Islam...the religion of peace?

[TriGirl 268]

Rstanley0312

Again... not really bc the Qu'ran is not written in English. The words in the Qu'ran clearly support ongoing violence and jihad.

Except when you use the word "jihad," which means "struggle" (loosely translated). The Greater Jihad, as outlined in the Qu'ran, is the internal struggle within yourself. That's where you have to fight the desires within yourself and still act the correct way (e.g. the desire to sleep with your neighbor's spouse, take what is not yours, lie, etc). The Lesser Jihad is physical warfare.

BTW, all the suras that talk about violence also say that God is most merciful. I do also recall reading that no one can judge another Muslim's practice -- that's only God's job. So for one Muslim to say they will kill someone else for not being the "right" Muslim is going against the original text. Also known in Islam as the Word of God. Pretty sad.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[billvon 2,400]

> Representing the Genesis account as being different stories in 1 & 2 as
>fact..... well... ya not fact. Your opinion.

OK. Wellhausen has very strong support from Christian theologians. The Pentateuch, per his theory, came from four sources - the Yahwist source (950 BC) the Elohist (850 BC) the Deuteronomist (600 BC) and the Priestly (500 BC.) All have separate styles, and the earliest works use different words for some very, very basic concepts (like God.) There's not much debate about this any more.

The first example of this is in Genesis. Genesis 1 is from the Priestly source; Genesis 2 is from the Yahwist source. Some clear differences:

In Genesis 1, livestock comes before man. In Genesis 2, man comes before livestock. In Genesis 1 the general order is vegetation-animals-man-woman. In Genesis 2 the general order is man-vegetation-animals-woman.

In Genesis 1, God is referred to as Elohim. In Genesis 2, God is referred to as Yahweh.

In Genesis 1, the style is very formal and list-based (seven days, seven sections.) In Genesis 2, the stye is more informal and is a narrative rather than a list of days.

In Genesis 1, the land emerges from the water and plants then grow upon it (similar to the Egyptian creation stories, from their close association with the flooding of the Nile.) In Genesis 2, the dry ground can grow no plants until God makes streams flow upon it. It is almost identical to the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation myth, which was created by desert dwellers who saw the streams in the desert as lifegivers.

In some ways it makes the Bible a lot more comprehensible. Understanding that Genesis 1 and 2 come from different sources make it possible to turn the above contradictions into comparisons between the styles of two authors, and between two creation stories.

[Rstanley0312 0]

billvon

> Representing the Genesis account as being different stories in 1 & 2 as
>fact..... well... ya not fact. Your opinion.

OK. Wellhausen has very strong support from Christian theologians. The Pentateuch, per his theory, came from four sources - the Yahwist source (950 BC) the Elohist (850 BC) the Deuteronomist (600 BC) and the Priestly (500 BC.) All have separate styles, and the earliest works use different words for some very, very basic concepts (like God.) There's not much debate about this any more.

The first example of this is in Genesis. Genesis 1 is from the Priestly source; Genesis 2 is from the Yahwist source. Some clear differences:

In Genesis 1, livestock comes before man. In Genesis 2, man comes before livestock. In Genesis 1 the general order is vegetation-animals-man-woman. In Genesis 2 the general order is man-vegetation-animals-woman.

In Genesis 1, God is referred to as Elohim. In Genesis 2, God is referred to as Yahweh.

In Genesis 1, the style is very formal and list-based (seven days, seven sections.) In Genesis 2, the stye is more informal and is a narrative rather than a list of days.

In Genesis 1, the land emerges from the water and plants then grow upon it (similar to the Egyptian creation stories, from their close association with the flooding of the Nile.) In Genesis 2, the dry ground can grow no plants until God makes streams flow upon it. It is almost identical to the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation myth, which was created by desert dwellers who saw the streams in the desert as lifegivers.

In some ways it makes the Bible a lot more comprehensible. Understanding that Genesis 1 and 2 come from different sources make it possible to turn the above contradictions into comparisons between the styles of two authors, and between two creation stories.

All things to discuss. I sent you a PM that addresses many of the points you brought up if not all of them.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[winsor 186]

billvon

> Representing the Genesis account as being different stories in 1 & 2 as
>fact..... well... ya not fact. Your opinion.

OK. Wellhausen has very strong support from Christian theologians. The Pentateuch, per his theory, came from four sources - the Yahwist source (950 BC) the Elohist (850 BC) the Deuteronomist (600 BC) and the Priestly (500 BC.) All have separate styles, and the earliest works use different words for some very, very basic concepts (like God.) There's not much debate about this any more.

The first example of this is in Genesis. Genesis 1 is from the Priestly source; Genesis 2 is from the Yahwist source. Some clear differences:

In Genesis 1, livestock comes before man. In Genesis 2, man comes before livestock. In Genesis 1 the general order is vegetation-animals-man-woman. In Genesis 2 the general order is man-vegetation-animals-woman.

In Genesis 1, God is referred to as Elohim. In Genesis 2, God is referred to as Yahweh.

In Genesis 1, the style is very formal and list-based (seven days, seven sections.) In Genesis 2, the stye is more informal and is a narrative rather than a list of days.

In Genesis 1, the land emerges from the water and plants then grow upon it (similar to the Egyptian creation stories, from their close association with the flooding of the Nile.) In Genesis 2, the dry ground can grow no plants until God makes streams flow upon it. It is almost identical to the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation myth, which was created by desert dwellers who saw the streams in the desert as lifegivers.

In some ways it makes the Bible a lot more comprehensible. Understanding that Genesis 1 and 2 come from different sources make it possible to turn the above contradictions into comparisons between the styles of two authors, and between two creation stories.

I do not get a lot of input from Christian sources regarding Torah, but Rabbis I know tend to agree that the sources of these books vary greatly.

One Rabbi, who is a degreed Historian, indicated that the 'first' four books are effectively 'prequels' to the preexisting text, which was Deuteronomy.

His contention is that the four books were transcriptions of oral lore, and incorporated a great deal of Mesopotamian content that was absorbed during the Babylonian Exile. There is significant commonality between Cuneiform records of that region and those in the non-Deuteronomy parts of Torah, in Deuteronomy not so much.

Asked about the literal veracity of the books, the response was that it is a Bronze Age family history, typical of writing of that era, and that one should not read too much into it.

It strikes me that if one had to select a big neon sign for places of worship:

The one in the Church would say "Believe!"

The one in the Synagogue would say "Think!"

The one one the Mosque would say "Believe or Die!"


BSBD,

Winsor

[Rstanley0312 0]

winsor

***> Representing the Genesis account as being different stories in 1 & 2 as
>fact..... well... ya not fact. Your opinion.

OK. Wellhausen has very strong support from Christian theologians. The Pentateuch, per his theory, came from four sources - the Yahwist source (950 BC) the Elohist (850 BC) the Deuteronomist (600 BC) and the Priestly (500 BC.) All have separate styles, and the earliest works use different words for some very, very basic concepts (like God.) There's not much debate about this any more.

The first example of this is in Genesis. Genesis 1 is from the Priestly source; Genesis 2 is from the Yahwist source. Some clear differences:

In Genesis 1, livestock comes before man. In Genesis 2, man comes before livestock. In Genesis 1 the general order is vegetation-animals-man-woman. In Genesis 2 the general order is man-vegetation-animals-woman.

In Genesis 1, God is referred to as Elohim. In Genesis 2, God is referred to as Yahweh.

In Genesis 1, the style is very formal and list-based (seven days, seven sections.) In Genesis 2, the stye is more informal and is a narrative rather than a list of days.

In Genesis 1, the land emerges from the water and plants then grow upon it (similar to the Egyptian creation stories, from their close association with the flooding of the Nile.) In Genesis 2, the dry ground can grow no plants until God makes streams flow upon it. It is almost identical to the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation myth, which was created by desert dwellers who saw the streams in the desert as lifegivers.

In some ways it makes the Bible a lot more comprehensible. Understanding that Genesis 1 and 2 come from different sources make it possible to turn the above contradictions into comparisons between the styles of two authors, and between two creation stories.

I do not get a lot of input from Christian sources regarding Torah, but Rabbis I know tend to agree that the sources of these books vary greatly.

One Rabbi, who is a degreed Historian, indicated that the 'first' four books are effectively 'prequels' to the preexisting text, which was Deuteronomy.

His contention is that the four books were transcriptions of oral lore, and incorporated a great deal of Mesopotamian content that was absorbed during the Babylonian Exile. There is significant commonality between Cuneiform records of that region and those in the non-Deuteronomy parts of Torah, in Deuteronomy not so much.

Asked about the literal veracity of the books, the response was that it is a Bronze Age family history, typical of writing of that era, and that one should not read too much into it.

It strikes me that if one had to select a big neon sign for places of worship:

The one in the Church would say "Believe!"

The one in the Synagogue would say "Think!"

The one one the Mosque would say "Believe or Die!"


BSBD,

Winsor

That take really depends on the sect the Rabbi comes from. I have experienced all sides during my time studying Hebrew and Aramaic at the Hebrew Union College. I personally think I fall into "Believe & Think". Interesting point on the categories though. Probably not too far off generally speaking.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[Coreeece 2]

billvon

>Suffice it to say that Bill's commentary was a gross misrepresentation of the story...

Just as Islamic scholars claim that people who say "the Koran calls for murder" are grossly misinterpreting it. However, the words say what they say.

My issue was that what you say doesn't jive with what the words say...

I highly doubt that Moses would command his Army to rape these virgins who were more than likely under the age of 12.

My understanding of the culture at that time was that once a female reaches physical sexual maturity, she wastes little time finding a husband and starting a family.

The women that were killed in the story were the same women that were counseled by Balaam to whore around with Israel and entice them into lewd sexual rituals. The implication was that because of God's favor on Israel, Balaam couldn't curse the israelites and allow their enemies to eradicate them - So he figured that perhaps whoring these women out would perhaps rescind that favor - and it did - nearly 12000 Israelites were killed in a plague because of it, and now these same women were inside the Israelite camp.

My point is that if the plague was caused by sexual immorality with these women, why would you just assume that Moses then commanded his army to rape their children?

Edit - it was 24,000 who died in the plague, not 12000.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[jakee 1,257]

Coreeece

My issue was that what you say doesn't jive with what the words say...

I highly doubt that Moses would command his Army to rape these virgins who were more than likely under the age of 12.

Well there's your problem. It's not that Bill's account doesn't jive with what the words say, it's that it doesn't jive with your modern assumption about what the words meant. And your modern assumption doesn't jive with what the words say. Sorry bro.

Quote

The women that were killed in the story were the same women that were counseled by Balaam to whore around with Israel and entice them into lewd sexual rituals. The implication was that because of God's favor on Israel, Balaam couldn't curse the israelites and allow their enemies to eradicate them - So he figured that perhaps whoring these women out would perhaps rescind that favor - and it did - nearly 12000 Israelites were killed in a plague because of it, and now these same women were inside the Israelite camp.

So that made it ok, did it? If you fucked a hooker, got chlamydia and then murdered her for giving it to you would you be a) fully justified or b) an evil bastard?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[turtlespeed 212]

jakee

***
My issue was that what you say doesn't jive with what the words say...

I highly doubt that Moses would command his Army to rape these virgins who were more than likely under the age of 12.

Well there's your problem. It's not that Bill's account doesn't jive with what the words say, it's that it doesn't jive with your modern assumption about what the words meant. And your modern assumption doesn't jive with what the words say. Sorry bro.

Quote

The women that were killed in the story were the same women that were counseled by Balaam to whore around with Israel and entice them into lewd sexual rituals. The implication was that because of God's favor on Israel, Balaam couldn't curse the israelites and allow their enemies to eradicate them - So he figured that perhaps whoring these women out would perhaps rescind that favor - and it did - nearly 12000 Israelites were killed in a plague because of it, and now these same women were inside the Israelite camp.

So that made it ok, did it? If you fucked a hooker, got chlamydia and then murdered her for giving it to you would you be a) fully justified or b) an evil bastard?

That ALL depends on if you understand the translation.

Read it in the original text it was written in and the story takes a completely different twist.v

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Coreeece 2]

jakee

***
My issue was that what you say doesn't jive with what the words say...

I highly doubt that Moses would command his Army to rape these virgins who were more than likely under the age of 12.

Well there's your problem. It's not that Bill's account doesn't jive with what the words say, it's that it doesn't jive with your modern assumption about what the words meant. And your modern assumption doesn't jive with what the words say. Sorry bro.

The text specifically makes a distinction between the "women" who were to be killed and the "young girls" or "female children" who were to be taken.

My "assumption" is based on the rest of the story along with the totality of scripture that suggests these young female children were to be assimilated into the culture - probably as servants - which wasn't an uncommon practice back then when it came to captives of war.

The assumption of rape is merely imposed on the text.

Again, if sexual immorality with the women in the story was the cause of a plague that killed 24,000 people, why would anyone still persistently assume that Moses would then command his army to rape their daughters?

Were some of these children raped? I don't know - the text doesn't say that - but given human nature I'm sure it was a possibility, but it wouldn't be OK and it certainly wasn't commanded by Moses.

jakee

***The women that were killed in the story were the same women that were counseled by Balaam to whore around with Israel and entice them into lewd sexual rituals. The implication was that because of God's favor on Israel, Balaam couldn't curse the israelites and allow their enemies to eradicate them - So he figured that perhaps whoring these women out would perhaps rescind that favor - and it did - nearly 12000 Israelites were killed in a plague because of it, and now these same women were inside the Israelite camp.

So that made it ok, did it? If you fucked a hooker, got chlamydia and then murdered her for giving it to you would you be a) fully justified or b) an evil bastard?

The purpose of posting that was to draw insight from the text to show why Moses wouldn't command his army to rape the daughters of those women, not to justify the nature of war as a good thing.

The culture of war is still pretty nasty. It hasn't even been 100 years since we incinerated over 100,000 men, women, and children in the matter of minutes. Do you consider Truman and his soldiers to be evil bastards?

I find it entertaining that you would equate women that were directly involved in a plot to eradicate the Israelites to a hooker that gave me VD. Far be it from me to expect you to consider the nature of war and survival 3400 years ago in a desert where everyone around is trying to wipe you out. I suppose it's much easier to just write them off as a bunch of pillaging rapist rebels from Africa.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

My "assumption" is based on the rest of the story along with the totality of scripture that suggests these young female children were to be assimilated into the culture - probably as servants - which wasn't an uncommon practice back then when it came to captives of war.

The assumption of rape is merely imposed on the text.

So, you think raping slaves and prisoners wasn't an uncommon practice 2500 years ago?

I've got a bridge to sell you

Quote

I find it entertaining that you would equate women that were directly involved in a plot to eradicate the Israelites to a hooker that gave me VD. Far be it from me to expect you to consider the nature of war and survival 3400 years ago in a desert where everyone around is trying to wipe you out.

Fair enough. Now that you mention it, I don't know why I would expect the servant of God, acting under God's direct command, to exhibit any more morality than the barbarian tribes surrounding him.

Quote

I suppose it's much easier to just write them off as a bunch of pillaging rapist rebels from Africa.

What do you think of the pillaging rapist rebels in Africa? Any chance they could be acting under the command of a righteous God?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Coreeece 2]

jakee

What do you think of the pillaging rapist rebels in Africa?

Not much...rather than assimilating captive children into a viable culture, they just leave them to wonder as orphans in the wilderness - that is of course until the Christians come along and take care of them...

jakee

Any chance they could be acting under the command of a righteous God?

Nah, I think pulling one pathetic lot out of Africa was influence enough...

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Coreeece 2]

winsor

Asked about the literal veracity of the books, the response was that it is a Bronze Age family history, typical of writing of that era, and that one should not read too much into it.

Wow, seems like a miracle of God that such a typical family history has survived all the way to what it has become today...

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[jakee 1,257]

Coreeece

***What do you think of the pillaging rapist rebels in Africa?

Not much...rather than assimilating captive children into a viable culture, they just leave them to wander as orphans in the wilderness

Yeah, killing their mothers, raping them and then keeping them as slaves is so much more civilised than killing their mothers, raping them and leaving them behind. Your explanation of the bible does sound so much better than Bill's.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[winsor 186]

Coreeece

***Asked about the literal veracity of the books, the response was that it is a Bronze Age family history, typical of writing of that era, and that one should not read too much into it.

Wow, seems like a miracle of God that such a typical family history has survived all the way to what it has become today...

It is what it is.

We still hold the copyright on the original.

[jakee 1,257]

winsor

******Asked about the literal veracity of the books, the response was that it is a Bronze Age family history, typical of writing of that era, and that one should not read too much into it.

Wow, seems like a miracle of God that such a typical family history has survived all the way to what it has become today...

It is what it is.

We still hold the copyright on the original.

I'd take issue with the word 'typical' applied to any epic works from such an early time. It'd be like saying the Iliad is typical of Greek writing 2800 years ago or that Gilgamesh is typical Mesopotamian writing from 2000BC. It's the birth of written language - I don't think there is a 'type'.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Coreeece 2]

jakee

******What do you think of the pillaging rapist rebels in Africa?

Not much...rather than assimilating captive children into a viable culture, they just leave them to wander as orphans in the wilderness

Yeah, killing their mothers, raping them and then keeping them as slaves is so much more civilised than killing their mothers, raping them and leaving them behind. Your explanation of the bible does sound so much better than Bill's.

Statements like that make me think that you haven't been paying attention and may still be having trouble with your analogies...

Moses did not commanded his army to rape children.

Rape was punishable by death.

However, If the victim was not betrothed, the rapist was to pay the father 50 shekels of silver, marry her, and never divorce her...

Now people may not like that...they may reject everything in scripture because of that one statement. They may reject their faith. They may reject God. They may even attempt to suppress their own undeniable desire to believe...but at least they are rejecting what the "words say they say" rather than what Bill's embellishment says they say...

It may seem trivial to you, but I thinks it's important to give a concerted effort to understand in it's totality what it is we are accepting or rejecting and how it may relate to us.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Moses did not commanded his army to rape children.

Only if you assume a bronze age tribe wouldn't rape their slaves and prisoners. And there really arent any words for just how obtuse that assumption is.

Quote

Rape was punishable by death.

However, If the victim was not betrothed, the rapist was to pay the father 50 shekels of silver, marry her, and never divorce her...

That's if you rape a person. Slaves aren't people, perish the thought! You really need to take your own advice and put things in the context of the time period you're talking about, rather than keep displaying your ignorance of their social order.

Quote

It may seem trivial to you, but I thinks it's important to give a concerted effort to understand in it's totality what it is we are accepting or rejecting and how it may relate to us.

And you are accepting that a God who is the font of all goodness commanded his followers to be no better than the barbarians that surrounded them, but it's ok because that's how everyone acted back then.

I thought you guys hated moral equivalence?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Coreeece 2]

Quote

Quote

Moses did not commanded his army to rape children.

Only if you assume a bronze age tribe wouldn't rape their slaves and prisoners. And there really arent any words for just how obtuse that assumption is.

Nonsense...you can assume that some soldiers might rape a woman and still say that Moses wouldn't have commanded it.

Do you have anything to back up your claim that the rape of child servants was as prevalent as you make it out to be?

Why would you assume he would command the rape of the children right after dealing with a plague caused by the sexual immorality with their mothers?

Quote

Quote

Rape was punishable by death.

However, If the victim was not betrothed, the rapist was to pay the father 50 shekels of silver, marry her, and never divorce her...

That's if you rape a person. Slaves aren't people, perish the thought! You really need to take your own advice and put things in the context of the time period you're talking about, rather than keep displaying your ignorance of their social order.

The sexual acts with the children's mothers weren't acceptable, so why would it be acceptable to rape their daughters regardless of social order?

Quote

Quote

]It may seem trivial to you, but I thinks it's important to give a concerted effort to understand in it's totality what it is we are accepting or rejecting and how it may relate to us.

And you are accepting that a God who is the font of all goodness commanded his followers to be no better than the barbarians that surrounded them, but it's ok because that's how everyone acted back then.

Well, I wouldn't say they were as bad...it wasn't like the Israelite women were the ones whoring themselves out in a plot to wipe out an entire civilization.

One of the attributes of God is vengeance...not too many people like that, but I can't think of anyone more qualified to exact judgement.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

• Quote

[regulator 0]

jakee

******What do you think of the pillaging rapist rebels in Africa?

Not much...rather than assimilating captive children into a viable culture, they just leave them to wander as orphans in the wilderness

Yeah, killing their mothers, raping them and then keeping them as slaves is so much more civilised than killing their mothers, raping them and leaving them behind. Your explanation of the bible does sound so much better than Bill's.

The quality of life back then was nothing compared to what it is now. Lots of people died..some for no reason. What's so hard to figure out about it?

[billvon 2,400]

>I highly doubt that Moses would command his Army to rape these virgins who
>were more than likely under the age of 12.

Again, the words say what they say. Perhaps soldiers in those days were far more moral than soldiers today - but I tend to doubt it.

In any case the 12 year old girls were arguably better off than the 12 year old boys, who were ordered to be slaughtered. Biblical leaders ordering the wholesale slaughter of children? Hard to defend that.

[Coreeece 2]

billvon

>I highly doubt that Moses would command his Army to rape these virgins who
>were more than likely under the age of 12.

Again, the words say what they say. Perhaps soldiers in those days were far more moral than soldiers today - but I tend to doubt it.

The words say "keep alive for yourselves all the young girls"

You could say whatever you want with regard to what happens afterward. You can say they were raped, beaten, loved, assimilated into the culture, eventually given in marriage, etc.

For whatever reason, you chose to say rape and impose it onto the text as if that's what it actually said.

Again, if the sexual acts with the mothers of these children were unacceptable, why would you think that it would be acceptable to rape their daughters and that Moses would even go as far to command it?

billvon

In any case the 12 year old girls were arguably better off than the 12 year old boys, who were ordered to be slaughtered. Biblical leaders ordering the wholesale slaughter of children? Hard to defend that.

I was wondering why it was taking so long to bring it up again. At least you got it right this time.

Why do you think they did it?

A. For fun
B. For revenge
C. Doesn't matter
D. It's just common place in the culture of War
E. It was perceived as necessary for the continued survival of Israel
F. To eliminate the threat of future rebellion of the assimilated boys
G. To eliminate the threat of the boys avenging their parents in the future
H. Evil Bastards
I. No Reason
J. Other

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Nonsense...you can assume that some soldiers might rape a woman and still say that Moses wouldn't have commanded it.

Nonsense. Widespread rape is an inevitable consequence of the order. Unless Moses is as clueless about human nature as you he knows exactly what's going to happen when you tell a bunch of soldiers drunk on battle to take a large number of female slaves.

Quote

Do you have anything to back up your claim that the rape of child servants was as prevalent as you make it out to be?

Yes, it's called reality. Tell me a culture where female slaves don't get raped.

Quote

Why would you assume he would command the rape of the children right after dealing with a plague caused by the sexual immorality with their mothers?

Because that's what the book said he did. Besides, like you say, they've had the plague already. Not going to make things worse, is it?

Quote

The sexual acts with the children's mothers weren't acceptable, so why would it be acceptable to rape their daughters regardless of social order?

Why wouldn't it? It's what always, always happened at that time. And, as you've made clear, there's no expectation for the children of God to behave any better than the barbarians.

Quote

Well, I wouldn't say they were as bad...it wasn't like the Israelite women were the ones whoring themselves out in a plot to wipe out an entire civilization.

OK, so the Midianites had sex with the Israelites (and who's fault is it that the Israelites couldn't keep their dicks dry, by the way?) in a plot to piss of the Lord and remove the unfair advantage of the Israelites. In return the Israelites use their unfair advantage to help them actually wipe out an entire civilisation. And not with sex, but with swords and fire.

You're right, God didn't order the Israelites to be as bad as everyone else, he ordered them to be worse.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

The quality of life back then was nothing compared to what it is now. Lots of people died..some for no reason. What's so hard to figure out about it?

Absolutely nothing... unless you slot a God who is the font of all goodness into the middle of it. Then it makes no fucking sense at all.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

You could say whatever you want with regard to what happens afterward. You can say they were raped, beaten, loved, assimilated into the culture, eventually given in marriage, etc.

For whatever reason, you chose to say rape and impose it onto the text as if that's what it actually said.

Yes, because some of us live in the real world. According to your assumptions you live somewhere else, in a land with many more rainbows and unicorns and fairy dust.

Quote

Why do you think they did it?

B. For revenge

Moses makes that pretty clear.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Coreeece 2]

Quote

Quote

Nonsense...you can assume that some soldiers might rape a woman and still say that Moses wouldn't have commanded it.

he knows exactly what's going to happen when you tell a bunch of soldiers drunk on battle to take a large number of female slaves.

That's probably why he made specific laws with regard to how female captives were to be treated.

They were to be assimilated into the culture - most likely as domestic servants. They could be given in marriage and were not to be treated brutally.

If a man desired one, he was to marry her and she would no longer be considered a servant. He couldn't treat her brutally and needed to give her time to mourn the loss of her family.

Now this was written in 1405 so I'm not sure whether it was verbally communicated to the soldiers 2 years earlier or not. However, Moses did command his soldiers to purify themselves - so any sexual activity would have violated this command.

Now again, these captives were considered the "little ones" - mostly children under the age of 12 - many, if not most were probably younger than that - between the ages of 5-9.

I'm not aware of any 5 year olds getting married. - That's just ridiculous.

Quote

Tell me a culture where female slaves don't get raped.

In some cultures, it's not acceptable to rape female slaves, nor is it commanded. In fact, there are laws against it - The Israelites where an example of this type of culture.