Actually Jesus and the NT teach one man for one women, while multiple wives, while allowed in past periods but not uniquely, was shown to be problematic, but it provides for increased posterity and growth of the nation (versus aborting generations an importing replacements) and "social security."
Its perfectly ok to have sex with youre female slaves
And where, except in atheistic misconstruance, does the Bible teach sexual relations with anyone but your wife/wives is sanctioned?
Women sold by her fathers to be a wife, or concubine (a secondary type of wife) were required to be allowed to be redeemed to freedom if the man broke the betrothal, or if neglect of equal care for her with the first wife in food, or in clothing or in sexual relations was the case. (Exodus 21:7-11)
,Its perfectly ok to have hundreds of concubines to satisfy youre every sexual desire,,Right METMOM?
You are making the fundamental error of supposing that recording something means approval, or the ideal. It was kings who who took hundreds of concubines as part of their power, while as with liberal divorce, this is shown to be an allowance is condescension to man at that stage, while moving them to the higher standard seen in the NT.
God blesses that.In fact its also ok to bash the heads of innocent babies with bricks and stones isnt it? To cut open the bellies of pregnant women and destroy thier unborn children isnt it?
You do have poetic language in Ps. 137, but God sometimes wholly clean house as He does have the prerogative to judge evil people, executing the guilty and even stopping terminal degeneration, while delivering the innocent from following in their steps and taking them to a better place.
Note however, that while sometimes using men as instruments of such judgment, unlike in Islam this was after God provided abundant and unmistakable supernatural attestation that He was leading them, and warfare was limited in scope.
And under the promised new covenant, the Lord's kingdom is not of this world, (Jn. 18:36) and thus the church is not to wage war after the flesh, such as in the Inquisitions, but by spiritual means. (2Cor. 6:4-10; 10:3-6; Eph. 6:12)
A problem is with atheists who basically presume omniscience and superior morality, while their objectively baseless (no superior transcendent moral standard) moral reasoning can easily justify the same or worse atrocities as false religion.
However, atheist complain that God does not judge the wicked and lets the innocent suffer, then complain when He does execute the wicked and takes the innocent to be with Him. Implacable.
To send bears to kill children if they make fun of youre prophets bald head isnt it?
The slaying of these had supernatural involvement, and in condemning it the atheist can only presume greater knowledge and purpose than God. These were not so small as they evidently came out of the city by themselves, and were scornful and disrespectful of elders (and a prophet that had just manifested that he was a true one), which reverence then was sacrosanct and their actions were indicative of bad upbringing likely leading leading to worse things.
The question is does God know more than man, and does the author of life have a right to take life, and in so doing can He be exercising justice and work what is best for those who love what is right? The fact is that God could have justly destroyed most all those in the world last night, and save Himself a lot of grief, and begin anew as under Noah.
Or is it to be presumed that finite man knows that these were innocent kids just having fun, and later would be fine moral citizens. Yet this was only an isolated incident, and the attempted extermination of the wicked Canaanites and Amorites was limited to them, while Palestinian Muslim kids are set on an evil course at a young age, and atheists complain about God letting such exist.
All those slaves women,and concubinesa?
Again, despite the skeptics fascination with the idea of sex slaves and unmarried partners, these were wives, and rather than allow rape of those taken in battle, they were to be taken home to mourn a full month.
And yes, it is likely they willingly had sex. To not have children was almost worse than death for a women then, and would consider abstinence to be cruel. They were also now part of the nation on the winning side with far better prospects for the future. And the idea of such being sex slaves is that of the atheists mind.
Hard to say no when saying no means youre death huh?But that isnt really Rape Rape is it?
And where in the Bible does it say you can kill a wife for her refusal to engage in any sexual relations, which itself is unlikely? Nor does it say they could kill women who refused to become their wife.
Self righteous protestations are not new, but the atheists mandate to impugn the Bible and escape its moral judgment of them results in them being exposed as wresting Scripture (2Pt. 3:18) to their own hurt.
Daniel,Several of the boys who became the 12 tribes of Israel were born of slave women.The “wives” in a competition as to who would have the most children gave thier slave women to bear more children for them.All were equally blessed yes,but doesnt change the fact that God saw it as perfectly ok to have sex with youre slaves.
Also,Abraham was not a king,yet he had concubines.