Lament on the fate of a girl abducted by ISIS

43 Responses

  1. why? says:

    Dishonest christians,

    I ASKED WALTER AND YOU GUYS SIMPLE QUESTION. I REPEAT IT HERE. ANSWER HONESTLY INSTEAD OF BURYING EXPOSURE OF BIBLICAL BARBARITY WITH TONS OF TU-QUOQUO ABOUT HINDUISM..

    I challenge anybody here to produce a parallel in Hinduism to barbaric biblical or koranic verses, where sexual slavery is imposed on conquered populations of cities or towns, after killing off their male guardians.

    Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

    As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

    PARALLEL IN KORAN:

    And when We decide to destroy a town (population), We (first) send a definite order (to obey Allah and be righteous) to those among them [or We (first) increase in number those of its population] who are given the good things of this life. Then, they transgress therein, and thus the word (of torment) is justified against it (them). Then We destroy it with complete destruction. (Surat Al-‘Isra’ [17:16])

    Can a just god perpetrate such crimes through his commands to destroy cities, commit genocide and commit mass rapes?

    NOT a single Christian is courageous enough to give a straight answer. You christians like mooslimes are demon worshipers, a demonic god who orders his followers to commit RAPE AND GENOCIDE.

  2. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    ========================================================
    1. I made a single claim regarding Christianity, that unlike Islam, it was not founded on slavery. Your most recent response is not only a tu quoque but a basic misunderstanding of the English language. See the dictionary definition of “founded”. When Christianity was initially formulated, its founders propagated their ideology without the practice of slavery or spoils of war.
    ========================================================

    My answer was and is that neither Islam nor any other religion is founded on slavery. They may have practiced slavery, but none of the religions are founded on slavery. Slavery was allowed in religions. No religion is founded on slavery. If a religion is founded on slavery, then it cannot survive or even exist without slavery.

    The so called founders of christianity, including jeebus, Paul etc. all of them never uttered ONE word against slavery. The very fact that they had numerous chances to reject slavery as evil, but still did NOT even condemn slavery once shows that slavery was approved by the founders of christianity. This includes sexual slavery of women as well as given in bible. Why did jeebus who overturned tables in synagogue, did NOT utter one word against slavery and sexual slavery when jeebus was acutely aware of Jewish laws?

    This is valid argument from silence. Paul even asked his followers who were slaves to obey their masters, instead of condemning slavery. History clearly shows that for 1600 years or more, christians practiced slavery, until as late as early 20th century. All these shows that christianity approves slavery.

    Phoenix Says:
    ========================================================
    2. I pointed out to you that Hinduism approves of reducing Sudras to slaves, by citing verses which explicitly endorse purchasing Sudras. Humans that are bought is considered another’s property and therefore a slave by definition. “Manu 8:415. There are slaves of seven kinds…he who is bought…”. You could not refute this simple fact even with all the mental gymnastics.
    ===========================================================

    Lets catch this christian lying through his teeth as usual and making strawman arguments. What did he say initially?

    Phoenix Says:
    ========================================================
    I’m sorry, I must have missed that one because I could’ve sworn I just read Manu explicitly designate all Sudras to a life of slavery.

    Laws of Manu 8:413…
    ========================================================

    Its clear Phoenix the liar said “Manu explicitly designate all Sudras to a life of slavery.”

    which I have clearly proven with enough evidence that this is NOT the case. Shudras are NOT slaves by default.

    By the way I never denied that there were slaves in Vedic times.

    What I denied is sexual slavery?

    Phoenix Says:
    ========================================================
    3. I cited verses from the Vedas which unequivocally inspires the slaughter of whole families and theft of their land merely for being related to the enemy. Your response was that the verses were a mistranslation, despite the fact that the translator is an Indian Hindu scholar. I asked you for the Sanskrit transliteration of the Vedas so we could fact-check them together but you gave no reply.
    =========================================================

    Do you understand Sanskrit Phoenix to ask such questions? How are you going to check it? and please let me know how are you going to check any Vedic text which is in archaic Sanskrit written in a hidden language ?

    You can check yourself…Google TITUS and particular Vedic text. But I will say its NOT going to help you at all.

    I have given enough evidence why I rejected Arya samaj translation.

    I asked you why western translation (based on sAyana commentary) and Arya samaj translation of the same verse are so different? You cannot answer it. You are NOT equipped to answer anything here.

    Phoenix Says:
    ========================================================
    4. I gave you verses from your texts which approved of slave-girls. I also showed you verses in which slain warriors are rewarded with sex slaves in heaven, an identical concept only shared with Islam. Your response was that these women are not meant for sex, a truly pitiful response, when in fact it is universally recognized that most female slaves are sexual objects.
    =========================================================

    YOU HAVE FAILED TO PROVE THERE IS SEXUAL SLAVERY HERE.

    a.) Caste rules clearly prevent sexual contact with all Dasyus who are lower than Shudras. Evidence already provided from Manu smriti. Implication is no sexual slavery is possible. One will lose his caste status the moment he touches any Dasyu.

    Only way to prove sexual slavery is find a verse where it is explicitly said that a slave owner can have sex with his female slave.

    b.) Hindu heaven was shown to be temporary and NOT carnal where the denizens of heaven do NOT have corporeal body, but a body made of Tejas or light.

    Swarga or Hindu heaven is the world of Vedic gods and NO human is allowed to enter there with any corporeal body. They are clothed with a body made of Tejas and only then allowed. Like Vedic gods, the denizens of Hindu heaven do NOT engage in sexual congress.

    IN EITHER CASE YOU HAVE FAILED TO PROVE ANY SEXUAL SLAVERY. ALL YOU ARE DOING IS INSISTING IT IS SEXUAL SLAVERY AND NOT REFUTING MY ARGUMENTS with proper evidence.

    Phoenix Says:
    ========================================================
    5. Lastly, I exposed verses from the Vedas demonstrating the barbaric slaughters of Dasyus whose only crime was to reject the Vedic gods. You could not refute that either but instead attempted to misdirect my attention to the Kshastriya caste mentioned in the Mahabarata. For example the following verse is a clear injunction for genocide on the godless Dasyus.

    Rig Veda 1:CLXXVI:4 *Slay everyone who pours no gift*, who, hard to reach, delights thee not.Bestow on us what wealth he hath: this even the worshipper awaits.

    (Slay everyone = Genocide)
    ==========================================================

    a.) You did NOT quote one verse from Vedas where it is explicitly said to go and commit genocide.

    b.) All your verses is that a sage is praying to Vedic Gods to destroy haters of Vedic God and religion. These verses are NOT evidence for any genocide.

    c.) The verse 1:CLXXVI:4 you have quoted here is also a prayer to destroy enemies of Vedic followers, mainly those that injure Vedic followers. See the previous verse.

    Rig Veda 1:CLXXVI:3 “Mark thou the man who injures us and kill him like the heavenly bolt.”

    Nowhere you have quoted any verses where it is commanded/ordered to Vedic followers to go and destroy unbelievers. Mere prayers to Vedic Gods to destroy enemies, is NOT the same as command to followers to destroy enemies.

    YOU HAVE FAILED TO PROVE ANYTHING HERE.

  3. Phoenix says:

    Let’s recap and summarize where the discussion has ended:

    1. I made a single claim regarding Christianity, that unlike Islam, it was not founded on slavery. Your most recent response is not only a tu quoque but a basic misunderstanding of the English language. See the dictionary definition of “founded”. When Christianity was initially formulated, its founders propagated their ideology without the practice of slavery or spoils of war.

    2. I pointed out to you that Hinduism approves of reducing Sudras to slaves, by citing verses which explicitly endorse purchasing Sudras. Humans that are bought is considered another’s property and therefore a slave by definition. “Manu 8:415. There are slaves of seven kinds…he who is bought…”. You could not refute this simple fact even with all the mental gymnastics.

    3. I cited verses from the Vedas which unequivocally inspires the slaughter of whole families and theft of their land merely for being related to the enemy. Your response was that the verses were a mistranslation, despite the fact that the translator is an Indian Hindu scholar. I asked you for the Sanskrit transliteration of the Vedas so we could fact-check them together but you gave no reply.

    4. I gave you verses from your texts which approved of slave-girls. I also showed you verses in which slain warriors are rewarded with sex slaves in heaven, an identical concept only shared with Islam. Your response was that these women are not meant for sex, a truly pitiful response, when in fact it is universally recognized that most female slaves are sexual objects.

    5. Lastly, I exposed verses from the Vedas demonstrating the barbaric slaughters of Dasyus whose only crime was to reject the Vedic gods. You could not refute that either but instead attempted to misdirect my attention to the Kshastriya caste mentioned in the Mahabarata. For example the following verse is a clear injunction for genocide on the godless Dasyus.

    Rig Veda 1:CLXXVI:4 *Slay everyone who pours no gift*, who, hard to reach, delights thee not.Bestow on us what wealth he hath: this even the worshipper awaits.

    (Slay everyone = Genocide)

  4. why? says:

    Phoenix,

    YOU are continuing GIVING IMBECILE ARGUMENTS SO FAR WHICH IS REFUTED ALREADY. You have posted the same verses for which same explanation was given before in a previous article as well.

    Do you Christians have any intellectual honesty?

    I ASKED WALTER AND YOU GUYS SIMPLE QUESTION. I REPEAT IT HERE. ANSWER HONESTLY INSTEAD OF BURYING EXPOSURE OF BIBLICAL BARBARITY WITH TONS OF TU-QUOQUO ABOUT HINDUISM..

    I challenge anybody here to produce a parallel in Hinduism to barbaric biblical or koranic verses, where sexual slavery is imposed on conquered populations of cities or towns, after killing off their male guardians.

    Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

    As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

    PARALLEL IN KORAN:

    And when We decide to destroy a town (population), We (first) send a definite order (to obey Allah and be righteous) to those among them [or We (first) increase in number those of its population] who are given the good things of this life. Then, they transgress therein, and thus the word (of torment) is justified against it (them). Then We destroy it with complete destruction. (Surat Al-‘Isra’ [17:16])

    Can a just god perpetrate such crimes through his commands to destroy cities, commit genocide and commit mass rapes?

  5. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    ===============================
    Manu X:129. No collection of wealth must be made by a Sudra, even though he be
    able (to do it); for a Sudra who has acquired wealth, gives pain to Brahmanas.
    ==============================

    Wrong translation and interpretation…Ganganatha Jha gives right translation

    Manu X:129 “Even though he be able, a shudra shall NOT amass wealth, for having acquired wealth the shudra harasses the brAhmanas”.

    This is the correct translation (Author: Ganganatha Jha).

    This verse does NOT legally prohibit shudras from owning wealth…

    This verse if anything it shows that Shudras can legally own wealth, but that is NOT spiritual merit for them and with that wealth they start harassing brAhmins through charity given for them….one who accepts charity or gifts in Hinduism carries on his head sins of giver of charity or gift thereby causing pain and harassment to brAhmins…..shudras gain spiritual merit by service or helping (for conducting rituals and collecting materials for rituals) to brAhmins only …that is the meaning of this verse…

    Same Manu smriti says shudras do own wealth and gives an explanation of verse X:129..

    Manu smriti 11

    34. A Kshatriya shall pass through misfortunes which have befallen him by the strength of his arms, a Vaisya and a Sudra by their wealth, the chief of the twice-born by muttered prayers and burnt-oblations.

    42. Those who, obtaining wealth from Sudras, (and using that) offer an Agnihotra, are priests officiating for Sudras, (and hence) censured among those who recite the Veda.

    43. Treading with his foot on the heads of those fools who worship a fire (kindled at the expense) of a Sudra, the giver (of the wealth) shall always pass over his miseries (in the next world).

    All the above verses CLEARLY SHOW that a shudra can own wealth.

    The verses 42 and 43 explain how sins of a shudra gets transferred to brAhmins who accepts charity or gifts from wealthy shudras.

  6. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    ===============================
    At best, what those verses mean you cited is to inspire a somewhat humane treatment of slaves. After all, they can’t perform their servile duties while in an unhealthy and injured state.
    ====================================

    You are a thick headed imbecile…Read the verse again…

    10:99. But a Sudra, being unable to find service with the twice-born and threatened with the loss of his sons and wife (through hunger), may maintain himself by handicrafts.

    The verse clearly states, “WHEN SUDRA IS UNABLE TO FIND SERVICE WITH ANY OF THE TWICE BORNS (includes BrAhmanas or Kshatriyas or Vasihyas)”..

    First point: REFERS TO SERVICE OR WORK WITH PAYMENT which sudra is unable to find

    Second Point:: Refers to SUDRA’S SUBSISTENCE BY HANDICRAFTS INDEPENDENT OF ANY EMPLOYER OR MASTER.

    BOTH CLEARLY POINT TO SUDRA SUBSISTING BY HIS OWN EFFORTS INDEPENDENT OF ANYBODY ELSE.

    ONLY AN IDIOT LIKE YOU WILL SAY THAT THIS VERSE STILL POINTS TO SLAVERY.

    Phoenix Says:
    ===============================
    The money a sudra earns is purely to ensure he is in a position to maintain his servile duites. Sudras slaves are severely restricted in their accumaltion of money. They can’t own property nor become wealthy.

    Manu 8:417. A Brahmana may confidently seize the goods of (his) Sudra (slave); for,as that (slave) can have no property, his master may take his possessions.
    ================================

    This was already answered too….This happens only when there is actual need…which is given below FROM MANU SMRITI ITSELF

    11:11. If a sacrifice, (offered) by (any twice-born) sacrificer, (and) especially by a Brahmana, must remain incomplete through (the want of) one requisite, while a righteous king rules,

    11:12. That article (required) for the completion of the sacrifice, may be taken (forcibly) from the house of any Vaisya, who possesses a large number of cattle, (but) neither performs the (minor) sacrifices nor drinks the Soma-juice;

    11:13. (Or) the (sacrificer) may take at his pleasure two or three (articles required for a sacrifice) from the house of a Sudra; for a Sudra has no business with sacrifices.

    11:14. If (a man) possessing one hundred cows, kindles not the sacred fire, or one possessing a thousand cows, drinks not the Soma-juice, a (sacrificer) may unhesitatingly take (what he requires) from the houses of those two, even (though they be Brahmanas or Kshatriyas)

    THE ABOVE VERSES CLEARLY SAYS ARTICLES CAN BE SEIZED FROM BRAHMINS ALSO AS IT IS SEIZED FROM SHUDRAS.

    Does it mean Brahmins cannot own property?

  7. why? says:

    Phoenix says:
    ========================================
    This is the crux of the matter: There are plenty of examples where women are used as sex slaves. Which caste they belong to is of no concern to me. It’s plausible that the enslaved women are non-believers and fall completely outside the rules of the caste system. One thing is for certain, slave girls are permitted.

    *The enemy of the Aryans in the Vedas are usually the Dasyus (non-believers), thus taking their women as booty is permissible since the caste rules do not apply to infidels.
    ===================================

    1. Nobody falls outside of caste rules. Those lower than Shudras (outside or below 4 castes) also do have castes of their own.

    They are all collectively called as Dasyus, NOT Dasas (slaves), but Dasyus (Manu smriti 10:45).

    10.45. All those tribes in this world, which are excluded from (the community of) those born from the mouth, the arms, the thighs, and the feet (of Brahman), are called Dasyus, whether they speak the language of the Mlekkhas (barbarians) or that of the Aryans.

    2. Dasyus can be believers or unbelievers, indigenous Aryas or foreigners.

    3. Caste rule may NOT be followed by Dasyus, however, those among Shudras and above them, need to follow caste rules in engagement with Dasyus to maintain their caste status.

    This rule automatically precludes sexual contact of any of the four castes with all and any Dasyu(s) women.

    4. Since caste rules prevent sexual contact with Dasyus (one not only loses caste by this, he brings hell to his ancestors and offsprings. There is NO expiation for this sin).

    This automatically implies that the even the possibility of sexual slavery of women from Dasyus is removed completely.

    5. Even sexual contact with a Shudra wife for twice born castes leads to damnation of ancestors to hell. So possibility of sexual slavery of Shudra women is also removed completely.

    3.15. Twice-born men who, in their folly, wed wives of the low (Sudra) caste, soon degrade their families and their children to the state of Sudras.

    3.16. According to Atri and to (Gautama) the son of Utathya, he who weds a Sudra woman becomes an outcast, according to Saunaka on the birth of a son, and according to Bhrigu he who has (male) offspring from a (Sudra female, alone).

    3.17. A Brahmana who takes a Sudra wife to his bed, will (after death) sink into hell; if he begets a child by her, he will lose the rank of a Brahmana.

    3.19. For him who drinks the moisture of a Sudra’s lips, who is tainted by her breath, and who begets a son on her, no expiation is prescribed.

    CONCLUSION:

    CASTE RULES STRICTLY PROHIBIT SEXUAL CONTACT OF WOMEN FROM SHUDRA CASTE AND LOWER CASTE THAN SHUDRAS. HENCE SEXUAL SLAVERY BY KSHATRIYAS OR OTHER TWICE BORNS IS ALSO PROHIBITED.

    This is not the case with BIBLE OR QURAN where SEXUAL SLAVERY and RAPE of infidel women IS ALLOWED.

  8. why? says:

    Phoenix says:
    =============================
    One last thing, regarding the slave girls. In Islam, slain fighters are promised sex slaves in heaven. I think Muhammad may have been inspired by Hinduism.

    Manu VII:89. Those kings who, seeking to slay each other in battle, fight with the utmost exertion and do not turn back, go to heaven.
    =============================

    First of all there is NO parallel here with Islam here. I will explain.

    1. The heaven or Swarga in Hinduism is temporary. These warriors have to come back to be born as human being again. This NOT an eternal reward.

    Beyond this temporary heaven is the eternal salvation (Moksha) of different kind in Hinduism, gained ONLY through correct perceptual knowledge of spiritual realm.

    +quote======
    en(.)wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Svarga

    Svarga is seen as a transitory place for righteous souls who have performed good deeds in their lives but are not yet ready to attain moksha,
    +unquote=============

    2. Second, Kshatriyas like brAhmanas are required to follow strict rules in sexual conduct with women. They are NOT allowed to have sexual contact with other lower caste women. Kshatriyas are never allowed to force women and children of cities to sexual slaves like in bible or Quran.

    7.91. Let him not strike one who (in flight) has climbed on an eminence, nor a eunuch, nor one who joins the palms of his hands (in supplication), nor one who (flees) with flying hair, nor one who sits down, nor one who says ’I am thine;’

    7.92. Nor one who sleeps, nor one who has lost his coat of mail, nor one who is naked, nor one who is disarmed, nor one who looks on without taking part in the fight, nor one who is fighting with another (foe);

    7.93. Nor one whose weapons are broken, nor one afflicted (with sorrow), nor one who has been grievously wounded, nor one who is in fear, nor one who has turned to flight; (but in all these cases let him) remember the duty (of honourable warriors).

    8.304. A king who (duly) protects (his subjects) receives from each and all the sixth part of their spiritual merit; if he does not protect them, the sixth part of their demerit also (will fall on him).

    8.306. A king who protects the created beings in accordance with the sacred law and smites those worthy of corporal punishment, daily offers (as it were) sacrifices at which hundred thousands (are given as) fees.

    While in bible or quran, one is allowed to have sex slaves in this world and reduce women and children as sex slaves.

    3. Here warriors who fight in RIGHTEOUS battles to protect their subjects from harm and give their life, only they gain swarga or heaven, which is temporary. Those who do unrighteous acts like attacking women attain hell.

    4. In the next world, even though women are there for such dead warriors, the enjoyment of women in heaven of Hinduism is NOT corporeal or earthly in nature. It is a different kind of enjoyment. Those in temporary heaven or Swarga possess a different kind of body made of Tejas (no proper translation can be provided here, light can be a close approximation). This is again clear in Mahabhartha, where only Yudhistira is allowed to ascend heaven in mortal human body.

    There is no sexual congress in Swarga, but none the less enjoyment with women who are wives does happen in Swarga.

    In Islam, it is explicitly stated that in jannat sexual organs are present for warriors. Hence here too there is NO parallel with Islam.

  9. why? says:

    Phoenix says:
    ======================
    This is getting really old, fast. Islam was founded on slavery simply means that during Islam’s inception slavery played a major role in its propogation.
    ================================

    So did slavery, looting colonies (raw materials) etc. in expansion of christianity for last1600 years. So what? Does this mean christianity is also founded upon slavery.

    Every western desert religion (all 3 of them) spread through looting and destroying countries and cities…

    Money or wealth is an important contributor to propagation of islam or christianty in the world. You are saying as though christianity did NOT contribute to slavery in the world at all.

    Phoenix says:
    ======================
    Who the frick said the verses from devi Chand’s translation says anything about slavery? Those verses incite war, genocide and stealing land. Do I even need to mention the name of the fallacy here?

    Dasyu also means “enemy of the gods”. The context is plainly visible in the verses I cited, which is war.
    ======================

    No they do NOT. Two of your verses were shown to be wrong translations, and the other one shown with an example of British invasion. No genocide of non-warrior classes is ever done in Hinduism.

    Mahabhartha war is the example of this, where battle was fought in battle ground among warrior caste only.

    Dasyu means others, lower than the four castes. Manu smriti 10:45 They can be followers of Vedic religion or otherwise.

    Phoenix says:
    ======================
    This has nothing to do with the war verses from the Vedas. It’s a red herring, designed to derail an in progress argument.
    ========================

    It has everything to do wit war verses or not. Only Kshatriyas are allowed to fight battles. Others are NOT allowed. Mahabharatha epic is the evidence for this. It is also explicitly there in Manu smriti.

    1.88. To Brahmanas he assigned teaching and studying (the Veda), sacrificing for their own benefit and for others, giving and accepting (of alms).

    1.89. The Kshatriya he commanded to protect the people, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study (the Veda), and to abstain from attaching himself to sensual pleasures;

    1.90. The Vaisya to tend cattle, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study (the Veda), to trade, to lend money, and to cultivate land.

    1.91. One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Sudra, to serve meekly even these (other) three castes.

    7.2. A Kshatriya, who has received according to the rule the sacrament prescribed by the Veda, must duly protect this whole (world).

    7.3. For, when these creatures, being without a king, through fear dispersed in all directions, the Lord created a king for the protection of this whole (creation),

    7.87. A king who, while he protects his people, is defied by (foes), be they equal in strength, or stronger, or weaker, must not shrink from battle, remembering the duty of Kshatriyas.

    7.88. Not to turn back in battle, to protect the people, to honour the Brahmanas, is the best means for a king to secure happiness.

    7.89. Those kings who, seeking to slay each other in battle, fight with the utmost exertion and do not turn back, go to heaven.

    7.94. But the (Kshatriya) who is slain in battle, while he turns back in fear, takes upon himself all the sin of his master, whatever (it may be);

    7.144. The highest duty of a Kshatriya is to protect his subjects, for the king who enjoys the rewards, just mentioned, is bound to (discharge that) duty.

    I thin these are enough examples to show that ONLY Kshatriyas are allowed to do battle. Others are NOT harmed in anyway.

    Phoenix says:
    ======================
    There you have it in plain english from your very own brethren. The acts of the gods are meant to be emulated by the worshippers
    ====================

    Websites do NOT decide what is Hinduism. Strawman.

  10. Phoenix says:

    regarding the Vedas translations I think it best if you give me the oldest transliterations. That way we can search for the most accurate verses together.
    ===
    One last thing, regarding the slave girls. In Islam, slain fighters are promised sex slaves in heaven. I think Muhammad may have been inspired by Hinduism.

    Manu VII:89. Those kings who, seeking to slay each other in battle, fight with the utmost exertion and do not turn back, go to heaven.
    ==
    Slain Fighters Are Rewarded with Virgins (asparas) in Paradise
    Mahabharata 12:98:(p.214) Foremost of Apsaras, numbering by thousands, go out with great speed (for receiving the spirit of the slain hero) coveting him for their lord.
    Parashara Smriti 3:28“Celestial damsels seize for themselves, and take delight with the hero, whose body is wounded or cut by arrows, clubs, or maces.”

    3:29“Thousands of celestial damsels, rush forward in a hurry towards a hero killed in battle, each proclaiming, ‘He is my lord, he is mine’.”

    3:31“If victorious, wealth is won; if death results, beautiful women fall to his share; since this corporeal frame is liable to perish in an instant’s time , why should we be shy of meeting death on a field of battle?”

  11. Phoenix says:

    1. Clearly it is NOT allowed to employ twice born to do servile work like Shudras. It is then unnecessary to say that they (twice born Brahmanas, Kshatriyas or Vaishyas) could NOT be forced to be slaves then//

    This is the crux of the matter: There are plenty of examples where women are used as sex slaves. Which caste they belong to is of no concern to me. It’s plausible that the enslaved women are non-believers and fall completely outside the rules of the caste system. One thing is for certain, slave girls are permitted.

    Rig Veda 8:XIX:36 A gift of fifty female slaves hath Trasadasyu given me, Purukutsa’s son,Most liberal, kind, lord of the brave.

    Rig veda 6:27:8 Two wagon-teams, with damsels, twenty oxen, O Agni, Abhydvartin Cayamdna,The liberal Sovran, giveth me.This guerdon of Prthu’s seed is hard to win from others.”

    The following verses frees a man of any responsibilty after impregnating a female slave:
    Manu 9:48. As with cows, mares, female camels, *slave-girls*, buffalo-cows, shegoats, and ewes, it is not the begetter (or his owner) who obtains the offspring, even thus (it is) with the wives of others.
    9:54. If seed be carried by water or wind into somebody’s field and germinates (there), the (plant sprung from that) seed belongs even to the owner of the field, the owner of the seed does not receive the crop.
    55. Know that such is the law concerning the offspring of cows, mares, *slave-girls*,female camels, she-goats, and ewes, as well as of females of birds and buffalo-cows.
    ===
    Manu confirms war booty is legal according to Vedas & describes what can be taken as spoils which includes women:
    ManuVII 96. Chariots and horses, elephants, parasols, money, grain, cattle, women, all sorts of (marketable) goods and valueless metals belong to him who takes them (singly) conquering (the possessor).
    Manu VII:97. A text of the Veda (declares) that (the soldiers) shall present a choice portion (of the booty) to the king; what has not been taken singly, must be distributed by the king among all the soldiers.

    *The enemy of the Aryans in the Vedas are usually the Dasyus (non-believers), thus taking their women as booty is permissible since the caste rules do not apply to infidels.

  12. Phoenix says:

    1. None of these verses suggest that a Shudra is slave by default. No slaves take care of themselves by earning money or doing business like handicrafts himself, independent of his owners.//

    At best, what those verses mean you cited is to inspire a somewhat humane treatment of slaves. After all, they can’t perform their servile duties while in an unhealthy and injured state. They are to be maintained just as one maintains his car, purely for opitmal functional purposes. Even Muhammad said slaves must be treated fairly. (I’m paraphrasing of course). But that does not mean Muhammad did not approve of and practise slavery.
    ===
    3. Verse 10:124 explicity says that a Shudra is paid maintenance or salary. No slave is paid salary.//

    The money a sudra earns is purely to ensure he is in a position to maintain his servile duites. Sudras slaves are severely restricted in their accumaltion of money. They can’t own property nor become wealthy.

    Manu 8:417. A Brahmana may confidently seize the goods of (his) Sudra (slave); for,as that (slave) can have no property, his master may take his possessions.

    Manu X:129. No collection of wealth must be made by a Sudra, even though he be
    able (to do it); for a Sudra who has acquired wealth, gives pain to Brahmanas.

  13. Phoenix says:

    Still does NOT answer the question if slavery s part of Islam’s theology.
    Islam simply allows slavery and is NOT founded on slavery.
    Suppose slavery is banned 100% successfully all over the world, would it make practice of Islam impossible? The honest answer is absolutely NO. So Islam is NOT founded upon slavery for its continuing existence.//

    This is getting really old, fast. Islam was founded on slavery simply means that during Islam’s inception slavery played a major role in its propogation. Muhammad became wealthy because of trading and selling slaves. Slavery funded his military expansion, slavery was used as an incentive to lure fighters for jihad with promises of female slaves. Jihadis (the best and true muslims) are also promised sex slaves in heaven as a reward. Every islamic terror organization (true muslims) , such as ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, engage in kidapping women for sex slaves. This is an insepetable aspect of Jihad. Kdnapping infidels is also a means to propogate Islam because muslims can’t own muslim slaves, thus the captured slaves are forced to convert for their freedom. This is a sunnah of Muhammad. Still think Islam was not founded on slavery?
    ===
    I will give modern day example….Lets take Britsh invasion of India. It was forceful subjugation of a country through use of guns and weapons. Did it involve imposing slavery on its residents as a whole? NO…Did it involve completely/absolutely unjust laws? No…Similar is the case of verse in Vedas//

    Who the frick said the verses from devi Chand’s translation says anything about slavery? Those verses incite war, genocide and stealing land. Do I even need to mention the name of the fallacy here?
    ===
    This word has many meanings from servants to demons to barbarians, depending on the context. You have to bring up particular verse to prove your point.//

    Dasyu also means “enemy of the gods”. The context is plainly visible in the verses I cited, which is war.
    ===
    The general rule a Kshatriya never fights with brAhmins or Vishyas or Shudras or others in battles. This is clear from Mahabharatha. Others are forbidden to fight in battles. In case of others, law in implemented on them through just means//

    This has nothing to do with the war verses from the Vedas. It’s a red herring, designed to derail an in progress argument.
    ===
    Nothing about war here….Here it is simply a prayer to God who destroys haters of Vedic God//

    The prayers are meant to inspire the worshippers in battle. The following is from a respectable hindu website: http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_war.asp
    “Indian warriors exemplified the virtues of the great warriors portrayed in the scriptures. In fighting their battles, they followed the examples of gods and legendary heroes…”
    There you have it in plain english from your very own brethren. The acts of the gods are meant to be emulated by the worshippers

  14. why? says:

    Phoenix and Ron,

    BOTH OF YOU HAVE BEEN GIVING IMBECILE ARGUMENTS SO FAR WHICH IS REFUTED ALREADY.

    I ASKED WALTER AND YOU GUYS SIMPLE QUESTION. I REPEAT IT HERE. ANSWER HONESTLY INSTEAD OF BURYING EXPOSURE OF BIBLICAL BARBARITY WITH TONS OF TU-QUOQUO ABOUT HINDUISM..

    I challenge anybody here to produce a parallel in Hinduism to barbaric biblical or koranic verses, where sexual slavery is imposed on conquered populations of cities or towns, after killing off their male guardians.

    Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

    As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

    PARALLEL IN KORAN:

    And when We decide to destroy a town (population), We (first) send a definite order (to obey Allah and be righteous) to those among them [or We (first) increase in number those of its population] who are given the good things of this life. Then, they transgress therein, and thus the word (of torment) is justified against it (them). Then We destroy it with complete destruction. (Surat Al-‘Isra’ [17:16])

    Can a just god perpetrate such crimes through his commands to destroy cities, commit genocide and commit mass rapes?

    Why is it NOT easy for you christians to see the utter criminality, utter evil and utter immorality in such commands? PLEASE ANSWER HONESTLY…..

  15. why? says:

    Phoenix says:
    -+quote===============================================================
    Not calling it a strawman does not relieve you from the fallacy. Here is what I stated:
    “..none of the above disproves the fact that Christianity was not founded on slavery”
    And your response is that Jesus did not say a word against slavery. You’ve attacked an entirely different argument, hence the strawman.
    -+unquote===============================================================

    Now where did I insist that christianity is founded on slavery. My statement is

    “Pointless statement..

    Neither is Islam nor any other religion founded on slavery.”

    Another strawman…

    Phoenix says:
    ===============================================================
    In the past you were adamantly opposed to western translations because of a supposed agenda to vilify Hinduism. Now a Hindu sect from India is considered the worst culprits. I have no reason to discard the translation other than you finding it embarrassing.
    =================================================================

    and I find no other reason for you quoting this mistranslated verse other than finding parallels when in reality there is none.

    By the way do you know Sanskrit? Then how do you know the translation is NOT so way off the mark? I clearly provided the western translation as well. Why do you think the translations are so dissimilar? I mean you can see yourself how different the two translations are? How can same verse have such different translations? Why do you think it is so?

    The key is interpretation based on theology of Arya samaj. It is NOT only western translators reject Dayanand’s translations of Vedas, there are orthodox Indian schools as well which reject translations as faulty and biased. No other translator, western or Indian, gives such interpretation as this man. This is why I reject it completely.

    NOTE from your own link.

    ================================================================
    www(dot)archive(dot)org/stream/yajurveda029670mbp/yajurveda029670mbp_djvu(dot)txt

    Swami Dayananda does not believe in history in the Vedas. Western scholars like Griffith, Max-Muller, Monier Williams, Macdonnel, Bloomfield, and Eastern scholars like Sayana, Mahidhar, Ubbat and Damodar Satavalekar, believe in history in the Vedas.
    =================================================================

    Note there are Indian scholars in list like sAyana who belong to orthodox Indian schools whose interpretations vary very much from Dayanand’s or Arya Samaj’s translation. There are issues here which are beyond the scope of discussion what we are having. While Dayanand’s “esoteric” translations, especially with regard to Vedic God and eternality of Vedas can be useful, some translations are outright way off the mark (like the verses you quoted) and some even can be termed crazy.

  16. why? says:

    Phoenix says:
    =+quote==========
    So your argument is basically that it’s okay to reduce women from your own caste to sexual slavery.
    =+unquote==============

    Where did I say that? Besides how did you come to this conclusion?

    8: 412. But a Brahmana who, because he is powerful, out of greed makes initiated (men of the) twice-born (castes) against their will do the work of slaves, shall be fined by the king six hundred (panas).

    1. Clearly it is NOT allowed to employ twice born to do servile work like Shudras. It is then unnecessary to say that they (twice born Brahmanas, Kshatriyas or Vaishyas) could NOT be forced to be slaves then.

    2. We have already seen that Shudras are NOT slaves by default.

    3. It is NOT allowed in caste rules to have sex outside of one’s caste and marriage, especially lower caste Shudra and below (dasis or slave girls).

    11.170. He who has had sexual intercourse with sisters by the same mother, with the wives of a friend, or of a son, with unmarried maidens, and with females of the lowest castes, shall perform the penance, prescribed for the violation of a Guru’s bed.

    Obvious conclusion is then that then twice borns cannot be enslaved, sex with lower castes is NOT allowed and therefore SEXUAL SLAVERY is NOT allowed in Hinduism.

    WHERE AS IN BIBLE WE SAW THAT SEXUAL SLAVERY IS EVEN COMMANDED BY DEMONIC BIBLE god..

  17. why? says:

    Phoenix says:
    =quote=============================================================
    There’s no mention of Vaisyas taking care of Sudras, so that’s another false statement. But the crux of the matter is this: The Sudra unlike the Vaisya is owned by the Brahmins. Sudras are the properties of Brahmins, hence they are the ones who are considered slaves. The verse I quoted legalize the purchasing of Sudra slaves.
    =unquote=============================================================

    Shudra bought as slave is legalized. That is why it states as bought or unbought. The question is whether the shudra is slave by default. You did NOT provide any evidence for that.

    Here is evidence that Shudra is NOT slave by default.

    10:99. But a Sudra, being unable to find service with the twice-born and threatened with the loss of his sons and wife (through hunger), may maintain himself by handicrafts.

    10:121. If a Sudra, (unable to subsist by serving Brahmanas,) seeks a livelihood, he may serve Kshatriyas, or he may also seek to maintain himself by attending on a wealthy Vaisya.

    10:122. But let a (Sudra) serve Brahmanas, either for the sake of heaven, or with a view to both (this life and the next); for he who is called the servant of a Brahmana thereby gains all his ends.

    10:123. The service of Brahmanas alone is declared (to be) an excellent occupation for a Sudra; for whatever else besides this he may perform will bear him no fruit.

    10: 124. They must allot to him out of their own family (-property) a suitable maintenance, after considering his ability, his industry, and the number of those whom he is bound to support.

    1. None of these verses suggest that a Shudra is slave by default. No slaves take care of themselves by earning money or doing business like handicrafts himself, independent of his owners.

    2. The above verses clearly point to the concept of spiritual emancipation coming to Shudras by serving brAhmins. SEE VERSES 10:122-123

    3. Verse 10:124 explicity says that a Shudra is paid maintenance or salary. No slave is paid salary.

    4. Also see the mention of serving brAhmins as an excellent OCCUPATION for s shudra in verse 10:123. An occupation is some work where you gain material benefits in return. Slavery is NOT an occupation

    5. The above verses clearly shows that your laughable argument that unbought Shudras are slaves captured in war or inherited is absolute bull crap.

    by the way the correct translation of 8:413 is as per Ganganatha Jha

    8:413 But a Shudra, bought or unbought, he shall make do servile work; Since it is for doing servile work for the brAhmana that he is created by the self-born one. (SEE VERSES 10:122-123 FOR EXPLANATION OF THIS VERSE)

    SINCE PHOENIX CANNOT ANSWER BIBLICAL BARBARIC NATURE, HE IS DESPERATELY AND UNSUCCESSFULLY ATTACKING HINDU TEXTS.

  18. why? says:

    Phoenix says:
    ==============================================
    That definition fits with the context of the verse which is battle and defeating the foe with weaponry (bow). Hence, the aim of the battle is to subdue (forceful control) all regions.
    ==============================================

    I will give modern day example….Lets take Britsh invasion of India. It was forceful subjugation of a country through use of guns and weapons. Did it involve imposing slavery on its residents as a whole? NO…Did it involve completely/absolutely unjust laws? No…Similar is the case of verse in Vedas.

    If you did not bring this verse to make a point regarding slavery (cities and population being attacked), the it is pointless waste of my time…

    Phoenix says:
    ==============================================
    Your argument assumes that Kshatriyas only fight other Kshatriyas. In the Vedas the enemy is not Kshatriyas but the non-believers and dasas/dasyus which could be the same enemy for all I know.
    ===============================================

    This word has many meanings from servants to demons to barbarians, depending on the context. You have to bring up particular verse to prove your point.

    The general rule a Kshatriya never fights with brAhmins or Vishyas or Shudras or others in battles. This is clear from Mahabharatha. Others are forbidden to fight in battles. In case of others, law in implemented on them through just means.

    Phoenix says:
    ==============================================
    Atharva Veda 11:2:23 Homage be paid him with ten Sakvari verses who stands established in the air’s mid-region, slaying non-sacrificing God-despisers!”
    ==========================================

    Nothing about war here….Here it is simply a prayer to God who destroys haters of Vedic God.

    Phoenix says:
    ==============================================
    Rig Veda 7:93:5 When two great hosts, arrayed against each other, meet clothed with brightness, in the fierce encounter.Stand ye beside the godly, smite the godless; and still assist the men who press the Soma”
    ==============================================

    I am shaking my head here……

    The verses talk about Indra and the sages praising him. In poetical way, he is imagining those who pray to Indra and do Vedic fire sacrifices and those who do not as two opposing armies, where Indra destroys the person who does NOT do the Vedic fire sacrifices. I will give below the translation by Wilson below..

    Wilson translation of Rig Veda 7:93:5

    As two large armies, mutually defiant armies, emulous in corporal vigor, may contend in war, so do you destroy, by the devout, those who are not devoted to the gods in sacrifice, and, by the man who presents libations, (him who does not offer).

    Phoenix says:
    ==============================================
    Atharva Veda II:14:5. Whether ye belong to (the demons) of inherited disease, whether ye have been dispatched by men, or whether ye have originated from the Dasyus (demon-like aborigines), vanish from here, O ye Sadânvâs!”

    *These Dasyus and the godless are the unfortunate victims of Aryan atrocties in the Vedas. I’m not aware that only Kshatriyas may fight each other. Your defense is completely off the mark and therefore false.
    ===================================================================

    Again Mahabharatha and other texts make it very clear that ONLY Kshatrityas fight wars…Others are under their rule through application of laws. Its irrelevant to me what you think.

    As for Atharva Veda verse, the terms is brackets are interpretations. They are NOT evidence from Vedic texts themselves.

  19. why? says:

    Phoenix says:
    ===============================================================
    Let’s first clear up what the word “founded” mean. From the freedictionary(dot)com:

    “To establish or set up, especially with provision for continuing existence”

    This is exactly what the founder of Muhammad did with slavery.

    “Islam was founded upon slavery and spoils of war.”
    ===============================================================

    Still does NOT answer the question if slavery s part of Islam’s theology.

    Islam simply allows slavery and is NOT founded on slavery.

    Suppose slavery is banned 100% successfully all over the world, would it make practice of Islam impossible? The honest answer is absolutely NO. So Islam is NOT founded upon slavery for its continuing existence.

    Now where did Muhammad get his idea of allowing slavery by attacking cities of infidels, committing genocide and raping infidel women and taking them as sex slaves through religious law and command of “god”?

    Obviously none other than the unholy bible…..(Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14))

    Phoenix says:
    ===============================================================
    Not calling it a strawman does not relieve you from the fallacy. Here is what I stated:
    “..none of the above disproves the fact that Christianity was not founded on slavery”
    And your response is that Jesus did not say a word against slavery. You’ve attacked an entirely different argument, hence the strawman.
    ===============================================================

    Now where did I insist that christianity is founded on slavery. My statement is

    “Pointless statement..

    Neither is Islam nor any other religion founded on slavery.”

    Another strawman…

  20. Phoenix says:

    @Why?
    410. (The king) should order a Vaisya to trade, to lend money, to cultivate the land, or to tend cattle, and a Sudra to serve the twice-born caste”
    This verse makes it clear in context. The King shall order or make (compel) the Vaishya do what he needs to do, mainly to do business activities and thereby employ shudras and take care of them. The King shall make the Shudras work for other three castes….This is ensuring each follows one’s own dharma//

    There’s no mention of Vaisyas taking care of Sudras, so that’s another false statement. But the crux of the matter is this: The Sudra unlike the Vaisya is owned by the Brahmins. Sudras are the properties of Brahmins, hence they are the ones who are considered slaves. The verse I quoted legalize the purchasing of Sudra slaves.
    ===
    Besides, the verse 413 clearly mentions bought or unbought. Why? Because it wants to distinguish between a slave and free shudra….This itself means that shudra are NOT slaves by default//

    Unbought slaves are refer to he ones who are caught in battle, inherited, etc. Your reasons above contradict the verses from Manu
    ===
    Now why does the verse say that a shudra is created to be slave of brAhmin? This verse does NOT talk about physical slavery through legal laws, but about karmic slavery. It talks about Shudras spiritual emancipation coming only through serving brAhmins. Ths is just like a brAhmins emancipation coming through serving Vedic God and Vedic devatas or Vedic gods, for Kshatriya through protecting its citizens from foreign enemy attacks or any kind of harm and Vaishya is through ensuring wealth in the country, likewise a shudra by serving brAhmins//

    Oh, I see. They are spiritual slaves. That’s funny

  21. Phoenix says:

    @why?
    39 With Bow let us win kine, with Bow the battle, with Bow
    be victors in our hot encounters.
    The Bow brings grief and sorrow to the foeman: armed with
    the Bow may we subdue all regions. (Shukla/white Yajur Veda 29:39)

    \\Although the verse talks about subduing regions, it does NOT talk anything about slavery or taking anybody as slaves. Subduing is controlling a city or town through taxes and just laws. Nowhere it talks about imposing slavery on its residents//

    OK, let’s take on your translation for the fun of it:
    Firstly, I did not state that the verse refers to slavery, so that’s a strawman on your part
    Secondly, your definition of subduing is just plain false. There is no mention of controlling through just laws contained in the definition.

    Here’s the dictionary definition of subdue:
    “bring (a country or people) under control by force.”

    That definition fits with the context of the verse which is battle and defeating the foe with weaponry (bow). Hence, the aim of the battle is to subdue (forceful control) all regions.
    ===
    This is simple to disprove from the same Manu smriti..
    8: 412. But a Brahmana who, because he is powerful, out of greed makes initiated (men of the) twice-born (castes) against their will do the work of slaves, shall be fined by the king six hundred (panas).
    Who are twice born mentioned here? Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas are the ones….so these are never enslaved

    Who is allowed to do battle in Hinduism? ONLY Kshatriyas or warrior caste… who cannot be enslaved in war… captured warriors are left alone…it includes their families because they too are Kshatriya by caste….

    Then who is the slave here? Logically these are the slaves owned by losing warriors. I hope this makes sense to you//

    Your argument assumes that Kshatriyas only fight other Kshatriyas. In the Vedas the enemy is not Kshatriyas but the non-believers and dasas/dasyus which could be the same enemy for all I know.

    Atharva Veda 11:2:23 Homage be paid him with ten Sakvari verses who stands established in the air’s mid-region, slaying non-sacrificing God-despisers!”

    Rig Veda 7:93:5 When two great hosts, arrayed against each other, meet clothed with brightness, in the fierce encounter.Stand ye beside the godly, smite the godless; and still assist the men who press the Soma”

    Atharva Veda II:14:5. Whether ye belong to (the demons) of inherited disease, whether ye have been dispatched by men, or whether ye have originated from the Dasyus (demon-like aborigines), vanish from here, O ye Sadânvâs!”

    *These Dasyus and the godless are the unfortunate victims of Aryan atrocties in the Vedas. I’m not aware that only Kshatriyas may fight each other. Your defense is completely off the mark and therefore false.
    ===
    Nope….The point is since caste rules disallows one not to have intercourse with other, especially lower caste women, sexual slavery is disallowed in Hinduism. I thought this is simple logic for you to understand//

    So your argument is basically that it’s okay to reduce women from your own caste to sexual slavery.
    ===

  22. Phoenix says:

    Neither is Islam nor any other religion founded on slavery. Slavery is NOT part of Islam’s theology. It is simply allowed in Islam, just as bible allows it in Judaism or christianity//

    Let’s first clear up what the word “founded” mean. From the freedictionary.com:

    “To establish or set up, especially with provision for continuing existence”

    This is exactly what the founder of Muhammad did with slavery. He captured women and children in battle then shared them amongst his companions, ransomed them, traded them or sold them. Het set a precedent by trafficking humans. His devout followers Boko Haram et al are well known for kidnapping girls and selling them. This indeed a favorite terrorist pastime, not just a by product of their faith as you would have us believe.
    ===
    This is why we have already seen, jeebus did NOT utter one word against slavery.
    There is NO strawman here…Observe, jeebus did NOT talk one word against sexual slavery as well//

    Not calling it a strawman does not relieve you from the fallacy. Here is what I stated:
    “..none of the above disproves the fact that Christianity was not founded on slavery”
    And your response is that Jesus did not say a word against slavery. You’ve attacked an entirely different argument, hence the strawman.
    ===
    This is the worse translation I have seen. First of all, this translation is as per “Arya samaj”, a modern Hindu sect headed by Dayanand Saraswati and his commentaries. The translations are way off the mark, since they have weird justifications as per their weird theological structure. I will provide an alternate translation below from a western guy.//

    In the past you were adamantly opposed to western translations because of a supposed agenda to vilify Hinduism. Now a Hindu sect from India is considered the worst culprits. I have no reason to discard the translation other than you finding it embarrassing.

  23. why? says:

    Ron,

    Now please answer the following question honestly…

    Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

    As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

    PARALLEL IN KORAN:

    And when We decide to destroy a town (population), We (first) send a definite order (to obey Allah and be righteous) to those among them [or We (first) increase in number those of its population] who are given the good things of this life. Then, they transgress therein, and thus the word (of torment) is justified against it (them). Then We destroy it with complete destruction. (Surat Al-‘Isra’ [17:16])

    1. Why is it that Quran has verses similar to bible? Because Muhammad copied them from bible…

    2. Why is it your demonic bible god, order his followers to enter citites and commit genocide of all male guardians, make sex slaves of all surviving female adults and children and loot the entire city?

    Is it possible to have any justification for such horrific crimes?

    Can a just god perpetrate such crimes through his commands to destroy cities, commit genocide and commit mass rapes?

    Why is it NOT easy for you christians to see the utter criminality, utter evil and utter immorality in such commands? PLEASE ANSWER HONESTLY…..

    AINT IT CLEAR THAT BIBLE IS A DEMONIC BOOK JUST LIKE YOUR QURAN?

  24. why? says:

    Ron Says:
    =======================================================
    The figures are huge whether it is 20.9 million or 36 million or more. The fact is that India (hindu nation) has the highest number of slaves (more than the whole world combined).
    ========================================================

    The figures itself (for India) show that the data is based on blind extrapolation of actual data. One needs to see how exactly this figure for India is obtained. Clearly such off the chart data is based on faulty statistical methods.

    For example, look at what the washington post link says.
    ==================================================================
    But Andrew Guth, who wrote critically of GSI’s methodology, notes that the Gallup polling, if taken at face value, demonstrated that some of the index’s previous estimates were off course. Ethiopia turned out to have a prevalence level five times lower than the year before — while Russia was deemed to be two times higher.
    ===================================================================

    DID YOU READ THE ABOVE POST?

    ETHIOPIA’S ESTIMATE IS 5 TIES LOWER, WHILE RUSSIA WAS 2 TIMES HIGHER.

    NOW WHY WOULD ANYBODY TRUST SUCH ERRONEOUS REPORTS. C’MON ETHIPIA’S ESTIMATE WAS 5 TIMES LOWER…DO YOU THINK THIS IS RELIABLE DATA? NO SANE PERSON CAN TRUST SUCH UNRELIABLE DATA.

    Ron Says:
    =======================================================
    My Indian friends (Hindus and Sikhs) say that there are more slaves and bonded labor in India and it is because of religious sanctioning by Manu Smriti laws since thousands of years.
    =======================================================

    1. So we have to take your word for this and you have no agenda at all in making fake claims. Lets say some ignorant Hindus did say that. How does it prove this is the case?

    2. How many have read Manu smriti in India? It is relatively unknown to majority Hindus and Sikhs in India. and What do Sikhs have to do with Manu Smriti? 99% Hindus in India do NOT even bother with what Manu Smriti says.

    3. Manu smriti was never the justification used by any Hindu on getting slaves. Economy and poverty is the reason some are taken as bonded labors in remote villages. These Hindus (landowners) are ignorant about Manu smriti. They are never taught these texts.

    4. Manu smriti rules applicable in different age, namely Satya yuga (first age). This is orthodox teaching.

    As per Hindu idea of time, there 4 different ages that repeat in cycles. The present age is called Kali Yuga (age of Kali, the male demon Kali), that is the 4th or last age. There are different smritis applicable to different ages in Hinduism.

    So Manu smriti, meant for first age, being used as justification in 4th age is absolute lies. Can you show me ONE PLACE IN HISTORY OR ANYWHERE, where a slave owning Hindu used Manu smriti as justification? YOU CANNOT..SINCE IT IS PURE LIES….

    HOWEVER YOU WILL FIND UMPTEEN EXAMPLES WHERE SLAVE OWNERS AMONG CHRISTIANS USED BIBLE FOR JUSTIFICATION.

  25. Ron says:

    In general your Washington post link says the US govt estimates is 20.9 million based on the ILO report relied upon by the State Dept . It says the numbers could probably be less/more than the GSI estimates of 36 million as there is no actual census of slavery can be taken.

    The figures are huge whether it is 20.9 million or 36 million or more. The fact is that India (hindu nation) has the highest number of slaves (more than the whole world combined).

    My Indian friends (Hindus and Sikhs) say that there are more slaves and bonded labor in India and it is because of religious sanctioning by Manu Smriti laws since thousands of years.

    Read this

    http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/there-are-more-slaves-today-any-time-human-history
    It says that ” There are arguably more slaves In India than the rest of the world combined.”

  26. why? says:

    NOW THAT WE HAVE DISPROVED THAT IN HINDUISM OR EVEN BUDDHISM THAT CITY POPULATIONS ARE ENSLAVED, LETS GET BACK TO BARBARIC BOOKS LIKE BIBLE OR KORAN.

    I challenge anybody here to produce a parallel to barbaric biblical or koranic verses, where sexual slavery is imposed on conquered populations of cities or towns, after killing off their male guardians.

    Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

    As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

    PARALLEL IN KORAN:

    And when We decide to destroy a town (population), We (first) send a definite order (to obey Allah and be righteous) to those among them [or We (first) increase in number those of its population] who are given the good things of this life. Then, they transgress therein, and thus the word (of torment) is justified against it (them). Then We destroy it with complete destruction. (Surat Al-‘Isra’ [17:16])

  27. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    ================================================================================
    False, Manu lists seven methods of acquiring slaves.
    Manu 8:415. There are slaves of seven kinds, (viz.) he who is made a captive under a standard,
    ============================================

    This is simple to disprove from the same Manu smriti..

    8: 412. But a Brahmana who, because he is powerful, out of greed makes initiated (men of the) twice-born (castes) against their will do the work of slaves, shall be fined by the king six hundred (panas).

    Who are twice born mentioned here? Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas are the ones….so these are never enslaved…

    Who is allowed to do battle in Hinduism? ONLY Kshatriyas or warrior caste… who cannot be enslaved in war… captured warriors are left alone…it includes their families because they too are Kshatriya by caste….

    Then who is the slave here? Logically these are the slaves owned by losing warriors. I hope this makes sense to you…

    Phoenix Says:
    ================================================================================
    More absurdity. Sexual slavery is not imposed(?). So sexual slavery must be freely practiced then ???
    =========================================================

    Nope….The point is since caste rules disallows one not to have intercourse with other, especially lower caste women, sexual slavery is disallowed in Hinduism. I thought this is simple logic for you to understand…

    Phoenix Says:
    ================================================================================
    I’m sorry, I must have missed that one because I could’ve sworn I just read Manu explicitly designate all Sudras to a life of slavery.
    Laws of Manu 8:413. But a Sudra, whether bought or unbought, he may compel to do servile work; for he was created by the Self-existent (Svayambhu) to be the slave of a Brahmana.
    ===================================================

    I’m sorry, like Ron you do NOT bother to read what I posted previously…
    Read the previous verses…The duties of a King are laid out here….

    410. (The king) should order a Vaisya to trade, to lend money, to cultivate the land, or to tend cattle, and a Sudra to serve the twice-born castes….

    This verse makes it clear in context. The King shall order or make (compel) the Vaishya do what he needs to do, mainly to do business activities and thereby employ shudras and take care of them. The King shall make the Shudras work for other three castes….This is ensuring each follows one’s own dharma.

    After that comes the verses 413 and 414…..…..The compelling here for a vaishya through various means (how is NOT stated here, may be rewards and punishments) obviously does NOT imply slavery. Similarly, compelling a shudra does NOT mean slavery, but through various means from material rewards, punishments and other kinds…..

    Besides, the verse 413 clearly mentions bought or unbought. Why? Because it wants to distinguish between a slave and free shudra….This itself means that shudra are NOT slaves by default….

    Now why does the verse say that a shudra is created to be slave of brAhmin? This verse does NOT talk about physical slavery through legal laws, but about karmic slavery. It talks about Shudras spiritual emancipation coming only through serving brAhmins. Ths is just like a brAhmins emancipation coming through serving Vedic God and Vedic devatas or Vedic gods, for Kshatriya through protecting its citizens from foreign enemy attacks or any kind of harm and Vaishya is through ensuring wealth in the country, likewise a shudra by serving brAhmins.

  28. why? says:

    Phoenix,

    Most of your quotes from Manu smriti were already answered in previous arguments we had. Since you lack any intellectual honesty, you are quoting it again and again.

    Phoenix Says:
    ================================================================================
    You can whisper it or shout it aloud but non of the above disproves the fact that Christianity was not founded on slavery.
    ================================================================================

    Pointless statement..

    Neither is Islam nor any other religion founded on slavery. Slavery is NOT part of Islam’s theology. It is simply allowed in Islam, just as bible allows it in Judaism or christianity.

    This is why we have already seen, jeebus did NOT utter one word against slavery.

    There is NO strawman here…Observe, jeebus did NOT talk one word against sexual slavery as well…

    Phoenix Says:
    ================================================================================
    Yajur Veda 17:38
    O friendly countrymen, encourage the commander of the army, and begin the battle with him, who with his physical, mental and military strength, *cleaves the enemies’ families, usurps their land, is armed with weapons, slay’s the foes, subdues the enemy in the battle, and conquers him.*

    Your argument here is exactly what? That these families that were slaughtered lived in villages as opposed to cities, therefore “no biggie” ? And since you made a universal claim, it suffices to disprove your assertion with a single verse.
    ==================================================================================

    This is the worse translation I have seen. First of all, this translation is as per “Arya samaj”, a modern Hindu sect headed by Dayanand Saraswati and his commentaries. The translations are way off the mark, since they have weird justifications as per their weird theological structure. I will provide an alternate translation below from a western guy.

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/wyv/wyvbk17.htm

    38 Cleaver of stalls, kine-winner, armed with thunder, who quells
    an army and with might destroys it,
    Follow him, brothers! quit yourselves like heroes, and like
    this Indra show your zeal and courage.

    Where does it talk about “families” or “commander of army”? I will explain. The word “Indra” is probably translated as “commander of army”. This is as per Arya samaj theology, which absolutely denies existence of Vedic gods (devatas) with a small “g”. So to justify their theology, they will have to twist the meanings of Vedic verses. This is what has happened.

    Now, I do NOT agree with western translation completely as well. However, the western translation is much more loser to actual Vedic verses than the twisted Arya Samaj translation here…NOTE here that there are no mention of slaves here too..

    Now I will NOT quote each and every statement you have made. Lets see 17:39 here….

    39 Piercing the cow-stalls with surpassing vigour, Indra, the
    pitiless Hero, wild with anger,
    Victor in fight, unshaken and resistless,—may he protect our
    armies in our battles.

    There is no mention of “families” in both the verses. These are prayers to Vedic god “Indra” and Vedic God (with capital G) who is the immanent controller of Indra simultaneously. In all these prayers, the exploits of “Indra” are recalled and then asked to protect the human army in battles against enemies.

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/wyv/wyvbk29.htm

    39 With Bow let us win kine, with Bow the battle, with Bow
    be victors in our hot encounters.
    The Bow brings grief and sorrow to the foeman: armed with
    the Bow may we subdue all regions. (Shukla/white Yajur Veda 29:39)

    Although the verse talks about subduing regions, it does NOT talk anything about slavery or taking anybody as slaves. Subduing is controlling a city or town through taxes and just laws. Nowhere it talks about imposing slavery on its residents.

  29. Phoenix says:

    We have gone through this already regarding Hinduism/Buddhism. Slavery existed in history all over the world.//

    First of all, do not equate Hinduism and Buddhism. Hindu sacred texts portray Buddha as an evil being for apostatizing from the Vedas.
    ===
    1. In bible or quran, SLAVERY IS IMPOSED ON FREE UNBELIEVERS BY ATTACKING THEIR CITIES, MURDERING THE MALE GUARDIANS, RAPING THEIR WOMEN AND FEMALE CHILDREN AND IMPOSING SEXUAL SLAVERY ON THEM.//

    You can whisper it or shout it aloud but non of the above disproves the fact that Christianity was not founded on slavery. This is a straw man, subset of red herring.
    ===
    2. IN BIBLE OR QURAN, IF ANY MALE CHILDREN OR MALE MEMBER IS ALIVE IN CITIES, SLAVERY IS IMPOSED ON THESE FREE MEMBERS//

    Still straw manning.
    ===
    1. IN HINDUISM/BUDDHISM, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE IN ANY WAR, CITIES ARE EVER ATTACKED. BATTLES TAKE PLACE IN BATTLE GROUND ONLY, NEVER IN POPULATED CITIES. THIS IS RELIGIOUS RULE.//

    Let’s take recourse to Devi Chand’s translation of the Yajur Veda:

    http://www.archive.org/stream/yajurveda029670mbp/yajurveda029670mbp_djvu.txt
    Yajur Veda 17:38
    O friendly countrymen, encourage the commander of the army, and begin the battle with him, who with his physical, mental and military strength, *cleaves the enemies’ families, usurps their land, is armed with weapons, slay’s the foes, subdues the enemy in the battle, and conquers him.*

    Your argument here is exactly what? That these families that were slaughtered lived in villages as opposed to cities, therefore “no biggie” ? And since you made a universal claim, it suffices to disprove your assertion with a single verse.
    ===
    2. NEVER ARE FREE MEN OR WOMEN ATTACKED IN CITIES AND NEVER ARE THEY ENSLAVED BY CAPTORS.//

    This is a bizzare claim. I guess you’re thinking it somehow allows you enough wiggle room to bs your way out. Here’s another verse below, proving that whole families were slaughtered by the Aryans. Unless you’re arguing that these murdered families were not free but slaves and therefore deserving of their terrible fate. But why steal (usurp) their land if they’re slaves? Seems there’s a discrepancy in your reasoning. Your train of thought is completely off. Please clarify your claims in unmistakable terms.

    Yaj Veda17:39 May the commander of the army, who, with surpassing vigour pierces in the battles the families of the enemies, is pitiless, wild with anger, unconquerable by foes, conqueror of the enemy’s forces, unequalled in fight, and victor, protect our armies,
    ===
    3. NEVER ARE LIVING WARRIORS IN OPPOSING CAMPS ARE ENSLAVED. NEITHER ARE THEIR FAMILIES. THIS IS STRICT RELIGIOUS RULE IN HINDUISM/BUDDHISM.//

    I’ve just disproved this with the above 2 verses. But here’s another one just in case you’re still in denial.

    Yaj Veda 29:39 With military weapons let us win the Earth, with them the battle, with cannon let us win the ease-loving army of our foes. War-like weapons destroy the ambitions of the foeman. Armed with the bow may we subdue all regions.

    *Notice that the command is to subdue every single region, be it city or village.
    ===
    4. THE ONLY WAY SLAVES ARE OBTAINED IN HINDUISM, IS THE SLAVES OF THE OPPOSING WARRIORS BECOME SLAVES OF WINNERS, JUST LIKE THEIR PROPERTIES BECOME THE PROPERTIES OF WINNING SIDE//

    False, Manu lists seven methods of acquiring slaves.
    Manu 8:415. There are slaves of seven kinds, (viz.) he who is made a captive under a standard, he who serves for his daily food, he who is born in the house, he who is bought and he who is given, he who is inherited from ancestors, and he who is enslaved by way of punishment.
    ===
    5. SEXUAL SLAVERY IS NEVER IMPOSED ON THE ENSLAVED IN HINDUISM/BUDDHISM. HINDUISM DOES NOT ALLOW SEX OUTSIDE CASTE//

    More absurdity. Sexual slavery is not imposed(?). So sexual slavery must be freely practiced then ???
    ===
    6. FINALLY, CASTE IS NOT SLAVERY AND IT WAS ALREADY PROVED. ALL FOUR CASTES, INCLUDING SHUDRAS OWN PROPERTIES. ALL YOUR QUOTES WERE PROVEN WRONG ALREADY.//

    I’m sorry, I must have missed that one because I could’ve sworn I just read Manu explicitly designate all Sudras to a life of slavery.

    Laws of Manu 8:413. But a Sudra, whether bought or unbought, he may compel to do servile work; for he was created by the Self-existent (Svayambhu) to be the slave of a Brahmana.

  30. why? says:

    Ron,

    You have a bad habit of NOT reading my posts at all….I already posted the link from washington post….why dont you read it for once?

    Here is the link which I already posted…

    www(dot)washingtonpost(dot)com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/04/24/why-you-should-be-wary-of-statistics-on-modern-slavery-and-trafficking/

    Go and read the bloody link. In previous post I have already quoted relevant statements from the link…Are you [email protected] blind?

  31. Ron says:

    Well if GSI index was wrong then there would have been a huge uproar. CNN, BBC, Amnesty, UN, CBS, ABC, Reuters, Tass, Huffington post etc have all carried and reiterated the Global Slavery Index figures figures.

    There is no major news media which has challenged those findings.

    You (Why) seem to be in denial and the hate and bias is obvious.
    Remember that I refrain from calling anyone names because we are all made in the image of God and Jesus loves you.

    Let the readers decide

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/17/world/…/global-slavery-index/index.html

    Thirty million people are slaves, half in India – survey | Reuters

    in.reuters.com/article/slavery-index-idINDEE99F0DN20131016

    http://www.freetheslaves.net/about-slavery/slavery-today/

    “Slavery statistics come from the U.N. International Labor Organization and the Walk Free Global Slavery Index.”

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-24573127
    Modern slavery facts and figures explained

  32. why? says:

    Ron,

    It is already established that GSI INDEX is based on improper extrapolation of statistical methods and hence GSI INDEX on India is questionable.

    Apparently a thick headed fellow like you does not understand neither logic nor scientific methods.

    NOTE:
    =======================
    The times of India and dw.com articles you quoted is based on the FAULTY GSI index and therefore not worth.
    ========================

    Phoenix and Ron,

    We have gone through this already regarding Hinduism/Buddhism. Slavery existed in history all over the world.

    BUT THERE IS A IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE HERE YOU DELIBERATELY AND DECEPTIVELY HIDE.

    1. In bible or quran, SLAVERY IS IMPOSED ON FREE UNBELIEVERS BY ATTACKING THEIR CITIES, MURDERING THE MALE GUARDIANS, RAPING THEIR WOMEN AND FEMALE CHILDREN AND IMPOSING SEXUAL SLAVERY ON THEM.

    2. IN BIBLE OR QURAN, IF ANY MALE CHILDREN OR MALE MEMBER IS ALIVE IN CITIES, SLAVERY IS IMPOSED ON THESE FREE MEMBERS.

    NOTE HERE THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY:

    1. IN HINDUISM/BUDDHISM, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE IN ANY WAR, CITIES ARE EVER ATTACKED. BATTLES TAKE PLACE IN BATTLE GROUND ONLY, NEVER IN POPULATED CITIES. THIS IS RELIGIOUS RULE.

    2. NEVER ARE FREE MEN OR WOMEN ATTACKED IN CITIES AND NEVER ARE THEY ENSLAVED BY CAPTORS.

    3. NEVER ARE LIVING WARRIORS IN OPPOSING CAMPS ARE ENSLAVED. NEITHER ARE THEIR FAMILIES. THIS IS STRICT RELIGIOUS RULE IN HINDUISM/BUDDHISM.

    4. THE ONLY WAY SLAVES ARE OBTAINED IN HINDUISM, IS THE SLAVES OF THE OPPOSING WARRIORS BECOME SLAVES OF WINNERS, JUST LIKE THEIR PROPERTIES BECOME THE PROPERTIES OF WINNING SIDE.

    5. SEXUAL SLAVERY IS NEVER IMPOSED ON THE ENSLAVED IN HINDUISM/BUDDHISM. HINDUISM DOES NOT ALLOW SEX OUTSIDE CASTE.

    6. FINALLY, CASTE IS NOT SLAVERY AND IT WAS ALREADY PROVED. ALL FOUR CASTES, INCLUDING SHUDRAS OWN PROPERTIES. ALL YOUR QUOTES WERE PROVEN WRONG ALREADY.

    =========================================================

    FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, SHOW ANYWHERE IN HINDUISM/BUDDHISM WHERE SOLDIERS ARE ASKED TO ENSLAVE WOMEN CAPTURED IN CITIES OR TOWNS OF OPPOSING SIDE OR UNBELIEVERS. YOU CANNOT…THIS BARBARIC SYSTEM IS FOUND ONLY IN BIBLE OR QURAN…

  33. Phoenix says:

    – Slavery exists in the bible but Christianity was not founded upon slavery. Since slavery is not a principle of Christianity, it can thrive without it.

    – Islam was founded upon slavery and spoils of war. They are imperative tenets of Islam and necessary for its existence.

    – The Vedas often make mention of spoils of war and it is in the Laws of Manu that we find caste slavery to be an essential aspect of Hinduism.

  34. Ron says:

    Source: History of Ancient and Early Medieval India by Upinder Singh.

    Slavery was very much present in the ancient India and ample proofs are available in many sources.
    • Rig Veda is very much familiar with slavery. It defines a slave a someone who has no rights,power,autonomy or honour and survives as a property of the master.A slave was supposed to perform all the duties of the master.
    • In the later period, Buddhist texts refer to slavery.The Vinaya Pitaka speaks of three kinds of slaves- one who born to women slave,one who is purchased and one who is brought from another country. The Digha Nikaya mentions the fourth type- one who has himself accepted slavery.
    • The rules of Buddhist sangha do not allow a slave to join unless he is freed by his master.
    • Ashoka’s Dhamma consists of proper courtesy towards slaves.
    • It was largely prevalent during Gupta age . Narada Smriti mentions about 15 kinds of slaves. Those mainly included war captives,debt enslavement and voluntary enslavement. It also states that slaves can be pledged or mortgaged. It also mentions the detailed procedure for freeing of salve by his master.
    • In the medieval era,there is hardly any doubt about slavery practice. It was not prohibited in Islam and was in practice in Islamic world. In fact, India was a big exporter of slaves to the Islamic world.
    Even after so many proofs,there are tendencies in us Indians to not accept the facts. We try hard to prove that the ancient Indian society was very much egalitarian.
    Come on, no ancient system was perfect neither is present society. Accept the facts!

    India is now the worlds slave capital
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-is-now-the-worlds-slave-capital-Global-Slavery-Index-2014/articleshow/45178623.cms

    Modern-day slavery widespread in India
    http://www.dw.com/en/modern-day-slavery-widespread-in-india/a-17180433

  35. why? says:

    www(dot)washingtonpost(dot)com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/04/24/why-you-should-be-wary-of-statistics-on-modern-slavery-and-trafficking/

    But the GSI figure has come under attack from other researchers for having a murky, inconsistent and questionable methodology.

    GSI relies on an expansive definition of slavery, but confusingly it relies on primary and secondary data that was collected under different definitions.

    The data are relatively sparse, but the GSI extrapolates from existing numbers to make calculations in what it deems are similar countries. Essentially, researchers extrapolated from 19 countries to come up with precise statistics for the 167 countries that make up the index.

    Thus data for the United States is considered relevant to calculate Italy’s total of 11,400 slaves, for instance. South Africa’s number of slaves — supposedly 106,000 — was derived from the fact that GSI researchers decided the country is 70 percent “Western Europe” and 30 percent “African” (specifically, an amalgam of Ethiopia, Nigeria, Niger and Namibia).

    But Andrew Guth, who wrote critically of GSI’s methodology, notes that the Gallup polling, if taken at face value, demonstrated that some of the index’s previous estimates were off course. Ethiopia turned out to have a prevalence level five times lower than the year before — while Russia was deemed to be two times higher.

    =====================================================================

    Now that we have seen GSI is questionable, my obvious question to Ron are the following.

    1. How does it justify biblical demon god’s command to obtain sex slaves in wars by attacking cities after murdering their male guardians?

    2. Poverty in India may lead to slavery of certain people.

    3. None of these “slave owners” quoted Hindu texts as excuse to justify their acts. However, historically slave owners in West did quote bible for justification.

  36. Ron says:

    According to the Global Slavery Index
    1) Among the top ten countries having population under slavery per capita (none of them are Western democracies. All of them are non-Christian countries (Mauritania, Uzbekistan, Haiti, Qatar, India, Pakistan, DRC, Sudan, Syria and CAR)
    2) India alone has 14 million people under slavery out of the worlds estimate of 36 million under slavery.
    http://www.globalslaveryindex.org/findings/

  37. Anon says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36g3auOm9HA

    I would have to agree with “WHY? ” AronRA gives good examples and contexts of christians texts when reviewing the history and morality of the “10 commandments” it’s rather enlightening.

  38. why? says:

    Ron has succeeded in taking christian bias and biblical immorality of sexual slavery of women and imposing slavery on children to a new level by providing stupid reasoning…

    C’mon Ron do you really believe in the reasoning you have given? Mooslimes tody give the same reasoning that you give.

    For example, Western nations decadence from homosexuality, adultery, pre-marital sex, bestiality to even incest in Western nations. This is why Islamic shariah law need to be implemented by war or jihad. In this war, the women and children will be unprotected and so they need to be taken as slaves.

    Do you agree with this line of argument? Do you even read your own arguments Ron? You Christians are crazy just like the islamic morons. You will justify any immoral act in your demonic books (bible and koran resp.).

    How on Earth can anybody justify taking women as sex slaves against their will after killing their husbands? This attack is taking place in populated cities. Even if the population is immoral, how can one justify another immoral act of sexual slavery imposed on them?

    If one guy rapes, is it just to go and rape his women relatives or is it just to punish the perpetrator with imprisonment or other just methods?

    Your biblical “god” does NOT even understand this much about justice and punishes immoral acts with another immoral act of violating their women, namely sexual slavery…just like allah…

    You call this biblical creature as “god” and “holy”, while it is in reality a demonic unholy entity if it exists in reality just as koran’s allah is….

  39. Ron says:

    A basic knowledge of Canaanite culture reveals its inherent moral wickedness. The Canaanites were a brutal, aggressive people who engaged in bestiality, incest, and even child sacrifice. Deviant sexual acts were the norm. The Canaanites’ sin was so repellent that God said, “The land vomited out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:25). Even so, the destruction was directed more at the Canaanite religion (Deuteronomy 7:3–5,12:2-3) than at the Canaanite people per se. The judgment was not ethnically motivated. Individual Canaanites, like Rahab in Jericho, could still find that mercy follows repentance (Joshua 2). God’s desire is that the wicked turn from their sin rather than die (Ezekiel 18:31-32, 33:11).

    Besides dealing with national sins, God used the conquest of Canaan to create a religious/historical context in which He could eventually introduce the Messiah to the world. This Messiah would bring salvation not only to Israel, but also to Israel’s enemies, including Canaan (Psalm 87:4-6; Mark 7:25–30).

    It must be remembered that God gave the Canaanite people more than sufficient time to repent of their evil ways—over 400 years (Genesis 15:13–16)! The book of Hebrews tells us that the Canaanites were “disobedient,” which implies moral culpability on their part (Hebrews 11:31). The Canaanites were aware of God’s power (Joshua 2:10–11; 9:9) and could have sought repentance. Except in rare instances, they continued their rebellion against God until the bitter end.

    But didn’t God also command the Israelites to kill non-combatants? The biblical record is clear that He did. Here again, we must remember that, while it is true the Canaanite women did not fight, this in no way means they were innocent, as their seductive behavior in Numbers 25 indicates (Numbers 25:1–3). However, the question still remains: what about the children? This is not an easy question to answer, but we must keep several things in mind. First, no human person (including infants) is truly innocent. The Scripture teaches that we are all born in sin (Psalm 51:5; 58:3). This implies that all people are morally culpable for Adam’s sin in some way. Infants are just as condemned from sin as adults are.

    Second, God is sovereign over all of life and can take it whenever He sees fit. God and God alone can give life, and God alone has the right to take it whenever He so chooses. In fact, He ultimately takes every person’s life at death. It is not our life to begin with but God’s. While it is wrong for us to take a life, except in instances of capital punishment, war, and self-defense, this does not mean that it is wrong for God to do so. We intuitively recognize this when we accuse some person or authority who takes human life as “playing God.” God is under no obligation to extend anyone’s life for even another day. How and when we die is completely up to Him.

    Third, an argument could be made that it would have been cruel for God to take the lives of all the Canaanites except the infants and children. Without the protection and support of their parents, the infants and small children were likely to face death anyway due to starvation. The chances of survival for an orphan in the ancient Near East were not good.

    Finally, and most importantly, God may have provided for the salvation for those infants who would not have otherwise attained salvation if they had lived into adulthood. We must remember that the Canaanites were a barbarous and evil culture. If those infants and children had lived into adulthood, it is very likely they would have turned into something similar to their parents and been condemned to hell after they died. If all infants and young children who die before an age of moral accountability go straight to heaven (as we believe), then those children are in a far better place than if God had allowed them to live and grow to maturity in a depraved culture.

    Surely, the issue of God commanding violence in the Old Testament is difficult. However, we must remember that God sees things from an eternal perspective, and His ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8–9). The apostle Paul tells us that God is both kind and severe (Romans 11:22). While it is true that God’s holy character demands that sin be punished, His grace and mercy remain extended to those who are willing to repent and be saved. The Canaanite destruction provides us with a sober reminder that, while our God is gracious and merciful, He is also a God of holiness and wrath.

  40. why? says:

    Are you Christians always this dishonest Walter?

    More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

    As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

    What do you call this other than kidnapping, stealing, looting, raping and imposing sexual slavery on women? Muhammad copied this from bible and put it in quran. Making unbelieving women as sex slaves after attacking cities and towns and killing of their guardian men was invented as a religious pious first in bible ONLY. No other religious book invented such a vile act.

  41. Walter Sieruk says:

    As in heinously cruel a and awful action of abducting a person or groups of people It may be said with the information of the Bible. God very much detests the sin of kidnapping. So greatly that He had declared the death penalty for those who engage in that hideous behavior .For it is written “Those who steal someone to sell as a slave or to keep as a slave for himself must be killed.” Exodus 21:16 [E.R.V.] All those girls and women abducted by fiendish jihadist thugs who compose ISIS, should indeed be lamented for ,pitied and also prayed for. For ISIS is based on Islam which is a religion of vicious brutal and heartless misogyny. As Brigitte Gabriel ,who is the founder and head of actforamerica.org , had so well explained in her book THEY MUST BE STOPPED ,which reads “Woman in Islam are considered unclean ,deemed inferior even to dirt.”
    This sad and tragic reality is that the men who are the callous characters of ISIS will use all those females as tools ,stooges for their Islamic agenda. In other words, the jihadist who make up ISIS will engage in total exploitation of those girls and women that they had abducted. How unconscionable and despicable those male members of ISIS,in their Islamic goals, are towards those females

%d bloggers like this: