BD, Just for starters-

Women
- If captured in war, can be taken as wives but if they don’t please the victor may not be sold into slavery. A nice concession. (Deuteronomy 20:16-17)

- must submit to their husband's whims(Colossians 3:18-19, Peter 3:1, Ephesians 5:22, Corinthians 11:8-9, Romans 1:26-27, Genesis 3:16)

- may be sold by her father as a sex slave (Exodus 21:7-8)

- if engaged, should not be raped by a stranger (unless she is a slave) (Leviticus 19:20-21)

Polygamy by the way, is OK, but only for men (Exodus 21:10, Kings 11:3, Matthew 25:1 and 5:32)

If you happen to impregnate a prostitute, then you should kill her (Genesis 38:16, 40)
However, prostitution itself is OK when the money raised is used to support needy Christians (Isaiah 23:17-18) and sinners should marry whores (Hosea 1:2).

God may have also your wife raped by your neighbour if you sin (Samuel 12:11)

This is what happens when people base their arguments on interpretations of ancient writings, regardless of context – particularly those writings with many contradictions and inconsistencies. You can’t cherry-pick the bits that support you and ignore those that contradict.

This is what gives rise to the number of spin-off religious groups that would kill over their interpretation being the only true one, and not just between religions, but within them as well.

Perhaps in matters of true faith, it should be all or nothing.

Most of the issues argued over in these sort of threads are actually cultural and distorting them into purely religious issues doesn't help.

Wobbbbbles... *ouch* :)

good try old son.. not bad. Now lets look more closely.

1/ Women captured in War. Yes, you are correct, they may be taken as WIVES by the Captor, and if they don't please him, they are to be freed. If she wants freedom, then a few nites is enough to say "sorry, this is not working out" and she is a free woman.

Gen 38:16 (there is NO verse 40 ) Judah was deceived by Tamar. Where do you get "kill" her from ? (probably the same place as the mysterious verse 40 :)

2/ Women must submit to mans whim. NEWSFLASH.. so must men to their wives whims "give to each other..... your conjugal rights"
Col 3:18 "Wives, submit to your husbands.
Col 3:19 "Husbands dont be harsh with your wives.
(its called balance, and the 2 sides of the marriage coin)

3/ May be sold as a "sex" slave ? Ex 21:7-8 Hardly, SERVANT is what I read. But it does refer to marraige also. This is not 'interpretation' I'm just reporting what it actually says.

4/ LEV 19:20 "Raped by a Stranger". The word is "sleep with" not rape. It does not mention consentual or non. I report..you decide.

5/ "Your wife raped by a neighbour" II Sam 12:11 Notice the context ? God is speaking (via Nathan) in terms of battle defeat, David has brought it upon himself, by having Uriah killed, the result will be untold shame and trouble for David. Referring to his wives as God did, he is touching David at the most relevant point of his sin. God does not arrange rape, but people do. Nathan is simply relating the reality of the day.

6/ "Sinners should marry Whores" Hos 1 err..and why not ? If they can redeem their sordid lives by marrying them and giving them stability and family... you have a problem with this ? :)

DISREGARD CONTEXT and we end up with a host of pretexts.
Hitler is a case_in_point. (cleansing_of_the_Temple) and 6million dead Jews later..... etc.

It is truly sad that you waste so much time justifying your painfully extremist position, Boaz, that Christianity is always above reproach, and Islam is forever beneath contempt, with pathetic little tap-dances like this one.

Can you not for one moment see, that instead of arguing that black is white, white is black, this is literal but that is metaphor, this can be translated as rape while that can be construed as marriage, you would serve your cause, and the rest of us, by looking for ways to be open, accepting, conciliatory and tolerant of differences?

That was rhetorical, by the way.

I don't for a moment expect you to answer.

I had to laugh Boaz in trying to spin wobbles to your view you confirm the bible is immoral. There is also somewhere but I couldnt be bothered looking for it that a widow must marry her brother in law. What shocks me is your own misogyny trying to defend such evil. Yes evil because women are willfully exploited and harmed in biblical logic. Really the bible is disgusting and more so because it is an occult guide which people believe in and follow. Just try and fathom how many women have suffered , not only from believers acting out what the bible says but also from believers treating women as inferior because that is the misogynist integrity of the message the bible installs into its worshippers.

West is quite correct in saying that the current debate within Western society re. the role of Islam can't be compared to the lead-up to the Holocaust. One wonders why Irfan likes to keep postulating that there is such a link. I've read quite a bit on Europe in the 1920s and and 1930s and one of the things that is strangely absent were Jewish demonstrators wielding placards saying things like "Behead Those Who Say That Judaism is Violent". There is just NO comparison.

Let's also not forget that Islamists wanted to demonstrate their contempt for Western civilisation long before Obarmy Sin Laden entered the fray on September 11, 2001. I can well remember a televised debate between British Muslim leaders and brave supporters of free speech during the immediate aftermath of the publication of "The Satanic Verses". To directly quote what one of these British Muslim leaders said - "Islam does not turn the other cheek." Hence their support for the hounding of Salman Rushdie

So let me get this right. If a few imams in one prayer hall in Lakemba tell their congregation that paying taxes is haraam, does that mean that all 300,000 Muslims from over 60 different countries (many of which probably only set foot in the mosque once a year) are held responsible? Including the Muslims who exposed these thick-Sheiks in the first place?

If that is the case, I'd like to declare that all believing Christians should be held responsible for the priests who molest little boys. And let's blame all Tamils for the suicide terror attacks of the Tamil Tigers.

Anyway, I notice that someone here says they've read a few books on European history. I suggest they read some stuff from genocide studies programs taught at universities. The parallels are alarming.