhanded tactics to “score points” for their cause. But this whole line of reasoning is based on the spurious assumption that Israel was in danger of being wiped out, had they not slaughtered Canaanite babies. But the reality is, despite what the conquest narratives tell us, the actual history of Israel’s emergence in Canaan was not very violent at all. Israelites were Canaanites. There was no mass exodus out of Egypt, and their was no grand conquest into Canaan. The archaeological record is unequivocal on these points. Thus, it is simply not true that Israel had to kill women and children in order to survive. And anyone who claims the wholesale slaughter of children is necessary in order to survive needs to get their head checked and their propaganda meter re-calibrated.
In short, yes, Israel committed genocide. No, they didn’t have to do so in order to survive. Yes, I condemn the positive portrait of genocide painted in the Bible. No, that doesn’t make me anti-Semitic. After all, the Canaanites were Semites too. (Or doesn’t this commenter realize?) So when I’m sticking up for the Canaanite babies, I’m pro-Semite all the way.
///////////////////
Jesus had to support the death penalty. Otherwise, he could not be the Messiah as per Ezekiel 37:
“My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. 25 They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your ancestors lived. They and their children and their children’s children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever. 27 My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people. 28 Then the nations will know that I the Lord make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever.”
The concept of holding pows, prisoners of war, to be killed or sold for ransom or slavery is forbidden in the law of Moses. On the other hand it was Mohammed’s regular modus operandi with the purpose of maintaining a pool of human capital to be exploited as need arose.
Lol, Ignoramus/Watson/Holmes can only respond with a completely unrelated polemic.
Hmmm, so holding POWs for ransom was forbidden by the Mosaic law, huh? Wow! I’m sooo impressed by Biblical humanity! Oh but wait, wasn’t everyone just killed anyway…except the beautiful virgin girls? 🤔
ya Dime Bar
@ QB
Let’s read the rest of this alleged “no captive” policy as I love reading the Bible to idiots, ahem:
10When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them captive, (Deuteronmty 21:10)
So there goes the alleged “no captive” policy lol. Its funny they literally have it where you can beat the hell out of your slave, but anyways lets continue:
12But if they refuse to make peace with you and wage war against you, lay siege to that city. 13When the LORD your God has delivered it into your hands, you must strike down every male with the sword. 14But the women, children, livestock, and whatever else is in the city—all its spoil—you may take as plunder, and you shall use the spoil of your enemies that the LORD your God gives you. 15This is how you are to treat all the cities that are far away from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16However, in the cities of the nations that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not leave alive anything that breathes. (Deuteronomy 20:12-16)
And there you have it (also as a bonus this defeats Temple’s alleged “no offensive war outside the boundaries of Israel) But wait there’s more!!!
9The Israelites captured the Midianite women and their children, and they plundered all their herds, flocks, and goods. 10Then they burned all the cities where the Midianites had lived, as well as all their encampments, 11and carried away all the plunder and spoils, both people and animals. (Numbers 31:9-11)
Also for further giggles let’s read the commentary:
Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted. It was a patriarchal custom Genesis 17:12. Such slaves might be captives taken in war (Numbers 31:6 following; Deuteronomy 20:14), or those consigned to slavery for their crimes, or those purchased of foreign slave-dealers. (Barnes)
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/25-44.htm
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 What an Ignoramous!!!
Seriously, I think Ignoramus is intellectually disabled…i.e., he’s retarded.
@ QB
Not to be outdone, round 2:
The Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh had 44,760 warriors—valiant men who carried the shield and sword, drew the bow, and were trained for battle. They waged war against the Hagrites, as well as Jetur, Naphish, and Nodab.
And because they cried out to God in battle, they were helped against their enemies, and the Hagrites and all their allies were delivered into their hands. Because they put their trust in God, He answered their prayers. They seized the livestock of the Hagrites—50,000 camels, 250,000 sheep, and 2,000 donkeys. They also took 100,000 captives, and many others fell slain, because the battle belonged to God. And they occupied the land until the exile. (1 Chronicles 5:18-22)
…the army of Judah also captured 10,000 men alive. They took them to the top of a cliff and threw them down so that all were dashed to pieces. (2 Chronicles 25:12)
Now I know were going to get a “but, but Jesus!” Whelp let’s look at the following “prophecy”:
And the peoples will take them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will possess them in the LORD’s land as male and female slaves. They will take captive those who were their captors, and rule over those who oppressed them. (Isaiah 14:2)
So either:
A. It failed as the context is clearly referring to (non-existent) Babylon
B. Jesus comes back taking captors in his blood bath slaughter that they believe he will do.
Decisions, decisions… 🤔🤔🤔
Yikes!
“And the peoples will take them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will possess them in the LORD’s land as male and female slaves. They will take captive those who were their captors, and rule over those who oppressed them. (Isaiah 14:2)”
this is another evidence that the canaanite woman had to make israel her MASTERS before she got a cure.
she had to become a slave and a jewish convert.
Taking captive and holding captive are two different things. Mohammed took and held captives as a result of making war, which had no justification from God, against non-islamic communities which he had attacked because they were non-islamic.
16However, in the cities of the nations that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not leave alive anything that breathes. (Deuteronomy 20:12-16)
This is a one-off situation which is not normative to any nation outside Israel and only historically applied to the Israelites under the old testament theocracy, which ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
“Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted.”
But those to whom it was permitted don’t exist any more. And even then it was a form of slavery in which the foreign slave was free except in the matter of choosing his owner or the work he had to do, enjoying more freedom than any islamic slave would.
16However, in the cities of the nations that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not leave alive anything that breathes. (Deuteronomy 20:12-16)
what did these nations do to the jews yoU filthy shitstain?
when did moses say that yhwhs ETERNAL laws were “one-off” situation?
when did the jews consider the greek trash as divinely inspired?
LETS JUST quote the JEWS themselves peoples :
The Torah text allowed for the wiping out of entire nations men women and children as long as the people were “sure” that all proper protocol had been followed. Lets assume all protocol is followed.
1. Was there an offer of surrender/acceptance of noachode laws for peace?
2. Was it impossible to find 10 righteous people there?
3. Is there an active war against the Jewish people?
Lets assume all protocol was covered and all attempts taken to avoid war.
All ifs ands or buts granted, THE TEXT still says wipe out man woman and child, (a bronze age war tactic.)
This is BAD. IMMORAL. Killing infants is wrong. Killing the Egyptian 1st born or the Israelite 1st born was immoral.
what does FAIZ like saying ? “ouch” ?
@ Watson
Lol what? First, let me quote you, ahem:
Watson: “The concept of holding pows, prisoners of war, to be killed or sold for ransom or slavery is forbidden in the law of Moses.”
Your initial contention was that POWs could not be killed, sold for ransom, or be enslaved in Mosaic law and I clearly demonstrated all 3 in your texts (which has WAY WORSE conditions for slavery btw) as for you’re ramble I’ll just leave this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeswYJgf5mM
So when you bs do you use more lying, delusion or retardation?
Also, these nations “don’t exist” because of genocide according to your text because of the Jews lol. Anyways, read again Ignoramous the Jews are given 2 policies by the Daddy (and by extension His Kid):
1. The people living there first are only to be slaughtered unmercifully to the last man, woman, and child while fighting for their lives and homeland:
“However, in the cities of the nations that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not leave alive anything that breathes”
2. Everyone, not these unfortunate folk above when fought is given a “peace offering” to become slaves if they refuse enslavement if they win all men are killed, and the women and children are enslaved while they steal all their stuff:
When you approach a city to fight against it, you are to make an offer of peace. 11If they accept your offer of peace and open their gates, all the people there will become forced laborers to serve you.
12But if they refuse to make peace with you and wage war against you, lay siege to that city. 13When the LORD your God has delivered it into your hands, you must strike down every male with the sword. 14But the women, children, livestock, and whatever else is in the city—all its spoil—you may take as plunder, and you shall use the spoil of your enemies that the LORD your God gives you. 15This is how you are to treat all the cities that are far away from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
Nothing about the fanfiction you’re making up again. Please see my question on do you use more lying, delusion or retardation.
Ignoramus is lying for Jesus. This is what crosstians do to deceive gullible people. Unfortunately for Ignoramus, no one here is of the gullible type. 😂
@ QB
I’m just saying at least don’t make things up about the text, lol.
Second, the commenter claims that Israel’s wars in the Canaanite conquest were “defensive.” This is a claim he has made repeatedly in response to my book, which he claims to have read. But had he read my book, he would know that I devote several pages to refuting this argument. At the most basic level, Israel’s conquest of Canaan was an aggressive campaign.
They didn’t invade Canaan because Canaanites were attacking them first. They invaded Canaan, according to the text, because they were on a mission from God to obliterate the Canaanites, to wipe them off the map, and take their land from them. They’re not called the “conquest” narratives for nuthin’. How this commenter can claim, with a straight face, that an aggressive invasion of foreign territory is somehow “defensive” is beyond my capacity to comprehend. Now, it’s true that a few of the battles are portrayed as defensive, in a certain sense, but let’s get this straight. Why was Israel being attacked by the Canaanites? Were the Canaanites attacking the Israelites for no reason? Um, no. The Canaanites were attacking the Israelites because the Israelites attacked them first. The Canaanites were defending themselves against Israelite aggression! Not the other way around. The text itself is quite plain on this point. It’s just insane to characterize Israel’s conquest of Canaan as “defensive.” As far back as Origen, at least, a clear distinction was made between Israel’s defensive wars, and its genocidal conquests. Origen said that the defensive wars were morally permissible, but the genocidal conquests, if taken literally, were morally condemnable. Moreover, even if we were to concede that, somehow, Israel’s wars in Canaan were “defensive,” that hardly justifies the wholesale slaughter of women and children! Were they worried an army of toddlers was going to wipe them out? Give me a break! This isn’t modern warfare. Israel wasn’t carpet bombing cities. They fought armies outside the cities, and then went in, allegedly on Yahweh’s orders, and slaughtered all of the non-combatants, including women and children, after the warriors had been defeated. And let’s not forget that these were their orders even before they entered Canaan in the first place! That’s not a defensive war. That’s aggression. That’s genocide.
I stated in my book that one of the problems with our Scriptures is that they teach us to reason just like war criminals, just like the modern perpetrators of genocide we love to loathe. This commenter has proven my point splendidly. Well done!
As for his reference to Christopher Hitchens, what this commenter is doing is attempting to insinuate that because I disapprove of Israel’s genocides, I must want to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth. This is malicious deceit, not worthy of the name Christian, but typical of fundamentalist apologists. It’s disheartening and sad to see that some people’s grasp on their religion is so feeble that they have to resort to these sorts of deceitful and underhanded tactics to “score points” for their cause. But this whole line of reasoning is based on the spurious assumption that Israel was in danger of being wiped out, had they not slaughtered Canaanite babies. But the reality is, despite what the conquest narratives tell us, the actual history of Israel’s emergence in Canaan was not very violent at all. Israelites were Canaanites. There was no mass exodus out of Egypt, and their was no grand conquest into Canaan. The archaeological record is unequivocal on these points. Thus, it is simply not true that Israel had to kill women and children in order to survive. And anyone who claims the wholesale slaughter of children is necessary in order to survive needs to get their head checked and their propaganda meter re-calibrated.
In short, yes, Israel committed genocide. No, they didn’t have to do so in order to survive. Yes, I condemn the positive portrait of genocide painted in the Bible. No, that doesn’t make me anti-Semitic. After all, the Canaanites were Semites too. (Or doesn’t this commenter realize?) So when I’m sticking up for the Canaanite babies, I’m pro-Semite all the way.
///////////////////
Jesus had to support the death penalty. Otherwise, he could not be the Messiah as per Ezekiel 37:
“My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. 25 They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your ancestors lived. They and their children and their children’s children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever. 27 My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people. 28 Then the nations will know that I the Lord make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever.”