Why is belief in a higher power required?

[Esquilax]

I believe in the death penalty, there are some crimes so bad that a person deserves to die for the horrific crime, we just went through trials for crimes so terrible they would be unacceptable even in hell, yet none of the criminals got the death penalty, most here were disappointed. I doubt that anyone would ever feel safe around these men, they are truly animals of the lowest kind.

Wow, this is really low hanging fruit since just a page or two ago you were fine with the death penalty for children simply for the crime of being born to parents who went against the word of god...

Oh, I see sex is now rape period, how in the world can you get rape from that verse, I'm not the one making it hard. Your trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

I was seriously going to let all this go, since it's apparent that we aren't going to ever reach an understanding on what is and isn't immoral where god is concerned, but come on; just use a little logic. You're still arguing that because the word rape isn't present, the action of rape did not occur, despite the fact that a simple relationship with reality tells us that, in the situation depicted it would be highly unlikely for consent to have been given.

Once again, words do not determine action, actions do; if I described a murder by calling it "being knocked out with permanence," I am still describing a murder, I've just used a circuitous language choice. It's just a fairly interesting linguistic trick, writers use it all the time; there was this cool short story I read once where the writer worded the scene in such a way as to make one assume he was describing the pruning of a garden, but when we reach the end and receive more context, we realize that all along what is being described is the dismemberment of a body. Now, given what we know at the ending, does that mean the writer was describing one thing- the garden- for the majority of the story, and then a murder at the end? No, of course not; he was describing a murder all along. Because the words don't determine the actions.

They were turned on to each other, slipping around, cheating on David, committing adultery just as David did.

But that's you throwing chaff. There's nothing in the passage to indicate that.

Sorry, I was not trying to put words in your mouth, what I was getting at is you nor anyone else ever says anything about the godless nations of that time destroying others.

Oh, that's an easy one; there's no assumption from people like you that those other slaughters were just or moral. We all think those are bad, there's nothing to debate over; however, when we come to the Isrealites and killings surrounding your god, there's suddenly some disagreement, and thus a need to point out the immorality there.

Like I have said the people of Israel made an oath with God and if they disobeyed the nation would be punished, this story is just part of many evils the Israelites did. By using the word naughty you're trying to trivialize the great sins committed. They were trying to commit unnatural acts upon a man and when they could not do that they spent the night raping his concubine over and over until they killed her. Then the men of Benjamin aided in their crime by hiding them.

Incidentally, why didn't they just go and deal with the men responsible? Show a little restraint? Why didn't god just take them out? He's shown to have no issues with messing with people who break the rules elsewhere, after all.

Yep, atheist use their brained washed minds to cherry pick through scripture, you are like so many atheist, no original thoughts of your own, just parrot those who come before you.

What Ryantology said. It's always interesting to me how unwilling theists are to actually do this.