- Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.
On the contrary. The Israelites believed in a merciful God and was one that was to govern and favor the Israelites.
No one said He had to care for everyone.
eta: the Amelek/ites were the greatest foes Israel ever had, and you forget that they spared the Kenites for their kindness.
and the livestock.
That’s a rather centric viewpoint, don’t you think? First calling him the god of the Old Testament, and then neglecting to mention that the so-called New Testament is all about Jeebus and not about a people?
Sheesh. If the Israelites had not been such homicidal jerks, that Jesus guy would’ve never existed.
Cite?
Rape isn’t a non-issue; a whole bloodbath ensued when Dinah was raped. In regards to Devarim, I only see rape mentioned in ch. 22, where the punishment is death.
But for all of the terrible things you find, there is also good: commandments to give to the poor at the end of a harvest, prohibitions against theft and murder, laws for proper judgment and courts, etc.
Sorry: for which Saul was punished for (taking spoils from a conquered land against Gods wishes is no bueno).
The Amelekites attacked the Israelites after they left Sinai.
That was revenge 3,000 years ago, I suppose.
you … are as truthful as Barack Obama :eek:. No, there are no passages commanding rape of female captives, virgin or otherwise. There is a single passage permitting (but not demanding) capture and enslavement of virgin girls as opposed to married women in some particular historical situation (which enslavement could be followed up by a forced marriage but not by rape, which would have constituted adultery).
I agree. There are none that I’ve ever heard of, and I thought I’ve heard them all.
The passages where it may be instructed to take virgins is a matter of enslaving or marrying them, not raping them. That would be an act of mercy 3,000 years ago, where generally women were ‘spoils’ and men were all killed in war.
I always liked this one since I saw the bolded part quoted in A Philosophical Scrivener:
[QUOTE=Robert Ingersoll]
When we think of the poor Jews, destroyed, murdered, bitten by serpents, visited by plagues, decimated by famine, butchered by each other, swallowed by the earth, frightened, cursed, starved, deceived, robbed and outraged, how thankful we should be that we are not the chosen people of God. No wonder that they longed for the slavery of Egypt, and remembered with sorrow the unhappy day when they exchanged masters. Compared with Jehovah, Pharaoh was a benefactor, and the tyranny of Egypt was freedom to those who suffered the liberty of God.
While reading the Pentateuch, I am filled with indignation, pity and horror. Nothing can be sadder than the history of the starved and frightened wretches who wandered over the desolate crags and sands of wilderness and desert, the prey of famine, sword, and plague. Ignorant and superstitious to the last degree, governed by falsehood, plundered by hypocrisy, they were the sport of priests, and the food of fear. God was their greatest enemy, and death their only friend.
It is impossible to conceive of a more thoroughly despicable, hateful, and arrogant being, than the Jewish god. **He is without a redeeming feature. In the mythology of the world he has no parallel. He, only, is never touched by agony and tears. He delights only in blood and pain. Human affections are naught to him. He cares neither for love nor music, beauty nor joy. A false friend, an unjust judge, a braggart, hypocrite, and tyrant, sincere in hatred, jealous, vain, and revengeful, false in promise, honest in curse, suspicious, ignorant, and changeable, infamous and hideous: – such is the God of the Pentateuch. **
[/QUOTE]
So says a man who has never studied the Torah.
I agree it is not complicated, but your paraphrase is a total mischaracterization.
What it says is, annihilate the people who are living where you want to live. Period.
As for the people living around but not in that land, annihilate them if they do not submit to forced labor.
Negotiation concluded.
The true horror of the flood story is that evil survived anyway which he would have had to know being omniscient and all. I mean, I know he set out to punish mankind but to leave some alive to just do the same things that made you that angry in the first place is just plain cruel.
Hey God, here’s an idea. Grab a couple of ribs, wipe everybody out and start over. Oh, and this time, forget about the free will thing because having free will to “do exactly what I want you to or I will destroy you” isn’t getting the concept.
It says to try to make peace. You really need to read this before you start talking about the Hebrew Bible.
Rashi says, “Do not pity them, for they will not pity you.”
I do not know of any battle (save the last 50 years or so) where we are instructed to be merciful.
If you go to a hostile person, and they do not want to make peace, do you retreat and wait for them to attack you? Or do you plan accordingly?
If by plan accordingly you mean plan to wipe out the innocent civilians then no, I wouldn’t advocate planning accordingly. Same with wiping out enemy soldiers who no longer had the will or ability to fight. Oh and it goes without saying about the livestock.
There is a very good reason to be merciful regarding battles. You may just lose and you’d want the same consideration from your enemy.
Oh for the love of God, you’re talking about tribes that lived 3,000 years ago, long before the fucking Hague !
Perhaps the Amalekites should’ve thought of that.
Keep in mind that anyone who was captured by a foreign enemy would be toast. It doesn’t matter if they were captured by men or women. The heroine Judith is a good example: She lobbed the head off of Holofernes and put it on a post.
You would have made a bad soldier.
At any rate, there is only one nation in the world that is governed (mostly) by Jewish people, and that nation does not rape and kill all in its path, contrary to what you believe. So this assault on Deuteronomy is a little odd. Those who preach hatred against non Jews are on the fringes and not tolerated. Even in that one Jewish country.*
Donno why the Globe only quoted two Israeli papers that aren’t read much inside Israel proper, but maybe no one there reads Hebrew. Whatever.
Well, there is this passage: Deuteronomy 22:28-29
So, the marriage is the penalty for laying hold of her and humbling her. Truly an act of mercy.
Now, does lay hold of her and lie with her mean rape? At least one bible version thinks so.
Yes, exactly. He has to look after her and provide for her financially (which is what marriage effectively did for women at the time), and (as you quote) “may not put her away all his days” - he can’t dump her and leave her to fend for herself, which she would have been basically unable to do.
Contrary to what I believe? Ok, you lost all credibility with me there. You have no idea what I believe and to say that after only one post in which I comment on something that happened as you said 3000 years ago, long before the current nation you stated I have beliefs about was granted nationhood, you know, within the last 100 years is pathetic.
Maybe I’m wrong though. Cite anywhere that you can, search if you have to, anywhere that my beliefs about the nation you describe are as you describe. Since, unlike you, I know exactly what I believe, I’ll bet my life that you won’t find it. What are you willing to bet on your psychic ability?
I think it’s silly to attack or defend the mores of a bronze age soceity based on the mores of today.
When you try to base your moral outlook, in the context of the modern world, on the moral outlook of a bronze age soceity, that’s when you get into trouble…
Quite right, this bronze age God belongs on the scrap heap.
Let’s melt him down!
(As a side note, I do get a bit annoyed with the “the god of Jewish people is a [fill-in-the-blank litany of unmitigated horrible attributes] - thank goodness the Christian god is so nice and laid-bank and friendly and loving!” dualism. It is antisemitic even if it isn’t explicitly referring to Judaism.)
I couldn’t agree more, on both counts.
Sex is the minimum requirement that seals a marriage. So if he does not marry and provide for her, she becomes an adulteress if she attempts to marry someone else. Consider also that the woman could be pregnant.
One is a matter of presumed consensual sex, the other, forced sex.
Why is that hard for you to figure out? A man who forces himself on a woman would be put to death.