Then why did God order the Israelites to take people of cities in the Holy Land as forced labor?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Purely for the sake of argument, let's say God had more time with Moses, or more space on the tablets, and decided to issue more commandments than the 10 we all know, what do you think he would have chosen? Another way of putting this is, what do you think is missing, if anything, from the 10 commandments?
I'll start the ball rolling with a couple of obvious ones:
11) Thou shall not rape
12) Never take another human being as a slave
To be honest, there's an argument that one or both of these could have made it into the top ten. I mean, we all dislike graven images, but they're not as bad as rape.
Anyway, let's hear what people think about which commandments failed to make the cut...
Then why did God order the Israelites to take people of cities in the Holy Land as forced labor?
Just accept you were wrong. No need for incredulity.
Yes, why did God do that?
Border Peoples lived in cities and villages on the outer edges of Canaan, who were not part of the seven or so indigenous tribes of Canaan. Cities outside the region inhabited by the Canaanites and other condemned peoples, but within the land designated as belonging to Israel, were first to be offered terms of peace, in which its people would become forced labor and serve the Israelites. If a city refused, Israel was to make war against it, kill all its men, and allow the women and children to live (Deuteronomy 20:10-15). The distinction drawn between the outlying cities of the land and the cities of the Canaanites and other peoples clustered within the land reflects the belief that the indigenous peoples were too far gone to be shown any mercy, while other people groups were not deemed similarly degenerate.
Wrong about what? You made a vague statement, indicating that you weren't even sure of the wording, so I looked it up for you, then you became incredulous that I found it and refuted your claim. Rather than project your failure onto me, just accept it as your own.
No I'm not. And I find it rather embarrassing that a lowlife atheist would have to correct a man of faith on his understanding.
This verse - it's from Matthew -
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Now, if the coming of the very man that was speaking those lines WAS the 'fulfillment', then why the need to indicate the passing of such a long period of time?
Jesus is assuring the disciples, in a hyperbolic way, that what he says is true, that 'heaven and earth would pass away' before his declarations on these subjects would fail. It would hardly serve anyone for the heaven and earth to actually pass away prior to the fulfillment of everything intended by the law and prophets.
What part of the word "desire" do you not understand?
Strathos said:So it's okay to accidentally trip over a plant, pulling it up by its roots, and then eat it?
Seems kind of a haphazard system.
Stop trying to complicate this so the horribly inadequate commandments from the Iron Age look better. The little commandment I came up with in a few seconds says you shouldn't desire to kill, maim, or harm living, breathing creatures. If I kill a cow for meat, that doesn't mean that I wanted to kill the cow... but if it must be done for survival, it must be done. If I had spent minutes rather than seconds on this, I might have re-worded it so that it said "Thou shalt not desire to kill, maim, or harm conscious creatures, but do so remorsefully when necessary." But then again, seconds already outdid the original ten.
Aldeberan said:That would basically fall under "Thou Shalt not murder", but attempting to apply it to animals.
Nope. And quite frankly, I'm tired of trying to explain concepts that fourth graders could grasp in seconds.
Aldebaran said:Not desiring to kill but doing it when necessary would mean doing it either in self defense. If you wanted to apply it to animals, then hunting and livestock farming would be banned.
Although some people do live a vegan lifestyle, it requires that they take artificial supplements and is generally viewed as an unhealthy means for acquiring nutrients. Furthermore, children really can't be vegan and acquire all the nourishment they need. Humans are omnivores, and we do need to eat animal product - whether that is eggs, dairy, fish, poultry, etc. It is necessary at times that we kill creatures for food, as well as for safety, though we should take no delight in it or cause undue suffering.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?