Don't expect fundy atheists to take too kindly to your analysis, Mariano. Not only because it bursts their "evil bible" bubble, but because their aasumption that the authors of the Bible are bronze-age barbarians actually argues for the case that the Bible might be divinely inspired - since, according to the fundy atheists, those same barbarians should be incapable of demonstrating mercy and compassion on their own.
Of course, and I don't know if you'll pick this up in your next thread, the atheists conveniently omit the next, and concluding verse, to the book: "In the those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right IN HIS OWN EYES."As far as I'm aware, this final phrase is used only a half dozen or so times in the Bible and is never used to condone a person's actions. See also Isaiah 5:13,18-21
Wow you guys are amazing, you can actually with a straight face say that "hey they weren't RAPED they just had their relatives murdered and then were forced to be wives the murderers. See it's not bad." People like you need to wake up, your religion is a joke, unfortunately not a very funny one. The best we can hope for is that you and the Muslims and Jews all wipe each other out leaving the rest of us athiests (plus the more moderate religions like Buddhism) in peace.
Let us consider the facts of the matter:To begin with, we may note Deuteronomy 20:10 states, “When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.”...is what you said. But is that all Deuteronomy 20:10 states? What's after it? Oh yeah!: "As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you." (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)Note that this quote, and your own, was found on evilbible.com, AT THE VERY PAGE YOU ARE CONDEMING.You later misquote FROM THIS PAGE TO SERVE YOUR INTERESTS about the entire "living with murderers of familiy" idea."When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion." This basically says that she has to humiliate herself and whatnot and that after a month, YOU MAY HAVE RELATIONS WITH HER. Notice how it does not take into account WHAT THE WOMAN WANTED AT THE TIME. Of course then again, the bible never does.Note once more that the quote YOU are using came from evilbible.comObviously, you can't find YOUR OWN proof, so you misrepresent thiers.
It makes me sad that someone would take so much time and effort and go to this extent to actually try to defend the parts of the bible where it clearly has condoned and encouraged rape, either as a "punishment" against the victims or as a "reward" for the perpetrators, as per God's will, by trying to say that it doesn't say what it does in fact say, just because one can't handle the obvious truth on the matter - that the Christian Bible does indeed condone rape by refusing to recoginize it for what it is and by making excuses for it.There is no denying it. Isaiah 13:16 is one of the worse examples of God using rape (and infanticide) as a tool to dispense his wrath, but there are plenty of others such as the ones quoted at evilbible.com which are just about as bad, where it clearly and undeniably says that, in accordance with God's will and with his blessing, women were taken captive against their will and raped (forced to have sex) by men of God who were sanctioned by God to do so, after being forced to marry the men who had murdered their families, to include their mothers and other non-virgin female relatives as well as all of their male relatives.The only thing that you're proving here with this pointless rant is that you have no respect at all for women, because with your arguments it's clear that you don't think that a husband forcing his wife to have sex against her will counts as rape just because they're "married", even when the so-called marriage was forced on her as well. And that just proves to me that it is impossible to support women's rights and be a "true Christian" at the same time, so nice going there.And your incessently snotty attitude against atheists reveals your insecurity with your faith in your fragile belief system and you feel very threatened by those who speak out against it to point out it's obvious flaws in both logic and morality.
I can with a straight face say that God does not condone rape in the sense that we know it. Dueteronomy 22:25 speaks of rape as we know it and the penalty for the guy is death. God considers it as though the man took someone's life which is a good analogy of rape. How do I come to this conclusion, by the fact that the Hebrew word 'Chazaq' is used in only this verse of this section of scripture and not in the few verses around it which seem to be consensual. 'Chazaq' is also used in the blatant scene of rape recorded in 2 Sam 13:14.
That verse only applies to a girl that is BETROTHED. It says immediately afterwards that if the girl is not betrothed, then if he is discovered raping her he must pay her father and marry her. The issue involved that this law requires death for is the defilement of another man's "property"
Jesus Christ was the great liberator of women historically
In this case, unlike with the section on murder which really was just a list of justifications for atrocity, I'm almost completely certain that evilbible has this wrong. Their whole claim was based off of the premise that a girl would not go for the killer of her family, so any relations with her would have to be forced. While that premise is almost assuredly true if you were talking about a particular girl and the man who single handedly killed her family, this breaks down when you take it to the scope of an army and an entire city. It is well within the realm of possibility that a young woman could fall for a sympathetic young soldier if he was not the actual man who slew her family, especially since he could quite truthfully tell her that he had very little choice in going to war, as his tribe would execute him for not doing such a duty. Attempting to corroborate their claims by saying that an Israelite couldn't marry her people was no aid at all, as it still wouldn't deny the possibility of consensual non married sex (though this may be frowned on as fornication, saying that an Israelite wouldn't fornicate but would have gone straight to rape is a ridiculous jump) The only portion that is even a little fuzzy is the passage where the girls are mentioned at the same time as the livestock and goods and the soldiers are given permission to "enjoy the spoils", but that's not enough to build a case on
*EDIT* I apologize, I was referring only to the passages about rape in conquest
To infernus006: Isaiah 13:16 isn't COMMANDING anyone to do those things to anyone, it's foretelling the cruel things people are going to do to each other during the Tribulation. Go read it again with that in mind.