>>97304703>It's clear that God didn't intend for the soldiers to rape the women, but rather to take them captive.
Okay so it's just slavery of women who just so happen to be virgins and non-virgin women would just be slaughtered.
So moral. So divine. >look at this deuteronomy citation, rape is a seriously bad thing in the Bible's eyes you guys
Would you mind if I quoted the verses following the cherry picked one?
"(28) If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, (29) then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.…"
Rape was only a capital offense for the rapist if the woman was married. Because it was only a capital offense to fuck someones wife.
Raping someones daughter was more like a breach of contract dispute to where you got fair market value for an average daughter being married off as a remedy. >Also, immediately following the command to spare the virgin women,
Again, why just the virgin women? Is it a woman's fault that she was married and had children and then some filthy kikes who wandered the desert like retards for 4 decades pillaged their home?>It's theoretically possible that some of the soldiers raped the women, but given the circumstances it seems very unlikely.
Literally every single event that could be described as a "conquering" of a notable hub of civilization on that millennia, the millennia after that, and the millennia after that involved raping and pillaging. Every one. It's naive to think otherwise.
Look, maybe there is a benevolent deity(ies), but the God of the Bible is a sandnigger psychopath product of the time.
These are not the scripture of a deity worthy of worship or consideration.