Charlie Phillips wrote:Quite off topic when considering the subject of discussion, which is Dawkin's refutation of the existence of a supreme being and his detractors.
True, the mods are free to split off this sidebar when and if they choose.
How would the Israelites treatment of captives be different to any other tribe's treatment of captives? What did Germanic, Hittite, and other tribes do with captives at that time and how did they treat their women? How did European invaders of America treat the native American women and visa-versa?
Your comparisons are irrelevant to the discussion. I am not claiming the Israelites were more barbaric than their contemporaries, so your questions are red herrings.
You have the luxury of criticizing these ancient rules because they actually existed and were written down. At least there's some semblance of ethics here. It's rare to find it among any other tribe then or since.
I am not criticizing the Hebraic rules. I'm saying they do not refute the fact that the women under discussion were raped.
If one had been killed by the troops of Attila the Hun, I doubt one's wife would have been given a 30 day grace period to mourn her dead husband and come to terms with her new position.
So what? It's still rape. I realize that Fortigurn's intent here is to contrast the Israelite treatment of captive women with those of their contemporaries. OK, so maybe the Hittites or whoever would just rape the women on the battlefield or drag them off and rape them that night. The Israelites, on the other hand, raped them a month later, after the women, uh, "voluntarily" converted to Judaism. Ah yes, the women, whose husbands and fathers had just been murdered by the Israelites, just couldn't wait to get in bed with their enemies. See, they shaved their heads! They mourned! So it all must be a purely consensual arrangement. Is that what you believe, Charlie?