... continued

Deuteronomy 15:12-18

Slaves had rights in Israel. God did not condemn slavery as an institution. However slavery in Israel amounted to voluntary servitude. All slaves went free at the beginning of each sabbatical year. God strongly forbade the enslavement and oppression of individuals. Israelites could sell themselves as slaves as well as hired men and women.

This stands in contrast to the lack of dignity accorded to the common man in contemporary cultures of the Mosaic age.

(See Exodus 23:10-11 and Leviticus 25:1-7).

The cities far from the Promised Land, in contrast with Canaanite cities (vv. 10-15), were not as degenerate as the Canaanite towns. Aramean women adopted the religions of their husbands. Thus the women and children of these more remote lands did not have to die.

21:10-14

Israelite men could marry women from distant conquered cities taken as prisoners of war provided they did not already have a wife. Such a woman had to shave her head and trim her nails. These were rituals of purification customary in the ancient Near East. She received one month to mourn her parents (v.13). This may presuppose that they had died in the battle or, more likely, that she was cut off from all ties to her former life.

“Such kindly consideration is in marked contrast with the cruel treatment meted out to women captured in war among the neighboring nations…”

“This legislation could have two basic results: the men would be restrained from rape, and the women would have time to become adjusted to their new condition.”

Edwin Yamauchi “Culural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World”:

“One of the most important and difficult tasks in the interpretation of the Scriptures in general and of the passages that deal with women and marriage in particular, is the need to discern which elements are cultural, temporary, and variable, and which ones are transcultural, timeless, and universal.”

The NT dramatically elucidates the relevance and interpretation of these passages for Christians, although it requires disciplined exegesis for the non-believer.

Well said Paul L.. you show the value of this forum, where people can independantly check the RUBBISH that is trotted out so often by 'leftys' who seem to believe the slimmest shred of anything which can be used against those they consider 'enemies'.... Rache.. I think you might like to re-think what you gave us there.

KATIE O.... you warrior you :) (PTLx100) way2go mate.. as for me, I don't even try to put the situation with the slaves in any better light than that which is pretty clear from scripture. It is so much BETTER than the non Israelite and Islamic approaches it beggars belief. The idea of taking in a captive person... from the rubble of war and brutality.. and our trying to comprehend the psychological/post traumatic experience/feelings of such women is rather unrealistic.

RUBY.. I (and I suggest every Christian in Australia) am/are still waiting for a very clear apology about the 'frequent rape command' vilification. "Murder" was also too much. 'execute' would be admissable. Unless you are happy for us to use the same terminology LOUD AND CLEAR about Mohammad? but of course... truth is still truth, so in his case, when he had kaab Bin Al Ashraf 'murdered'... it was actually "murder" the Islamic source uses that word.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4436
On this matter, it might be said that there is the 'easy' way and the hard way. Its better to do something willingly than be forced...right?

Now that you have been shown the incorrectness of what you said, you can no longer claim you are acting 'in good faith and reasonable' by refusing to apologise.

Patronizing git.

Boaz i have nothing to apologise for. I have backed up my comments with passages from the Bible. As I have already stated, I refuse to get into a slanging match with you and I will not play this 'my religion is better than your religion' nonsense.

I stand by my original statements.

Ruby, I’m not sure that “My religion is better than your religion” is necessarily as childish as you make it sound. In fact, I think your critics’ complaint here is that you haven’t accurately represented the religions that subscribe to the Old Testament. Still, you’ve reached an impasse.

My own knowledge is far less detailed than that of the people you’ve been corresponding with – but I would say that there is a difference between incorporating a female captive into the community via marriage, and rape. More important, there is a difference between the view that God will avenge or punish (whatever) and the view that religious people should avenge or punish etc on God’s behalf.

No doubt it sounds odd for God to say, “Thou shalt not kill, so leave it to me”, but it’s still safer than a general licence (or, worse, a mandate) for believers to kill non-believers. Anyhow, I think that most times God threatens violence in the Old Testament, He actually relents – as though violence goes against His grain. I’d appreciate a similar reluctance on the part of many Muslims: their eagerness to kill is very disconcerting.

What do you think of my earlier suggestion that we (all of us) try to figure out WHAT TO DO, even if we cannot agree about the pathology of the situation that confronts us? By the way, are you yourself a Muslim? Excuse me for not knowing. In case it isn’t evident, I’m a Christian.

You mention dialogue, but what does this dialogue look like? Who will be involved - just the people who don't need to be? No point talking to hard-liners, and they wouldn't show up. Personally, I think it's the big middle-group that needs to be reached, but how does one get them involved in "dialogue"?

Pax,

Dear Ruby

You have come onto this forum with a goal of defending Islam, and attacking a film which is critical of it, and then, in the process, you actually attacked the Bible, which is quite fine with me, except where you say it says things it does not.

Not only did you say something it did not say, you chose something which contributes to the view that Christians believe in a God who 'promotes rape'...even 'COMMANDS' it.... now that, I'm afraid is:

a) Untrue
b) Vilification
c) Holds those who believe the Bible up to public ridicule and contempt.
d) Is VERY likely to incite hate toward Christians because of what they allegedly believe. (That God commands His people to rape)

After all.. "who in their right mind would believe in a god who commands his people to RAPE enemies" is the actual implication of what you said.

Now..you might be of the view that you have nothing to apologise for, but it was pointed out clearly to you that the bible does NOT 'command' Israelites to "rape".

If we notice that other non Christian contributors manifest a higher than usual level of contempt and hatred over this, then it becomes a serious matter.
Ginx seems to be at the head of the pack so far.

You concluded in your article as follows:

<<Fitna is a call to arms for those who hate Muslims, but unlike a real documentary, it does not analyse its subject, it does not defend its premise with more than the most superficial evidence>>

but are guilty of that very thing yourself in your attack on God, Christians and the Bible.

Last chance......to apologise.