The Bible God's Instruction for Handling Post-War Hotties

[POI]

Deuteronomy 21 instructs:

10 When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive, 11 suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, 12 and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, 13 discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house for a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonoured her.

For debate:

(FYI, all responses from 1213 will be ignored by myself)

1) Christians, in this passage, please show us where the woman's consent to be "entered" is either necessary or required?
2) Christians, what captive(s), in their right mind, would ever desire to be "entered" by the captor(s) responsible for exterminating her family?

[bjs1]

“Love your neighbor as yourself,” from Matthew 22:39. Since you addressed this question of how we treat another person to Christians, that must be part of the answer. If “love your neighbor” is not an acceptable answer, then you are not addressing Christians.

How do you see this connected to the instructions for war captives? Was Israelite marriage to war captives expected to be consensual? Considering that the prospective brides were already war captives (the text even assumes that their families had been killed), how would one measure the level of coercion against personal agency and loving them as neighbors? Or is this a dispensationalist kind of thing, where coerced or forced marriage was ordained by God for the Israelites during that period of history, but only became forbidden during the middle of the first century?

It seems straightforward to me.

War happens. There is no universal “Christian” view of war. Personally, I favor Augustine of Hippo’s just war theory.

There are captives in war. They must be treated with dignity and respect. Marital relations must be consensual. As the passage says, “You must not treat her as a slave.”

After the war ends, captives are released. Historically, captives who were released after losing a war have had a rough time. This was especially true of women prior to the Middle Ages. Some women may choose to build a new life with new people, even after their old country was conquered in war. Other women may prefer to take their chances on their own. Writing modern Western social norms onto ancient Middle Eastern societies (“what captive would ever…”) is not reasonable.

[Difflugia]

It seems straightforward to me.

Were Israelites bound by the same "love your neighbor as yourself?"

War happens. There is no universal “Christian” view of war. Personally, I favor Augustine of Hippo’s just war theory.

That's fine, but as far as this conversation's concerned, it's a non sequitur. We're not talking about how anyone got into a war in the first place, but dispensation of the captives.

There are captives in war.

Yep.

They must be treated with dignity and respect.

I agree with you. I don't think Yahweh does and it looks very much like he commands otherwise, though. Deuteronomy 20:10 says that if town surrenders to the Israelites without a fight, then the captives are all turned into forced laborers. If they fight, then the Isaelites are to slaughter every single man, whether captive or not. The women and children become loot.

Now, I'm trying to somehow make a connection between what you're saying and what the Bible says. Am I reading it wrong? Are the Israelites doing something different than how I'm reading Deuteronomy 20? Were they doing that, but the rules don't apply to Christians? You say that it's "straightforward," but your answers are just a bunch of handwaving that doesn't actually engage with the text.

Marital relations must be consensual. As the passage says, “You must not treat her as a slave.”

This seems like an extremely difficult conclusion to draw about Israelite marriage in general, let alone marriage to prisoners of war in the current context. If you believe in your heart of hearts that Deuteronomy 20:13 describes a consensual relationship, there's probably not much else I can tell you, you sweet summer child.

After the war ends, captives are released.

The ones that weren't slaughtered first, anyway. Are the forced laborers released, or are they a different category because they surrendered without fighting?

Historically, captives who were released after losing a war have had a rough time. This was especially true of women prior to the Middle Ages. Some women may choose to build a new life with new people, even after their old country was conquered in war. Other women may prefer to take their chances on their own.

One might think that a god setting down rules would try to fix that problem. "Slaughter all the men, but keep the women and children as loot," doesn't seem the best way to handle that. "Leave nothing alive that breathes" does (Deuteronomy 20:16), but in a different way.

Writing modern Western social norms onto ancient Middle Eastern societies (“what captive would ever…”) is not reasonable.

Your argument seems to be that "love your neighbor as yourself" is somehow encapsulated within rules allowing women and children to be taken as property. If that's not "writing modern Western social norms onto ancient Middle Eastern societies," I don't know what is.

So, just for clarity, do you think that ancient Israelites were bound by first century Christian ideals or not? Can the rules for war prisoners as laid down in Deuteronomy 20 and 21 be harmonized with loving those prisioners as the Israelites loved themselves? If so, how?

[POI]

“Love your neighbor as yourself,” from Matthew 22:39.

Awesome, you wish to seek a loophole. Great, no problem. It's not going to work for you though. You are referring to New Testament stuff. I am addressing OT stuff. The passage I'm placing forth predates the NT by hundreds of years. And in the same general timespan, Leviticus 19:18 was in effect - (regarding the tribal version of the 'golden rule'). And in Leviticus 19:18, the phrase "your people" (bnei amekha) refers specifically to fellow Israelites or members of the covenant community. Contextually, the preceding verse uses "brother" and "kinsman" (or "fellow citizen") to define the scope of these social laws, narrowing "neighbor" to mean "fellow members of the Israelite community". And the passage in question states "13 discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house for a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonoured her."

What Deuteronomy 21:13-14 is addressing is an identified hotty war captive, not a fellow 'Israelite," in which he was given permission to keep for himself. The instruction also states how the man must wait one month, (so she can mourn the family in which the Israelites slaughtered). After this time, he may "enter" her. Which means god gives him permission. Her consent is neither necessary nor required, as it is expressed nowhere.

Since you addressed this question of how we treat another person to Christians, that must be part of the answer.

See my response above. This is your axe to grind, not mine, as Moses is said to write these laws. These ordained and 'god' sanctioned action(s) were given prior to Jesus. So, unless the Bible god changed his mind about how one is supposed to treat others, apparently, it's perfectly fine to rape hotty war captives, (once they stop crying so much for their slaughtered family).

If “love your neighbor” is not an acceptable answer, then you are not addressing Christians.

Yes, I am, as you are clearly cherry picking here.

[POI]

The big picture has already been provided in the Bible itself.

It sure has... Israelites were sanctioned/allowed to keep identified hot war captives for themselves, so these Israelites may "enter" these hotty war captives without consent.

The Canaan issue is about a spiritual war between God and His adversary the devil who was in control of the Canaan culture, serving the purpose of eradicate the Jews physically. If that's not possible then contaminate their religion, such that the Jews would not be able to convey God's truth to save today's humans. If the devil succeeded the Jews were either outnumbered and eradicated or they didn't have a religion as the vessel conveying God's truth. That is, the Jews were to be destroyed either physically or spiritually.

And apparently, in order to achieve god's goal(s), he instructed that the Israelites may penetrate the identified conquered hotties.

On the other hand, God saves whenever possible.

Especially if they are hot.

Ancient marriage is never up to women

Even under Biblical law.

Paul partly mentioned that birth pain may be the way how the converted women were saved.

That's because Paul was likely both ignorant and crazy.

[bjs1]

It seems straightforward to me.

Were Israelites bound by the same "love your neighbor as yourself?"

The question was addressed specifically to Christians. If you would like a non-Christian view, then you should probably start a new thread.

They must be treated with dignity and respect.

I agree with you. I don't think Yahweh does and it looks very much like he commands otherwise, though. Deuteronomy 20:10 says that if town surrenders to the Israelites without a fight, then the captives are all turned into forced laborers.

Deuteronomy 20:10 was specifically about the invasion of Cannan. This was one of two offensive wars commanded in the Old Testament. There are several threads about the morality of those wars, or you can start a new one. However, in this thread it is a red herring.

Marital relations must be consensual. As the passage says, “You must not treat her as a slave.”

This seems like an extremely difficult conclusion to draw about Israelite marriage in general, let alone marriage to prisoners of war in the current context. If you believe in your heart of hearts that Deuteronomy 20:13 describes a consensual relationship, there's probably not much else I can tell you, you sweet summer child.

I think the passage describes women in a difficult situation who must make a choice. They might not like any of the available options, but the passage certainly suggests that they have a choice.

Writing modern Western social norms onto ancient Middle Eastern societies (“what captive would ever…”) is not reasonable.

Your argument seems to be that "love your neighbor as yourself" is somehow encapsulated within rules allowing women and children to be taken as property.
[/quote]

Perhaps I am confused. The passage says, “you must not treat her as a slave,” but you seem to be saying that it means she should be treated as a slave. I’m not sure I follow.

[bjs1]

“Love your neighbor as yourself,” from Matthew 22:39.

Awesome, you wish to seek a loophole. Great, no problem. It's not going to work for you though. You are referring to New Testament stuff. I am addressing OT stuff.

The question was specifically addressed to Christians. If we may not use the words of Jesus, then the question is not aimed at Christians.

If we may not use the words of Jesus, then the question should read, “Non-Christians, in this passage, please show us where the woman's consent to be "entered" is either necessary or required?”

I will leave it to non-Christians to provide you with an answer. I can only tell you that, whatever that answer may be, it is unlikely to have anything to do with Christianity.

[POI]

“Love your neighbor as yourself,” from Matthew 22:39.

Awesome, you wish to seek a loophole. Great, no problem. It's not going to work for you though. You are referring to New Testament stuff. I am addressing OT stuff.

The question was specifically addressed to Christians.

Sure.

If we may not use the words of Jesus, then the question is not aimed at Christians.

But it does address Christians. (i.e.) Jesus apparently was quoted as saying:

"17 ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Therefore, the "golden rule" is merely a tribal law in which Jesus still wants all to follow forever. Hence, your defense, regarding the 'golden rule' becoming a loophole has instead made you shoot yourself in your own proverbial foot, as these war heroes were given carte blanche, by the Bible god/Jesus, to retain these hotties for themselves, to hold them captive, and to rape them one month later -- (after she stops perpetually sobbing for the family in which were slaughtered right in front of her of course).

If we may not use the words of Jesus,

But we are, and you are just cherry picking. Unless you feel a) Jesus was incorrectly recorded in Matthew 5 (and/or) b) later changed his mind about what he was recorded to say in Matthew 5?

please show us where the woman's consent to be "entered" is either necessary or required?”

Unless you can admit that Jesus either did not say what he said in Matthew 5, or if you admit he changed his mind about what he was recorded to say In Matthew 5, the above question still stands. And BTW, the Bible does not disclose the necessity for the woman's consent. Which ultimately means the Bible god, (which also includes Jesus), sanction(s) post war rape.

I will leave it to non-Christians to provide you with an answer. I can only tell you that, whatever that answer may be, it is unlikely to have anything to do with Christianity.

LOL! You are knee-deep in the middle of it bjs1. Sorry these attempted loopholes do nothing to help you here.

[Difflugia]

Were Israelites bound by the same "love your neighbor as yourself?"

The question was addressed specifically to Christians. If you would like a non-Christian view, then you should probably start a new thread.

Oh, my pearls!

I'm sure POI doesn't mind.

Deuteronomy 20:10 was specifically about the invasion of Cannan. This was one of two offensive wars commanded in the Old Testament. There are several threads about the morality of those wars, or you can start a new one. However, in this thread it is a red herring.

Is it? The question was about the disposition of women and girls taken was war spoils. Not only does Deuteronomy 20:10 address war captives, it's in the same immediate context as the verses the OP quoted. It's two paragraphs away. As much as I'm sure you wish they were addressing completely different scenarios, even this attempt at handwaving rings hollow.

If you believe in your heart of hearts that Deuteronomy 20:13 describes a consensual relationship, there's probably not much else I can tell you, you sweet summer child.

I think the passage describes women in a difficult situation who must make a choice. They might not like any of the available options, but the passage certainly suggests that they have a choice.

Does it? What about that passage, or any other, "suggests that they have a choice?"

If there's a choice, it's the same one a mugging victim has: "your money or your life." Except the mugging victim that gives in can go home to her family afterward.

Your argument seems to be that "love your neighbor as yourself" is somehow encapsulated within rules allowing women and children to be taken as property.

Perhaps I am confused. The passage says, “you must not treat her as a slave,” but you seem to be saying that it means she should be treated as a slave. I’m not sure I follow.

If your equivocation is unintentional, then yes, you're confused.

The verb עמר is only used twice in the Bible, here and in verse 24:7. The root means to have hatred for or show malice for someone, and the construction here is often translated as something like, "deal harshly with," or, "deal tyrannically with." The context of 24:7 specifically implies selling someone that one kidnapped. It's assumed to mean the same thing in 21:14, since that's explicit in the parallelism of the verse ("but you shalt not sell her at all for money, you shall not treat her as chattel, because you have defiled her"). That is apparently the very narrow meaning of slave in 21:14 and 24:7. If you think 21:14 includes other aspects of slavery, like the ability to refuse her captor's sexual advances, then you're equivocating on what the translation of 21:14 means by "slave."

Even if 21:14 prohibits selling her later, that doesn't imply that she's free. According to 20:14, as a captive, she is included in the spoils of war. She's property. Making her a wife makes her a special kind of property that one can no longer sell, but that doesn't somehow grant her the agency to refuse. If you think it does, find me the verse that explains what to do with her if she refuses. Does she go back to forced labor with the other captives? Are the captives then free to refuse to perform forced labor? What happens to them? I think there are a few layers of people "in a difficult situation who must make a choice." If you insist that she's not a slave, then fine; we're quibbling over definitions. She's not a slave, but she's not free to refuse being a captive wife, either.

[POI]

I wanted to highlight a couple of excellent points you made Difflugia. No need to respond. I'm just showcasing/highlighting them, and also adding more follow-up to boot.

(this) -- If you think 21:14 includes other aspects of slavery, like the ability to refuse her captor's sexual advances, then you're equivocating on what the translation of 21:14 means by "slave."

(and this) - Even if 21:14 prohibits selling her later, that doesn't imply that she's free. According to 20:14, as a captive, she is included in the spoils of war. She's property. Making her a wife makes her a special kind of property that one can no longer sell, but that doesn't somehow grant her the agency to refuse. If you think it does, find me the verse that explains what to do with her if she refuses. Does she go back to forced labor with the other captives? Are the captives then free to refuse to perform forced labor? What happens to them? I think there are a few layers of people "in a difficult situation who must make a choice."

A deemed captive's consent is neither necessary nor required. Just as a deemed slave's consent is neither necessary nor required. The captor and the slave master make the call and is to abide by the given rules accordingly. In this particular case, they are to wait a month before they are to 'enter' the hottie. Maybe it is more of a turn-off to rape them while they are still heavily sobbing their slain family?

Christians love to throw around the 'golden rule', but do not realize the context in which it came/originated. When Jesus quoted it, it was from Leviticus 19:18. And in post 5, the context has already been disclosed, in that the 'rule' is tailored towards "fellow tribesman", as opposed to all humans. Israelites consider themselves 'god's special chosen', and the given rules are not the same for all, as they feel they have special privilege.

[RBD]

Deuteronomy 21 instructs:

10 When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive, 11 suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, 12 and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, 13 discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house for a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonoured her.

For debate:

(FYI, all responses from 1213 will be ignored by myself)

1) Christians, in this passage, please show us where the woman's consent to be "entered" is either necessary or required?
2) Christians, what captive(s), in their right mind, would ever desire to be "entered" by the captor(s) responsible for exterminating her family?

Atheists, in the passage, show us where the captive woman is treated like the heathen captive slaves and whores.

Only a fault-finder's unsound mind would be willingly blinded, to the fact that it's the freed woman that shaves her own head, pares her own nails, discard's her captive clothes, and remains in another's house for a full month, for mourning, and then receives the man of the house going to her to be wedded and bedded. And if not satisfied, then let go out out of the house, and remains free without price nor sold into slavery.

2Co 4:3
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.