(March 23, 2018 at 12:38 pm)alpha male Wrote: As I've said before, I have no problem with God judging people who were tossing their babies into fire as sacrifices.
Regarding sex slaves, I've already noted that they were wives, not sex slaves.
I haven't pointed out that they were most likely going to end up in arranged marriages. If you're being consistent, you would label that as sex slavery also. So, from your POV they were going to be sex slaves one way or the other, but at least with Israel they didn't have to burn their babies.
You are being dishonest about the meaning of DUET because you don't like what it actually says.
THERE IS NO CONSENT in the word "captured".
That means catching and detaining. If you do that to another human being it becomes force. Forcing someone to become your wife is sex slavery, not marriage. Letting them go later does not change that there was no consent from the start. You are condoning rape and forced marriage.
If I see your daughter on the side of the road, pull her into a van, and rape her, would you call that "marriage", even if I let her go after I rape her? An act of war would not make the winner moral in doing that.
And again, don't bring up the age crap, because that is NOT how the humans of antiquity viewed girls back then. Men back then saw them as PROPERTY and prizes of war. Men had sex with girls at a very young age back then. Only time and technology and education has moved us away from that. You will not find the number "18" in that book when talking about age and sex.
I am sorry you don't like what we are saying attacking your horrible logic and dodging. You do not get to blame us for what we were not alive to write back then.
"That was then, this is now".
That book was written by the people of the time, for the people of that time. It has no barring on what modern science tells us about psychiatry and what consent means.
