Support NeoGAF

[RustyNails]

Suddenly Lindsey Graham's plan to bomb the fuck out of everyone is sounding better.

Do you want to create more terrorists? Because this is how you create more terrorists. ISIS leadership is made up of baathists generals and commanders from Saddam's army.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

No. How can you free a slave if there is no such thing as a slave? Also, freeing a slave applies to freeing your own slaves, not being a hero freeing other people's slaves or whatever (how dare you touch other people's property, eh).

In the NY Times article it even mentions ISIS sometimes frees their own slaves, and ISIS's own rulebook says it's a virtue. Yet they enslave thousands of women. Does it make sense? No, because ISIS are brainwashed idiots and assholes, but it's hardly shocking that there would be contradictions in their dogma. The Bible is full of contradictions as well.


100% this.


According the link in the OP, they still enslave Jewish and Christian women despite them being "People of the Book". It's just that they need a bit of special pleading to do so, whereas the Yazidi are 100% fair game at all times because, y'know, they're devil worshippers.


And what's stopping him from smiting these evil nations, hmm? He's God. Omnipotent allmighty creator of the universe. He caused the Flood. He can snap his fingers and make things happen, yet now he needs a lowly army of men to get rid of evil people?

How can people not see the blatant flaws in this story and believe this horseshit? Seriously.

It makes way more sense than these stories were made up by believers who thought they had their god on their side and made their own arbitrary rules based on their primitive sense of morality, than god actually laying down those rules. It also explains the large number of contradictions and how pathetically outdated and barbaric these rules are.


Low. Fucking. Bar.


All it helps doing is cementing the fact that scripture is 100% bullshit and completely useless to a modern system of morality.

Addressing any of this wouldn’t really be of any benefit because you need to understand a bit of biblical history to grasp some of the points I would bring up. I can see your really upset and thats understandable because the topic of this thread is about the most horrific treatment a person can endure. Its fine if you don’t think the bible is anything but a work of 40 men over 1600 years and isn’t anything special. I am merely defending the idea that it promotes a system of rape and abuse of people which it in no way does.

 

[Soriku]

He said that by raping me, he is drawing closer to God,

 

[AlucardGV]

guys, i don't think you're gonna find a clear and detailed explaination of rape in a 1600 years old book.
and even less with google, probably.
it's kinda confusing because you find tons of results but you don't know if it's true or not

 

[RageWaffles]

There are some parts of the New Testament that pretty much say that the Old Testament law isn't applicable anymore though, which pretty much gets rid of that. It continues in "spirit", due to the promise being fulfilled, but the letter of the law isn't relevant.

Galatians 3; 23-29

On the other hand...

Straight from Jesus's mouth (to Matthew's ears to the writing instruments of countless priests and monks) :

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17-20

Later, Jesus called out some Pharisees for not killing disobedient children like the commandments and Old Testament say to:

Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. Matthew 15:3-6

 

[entremet]

On the other hand...

Straight from Jesus's mouth (to Matthew's ears to the writing instruments of countless priests and monks) :

Later, Jesus called out some Pharisees for not killing disobedient children like the commandment says to:

But again, this is the same Jesus that "broke the Sabbath" to heal people.

I don't remember anywhere in the Gospels where Jesus chided Pharisees for not killing children.

On the contrary, the Gospels mention his fierce defense of children.

Mark 10:13-16

People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16 And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them.

But regarding the law not disappearing, it doesn't say that whole law is applicable. He never mentions that. He actually reveals the law true intent in the following passages, when he clarifies murder, adultery, and such in much stricter terms than the law ever did.

 

[Duji]

Apparently the "eternal" God has a tendency to change his mind. How can anyone take this stuff seriously?

 

[dabig2]

I'm not even quoting that mess of bullshit, but I don't know how people are so confused and angry that ISIS is literally doing what the almight, Creator of the Universe and its laws commanded and instructed not more than 3000 and fewer years before. This is the only "evidence" we have of him, and what we have is what we got. And what we have is a god that I firmly believe ISIS worships.

Only question is what god do you worship. Because this eternal,loving,omniscient and all-seeing god - he's not found in those ancient middle eastern scriptures.

 

[Siegcram]

Others have used ideologies like communism (Stalin, Mao, etc.) to kill millions of people in the name of atheism.

Yeah ... I don't think so.

 

[ghostjoke]

Sickening but not surprising.

 

[itchyass86]

I read article yesterday. It took a long time because of how disgusting and cruel the content is.

I'm generally the kind of person who would shy away from confrontation, but I believe that if there was ever a war - then that would be the kind of thing that I would volunteer to fight against. Human beings don't deserve to be treated with any sort of disregard and cruelty. After I graduate from the University, I hope to find a way to help helpless people like those women. I can't stand for this kind of injustice. Those folks deserve a much better life.

 

[Chariot]

Yeah ... I don't think so.

Think again. Communism inherently loathes religion. Read up on Marx and Lenin. While communists might accept religion to some degree because they are aware that you can't unbelieve people with a switch, it works towars eradication of religion.

 

[Air]

That was my first impression too.

 

[dabig2]

Think again. Communism inherently loathes religion. Read up on Marx and Lenin. While communists might accept religion to some degree because they are aware that you can't unbelieve people with a switch, it works towars eradication of religion.

They weren't killing because they intrinsically hated religion. They were merely killing the competition. Religion vs state has been a battle waged for millennia.

 

[Erevador]

Others have used ideologies like communism (Stalin, Mao, etc.) to kill millions of people in the name of atheism.

No. Those are state religions that essentially revolve around making a central figure divine. MaoISM. StalinISM. Like Hirohito in Japan.

People always bring this up, and say that Nazism was an atheist movement, when in fact it drew on centuries of Roman Catholic hatred for the Jews. It also revolved around a highly superstitious and mythologized vision of superior Aryan identity and history.

Just like conventional religion, this kind of thinking rejects an evidence-based view of the universe.

 

[Air]

No. Those are state religions that essentially revolve around making a central figure divine. MaoISM. StalinISM. Like Hirohito in Japan.

People always bring this up, and say that Nazism was an atheist movement, when in fact it drew on centuries of Roman Catholic hatred for the Jews. It also revolved around a highly superstitious and mythologized vision of superior Aryan identity and history.

Just like conventional religion, this kind of thinking rejects an evidence-based view of the universe.

Like in threads prior, it's best to not devolve into a debate over if those communist movementss were motivated through atheism or not (you can make a good case for either). It's best to leave it in as its own thing and carry on.

 

[Siegcram]

Think again. Communism inherently loathes religion. Read up on Marx and Lenin. While communists might accept religion to some degree because they are aware that you can't unbelieve people with a switch, it works towars eradication of religion.

It loathes the possessive nature of religion, not the concept itself. Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong-Un were/are worshipped.

And the murders are politically motivated, not by atheism, which can't really be the driving force for anything, by definition.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

At this point their philosophy seems like it's at least one third rape based.

 

[Kreed]

You are both getting confused here because you don't understand the context of what is going on.

WHY FIGHT THESE NATIONS?
God tells Moses the reason he was using them as a nation to fight these specific nations In Deut 9:4




The nations are wicked engaging in child sacrifice, beast and child prostitution and god deems they gots to go. Plus many of them attacked Israel when they were leaving Egypt and in a weakened condition and because they didn't help them they in turn would receive no help.

You do know that this isn't a "good" defense in present society right? Someone being "worse" from God's perspective doesn't make the actions excusable/better.

RULES OF CONDUCT
That said he outlines the rules of engaging in combat with these nations:

Deut 7:1-3



2: You must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy.

3: You must not intermarry with them. Do not let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters,

The rules continue as you noted in Deuteronomy 20:10-14 but that deals with a nation that surrenders. If they surrender they men were put to forced labor and the women and children sparred.

Giving a surrender option doesn't make these actions any less excusable. I get that in the context of the "Bible" this is supposed to be better but it isn't.

BUT HOW DO WE KNOW THEY WEREN'T RAPING THE WOMEN?

During the military campaign the only way the war could be holy was by them never engaging in any 'unclean' practice. This included not only sex but a orgasm of any kind:

Deut 23:9-10


Therefore sexual contact with women, even their own wives, was prohibited to them and they voluntarily abstained from it. This was why Uriah who was interesting enough a Hittite, when called in from the field by King David, did not go at night to his home in Jerusalem to be with his wife. When King David, ignoring the sacred requirements of the military campaign, asked Uriah why he had not gone home that night, that loyal soldier replied: “The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in booths; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open field; shall I then go into my house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.”

Also god outlined what was to be done with women that were brought back to Israel from one of the foreign nations:

Deut 21:10-12


So no raping no dealing with them in any violent way. If they did try and Rape someone Deut 22:25 tells us what would happen:

You rape someone you die. The one time a women is raped in the bible it is so appalling to the rest of the nation that they go to war with the family line that was responsible and almost wipe every single one out.

Plus its not a situation where the bible is just being vague and doesn't acknowledge rape. God tells the Israelites that if they don't worship him and instead worship gods of the other nations and commit child sacrafice that he will not protect them when they go to war and there will be a profound difference between their warfare when god is with them and when he is not. He describes what would happen in Isa 13:

Isa 13:16



So no raping under any circumstances.

Further the Israelites also had strict guidelines with their slaves. They could not harm them in any way nor push them to do any task they weren't willing to do themselves. On top of that they were only slaves for 7 years at which point they were to be released. Evidence that they were not dealt harshly had to do with the law that forbid it but also that many of the nations that surrendered became prominent individuals within the Isrealite court system.

I hope that helps

These aren't in the same context of what I quoted you and there is a clear difference why in these verses God/Moses are laying down rules against it vs what I was referencing and that is we no longer talking about prisoners of war from "unworthy nations". Hell, I excluded this one verse:

But these instructions apply only to distant towns, not to the towns of nations nearby.

Which all your verses come after. So clearly, he was referring to people in nations/towns nearby when it comes to the "good rules" you quoted. So in that instance, yes you're right that the Bible doesn't approve of rape in general when it comes to "true believers/people of good nations", and neither does the Quran/Torah, but there are instances where it IS ok in these texts, which is what ISIS is doing/following from the OP and why we brought these verses up. Yes there are plenty of "excuses" given in these texts as to why it's ok to do it in this instance vs another, but Rape is rape, the same with slavery being slavery even if you and others try to explain "Slavery was different back then/it wasn't based on skin color"...etc...

If you feel that it's different enough to be "ok", we can agree to disagree. But the point is there are instances in these texts where it was deemed acceptable.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Many religious texts can have old verses that can justify horrible things. Of course in modern times we have become secularists and even those that are religious tend to pick the nice and loving parts of their religion to use and generally don't go for the old school interpretation.

But there are those that can and will use such texts to justify shit they want to do anyway.

Unfortunately there isn't much to do as most nations don't have the stomach to go in there and do what's required to stop ISIS.

 

[Chaplain]

Yeah ... I don't think so.

I disagree. Here is atheist John Gray, formerly Professor of European Thought at the London School for Economics on this subject:

Contemporary opponents of religion display a marked lack of interest in the historical record of atheist regimes. In The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, the American writer Sam Harris argues that religion has been the chief source of violence and oppression in history. He recognises that secular despots such as Stalin and Mao inflicted terror on a grand scale, but maintains the oppression they practised had nothing to do with their ideology of "scientific atheism" - what was wrong with their regimes was that they were tyrannies. But might there not be a connection between the attempt to eradicate religion and the loss of freedom? It is unlikely that Mao, who launched his assault on the people and culture of Tibet with the slogan "Religion is poison", would have agreed that his atheist world-view had no bearing on his policies. It is true he was worshipped as a semi-divine figure - as Stalin was in the Soviet Union. But in developing these cults, communist Russia and China were not backsliding from atheism. They were demonstrating what happens when atheism becomes a political project. The invariable result is an ersatz religion that can only be maintained by tyrannical means.

Something like this occurred in Nazi Germany. Dawkins dismisses any suggestion that the crimes of the Nazis could be linked with atheism. "What matters," he declares in The God Delusion, "is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. There is not the smallest evidence that it does." This is simple-minded reasoning. Always a tremendous booster of science, Hitler was much impressed by vulgarised Darwinism and by theories of eugenics that had developed from Enlightenment philosophies of materialism. He used Christian antisemitic demonology in his persecution of Jews, and the churches collaborated with him to a horrifying degree. But it was the Nazi belief in race as a scientific category that opened the way to a crime without parallel in history. Hitler's world-view was that of many semi-literate people in interwar Europe, a hotchpotch of counterfeit science and animus towards religion. There can be no reasonable doubt that this was a type of atheism, or that it helped make Nazi crimes possible.

(Source)

I am not expecting you to agree with me. My point in the quote is that there are experts in these subjects, non-Christians, who view history differently.

My point still stands. All people can commit good or evil because they are moral beings created in God's image. It is a choice people make to treat others as beings with instinct value and worth, or to de-humanize them. This applies to all people, regardless of the worldview they hold.

 

[RustyNails]

It loathes the possessive nature of religion, not the concept itself. Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong-Un were/are worshipped.

And the murders are politically motivated, not by atheism, which can't really be the driving force for anything, by definition.

Read up on Enver Hoxa and Albania.

 

[RageWaffles]

My point still stands. All people can commit good or evil because they are moral beings created in God's image. It is a choice people make to treat others as beings with instinct value and worth, or to de-humanize them. This applies to all people, regardless of the worldview they hold.

I don't think anyone here was saying that any people can't do good things or can't do bad things.

I think Monocle (who you originally quoted) was pointing out the absurdity of some Christians believing that atheists can't have morals because they don't believe in God, when the holy books of Abrahamic religions depict so many horrible (and, by our modern sensibilities, immoral) things committed by and in the name of God.

 

[The Smoking Bun]

I frankly don't care what your stupid books say. That stuff is outdated and meant for a less-civilized era, you should move forward and not back into barbarism.
Much like regular laws, religious laws and practices should and do change otherwise Christians probably shouldn't wear clothes made out of mixed cloth

I would like to quote the novel Kite Runner here. The following line is said by protagonist Amir's father who is a devout Muslim living in a Muslim country

Amir's Father: There is only one sin, only one. And that is theft. Every other sin is a variation of theft... When you kill a man, you steal a life.
You steal his wife's right to a husband, rob his children of a father. When you tell a lie, you steal someone's right to the truth. When you cheat, you steal the right to fairness.

So when you rape a woman, you are stealing her dignity and self-worth.

 

[NeonZ]

On the other hand...

Straight from Jesus's mouth (to Matthew's ears to the writing instruments of countless priests and monks) :

Later, Jesus called out some Pharisees for not killing disobedient children like the commandments and Old Testament say to:

The first quote ties in with what I had quoted though.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

The Old Law isn't abolished, but "fulfilled" with Jesus' arrival, so, it's "complete". It's similar to what was said in the Galatians Epistle, which also makes it clear that it's in the past, since it's fulfilled.

Regarding your second quote, Jesus was accused of breaking traditions and was pointing out how the Pharisees were hypocritically breaking the law.

Matthew 15

1Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

3Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. 5But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8“ ‘These people honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

9They worship me in vain;

their teachings are merely human rules.”

10Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

18But what comes out of the mouth comes from the heart, and this defiles a man. 19For from the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual immoralities, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. 20These are the things that defile a man, but eating with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”

The issue regarding uncleanness is mentioned in Leviticus 15, and yet Jesus outright disregards it there and says that unwashed hands don't defile a man.

For something more direct, look at the case regarding divorce, where Jesus outright says that it was a law only created due to the cold heart of man, and not God's will.

Matthew 19:8

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended.

 

[Chaplain]

I think Monocle (who you originally quoted) was pointing out the absurdity of some Christians believing that atheists can't have morals because they don't believe in God, when the holy books of Abrahamic religions depict so many horrible things committed by and in the name of God.

Ty for this. I agree with Monocle. It is absurd to think that any person who doesn't believe in the God of the bible (or God) can't have morals. This goes against what God says throughout the Bible. It makes absolutely no sense for a Christian to say that all people are created in God's image, moral beings, but then to say that the ability to be moral disappears when a person makes the claim/believes that God doesn't exist. This is like Biblical theology 101.

 

[Siegcram]

I disagree. Here is atheist John Gray, formerly Professor of European Thought at the London School for Economics on this subject:



I am not expecting you to agree with me. My point in the quote is that there are experts in these subjects, non-Christians, who view history differently.

My point still stands. All people can commit good or evil because they are moral beings created in God's image. It is a choice people make to treat others as beings with instinct value and worth, or to de-humanize them. This applies to all people, regardless of the worldview they hold.

You can find historians supporting all sorts of fringe positions. To say Stalin murdered "in the name of atheism" is flat-out wrong, historically speaking. The Nazi Germany part of your quote is even more inaccurate, since the Nazis used a wide array of religious vocabularyand practices, going from christian to pagan and occult.

Read up on Enver Hoxa and Albania.

I can't say I'm deeply familiar with that subject, but I was under the impression that that was just extreme nationalism, which saw religion as a competitor for patriotism.

Atheism isn't the same as anti-religious actions or sentiments. "Antitheism" is more apt in that case.

 

[0.1.1.2.3.5.8.13.21.34.55]

I usually try and keep a level head, and don't believe in capital punishment, but I'd gladly kill these fucks myself.

I think castrating them, would be worse (for them especially) than death. Remember, these loons think they've got a ticket to heaven... And their backwards interpretation of religion leaves them worthless without a dick.

 

[FlyingSaucer]

It's a problem in religion itself.

Obviously, decades of relentless bombing of the region, families and communities destroyed, of war that hit most cruelly the weak, the elderly and the children (but it was worth it, dixit Madeleine Albright) while the strongest and most ruthless prosper have absolutely nothing to do with the situation.

In that kind of hellhole even the most peaceful ideologies can and will be deformed and instrumentalized into some monstruous barbary.

 

[mieumieu]

Read up on Enver Hoxa and Albania.

It is not that people believed in atheism cannot do evil. It is just that it is too broad an umbrella for all kinds of ideologies. Atheism as a 'negative' term (as in not doing something) does not mean much. It has to be coupled with some 'positive' (as in doing something) ideologies, and the result varies. There are people who does not know the concept of a God. There are religion that does not believe in a 3O deity (Buddhism, Confucianism).

Antitheism on the other hand is different though...

 

[RevolverRoden]

This is what happens when your deciding basis for morality comes from bronze age men doing bronze age shit. We let marauding and raping warlords write down fundamentals that never change (we do however, but the text doesn't).

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Atheism is different because it can't be used as a justification or absolution for rape and murder while religion can. Even if that is disputed by people with different interpretations of the religion. If you are religious and don't like that religion can be used that way then just join the club along with the people who don't believe in space fairies.

 

[P44]

The rich playboys in the middle east need to stop buying cars and living here in Europe and the US and start sorting out their own back yeards.

Why is it USA and European countries who have to roll up or sleeves and get dirty.

And no. Not listening to its our foreign policy shite which is the cause.

The middle east feels like it's stuck in the dark ages and its this nonsense called religion which is half the problem.

It kind of was the foreign policy shite. Up until fairly recently (in the grand scheme of things), these countries were still colonies. When your country is essentially used as a resource source by another, well, it does shit to your development as a country. Even after gaining their freedoms, the USA and Euro countries kind of haven't stopped intervening in these countries - its not like they mean for this shit to happen, but they do some shit to get something and there's a chain event of reactions.

Non intervention is the best policy, I would think. Boots on the ground is a short term fix at best, and arming somebody in the region keeps fucking up for us. Let the whole thing blow over, I reckon.

EDIT: I must say organised religion isn't really the problem, it's just one way the actual problem manifests.

The real problem is tribalism, but that shit can come through as anything almost. Nationalism, religious stuff, even fucking sports hooliganism all roots in tribalism. Remove religion from the equation, people will find some other shit to group themselves together and rile themselves up to kill each other.

 

[dabig2]

reaction gif of me to you[img][/QUOTE]

If you have trouble understanding that, then I'm sorry. I can't help you. School starts back up soon, so maybe you'll find some help there.

 

[SuperEpicMan]

I don't care what a book or religion says is okay, I wouldn't be able to commit such an awful act on another human being. I couldn't do that to someone else. There is a pretty strong argument to made against religion, where people who adopt a religion, form a sense of morality and judgement of right and wrong on what other people or books have said, instead of thinking for themselves if something is wrong. It seems to lead to the possibility of someones religion being warped by other people, causing them to have a pretty warped sense of morality.

 

[markofhavoc]

I read this yesterday. It's the first article I've read in a while where I just felt shitty after

 

[TheExecutive]

The complete lack of regard for humanity that ISIS breeds will hopefully have all "middle eastern " countries rethink their position on extremism. Some folks here believe that the U.S. and allies allowed for these monsters to exist but the straight fact of the matter is we gave them a playground but didn't breed them. The decades of sympathizing with savages from the middle eastern countries has raised these fuckers into existence and their fall from power has allowed them to exist. The generation of power in the Middle East during the oil boom is leading to a regional catastrophe.

 

[| Praxis |]

I think castrating them, would be worse (for them especially) than death. Remember, these loons think they've got a ticket to heaven... And their backwards interpretation of religion leaves them worthless without a dick.

Haven't you read Game of Thrones?

 

[RevolverRoden]

If you have trouble understanding that, then I'm sorry. I can't help you. School starts back up soon, so maybe you'll find some help there.

So SCHOOL will make me as enlightened as the rest of the guys in this thread?! YES! CAN'T WAIT FOR SEPTEMBER!!!

 

[Valhelm]

This is what happens when your deciding basis for morality comes from bronze age men doing bronze age shit. We let marauding and raping warlords write down fundamentals that never change (we do however, but the text doesn't).

Yeah, I agree. One perk of non-scriptural religions is that they respond immediately to social changes. There's not much room for orthodoxy.

 

[King_Moc]

Yeah, I agree. One perk of non-scriptural religions is that they respond immediately to social changes. There's not much room for orthodoxy.

Christianity at least tries to change, to a degree. though it clearly has a hard time doing it.

I think with Islam it literally goes against the religion to change any word of it, doesn't it?

 

[RK9039]

When have men ever been punished for premarital sex anyway? These rules are there to punish unmarried women for having sex, not men. Men have "needs", after all.

No idea, as far as I know it applies to both.

 

[m_shortpants]

Fucking sociopaths.

These lunatics are just depraved, sadistic, psychotic excuses for human beings hiding behind a guise of a cause.

 

[NullPointer]

When it comes to these radical groups, is this use of institutionalized and religiously justified sex and slavery new? Does it risk undermining their base of support? Or is this being done to solidify that base?

Between seeing red I'm just trying to understand if this is a recent trend, or if this has long been the case with ISIS and/or others.

And if its new, why now?

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

You do know that this isn't a "good" defense in present society right? Someone being "worse" from God's perspective doesn't make the actions excusable/better.

In the view of any other war campaign in history yes its better.

Giving a surrender option doesn't make these actions any less excusable. I get that in the context of the "Bible" this is supposed to be better but it isn't.

Are you saying letting them surrender isn't noble because they shouldn't be going to war with them anyway? What are you trying to say here I'm not following you.

These aren't in the same context of what I quoted you and there is a clear difference why in these verses God/Moses are laying down rules against it vs what I was referencing and that is we no longer talking about prisoners of war from "unworthy nations". Hell, I excluded this one verse:

Which all your verses come after. So clearly, he was referring to people in nations/towns nearby when it comes to the "good rules" you quoted. So in that instance, yes you're right that the Bible doesn't approve of rape in general when it comes to "true believers/people of good nations", and neither does the Quran/Torah, but there are instances where it IS ok in these texts, which is what ISIS is doing/following from the OP and why we brought these verses up. Yes there are plenty of "excuses" given in these texts as to why it's ok to do it in this instance vs another, but Rape is rape, the same with slavery being slavery even if you and others try to explain "Slavery was different back then/it wasn't based on skin color"...etc...

If you feel that it's different enough to be "ok", we can agree to disagree. But the point is there are instances in these texts where it was deemed acceptable.

Again your just mistaken. I quoted your exact verses from the other page which is in reference to THE LISTED NATIONS. There is no part of any verse that describes war conduct with the "approved" nations and then fringe nations. Your making that completely up in your head.

If your literally thinking the word "town" is in reference to a little town they would come to on their way to the nations your mistaken.
It just means city or capital.

http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/20-10.htm

Stop trying to create a narrative in your head that doesn't exist.

 

[TheExecutive]

When it comes to these radical groups, is this use of institutionalized and religiously justified sex and slavery new? Does it risk undermining their base of support? Or is this being done to solidify that base?

Between seeing red I'm just trying to understand if this is a recent trend, or if this has long been the case with ISIS and/or others.

And if its new, why now?

Its all new. The terrorizing of citizens reminds me of the worst of the dark ages. It's purpose is unclear but it's development is completely understandable. These savages were raised through standard education over there. Now, given the playground, they are able to rape and pillage as they like. The people of these civilizations need to rise against this extremism and it can't be silenced through diplomacy from the west and it can't be a part of any military exercise from non-Muslims. It will be a war of Islam and the only people that can fight it are the people of Islam. Say what you will but a call to arms against extremism is needed against their own "religion".

 

[speculawyer]

Wow! Just wow, I don't even have the words for all this

Is it really true that according to Islam "he is allowed to rape an unbeliever"?

Well . . . according to his version of Islam, it apparently is.

 

[TheExecutive]

I posted that article in the Jeb Bush "not a bad deal" thread, but yeah it's definitely thread-worthy.


When have men ever been punished for premarital sex anyway? These rules are there to punish unmarried women for having sex, not men. Men have "needs", after all.


Yikes, that's one scary website.


I fail to see how these even matter. "Be kind to your slaves" is a really low fucking bar when it comes to supreme divine morality, don't you think?


No. How can you free a slave if there is no such thing as a slave? Also, freeing a slave applies to freeing your own slaves, not being a hero freeing other people's slaves or whatever (how dare you touch other people's property, eh).

In the NY Times article it even mentions ISIS sometimes frees their own slaves, and ISIS's own rulebook says it's a virtue. Yet they enslave thousands of women. Does it make sense? No, because ISIS are brainwashed idiots and assholes, but it's hardly shocking that there would be contradictions in their dogma. The Bible is full of contradictions as well.


100% this.


According the link in the OP, they still enslave Jewish and Christian women despite them being "People of the Book". It's just that they need a bit of special pleading to do so, whereas the Yazidi are 100% fair game at all times because, y'know, they're devil worshippers.


And what's stopping him from smiting these evil nations, hmm? He's God. Omnipotent allmighty creator of the universe. He caused the Flood. He can snap his fingers and make things happen, yet now he needs a lowly army of men to get rid of evil people?

How can people not see the blatant flaws in this story and believe this horseshit? Seriously.

It makes way more sense than these stories were made up by believers who thought they had their god on their side and made their own arbitrary rules based on their primitive sense of morality, than god actually laying down those rules. It also explains the large number of contradictions and how pathetically outdated and barbaric these rules are.


Low. Fucking. Bar.


All it helps doing is cementing the fact that scripture is 100% bullshit and completely useless to a modern system of morality.

I agree with what you said but hate how you said it.

 

[TheExecutive]

Well . . . according to his version of Islam, it apparently is.

I am not a Muslim but saying that it can interpreted that way is not ok. I know you didn't mean offense but it's still not ok.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I agree with what you said but hate how you said it.

Okay.

Edit: I can see how I can come across as abrasive. Sometimes tone can make a difference. But when it comes to things like slavery, rape, and the toxic influence religion has had on society with regards to these things, I really couldn't care less about sugar-coating things. *shrugs*