(June 23, 2015 at 8:03 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:(June 23, 2015 at 6:24 pm)Nope Wrote: Randy, no one is lying. The bible verse in question has been copied on this forum multiple times.
And now I have shown more of the same book which contains additional provisions for the treatment of women captives. So, while no one MAY have been lying when they were ignorant of that, if they continue to claim that God condones rape, they are lying.
Quote:The Israelites destroyed a village and kept the young virgins. Many of these girls were probably just barely 13 or 14, maybe younger. They probably saw their entire villages destroyed by the men that they were being told to marry.
If you are forced to marry someone who kills your family and have sex with that person, yes that is rape.
Why would the girls be upset that they remained with the Canaanites who were their family members?
Again, why can't American soldiers do this now? Why can't a young soldier see a pretty Afghan girl, kill her family and bring her home for his wife? He would be marrying her, after all.
I agree the times were different but your god is all powerful and all knowing. He is the one who came up with the rules in Deuteronomy. Sometimes Christians like to claim that certain stories are just reporting historical events without judgement. The problem is that in Deuteronomy is a book of god's own rules to the Hebrews.
This is a insanely, long thread.
Let's make this simple.
1. Was the treatment of women captives specified in Dt. 21 better than the way they were treated before the giving of the Law or by other nations?
2. Given that the women WERE spoils of war, was it better that they be treated as wives than as mere sex toys?
Yes or no.
One treatment was marginally less brutal, therefore it's not rape and it's moral. Sorry, but no, that excuse doesn't hold up.
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
